[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5290-5335]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   ENERGY TAX PREVENTION ACT OF 2011

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 203 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 910.

                              {time}  1441


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole

[[Page 5291]]

 House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 910) to amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the Administrator of 
the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation 
concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the 
emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Womack in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, last November, Americans spoke with a very clear voice. 
They told us that we needed to get the country working again. They told 
us that Big Government was not the solution. They told us to lead or 
get out of the way on the economy, and our side got it, particularly 
with the cap-and-trade vote in the last Congress.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, today the House has a chance again to vote for a 
bill that directly responds to the demands of the American people. This 
legislation will remove the biggest regulatory threat to the American 
economy. This is a threat imposed not by Congress, but entirely by the 
Obama Environmental Protection Agency.
  We all know that this administration wanted a cap-and-trade system to 
regulate greenhouse gases, but Congress said no. So beginning in early 
2009, EPA began putting together a house of cards to regulate emissions 
of carbon dioxide. The agency began with automobiles, declaring that 
their emissions endangered public health and welfare.
  That single endangerment finding has since been used by EPA to launch 
an unparalleled onslaught. The result, 2 years later, is a series of 
regulations that will ultimately affect every citizen, every job 
creator, every industry, really every aspect of our economy and way of 
life.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is about protecting jobs. EPA regulations 
will hit our manufacturing sector hard, with direct limits on factory 
emissions, indirect costs from the higher prices to power their 
facilities.
  It will hit small businesses hard too, because when the electricity 
to power your business and the gasoline to fuel your vehicles is more 
expensive, your profit is less and you hire fewer new employees. That's 
why the NFIB, the Farm Bureau, NAM, Chamber of Commerce, and others, 
have endorsed H.R. 910. This is a key vote with many of those different 
groups.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is also about energy prices for working 
families. Power plants will be forced to comply with strict new 
emission caps. You will have to purchase expensive new equipment to 
retrofit their facilities. We all know the costs have nowhere to go 
except on families' and businesses' monthly utility bills.
  And it is about gas prices. The refiners that turn oil into gasoline 
will also be caught into the web of costly regs. When it costs more to 
make gasoline, it costs more to buy gasoline. And with prices already 
at $4 a gallon across much of the country, the last thing that our 
families need is government policies designed to make the price at the 
pump even higher.
  I am from Michigan. I know what a struggling economy, indeed, looks 
like. And I think that it is a travesty that this government is 
deliberately imposing policies that are going to harm job creators and 
working families.
  And for what, Mr. Chairman, for what? EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson 
herself admits that U.S. regulation of greenhouse gases will not affect 
global climate conditions. The only environmental impact may be to ship 
our jobs to countries with no environmental protections at all, so, Mr. 
Chairman, at the end of the day the EPA climate regime is all economic 
pain and no environmental gain.
  So let's pass this bill today and get the American economy back on 
track.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Since the Clean Air Act was adopted 40 years ago, we have made steady 
progress in cleaning our air and protecting the public health and 
welfare.
  Today, however, the Clean Air Act is under attack and progress is 
threatened.
  The Upton-Inhofe bill is a direct assault on the Clean Air Act. Its 
premise is that climate change is a hoax and carbon pollution does not 
endanger health and welfare.
  But climate change is real. It is caused by pollution, and it is a 
serious threat to our health and welfare. We need to confront these 
realities, not put our heads in the sands.
  American families count on the Environmental Protection Agency to 
keep our air and water clean. But this bill has politicians overruling 
the experts at the Environmental Protection Agency, and it exempts our 
biggest polluters from regulation.
  If Upton-Inhofe is enacted, the Environmental Protection Agency's 
ability to control dangerous carbon pollution will be gutted.
  That's why health experts like the American Lung Association are 
opposed to this legislation. They know it is a polluters' protection 
act. It is anti-science, anti-environment, and anti-health.
  The Environmental Protection Agency made a scientific determination 
that carbon pollution endangers health and the environment. Our 
Nation's top scientists at the National Academy of Sciences agree with 
this finding and so do scientists around the world.
  Yet this legislation repeals that scientific finding. That's 
something no Congress has ever done.
  We need an energy policy based on science, not science fiction. With 
oil at $100 per barrel and rising, the Middle East in turmoil and a 
nuclear crisis in Japan, we urgently need clean energy policies. We 
need more vehicles that run on electricity, natural gas, and renewable 
fuels. We need more wind and solar power, and we need more energy 
efficiency.
  What we need is to work together to develop energy policies that 
reduce our dependence on foreign oil and protect the health of American 
families. Instead, we are pursuing a divisive, partisan bill that takes 
us in exactly the wrong direction.
  This extreme legislation won't pass in the Senate and, if it did, it 
would be vetoed by President Obama.
  It is a distraction from the imperative of developing new sources of 
energy that will break our dependence on foreign oil, protect our 
health and preserve our environment.
  Americans want clean air to breathe and sensible, science-based 
limits on carbon pollution.
  I urge all Members to oppose this legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman emeritus 
of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton).
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the distinguished chairman.
  I rise in strong support of this bill.
  I would like to make a few comments. First of all, the bill before us 
doesn't change one sentence or one paragraph in the Clean Air Act. It 
doesn't change anything.
  What it does do is prevent the EPA from using the Clean Air Act to 
regulate CO2 as a criteria pollutant under the Clean Air 
Act. I was in Congress when we passed the Clean Air Act amendments back 
in 1991. I was a cosponsor of the bill. I worked on the bill in 
committee, voted for it on the floor. So I am a supporter of a strong 
Clean Air Act.
  CO2 is not a criteria pollutant under the Clean Air Act. 
It was never intended to be. It's only because of a 5-4 Supreme Court 
decision that said the EPA had to make a decision whether it should be, 
and then a very flawed EPA endangerment finding, when President Obama 
became the President, that we have an EPA authority, tenuous as it is, 
to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act.

                              {time}  1450

  What this bill does is take us back to the original Clean Air Act and 
say

[[Page 5292]]

we're going to regulate the criteria pollutants. But greenhouse gases 
and CO2, which is a greenhouse gas, are not one of those 
criteria pollutants.
  What are the purported benefits of regulating CO2? 
According to numerous studies, in terms of the amount of reduction in 
CO2, by the year 2100, which is 90 years away, 89 years 
away, we would see a reduction of about 3 parts better per billion if 
we regulated CO2 from the current 380 to 390 parts per 
billion. We would see a reduction in temperature by about 0.006 to 
0.015 of a degree centigrade, and we would see a reduction in sea-level 
rise by about 0.007 of a centimeter. In other words, if we spend up to 
$100 billion a year to regulate CO2, we get no reduction in 
parts per billion, we get no reduction in temperature, and we get no 
reduction in sea level. But we do get a huge cost to the economy every 
year.
  This bill is a commonsense bill that simply says the Clean Air Act is 
the Clean Air Act, and let's use it to regulate sulfur dioxide, and 
let's use it to regulate lead and particulate matter and ozone, but 
let's not use it to regulate a naturally-occurring compound which is 
necessary for life and which helps us all.
  Please vote against all the amendments, and please vote for this very 
commonsense bill when we get to final passage.
  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to regulate 
carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act. Reports from the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce and even the Senate Committee on Environment and 
Public Works estimate that the cost of these proposed regulations will 
be about $78 billion per year. The regulations will affect industries, 
farms, hospitals, office buildings, and hotels to name just a few. The 
regulations will adversely affect our ability to produce energy and 
structural materials.
  According to the EPA, the regulations will have this estimated 
effect: ``Based on the re-
analysis the results for projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations are 
estimated to be reduced by an average of 2.9 ppm (previously 3.0 ppm), 
global mean temperature is estimated to be reduced by 0.006 to 0.015 
deg.C by 2100 (previously 0.007 to 0.016  deg.C and sea-level rise is 
projected to be reduced by approximately 0.06-0.14cm by 2100 
(previously 0.06-0.15cm).''--Federal Register 75, page 25,495.
  If we add up the yearly costs, then by the year 2100, we will have 
spent about $7 trillion to possibly make us cooler by 0.015 degrees 
Centigrade. This doesn't seem to be much of a benefit as a result of 
such a high cost.
  The Clean Air Act was never designed to regulate GHGs. It is time for 
us to come to our senses and statutorily forbid the EPA to regulate 
greenhouse gases.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
ranking member on the Energy Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
  Mr. RUSH. I want to thank the gentleman from California for yielding 
this time and recognizing me for this discussion.
  Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to H.R. 910, the Upton-Inhofe dirty air 
act, because this bill is an extreme and excessive piece of 
legislation, and it is simply bad public policy. This bill would ignore 
the warnings from the respected scientific community simply because 
policymakers do not like what that science is telling us, and it will 
place earnings and profits above protecting the American public.
  I applaud the Obama administration for making a clear and unequivocal 
statement yesterday that the President would veto this bill if it ever 
made it to his desk.
  Mr. Chairman, every respected and every notable scientific 
organization, including the National Academy of Sciences, the American 
Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical 
Union, the American Meteorological Society, the U.S. Global Change 
Research Program, as well as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change, are all in agreement that manmade greenhouse gases do 
contribute to climate change, and that these impacts can be mitigated 
through policy to curb these emissions.
  Additionally, Mr. Chairman, many of the Nation's top public health 
advocacy groups, including the American Lung Association and the 
American Public Health Association, as well as leading civil rights 
groups, such as the NAACP and the Environmental Law and Poverty Center, 
have all come out strongly against this bill saying that it would leave 
our most vulnerable citizens and our most vulnerable communities 
unprotected if this bill were to become law.
  As this USA Today poster here highlights, Mr. Chairman, there are so 
many more benefits in acting to address climate change, as the science 
tells us we must do--including energy independence, sustainability, 
cleaner air and water, and a healthier, more vibrant, more robust 
populace, just to name a few--than the option, which is living with the 
status quo and hoping beyond hope that the majority of the world's 
scientists are just plain wrong.
  Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this bill because the science compels 
me to be opposed to this bill. And I urge all of my colleagues, every 
one of you all, to vote against this bill.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the 
Energy and Power Subcommittee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Whitfield).
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I am delighted that we have this opportunity today to 
debate this important legislation.
  Over the last 2 years, the Environmental Protection Agency has been 
the most aggressive agency representing environmental causes in many, 
many years. Today, we have an opportunity to try to stop their 
unprecedented power grab. Even the longest-serving Member of this 
House, the distinguished Democrat from Michigan, Mr. John Dingell, whom 
we all respect and admire, said it would be a glorious mess if EPA ever 
tried to regulate greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide, one of the things 
they are trying to regulate, is necessary for human life.
  When we had hearings on this issue, Lisa Jackson, the administrator 
of EPA, came to the Congress. And she said, when asked the question, 
what kind of impact would their regulations have, she said it would 
have negligible impact on solving global warming unless other nations 
were willing to act as well.
  Now, what this really gets down to is about coal, because coal in 
America produces 52 percent of our electricity. In China, coal produces 
about 80 percent of their electricity. Electricity is produced at the 
lowest rate with coal. And that is necessary if America is going to be 
competitive in the global marketplace. That's why today you see China 
expanding its coal marketing and coal utilities to produce electricity. 
That's why in China you see so many jobs being produced because they 
produce at a very low cost.
  This legislation will stop EPA from driving up electricity costs in 
America. It will make it less likely that we are going to continue to 
lose jobs to China if we stop EPA. And I would remind all of you that 
when Gina McCarthy, the air quality director of EPA, came to Congress, 
she said herself that trying to regulate greenhouse gases in America 
just for the enforcing arms of the greenhouse gas bill, which would be 
every State in America, would cost the enforcing agencies $24 billion, 
not including the additional cost to all of the utility companies, 
those people who have boilers, farmers, others, the additional costs 
that it would provide for them.
  So if we want America to be competitive, to create jobs, to compete 
with China, we must stop this out-of-control EPA. And that is precisely 
what this legislation is designed to do. We're not changing the Clean 
Air Act in any way. Ambient air quality, all of those things, will 
still be in force.
  So I would urge passage of this legislation.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman.
  I rise in opposition to the dirty air act, which overturns the 
scientific finding that pollution is harming our people and our planet. 
But as long as Republicans are making an ideological decision to 
overturn scientific reality,

[[Page 5293]]

I wonder if the Republicans could offer an amendment overturning 
inconvenient geological reality as well. Let's tell the United States 
Geological Survey that Congress doesn't believe that the United States 
only has 2 percent of the world's oil as well. What the Republican 
majority is bringing to the House floor today is almost as absurd.
  Republicans want our only weapon against OPEC to be a bumper sticker 
slogan, ``Drill, Baby, Drill.'' Well, I have news for my Republican 
friends. We are drilling, baby. U.S. oil production is at its highest 
level in nearly a decade. Domestic natural gas production is at an all-
time high. But we will never be able to drill our way out of this 
problem.
  What Republicans fail to acknowledge is that a clean energy 
revolution is already underway. Take a look at the new electrical 
generating capacity we've been installing in the United States in the 
last 4 years--the last 4 years. Eighty percent of all new electrical-
generating capacity has been natural gas, 33,000 new megawatts; and 
wind, 28,000 new megawatts.

                              {time}  1500

  This is the last 4 years, ladies and gentlemen. Coal is down to 
10,000, but rising very quickly. Solar at nearly 2,000 megawatts; 
biomass at nearly 1,000 megawatts. In other words, there is a 
revolution that is already under way. The only problem is, there is no 
long-term policy or certainty that has been put on the books. All we 
have are the Republicans fighting as hard as they can to prevent this 
revolution from coming to fruition so that we can dramatically reduce 
the amount of greenhouse gases that warm our planet, back out the oil 
that OPEC wants to send us, and create a new, clean energy revolution 
here in America that produces jobs for Americans.
  This arbitrary rejection of scientific fact will not cause the gross 
domestic product to rise or for unemployment to fall. But here is what 
their bill will do: it will lead to higher pollution levels, which will 
rise; oil imports, which will rise; temperatures, which will rise; job 
creation domestically, which will actually go down.
  Vote ``no'' on this assault on science, on public health, and on the 
American economic competitiveness that allows a revolution to take off, 
which makes it possible for us to solve the problems of employment, 
national security, and a dangerously warming planet.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the chairman of the 
Environment and the Economy Subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Shimkus).
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, it is great that we have this chance to be 
on the floor today to really address one of the most important job-
creating pieces of legislation we have brought to the floor, and that 
is this legislation today.
  For the climate change believers, their plan is simple: price carbon 
fuels so we drive this new world of peace, security, and green energy. 
But they have forgotten one thing: they destroy jobs in doing that. 
These are well-known miners who lost their jobs the last time we did 
it. Thousands of coal miners in Illinois lost their jobs. Even in the 
greenhouse gas debate, it would add 50 cents to a gallon of gas. Does 
that create jobs? That destroys jobs. We are trying to price energy, 
and all costs go up.
  So if you are concerned about the economy and you are concerned about 
jobs, this is the perfect bill to support.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the dirty 
air bill.
  Once again the House is considering legislation that has little to no 
chance of becoming law. Meanwhile, the public wants us to focus on job 
creation. But the leadership of this House isn't listening. The only 
job they seem interested in is the one they want EPA not to do: protect 
the public's health. It is not surprising that many of our Nation's 
biggest polluters have asked for this bill. It lets them keep 
polluting.
  But what is surprising is with this bill we are rejecting scientific 
consensus. Even George W. Bush's EPA agreed that carbon pollution 
threatens the public's health.
  Mr. Chair, H.R. 910 will increase the pollution that triggers asthma 
attacks, respiratory illness, and premature deaths. It will hobble 
America's efforts to compete in the global energy marketplace.
  Earlier this year, the President stood on this House floor and talked 
about winning the future, about tapping into America's genius for 
innovation, and he used clean energy as a central example because it 
will help our economy grow. It will help America compete globally and 
protect the health and quality of life for all Americans.
  Let's not obstruct the EPA from doing its job of protecting the 
public's health. Let's not stick our heads in the sand about the 
dangers of climate change. Let's not turn away from meeting this 
challenge, rather, use it to build dominance in the global industry of 
clean energy.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this terrible bill.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Gardner).
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 910, the 
Energy Tax Prevention Act. Without this bill, the EPA is going to 
outsource jobs and business with greenhouse gas regulations, not to 
mention placing huge financial burdens on consumers who will see energy 
prices skyrocket as a result of compliance costs to utilities, 
refineries and more.
  However, what I want to talk about today is how it relates to rural 
America and agriculture, particularly in Colorado. The EPA has time and 
time again said agriculture is exempt. If agriculture is exempt, then 
why did the Rural Electric Association in my district write to me and 
say it will cost farmers and ranchers in my State an additional $1,700 
a year to irrigate their land, if the carbon bill were to pass this 
Congress last year and be signed into law by the President; $1,700 a 
year, that carbon legislation would have cost farmers and ranchers in 
my State. By 2030, it would have cost them an additional $7,000 a year 
for one meter to run their irrigation. That's costing agriculture. 
That's costing jobs.
  Instead of becoming the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA is 
becoming the ``Everyone Pays a Lot Agency.''
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, that information is incorrect. I would like 
to see a letter that pertains to this EPA action. I think it might have 
been a letter related to a different piece of legislation.
  I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. I thank the very distinguished ranking member of the House 
Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in very, very strong opposition to this bill, 
H.R. 910.
  I can't help but think as I listen to what is being said on the other 
side that they are sitting in a car looking in the rearview mirror, and 
they think they see the future. There is a reason why people on this 
side of the aisle are opposed to this bill and call it the dirty air 
bill, because that's exactly what it is. And so instead of helping to 
create jobs for the American people, which is their top priority, their 
very, very top priority, what is the gift of the new majority, dirty 
air. That's why the American Lung Association is vehemently opposed to 
this bill. The American Public Health Association is vehemently opposed 
to this bill. Former senior military officers, environmental 
organizations, and scientists all strongly oppose the bill.
  Now, guess who is for it. Guess who is for it, America. Big Oil 
because it will increase the demand for oil and do nothing to reduce 
what consumers spend on gasoline. This bill would put an end to future 
cost savings because both the EPA and States would be prohibited from 
updating the standards that they have already set.
  One would think that during this time of rising gas prices and the 
turmoil in the Middle East, that we would be voting on legislation to 
decrease our dependence on foreign oil, voting to

[[Page 5294]]

drive innovation in clean energy industries, and voting to ensure 
future security and energy independence and leave the next generation 
of Americans with a healthy world. Instead, we are voting on a bill to 
gut the Clean Air Act. I think this is all heavy evidence for Members 
of the House to oppose the dirty air act.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the former chairman of 
the Natural Resources Committee and the current ranking member on the 
Transportation Committee, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rahall).
  Mr. RAHALL. I thank the chairman for yielding the time to me, and I 
appreciate his and his committee's work on this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I don't think anybody in this body is for dirty air or 
dirty water or any of the adjectives that have been used to describe 
the supporters of this legislation. Certainly the Clean Water Act and 
Clean Air Act and other worthy pieces of legislation that Congress has 
passed over the decades have worthy goals and have achieved tremendous 
progress for this country. And there is not a person in this country, I 
dare say, that would want to renege on a lot of the positive 
initiatives that have been achieved under these pieces of legislation.

                              {time}  1510

  No singular government agency, however, is sufficiently positioned to 
tackle the complex solution required to address carbon emissions. The 
answer has to be multipronged. It must involve innovation and 
investment in addition to reductions. It must be crafted taking into 
account the realities of the effect that emission reductions will have 
on the economic recovery this country is currently experiencing and on 
jobs, especially in the heartland of America. These are not matters 
that the EPA is required to consider or equipped to address.
  To simply allow the EPA to move ahead on its own in crafting a 
national strategy on climate change is a recipe for disaster. It 
assures a lopsided solution to a broad and cumbersome challenge. And, 
what may be worse, it does not provide for the kind of transparency and 
the kind of public input that is needed for a viable, long-term 
solution.
  It is one of the eternal truths of our form of government, Mr. 
Chairman, that the public has to be involved, it has to be informed, 
and the public must be engaged. This legislation is crystal clear in 
its message that the EPA has gotten ahead of public opinion and that 
the Congress now has a responsibility to pull it back.
  I support this legislation, and I urge its passage today.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, we should oppose this dirty air act because 
it would suggest that we are a nation in a deep and dangerous sleep, 
dozing in the face of disastrous pollution, slumbering while our 
children are riddled with asthma. It's time for America to wake up, get 
up out of our comfortable beds of denial, and get to work building a 
new, clean economy.
  It's time to wake up, America. The Chinese are not sleeping while 
they build five times more wind turbines than us. The Germans are not 
sleeping building more solar panels. The Indians are not sleeping who 
are restricting carbon pollution. It is time to wake up. Nobody in 
human history has ever won a race while asleep. And that's why it's 
time for a national awakening by rejecting this bill. It's a time to 
put engineers to work on clean energy. It's a time to help 
businesspeople to grow businesses. It's a time to help students learn 
new technology.
  It is an irony, but it's true: You can only dream while you're 
asleep, but you can only realize a dream when you're awake.
  We should believe in American exceptionalism. We are exceptional in 
innovation, exceptional in entrepreneurship, exceptional in pioneering 
technology. And if we do these things, the sun we see on the horizon 
will be a sunrise, not a sunset. It will be a sign of an awakening 
nation. We'll do this because we will know and America can know the 
profound satisfaction of building a clean energy economy and producing 
children free of asthma rather than increasing it like this dirty air 
act.
  Vote ``no'' against this small-minded exercise in pessimism. Vote 
``no'' and embrace the optimism that is inherent in our national 
character.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from 
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a member of the committee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the legislation 
and thank our chairman, the gentleman from Michigan, for bringing it 
forth and bringing forth a bill that will limit the EPA's regulatory 
overreach. It is important that we do. This is an issue that has been 
going on since 2007, when the Supreme Court gave the EPA permission to 
regulate greenhouse gases. At that point, I introduced a bill that 
would have stopped the EPA. Unfortunately, Congress didn't act and the 
EPA has now issued a final rule, and there will be more rules and 
regulations on the way if Congress does not step in and take action to 
stop this.
  I am grateful that we are stepping forward and making certain that 
this authority returns to Congress. I urge my colleagues to vote for 
H.R. 910 and reassert Congress's authority over this issue, as it 
should be, and take it away from unelected bureaucrats.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a 
distinguished member of our committee, the gentlewoman from the Virgin 
Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I thank the ranking member for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, as the representative of a district that has one of the 
highest greenhouse gas emission levels per square mile in the United 
States and the Caribbean, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 910, 
appropriately known as the Dirty Air Act.
  As a physician and as a person who has been trained to make decisions 
on sound science, I have to reject this legislation that is based 
wrongly on the premise that there is no science that supports the 
court's decision that greenhouse gases are injurious to the public 
health. That premise is wrong. Once again, our Republican colleagues 
deny sound science in their attempt to achieve misguided and, in this 
case, harmful political ends. Leading scientific academies, 
associations, and think tanks have all clearly documented a clear 
connection between these gases and poorer health. They make just as 
clear a connection of these gases to the acceleration of climate 
change, which adds another dimension of health challenges, some of 
which we are already facing today.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle tend to attribute the 
findings to the EPA administrator, but it is not she who has determined 
that these harm the public health. It was the scientific community, 
respected experts in the field.
  Mr. Chairman, the reduction of greenhouse gases is particularly 
important to the poor and racial and ethnic minorities, as it has been 
shown that polluting industries are more often located in or near our 
communities.
  In committee, and I suppose today, you will hear a lot of talk about 
CO2, but that is not the only greenhouse gas that we're 
concerned about. This harmful group of gases also includes methane, 
nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur 
hexafluoride.
  The Virgin Islands have seen dramatic increases in asthma and cancers 
as the presence of these gases has increased. There is no way I can 
support this bill. No one should support it. We have a responsibility 
to protect the health of the American public. I urge my colleagues to 
reject H.R. 910 and to vote ``no'' to dirty air.

                                      National Association for the


                                Advancement of Colored People,

                                                   March 23, 2011.
     Members,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Re: NAACP Opposes H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 
         2011
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the NAACP, our nation's 
     oldest, largest and most widely recognized grassroots-based

[[Page 5295]]

     civil rights organization, I am writing in opposition to H.R. 
     910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011. If enacted as 
     written, H.R. 910 would block the ability of the U.S. 
     Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reduce greenhouse 
     gases under the authority of the Clean Air Act.
       For more than 40 years, the EPA has used the authority 
     granted to it by the Clean Air Act to protect our health and 
     our environment. EPA actions to reduce greenhouse gas 
     emissions are therefore appropriate, and should in fact be 
     supported. If successful the reduction of greenhouse gases 
     will help slow global warming, improve Americans' health and 
     create new jobs.
       The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is especially 
     important to racial and ethnic minorities, as we are 
     disproportionately affected by the negative consequences of 
     global warming socially, economically, and through our health 
     and well-being. One need look no further than Hurricane 
     Katrina and its tragic aftermath to see that African 
     Americans and other communities of color are 
     disproportionately affected by severe weather and other 
     negative consequences of global warming. More recently, we 
     can look to the extreme weather patterns experienced by much 
     of the United States this past winter, with unseasonable 
     snow, ice and temperatures well below freezing in Atlanta, 
     GA, and points south.
       Rather than focus on legislative initiatives which would 
     hinder our nation's progress in addressing the dangers of 
     climate change and the resulting social, health and economic 
     consequences, the NAACP urges the U.S. Congress to work 
     toward the enactment of comprehensive climate protection and 
     clean energy legislation that reduces global warming 
     pollution. As such, the NAACP looks forward to working with 
     you to ensure that effective actions are taken. In that vein, 
     I hope that you will feel free to contact me should you have 
     any questions or comments on the NAACP position.
           Sincerely,

                                            Hilary O. Shelton,

                               Director, NAACP Washington Bureau &
                       Senior Vice President, Advocacy and Policy.

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North 
Dakota (Mr. Berg).
  Mr. BERG. Mr. Chairman, this bill is a starting point to lowering 
energy costs. This bill encourages private sector investment and will 
grow jobs.
  North Dakota is a leader in energy development. However, overreaching 
EPA regulations threaten not only energy producers but consumers as 
well.
  The EPA's efforts to impose a cap-and-trade tax threaten to increase 
the price of energy for American families. These higher energy costs 
will also impact small business, threatening them and preventing them 
from growing the economy and creating jobs.
  Our economy is suffering, and heaping more taxes on American families 
and imposing new regulations that will hurt job creation is not what 
our country needs to get back on track.
  I firmly support the Energy Tax Prevention Act.
  Mr. WAXMAN. For the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield 
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
910.
  On April 2, 2007, the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA held that 
greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, are ``air pollutants'' 
under the Clean Air Act. As a result, the EPA was legally obligated to 
determine whether greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles could be 
reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. If the EPA 
made a positive finding, then it would also have to issue regulations 
to reduce such emissions.
  On December 7, 2009, the EPA issued its endangerment finding. The 
finding was based on a 200-page synthesis of major scientific 
assessments authored by not only the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change, but also by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the U.S. 
Navy, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the National Research 
Council, NOAA, NASA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the CDC, the 
U.S. Geological Survey, the National Snow and Ice Data Center, and 
others. The EPA's scientific basis for the finding was extensively 
reviewed by, among others, a group of leading scientists from federal 
agencies.
  In order to limit the number of industrial sources that would be 
subject to regulation, the EPA issued its ``Tailoring Rule'' last May 
which raised the Clean Air Act statutory thresholds to require 
greenhouse gas permitting only for the largest industrial sources of 
greenhouse gas emissions from 100/250 tons to 100,000 tons per year.
  In response to these actions, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred 
Upton introduced the Energy Tax Prevention Act to strip the EPA of its 
authority to regulate carbon under the Clean Air Act.
  My two largest concerns with the bill is that it overturns both the 
Supreme Court's finding that the EPA has the authority to regulate 
greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act and the EPA's scientific 
determination that greenhouse gases endanger human health and the 
environment.
  By doing this, the Energy Tax Prevention Act could also: prohibit EPA 
from enforcing existing greenhouse gas reporting requirements; prevent 
EPA from taking impacts on climate change into consideration when 
approving alternatives to ozone depleting substances under Title VI of 
the Clean Air Act and the Montreal Protocol; create legal uncertainty 
about the status of the recent motor vehicle standards adopted by EPA; 
and call into question EPA's authority to implement voluntary programs 
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
  I must emphasize that I am opposed to the EPA moving forward with 
regulations on large utilities and refineries in our country, because I 
believe that the Congress should be the decision maker on carbon 
control issues. However, we cannot discount the Supreme Court decision, 
say climate change is not an issue and move on with it, which is the 
approach the Energy Tax Prevention Act takes. Instead, we should pass a 
bill that would delay the EPA from moving forward with these 
regulations so that the Congress has time to address this issue with 
input from Members that represent diverse constituencies nationwide.
  So I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to provide 
leadership on this front. Let's address carbon so that we don't have to 
worry about what the EPA is doing and whether they will be sued by 
outside groups to further regulate these industries or move up already 
announced dates for rulemaking. This Congress has the power to be 100% 
in control of giving our manufacturing base the regulatory certainty it 
needs. Cap and Trade legislation will not pass this Congress, but I 
believe a solution can be found for controlling carbon emissions by 
using nuclear and natural gas to generate electricity.
  As such, I encourage my colleagues to vote against this bill and 
instead, let us pass into law a bipartisan, comprehensive carbon 
control program that regulates emissions with the least disruption to 
our economy.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation, which 
makes a mockery of science, public health, international cooperation, 
the environment, the Supreme Court, and Congress.
  The problems with this bill start with its title, the ``Energy Tax 
Prevention Act.'' The bill has nothing to do with taxes. I had an 
amendment to actually prevent the EPA from imposing an energy tax that 
the Rules Committee would not allow.

                              {time}  1520

  During the rules debate, my colleague Mr. Sessions from Texas 
indicated the committee did not because my amendment was ``not 
germane'', because the bill doesn't have anything to do with taxes.
  Welcome to another journey down the legislative rabbit hole. Last 
week, the majority pretended that you didn't have to have both Chambers 
of Congress to enact a law. This week, we have purposely misleading 
bill titles.
  The rule, by the way, did waive a point of order on germaneness for a 
provision added in committee, but the Rules Committee refused to make 
in order an amendment that would actually prevent energy taxes. That's 
because there is no threat that the EPA will impose taxes. Instead, the 
agency's measured and reasonable approach to update the Clean Air Act 
to deal with carbon pollution will reduce health and economic costs.
  The tax moniker is not the only falsehood being floated about the 
EPA. Supporters have also claimed this bill will prevent rising gas 
prices. The Pulitzer Prize-winning PolitiFact has rated this claim 
false.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle understand that. They're 
taking a page from Frank Luntz' approach to environmental policymaking. 
They don't want to have a fact-based debate about the EPA's authority 
to limit carbon pollution. Instead, they're working to perfect the use 
of poll-tested, wildly

[[Page 5296]]

inaccurate language to attack sound science and to undermine confidence 
in laws that keep us safe.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in rejecting this unfortunate piece 
of legislation and the tactic that is being used to advance it.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
chairman of the House Ag Committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Lucas).
  Mr. LUCAS. I rise in support of H.R. 910.
  Mr. Chairman, for more than 2 years, we have watched Obama's 
Environmental Protection Agency try to expand its authority over 
American agriculture. Most telling of the EPA's irrational regulatory 
approach is how it has concluded that the breath we exhale and the gas 
that livestock expels are dangerous pollutants and should be regulated 
under the Clean Air Act.
  During a recent Agriculture Committee hearing, the EPA Administrator 
said agriculture is currently exempt from the proposed regulations 
because the EPA has targeted only the largest greenhouse gas emitters. 
This doesn't provide any certainty to our farmers and ranchers, 
especially since, in a recent interview, Lisa Jackson was quoted as 
saying that the EPA will begin looking at regulating greenhouse gases 
from farms as soon as 2013, which counters her own remarks at that 
hearing.
  Additionally, a mythical exemption doesn't insulate farmers, ranchers 
and rural businesses from the higher energy and operating costs they'll 
face from other industries hit by these regulations. Whether it's the 
fuel in the tractor, the fertilizer for the crops or the delivery of 
food to the grocery store, this backdoor energy tax will increase the 
cost of doing business in rural America.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in passing H.R. 910, the Energy Tax 
Prevention Act, and protect agriculture from EPA's overreach. This bill 
will prevent the EPA from running wild across America's farms and from 
subjecting our producers to more burdensome regulations that threaten 
to put them out of business. Rural America has never stopped being a 
good place to live; so it's our job to make sure it's a good place to 
make a living, too.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank my friend from California for his 
leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 910.
  My friend Mr. Blumenauer made the point that there is a deliberate 
misleading title to this bill somehow cynically allowing voters to 
believe that this is about taxes. I had an amendment before the Rules 
Committee that, unfortunately, was not accepted. How about we be 
intellectually honest about this? Let's rename the bill the Koch 
Brothers Appreciation Act of 2011. At least then we could clear the air 
and be honest; but then again, that's what this bill is all about, not 
clearing the air but ensuring that it stays polluted.
  Today, sadly, the other party will attempt to pass a bill that denies 
decades of science in order to protect the profits of a few favored 
corporations. Next, we may hear claims that the Earth is, indeed, flat.
  When Congress passed the Clean Air Act in 1970, it directed the EPA 
to protect the public health and welfare from pollution that would 
alter weather and climate. In the last 40 years, hundreds of peer-
reviewed scientific papers have found that global warming is caused by 
humans, is becoming worse, and poses a dire threat to our public 
health, national security and economic vitality.
  This bill makes Congress the final arbiter of science. That is a 
perilous path, Mr. Chairman, to go down, and it repudiates 100 years of 
bipartisan efforts to craft public health legislation according to 
science. Not since the Scopes trial has a division of government waged 
such an outlandish assault on science. With H.R. 910, Republicans, 
sadly, have aligned themselves with that school board in Tennessee and 
with the Pope who excommunicated Galileo.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the chairman for yielding me the time and for 
his leadership on this issue.
  I rise in strong support of this legislation.
  Despite President Obama stating that he would prefer Congress to take 
the lead in determining how to handle greenhouse gases, what do you 
know? The Environmental Protection Agency has begun their own plan to 
regulate greenhouse gases.
  American voters spoke in November, and they clearly rejected the cap-
and-trade agenda that was offered in this Congress last year and that 
was not taken up in the United States Senate. Now we, ourselves, are 
faced with the need to act. So unless Congress acts to stop the EPA, 
this administration and the Environmental Protection Agency will enact 
their own cap-and-trade-like agenda.
  Without action, the EPA will add more regulatory red tape onto 
American businesses and manufacturers, hampering the ability of 
companies to operate competitively in the United States. These 
businesses could be forced to move those jobs overseas, to locations 
with fewer regulatory burdens, or they could simply pass these 
increased costs on to American consumers. Either choice is not good for 
jobs in America. Without action, these regulations will be paid by 
anyone who turns on a light switch or who plugs in an appliance.
  We must stop the EPA from continuing their spree of overregulating 
our economy. During this economic slow-down, we should be adopting 
policies that seek to rebuild our economy and create more jobs. We 
should be producing more energy, an all-of-the-above energy plan that I 
know the Energy and Commerce Committee is working on, to increase the 
domestic production of oil and natural gas and coal and safe nuclear 
power and to encourage new productions from new sources of energy.
  Let's make America energy independent. Let's not raise the cost of 
energy and ship jobs overseas, which will cost millions of American 
jobs. We should be doing just the opposite. This legislation starts us 
on that path, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining on each side?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 10 minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from Michigan has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a cosponsor of the bill, 
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).
  Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of Chairman Upton's 
bill, H.R. 910, a bill to prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse 
gases. By passing this bill, Congress will rein in the EPA and save 
thousands of American jobs.
  This is a very sensitive issue to me. Georgia-Pacific, a subsidiary 
of Koch Industries, is the largest employer in my hometown of Muskogee, 
Oklahoma, employing almost 1,000 Oklahomans. I am proud of the work 
Koch Industries brings to my district and of its record of 
environmental stewardship. I want to make sure that Georgia-Pacific 
employees keep their jobs and that Koch can continue to invest in 
Oklahoma.
  Every Member of Congress understands the delicate balance between 
creating jobs and preserving the environment, but I ask my colleagues 
to see that the answer to America's economic and environmental 
challenges is not a more powerful EPA. Let's pass the Upton bill and 
put an end to this job-killing idea.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), the former chairman of the House Ag Committee 
and now ranking member of that committee.

[[Page 5297]]


  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 910.
  We recently held a hearing in the Agriculture Committee with folks 
from the EPA and from people in agriculture, and the message that we 
heard was pretty clear from agriculture that they believe the EPA needs 
to be reined in, not only as regards this bill, but other measures that 
are being considered within the EPA as well. What this bill will do is 
hit a pause button on the EPA's current efforts to regulate greenhouse 
gases, and that's exactly what people in agriculture think we need.
  I have traveled the country, all over the country, talking to 
agriculture producers both in my district and other places, and they 
are concerned about what they see coming out of this agency, the 
regulations that they are seeing. And what really concerns them is that 
the agency does not seem to understand agriculture and, frankly, 
doesn't seem to want to understand agriculture.
  These proposed regulations we're seeing from EPA could potentially 
get in the way of what agriculture producers are already doing when it 
comes to conservation of our natural resources. American farmers and 
ranchers rely on these resources to provide the world's food supply and 
are committed to preserving them for the next generation.
  The EPA claims to be operating in an open and transparent manner, but 
the agency is sending mixed messages. At the recent hearing that I 
mentioned earlier, we were told that agriculture is currently exempt 
from proposed regulations, yet press reports have quoted the 
administrator since as saying the EPA will begin looking at regulating 
greenhouse gases from farms as soon as 2013.
  If Congress doesn't do something about the regulations being imposed 
on our farmers, ranchers and rural communities, the economic effects 
are going to affect everybody in America. We are being asked to feed 
more and more people not only in this country, but around the world. 
This kind of legislation, the effect is going to be to make it harder 
to do that and also to raise the cost on all of the consumers in this 
country at a time when that's the last thing that we need.
  I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 910.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. I thank my colleague from California.
  For 40 years, the Clean Air Act has been successful in reducing 
emissions in the atmosphere, pollution that kills people. Thousands of 
people are alive today because of the Clean Air Act. None of them know 
who they are. It might be people in this Chamber, some of us. And the 
success of the Clean Air Act is due in large part to being enacted and 
strengthened based on the best science available to find effective ways 
to remove the worst pollutants from our air. The legislation before us 
today--appropriately nicknamed the ``dirty air act''--would gut the 
Clean Air Act and prevent EPA scientists from doing their jobs.
  The Clean Air Act was written wisely to allow the safeguards to grow 
with the scientific understanding of the dangers proposed by various 
chemicals in the air and with the technological means for controlling 
those pollutants. Carbon pollution, a couple of years ago, was 
determined by EPA scientists to endanger the health and welfare of the 
American people. EPA scientists should be allowed to continue their 
work. Air pollution is costly in lives and in dollars.
  The Clean Air Act is successful. The legislation must be protected.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 910, the 
Energy Tax Prevention Act, which would prohibit the EPA from using the 
Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases.
  Congress has already said no to a cap-and-trade tax, yet the EPA is 
intent on taking matters into their own hands, which will result in a 
bleeding of jobs. If the EPA is allowed to continue to pick winners and 
losers in this country, we will be seeing higher prices at the gas 
pump, higher utility bills, and job loss.
  We should be making it easier, not harder, for small businesses to 
expand and hire. However, the EPA's assault on fossil fuels will result 
in higher domestic energy costs and push American jobs overseas.
  At home in West Virginia, the EPA is making it much more expensive to 
turn on our lights and drive to work; that's not the way to get our 
economy back on track.
  This legislation is of particular importance to my constituents in 
West Virginia. The EPA's regulations will disproportionately affect our 
State's economy. West Virginia powers the Nation. Our energy providers 
provide thousands of good-paying jobs, and coal alone provides over 
half of our Nation's electricity and over 95 percent of the power in my 
State.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 910 to stop 
the EPA's regulatory overreach and job-killing strategies.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I want to clarify some statements that have been made that are 
absolutely inaccurate.
  There may be Members who are unhappy about EPA regulations as they 
hear from their constituents, but that is not what is involved in this 
bill today.
  This bill would stop EPA from regulating as it relates to carbon 
emissions; and EPA has undertaken this because of a scientific finding 
that carbon emissions are causing a danger to public health and the 
environment.
  EPA, under the Clean Air Act, has a wide range of possible 
regulations, but EPA has decided that they would restrict their 
regulations only to large new sources or expansion of existing sources 
of pollution of 100,000 tons per year, and that is all.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself another 30 seconds.
  So we heard these claims that they are going to come in and regulate 
in areas where they're not seeking to regulate, nor have they in fact 
done it. A new source, emitting 100,000 tons of pollution, is 
equivalent to burning a train car load of coal per day.
  We hear concern from people from the coal-burning States, but they're 
not threatened unless there are new sources of that magnitude. The oil 
companies are not going to be regulated unless they are going to build 
a new source of that magnitude. Maybe they are fearful about other 
regulations, but that is no reason to support this bill.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the chairman of the 
Energy and Power Subcommittee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Whitfield).
  Mr. WHITFIELD. On this tailoring rule that was adopted by EPA saying 
that they would regulate only those emitters of 100,000 tons or more 
per year, that is in direct violation of the language of the Clean Air 
Act, which says they have to regulate anything 150 to 250 tons per 
year.
  Lawsuits have already been filed against the EPA of violating the 
Clean Air Act, and there is a strong sense that the tailoring act would 
be ruled illegal. And if it is, as Gina McCarthy said, they would have 
to regulate everything in society, including small farms, small 
businesses, everyone. They do not have the manpower to do it; and as 
she stated, it would cost the enforcing agencies alone $24 billion, and 
that's not including the money that industries and others would have to 
spend to comply with the new regulations. So the statement that they 
will not be impacted is certainly not settled.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I want to refute the statements that have just been made.
  There is a court doctrine allowing EPA to design regulations that are 
tailored according to administrative necessity, and they need not go 
beyond that.
  The complaint on the other side is that there is a wide-ranging 
regulation,

[[Page 5298]]

but there is not. And there will be an amendment offered by 
Representatives Kind and Owens to restrict the regulations by law to 
what the EPA is implementing.

                              {time}  1540

  And I hope the gentleman that spoke just now will vote for that 
amendment. But whether it passes or not, EPA can tailor its regulation, 
and they ought not complain about a regulation that's not being 
proposed. They don't want even the minimal one that EPA is 
implementing.
  If we don't legislate and we don't regulate, we are ignoring the 
problem and we're going to make it much, much worse and costlier to 
correct later on.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
  Mr. BASS of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
legislation.
  For me, this debate is not about whether or not climate change is 
occurring, nor is it about preventing the congressionally directed 
policies that Congress should have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 
and allow us to have a low-carbon producing economy.
  I, for one, think that climate change is real and a problem that 
needs to be addressed with practical solutions that have attainable 
goals to reduce emissions and provide certainty in our economy. I also 
believe that the Clean Air Act has truly benefited our Nation and 
should never be weakened--rather, strengthened.
  However, agencies should not be able to regulate what has not been 
legislated. Doing so does not solve problems. It creates even more 
uncertainty as it opens up the agency's rules to countless legal 
challenges.
  And I am committed to finding a workable solution to achieve clean 
air, help address global warming, and preserve the economic 
competitiveness of the United States in the global marketplace. With my 
friend, Congressman Matheson of Utah, we offered an amendment during 
markup that is now in the bill that states that there is established 
scientific concern over warming of the climate system and Congress 
should fulfill its role in developing policies to control greenhouse 
gas emissions.
  I rise in support of this legislation, but I also support a 
meaningful solution to the carbon crisis.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased at this time to yield 3 
minutes to the Democratic whip in the House, the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Briefly, in response to the gentleman's assertion, of 
course the court has said EPA does, in fact, have this authority. This 
is not a new authority they're making up. Rather than invest in new 
energy technologies, address carbon pollution, and create clean energy 
jobs, our friends on the other side are choosing instead to deny the 
problem and take away America's tools for responding to it.
  This bill would overturn auto emission standards that are making our 
cars and trucks cheaper to drive and breaking our independence on 
foreign oil. This bill would not do a single thing to bring down the 
price of gas, but it would keep America from saving 1.8 billion barrels 
of oil over the lifetime of our new cars. We would not have gotten 
there, frankly, if some of the proponents of this bill who opposed 
getting to those standards had prevailed. And it would do so at a time 
when the turmoil in the Middle East should serve as an energy 
independence wake-up call.
  I'm for using all of our energy that we can do so in a healthy, safe 
way. This bill, however, would significantly weaken the Clean Air Act 
over its 40-year span.
  The benefits of the act: longer lives, healthier kids, greater 
workforce productivity, and protected ecosystems have outweighed the 
costs by more than 30-1. That's a pretty good return, ladies and 
gentlemen. Last year, according to the EPA, just one part of the Clean 
Air Act prevented someone 160,000 premature deaths, 130,000 heart 
attacks, and 100,000 hospital visits. That is a pretty good return on 
our investment.
  And according to the American Medical Association, ``If physicians 
want evidence of climate change, they may well find it in their own 
offices. Patients are presenting with illnesses that once happened only 
in warmer areas. Chronic conditions are becoming aggravated by more 
frequent and extended heat waves. Allergy and asthma seasons are 
getting longer.''
  The gentleman from New Hampshire said he doesn't doubt global 
warming. I agree with that conclusion. It is a shame this bill doesn't 
take that perspective. The Republican response is to make pollution 
easier, frankly.
  Finally, this bill overturns scientific findings that carbon 
pollution endangers the environment and human health, which has been 
confirmed by all of the world's leading scientists.
  A partisan majority can pass whatever bill it wants. I understand 
that. But it cannot legislate the facts out of existence, facts that as 
recently as a few years ago were accepted in both parties. What 
changed? The science or the politics?
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, which 
recklessly endangers our air, our health, our climate, and our energy 
independence.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), a member of the committee.
  Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Okay. Here we go.
  When we discussed the cap-and-trade bill, it worked sort of like the 
Seinfeld show. George Costanza comes to Jerry and says, ``You know what 
we should do with this show, what it should be about?'' Jerry says, 
``What?'' George says, ``It's about nothing.''
  Here's how cap-and-trade works: Factory A has something coming out of 
its smokestack; Factory B doesn't. So Factory B sells their ``nothing'' 
to Factory A. Factory A adds that cost to the cost of their products. 
Sooner or later, they raise costs of electricity, raise costs of their 
products. They can't make it in America any more.
  America figured this out long ago, and they said we're going to see 
energy prices go up, we're going to see jobs and income go down. We 
don't want it to work this way. We want clean air, clean land, and 
clean water. But the way these things are working is not what's going 
to make it happen.
  So the American people say don't export our jobs, don't export our 
factories, don't export our manufacturing and then end up importing 
emissions from other countries. It's a global problem. It's something 
we have to deal with. But having the EPA do this without working 
through Congress isn't the way to make this happen.
  Let's come up with a real solution here but not continue on down this 
road of exporting our jobs to other countries.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I continue to reserve my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, if I might just enter in a brief colloquy 
with my friend, the gentleman from California.
  Each of us has about the same amount of time left. I have allocated 
my time; I presume you have as well. My remaining speakers are meeting 
someplace, and I'm prepared to close and yield back if you are, unless 
somebody comes to the floor awfully fast.
  Is it the same for you?
  Mr. WAXMAN. I find myself in the same position. I am prepared to 
close and yield back my time, unless one of our Members shows up 
unexpectedly.
  Mr. UPTON. Fine.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I have before me a letter 
from the United States Environmental Protection Agency. We asked them 
very specific questions, and one was whether this would establish a 
back-door cap-and-trade program. They said, one, EPA has not adopted a 
cap-and-trade program to address greenhouse gas emissions; two, EPA is 
not considering or evaluating a cap-and-trade program to address these 
emissions under existing Clean Air Act authority; and they further went 
on to say they do not anticipate that they will do a cap-and-trade 
program. None of the five programs that they have adopted or are 
considering adopting to limit

[[Page 5299]]

harmful pollutions are cap-and-trade programs.
  So when we hear Members get up and say, oh, they're about to adopt a 
cap-and-trade program because Jerry Seinfeld's show might lead you to 
that conclusion, it is not, according to Lisa Jackson, the head of EPA, 
their intent.
  EPA, under the law, is required to look at the science. Once they 
determined that carbon is a pollutant that causes harm to public health 
and the environment, they must regulate. They could, under their 
powers, fashion the regulation in a modest way, which is exactly what 
they've done. The regulations that they are implementing can be met 
through greater efficiency in these new sources that would emit such 
large amounts of carbon. That is a reasonable thing to do because it is 
beneficial for the industries to be more efficient.
  We have found over the years, under the Clean Air Act, when sources 
of pollution, industries, reduce their pollution, they become more 
efficient and more competitive. That's what will happen as a result of 
the regulations that are being implemented. Let us not tie EPA's hands 
and say they cannot deal with this subject.
  For those who deny the science, I disagree with you. But if you're 
wrong, it will take a long time before any strategy will come into 
effect to reduce these emissions. Buy at least an insurance policy to 
reduce these dangerous pollutants so that we can avoid some of the 
terrible consequences of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, 
which are already evident in this country and around the world.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. Vote ``no.''
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1550

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, we followed regular order on this bill. We had plenty 
of hearings. We issued a discussion draft. We had markups in both full 
and the subcommittee. We sought bipartisan support. In fact, we 
received it. Mr. Peterson, who spoke earlier, the former chairman of 
the House Ag Committee, Mr. Rahall, the former chairman of the Natural 
Resources Committee, are both original cosponsors.
  We have different rules than the other body, the Senate. They are 
debating this same issue today in fact. They have been debating it now 
for a couple of weeks. And it's interesting to me that a number of the 
amendments on the amendment tree in the Senate by different Democratic 
sponsors--in fact, I would confess that the EPA has run amok because 
they, too, though they might not be fully supportive of this 
legislation, they too are supporting a 2-year time-out to the EPA, to 
tell them to stop. They're not ready for this.
  I supported, I voted for the Clean Air Act back in 1990. And I think 
most of my colleagues then, it was a strong majority that supported 
that. It allows the EPA to regulate 188 different contaminants. They do 
that. This bill does not weaken that work by the EPA.
  There was an issue then that the Senate included in their version of 
the bill something that did regulate greenhouse gases. And when it went 
to conference with the House, John Dingell was then chairman of the 
conference committee, the House did not accept the Senate language. The 
Senate receded to the House, as the lingo goes, and in fact the Clean 
Air Act then ended up without regulating greenhouse gases.
  We had a huge debate in the last Congress on cap-and-trade. Speaker 
Pelosi had an 86-vote margin here in the House. Cap-and-trade, yes, it 
did pass in the House. It passed by seven votes. So you switch four 
votes, it goes the other way. But despite that passage in June of 2009, 
the Senate did not take that legislation up. Didn't go through 
subcommittee, full committee, never got to the Senate floor, and it 
died with the conclusion of the 110th Congress.
  What we are saying is that the Congress, elected leaders here, should 
decide what is regulated. We know from the testimony that we had in 
committee we may lose as many as 1.5 million jobs. We heard from the 
refineries. They know that it's going to increase costs because they're 
going to have additional regulation. They're going to pass those costs 
on. And, in fact, it will raise the price of gasoline by 20 cents to 50 
cents over the next number of years. That's not what we want to see in 
this country.
  And what's going to happen? What's going to happen to those jobs? 
They're going to leave this country, and they're not going to come 
back. And they're going to go to other places like, let's face it, 
India and China, where neither country has nearly the environmental 
laws that we have today. We are going to continue to enforce, to see 
the Clean Air Act enforced. This does not weaken that act. We just say 
we're not ready to regulate greenhouse gases, not when we have an 
unemployment rate where it is today--Michigan much higher than the 
national average--knowing that it's going to cost a lot of jobs.
  So I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It tells 
the EPA, no, you are not going to do this. We will see what happens 
with the Senate, as they debate this issue the rest of the day and 
perhaps into tomorrow. But I would urge all of my colleagues to support 
H.R. 910, particularly now as we get into the amendments.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 910, the Energy 
Tax Prevention Act.
  In 2009, the Administration announced their ``National Program'' to 
regulate fuel economy. But if you read beyond the press releases 
touting the ``National Program'' you'd find that it wasn't one program 
at all. In reality, the so-called ``National Program'' is made up of 
three different fuel economy programs, administered by three different 
agencies--NHTSA, EPA, and the California Air Resources Board--under 
three different sets of rules, pursuant to three different laws.
  Why on earth do we need three different agencies regulating the same 
thing? The truth is, we don't. H.R. 910 would end the regulatory 
duplication, and the millions in taxpayer dollars wasted on such 
redundancy by EPA.
  Mr. Chair, as the old Beatles song goes, ``one and one and one is 
three.'' The CAFE program plus an EPA program plus a California program 
adds up to three different programs. That's what we have now, but we 
must do better for consumers, who will ultimately have to bear the cost 
of all this unnecessary regulation. H.R. 910 returns the regulation of 
fuel economy back to one standard, with rules written by Congress, not 
unelected bureaucrats. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this important 
legislation.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 910, the 
Energy Tax Prevention Act or ``Dirty Air Act'' which will end the 
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) ability to regulate harmful 
carbon pollution.
  I will vote against this bill for many reasons, but one that is 
particularly concerning to me is related to my strong support for 
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education. I 
believe that STEM education is critically important to our recovering 
economy and to our future competitiveness and innovation. I support 
programs, such as the Cyber Foundations Competition, to encourage more 
students to pursue careers in science and technology and I believe that 
many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle share this goal. But 
how can we ask our students to pursue careers in science and then 
ignore scientists when their findings are not politically convenient? 
This bill sets science aside and sends a dangerous message to our 
students pursuing studies in STEM fields.
  In addition to an attack on science, this bill will stop and reverse 
the public health, environmental, and economic protections that have 
been achieved since the passage of the Clean Air Act 40 years ago. In 
2010 alone, the Clean Air Act contributed to the prevention of 160,000 
premature deaths, 130,000 heart attacks, and more than 100,000 hospital 
visits. This bill will also prevent the EPA from setting pollution 
standards for cars and trucks, increasing carbon emissions in our 
communities, and continuing our nation's addiction to foreign oil. 
Further, a return to outdated technology will limit new innovations in 
renewable and more efficient technologies and limit the job growth 
opportunities in these emerging manufacturing industries.
  Rhode Islanders have great respect for their environment and they 
deserve the right to step outside and feel safe breathing the air 
around them. By preventing the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas 
emissions, we are turning back the progress we have made to protect our 
health under the Clean Air Act and we are

[[Page 5300]]

halting important economic opportunities that will help make our nation 
a world leader in new technologies. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
opposing this bill and supporting responsible regulations that will 
keep our nation moving forward and keep our environment safe for future 
generations.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the legislation before 
the House, which would weaken the Clean Air Act and the ability of the 
Environmental Protection Agency to protect public health and the 
environment from carbon pollution.
  The scientific community has been telling us for years, with growing 
urgency, that greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to changes in 
the climate and that the impact of these changes will be overwhelmingly 
negative going forward. There is a lot of room for a constructive 
debate on what the U.S. response should be to the buildup of heat-
trapping gases in the atmosphere. Our response cannot be to simply deny 
the existence of the problem.
  But that is exactly what the bill before the House does. This 
legislation rejects the scientific consensus that climate change is 
occurring and overturns EPA's scientific finding that carbon pollution 
endangers public health and the environment. In a word, this bill would 
take a fundamentally anti-science dogma and enshrine it into public 
law. It is the legislative equivalent of sticking our heads in the 
sand.
  We've heard a lot of overheated rhetoric by the proponents of this 
bill that protecting the American people from carbon pollution amounts 
to some kind of job-killing tax increase that will make gasoline and 
electricity cost more. In fact, the rules EPA is developing seek to 
curb carbon pollution by the very largest emitters in this country over 
a period of many years. We're talking about facilities that emit more 
than 75,000 tons of carbon into the air each year. In most cases, the 
new rules will simply require these facilities to make energy 
efficiency improvements. As we've seen in so many other areas, 
investments in energy efficiency often pay for themselves and actually 
create jobs.
  H.R. 910 is opposed by scientists, public health groups, 
environmentalists, sporting organizations like Trout Unlimited, as well 
as the UAW and the Blue/Green Alliance. This legislation should be 
rejected.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 910, The Energy 
Tax Prevention Act of 2011. This legislation will amend provisions of 
the Clean Air Act, to establish general rules prohibiting the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from 
regulating green house gas emissions to address the issue of climate 
change.
  Being from Nebraska, I meet with a number of agriculture interests, 
all of them very concerned about the activism that the EPA has and is 
demonstrating these last few years. Folks joke about green house gas 
emissions that come from farm animals, especially cows and cattle. 
While on the one hand it is funny to think that this is a problem; 
however, on the other hand, it just demonstrates the kind of people who 
are working in today's EPA and this is really serious.
  When Administrator Jackson testified before the House Agriculture 
Committee she stated, ``One notion is that EPA intends to regulate the 
emissions from cows--what is commonly referred to as a `cow tax.''' 
``The truth is--the EPA is proposing to reduce greenhouse gas emission 
in a responsible, careful manner and we have even exempted agricultural 
sources from regulation.'' When the Administrator testified before the 
Energy and Power Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee, as 
a member, I asked her to clarify if she would exempt agriculture from 
these regulations and she said she would--twice over. I appreciate her 
willingness to exempt this very important industry, because not 
exempting agriculture would have a dramatic impact on the Nebraska 
economy. My concern is that Administrator Jackson does not have the 
legal authority to unilaterally exempt agriculture; and even if she 
does, that industry is only one law suit away from being regulated, due 
to citizen law suits. I have no doubt that the Sierra Club, PETA, the 
Natural Resource Defense Council, the U.S. Humane Society, or some 
other group will sue either individually or together with regards to 
greenhouse gases on farms.
  The EPA's own figures on agriculture state that 37,000 farms are 
above the threshold of being a major source of greenhouse gas 
emissions. The Clean Air Act explicitly states that ``major sources'' 
must obtain a Title V operating permit. This could have a direct impact 
on many operations within agriculture, including corn, wheat, grain, 
cattle, and hog operations. This overzealous regulation will cause the 
cost of food production to rise and will also cause an indirect impact 
on bringing goods to market by helping to increase energy costs.
  While I appreciate Administrator Jackson's willingness to exempt us 
from the cow tax, I think it is more important that we pass H.R. 910 
and get it to the President for his signature, in order to guarantee 
that none of our energy is taxed.
  Only with the passage of H.R. 910 will we end EPA's over reach on 
this issue.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chair, emboldened by their electoral victories last 
fall, my Republican colleagues have embarked on a campaign to weaken or 
repeal many of the landmark laws that have protected the public's 
health and the environment.
  The first opening shots at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
were fired through amendments to legislation (H.R. 1) to complete the 
fiscal 2011 budget.
  More than 22 anti-environmental and anti-conservation riders, that 
suspend agencies from taking action to implement provisions in Federal 
law, were added to bill on the House floor during the week of February 
13th.
  Fortunately, the Senate rejected the House bill, bringing us down a 
path to where we are today in a high stakes showdown whose outcome 
looks even more likely to result in a government-wide shutdown.
  But, instead of sitting down to try to work out a budget, we are here 
on the House floor debating a bill to overturn a scientific finding.
  EPA determined through its December 2009 endangerment finding that 
greenhouse gases endanger the public's health.
  Today's House floor action is reminiscent of the Catholic Church's 
response to Galileo Galilei's publication of his famous work, Dialogue 
Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which stated that the sun was 
the center of the universe.
  It was not until October 31, 1992 when Pope John Paul II expressed 
his regret for how the Galileo affair was handled by the Catholic 
Church.
  Unfortunately, climate change does not afford us the luxury of time 
to amend our policies decades from now.
  Climate change is upon us and the longer we delay, question the 
science and fail to take even modest action to curb future growth, the 
costlier the consequences will be.
  Today's legislation is a cynical attempt to pretend climate change is 
not occurring and restrict the one agency authorized by law to do 
something about it.
  History will neither reflect kindly on those who reject science in 
the pursuit of short-term economic and political gain.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair. I rise in opposition to H.R. 
910. While cynically called the Energy Tax Prevention Act by its 
sponsors, the bill could more aptly be named the ``Dirty Air Act''.
  This legislation would overturn EPA's scientific finding that 
greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare, which stemmed from 
a landmark 2007 Supreme Court decision, and prevent the EPA from using 
the Clean Air Act--now or in the future--to limit greenhouse gas 
pollution from power plants and other industrial sources. This reckless 
and misguided attack on our environment and public health will allow 
more pollution into the air we breathe and threaten the health of 
Americans across the country.
  Supporters of the bill claim that setting standards for greenhouse 
gases under the Clean Air Act will cost jobs and undermine the 
competitiveness of America's manufacturers. But the argument that clean 
air somehow poses a hazard to the economy is as ridiculous now as it 
was in the 1970s, when the major polluters used it to try and stop 
enactment of landmark environmental laws. Rolling back the EPA's 
authority to limit pollution--whether it be carbon or lead--won't 
create a single job. It will simply undo 40 years of progress toward a 
cleaner environment and better public health.
  In fact, the very provisions of the Clean Air Act that this bill 
attacks have a forty-year track record of delivering cleaner air and 
improved health, along with the benefits of enormous growth in the 
economy. In its first 20 years, the Clean Air Act prevented an 
estimated 200,000 premature deaths. Some 1.7 million tons of toxic 
emissions have been removed from our air each year since 1990. 
Innovations spurred by the Act have made our cars up to 95 percent 
cleaner today than they were in the past. EPA economists estimate that 
the total benefits of the Clean Air Act amount to 30 times its costs.
  Passage of this bill would also mark the first time in history that 
Congress has approved legislation to overrule an objective scientific 
finding. Congress enacted the Clean Air Act precisely to require the 
EPA to make science-based decisions about the threats to health and 
welfare presented by air pollution instead of allowing such decisions 
to be driven by political ideology or special interests. And that is

[[Page 5301]]

exactly what EPA's scientists have done: under both the Bush and Obama 
administrations, objective scientific studies have found that 
greenhouse gases pose a real and indisputable threat.
  Recently, more than 2,500 scientists--from all 50 states--sent a 
letter to Congress calling on Members to support EPA's updated carbon 
pollution standards under the Clean Air Act, noting that the ``science-
based law has prevented 400,000 premature deaths and hundreds of 
millions of cases of respiratory and cardiovascular disease during the 
40 years since it was first passed--all without diminishing economic 
growth.''
  Rather than heeding the science and letting the EPA and the states do 
their job to protect public health and our environment, this bill would 
give the nation's biggest polluters a free pass to keep polluting and 
place the health of our nation--particularly our children, elderly 
citizens and other vulnerable populations--at risk. A vote for this 
bill is a vote against the commonsense Clean Air Act provisions that 
keep our air clean and protect our public health. I urge my colleagues 
to support science and the Clean Air Act and oppose H.R. 910.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 910, the Energy 
Tax Prevention Act of 2011.
  Based on the physical evidence and forecasts of most scientists, it 
is clear climate change is happening, man-made causes are a significant 
factor, and that left unaddressed, climate change poses a public health 
risk. I believe we must move forward from debating the science of 
climate change to developing balanced policies that combat its impacts.
  However, I oppose the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) 
attempt to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. I believe Congress must 
retain the authority to develop a climate change policy that reduces 
emissions, improves energy efficiency, and encourages clean energy 
technology, including clean coal, while also protecting and creating 
jobs, keeping energy costs affordable, and preserving our economic 
recovery. I am not convinced EPA's current path will achieve those 
goals.
  While I do not agree with all aspects of this legislation, I support 
H.R. 910, to ensure Congress has the ability to develop a practical 
climate change policy at the appropriate time. I ask my colleagues to 
join me in supporting this legislation.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Energy Tax Prevention 
Act of 2011, which would prohibit the EPA from regulating greenhouse 
gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.
  With gas prices averaging $3.70 per gallon, up from $3.50 a month 
ago, up nearly a dollar from a year ago, and with unemployment rates 
continuing at heartbreaking levels, the last thing the American people 
need is a national energy tax.
  Yet the Obama EPA seems intent on implementing policies that will not 
only drive up the price at the pump, but drive even more American jobs 
to places like India and China. According to a study conducted by the 
Heritage Foundation, annual job losses will exceed 800,000 should the 
Congress fail to act in preventing the EPA from moving ahead with their 
global warming agenda.
  In this difficult economy, the federal government must make 
affordable, domestic energy production a top priority and House 
Republicans are doing just that.
  I applaud the work of my colleagues in developing an all-of-the-above 
energy solution that will create jobs and end our dependence on foreign 
sources of energy.
  But Congress first must stop the EPA's assault on working families, 
small businesses and family farms by rejecting this backdoor national 
energy tax.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to weakening 
the Clean Air Act and ignoring the very real threat posed by global 
warming. Republicans might like to teach creationism in schools and 
demonize science, but the fact is that climate change is man-made, is 
happening, and threatens our way of life. Failure to act is 
unacceptable.
  The Obama Administration is taking small but important steps toward 
regulating only the largest sources of greenhouse gases. This 
legislation would end that progress. The Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) is exercising its Clean Air Act authority as recognized by 
the conservative Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA. The Upton-
Inhofe bill (H.R. 910) would not only undermine the Clean Air Act, it 
would also take the unprecedented step of overturning a scientific 
finding by the EPA that carbon pollution endangers America's health and 
environment.
  At a time of rising gas prices and oil related conflicts around the 
world, this legislation would further increase our dependence on oil 
and other fossil fuels. This bill would take us back to a failed energy 
policy that has made our country addicted to fossil fuels and imported 
oil.
  Rather than sticking our heads in the sand, Congress needs to 
implement a comprehensive energy policy that puts a price on carbon 
pollution and invests in the energy sources of the future. We could 
start by ending taxpayer subsidies for giant oil companies and corn 
ethanol, but I doubt that bill will be on the floor anytime soon.
  The Republican attack on science and logic will not create a single 
job or protect a single American's health. All it will do is appease 
the radical fringe of their party. I urge all my colleagues to vote no.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, which is common-sense legislation 
that will help economic recovery efforts and reduce energy prices.
  It is troubling to see the Obama Administration continue to advocate 
for policies that will inhibit job creation in this country, and also 
raise prices of goods and services for every American. We should not 
move forward with imposing regulations that will slow the current 
economic recovery.
  Over the last few months, my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle have borrowed the Republican mantra from the past couple of years 
when the Democrats had control and asked, ``Where are the jobs?'' I 
have found this quite humorous considering that since Republicans have 
taken over leadership of the House, we have been actively working to 
rein in excess government waste and pass legislation to make it more 
affordable to do business in this country. But, setting that aside, we 
should all be able to agree that without passage of the Energy Tax 
Prevention Act, the answer to their question will be: not in the U.S.
  We must not continue to allow the EPA to move forward in regulating 
all sectors of our economy. It is a simple fact that by imposing costly 
regulations on American businesses, it will ultimately force these 
companies to reduce jobs, or in the worst case scenario, move 
operations overseas. Additionally, while some may feel that industries 
can afford to pay more to comply with the slew of EPA regulations that 
have already been implemented, or will soon be implemented, these extra 
costs will ultimately be passed onto the American consumer.
  The EPA's reliance on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
(IPCC) assessment reports should be cause for alarm. Given the 
climategate e-mail scandal, and other information that has come to 
light, there are many serious questions as to the legitimacy of the 
process used by the IPCC to base their conclusions. It would seem to me 
that since the EPA relied heavily on questionable conclusions by the 
IPCC, it is essential for Congress to pass H.R. 910 so we may go back 
and reexamine our greenhouse gas policy.
  Like most Americans, I believe that there can and should be a proper 
balance between economic prosperity and environmental sustainability. 
Everyone wants clean air and clean water, and no one wants sky-high 
electric and tax bills. I have long argued that the key to our energy 
independence is through technological innovation. The best way for the 
federal government to support technological innovation is to 
incentivize it through research and development grants and tax credits. 
Excessive regulations cannot assure technological breakthroughs, 
especially expensive and onerous mandates like the cap-and-tax 
proposals in the previous Congress.
  With the recent spike in gas prices, we need to do all we can to 
decrease the cost of doing business. H.R. 910 is the first in a series 
of legislative proposals that Republicans are planning on putting 
forward to cut energy prices and reduce the regulatory burdens that 
businesses and consumers face. I strongly support passage of this 
important legislation, and urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, today I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 
910, the Republican Majority's so-called ``Energy Tax Prevention Act.'' 
I think a more accurate title would be the ``Science Ignorance 
Appreciation Act'' or ``Foreign Energy Dependence Act.''
  Today's measure would unilaterally invalidate the Environment 
Protection Agency's findings that carbon dioxide and other air 
pollutants pose a threat to public health and environment. Even more 
egregiously, the bill prohibits the EPA to regulate man-made greenhouse 
gases in spite of verified independent scientific research that shows 
that climate change poses an existential threat to our way of life.
  The proposal is nothing more than censorship of government scientists 
who simply want to protect human and environmental health. There is an 
overwhelming scientific consensus

[[Page 5302]]

that global warming is directly due to man-made behavior. In recent 
years we have begun to witness this science first hand, as extreme 
weather such as floods, droughts, blizzards, hurricanes and other 
natural disasters have begun to affect areas unaccustomed to such 
events. We cannot ignore the science and evidence.
  If we pass this flawed legislation, we will lose an incredible 
opportunity to create the market forces necessary to stimulate 
innovation in clean energy technology such as wind, solar, and other 
clean energy programs.
  The Energy Tax Prevention Act deliberately delays the day that 
America will be freed from its addiction to foreign oil. As we have 
seen with the recent instability in the Middle East, there are dramatic 
downsides to our current energy dependence strategy.
  A ``yes'' vote today is a vote for unchecked pollution and global 
warming. It is a vote against scientific consensus and a clean energy 
future.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 910, the 
Dirty Air Act. That this bill is taken seriously enough to receive a 
vote in the United States House of Representatives is embarrassing. 
This bill not only requires Members of Congress to ignore thousands of 
the world's best scientists and over four decades of peer reviewed 
research, but it requires Congress to assert that it is more qualified 
to judge the entire body of science. It is an assault on science, on 
reason, and on common sense. Americans expect better from their elected 
leaders.
  No amount of fossil fuel company spin, lobbying and campaign 
contributions can change the fact that global warming is happening. But 
they can make important changes to global warming; The longer we wait 
to substantively and aggressively act, the faster global warming will 
happen, the more fiercely it will happen, and the less control we will 
be able to exert over it.
  We are also throwing away badly needed opportunities. Failing to 
control global warming pollution means we fail to provide needed 
impetus to make the transition to clean energy. We are voting to turn 
our back on the opportunity to reclaim the mantle of global leader on 
clean energy from China and now, Germany. We are voting to turn our 
back on the opportunity to revitalize our manufacturing sector which 
has been ailing in cities like Cleveland for decades. We are voting to 
turn our back on the opportunity to create millions of new jobs and 
boost our economy. We are voting to turn our back on the opportunity to 
reduce air pollution that kills tens of thousands of people very year, 
who are disproportionately from communities of color and are of low 
income. We are voting to turn our back on the opportunity to strengthen 
our national security, which, according to the Pentagon, is threatened 
by global warming. We are voting to turn our back on the opportunity to 
inspire and lead with alternatives that would build a stronger America.
  It is time for us to cast a vote in favor of future generations 
instead of merely invoking them to try to justify inhumane budget cuts. 
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chair, the bill before us today is bad for 
America's health and reduces progress in our nation's energy 
independence. I oppose this `dirty air act' that would eliminate the 
ability of the EPA to address the very serious public health threats 
from carbon pollution.
  The Clean Air Act requires that if the EPA finds carbon pollution to 
be detrimental to our health, then the EPA must regulate greenhouse gas 
emissions. Despite the U.S. Supreme Court upholding this authority, 
today's legislation would exempt our nation's largest polluters from 
regulation, eliminate public health protections, and push back efforts 
to reduce our dependence on foreign energy resources. By preventing the 
EPA from setting carbon pollution national automobile standards, this 
bill does nothing to reduce consumption and reliance on foreign oil.
  The EPA helps protect our nation's most vulnerable--including 
children, seniors and those suffering from respiratory ailments--by 
guaranteeing the air we breathe is safe and healthy. Dirty air has been 
linked to an increase in asthma rates, especially among young people, 
an increase in emergency room visits and hospitalizations, and an 
increase in heart attacks and strokes. In New York, pediatric asthma 
affects an estimated half million children and an additional estimated 
1.5 million adults 18 and over have asthma, based on 2009 rates.
  All across the country, Americans overwhelmingly support EPA 
protections for the air we breathe and the water we drink. Supporting 
this bill disregards science, ignores public health concerns, and does 
nothing to curb carbon emissions. I urge a no vote.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, over forty years after the passage of the 
Clean Air Act, there are apparently still Members of this House who 
think you can't have jobs unless you have a polluted environment. 
Nothing could be further from the truth.
  Over the past 40 years, the Clean Air Act has reduced smog-producing 
sulfur dioxide and particulate pollution by 60% while our economy has 
nearly tripled. Since the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, electricity 
production has increased and prices have remained stable. A rigorous, 
peer-reviewed analysis of the Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act 
from 1990-2020 conducted by the EPA found that air quality improvements 
under the Clean Air Act will save $2 trillion and prevent at least 
230,000 deaths annually.
  The record is clear: a healthy environment and a strong economy are 
not mutually exclusive. They go hand in hand. Which is why this attempt 
to gut the Clean Air Act by preventing EPA from regulating carbon 
pollution is so misplaced. Given our 40-year history with the Clean Air 
Act, the last thing Americans want is a bunch of politicians 
substituting their own ideological agenda for sound science and telling 
EPA it can't do its job.
  I urge a no vote.
  Mr. ROTHMAN of New Jersey. Mr. Chair, I rise today to voice my 
opposition to the Upton-Inhofe bill.
  Clean air should be a priority that we all can agree on, but some in 
Washington, D.C. are playing dangerous games with public health. Today, 
the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Upton-Inhofe bill, an 
extreme measure that will eliminate the Environmental Protection 
Agency's (EPA) authority to address carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous 
oxide, fluorinated gases and other harmful emissions. This legislation, 
which I opposed, reverses EPA's scientific finding that these 
pollutants are harmful to public health and the environment. The bill 
means that even with strong state-level environmental regulations New 
Jersey will suffer. Since the movement of air pollution isn't 
restricted by state borders, wind currents from neighboring states will 
push harmful pollution into the air that we breathe here at home.
  As a father and a strong advocate for the environment, I am proud of 
New Jersey's leadership in keeping our air clean. In New Jersey, we've 
implemented laws to reduce toxic emissions and mercury pollution from 
power plants, increase clean energy from solar power, and speed up 
production of off-shore wind along the Atlantic seaboard. These 
regulations improve the quality of the air we breathe, but we should 
still be doing more and New Jersey cannot do it alone. Federal 
regulation of dangerous pollutants is necessary to make sure that 
states with tough emissions standards aren't unfairly subject to dirty 
air from neighboring states that have lenient emission laws. Some in 
Washington, D.C. may want to secure an extreme ideological ``victory'' 
by undermining the EPA, but the families, children, and elderly in New 
Jersey cannot afford the consequences of the Upton-Inhofe bill.
  For many New Jerseyans, the impact of this bill could be deadly. For 
example, in the Ninth Congressional District--which includes sections 
of Bergen, Hudson, and Passaic Counties--there are an estimated 80,000 
people, including nearly 20,000 children, who live with asthma. Lower 
air quality standards will lead to more pollutants in our air and raise 
the risk of life-threatening asthma attacks. In fact, the National 
Institute of Health estimates that 5,000 asthma-related deaths occur 
each year in the United States. And those who suffer from asthma are 
just one group who will face drastic consequences from the Upton-Inhofe 
bill. Fully enforcing the Clean Air Act and a strong EPA will improve 
the lives of countless Americans (including New Jerseyans)--especially 
those who already have compromised health.
  The Upton-Inhofe bill is harmful to New Jersey and our entire nation. 
Specifically, this legislation would weaken the Clean Air Act, overturn 
the Supreme Court ruling that gave the EPA authority to regulate 
dangerous air pollutants, and derail efforts to move toward energy 
independence by reducing emissions from cars and trucks. It is for 
these reasons and many others that health advocacy and environmental 
groups--from the American Lung Association and the Union of Concerned 
Scientists to Environment New Jersey and the Asthma and Allergy 
Foundation of America--oppose this harmful legislation. In opposition 
to the Clean Air Act and the EPA, and supporting the Upton-Inhofe bill, 
are groups like big oil companies and billion-dollar corporations with 
vested interests in avoiding the costs of cleaning up the environmental 
messes they make. I and many of my constituents and people throughout 
our state choose to stand with those who want to keep

[[Page 5303]]

New Jersey's air clean, not those who put profit over public health.
  There is a clear path forward to keeping our air clean in New Jersey. 
With the strengthening of the Clean Air Act in 1970, our country took a 
stand for the quality of our health, our air and our future. The EPA is 
planning to update the Clean Air Act to implement long-overdue federal 
limits on soot, smog, mercury, and carbon pollution. This solution 
makes sense--the Clean Air Act has proven to be one of the greatest 
tools we have to cost-effectively protect the health of Americans and 
our environment. We must stand up against efforts to weaken the Clean 
Air Act and work with the EPA to implement strong limits on pollution 
to protect the air we all breathe in New Jersey and throughout our 
country.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chair, I rise today to discuss my unwavering support 
for legislation this body considered on this week, and passed by large 
margin yesterday on this floor. Unfortunately I was detained during the 
final passage vote for H.R. 910, and was unable to record my support 
for this legislation. I wish to do so now.
  For the last two years, Lisa Jackson's Environmental Protection 
Agency, EPA, has waged a war on the state of Texas that is destroying 
jobs and hampering economic growth. Texas was one of the last states 
hit by the recession in 2008, in large part due to its robust energy 
industry, with thousands of jobs connected to oil and gas exploration 
and production. Since taking office in 2009, President Obama has made 
it clear that he will do everything he can to interfere with any state 
using its own initiative to grow the economy and create jobs. In Mr. 
Obama's America, only the federal government can create jobs. We know 
this to be a failed experiment, yet he is still intent on doing all he 
can to continue to hamper the efforts of Texans to create jobs and grow 
the economy.
  From the ``flex-permitting'' plan that Texas' Council on 
Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has had implemented for over two decades, 
to greenhouse gas permitting, which will destroy industry all over the 
state and the country, the EPA is holding up permits and stifling 
growth at every turn.
  For these reasons, and many others, I wholeheartedly support H.R. 
910. I was a cosponsor of this legislation from the very beginning. 
Twice during its consideration in the House Energy & Commerce 
Committee, I voiced my support, and was pleased to vote to pass it out 
of committee and have it considered on the House floor.
  I regret circumstances detained me from the vote on final passage 
yesterday evening. I hope, however, there is no doubt that, had I been 
able to be present during the vote, I would have voted in the 
affirmative, and continue to support his legislation without 
reservation.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise today to oppose H.R. 910, the so-
called Energy Tax Prevention Act. H.R. 910 would permanently ban the 
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, from protecting human health and 
the environment by enforcing the Clean Air Act and confronting the 
threat of climate change.
  This radical, anti-environmental legislation is a distraction from 
the number one issue facing Congress: promoting job creation and 
economic growth. Instead of focusing on the economy, the House 
Republican majority is trying to legislate science by overriding the 
established scientific consensus on climate change and the threat posed 
by greenhouse gases. H.R. 910 endangers public health and will cost 
American jobs by slowing our economy's transition to cleaner, more 
secure energy sources. A recent EPA report revealed that reducing 
greenhouse gas emissions will prevent the early deaths of 230,000 
Americans in 2020 and produce $2 trillion in economic benefits by that 
same year.
  I published an editorial with climate science expert John Abraham of 
the University of St. Thomas to voice my strong opposition to H.R. 910. 
I ask that a copy of this editorial be included in the Congressional 
Record.

              [Published in The Hill blog on Apr. 6, 2011]

      Congress on Wrong Side of History in Denying Climate Change

            (By Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN) and John Abraham)

       Right now in our hometown of St. Paul, Minnesota, we are 
     preparing for what might possibly be record-breaking floods 
     due to winter's heavy snowfall and the threat of heavier 
     spring downpours. Minnesota has already experienced two 100-
     year floods in the Red River Valley within the past 13 years. 
     Local doctors report an increase in cases of children with 
     asthma and other respiratory conditions. Lake Superior has 
     seen record low water levels in recent years, threatening not 
     only drinking water supplies but the Duluth-Superior port 
     that receives more than 1,200 ships and 48 million tons of 
     cargo.
       All of these public health, economic, and environmental 
     trends have been strongly linked to climate change. Multiple 
     studies have shown that 97 percent of the most qualified 
     climate scientists are in agreement that humans are causing 
     the planet to warm. If this was an illness, and 97 percent of 
     doctors recommended a certain treatment, we would take 
     appropriate action.
       Instead, the majority party in the House of Representatives 
     is choosing to willfully defy the diagnosis and overturn 
     established science by voting on a bill (H.R. 910) that will 
     gut the Clean Air Act and prohibit the Environmental 
     Protection Agency (EPA) from ever protecting the American 
     people from the disastrous impacts of climate change.
       During the committee markup of H.R. 910, not a single 
     Republican voted to even acknowledge the validity of EPA's 
     scientific finding that ``warming of the climate system is 
     unequivocal,'' caused by human activities, and a threat to 
     public health. The rejection of those amendments is shocking 
     to scientists who understand the serious risks Americans face 
     from global climate change.
       This places the climate deniers on the same side as those 
     fringe extremists who denied the harmful impacts of cigarette 
     smoking and DDT, and the causes of acid rain and ozone 
     depletion. Proponents of H.R. 910 are denying science and 
     dangerously on the wrong side of history.
       We believe now is the time to confront climate change. If 
     we act wisely, we can simultaneously protect the environment, 
     create jobs, diversify our energy supplies, and improve 
     national security.
       A recent report by Pew Environment Group shows the U.S. has 
     now fallen to number three behind China and Germany for clean 
     energy private investment. Passage of H.R. 910 will guarantee 
     America loses out on the jobs of the future by obstructing 
     efforts to build the new clean energy economy. It will deepen 
     America's dependence on dirty coal and imported oil instead 
     of creating American jobs through investments in renewable 
     resources and energy efficiency.
       Our country must turn the problems presented by climate 
     change into an opportunity. Instead of devoting its time to 
     discrediting scientists and undermining the EPA, Congress 
     should put more faith in the genius of the American spirit to 
     protect our environment and human health while creating 
     economic growth. With the right clean energy incentives and 
     framework, we believe America can out-innovate and out-build 
     anyone in the world. The proponents of H.R. 910 not only deny 
     climate change, they undermine America's ability to fmd 
     solutions that benefit consumers, workers and the 
     environment.
       Every single member of Congress has a choice: deny the 
     science of climate change or take real steps to confront a 
     changing climate. Congress must accept scientific reality and 
     act on climate change.

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered 
read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                                H.R. 910

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Energy Tax Prevention Act of 
     2011''.

     SEC. 2. NO REGULATION OF EMISSIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASES.

       Title III of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7601 et seq.) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 330. NO REGULATION OF EMISSIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASES.

       ``(a) Definition.--In this section, the term `greenhouse 
     gas' means any of the following:
       ``(1) Water vapor.
       ``(2) Carbon dioxide.
       ``(3) Methane.
       ``(4) Nitrous oxide.
       ``(5) Sulfur hexafluoride.
       ``(6) Hydrofluorocarbons.
       ``(7) Perfluorocarbons.
       ``(8) Any other substance subject to, or proposed to be 
     subject to, regulation, action, or consideration under this 
     Act to address climate change.
       ``(b) Limitation on Agency Action.--
       ``(1) Limitation.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Administrator may not, under this 
     Act, promulgate any regulation concerning, take action 
     relating to, or take into consideration the emission of a 
     greenhouse gas to address climate change.
       ``(B) Air pollutant definition.--The definition of the term 
     `air pollutant' in section 302(g) does not include a 
     greenhouse gas. Notwithstanding the previous sentence, such 
     definition may include a greenhouse gas for purposes of 
     addressing concerns other than climate change.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) does not prohibit the 
     following:
       ``(A) Notwithstanding paragraph (4)(B), implementation and 
     enforcement of the rule entitled `Light-Duty Vehicle 
     Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel

[[Page 5304]]

     Economy Standards' (as published at 75 Fed. Reg. 25324 (May 
     7, 2010) and without further revision) and finalization, 
     implementation, enforcement, and revision of the proposed 
     rule entitled `Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel 
     Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and 
     Vehicles' published at 75 Fed. Reg. 74152 (November 30, 
     2010).
       ``(B) Implementation and enforcement of section 211(o).
       ``(C) Statutorily authorized Federal research, development, 
     and demonstration programs addressing climate change.
       ``(D) Implementation and enforcement of title VI to the 
     extent such implementation or enforcement only involves one 
     or more class I substances or class II substances (as such 
     terms are defined in section 601).
       ``(E) Implementation and enforcement of section 821 (42 
     U.S.C. 7651k note) of Public Law 101-549 (commonly referred 
     to as the `Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990').
       ``(3) Inapplicability of provisions.--Nothing listed in 
     paragraph (2) shall cause a greenhouse gas to be subject to 
     part C of title I (relating to prevention of significant 
     deterioration of air quality) or considered an air pollutant 
     for purposes of title V (relating to permits).
       ``(4) Certain prior agency actions.--The following rules 
     and actions (including any supplement or revision to such 
     rules and actions) are repealed and shall have no legal 
     effect:
       ``(A) `Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases', published 
     at 74 Fed. Reg. 56260 (October 30, 2009).
       ``(B) `Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for 
     Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act', 
     published at 74 Fed. Reg. 66496 (December 15, 2009).
       ``(C) `Reconsideration of Interpretation of Regulations 
     That Determine Pollutants Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting 
     Programs', published at 75 Fed. Reg. 17004 (April 2, 2010) 
     and the memorandum from Stephen L. Johnson, Environmental 
     Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator, to EPA Regional 
     Administrators, concerning `EPA's Interpretation of 
     Regulations that Determine Pollutants Covered by Federal 
     Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit Program' 
     (December 18, 2008).
       ``(D) `Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V 
     Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule', published at 75 Fed. Reg. 
     31514 (June 3, 2010).
       ``(E) `Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under 
     the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to 
     Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Substantial 
     Inadequacy and SIP Call', published at 75 Fed. Reg. 77698 
     (December 13, 2010).
       ``(F) `Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under 
     the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to 
     Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Failure To 
     Submit State Implementation Plan Revisions Required for 
     Greenhouse Gases', published at 75 Fed. Reg. 81874 (December 
     29, 2010).
       ``(G) `Action to Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under 
     the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to 
     Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation 
     Plan', published at 75 Fed. Reg. 82246 (December 30, 2010).
       ``(H) `Action to Ensure Authority to Implement Title V 
     Permitting Programs Under the Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule', 
     published at 75 Fed. Reg. 82254 (December 30, 2010).
       ``(I) `Determinations Concerning Need for Error Correction, 
     Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval, and Federal 
     Implementation Plan Regarding Texas Prevention of Significant 
     Deterioration Program', published at 75 Fed. Reg. 82430 
     (December 30, 2010).
       ``(J) `Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant 
     Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-
     Sources in State Implementation Plans', published at 75 Fed. 
     Reg. 82536 (December 30, 2010).
       ``(K) `Determinations Concerning Need for Error Correction, 
     Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval, and Federal 
     Implementation Plan Regarding Texas Prevention of Significant 
     Deterioration Program; Proposed Rule', published at 75 Fed. 
     Reg. 82365 (December 30, 2010).
       ``(L) Except for actions listed in paragraph (2), any other 
     Federal action under this Act occurring before the date of 
     enactment of this section that applies a stationary source 
     permitting requirement or an emissions standard for a 
     greenhouse gas to address climate change.
       ``(5) State action.--
       ``(A) No limitation.--This section does not limit or 
     otherwise affect the authority of a State to adopt, amend, 
     enforce, or repeal State laws and regulations pertaining to 
     the emission of a greenhouse gas.
       ``(B) Exception.--
       ``(i) Rule.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), any 
     provision described in clause (ii)--

       ``(I) is not federally enforceable;
       ``(II) is not deemed to be a part of Federal law; and
       ``(III) is deemed to be stricken from the plan described in 
     clause (ii)(I) or the program or permit described in clause 
     (ii)(II), as applicable.

       ``(ii) Provision defined.--For purposes of clause (i), the 
     term `provision' means any provision that--

       ``(I) is contained in a State implementation plan under 
     section 110 and authorizes or requires a limitation on, or 
     imposes a permit requirement for, the emission of a 
     greenhouse gas to address climate change; or
       ``(II) is part of an operating permit program under title 
     V, or a permit issued pursuant to title V, and authorizes or 
     requires a limitation on the emission of a greenhouse gas to 
     address climate change.

       ``(C) Action by administrator.--The Administrator may not 
     approve or make federally enforceable any provision described 
     in subparagraph (B)(ii).''.

     SEC. 3. PRESERVING ONE NATIONAL STANDARD FOR AUTOMOBILES.

       Section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7543) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) With respect to standards for emissions of greenhouse 
     gases (as defined in section 330) for model year 2017 or any 
     subsequent model year new motor vehicles and new motor 
     vehicle engines--
       ``(A) the Administrator may not waive application of 
     subsection (a); and
       ``(B) no waiver granted prior to the date of enactment of 
     this paragraph may be construed to waive the application of 
     subsection (a).''.

     SEC. 4. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of the Congress that--
       (1) there is established scientific concern over warming of 
     the climate system based upon evidence from observations of 
     increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, 
     widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average 
     sea level;
       (2) addressing climate change is an international issue, 
     involving complex scientific and economic considerations;
       (3) the United States has a role to play in resolving 
     global climate change matters on an international basis; and
       (4) Congress should fulfill that role by developing 
     policies that do not adversely affect the American economy, 
     energy supplies, and employment.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment is in order except 
those printed in House Report 112-54. Each such amendment may be 
offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated 
in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the 
time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
not be subject to a demand for division of the question.


          Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
House Report 112-54.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike sections 2 and 3 of the bill, redesignate section 4 
     of the bill as section 3, and insert after section 1 of the 
     bill the following section:

     SEC. 2. STUDY AND REPORT.

       (a) Study.--In the interest of protecting national 
     security, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency shall conduct a study to determine--
       (1) the long term impacts of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency having no authority to regulate emissions of 
     greenhouse gases;
       (2) if there are alternatives to ensure compliance with the 
     Clean Air Act; and
       (3) best practices with respect to greenhouse gas 
     regulation under the Clean Air Act.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency shall submit to Congress a report on the 
     results of the study under subsection (a), including any 
     findings and recommendations.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 203, the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I want to thank the ranking member of the 
full committee for reading a very important letter into the Record that 
the EPA has no intention to manipulate or to utilize cap-and-trade as 
part of their responsibilities. This is not a cap-and-trade initiative 
or legislation. It has nothing to do with cap-and-trade.
  In fact, I think the whole concept of this Energy Tax Prevention Act 
is muddled and befuddled. I don't understand it. I practiced oil and 
gas law for almost 15 or 20 years. I come from Houston, and I recognize 
the difficulties that we have in the industry and understanding the 
industry. But I also am cognizant that this majority, my good friend on 
the other side that represents that, they are interested in adhering to 
the Constitution.
  And I don't know why they have not studied the Supreme Court decision 
in Massachusetts versus EPA that clearly indicates, even though this 
was motor

[[Page 5305]]

vehicle emissions that they were talking about, but it held that 
greenhouse gases, widely viewed as contributing to climate change, 
constitute air pollutants, and therefore that phrase as utilized under 
the Clean Air Act and the EPA has jurisdiction to regulate under the 
Clean Air Act.
  I assume what we are doing is trying to bash a long-standing process 
rather than coming up with better ideas. I think my amendment brings 
about a better idea, because energy is a national security issue. And 
what my amendment poses to do is to ask serious questions about the 
impact of eliminating the EPA authority, finding a way to work through 
this question: What would be the long-term impact? Because the 
legislation that is now written by my friends on the other side of the 
aisle is telling the United States of America, in conflict with the 
United States Supreme Court decision--and let me just hold up a visual, 
the Constitution, which is what this majority says that they are basing 
their whole legislative agenda on.
  Well, we have constitutional authority. And they are now telling us 
that we should not regulate water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, 
nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, 
perfluorocarbons, and any other substance. I don't hear a scream and 
cry of the industry. I do hear the idea that there are burdens that 
will come upon the industry that we should address.
  So the amendment that I have that I am asking for real consideration 
on the basis of a national security question, How will we provide for 
resources that will provide for the engine economy of this Nation, the 
long-term impact of the Environmental Protection Agency having no 
authority to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases? Also, if there are 
alternatives to ensure compliance with the Clean Air Act, if you have a 
better alternative. And best practices with respect to greenhouse gas 
regulation under the Clean Air Act, which the Supreme Court decision 
clearly dictates that it has the authority to regulate it. But we need 
to collaborate and cooperate and understand how we balance the needs of 
an energy policy.
  Might I also say that energy recognizes all forms of energy. And 
energy companies that are in oil and gas are looking at alternatives. 
They have whole sections that are addressing the question of 
alternative fuels. Why are we raising a bill that has no sense of 
direction in what it is trying to do and to eliminate an oversight that 
is protecting the American public in their quality of life and also 
doesn't speak to how we work with the industry to actually make sure 
that we check these emissions but as well provide the opportunity for 
domestic growth and domestic energy growth?
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. UPTON. I just want to say to my friend from Texas that with 
regard to the hue and cry of folks that support this legislation, not a 
lot of business folks, I have a whole series of letters of support for 
our legislation from the American Electric Power to the Farm Bureau, 
the Iron and Steel Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, American Public 
Power, Business Roundtable, Chamber of Commerce, Metalcasters Alliance, 
Multi-Traders Letters, auto dealers, Realtors, manufacturers, National 
Association of Manufacturers, cattlemen, Mining Association, 
petrochemical, Rural Electrical Cooperative, and on and on.

                           Letters of Support

       AF&PA Press Statement
       American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity Press 
     Statement
       American Electric Power
       American Farm Bureau Federation
       American Iron and Steel Institute
       Americans for Prosperity Press Statement
       Americans for Tax Reform
       API-ACC Coalition Letter
       American Public Power Association
       Business Roundtable Letter
       Chamber of Commerce
       Cornwall Alliance
       Freedom Action Press Release
       Industrial Energy Consumers of America Press Statement
       Metalcasters Alliance
       Midwest Power Coalition
       Multi-Traders Letters
       NACS
       National Automobile Dealers Association
       National Association of Realtors
       National Association of Manufacturers
       National Association of Manufacturers Press Statement
       National Cattleman's Beef Association
       National Center for Public Policy Research
       National Mining Association Press Statement
       National Petrochemical & Refiners Association
       National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
       NRECA Press Statement
       Nucor Letter
       Southern Company
       Steelgram--Support H.R. 910
       Tesoro Corporation
       The Brick Industry
       The Fertilizer Institute
       Valero Energy Corporation
                                  ____

                                                 American Forest &


                                            Paper Association,

                                                   Washington, DC.

      AF&PA Statement on the Energy Tax Prevention Act (H.R. 910)

       Washington.--American Forest & Paper Association President 
     and CEO Donna Harman today issued the following statement 
     regarding the Energy Tax Prevention Act (H.R. 910) as 
     introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Energy and 
     Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI), Agriculture 
     Committee Ranking Member Collin Peterson (D-MN), 
     Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Ranking Member 
     Nick Rahall (D-WV), and Energy and Power Subcommittee 
     Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-KY).
       ``I applaud the introduction of this bi-partisan 
     legislation to bring a halt to regulation of greenhouse gases 
     through the Clean Air Act. There is broad agreement that the 
     Clean Air Act is the wrong tool to regulate greenhouse gases. 
     The rule serves to impose high costs and business uncertainty 
     related to new investments in the manufacturing sector. 
     Congress, not EPA, should decide energy policy; in 
     particular, issues related to investments in renewable 
     energy, including biomass.
       ``The Greenhouse Gas regulations are the latest example of 
     those that would hamper job growth and put obstacles in the 
     way of American business to compete in the global 
     marketplace. Inexplicably, this is happening as other parts 
     of the Administration are promoting the need for more exports 
     and job creation.
       ``I commend Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred 
     Upton (R-MI), Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Collin 
     Peterson (D-MN), Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 
     Ranking Member Nick Rahall (D-WV), and Energy and Power 
     Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-KY) for introducing 
     this legislation. We look forward to working with Congress on 
     this very important issue.''
                                  ____

                                            American Coalition for


                                       Clean Coal Electricity,

                                                   Alexandria, VA.

      House, Senate Introduce Legislation To Stop EPA Regulations

       Alexandria, VA.--The American Coalition for Clean Coal 
     Electricity today praised the introduction in the U.S. House 
     and Senate of bipartisan legislation that would ensure the 
     authority to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases rests 
     with Congress, and not the EPA. The bills were introduced by 
     House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton and 
     Senate Environment and Public Works Ranking Member James 
     Inhofe.
       ``The EPA's sweeping regulations will affect the lives of 
     millions of Americans, from their electricity bills to the 
     economy as a whole. Given this wide-ranging impact, it is 
     important that Congress--not the EPA--address greenhouse gas 
     emissions in a manner that takes into consideration both 
     environmental and economic impacts,'' said Steve Miller, 
     president and CEO of ACCCE.
       The bills would eliminate EPA's authority to regulate 
     greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, which is 
     ill-suited for that task. The legislation introduced today 
     would leave in place all of the essential provisions of the 
     Clean Air Act.
       EPA's proposed regulations on greenhouse gas emissions 
     could have a dramatic impact on jobs and the economy. A 
     recent analysis by the American Council for Capital Formation 
     concluded that uncertainty caused by these regulations could, 
     by 2014, result in the loss of between $25 billion to $75 
     billion in investment in the economy and that this could 
     result in the loss of between 476,000 and 1.4 million jobs.
       ``At a time when Americans are struggling with high energy 
     costs, the EPA's proposed regulations could make electricity 
     more expensive. The affordability of coal-fueled electricity 
     has helped moderate increases in energy costs, and continued 
     reliance on coal can help the U.S. recover economically and

[[Page 5306]]

     American businesses to compete globally,'' said Miller. ``We 
     thank Chairman Upton and Senator Inhofe for their leadership 
     on this critical issue as well as Members of Congress from 
     both parties who have agreed to be initial co-sponsors of the 
     bill.''
                                  ____



                                      American Electric Power,

                                      Columbus, OH, March 3, 2011.
     Hon. Fred Upton,
     Chairman, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House 
         of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Upton: I am writing today to express my 
     strong support for the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011.
       When the Clean Air Act was originally enacted, it was not 
     the expectation of Congress that this Act be applied to 
     greenhouse gases. In fact, the Act was designed to regulate 
     ambient air quality and hazardous air pollutants, among other 
     matters. Moreover, the regulation of greenhouse gases was not 
     mandated by the Supreme Court ruling and therefore is not 
     necessarily required by the Clean Air Act.
       It is clear to us at American Electric Power that the issue 
     of climate change policy should be addressed exclusively 
     through the legislative process. The Congress of the United 
     States is better equipped to holistically evaluate not only 
     the environmental impacts of greenhouse gases but also the 
     impacts of greenhouse regulation on the economy, employment, 
     energy and international trade. I firmly believe that this 
     approach is crucial to ensuring a sound national policy.
       I again thank you for your leadership on this important 
     matter, and AEP looks forward to working with you to enact 
     this legislation.
           Sincerely,

                                            Michael J. Morris,

                                            Chairman of the Board,
     President and Chief Executive Officer.
                                  ____

                                                          American


                                       Farm Bureau Federation,

                                    Washington, DC, March 3, 2011.
     Hon. Fred Upton,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Upton: The American Farm Bureau Federation 
     (AFBF) strongly supports the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 
     2011 that you plan to introduce in the House of 
     Representatives.
       This bill would preempt regulation of greenhouse gases 
     (GHG) by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) based on 
     climate change considerations. The bill would not affect 
     previously enacted or proposed rules regarding emissions from 
     mobile sources.
       The regulation of GHG does not fit within the current 
     framework of the Clean Air Act. Unlike other regulated 
     pollutants, where Clean Air Act thresholds are sufficient to 
     regulate the largest emitters, GHG regulation at statutorily 
     required, thresholds holds the prospect of costly and 
     burdensome permit requirements on farms, ranches, schools, 
     hospitals and some large residences.
       Farmers and ranchers will be particularly disadvantaged 
     under such a regulatory scheme. The costs incurred by 
     utilities, refiners and manufacturers to comply with GHG 
     regulations will be passed along to their customers, 
     including farmers and ranchers, increasing their fuel, 
     fertilizer and energy costs. Unlike other types of 
     businesses, farmers and ranchers have much less ability to 
     pass along such costs. Additionally, under the thresholds set 
     by the Clean Air Act, many farmers and ranchers would 
     eventually be required to obtain costly and burdensome Title 
     V operating permits or New Source Review/Prevention of 
     Significant Deterioration permits. EPA itself estimates that 
     more than 37,000 farms will be subject to Title V permits, at 
     a cost of more than $866 million.
       While the costs of compliance may be high, the 
     environmental benefits from EPA regulation are marginal at 
     best. Unless and until an international agreement is reached, 
     unilateral action by EPA will have little or no environmental 
     impact. EPA Administrator Jackson has acknowledged this fact 
     in testimony before Congress.
       The president has stated that congressional action is a 
     better way to address the issue than EPA regulation. We 
     agree. The Energy Tax Prevention Act recognizes this as well 
     and places the responsibility for regulating GHGs where it 
     belongs--with Congress. We commend you for introducing this 
     bill and look forward to working with you on it.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bob Stallman,
                                                        President.

  I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the distinguished chairman for the time.
  Well, let me say something positive about my good friend from 
Houston, Texas's amendment before I say something negative. If it were 
to pass, it would at least force the EPA to do a real study, which is 
more than I can say they did before they issued their endangerment 
finding.
  If you look at the endangerment finding that they actually did to 
satisfy the requirement of the Supreme Court, they didn't do any 
scientific analysis. They didn't do any independent analysis. They 
basically took regurgitated research and press clippings and apparently 
some student's thesis as the justification for coming up with their 
endangerment finding.
  If we accept the gentlelady from Houston's amendment, you do really 
gut this bill, which, if you are opposed to it, that's probably a good 
outcome. But if you are supportive of it, it's not a good outcome.
  We don't need to do a study. CO2 is not a pollutant under 
the definitions of the Clean Air Act. It's not harmful to health, as I 
keep pointing out.
  As I speak, I create CO2, and so you need CO2 
for life. Manmade CO2 does not significantly contribute to 
climate change. We do have climate change, as we always have and always 
will.
  But to say that CO2 emissions made by man somehow are 
causing all these catastrophic changes is simply not true. What the 
bill before us does is say we protect the Clean Air Act, we want to 
enforce the Clean Air Act, but we want it to be in force for the 
criteria pollutants that it was intended for, and we do not believe 
that CO2 is one of the pollutants that it was intended to 
regulate.
  So we don't need a study, and I would oppose my good friend from 
Houston's amendment and encourage all Members to also oppose it.
  Mr. UPTON. May I ask how much time remains.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from Michigan has 2\3/
4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. UPTON. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Bilbray), a member of the committee.
  Mr. BILBRAY. I appreciate that.
  Let's talk science, ladies and gentlemen. Everyone wants to talk 
about the threat of climate change, but no one wants to address the 
fact that what EPA has proposed, by the admission of the administrator, 
cannot even indicate what percentage of greenhouse gases those 
regulations could reduce. And not one scientist, not one expert in our 
committee, or I have seen anywhere else, has ever said what is being 
proposed by EPA, that is going to cost at least $200 million, will not 
avoid the problem of climate change. So the question is this, what are 
the American people getting for their $200 million.
  Now, I'm sorry, some of us have worked on air pollution issues. I 
know the precursors to ozone. If they are saying that the problem is 
it's a precursor to ozone, believe me, it is so small and minute that 
those of us that are working in non-attainment areas never even gave a 
second glance at CO2. So don't talk about it being a health 
risk based on a precursor to ozone. Look at what we are getting for the 
money.
  What we are actually talking about here is not allowing EPA to go out 
and implement programs that the administrator admits that she cannot 
tell us what the American people are going to get for their dollars.
  If you want to do a study, then let's do a study on what would have 
to be done to address this issue the way that some of us think it 
should be addressed. But let's not say that somehow that by holding up 
a program that is admitted not to be able to deliver any tangible 
benefits, that holding up that program is somehow going be a threat to 
public health.
  So let's just get back down to the real science, and that is no one 
in this establishment is talking about addressing the climate change 
issue. Some people are saying it doesn't exist and others are trying to 
sell an environmental placebo that makes you look good because you are 
doing something, but spends huge amounts of money, has a great impact, 
and does not address the problem and would not avoid the problem.
  One thing we have got to make clear. Don't talk to me about 
incrementalism when we talk about climate change. You talked to the 
same scientists that you say are telling us about climate

[[Page 5307]]

change, and they say if we don't get the job done within the next 
decade or two, forget about it. It's over with.
  The fact is that climate change will happen. And, sadly, what I have 
seen in the last 2 years about this issue, I have come to the 
conclusion this body really should be talking about what we need to do 
to mitigate the impact, because you are not doing anything to avoid it, 
and we shouldn't tell the American people that we are.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. May I ask the remaining time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas has 1 minute remaining.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I yield 30 seconds to my good friend from 
California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much.
  I just want to point out, Mr. Barton, my very good friend who used to 
be chairman of the committee and was ranking member when I asked him to 
work with us on a bipartisan energy bill policy, he said, I don't 
believe there is such a thing as global warming. It doesn't exist, it's 
not a problem. Why spend any effort or money to find the solution?
  And now, while the gentlelady's amendment is saying at least study 
what will happen if you don't do anything in this area, and he said 
that's not needed either. I think at least we ought to know what the 
gentlelady is suggesting, and that is, what would be the long-term 
impact if we do nothing.
  I support the Jackson Lee amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman for all 
of his work.
  I come as a peacemaker, Madam Chair. Houston, by the American Lung 
Association, is the seventh most ozone-polluted city in the Nation. The 
Supreme Court clearly said under the Clean Air Act that it authorized 
the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases as it makes a judgment that it 
impacts on climate change. At the same time there are industries that 
happen to be oil and gas that can sit down and benefit from a real 
study that will talk about best practices and also have the engagement 
that we need to have.
  It is reckless to talk about what scientists have said. The Members 
are not scientists, and I believe you cannot rid the EPA of its 
jurisdiction.
  I would ask my colleagues to be thoughtful, along with the industry, 
and let's have a reasonable study. This impacts national security.
  I ask my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Madam Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 910, ``Energy 
Tax Prevention Act of 2011.'' H.R. 910 prematurely eliminates the 
responsibilities of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate 
greenhouse gas emissions. My amendment would require an assessment of 
the industry by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ensure 
accurate consideration of how proposed regulations would affect energy 
production levels, feasibility of implementation on the industry, as 
well as the adverse environmental effects of delaying implementation of 
proposed regulations. My amendment would also ensure the Environmental 
Protection Agency retains its ability to regulate greenhouse gas 
emissions under the authority provided by the Clean House Act.
  I cannot envision any American living in a polluted area wanting to 
support a permanent ban on the Environmental Protection Agency's 
ability to regulate greenhouse gases. The potential negative impact of 
greenhouse gases is supported by the scientific community. The National 
Academy of Sciences reported in 2010: ``Climate change is occurring, is 
caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for--
and in many cases already affecting--a broad range of human and natural 
systems.'' It is clear that quality of our air impacts the quality of 
our health. The Clean Air Scientific Advisor Committee, EPA's 
independent science advisors, reviewed evidence from roughly 1,700 
studies in the scientific research of the health impact of ozone. They 
unanimously concluded that the EPA needs ozone standards. This would 
ensure an adequate margin of safety for the public as required by law. 
This is about protecting our nation's health, industry, and our 
environment.
  As a Houstonian the affects of H.R. 910 are of particular concern to 
me. A study conducted by the American Lung Association ranked Houston 
as the 7th most ozone-polluted city in the country. Children, teens, 
senior citizens, and people with lung diseases like asthma, chronic 
bronchitis, emphysema and others are particularly vulnerable to poor 
air quality and are at risk for developing irreversible lung damage. A 
rise in poor air quality has the potential to increase emergency room 
visits and hospital admissions for respitory problems which increases 
the cost of healthcare to tax payers.
  In Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX, over a million children under the 
age of 18 will be negatively impacted if air quality continues to 
decline. Children exposed to air pollution suffer stunted long growth, 
as well as development of asthma, and increased respitory infections.
  According to the American Lung Association, researchers have also 
concluded that prenatal exposure to air pollution harms children, and 
increase the risk of babies being born with low birth weight.
  We owe it to our children to provide clean, healthy air. We have an 
agency that is charged with regulating our air quality. My amendment 
would ensure the EPA can continue to protect our nation's health by 
regulating green house emissions.
  This amendment will ensure that the EPA reports to Congress its 
findings on the long term negative impacts of greenhouse gases. 
Findings from a recent EPA study titled ``Assessment of the Impacts of 
Global Change on Regional U.W. Air Quality: A Synthesis of Climate 
Change Impacts on Ground-Level Ozone'' suggest that climate change may 
lead to higher concentrations of ground-level ozone, a harmful 
pollutant. Additional impacts of climate change include, but are not 
limited to: increase drought; more heavy downpours and flooding, and 
harm to water resources, agriculture, wildfire and ecosystems.''
  Not only would the deregulation of greenhouse gases impact the health 
of our citizens, it will also, have a negative impact on our ability to 
maintain and create new jobs. Poor health and low air quality only 
discourages industries from coming to an area. New industries will not 
be willing to move into areas that are polluted which negatively 
impacts job growth in those communities.
  Currently there are programs in Houston such as the Energy Efficiency 
Incentive Program which aims to significantly reduce Houston's 
emissions of greenhouse gases and criteria air pollutants. The oil and 
gas industry is also investing alternative energy sources and improving 
air quality standards; such initiatives look towards the future, 
ensures job creation, and protects our nation's health.
  I believe the Environmental Protection Agency plays an essential role 
in providing appropriate and balanced guidance to the industry, which 
in turn encourages them to have a workable timeframe to determine the 
appropriate measures to improve our nation's air quality. The EPA 
ensures that energy industries have a reasonable standard to base their 
operations.
  My amendment requires the EPA to carefully study this issue and to 
determine the long term impact on health, the industry and the 
environment. I strongly urge my colleagues to support a reasonable, 
fair and measured response to addressing regulation of greenhouse 
gases.
  Under current law, The Clean Air Act provides the EPA with the 
authority to take steps that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. On 
April 2, 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that 
greenhouse gas, constitute ``air pollutants'' as the phrased is used in 
the Clean Air Act. Such pollutants may reasonably be anticipated to 
endanger public health or welfare. As a result, the government has the 
legal authority to issue standards for greenhouse gas emissions. As the 
Clean Air Act falls under the authority of the Environmental Protection 
Agency, it is therefore legitimate for the EPA to regulate greenhouse 
gases. My amendment ensures compliance with a U.S. Supreme Court 
ruling. As written, H.R. 910 would overturn Massachusetts v. EPA. As 
written H.R. 910 would overturns a ruling by the Supreme Court. Such an 
action is too extreme when there are other more tenable solutions 
available.
  We cannot allow a total eradication/elimination of the 
responsibilities of the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. This would 
impact the health of our nation, negatively impact industries, and 
overturns a Supreme Court ruling. The present version of H.R. 910, 
without amendment fails to provide a studied and measured approach when 
trying to find a balance between the need for our nation to maintain 
quality air levels and the need for our nation to continue job growth. 
This bill takes a sledge hammer approach that is too extreme.
  The purpose behind my amendment is to reach a compromise. To ensure 
that fair and reasonable regulations can be implemented without adverse 
effects to our nation's air and our nations industry.

[[Page 5308]]

  Madam Chair, I believe it is very important to provide the EPA with 
the opportunity to carefully study this matter and report back to 
Congress within 60 days and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting 
this amendment.


   Houston Mayor's Task Force on the Health Effects of Air Pollution

       Thousands of tons of potentially harmful chemicals are 
     discharged each day into Houston's atmosphere as a result of 
     human activities, substances, and technologies. Consequently, 
     people living in Houston are exposed routinely to a myriad of 
     pollutants in the air they breathe. Estimated and/or measured 
     concentrations of some of these airborne chemicals in ambient 
     air are high enough to cause illness or injury in exposed 
     individuals, especially those in our society who are most 
     vulnerable, such as children and seniors. Although the 
     available data are incomplete and uneven, the Task Force 
     surveyed information on 179 air pollutants and identified 12 
     substances in Houston's air that are definite risks to human 
     health, 9 that are probable risks, and 24 that are possible 
     risks. Sixteen substances were found to be unlikely risks to 
     Houstonians at current ambient levels, and 118 substances 
     were labeled uncertain risks because there was inadequate or 
     insufficient information to determine whether they presently 
     pose a health threat to Houston residents.
                                  ____


            Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency

                    The U.S. Supreme Court Synopsis


                   Supreme Court of the United States

 MASSACHUSETTS et al., Petitioners, v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 
                                 et al.

       Background: States, local governments, and environmental 
     organizations petitioned for review of an order of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) denying a petition for 
     rulemaking to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor 
     vehicles under the Clean Air Act. The Court of Appeals for 
     the District of Columbia Circuit, 415 F.3d 50, dismissed or 
     denied the petitions. Certiorari was granted.
       Holdings: The Supreme Court, Justice Stevens, held that:
       (1) state of Massachusetts had standing to petition for 
     review;
       (2) Clean Air Act authorizes the EPA to regulate greenhouse 
     gas emissions from new motor vehicles in the event that it 
     forms a ``judgment'' that such emissions contribute to 
     climate change; and
       (3), EPA can avoid taking regulatory action with respect to 
     greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles only if it 
     determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate 
     change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to 
     why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to 
     determine whether they do.
       Background: On April 2, 2007, in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 
     U.S. 497 (2007), the Supreme Court found that greenhouse 
     gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act. The 
     Court held that the Administrator must determine whether or 
     not emissions of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles 
     cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be 
     anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether 
     the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision. In 
     making these decisions, the Administrator is required to 
     follow the language of section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. 
     The Supreme Court decision resulted from a petition for 
     rulemaking under section 202(a) filed by more than a dozen 
     environmental, renewable energy, and other organizations.
       On April 17, 2009, the Administrator signed proposed 
     endangerment and cause or contribute findings for greenhouse 
     gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. EPA held a 
     60-day public comment period, which ended June 23, 2009, and 
     received over 380,000 public comments. These included both 
     written comments as well as testimony at two public hearings 
     in Arlington, Virginia and Seattle, Washington. EPA carefully 
     reviewed, considered, and incorporated public comments and 
     has now issued these final Findings.

  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will 
be postponed.


          Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 112-54.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike sections 2 and 3, redesignate section 4 as section 
     3, and insert after section 1 the following:

     SEC. 2. CONSIDERATIONS AND PROCEDURES IN FINALIZING 
                   GREENHOUSE GAS REGULATIONS.

       In the interest of properly considering the importance of 
     energy to the national security of the United States, before 
     finalizing any greenhouse gas regulation the Administrator of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency--
       (1) shall provide a notice period of no less than 30 days 
     specifically to the affected greenhouse gas producers 
     proposed to be regulated and allow industry-specific comments 
     to be submitted to the Administrator regarding the economic 
     impact of the proposed regulation on the regulated industry; 
     and
       (2) provide an opportunity for the regulated industry to 
     request and receive a 60-day extension of such comment period 
     during which the Administrator shall conduct a study to be 
     submitted to Congress regarding--
       (A) the effect of the proposed regulation on the level of 
     greenhouse gas reduction;
       (B) the effect of the proposed regulation on energy 
     production levels;
       (C) the feasibility of implementation of the regulation on 
     the entities being regulated;
       (D) the effect of the proposed regulation on the 
     availability of energy to consumers; and
       (E) the adverse environmental effects of delaying 
     implementation of the proposed regulation.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 203, the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I am going to take a slightly different 
perspective and ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Again, I am hoping, I know there are a lot of letters that my good 
friend from Michigan says that he has, and any time you put forward 
legislation that trade groups send word out to membership and say, this 
is going to save you a bucket full of money, and you better jump on the 
bandwagon, and there is no alternative or there is no basis of 
understanding the underpinnings of what we are doing, then you get that 
kind of praise.
  I hope that many people who are with the industry, having practiced 
the law, and I have seen some of the mountains that all industries have 
to climb, I think we can find a reasonable way of functioning.
  I just want to put in the Record that the industry, which is part of 
the drive of my friends on the other side, the oil and gas industry 
does generate 9.237 million jobs, $1 trillion contributed to the 
economy, $178 billion paid to the U.S. Treasury or to the government in 
royalties and bonus payments, and $95.6 billion in taxes, income taxes, 
$194 billion invested to improve the environmental performance of its 
products, and $58.4 billion invested in low- and zero-carbon emission 
technologies from 2000 to 2008.

                              {time}  1610

  I encourage them to keep going. But the way that you keep going is 
not to eliminate the oversight body, but you work with it. And my 
amendment is very clear. I create a pathway for the industry to be 
engaged on any rulemaking. It shall provide a notice period of no less 
than 30 days specifically to the affected greenhouse gas producers--and 
this is a sort of pipeline for the industry--proposed to be regulated 
and allow industry-specific comments to be submitted to the 
administrator separate and apart from the public comment period and to 
discuss the economic impact of the proposed regulation; provide for an 
opportunity for the regulated industry to request and receive a 60-day 
extension. And we should take into consideration the effect of the 
proposed regulation on greenhouse gas emissions.
  These companies have employees living in our community. And it is 
noted that Houston, the Houston area to Huntsville has some of the 
largest pollutants in the air. We should also consider the effect of 
the proposed regulation has on energy production, the feasibility of 
the implementation of the regulation on the entities being regulated, 
the effect of the proposed regulation on the availability of energy to

[[Page 5309]]

consumers, and the adverse environmental effects of delaying 
implementation of the proposed regulation.
  It allows a discussion that may not be at the level that we would 
like it today. I can't imagine, and I guess my friend on the other side 
of the aisle will come up and show me all the letters that he's saying 
that are supporting legislation that completely obliterates the 
opportunity for any governmental oversight. I disagree. I want to know 
the question of whether or not we have had the kinds of discussions 
that warrant a deliberative process and to bring about a concept of 
listening to industry and industry listening on the question of air 
pollutants.
  I hold up the mayor's task force on the health effectiveness. It 
talks about Houston. But I'm not going to narrow this to Houston. 
Wherever there are companies that are refineries, as they so discussed, 
we are not trying to undermine that work. But does anyone want to live 
in China with the air pollutants that they have?
  Let me just say that what we are addressing is a question of balance. 
My amendment provides input by the industry and by the EPA 
collaborating on how this will impact going forward. I would like you 
to support my amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I would like to yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), the chairman of the 
Environment and the Economy Subcommittee.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for up to 
5 minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I would like to thank my colleague from Kentucky for the 
time, and I appreciate this opportunity to really talk about this.
  I rise reluctantly to oppose my friend from Houston. I know she has a 
lot of her constituents who work in the fossil fuel industry and the 
refining industry and the refinery section, but parts of the amendment 
do some disastrous things to the bill.
  First of all, it strikes most of the base text. We are here today--
and I understand her position of wanting industry to listen, we want 
EPA to listen. The whole debate, why we're down here, is we want EPA to 
listen. And so as we address this debate, her amendment would strike 
most of the base text. And the whole reason why we're here is to get 
the attention of the EPA and respond to the people who sent us here to 
not hurt and harm job creation.
  My friends, Ranking Member Waxman and Markey, their bill did not pass 
the legislative process. It didn't go through both Chambers and did not 
get signed by the President. Why? Because we understood what would have 
happened. We successfully argued the debate that energy costs go up. If 
you price carbon, you raise the cost of electricity. If you price 
carbon, you raise the cost of manufacturing. If you price carbon, you 
raise the cost of gasoline. Now in this recessionary economy, do we 
want to do that? And do we want to give the Environmental Protection 
Agency the sole authority without our doing the process that I think 
the legislative process allows us to do, to talk about the winners and 
the losers, the give and take?
  What was decided in the last Congress was the legislative process 
could not pass this because it was too controversial and it would 
affect jobs. It would affect jobs. And this is what we are all 
concerned about.
  The last round of the Clean Air Act where you could really talk about 
toxic emittents cost thousands of jobs in southern Illinois, cost 
thousands of jobs in Kentucky and cost thousands of jobs in the Ohio 
Valley. Again, you go back to the basic premise if you price carbon.
  So what my colleague's amendment does is it says let's keep the EPA 
pricing of emittents that are not toxic--carbon dioxide is not a toxic 
emittent. It's not nitrous oxide, it's not sulfur dioxide, it's not a 
particulate matter, and it's not a criteria pollutant under the EPA and 
the Clean Air Act. So we're saying, don't regulate emittents that 
aren't toxic; don't put a price on carbon that will cost jobs. So 
that's why we need to reject this.
  Now, in debates on the other amendments, this isn't the only attack 
on the fossil fuel industry. Greenhouse gas is just one rule coming 
down. Then we've got boiler MCH, we've got mercury MCH, we've got 
cooling towers, we've got coal ash, we've got the transport rule, all 
separate rules, and these will affect the refining industry. Most of 
these regulations are new regulations coming down from the EPA to 
destroy the fossil fuel sector that raises costs and destroys jobs.
  So my colleague's amendment, what it does is it doesn't change the 
reason why we're here. The reason why we're here is saying, EPA, stop. 
If it's a good enough policy, it can pass the legislative body. But do 
you know what? It wasn't a good enough policy to pass a Democrat-
controlled Senate. And it wasn't good enough policy to get a bill to 
the President to sign into law.
  So why is it a good policy to let unelected bureaucrats in the 
Environmental Protection Agency move on a process to destroy jobs? 
Let's be held accountable. If we want to do that, let's cast our votes. 
What we're casting our votes today for is to keep the cost of power low 
and save jobs, create jobs and grow jobs. If you want job creation, we 
support the underlying bill. We do not support any amendment that puts 
off telling the EPA to stop and desist and do no more.
  Again, the basic premise of the climate debate is putting a price on 
carbon emission that is not toxic. And by putting a price on there, you 
raise the cost of energy that everybody uses. You raise the cost of 
home heating, automobiles, electricity and the like.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I yield 15 seconds to the ranking member, 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you for yielding to me.
  This bill, the EPA does not put a price on carbon. The EPA is not 
setting up a cap-and-trade program. The EPA is only saying, in new 
facilities with large amounts of carbon emissions, put in efficiency 
standards so that you can reduce those emissions. That's all.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman.
  My friend from Illinois, have I got an amendment for you. I'm 
answering your concern.
  My amendment says it requires, before finalizing emission regulations 
on greenhouse gas producers, the EPA must provide the producer with 
adequate notice of at least 30 days. The provision would also allow for 
industry input, encouraging collaboration between EPA and energy 
providers during the regulation process.
  Currently, the EPA does not have a minimum time requirement. It also 
gives another 60-day extension. This is about national security because 
air pollutants and then no energy, bad on one side and bad on the 
other. Let's get together. Because we can't dismiss any of these energy 
sources, but they need to be better. And how can we, since this is 
supposed to be the Supreme Court Constitution side, how can you dismiss 
the constitutional right that EPA has to regulate?
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. This is an amendment 
for them.
  Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment No. 37 to H.R. 
910, ``Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011.'' H.R. 910 prematurely 
eliminates the responsibilities of the Environmental Protection Agency 
to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. My amendment would protect our 
national security by considering industry specific energy providers 
that are uniquely connected to our national security. This measure 
would expand the opportunity to garner industry input during the 
rulemaking process, and would provide the Environmental Protection 
Agency with a timeframe to engage with the industry during the process.
  Madam Chair, this amendment requires that before finalizing emissions 
regulations on greenhouse gas producers, the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) must provide the producer with adequate notice of at least 
30 days. This provision would also allow for industry input, 
encouraging collaboration between the EPA and energy providers during

[[Page 5310]]

the regulation process. Currently, the EPA does not have a minimum time 
requirement.
  By mandating industry engagement during the rule making process We 
will ensure that the proposed regulations do not negatively impact 
industry jobs and domestic energy. This amendment would force a 
discussion between the government and the industry during We rule 
making process so that jobs can be maintained, U.S. dependence on 
foreign oil can be decrease, and the Supreme Court's confirmed 
responsibilities of the Environmental Protection Agency will not be 
extinguished by short sighted legislation.
  As the Representative for Houston, the nation's energy capital, I am 
committed to finding a balance that will support continued growth in 
the energy industry while protecting the environment.
  My amendment to H.R. 910 provides emissions producers in the energy 
industry the ability to engage in discussions and studies with the EPA. 
The provisions in this amendment will encourage communication between 
the EPA and energy providers throughout the regulation process.
  Americans should not have to risk living with highly polluted air. We 
must not shy away from the importance of the Clean Air Act and the role 
of the Environmental Protection Agency. This country needs energy. We 
utilize on and off shore drilling exploration. We must ensure that the 
industries impacted are engaged in the process while simultaneously 
regulating the affects of green house gas. This is crucial to the daily 
lives of Americans.
  The Clean Air Act provides the EPA with the authority to regulate 
emissions reduction. This authority was upheld by the Supreme Court's 
decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. Any attempt to strip the EPA of this 
responsibility would undermine the Clean Air Act and exacerbate global 
warming.
  The EPA must be allowed to regulate the emission of greenhouse gases. 
The climate change caused by these emissions affects temperature, 
causes extreme weather and dramatically reduces air quality, resulting 
in asthma, respiratory disease and lung cancer. The EPA projects that 
continued improvements in air quality under the Clean Air Act will save 
more than a trillion dollars by 2020, and prevent 230,000 deaths per 
year. By allowing the EPA to protect our environment now, we provide 
security for future generations.
  Prohibiting the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions to 
ensure clean air and slow the rate of climate change will have lasting 
consequences. We must, however, also consider the consequence to the 
energy industry.
  H.R. 910 simply takes the wrong approach. Instead of focusing on 
developing standards upon which both the Environmental Protection 
Agency and the affected industries agree, it attempts to remove the 
Environmental Protection Agency from the process. Thereby baring the 
industry from developing standards upon which they can all agree. It is 
a matter of fairness. The EPA would ensure that industries would have a 
minimum standard to follow. This measure would ensure the industry 
would be involved when determining the best practices to ensure that 
reasonableness of those regulations.
  Madam Chair, my amendment is essential to provide greater 
consideration to this sensitive issue by affording an opportunity for 
energy providers to state the impact that the proposed rule would have 
on their industry. This amendment will forge important compromises 
between the EPA and the energy industry. I urge my colleagues to join 
me in supporting my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will 
be postponed.


                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. McNerney

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in House Report 112-54.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       In section 330(b)(2)(C) of the Clean Air Act, as added by 
     section 2 of the bill, after ``demonstration programs'' 
     insert ``and voluntary programs''.

                              {time}  1620

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 203, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McNerney) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Madam Chair, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 910.
  Let's be crystal clear about two things. The bill we are considering 
today, which I will call the dirty air act, is an attack on science, 
and it's bad policy that will harm the American people. The world's 
scientific experts overwhelmingly agree that climate change is 
happening, it's primarily caused by human activities, and it has 
harmful consequences.
  However, despite our disagreements about the merits of H.R. 910, I am 
offering an amendment that I think we can all support. My amendment is 
pro-environment, pro-consumer, and pro-business to make sure that our 
country can continue to administer voluntary programs to reduce 
pollution, improve public health, and address climate change.
  Mr. UPTON. Madam Chair, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McNERNEY. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. UPTON. We are prepared to accept the agreement.
  Mr. McNERNEY. I thank the gentleman.
  As currently written, H.R. 910 prohibits the EPA from taking action 
to control greenhouse gas emissions. However, the bill provides a few 
narrow exceptions, such as allowing for the continuation of statutorily 
authorized research, development, and demonstration programs meant to 
combat climate change. My amendment simply clarifies that voluntary 
programs to control climate change are also exempted from the bill's 
prohibitions and can continue to take place.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Cuellar

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in House Report 112-54.
  Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       In section 330 of the Clean Air Act, as added by section 2 
     of the bill, amend subsection (a) to read as follows:
       ``(a) Definition.--In this section, the term `greenhouse 
     gas' means any of the following:
       ``(1) Carbon dioxide.
       ``(2) Methane.
       ``(3) Nitrous oxide.
       ``(4) Hydrofluorocarbons.
       ``(5) Perfluorocarbons.
       ``(6) Sulfur hexafluoride.
       In section 330(b) of the Clean Air Act, as added by section 
     2 of the bill--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), strike ``under this Act'' and 
     insert ``under title I or title V of this Act''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B), strike ``The definition'' and 
     insert ``For purposes of title I and title V only, the 
     definition'';
       (2) in paragraph (2)(A), strike ``Notwithstanding paragraph 
     (4)(B), implementation'' and insert ``Implementation''; and
       (3) strike paragraph (4) and redesignate paragraph (5) 
     accordingly.
       Strike section 3 of the bill (and redesignate section 4 of 
     the bill as section 3).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 203, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Cuellar) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Chair, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to 
support my amendment.
  The intent of my amendment is quite narrow. This amendment makes the 
underlying legislation a question of authority, not a question of 
science. The amendment strikes the finding of the language from the 
particular bill. This ensures that H.R. 910 is only about Article I of 
the Constitution, giving the U.S. Congress the right to say whether the 
EPA can or cannot regulate greenhouse gas.
  Also, the amendment preserves the authority of the agency to improve 
the

[[Page 5311]]

efficiency of automobiles and light trucks, an issue on which there is 
widespread agreement. While H.R. 910 intends to exempt auto standards, 
the legislation would stop the EPA from improving on any future car 
efficiency standards. This amendment does not remove any enforcement 
power the EPA has previously exercised since enactment of the Clean Air 
Act.
  At the same time, this amendment does not authorize new regulatory 
initiatives beyond what the agency has done for decades. For example, 
the agency is in no way authorized by the amendment to undertake low 
carbon fuel standards or new emission guidelines for permitting 
obligations for stationary sources.
  Finally, my amendment refines the definition of H.R. 910 by removing 
water vapor. This is consistent with the legislation we have considered 
in the past of what is and isn't greenhouse gas. Water vapor is not a 
long-term harmful warming cause.
  In short, this amendment makes the underlying legislation a question 
of the EPA's authority granted under the Clean Air Act.
  Madam Chair, I thank you for the consideration of this amendment. I 
urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I rise in opposition to my good friend from 
Texas, Mr. Cuellar's amendment. It may be well intentioned, but it is 
poorly drafted. He may not have intended it, but if we were to accept 
it, by allowing the EPA to regulate anything under title 2, he would 
give the EPA authority not only to regulate tailpipe emissions from 
cars and trucks, but also authority to regulate trains, planes, and any 
other mobile source. I don't know that that was his intent, but that is 
certainly the effect of the amendment.
  We oppose the amendment for that reason, for the drafting reason. We 
also oppose the amendment because it is the majority's opinion that we 
need, after 2017, to have one regulator for mobile sources, and that 
regulator is NHTSA, the National Highway Transportation Safety 
Administration. This amendment would have three regulators: NHTSA, EPA, 
and the State of California.
  We have been very careful in the drafting of the underlying bill to 
make sure that the existing standards for tailpipe emissions stay in 
place. This bill does not change that. It would prevent EPA from 
issuing regulations for CO2 emissions for tailpipes, but the 
underlying bill does not prohibit regulating the various emissions 
under NHTSA and the State of California for tailpipe emissions that 
actually affect fuel economy.
  The only thing even without this bill that the EPA would have the 
ability to regulate are the emissions out of the coolant of the air 
conditioning systems. They have absolutely no effect on fuel economy. 
So we oppose the amendment.
  With that, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Olson), and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control 
that time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas is 
recognized for 3 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OLSON. I thank the chairman of the committee.
  Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. H.R. 910 was 
carefully written to provide the auto industry with greater certainty 
by streamlining the regulatory process with only one fuel economy 
regulator--NHTSA--from 2017 onward.
  This amendment would remove that provision by requiring that we 
continue to have three separate regulators--the EPA, NHTSA, and 
California--setting fuel economy standards. This is wasteful and 
duplicative spending at a time when government should be more efficient 
and providing greater certainty for customers.
  This amendment would allow the EPA to set low carbon fuel standards 
that would equate to nothing more than a carbon tax at the pump. In a 
weak economy, this administration has disregarded studies which have 
concluded that greenhouse gas regulations will increase energy costs 
and destroy jobs.
  An AP headline today read: ``Rising Oil Prices Beginning to Hurt U.S. 
Economy.'' These regulations will only force Americans to pay more. 
Furthermore, it is Congress, not the EPA, that has constitutional 
authority to decide if or how greenhouse gases should be regulated.
  My home State of Texas has improved its air quality and increased its 
energy production even as we are having the largest population growth 
in America.
  Our legislation allows America to find commonsense solutions that 
provide an affordable, reliable energy supply for our Nation, as well 
as providing much-needed certainty to an unstable job market.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and support the 
underlying bill, H.R. 910.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Chair, I thank my colleague from Houston and my 
colleague from Dallas also. Just because we drafted this doesn't mean 
it was poor drafting. With all due respect, if they have a problem with 
whether they want to put language there on science, that is one thing. 
My amendment is on the same page as what they are trying to do. My 
amendment just strikes the findings. What we want to do is H.R. 910 is 
only about Article I of the Constitution, giving the U.S. Congress the 
right to say whether EPA can or cannot regulate greenhouse gas.
  This should not be a question of science. I think this should be a 
question of authority. We are on the same page, but I see that the 
majority wants to keep the findings, and I can understand that. I just 
ask, Madam Chairwoman, the support of this particular amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Madam Chair, I think we have the right to close. How much 
time is remaining on each side?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson) does have the 
right to close and has 1 minute remaining, and the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Cuellar) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. CUELLAR. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Chair, again, my amendment is just about saying that H.R. 910 
should be article I of the Constitution. The question is, does Congress 
have the right to regulate or do we let the bureaucrats decide? This is 
what my amendment does. It just says that we, the Members of Congress, 
should decide whether the EPA can or cannot regulate greenhouse gas. 
Again, this is a question of authority and should not be a question of 
science.
  With that, Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLSON. I yield the balance of my time to my colleague from 
Michigan (Mr. Upton).
  Mr. UPTON. Madam Chair, I would just urge again my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).
  The amendment was rejected.


          Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Murphy of Connecticut

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in House Report 112-54.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 10, line 6, after subparagraph (C), insert the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) Technical assistance.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to 
     provide technical assistance to States or groups of States 
     for the implementation of regulations those States have 
     adopted or may adopt concerning the limitation of greenhouse 
     gas emissions, including providing any data developed in 
     accordance with the rules or actions repealed by subsection 
     (b).''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 203, the gentleman

[[Page 5312]]

from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, this amendment is fairly simple. While the underlying 
bill, though, I think very wrongly prevents the EPA from going forward 
on regulating greenhouse gases, my amendment affirms that state-run 
greenhouse gas programs will not be affected by the underlying 
legislation.
  My amendment simply clarifies that language, by keeping in practice 
the longstanding tradition whereby the EPA will be able to continue 
providing technical assistance for States like mine who have taken 
action on their own to combat climate change. I think this is a good 
and perfecting amendment. Unfortunately, it doesn't do enough to allow 
me to support this legislation.
  I can't support this legislation, because, as many have said before, 
it is simply an affront, an attack on science, on 99 percent of peer 
reviewed articles which have supported the idea that the United States 
needs to do something as 5 percent of the world's population and 25 
percent of the world's pollution. We have 230,000 deaths that have been 
prevented by the Clean Air Act, and the economic benefits outweigh the 
costs of it by a 3-to-1 margin.
  But even if you set aside the scientific debate, there are dozens of 
other reasons why we should be supportive of the United States and the 
EPA taking a strong role on the issue of regulating greenhouse gases. 
It is an affront to the millions of unemployed workers in this country 
who are asking for leadership from this Congress on developing a new 
economy in the area of clean energy, to allow the EPA the ability to 
join other nations around the world in putting a downward pressure on 
carbon emissions so that we can have an upward pressure on the number 
of new clean energy jobs that this country can create. But even if you 
set aside that argument, even if you set aside the science, set aside 
the jobs argument, from a national security perspective, we need to go 
forward with these EPA regulations, or, in the absence, we need to be 
passing legislation here in the United States Congress.
  We continue to send abroad American dollars to petro-dictators who 
use it to funnel money to the very people that are seeking to attack 
this nation. From a national security standpoint, we need to be moving 
forward with a greenhouse gas strategy.
  I am proposing this amendment, though, because for all of the 
naysayers, for all of the people who talk about doomsday and Armageddon 
if these EPA regulations are to go into effect, I'd like them to come 
to Connecticut, I'd like them to come to the 10 States that are part of 
the RGGI carbon emissions regime in which we have seen what smart 
regulation of carbon can do. We have set an aggressive standard in our 
RGGI system whereby we are seeking a 10 percent reduction in carbon, 
and we're doing it through the dreaded cap-and-trade regime that many 
on the other side have talked about for years.
  What have we seen in Connecticut? The jury is in, the results are in, 
and we have in the 10 RGGI States saved enough energy to equal the 
cumulative input of 442,000 homes. We've saved an immense amount of 
energy. Now by doing that, what's happened to cost? Well, guess what? 
Cost has plummeted. We have saved $744 million for consumers in 
Connecticut. Why? We've decreased demand for energy, and so we have 
decreased cost. We have saved energy and we have decreased cost through 
a system of carbon control not dissimilar to ones we've talked about in 
this Congress and not dissimilar to what we are looking at at the EPA 
today. I propose this amendment as a way of simply allowing States to 
move forward with what I think have been very beneficial carbon 
reduction regimes in the absence of Federal control.
  I think it's a sad day that we're here talking about this today. It 
used to be that Republicans and Democrats could at the very least agree 
on clean air. We could at the very least agree on the fact that 
pollution was an issue which we should address. And the fact that that 
is now a subject of disagreement, I think, is a grave statement on how 
far the Republican Party has come over the last decade.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SCALISE. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
Pompeo).
  Mr. POMPEO. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Murphy 
amendment.
  I heard my colleague speak. He talked about it being a sad day, a day 
when Republicans and Democrats cannot agree about the importance of 
environmental safety and clean air. I could not disagree more. Those of 
us on our side care deeply to make sure we've got clean air and clean 
water and safe drinking water. We care deeply about that. It is not a 
sad day.
  I've been here in Congress for 90 days. Yesterday marked 3 months on 
station. The Democrats have been talking about jobs bills. Where are 
the jobs bills? Well, here's one. Here's the first of many. If we can 
begin to peel away the burden and the disaster that are the regulations 
that EPA is beginning to place on our country, then we will once again 
create an environment where the private sector can create jobs, where 
we can once again create manufacturing jobs.
  Until January 5 of this year, I was in the manufacturing sector. I 
was making things in the private sector. And I watched as government 
got in the way and made it expensive, drove up the cost of energy so 
that our products were not competitive. We are now, beginning with H.R. 
910, to peel that back, to take on the task of restoring opportunity 
for Americans once again to manufacture here in our country, for those 
folks who are struggling to begin once again to afford energy for 
themselves, for their families, and for our small businesses.
  I oppose the Murphy amendment because it guts what we're trying to do 
in H.R. 910, which is to once again put America back on a course that 
says we're going to have safe air, we're going to have clean drinking 
water, but we're going to do it in a way where the private sector can 
create jobs, we can grow our economy, and we will not have to have the 
unemployment rate that we have struggled through for the last 2\1/2\ 
years.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. May I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Connecticut has 30 seconds 
remaining, and the gentleman from Louisiana has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I would inquire of the gentleman as to how he thinks this amendment 
guts the underlying legislation. All this amendment does is simply 
allow for the EPA to continue working with States on their own systems. 
I think the hyperbole has gotten a little out of control from the 
Republican side. This is simply seeking to assist States in the work 
that they are continuing to do today. It does absolutely nothing to gut 
the underlying legislation, and it just adds clarifying language to 
allow States to move forward with their own systems of controlling 
greenhouse gases.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1640

  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Chair, we are here today because the EPA has 
continued to push this effort to pass a national energy tax. It was 
tried through cap-and-trade over the last year and a half. That bill 
went through the legislative process and was defeated in a bipartisan 
way. This is not a Republican or a Democrat issue when we're talking 
about preventing the EPA from running millions of jobs out of our 
country, and that is literally what's at stake here.
  Believe me, as people look through the letters of support and as we 
comb

[[Page 5313]]

through the days of testimony that we've had on this over the last 2 
years with regard to this concept of the EPA's regulating greenhouse 
gases, Madam Chair, we are talking about a proposal by the EPA that, 
according to the National Association of Manufacturers, would run 3 
million jobs out of our country.
  Now, we should all be here working feverishly to create jobs. In 
fact, our legislation, the National Energy Tax Prevention Act, will 
create jobs because it will remove the uncertainty that exists today 
where so many employers, so many of our job creators, are scared to 
death of the threat now of regulation coming over; because, again, 
Congress rejected their proposal for the national energy tax through 
cap-and-trade in a bipartisan way.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman from Louisiana yield to the 
gentleman from California for that purpose?
  Mr. SCALISE. If the gentleman has a parliamentary inquiry, I don't 
think that comes out of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIR. If the gentleman from Louisiana yields for the 
parliamentary inquiry it will come out of his time.
  Mr. SCALISE. I yield for a parliamentary inquiry.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, my inquiry is: Must the debate be on the 
pending amendment or can the debate be on a broader bill?
  Mr. SCALISE. I reclaim my time, Madam Chair, because I am talking 
specifically about the amendment. If I am allowed the opportunity to 
continue with my comments, I have to finish a thought first before we 
talk specifically about the amendment.
  First of all, if you look at what happened by legislation, they tried 
legislation, and the legislation failed. A bipartisan vote defeated 
that legislation. Then they came back with regulation. So this proposed 
regulation is being addressed by our bill, the underlying bill.
  The amendment by the gentleman from Connecticut proposes to create a 
loophole to continue to allow the EPA to get their nose back under that 
tent to regulate greenhouse gases. You can just look at the language to 
see that it allows for that loophole that we're trying to close.
  First of all, in a bipartisan fashion, Madam Chair, Congress has said 
we don't want the EPA imposing the national energy tax that cap-and-
trade would propose. We don't want those millions of jobs leaving our 
country. Then they came back through regulation, and they said, Well, 
we'll just do it through regulation, a de facto cap-and-trade energy 
tax, because they couldn't get it passed through Congress.
  Of course, anyone who has taken civics knows you're supposed to go 
through the legislative process if you want to change policy. So, if 
our underlying bill passes the House, then they won't be able to go 
through regulation; but the gentleman's amendment would actually say 
that there would be a loophole even though Congress would say, No, you 
don't have the authority to do that. You can't run those jobs to places 
like China where they have absolutely no environmental controls that we 
have today, which are dramatically better than those they have in China 
and India and in some of the other countries, countries which would be 
happy to take the millions of American jobs that would flee this 
country if they were able to get away with it.
  We have to reject this amendment and take that loophole away. Don't 
give them that loophole to continue to regulate greenhouse gases 
through a de facto cap-and-trade national energy tax. So I would ask 
that we reject this amendment and pass the underlying bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  In response to the gentleman from California's parliamentary inquiry, 
remarks are to be confined to the question under debate.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent that we expand the 
debate by 2 minutes on each side on this particular amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from California?
  Mr. UPTON. One and one. Why don't we do 1 minute each.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Two and two. Let's do 2 minutes each.
  Mr. UPTON. We can accept one and one.
  Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent that the majority and the 
minority each have an additional 1 minute on this amendment.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Reserving the right to object, I would plead with my 
chairman to agree to an additional minute to each side because I think 
that there is an important issue that is being ignored in this 
particular amendment. Each side may not need to take up the 2 minutes.
  Mr. UPTON. We're working against the clock a little bit; so I would 
prefer that we just do one and one and end it there on this amendment.
  Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent that each side have 1 additional 
minute on this amendment.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I ask unanimous consent that each side have 1\1/2\ 
minutes.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Michigan for 1 minute for each side?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise) and the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) each will control 1 extra 
minute.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the majority for their graciousness in allowing 
for a clarification.
  This amendment simply says all that you suggest in your bill would 
become law, if it were passed, with the exception that we would 
continue to allow the EPA to give technical information to the States. 
It does not replace the other restrictions on EPA. It only allows them 
to give technical information to the States, which they do already 
without regulating greenhouse gases, under the United Nations Framework 
Convention on Climate Change, which was ratified by the Senate in 1992 
after submittal by President Bush. Because of this international 
agreement, we try to keep track of what's going on, and the States 
should be able to talk to the EPA and to get expert advice from the EPA 
unless you think the States should not be allowed to do anything on 
their own, which would be something beyond the scope of this amendment.
  So I would urge my colleagues who support their bill not to be 
against this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SCALISE. I appreciate the offer of the gentleman from California, 
but I cannot adhere to a United Nations framework. I cannot adhere to 
the ability for the EPA to continue to keep their nose under the tent 
to provide whether it's called ``technical assistance'' or whether they 
try to continue to push things, because the EPA does interact with 
States on other issues, and I surely would not want to see some kind of 
situation where the EPA is going to try to hold something else over a 
State's head and use this threat, because they really do want the 
chance to regulate greenhouse gases and impose an energy tax.
  So I think we've debated it very thoroughly. I understand your 
position, and I respect the gentleman from Connecticut's position. I 
just don't agree. I think we need to preserve American jobs and let the 
States do what they already do such a good job of doing; but we need to 
tell the EPA that ``no'' means ``no.'' They've got their own role to 
play, and it's not regulating greenhouse gases.

                            American Iron and Steel Institute,

                                    Washington, DC, March 9, 2011.
     Hon. Fred Upton,
     Chairman, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rayburn 
         House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Upton: On behalf of the American Iron and 
     Steel Institute (AISI), I am pleased to offer our support for 
     H.R. 910,

[[Page 5314]]

     the Energy Tax Prevention Act (EPTA). This legislation is 
     necessary to prevent EPA from regulating greenhouse gases 
     (GHGs) from stationary sources under the Clean Air Act, 
     thereby removing a regulatory uncertainty that is impeding 
     domestic economic growth and job creation.
       AISI is comprised of 25 member companies, including 
     integrated and electric furnace steelmakers, and 140 
     associate and affiliate members who are suppliers to or 
     customers of the steel industry. AISI's member companies 
     represent approximately 80 percent of both U.S. and North 
     American steel capacity. The steel industry in the U.S. has 
     substantially reduced its GHG emissions over the past two 
     decades. The industry has reduced its energy-intensity by 30% 
     since 1990, and reduced while GHG emissions by 35% over the 
     same time period. The industry has well exceeded the Kyoto 
     Protocol targets, is committed to continued improvement, and 
     hasn't waited for Congress or EPA to act.
       The domestic steel industry is both energy-intensive and 
     subject to substantial international competition. In 
     particular, this competition comes from nations such as 
     China, where no similar CO2-reduction legislation 
     or regulatory policies exist. In the absence of an 
     international agreement on GHG emissions reductions, EPA 
     regulation of stationary sources will only transfer 
     emissions--and high-value manufacturing jobs--overseas. This 
     will have a negative impact on domestic industry and will not 
     result in a net emissions reduction worldwide.
       As you know, the Clean Air Act was not written to regulate 
     greenhouse gas emissions, and is therefore the wrong 
     mechanism for EPA to use in this case. No policies have been 
     proposed to accompany the EPA regulations to address 
     competitiveness concerns of energy-intensive, trade-exposed 
     industries, such as steel. The result will be the ``leakage'' 
     of emissions and manufacturing jobs to competitor nations 
     without comparable regulations, which is problematic from 
     both the economic and environmental perspectives.
       If the EPA is allowed to proceed with its GHG regulations 
     from stationary sources, plants in the steel industry will be 
     forced to adhere to yet another level of new strict 
     regulations and be required to obtain costly permits. This 
     would be a devastating blow to investment and growth in the 
     industry, not to mention the implications of coupling these 
     regulations with the recession that has hit the country and 
     the manufacturing economy.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Thomas J. Gibson,
     President and Chief Executive Officer.
                                  ____


             [From Americans for Prosperity, March 3, 2011]

Americans for Prosperity Applauds Representatives Collin Peterson, Dan 
          Boren and Nick Rahall for Supporting EPA Preemption

       AFP today commended three senior Democratic 
     representatives--Collin Peterson of Minnesota, Dan Boren of 
     Oklahoma and Nick Rahall of West Virginia--for cosponsoring 
     the Inhofe-Upton bill to clarify that the Environmental 
     Protection Agency (EPA) has no authority to regulate 
     greenhouse gasses under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
       ``It's great to see three leading Democratic congressmen 
     speak with such a clear voice that EPA should not be allowed 
     to go around Congress to adopt job-killing global warming 
     regulations,'' said AFP vice President for Policy Phil 
     Kerpen. ``These regulations amount to a backdoor effort to 
     adopt restrictions similar to the cap-and-trade bill Congress 
     and the American people already rejected.''
       ``AFP commends free market heroes like Senator Inhofe and 
     Congressman Upton for challenging unelected bureaucracies 
     like the EPA when they try to bypass the American people,'' 
     said president of AFP, Tim Phillips.
       The Clean Air Act is so ill-suited to being twisted as a 
     global warming bill that EPA resorted to disregarded 
     statutory thresholds and demanding that states amend their 
     laws to conform. This so-called Tailoring Rule is being 
     contested in court and experts predict it is unlikely to 
     survive the legal challenge.
       ``Kudos to Boren, Peterson, and Rahall for standing up to 
     the EPA and doing what's right,'' Kerpen concluded. ``I hope 
     more Democrats will put jobs, the economy, and legitimate 
     legislative process ahead of environmental extremism and join 
     them.''
                                  ____



                                     Americans For Tax Reform,

                                    Washington, DC, March 7, 2011.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of Americans for Tax Reform 
     (ATR) and millions of taxpayers nationwide, I urge you to 
     support Rep. Fred Upton's (R-Mich.) Energy Tax Prevention Act 
     of 2011. If passed, this legislation will return the 
     obligation of setting America's climate policy to Congress 
     from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
       Since losing the Cap-and-Trade debate, Democrats have 
     turned to the EPA to impose their radical environmental 
     agenda on this country. The impetus behind Cap-and-Trade was 
     to force Americans to move towards less efficient, more 
     expensive sources of energy. Similarly, the EPA is attempting 
     to achieve this end through the regulation of greenhouse 
     gases.
       Standing on legally precarious ground, the EPA is citing 
     the Clean Air Act as justification for its dubious agenda. 
     Employing the Clean Air Act for objectives it was never 
     intended to realize, the EPA has infringed on the legislative 
     responsibilities of Congress.
       The Energy Tax Prevention Act has been introduced to put a 
     stop to such regulatory overreach and abuse. Addressing one 
     of the most pressing problems facing this country, the Energy 
     Tax Prevention Act bars federal regulators from co-opting the 
     Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases.
       If the EPA continues on its current course, unelected 
     federal bureaucrats will continue to unilaterally dictate 
     ruinous economic policies. We should hold President Obama to 
     his stated commitment to reassess America's regulatory system 
     in the name of economic growth and fiscal responsibility. The 
     President should be reminded that the EPA's initiatives to 
     regulate greenhouse gasses would raise energy prices, destroy 
     businesses, and ship jobs overseas. These policies are 
     motivated not by science, and not out of concern for American 
     industry, but by ideology alone.
       Rep. Upton seeks to restore the role of the U.S. congress 
     in the development and implementation the nation's climate 
     and energy policy. Their bill is not a referendum on climate 
     change or greenhouse gases but rather who will set our 
     country's energy policy--elected Representatives or 
     unaccountable political appointees.
       In the interest of preserving our economic freedom, and the 
     proper authority of congress, please join me in supporting 
     the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011.
           Onward,
     Grover G. Norquist.
                                  ____

                                                    March 9, 2011.
     Re Upton-Inhofe Bill a Key Step Toward Stopping EPA's GHG 
         Regulations.
       Dear Chairman Upton and Chairman Whitfield: On January 2, 
     2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began 
     regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from stationary 
     sources. EPA's rules require industrial sites, power plants 
     and other businesses that emit GHGs above certain thresholds 
     to apply for a permit whenever they want to build or 
     modernize their facilities. In today's fragile economy, when 
     we need American businesses to be expanding at full speed, 
     these rules create uncertainty and delay.
       We welcome the efforts of lawmakers from both parties to 
     stop the EPA's harmful regulations so that business growth 
     and hiring can continue. We applaud the leadership that you 
     and Senator Inhofe are providing on this issue through the 
     introduction of The Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011 (H.R. 
     910). This bipartisan legislation is helping to keep 
     attention squarely focused on the issue and building momentum 
     toward a solution.
       Congress, not EPA, should be guiding America's energy 
     policy. Without action by lawmakers, EPA's regulations will 
     make it difficult to attract new manufacturing capacity and 
     jobs to the United States, let alone double U.S. exports in 
     five years, as President Obama has pledged. Moving your 
     legislation forward is a critical first step.
       We look forward to working with you to stop harmful 
     regulations and in doing so, strengthen the economic 
     recovery, support American manufacturing and create jobs.
           Sincerely,
       American Chemistry Council, American Coalition for Clean 
     Coal Electricity, American Forest & Paper Association, 
     American Iron and Steel Institute, American Petroleum 
     Institute, Brick Industry Association, CropLife America, 
     Industrial Minerals Association, National Association of 
     Manufacturers.
       National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, National 
     Lime Association, National Mining Association, National 
     Oilseed Processors Association, National Petrochemical and 
     Refiners Association, The Aluminum Association, The 
     Fertilizer Institute, U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
                                  ____

                                             American Public Power


                                                  Association,

                                     Washington, DC March 9, 2011.
     Hon. Fred Upton,
     Chairman, House Energy & Commerce Committee, Rayburn House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Ed Whitfield,
     Chairman, House Energy & Power Subcommittee, Rayburn House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Upton and Chairman Whitfield: On behalf of 
     the American Public Power Association, I am writing to 
     express our support for the Energy Tax Prevention Act. APPA 
     is the national service organization representing the 
     interests of over 2,000 community-owned, non-for-profit 
     electric utilities. These utilities include state public 
     power agencies, municipal electric utilities, and special 
     utility districts that provide electricity and other services 
     to over 46 million Americans.
       APPA believes that the Clean Air Act (CAA) is not 
     appropriately designed to address greenhouse gas (GHG) 
     emissions and that the Environmental Protection Agency's 
     (EPA) efforts to regulate such gases under the statute are 
     causing undue uncertainty

[[Page 5315]]

     for the electric utility sector and are likely to result in 
     unnecessarily high costs. In particular, APPA members are 
     concerned with the application of Best Available Control 
     Technologies (BACT) for GHG emissions under New Source Review 
     (NSR) and the planned establishment of Section 111 New Source 
     Performance Standards for GHGs for new, modified, and 
     existing electric power plants. No commercially available 
     technologies currently exist to reduce GHG emissions. APPA 
     also believes that many states will find that they need 
     additional time in order to implement any final EPA 
     regulatory action given state budget cuts, staff reductions, 
     and other administrative issues. For these reasons, APPA 
     supports congressional action to preempt EPA's authority to 
     regulate GHG emissions under the CAA.
       Instead, APPA believes Congress should address the issue of 
     climate change through new legislation and supports efforts 
     to do so on an economy-wide basis that properly balances 
     environmental goals with impacts on consumers and the 
     economy. Such legislation should create a new regime for 
     reducing GHG emissions that is separate and apart from the 
     CAA, which was created to address criteria pollutants for 
     human health protection.
       Thank you for your leadership on this important issue 
     affecting electric utilities. I hope you will feel free to 
     contact me or the APPA government relations staff with any 
     questions.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Mark Crisson,
                                                  President & CEO.

  Mr. SCALISE. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Waxman

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in House Report 112-54.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. 5. CONGRESSIONAL ACCEPTANCE OF SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS.

       Congress accepts the scientific findings of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency that climate change is 
     occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses 
     significant risks for public health and welfare.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 203, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Waxman) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I rise to offer an amendment, with my 
colleagues Representatives DeGette and Inslee, that recognizes the 
scientific reality of climate change.
  Our amendment states that Congress accepts EPA's scientific finding 
that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human 
activities, and poses significant risks for public health and welfare. 
This simple recognition is far from enough, but it is crucially 
important. As long as Congress pretends that climate change isn't 
occurring, we can justify not addressing it.
  Last month, the eminent scientific journal Nature wrote an editorial 
entitled, ``Into Ignorance.''

                              {time}  1650

  And I want to read from this editorial: ``Republicans on the Energy 
and Commerce Committee have made clear their disdain for climate 
science. At a subcommittee hearing, misinformation was presented as 
fact, truth was twisted, and nobody showed any inclination to listen to 
scientists. There has been an embarrassing display, not just for the 
Republican Party, but also for Congress and the U.S. citizens it 
represents.''
  The U.S. Congress has entered the intellectual wilderness. This 
amendment is a step out of that wilderness. It says we accept the 
scientific findings of EPA--and the best scientists in our country and 
around the world--that climate change is a serious threat to our health 
and welfare. And it recognizes that while we have the power to change 
the laws of our Nation, we cannot rewrite the laws of nature.
  It may be difficult for us to agree on a solution to climate change, 
but at least we should be able to agree that it is a real problem and 
one we need to address.
  I hope my colleagues will support this amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold).
  Mr. DOLD. Madam Chair, I believe in science. I also know that the 
Earth has been warming for some time. In fact, the underlying bill, 
H.R. 910, concludes by acknowledging there is scientific concern over 
the warming of the climate system and that addressing the climate 
change is an international issue.
  I believe that human activity is also playing a role. The question is 
how big a role. This amendment would have Congress adopt intentionally 
vague language on human involvement and the risks associated with 
climate change without defining the size and scope of human behavior 
and the risk to the environment.
  Madam Chair, I believe that we must reduce our dependence on foreign 
oil and expand research and development of clean energy sources and 
ensure that future generations of Americans have a clean and healthy 
environment. But I do not believe in the notion that the Waxman 
amendment puts forward that states that Congress shall only accept the 
scientific findings of the EPA. We should encourage open, transparent 
scientific studies, not limit our scientific findings to one government 
agency.
  We must work together in a bipartisan manner to promote clean energy 
and encourage greater energy efficiencies to guarantee that our 
children and grandchildren have a cleaner environment than we have 
today.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. I appreciate my Republican colleague's statement, but the 
clear fact of this bill is, if it passes, what does it do? It basically 
says that Sir Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, and Thomas Edison didn't 
know what they were talking about because this bill, in rather clear 
form, caters to a narrow sector of a narrow political interest to 
ignore clear science. And there is no way you can get around this or 
sweet-talk your way around this clear rejection of science.
  Now, this isn't just us. Who has cleared and said this statement that 
we seek to put in this bill is correct? Only the National Academy of 
Sciences, NOAA, the Department of Defense, the Centers for Disease 
Control, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical 
Union, the Geological Society of America, the American Association for 
the Advancement of Science, the American Institute of Physics, and the 
American Chemical Society. But one side of the aisle thinks that the 
tea party has greater scientific credibility, and that's who you are 
catering to when you refuse to adopt this amendment.
  Let's have a bipartisan statement of the problem so that we can have 
a bipartisan statement of the solution.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chair, I am the only speaker left, and I 
believe that I have the right to close. So if the gentleman from 
California could use the remainder of his time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has the right to 
close.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining; the 
gentleman from California has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.

[[Page 5316]]

  Madam Chair, this is an amendment that attempts to reverse the entire 
thrust of this legislation. In effect, it gives the proxy to the EPA to 
make determinations that will have vast impact on our economy without 
going through the usual legislative process. This is our job to make a 
determination on whether the Clean Air Act is the proper vehicle to 
deal with issues related to greenhouse gases.
  This is not a debate on the underlying science of climate change, and 
I think that has to be made clear. But if we do want to talk about the 
EPA's ability to mitigate climate change, let's focus on their own 
projections.
  EPA's analysis of the current rule states that it will only result in 
1/100 of a degree of lowering of the Earth's average temperature by the 
year 2100. Administrator Jackson herself stated before the Energy and 
Commerce Committee that EPA regulation will not ultimately be able to 
change the amount of CO2 that is accumulating in the 
atmosphere if other nations do not agree also to limit emissions. And 
they aren't, and they won't.
  So, regardless of whether or not Congress issues a scientific finding 
based upon a 10-minute amendment debate, we are faced with the 
indisputable fact that EPA greenhouse gas regulations will lead to 
billions upon billions of dollars leaving our economy with absolutely 
zero environmental benefit. This amendment flunks the cost-benefit 
analysis. It ought to be rejected.
  We are here today about protecting the economy, job creation, and 
stopping energy prices from skyrocketing. That's what will happen if 
this amendment is adopted. It should be rejected in the name of jobs 
and a healthy economy.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, to close, I yield the balance of my time to 
my colleague, who is a cosponsor of this legislation along with myself 
and Mr. Inslee, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
  Ms. DeGETTE. I thank the ranking member for allowing me to close.
  This amendment gives Members of the House what should be a very 
simple choice: recognize the overwhelming science or vote to deny the 
overwhelming science.
  We in Congress can certainly change the laws of this country, but 
last I heard we cannot change the laws of nature. There is no serious 
disagreement on the science of climate change. In fact, the findings 
have been confirmed by all leading scientific academies around the 
world. The National Academy of Sciences last year issued a series of 
comprehensive reports that are unambiguous. It says, for example, 
``Climate change is occurring. It is caused largely by human 
activities, and in many cases it is already affecting a broad range of 
human and natural systems.'' And even a team of scientists from UC 
Berkeley, who were told to try to disprove global climate change, just 
reported last week to a congressional committee that in fact global 
climate change is occurring.
  This is simple. This is clear. H.R. 910 represents an effort to deny 
and run away from science and reality. It ignores one of the chief 
drivers behind our need for a clean and modernized energy policy: 
massive and growing human consumption of carbon-based fuels.
  Last Congress, and again today, I chose to be on the side of those 
who acted to address a climate disaster and put into place the 
framework for an energy policy which this country so painfully goes 
without and so little can afford. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Vote ``yes'' on this amendment. Vote ``no'' on the underlying bill 
and stand with science.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  1700


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Quigley

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in House Report 112-54.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 5. GAO REPORT.

       Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a 
     report containing the results of a study of health care costs 
     in the United States as affected by the elimination of 
     Environmental Protection Agency regulation under this Act, as 
     compared to health care costs in the United States as would 
     be affected by the Environmental Protection Agency proceeding 
     with regulation in its role as determined in Massachusetts v. 
     EPA (549 U.S. 497 (2007)).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 203, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Quigley) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Chair, my amendment would require that the GAO 
report to Congress the results of a study of health care costs in the 
U.S. as affected by the elimination of EPA regulation under this act. 
Further, the report would also detail health care costs in the U.S. 
proceeding under the EPA's current regulatory authority as determined 
in 2007 in Massachusetts v. EPA.
  It is science, hard facts, and figures that have led hundreds of 
scientists to confirm that global warming is real. Despite the other 
numbers you may have heard, the most convincing one is that there are 
over 200 peer reviewed scientific studies that have determined that 
global warming is real and that man contributes to that, and exactly 
zero that have proved or shown evidence to the contrary.
  It was science that led the Congress to pass the Clean Air Act, the 
act which designated the EPA as the body charged with overseeing, 
adapting, and implementing these regulations. It was science that led 
the Supreme Court to rule in 2007 that the Environmental Protection 
Agency does in fact have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases.
  My amendment is simple. It directs the GAO to report the cost of 
health care under the Clean Air Act, and then to report the costs of 
health care with this bill passing as it modifies the amendment.
  In 2010 alone, the EPA reported the reduction in fine particulate and 
ozone pollution from the Clean Air Act prevented more than 160,000 
premature deaths, 130,000 heart attacks, 13 million lost workdays, and 
1.7 million asthma attacks. These are serious health issues that burden 
the government with serious bills.
  We face serious budgetary times. We may be out of a recession, but we 
are far from recovered. If we are committed to making the government 
more efficient and effective to cutting waste, fraud, and abuse, we 
must acknowledge that spending a smart dollar up front saves many 
dollars on the back end.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment that will allow 
the experts at the GAO to show us a world with the Clean Air Act and a 
world without. My estimation is that a world with less mercury in our 
water and less ozone in our air will cost far less in dollars and 
deaths than the opposite, but I will defer to the experts and look 
forward to their report on this subject.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HARPER. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Mississippi is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HARPER. This amendment filed by the gentleman from Illinois would 
require a GAO study to be completed, 1 year, analyzing how health care 
costs are affected if EPA does not proceed with regulation in its role 
as determined in Massachusetts v. EPA.

[[Page 5317]]

  You know, this case did not determine whether or how EPA should 
regulate greenhouse gases. To the contrary, it did not mandate that EPA 
move forward with global warming regulations, and it certainly did not 
direct the EPA to begin regulating tens of thousands or millions of 
stationary sources across the United States economy.
  In any event, no GAO study is needed because the EPA, itself, has 
already concluded that greenhouse gases pose no direct adverse health 
effects.
  Here's what the EPA has stated: ``Current and projected ambient 
greenhouse gas concentrations remain well below published thresholds 
for any direct adverse health effects, such as respiratory or toxic 
effects.''
  So even if the EPA had concluded that there were direct health 
impacts, EPA's own administrators concluded that the agency's 
greenhouse gas rules are not going to be effective in appreciably 
reducing temperatures or global emissions.
  Administrator Jackson has said: ``We will not ultimately be able to 
change the amount of CO2 that is accumulating in the 
atmosphere alone.'' If anything, EPA's global warming rules will cause 
global emissions to increase as U.S. manufacturing and industry goes to 
countries with much less stringent environmental laws.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Chair, I guess my response is, with all due 
respect, prove me wrong. If there is no health care risk, let the GAO 
independent analysis prove us wrong.
  But there's a lot at stake here, and I would defy anyone to say that 
greenhouse gases are not in and of themselves--putting aside the issue 
of global warming--dangerous because many of them are precursors to 
ozone. I live in Chicago, which is the morbidity and mortality capital 
of the United States for people who are afflicted with asthma, and 
there is a dramatic and direct impact of what ozone does to those 
people suffering from asthma.
  So prove me wrong. Show me how we're wrong on this. Let there be a 
study which goes to this, because if I'm wrong, no damage done. But if 
there is some danger here and we have decided that it is not worth our 
study, then we have done a grave disservice to the American public and 
put their lives at risk.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HARPER. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Chair, I want to thank the chairman of 
the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Upton, and the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Harper) for yielding time for me to speak on this 
amendment.
  I rise in strong opposition to the Quigley amendment because it 
represents an unnecessary use of case law in Massachusetts v. EPA. Some 
of what I say is repetitive. Mr. Harper has just said it, but it bears 
repeating, Madam Chair.
  This amendment requires the GAO to conduct a study analyzing how 
health care costs will be affected if the EPA does not proceed with 
regulation in its role as determined in Massachusetts v. EPA.
  Madam Chair, I would like to remind the author of the amendment, Mr. 
Quigley, that Massachusetts v. EPA did not determine whether or how the 
EPA should regulate greenhouse gases. Furthermore, a GAO study on this 
matter is not necessary because the EPA has already concluded that 
greenhouse gases have no adverse health effect.
  Specifically, the EPA has stated: ``Current and projected ambient 
greenhouse gas concentrations remain well below published thresholds 
for any direct adverse health effects, such as respiratory or toxic 
effects.''
  Opponents of this legislation have tried unsuccessfully to assert 
that the underlying bill will block the EPA from safeguarding public 
health from the effects of air pollution and will result in increased 
asthma attacks or other respiratory illnesses. Nothing could be further 
from the truth.
  Madam Chair, H.R. 910 does not affect the EPA's ability and 
responsibility to protect the public from hazardous air pollution. 
Regardless of whether or not EPA imposes these cap-and-trade 
regulations, the agency will continue to have the authority to regulate 
all of the high-priority pollutants that raise public health concerns.
  As an original cosponsor of H.R. 910, I strongly support the 
underlying bill to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from 
using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases.
  By avoiding these harmful regulations, H.R. 910 will save countless 
numbers of jobs and prevent the implementation of an energy tax that 
would cost our economy literally tens of billions of dollars when we 
can least afford it.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and 
support the underlying bill.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Chair, I want to point out the comment was made 
about the precursor to ozone. Thirty years of air pollution 
regulations. Ask the South Coast Air Basin in Los Angeles. It never 
regulated CO2 as a precursor to ozone because it was so 
miniscule that there are so many other issues that are absolutely 
essential to address that you didn't even look at that.
  And if you didn't think those of us in California, that we're working 
on air pollution, air quality, our county in San Diego went from 
``severe'' down to ``serious'' because we were successful. And it 
wasn't chasing ozone. I mean, not chasing CO2. It was 
tracing true toxic emissions.
  So when you talk about implementing these plans, understand you're 
talking about sacrificing efforts that are at true risk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Georgia has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
  The amendment was rejected.

                              {time}  1710


                  Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Polis

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in House Report 112-54.
  Mr. POLIS. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       In section 330 of the Clean Air Act, as proposed to be 
     added by section 2 of the bill, insert after subsection (a) 
     the following (and redesignate the subsequent subsections 
     accordingly):
       ``(b) Temporary Suspension for Public Health Emergencies.--
     The Administrator may by rule, after public notice and 
     comment, temporarily suspend the provisions of this section 
     if--
       ``(1) a detailed analysis and review by the Administrator 
     of the latest credible and peer-reviewed science shows ground 
     level ozone will pose significant dangers to public health;
       ``(2) extreme weather events pose significant danger to 
     public health;
       ``(3) an increase in food and waterborne pathogens pose 
     significant danger to public health; or
       ``(4) there are other significant threats to public health.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 203, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Polis) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, this amendment is simple, and I appreciate 
the rule making it in order. It allows the Environmental Protection 
Agency to continue protecting the American people from the greatest 
public health and environmental challenge in global history, global 
climate change.
  The overwhelming scientific evidence suggests that greenhouse gases 
and carbon pollution, if left unchecked, pose a significant threat to 
public health. This is not a scientific conclusion that anybody in the 
investigative community desires or wants. It is an unfortunate reality. 
I simply want the administrator to have the ability to temporarily 
unlock the handcuffs on

[[Page 5318]]

the bill if there is a significant threat to the public health.
  Let's walk ourselves through what this bill does. The bill tells the 
EPA, EPA, you have done your homework just like the Supreme Court told 
you to do, and every inch of credible science is telling you there is a 
danger to America's health. Yet, we here in Congress know better. We 
will pretend like there is not a danger to the American health. We 
won't allow you, the EPA, that we set up and charged with this, to pay 
attention to the warnings or protect Americans from the dangers.
  To me, that's a very dangerous directive, telling the EPA they can't 
act even though they know we are in danger. If there was a meteor 
hurtling towards us, I would hope that this body wouldn't pass a bill 
that tells NASA to ignore it, to step away from the telescope, 
specifically forbids them from telling people to get out of the way. 
Yet that's exactly what this bill does with the very real and present 
danger.
  I, for one, want the EPA to be able to protect me, and my family and 
my constituents and all American families when the overwhelming warning 
signs say they should do just that. But if this body sends a message to 
the contrary, at the very least we should be smart enough to include a 
temporary escape hatch, a safety valve that my amendment provides.
  Madam Chair, I am going to vote today to put America's health before 
big polluters. The other side of the aisle likes to skew the facts. And 
instead of paying attention to the warning signs, they protect their 
big polluter friends by confusing the facts. It's critical that we 
provide a safety valve that when there is a clear and present danger to 
the health of the American people we don't hamstring the very agency 
that we have set up to protect the health of the American people, and 
enable them to move forward to protect us.
  This endangerment finding, the title of the EPA's research on dangers 
to our health, was based on sound science and found that as climate 
change increases, so does ground ozone level, air- and water-borne 
pathogens, and mold and pollen allergens that affect and make health 
problems worse like asthma, respiratory irritation, and heart disease. 
We cannot oversimplify a very serious problem with no easy answers.

          [From the Federal Register, Tuesday, Dec. 15, 2009]

                Part V--Environmental Protection Agency

  40 cfr chapter i--endangerment and cause or contribute findings for 
 greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the clean air act; final rule

     ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
     40 CFR Chapter I
     [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171; FRL-9091-8]
     RIN 2060-ZA14
     Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse 
         Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act
       AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
       ACTION: Final rule.
       SUMMARY: The Administrator finds that six greenhouse gases 
     taken in combination endanger both the public health and the 
     public welfare of current and future generations. The 
     Administrator also finds that the combined emissions of these 
     greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor 
     vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas air 
     pollution that endangers public health and welfare under CAA 
     section 202(a). These Findings are based on careful 
     consideration of the full weight of scientific evidence and a 
     thorough review of numerous public comments received on the 
     Proposed Findings published April 24, 2009.
       DATES: These Findings are effective on January 14, 2010.
       ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action 
     under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171. All documents in 
     the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. 
     Although listed in the index, some information is not 
     publicly available, e.g., confidential business information 
     (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 
     statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
     material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly 
     available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
     materials are available either electronically through 
     www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA's Docket Center, 
     Public Reading Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 
     Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. This Docket 
     Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
     Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for 
     the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone 
     number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
       FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeremy Martinich, Climate 
     Change Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC-6207J), 
     Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
     Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343-9927; fax 
     number: (202) 343-2202; e-mail address: 
     [email protected]. For additional information regarding 
     these Findings, please go to the Web site http://www.epa.gov/
climatechange/endangerment.html.
     SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
     Judicial Review
       Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final 
     action is available only by filing a petition for review in 
     the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
     Circuit by February 16, 2010. Under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), 
     only an objection to this final action that was raised with 
     reasonable specificity during the period for public comment 
     can be raised during judicial review. This section also 
     provides a mechanism for us to convene a proceeding for 
     reconsideration, ```[i]f the person raising an objection can 
     demonstrate to EPA that it was impracticable to raise such 
     objection within [the period for public comment] or if the 
     grounds for such objection arose after the period for public 
     comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) 
     and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome 
     of this rule.''' Any person seeking to make such a 
     demonstration to us should submit a Petition for 
     Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, 
     Environmental Protection Agency, Room 3000, Ariel Rios 
     Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004, 
     with a copy to the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER 
     INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General 
     Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of 
     General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), Environmental Protection 
     Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004.
       Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and 
     abbreviations are used in this document.

     ACUS Administrative Conference of the United States
     ANPR Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
     APA Administrative Procedure Act
     CAA Clean Air Act
     CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy
     CAIT Climate Analysis Indicators Tool
     CASAC Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
     CBI Confidential Business Information
     CCSP Climate Change Science Program
     CFCs chlorofluorocarbons
     CFR Code of Federal Regulations
     CH4 methane
     CO2 carbon dioxide
     CO2e CO2-equivalent
     CRU Climate Research Unit
     DOT U.S. Department of Transportation
     EO Executive Order
     EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     FR Federal Register
     GHG greenhouse gas
     GWP global warming potential
     HadCRUT Hadley Centre/Climate Research Unit (CRU) temperature 
         record
     HCFCs hydrochlorofluorocarbons
     HFCs hydrofluorocarbons
     IA Interim Assessment report
     IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
     MPG miles per gallon
     MWP Medieval Warm Period
     N2O nitrous oxide
     NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
     NAICS North American Industry Classification System
     NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
     NF3 nitrogen trifluoride
     NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
     NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
     NOI Notice of Intent
     NOX nitrogen oxides
     NRC National Research Council
     NSPS new source performance standards
     NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 
         1995
     OMB Office of Management and Budget
     PFCs perfluorocarbons
     PM particulate matter
     PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration
     RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
     SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
     SIP State Implementation Plan
     TSD technical support document
     U.S. United States

[[Page 5319]]

     UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
     UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
     USGCRP U.S. Global Climate Research Program
     VOC volatile organic compound(s)
     WCI Western Climate Initiative
     WRI World Resources Institute
     TABLE OF CONTENTS
     I. Introduction
       A. Overview
       B. Background Information Helpful To Understand These 
         Findings
       1. Greenhouse Gases and Transportation Sources Under CAA 
         Section 202(a)
       2. Joint EPA and Department of Transportation Proposed 
         Greenhouse Gas Rule
       C. Public Involvement
       1. EPA's Initial Work on Endangerment
       2. Public Involvement Since the April 2009 Proposed 
         Endangerment Finding
       3. Issues Raised Regarding the Rulemaking Process
     II. Legal Framework for This Action
       A. Section 202(a) of the CAA--Endangerment and Cause or 
         Contribute
       1. The Statutory Framework
       2. Summary of Response to Key Legal Comments on the 
         Interpretation of the CAA Section 202(a) Endangerment and 
         Cause or Contribute Test
       B. Air Pollutant, Public Health and Welfare
     III. EPA's Approach for Evaluating the Evidence Before It
       A. The Science on Which the Decisions Are Based
       B. The Law on Which the Decisions Are Based
       C. Adaptation and Mitigation
       D. Geographic Scope of Impacts
       E. Temporal Scope of Impacts
       F. Impacts of Potential Future Regulations and Processes 
         that Generate Greenhouse Gas Emissions
     IV. The Administrator's Finding That Emissions of Greenhouse 
     Gases Endanger Public Health and Welfare
       A. The Air Pollution Consists of Six Key Greenhouse Gases
       1. Common Physical Properties of the Six Greenhouse Gases
       2. Evidence That the Six Greenhouse Gases Are the Primary 
         Driver of Current and Projected Climate Change
       3. The Six Greenhouse Gases Are Currently the Common Focus 
         of the Climate Change Science and Policy Communities
       4. Defining Air Pollution as the Aggregate Group of Six 
         Greenhouse Gases Is Consistent With Evaluation of Risks 
         and Impacts Due to Human-Induced Climate Change
       5. Defining the Air Pollution as the Aggregate Group of Six 
         Greenhouse Gases Is Consistent With Past EPA Practice
       6. Other Climate Forcers Not Being Included in the 
         Definition of Air Pollution for This Finding
       7. Summary of Key Comments on Definition of Air Pollution
       B. The Air Pollution Is Reasonably Anticipated To Endanger 
         Both Public Health and Welfare
       1. The Air Pollution Is Reasonably Anticipated To Endanger 
         Public Health
       2. The Air Pollution Is Reasonably Anticipated To Endanger 
         Public Welfare
     V. The Administrator's Finding That Greenhouse Gases From CAA 
     Section 202(a) Sources Cause or Contribute to the 
     Endangerment of Public Health and Welfare
       A. The Administrator's Definition of the ``Air Pollutant''
       B. The Administrator's Finding Whether Emissions of the Air 
         Pollutant From Section 202(a) Source Categories Cause or 
         Contribute to the Air Pollution That May Be Reasonably 
         Anticipated To Endanger Public Health and Welfare
       C. Response to Key Comments on the Administrator's Cause or 
         Contribute Finding
       1. The Administrator Reasonably Defined the ``Air 
         Pollutant'' for the Cause or Contribute Analysis
       2. The Administrator's Cause or Contribute Analysis Was 
         Reasonable
     VI. Statutory and Executive Reviews
       A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
       B. Paperwork Reduction Act
       C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
       D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
       E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
       F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination 
         With Indian Tribal Governments
       G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
         Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
       H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations 
         That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 
         Use
       I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
       J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
         Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-
         Income Populations
       K. Congressional Review Act
     I. Introduction
     A. Overview
       Pursuant to CAA section 202(a), the Administrator finds 
     that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be 
     anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger 
     public welfare.
       Specifically, the Administrator is defining the ``air 
     pollution'' referred to in CAA section 202(a) to be the mix 
     of six long-lived and directly-emitted greenhouse gases: 
     carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), 
     nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), 
     perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride 
     (SF6). In this document, these six greenhouse 
     gases are referred to as ``well-mixed greenhouse gases'' in 
     this document (with more precise meanings of ``long lived'' 
     and ``well mixed'' provided in Section IV.A).
       The Administrator has determined that the body of 
     scientific evidence compellingly supports this finding. The 
     major assessments by the U.S. Global Climate Research Program 
     (USGCRP), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
     (IPCC), and the National Research Council (NRC) serve as the 
     primary scientific basis supporting the Administrator's 
     endangerment finding. The Administrator reached her 
     determination by considering both observed and projected 
     effects of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, their effect 
     on climate, and the public health and welfare risks and 
     impacts associated with such climate change. The 
     Administrator's assessment focused on public health and 
     public welfare impacts within the United States. She also 
     examined the evidence with respect to impacts in other world 
     regions, and she concluded that these impacts strengthen the 
     case for endangerment to public health and welfare because 
     impacts in other world regions can in turn adversely affect 
     the United States.
       The Administrator recognizes that human-induced climate 
     change has the potential to be far-reaching and 
     multidimensional, and in light of existing knowledge, that 
     not all risks and potential impacts can be quantified or 
     characterized with uniform metrics. There is variety not only 
     in the nature and potential magnitude of risks and impacts, 
     but also in our ability to characterize, quantify and project 
     such impacts into the future. The Administrator is using her 
     judgment, based on existing science, to weigh the threat for 
     each of the identifiable risks, to weigh the potential 
     benefits where relevant, and ultimately to assess whether 
     these risks and effects, when viewed in total, endanger 
     public health or welfare.
       The Administrator has considered how elevated 
     concentrations of the well-mixed greenhouse gases and 
     associated climate change affect public health by evaluating 
     the risks associated with changes in air quality, increases 
     in temperatures, changes in extreme weather events, increases 
     in food- and water-borne pathogens, and changes in 
     aeroallergens. The evidence concerning adverse air quality 
     impacts provides strong and clear support for an endangerment 
     finding. Increases in ambient ozone are expected to occur 
     over broad areas of the country, and they are expected to 
     increase serious adverse health effects in large population 
     areas that are and may continue to be in nonattainment. The 
     evaluation of the potential risks associated with increases 
     in ozone in attainment areas also supports such a finding.
       The impact on mortality and morbidity associated with 
     increases in average temperatures, which increase the 
     likelihood of heat waves, also provides support for a public 
     health endangerment finding. There are uncertainties over the 
     net health impacts of a temperature increase due to decreases 
     in cold-related mortality, but some recent evidence suggests 
     that the net impact on mortality is more likely to be 
     adverse, in a context where heat is already the leading cause 
     of weather-related deaths in the United States.
       The evidence concerning how human-induced climate change 
     may alter extreme weather events also clearly supports a 
     finding of endangerment, given the serious adverse impacts 
     that can result from such events and the increase in risk, 
     even if small, of the occurrence and intensity of events such 
     as hurricanes and floods. Additionally, public health is 
     expected to be adversely affected by an increase in the 
     severity of coastal storm events due to rising sea levels.
       There is some evidence that elevated carbon dioxide 
     concentrations and climate changes can lead to changes in 
     aeroallergens that could increase the potential for 
     allergenic illnesses. The evidence on pathogen borne disease 
     vectors provides directional support for an endangerment 
     finding. The Administrator acknowledges the many 
     uncertainties in these areas. Although these adverse effects 
     provide some support for an endangerment finding, the 
     Administrator is not placing primary weight on these factors.
       Finally, the Administrator places weight on the fact that 
     certain groups, including children, the elderly, and the 
     poor, are most vulnerable to these climate-related health 
     effects.
       The Administrator has considered how elevated 
     concentrations of the well-mixed greenhouse gases and 
     associated climate change affect public welfare by evaluating 
     numerous and far-ranging risks to food production and 
     agriculture, forestry, water resources, sea level rise and 
     coastal areas, energy, infrastructure, and settlements, and 
     ecosystems and wildlife. For each of these sectors, the 
     evidence provides support for a

[[Page 5320]]

     finding of endangerment to public welfare. The evidence 
     concerning adverse impacts in the areas of water resources 
     and sea level rise and coastal areas provides the clearest 
     and strongest support for an endangerment finding, both for 
     current and future generations. Strong support is also found 
     in the evidence concerning infrastructure and settlements, as 
     well ecosystems and wildlife. Across the sectors, the 
     potential serious adverse impacts of extreme events, such as 
     wildfires, flooding, drought, and extreme weather conditions, 
     provide strong support for such a finding.
       Water resources across large areas of the country are at 
     serious risk from climate change, with effects on water 
     supplies, water quality, and adverse effects from extreme 
     events such as floods and droughts. Even areas of the country 
     where an increase in water flow is projected could face water 
     resource problems from the supply and water quality problems 
     associated with temperature increases and precipitation 
     variability, as well as the increased risk of serious adverse 
     effects from extreme events, such as floods and drought. The 
     severity of risks and impacts is likely to increase over time 
     with accumulating greenhouse gas concentrations and 
     associated temperature increases and precipitation changes.
       Overall, the evidence on risk of adverse impacts for 
     coastal areas provides clear support for a finding that 
     greenhouse gas air pollution endangers the welfare of current 
     and future generations. The most serious potential adverse 
     effects are the increased risk of storm surge and flooding in 
     coastal areas from sea level rise and more intense storms. 
     Observed sea level rise is already increasing the risk of 
     storm surge and flooding in some coastal areas. The 
     conclusion in the assessment literature that there is the 
     potential for hurricanes to become more intense (and even 
     some evidence that Atlantic hurricanes have already become 
     more intense) reinforces the judgment that coastal 
     communities are now endangered by human-induced climate 
     change, and may face substantially greater risk in the 
     future. Even if there is a low probability of raising the 
     destructive power of hurricanes, this threat is enough to 
     support a finding that coastal communities are endangered by 
     greenhouse gas air pollution. In addition, coastal areas face 
     other adverse impacts from sea level rise such as land loss 
     due to inundation, erosion, wetland submergence, and habitat 
     loss. The increased risk associated with these adverse 
     impacts also endangers public welfare, with an increasing 
     risk of greater adverse impacts in the future.
       Strong support for an endangerment finding is also found in 
     the evidence concerning energy, infrastructure, and 
     settlements, as well ecosystems and wildlife. While the 
     impacts on net energy demand may be viewed as generally 
     neutral for purposes of making an endangerment determination, 
     climate change is expected to result in an increase in 
     electricity production, especially supply for peak demand. 
     This may be exacerbated by the potential for adverse impacts 
     from climate change on hydropower resources as well as the 
     potential risk of serious adverse effects on energy 
     infrastructure from extreme events. Changes in extreme 
     weather events threaten energy, transportation, and water 
     resource infrastructure. Vulnerabilities of industry, 
     infrastructure, and settlements to climate change are 
     generally greater in high-risk locations, particularly 
     coastal and riverine areas, and areas whose economies are 
     closely linked with climate-sensitive resources. Climate 
     change will likely interact with and possibly exacerbate 
     ongoing environmental change and environmental pressures in 
     settlements, particularly in Alaska where indigenous 
     communities are facing major environmental and cultural 
     impacts on their historic lifestyles. Over the 21st century, 
     changes in climate will cause some species to shift north and 
     to higher elevations and fundamentally rearrange U.S. 
     ecosystems. Differential capacities for range shifts and 
     constraints from development, habitat fragmentation, invasive 
     species, and broken ecological connections will likely alter 
     ecosystem structure, function, and services, leading to 
     predominantly negative consequences for biodiversity and the 
     provision of ecosystem goods and services.
       There is a potential for a net benefit in the near term for 
     certain crops, but there is significant uncertainty about 
     whether this benefit will be achieved given the various 
     potential adverse impacts of climate change on crop yield, 
     such as the increasing risk of extreme weather events. Other 
     aspects of this sector may be adversely affected by climate 
     change, including livestock management and irrigation 
     requirements, and there is a risk of adverse effect on a 
     large segment of the total crop market. For the near term, 
     the concern over the potential for adverse effects in certain 
     parts of the agriculture sector appears generally comparable 
     to the potential for benefits for certain crops. However, The 
     body of evidence points towards increasing risk of net 
     adverse impacts on U.S. food production and agriculture over 
     time, with the potential for significant disruptions and crop 
     failure in the future.
       For the near term, the Administrator finds the beneficial 
     impact on forest growth and productivity in certain parts of 
     the country from elevated carbon dioxide concentrations and 
     temperature increases to date is offset by the clear risk 
     from the observed increases in wildfires, combined with risks 
     from the spread of destructive pests and disease. For the 
     longer term, the risk from adverse effects increases over 
     time, such that overall climate change presents serious 
     adverse risks for forest productivity. There is compelling 
     reason to find that the support for a positive endangerment 
     finding increases as one considers expected future conditions 
     where temperatures continue to rise.
       Looking across all of the sectors discussed above, the 
     evidence provides compelling support for finding that 
     greenhouse gas air pollution endangers the public welfare of 
     both current and . . .

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BURGESS. At this point, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), and I ask unanimous consent that 
he be allowed to control that time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Georgia will 
control the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I want to thank my friend from Texas (Mr. 
Burgess) for yielding and again thank the chairman of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee and the chairman of the Energy and Power 
Subcommittee, Messrs. Upton and Whitfield, for again allowing me to 
speak on this amendment.
  Much like the previous amendment, I rise again in strong opposition, 
opposition at this time to the Polis amendment because it seeks to give 
a duplicative authority to the EPA. This amendment would temporarily 
suspend H.R. 910 if the EPA administrator has ruled that ground-level 
ozone, extreme weather events, or an increase in food- and water-borne 
pathogens presents a significant danger to the public health, or that 
there are other significant threats to public health.
  Madam Chair, under section 303 of the Clean Air Act, the EPA already 
has the authority to respond to any imminent and substantial 
endangerment to public health or welfare, or the environment. 
Therefore, this amendment is wholly unnecessary. Furthermore, the Polis 
amendment would give the EPA administrator the authority to move 
forward with a cap-and-trade agenda if the administrator believed that 
there were threats to public health from ozone, extreme weather, 
pathogens, or there are other significant threats to public health, 
which could be completely unrelated to greenhouse gases.
  I wholeheartedly believe that this amendment is literally a hammer in 
search of a nail. The EPA already has the authority to address the 
concerns raised by this amendment and my friend from Colorado. I would 
urge my friend from Colorado to consider withdrawing this amendment; 
but if he doesn't, I would urge all of my colleagues to oppose it and 
continue to support the underlying legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Chair.
  Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Georgia. My concern is that the 
underlying bill removes some of the authority under these conditions 
that this amendment would reinstate. If this amendment merely restates 
this, I would hope that we can clarify the bill by specifically 
allowing the EPA the authority to suspend the prohibitions in the bill 
if a detailed analysis demonstrates that ground-level ozone, or extreme 
weather events, or food- and water-borne pathogens are a significant 
threat to public health. And, of course, we would hope that under their 
charge the EPA would then proceed if given this authority with regard 
to protecting the public health.
  To the extent that this clarifies something that was consistent with 
the intent of the original bill, I would hope that the gentleman would 
accept it. If it is contrary to a small element of the bill, we would 
hope to reestablish that authority in the case of a significant threat 
to public health, again, with the additional burden and requirement of 
a detailed analysis under the law.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 5321]]


  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Chair, I want to point out to my 
colleague that the EPA, as I think I previously said, but just let me 
repeat it, the EPA has already concluded that greenhouse gases pose no 
public health emergency. And they stated: ``Current and projected 
ambient greenhouse gas concentrations remain well below published 
thresholds for any direct adverse health effect such as respiratory or 
toxic effects.''
  I yield such time as he may consume, Madam Chair, to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Bilbray).
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for up 
to 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Let's be clear: We are not talking about greenhouse 
gases here because the regulations that have been proposed by the EPA 
do not address climate change. They don't address climate change. We 
are not talking climate change here. We are talking about EPA proposing 
regulations that admitted by the administrator does not have any 
projections of what reductions you will have here. Remember, the 
minimum that we need to do to address the threat of climate change is 
17 percent within 9 years. So let's be up front. This is not about 
climate change.
  This is about proposed regulations by a bureaucracy in a field of law 
that was never meant to address this issue at all. And I say that as 
somebody who worked for over a decade at implementation of the Clean 
Air Act. All I have to say to the colleague, with the problems that you 
are pointing out, they are legitimate issues. But what is being 
proposed as an answer to a problem has not only nothing to do with and 
will not affect climate change, but it also will not affect the issues 
that you have raised.
  So in reality, your amendment is not germane because the issues that 
you are concerned about don't exist. Because when you do nothing, you 
can't change anything.

                              {time}  1720

  And the fact that it is keeping somebody from selling a placebo does 
not solve the problem, or it does not aggravate the problem. The fact 
is what has been proposed by EPA is a placebo under a law that was 
never meant to administer this.
  So let's not be concerned about if the placebo is not available to 
the public somehow there may be a concern with these items. They are 
legitimate items. But the EPA and the underlying bill does not affect 
those issues.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, I have a point of parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. POLIS. Is the amendment germane to the bill?
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the circumstances that calls for an advisory 
opinion, which the Chair will not render.
  The gentleman from Colorado has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. POLIS. Well, again, the Rules Committee found, and I believe the 
Parliamentarian advised, that the amendment was germane, and I have not 
been informed otherwise other than by the gentleman from California.
  Does the gentleman want to appeal the ruling of the Parliamentarian? 
I believe that it is germane.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is pending. There is no occasion for 
a ruling on whether it is germane.
  Mr. POLIS. The amendment is pending; that's correct. Well, again, if 
the rule does waive this, we discussed in Rules Committee yesterday, 
and I believe that all the non-germane amendments were not included 
under this rule.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POLIS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BILBRAY. As I said, it's not germane to the issue.
  Mr. POLIS. Reclaiming my time, there might be a different use of the 
word ``germane'' by the gentleman. I would encourage all of us to try 
to be on the same page with regard to the word ``germane.''
  It is germane to the bill, the topic.
  Again, all my amendment does is say that if the EPA sees the danger 
they should act. It's a safety valve. The amendment respects the 
finding of the Supreme Court in the Massachusetts vs. EPA case that 
ensures that the Clean Air Act still has the ability to protect the 
public and that it is not removed under the underlying bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. The underlying bill tells the EPA in this case to perhaps 
ignore some science. My amendment says that the science shouldn't be 
ignored if it means you are risking people's lives.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. It's an important clarification and I urge support of the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia has 45 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Chair, this amendment would, in short, 
be an avenue for the EPA to move forward with back-door global warming 
regulations regardless of any relevant facts and circumventing the will 
of Congress and the public.
  EPA should not be authorized to move forward with back-door global 
warming regulations. I urge my colleagues to vote against this 
amendment.
  I yield the balance of my time to my colleague from Texas (Mr. 
Burgess).
  Mr. BURGESS. Just finally, I do want to underscore that greenhouse 
gases do not have a health impact. But in the odd event that someone 
were sprayed in the face with a greenhouse gas such as methane, the 
emergency powers exist under section 303 of the Clean Air Act to 
respond to the imminent and substantial endangerment of public health.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Markey

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 
printed in House Report 112-54.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chair, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. 5. REDUCING DEMAND FOR OIL.

       Notwithstanding any limitation on agency action contained 
     in the amendment made by section 2 of this Act, the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency may use 
     any authority under the Clean Air Act, as in effect prior to 
     the date of enactment of this Act, to promulgate any 
     regulation concerning, take any action relating to, or take 
     into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to 
     address climate change, if the Administrator determines that 
     such promulgation, action or consideration will reduce demand 
     for oil.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 203, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment.
  My amendment is quite simple. It just says that nothing, nothing that 
the Republicans are proposing today should put a limitation on the 
ability of the EPA to reduce the demand for importing oil from OPEC, 
which should be the number one objective in our country.
  You know, we only have 2 percent of the world's oil reserves, and we 
consume 25 percent on a daily basis. That is our Achilles' heel, and 
there is nothing we can do about it.
  So the only way in which we can solve the problem is if we reduce 
consumption by increasing the efficiency of the vehicles which we 
drive, of the boats which we use, of the planes that

[[Page 5322]]

we ride in, of the other sources that consume the oil that we use in 
our country.
  And what they are going to do, the Republicans, is tie the hands of 
the EPA to back out the 5 million barrels of oil that we import from 
OPEC on a daily basis.
  OPEC is not afraid of the Foreign Affairs Committee. OPEC is not 
afraid of the Armed Services Committee. It is the Energy Committee that 
they are afraid of.
  They are afraid that one day we will actually have a policy that 
backs out their imported oil, that denies them the $150 billion or $200 
billion a year that we send over to them that allows them to continue 
their dictatorships. That's what they are afraid of.
  And what the Republicans are doing today is tying the hands of our 
country to be able to tell OPEC we don't need their oil anymore than we 
need their sands. That's the message that they are sending here today. 
That's the message the Republicans are sending to OPEC.
  Have a good night's sleep. Don't worry. We are going to tie the hands 
of the EPA to back out that imported oil. That's why this amendment 
goes right to the heart of the national security of our country, right 
to the heart of our economic independence, as well as reducing 
greenhouse gases. The national security of our country is at stake in 
this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chair, my colleague just said the only way is to 
reduce demand. Well, that is not the only way.
  Republicans continue to move on all-of-the-above energy strategies 
that increase supply. You know what happens when you increase supply? 
You increase jobs.
  I brought this down numerous times over the past couple of years. 
Look what we could do. We could open up the OCS. Thousands and 
thousands of jobs could be created by oil and gas exploration. Look 
what we could do. We could take hundreds of years of supply of coal and 
turn it into liquid fuel.
  Look what we could do. We could open up the pipelines and bring oil 
sands from Canada down.
  We can be independent on transportation fuels. We cannot be, based 
upon allowing the EPA to price carbon.
  The only way my colleagues want to get us to driving less is to make 
gasoline so high that no one can drive.
  Now, that's okay when you live in major metropolitan areas, but when 
you live in rural southern Illinois, where you have got to drive long 
distances to get to school, to get to hospitals, to get to church, 
every time you raise the price of gasoline, it hurts the poor and the 
middle class of rural America. So my colleague is just wrong.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield 1 minute to the ranking member of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. The important thing about this amendment is that we 
reduce the demand for oil, which is the primary area where we are 
dependent upon OPEC countries. And to do that, we have tighter fuel 
efficiency standards.
  Without the Markey amendment, the EPA would not be able to continue 
with those tight fuel efficiency standards for motor vehicles, planes, 
et cetera.
  According to Lisa Jackson from the EPA, who testified before our 
committee, this bill ``would forfeit many hundreds of millions of 
barrels of oil savings at a time when gas prices are rising yet 
again.'' I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would vote 
to massively increase America's oil independence.
  I urge all Members to support the Markey amendment so we don't 
massively increase our oil dependence.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Massachusetts has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the chairman of the Energy and 
Air Quality Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. WHITFIELD. I'm actually surprised the gentleman has offered an 
amendment related to oil because our bill that we have on the floor 
today completely preserves in every way the car rule under which EPA 
sets greenhouse gas emission standards for passenger cars and trucks 
for model year 2012 through 2016. That was agreed to by the Obama 
administration, the automobile industry, environmentalists, EPA and 
everyone; and that is preserved in this bill.
  But let's talk about the electricity side. If we allow EPA to 
regulate greenhouse gases, we're going to skyrocket the cost of 
electricity which is going to make us less competitive in the global 
marketplace; we're going to lose more jobs to China and more jobs to 
India because those two countries are burning more coal because coal 
produces the lowest-cost electricity. And that's why we are opposed to 
this amendment of the gentleman because we've already preserved the car 
rule that the gentleman is concerned about.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself 1 minute.
  And let me say this to you, the Republicans: I had an amendment out 
here to increase fuel economy standards from 25 to 35 miles per gallon 
in 2001, 2003, 2005. You voted against it every time. You said that it 
will ruin the auto industry if we improve the fuel economy standards. 
Do you know who ruined the auto industry? You did. In 2009, General 
Motors had to declare bankruptcy.
  Now we have fuel economy standards at 35 miles per gallon. Do you 
want to know what they are reporting? Record profits. Do you know what 
Ford is reporting? Record profits and record hiring. Do you know who is 
opposed to your bill here today? The United Auto Workers oppose you. 
They believe it's going to undermine the efficiency and the job 
creation which is now possible. The United Auto Workers oppose you.
  So, ladies and gentlemen, if you're looking for jobs or national 
security in this bill, make sure you vote for the Markey amendment 
because they are so historically so far off base with this bill that it 
cannot begin to be measured.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chairman, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the former 
chairman, the gentleman from Texas, Joe Barton.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I rise in opposition to my good friend, Mr. 
Markey's, amendment. He must think EPA stands for ``Energy Punishment 
Agency'' as opposed to ``Environmental Protection Agency.'' EPA's role 
is not to regulate the oil and gas industry. It's not to set an oil 
import fee. It's not to set quotas. It's to protect the environment. 
And the bill before us today does that. It restricts the Clean Air Act 
to its original intention, which is to regulate the criteria pollutants 
for which it was intended when it was passed in the early 1990s.
  We are trying to segregate greenhouse gases from regulation under the 
Clean Air Act. That's all this bill does. It's not affecting fuel 
efficiency standards that NHTSA regulates and will continue to 
regulate. It doesn't have anything to do with that. We are simply 
saying that greenhouse gases should not be regulated under the existing 
Clean Air Act. We disagree with the Supreme Court decision that gave 
the EPA the authority to make a decision, and we definitely disagree 
with the endangerment finding, which I think was fatally flawed.
  We can do a lot on decreasing oil imports both by supply increases in 
the United States and letting the market operate in an efficient 
fashion. We don't need the EPA to have some sort of a stranglehold on 
oil production in the United States of America.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  What the Republicans are doing in their bill is stripping the EPA of 
their

[[Page 5323]]

authority to regulate the fuel efficiency of vehicles that we drive in 
our country, of the planes, the trains and the boats where we put the 
petroleum. That's what their bill does. That's what the Supreme Court 
gave them as authority.
  The gentleman says, EPA is misnamed. Well, let me just tell you under 
the Republicans, EPA stands for ``Every Polluter's Ally.'' Under the 
Democrats, it stands for ``End Petroleum Addiction.'' That's what the 
Markey amendment does. It gives the EPA the authority to back out this 
imported oil and to tell them that we're going to use the Oklahoma oil, 
the Texas oil and the Louisiana oil; but we don't need that oil coming 
out of the Persian Gulf any more than we need to send 100,000 young men 
and women over there.
  Let's set a new policy path here today, ladies and gentlemen. Let's 
give those OPEC ministers a few sleepless nights. Let's not allow them 
to look at the Congress, once again ignoring the strength of our 
country, which is our technological genius, to be able to invent the 
new technologies that make us less dependent. And what did the 
Republicans do one month ago? They zeroed out all of the loan 
guarantees for solar and wind. They zeroed them out of the legislation. 
That's their all-of-the-above legislation.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Chairman, just to put things back on the table, H.R. 910 
completely preserves the car rule under the EPA, emissions standards 
for passenger cars and trucks for model years 2012 to 2016. We had this 
debate in the committee, the subcommittee and the full committee. It's 
still there. And, unfortunately, you are acting as if it doesn't.
  This is a really simple debate. This is a debate about whether we 
want more supply or less supply, whether we want more jobs or less 
jobs, whether we want higher energy prices or less energy prices. When 
you allow the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases, which is not a toxic 
emission, they do it by setting a price; and that price will drive our 
country into slowing economic growth, more job loss and higher costs.
  So that's why we're here today. We're very excited about this debate 
today. It's about time we got to the floor and had a chance to vote on 
whether we want the EPA without legislative language to raise the cost 
of energy in this country. We say, no, reject the Markey amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Rush

  The Acting CHAIR. It's now in order to consider amendment No. 10 
printed in House Report 112-54.
  Mr. RUSH. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 5. LIMITATION ON APPLICABILITY.

       The provisions of this Act, and the amendments made by this 
     Act, shall not apply until the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Defense, certifies that the consequences of 
     climate change, including its potential to create sustained 
     natural and humanitarian disasters and its ability to foster 
     political instability where societal demands exceed the 
     capacity of governments to cope, do not jeopardize security 
     interests of the United States at home or abroad.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 203, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Rush) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. RUSH. Madam Chair, my amendment revokes the provisions of this 
act from going into effect until the EPA administrator, in consultation 
with the Secretary of Defense, certifies that the consequences of not 
regulating greenhouse gas emissions, and its subsequent impact on 
climate change, including the potential to create sustained natural and 
humanitarian disasters and the ability to likely foster political 
instability where societal demands exceed the capacity of governments 
to cope, do not jeopardize American security interests at home or 
abroad.
  Madam Chair, the overwhelming majority of respected scientists and 
scientific organizations worldwide all agree that manmade greenhouse 
gases do contribute to climate change, and these impacts can be 
mitigated through policy to curb these emissions.
  Just recently, a study by the National Academy of Science, conducted 
at the request of the U.S. Navy, concluded that climate change will 
pose a major challenge for the United States Navy in the emerging 
Arctic frontier.
  One of the most serious threat analyses was done by a dozen of the 
country's most respected retired generals and admirals, in the 2007 CNA 
report, the ``National Security and the Threat of Climate Change 
Report.'' In this study, Madam Chair, these retired generals and 
admirals concluded that climate change poses a serious threat to 
America's national security and that the national security consequences 
of climate change should be fully integrated into national security and 
national defense strategies. The report goes on to say that climate 
change, national security, and energy independence all pose a related 
set of challenges for our military; and these threats should not be 
ignored or pushed down the road for future action.

                              {time}  1740

  Unfortunately, this Upton-Inhofe bill does exactly that. It pushes 
the challenges of regulating greenhouse gases, which contribute to 
climate change, further down the road for action at some later date far 
into the future.
  I do not believe it is in America's best interest to delay acting on 
these threats that we know are currently endangering our health and way 
of life.
  Madam Chair, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this 
amendment so we are not ignoring the warnings from our most esteemed 
military men, and we are proactive in fighting the threat of climate 
change before we are past the tipping point.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Chair, I can't think of anything more 
disconnected from national security than this amendment.
  To speak on that, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).
  Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Chair, I regretfully rise in opposition, not 
because the intention of this amendment isn't appropriately placed, but 
the science doesn't reflect the concern that the gentleman has pointed 
out. I say that with the understanding that the science, not talking 
about the concern about climate change, but the lack of science behind 
the proposed regulations that EPA has even discussed. There is no one 
who has been before our committee, as the gentleman knows, that has 
said that the proposed changes that EPA is bringing forth today or in 
the future is going to address or solve the problem.
  The fact is that the problems that the gentleman is concerned about 
may be out there somewhere, but no one is saying that what the EPA is 
doing is going to avoid those problems. So by not having the EPA 
implement a program that nobody in the scientific community says will 
address the problem doesn't mean that somehow this will de facto cause 
the problem to be implemented or not avoided.
  Basically I guess it says, again, what is being proposed by the EPA 
is an agency that was not designed to address climate change, with 
plans that not only were not designed, and using a vehicle that was not 
designed regarding this problem, but by the own admission of the 
administrator does not

[[Page 5324]]

even know, and can't give us even a slight percentage of what reduction 
we would have.
  So I just have to say to my dear colleague from Illinois that I 
appreciate his concern, but his concern should not be us telling EPA 
not to implement rules that they admit will not address the problem and 
will not solve the problem. Our issue ought to be talking about how do 
we address those problems down the pike, because let's be very frank 
about it. The problems you are talking about are going to happen, and 
it is not because anyone on this side is denying the science; it is 
because people are trying to take advantage and exploit a crisis rather 
than address it.
  I ask the gentleman again to be concerned but make sure that when you 
propose an action, let's make sure that those actions have a 
possibility of addressing the issues that you so sincerely are 
concerned about.
  Mr. RUSH. Madam Chair, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Madam Chair, I am really astounded by the remarks of my friend from 
California. It seems that first of all they deny the scientists that 
have come before the committee, the many scientific organizations 
throughout the world who say that climate change is a reality. They 
deny this science and these scientists saying we are reaching a tipping 
point. Now, Madam Chair, they are denying the opinion and the warnings 
from the command shelter of our American military. I just don't know 
who will convince them.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I appreciate the gentleman's passion for the issue, but I think when 
amendments like this hit the floor, it does a huge disservice to even 
the basis of their argument. You know, getting ready for World War II, 
we had a truck company in Ypsilanti, Michigan, that went from building 
pickup trucks with several thousand parts--in about 8 weeks, they 
converted it to building bomber airplanes with over a million parts. 
Only in America could that have happened to win the war. The great 
industrial arsenal of democracy happened in the great State of 
Michigan.
  If you want to talk about national security issues, when you try to 
do this on cap and trade, what you are doing is wholesale departing 
manufacturing jobs and our ability to produce things in this country to 
places like China and India, who have laughed at cap and trade and 
said, we welcome those jobs.
  We lost a million manufacturing jobs in our State alone. A million. 
Cap and trade. What you seek to do will lose 1.4 million more jobs.
  Admiral Mullen said the greatest threat to our national security is 
our debt. When people aren't working, when America can't produce 
things, I am telling you, we will do more to harm our national security 
than anything I can think of.
  We are going to lose just in Michigan over 100,000 jobs in the next 
25 years. So guess what? You want to talk about national security, 
someone who is unemployed and not paying taxes to help solve the debt 
problem is a national security threat, when you want to make 
unreasonable expectations.
  I want clean water, and I want clean air. I don't want the EPA 
shutting down factories that produce and actually produced the largest 
middle class in the history of the world. Why we would attack that and 
label that as a national security interest defies even the greatest of 
imaginations, Madam Chair.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RUSH. Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) to close.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I rise in support of the Rush amendment.
  The problem of national security is threatened in two ways by the 
Inhofe-Upton bill. It increases our oil dependence because we take away 
the tools for addressing this oil dependence by not allowing EPA to set 
tighter efficiency standards which reduce our demand for oil.
  Secondly, it takes away our tools to deal with the problem of climate 
change itself.
  Former senior military officers wrote to us and asked that we not 
undermine the Clean Air Act. They are concerned this will increase our 
dependence on oil, and that such dependence is truly dangerous. In 
2009, 10 retired general and admirals described how our oil dependence 
funds terrorism. It puts large sums of money in the hands of unfriendly 
regimes like Iran and Venezuela. Iran provides weapons to Hezbollah and 
supports insurgents in Iraq.
  And climate change itself, according to the State Department, is 
going to bring about more migrant and refugee flows, more conflicts 
over resources, drought and famine, and catastrophic natural disasters. 
That is a threat to our national security, and the Rush amendment will 
allow EPA to address it.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for making 
our point for us. When you shut down production of oil and natural gas 
into the United States, we have to import more because we are still 
driving more. We have absolutely put ourselves at the mercy of a whole 
region of the world that is inflamed in trying to figure out who they 
are. And it has raised our prices. It went from $1.83 2 years ago to $4 
a gallon.
  If you want to be serious about getting this right, let the EPA do 
what it does best--clean air, clean water--and let the national 
security folks keep us safe and increase production so that for 
goodness sake, somebody can afford to drive to work.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. RUSH. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  1750


                 Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Doyle

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 
printed in House Report 112-54.
  Mr. DOYLE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill add the following:

     SEC. 5. STUDY ON EFFECT OF EPA CLIMATE CHANGE REGULATIONS ON 
                   INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS OF UNITED STATES 
                   PRODUCERS OF ENERGY-INTENSIVE PRODUCTS.

       (a) Study.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency shall--
       (1) conduct a study to determine, with respect to the 
     period beginning on such date of enactment and ending on 
     December 31, 2016, the extent to which the regulations of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act to 
     address climate change, if not repealed or otherwise made 
     unauthorized by section 2 of this Act, would--
       (A) cause greenhouse gas leakage; and
       (B) reduce the international competitiveness of United 
     States producers of energy-intensive products; and
       (2) submit a report on the results of the study to the 
     Congress, including recommendations for legislative, 
     administrative, or other actions to mitigate--
       (A) any greenhouse gas leakage identified pursuant to 
     paragraph (1)(A); and
       (B) any reduction in international competitiveness 
     identified pursuant to paragraph (1)(B).
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``energy-intensive product'' means--
       (A) iron, steel, aluminum, cement, bulk glass, paper and 
     pulp, chemicals, or industrial ceramics; or
       (B) any other manufactured product which the Administrator 
     of the Environmental Protection Agency determines--
       (I) is sold in bulk for purposes of further manufacture; 
     and
       (ii) generates, in the course of the manufacture of the 
     product, direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions that 
     are comparable (on an emissions-per-dollar basis) to 
     emissions generated in the manufacture or production of 
     products identified in subparagraph (A).
       (2) The term ``greenhouse gas leakage'' means an increase 
     in greenhouse gas emissions abroad because of the movement of 
     the

[[Page 5325]]

     production of economic goods from the United States to other 
     countries.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 203, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. DOYLE. I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Madam Chair, I sit on the Energy and Commerce Committee and on the 
Energy and Power Subcommittee, which has primary jurisdiction of H.R. 
910. As such, I have been at several hearings on this bill where my 
colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle have claimed that the 
pending EPA regulations on greenhouse gases will cause our industries 
to pack up and move overseas, taking with them our jobs and our carbon 
emissions.
  At a committee hearing on this bill held in March of this year, our 
chairman told us, ``We live in a global economy with global 
competition, and nations like China absolutely have no intention of 
similarly burdening their industries. Manufacturing will leave this 
country unless the EPA is stopped.''
  Madam Chair, unfortunately, my colleagues on the Republican side of 
the aisle have forgotten to check with the Chinese. Just 2 days ago, a 
report came out saying China to Tax Energy Usage of Energy-Intensive 
Industries. The report says that China will impose a tax on energy 
usage of eight industrial sectors, including iron and steel, aluminum 
and cement. Xie Zhenhua, vice chairman of National Development and 
Reform, said that China has launched pilot carbon emission trading 
schemes in some of their provinces. So much for this idea that all 
these jobs are going to China because there's no taxing there or that 
they're not looking at a trading scheme.
  While I dispute the claims of my colleagues that China has no 
intention of addressing climate change, what I am more concerned about 
is the varying claims that these regulations will ship jobs overseas. 
What we have as an amendment here is to address that very question: Are 
these industries here in America that utilize energy-intensive 
processes and have special trade pressures, what will the effect of 
these regulations be on those types of industries?
  In the last Congress, I worked with Congressman Inslee to develop and 
address job and carbon leakage issues when we did the American Clean 
Energy Security Act. We were able to develop a fair system of 
distributing these allowances. This amendment proposes to do the same 
thing.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DOYLE. Thank you.
  I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. Madam Chairman, this is an interesting 
amendment. This is an amendment to a bill to study the cost of 
regulations that if this bill goes through, regulations won't exist. I 
don't get it, but okay.
  We don't need another study. We need jobs. I come from the 11th 
Congressional District in Illinois. We have high unemployment. Where I 
come from is an industry base, a manufacturing base. Americans are 
hurting. We have high unemployment. Statistics show that jobs are 
leaving at a record pace.
  There is no longer any question about whether the EPA's climate 
change regulations would actually hurt international competitiveness 
and affect American companies. We already know they would. We already 
know that. I talked to a factory in my district that said when cap-and-
trade was going to be passed, or this de facto cap-and-trade that's 
being looked at, if that passes, that will definitely result in them 
leaving. There's no benefit. It's a higher cost of doing business. It 
makes us uncompetitive in the free world, especially in areas affected 
where we have an ability to trade with other countries.
  Now here's the very interesting part about that, though. We're 
concerned about the environment, and we're very concerned about the 
environment. When you add cost to doing business in a country that 
already well regulates what is put out of an industry's smokestack and 
you add cost to that, you drive those businesses overseas into areas 
where they have far less environmental regulation. So not only are we 
losing jobs here in the United States, not only is the middle class 
continuing to be squeezed again by not having their manufacturing jobs, 
but now we've hurt the environment.
  This is backwards. This isn't what we want to do. This isn't the kind 
of America that we strive to come back to, to get a middle class that's 
vibrant and producing things and exporting them overseas and people are 
getting a good paycheck. This amendment studies something that will not 
exist if we pass this bill.
  We heard from a wide cross-section of energy producers and 
manufacturers on the Energy and Commerce Committee who testified as to 
the harm these regulations will do in steel and chemical and 
refineries. The fact that China, India and other industrial competitors 
have no intention of imposing similar regulations is further evidence 
that such regulations are costly and economically damaging.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DOYLE. Madam Chair, I yield myself 15 seconds to say to the 
gentleman that maybe he wasn't here when I just read the fact that 
China is imposing a tax on their industries, is looking at cap-and-
trade.
  I would also say to the gentleman who says why we want a study for a 
bill that is going to abolish these regulations, your bill is never 
going to become law. This bill has a veto threat. We need to do a study 
to see what the implications are on our industries.
  I would now like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman from Pittsburgh.
  I would just like to lend my voice to taking this and studying this, 
because there are issues here. There will be a transition. We want our 
businesses to be aware of what the actual statistics are, to study 
these regs, what they're going to be and what the effects are going to 
be. But in no way, shape or form does this diminish mine or I don't 
think anyone else's support for a green energy future that we need in 
the United States.
  I have been sitting here listening and you have several Members over 
there saying, ``China isn't going to do cap-and-trade.'' The fact is 
they're starting to do it. ``China is never going to tax carbon.'' The 
fact is they're starting to do it. And now we have dropped from first 
place in leading the green revolution to second, now to third, behind 
China, Germany, and now the United States.
  These are manufacturing jobs. Tons and tons of steel go into a 
windmill; 8,000 component parts. They manufacture them in Illinois, in 
Ohio, in Pennsylvania. These are jobs for our people. Why else would 
the United Steelworkers of America be against this and be for the green 
revolution? We're making this happen, and we have to get out of our own 
way while we do it.
  Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. I yield myself 15 seconds to say that 
China is not the only other country. There are hundreds of countries, 
hundreds of opportunities for American companies to go overseas if they 
are forced and squeezed out of this. I think green energy future is a 
code word for a no manufacturing jobs future.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Bilbray).
  Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Chair, I always enjoy my colleague Mike Doyle 
because I have a good friend, Mike Doyle, who was actually the first 
world champion surfer; so I always remind him of that connection.
  But let me just say to my colleagues, I hope you're not under some 
illusion that China is even considering reducing their greenhouse gas 
emissions by 17 percent within this decade. I hope you don't have that 
illusion.
  But let's point out what we really need to address with this issue. 
You do not need a study, Congressman, about the impacts. Your State is 
sitting at 8

[[Page 5326]]

percent. My State is sitting at 12 percent unemployment. If you really 
want to see what happens if you're not careful about the impacts and 
the costs of going green, which we have, we've had a great 
breakthrough. Our air has been cleaned up a lot more. But there are 
challenges of going beyond that and going into things that are not cost 
effective.
  Let me remind you, the great successes we've had with cleaning up our 
air in California is we always gave priority to those emissions that 
had the greatest health risk. We didn't go after one that wasn't even 
on the scale. CO2 is not even on the health risk scale.
  Let me just give you a good example. I'm a big supporter of algae. 
Our scientists in California developed algae fuel. Our State 
institutions and our educational institutions had the scientists that 
developed the technology to be able to make fuel out of algae. But when 
it came time to produce it, when it came time to create the jobs, I 
hope the gentleman understands that our scientists had to leave the 
State and go to New Mexico, because our environmental regulations were 
such that it didn't allow us to implement our green revolution.
  So, I hope all of those that are talking about a green revolution 
today are willing to take on the environmental, regulatory, and 
oversight problems that exist in implementation, because without 
casting those aside, you'll never see that revolution.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. DOYLE. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time remains on 
both sides?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 1\3/4\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Illinois has 15 seconds remaining.
  Mr. DOYLE. I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Washington, Jay Inslee.
  Mr. INSLEE. It is deeply disappointing that our Republican colleagues 
are so willing, able--and apparently eager--to shut down the 
government. This bill fundamentally shuts down the government. It shuts 
down the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to help lead us 
into a clean energy future.
  Why shut down an agency that can help develop these biofuels that we 
were just talking about? Why do they want to shut down the engine of 
innovation? Why do they want to shut down our effort to find a solution 
for energy-intensive industries? The steel industry, the aluminum 
industry, the cement industry, the paper pulp industry need solutions 
to this. We offered one. Yet the Republicans have no solutions.
  Shutting down the government is not a solution. Shutting down the EPA 
is not a solution. Shutting down American innovation is not a solution. 
This is an amendment that makes a statement that we ought to study 
science and economics and come up with a solution in a bipartisan way.
  Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I only have 15 seconds.
  I heard two crazy things. Number one, this doesn't change the Clean 
Air Act at all. This prevents them from going outside of the 
legislative will of the American people and implementing a legislative 
idea. By the way, if we're looking at a government shutdown, it's not 
because we haven't tried on this side; it's because no budget was 
passed last year.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DOYLE. I would like to yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I just want to make two points because we hear a 
lot from the other side about Ronald Reagan, and I know they burn 
incense and light candles for Ronald Reagan. In the 1980s, it was 
President Reagan who used cap-and-trade for leaded gasoline, and it was 
George Herbert Walker Bush who used cap-and-trade for sulfur.
  This is something that can be done if we put a price on this stuff. 
Lead the world, not be led.
  Mr. DOYLE. Madam Chair, let me just close by saying to my colleagues 
that all we're asking for is to put some good data behind this. Let's 
study it. Let's have the EPA take a look at this. Let's see what the 
effects are on our energy-intensive industries, because this is an 
issue we're going to have to deal with eventually, and we want to have 
good data behind it. Let's not have all the stories be anecdotal. Let's 
have the agency study this, and let's work together to find solutions 
to protect our industries while we clean up our environment for our 
kids and our grandkids.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DOYLE. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Kind

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 
printed in House Report 112-54.
  Mr. KIND. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. PROHIBITIONS AGAINST REGULATION OF GREENHOUSE 
                   GASES.

       The Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 and following) is amended 
     by adding the following new section after section 329:

     ``SEC. 330. PROHIBITIONS AGAINST REGULATION OF GREENHOUSE 
                   GASES.

       ``(a) New Source Review.--
       ``(1) General rule.--
       ``(A) Excluding greenhouse gas emissions from permitting 
     applicability determinations.--
       ``(i) For purposes of determining whether a stationary 
     source is a `major emitting facility' pursuant to section 
     169(1), such determination shall not be based on emissions of 
     any air pollutant subject to regulation solely on the basis 
     of such pollutant's contribution to global climate change.
       ``(ii) For purposes of determining whether a stationary 
     source has undertaken `construction' pursuant to section 
     165(a), such determination shall not be based on an increase 
     in the amount of any air pollutant subject to regulation 
     solely on the basis of such pollutant's contribution to 
     global climate change, nor be based on resulting emissions of 
     such an air pollutant not previously emitted.
       ``(B) Excluding small greenhouse gas sources from 
     permitting requirements.--No requirement of sections 160 
     through 169 shall apply with respect to any greenhouse gas 
     unless such gas is subject to regulation under this Act for 
     reasons independent of its effects on global climate change 
     or the gas is emitted by a source that is--
       ``(i) a new major emitting facility that will emit, or have 
     the potential to emit, greenhouse gases in an amount of at 
     least 75,000 tons carbon dioxide equivalent per year; or
       ``(ii) an existing major emitting facility that undertakes 
     construction which increases the amount of greenhouse gases, 
     or which results in emission of greenhouse gases not 
     previously emitted, on a mass basis and by at least 75,000 
     tons carbon dioxide equivalent per year.
       ``(2) Special rule.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), as of 
     July 1, 2011, for purposes of section 160 through 169, the 
     term `major emitting facility' shall include a stationary 
     source--
       ``(A) that is--
       ``(i) a new stationary source that will emit, or have the 
     potential to emit, greenhouse gases of at least 100,000 tons 
     carbon dioxide equivalent per year (or such other quantity 
     between 50,000 and 100,000 set by the Administrator by 
     regulation effective no earlier than July 1, 2013); or
       ``(ii) an existing stationary source that emits greenhouse 
     gases of at least 100,000 tons carbon dioxide equivalent per 
     year (or such other quantity between 50,000 and 100,000 set 
     by the Administrator by regulation effective no earlier than 
     July 1, 2013) and that undertakes a physical change or change 
     in the method of operation that will result in an emissions 
     increase of greenhouse gases of at least 75,000 tons carbon 
     dioxide equivalent per year (or such other quantity between 
     50,000 and 75,000 set by the Administrator by regulation 
     effective no earlier than July 1, 2013); and
       ``(B) that has greenhouse gas emissions equal to or 
     exceeding 250 tons per year mass emissions or, in the case of 
     any of the types of stationary sources identified in section 
     169(1), 100 tons per year mass emissions.
       ``(3) Nonprofit institutions.--For purposes of section 
     169(1), no provision in this

[[Page 5327]]

     subsection shall include within the term `major emitting 
     facility' any new or modified facility which is a nonprofit 
     health or educational institution which has been exempted by 
     the state in which it is located.
       ``(b) Title V Operating Permits.--
       ``(1) General rule.--Notwithstanding any provision of this 
     title or title V, no stationary source shall be required to 
     apply for, or operate pursuant to, a permit under title V, 
     solely due to its status as a major source of greenhouse 
     gases that are subject to regulation under this Act solely on 
     the basis of their effect on global climate change.
       ``(2) Special rule.--As of July 1, 2011, the provisions of 
     paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply to any 
     stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit at 
     least 100,000 tons per year carbon dioxide equivalent (or 
     such other quantity between 50,000 and 100,000 set by the 
     Administrator by regulation effective no earlier than July 1, 
     2013).
       ``(c) Definition of Greenhouse Gas.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `greenhouse gas' means the following:
       ``(1) Carbon dioxide.
       ``(2) Methane
       ``(3) Nitrous oxide.
       ``(4) Sulfur hexafluoride.
       ``(5) Hydrofluorocarbons.
       ``(6) Perfluorocarbons.
       ``(7) Nitrogen trifluoride.
       ``(8) Any other anthropogenic gas if the Administrator 
     determines that one ton of such gas has the same or greater 
     effect on global climate change as does one ton of carbon 
     dioxide.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 203, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KIND. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, the bill that we are debating today just goes too far. 
It repeals a scientific finding and represents an aggressive assault on 
the Clean Air Act, a bipartisan law originally implemented by President 
Nixon that has successfully protected the public health for over 40 
years.
  I represent a rural district in western Wisconsin that has 
approximately 180,000 rural electric co-op members that are concerned 
about possible new EPA regulations and their impact on them. I share 
their concerns, and I agree that we have to approach this issue 
reasonably. Still, the approach under H.R. 910 isn't the right one. 
There is a middle ground that can be found, which is why I, along with 
my friend and colleague from New York (Mr. Owens), am offering, really, 
an amendment in the nature of a substitute today. This amendment would 
permanently protect farms, small businesses and small- and medium-sized 
stationary sources from greenhouse gas regulation by codifying the 
Environmental Protection Agency's Tailoring Rule.
  The Tailoring Rule, itself, represents a compromise. Despite being 
court-ordered to regulate greenhouse gases, the EPA took into account 
our fragile economy, and proposed a narrow rule that would exempt the 
vast majority of stationary sources from any regulation. Through the 
rule, the EPA takes the appropriate approach to regulating greenhouse 
gases by only requiring very large, new and expanded emitters to seek 
permits. My friends on the other side of the aisle, however, believe 
that the EPA intends to go even further than the Tailoring Rule, and 
will ultimately implement a tax on energy just as China is beginning to 
today; but voting for this amendment will prevent the EPA from doing 
this.
  Some fear that farms or businesses will be regulated under this rule. 
Our amendment prevents this from ever occurring. Under the Tailoring 
Rule, the EPA has not identified even one farm that would meet the 
regulation threshold. That's because you'd have to have over 116,000 
beef cattle or 152 million broiler chickens on a single farm to trigger 
the regulation. There isn't a farm in the United States, let alone 
western Wisconsin, that fits that definition. Further, this amendment 
will provide the utility industry with the certainty that they have 
requested. Industry will know precisely what will trigger permit 
requirements, and will be able to plan accordingly.
  H.R. 910 takes an extreme approach to the EPA regulation of these 
carbon emissions by repealing a scientific finding so compelling that 
even the Bush administration determined that they were unable to ignore 
it. The science is clear: Climate change is real, and greenhouse gases 
pose a serious threat to human health.
  I think we can all agree that we'd rather have Congress act to curb 
greenhouse gas emissions, and I would certainly prefer that approach, 
but we haven't been able to get our act together in this body. What we 
can do is protect public health and local economies by codifying the 
Tailoring Rule.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment because it is a 
commonsense solution that accepts the scientific evidence that 
greenhouse gases are dangerous to human health, and it enacts a 
workable solution that will protect human health and that will ensure 
clean air while shielding the vast majority of sources from any 
regulatory requirements.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Griffith).
  Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. I would like to thank the gentleman for 
bringing this amendment.
  Madam Chair, the EPA has passed this so-called ``Tailoring Rule'' 
without there being any authority in the Clean Air Act to do so. The 
proper place for this type of debate, as the underlying bill makes 
clear, is in the Halls of Congress, not in the halls of the EPA.
  There is a button that was very popular in my district--and still 
is--which reads, ``Who elected the EPA?'' The answer is no one; but we 
know who elects us. The people of the United States elect us, and they 
elect us to make the laws. This amendment makes it clear that this is 
where it belongs; thus, we should pass the bill. The amendment should 
be defeated. The bill should be passed.
  It also makes clear that the EPA is overreaching and that they had to 
come up with a Tailoring Rule because, as they say, without it, it 
creates an absurd result, but those absurd results flow from the EPA's 
determination to reach these greenhouse gases as if they were harmful 
pollutants.
  Now, ladies and gentlemen, this amendment, contrary to its patron's 
assertions, does not shield small businesses or farms, because it does 
not block the avalanche of additional greenhouse gas rules that come 
under various clean air programs. The EPA's greenhouse gas regulations 
will drive up the prices of gasoline, electricity, food, goods and 
services; and the cost of these regulations will be passed on to 
everyone, including to small businesses.
  That's why the National Federation of Independent Business supports 
H.R. 910. A vote in favor of H.R. 910 will be scored as a major vote 
for the NFIB. The NFIB has said that using the Clean Air Act as a 
framework will trigger an avalanche of regulatory requirements that 
will burden hundreds of thousands of previously unregulated sources, 
including many small entities.
  I ask that you reject the amendment.
  Mr. KIND. Madam Chair, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
coauthor of this amendment, my friend from New York (Mr. Owens).

                              {time}  1810

  Mr. OWENS. I thank the gentleman.
  I would like to point out that my predecessor, a respected Member of 
the other side of the aisle, Mr. McHugh, was very supportive of 
regulation of mercury and acid rain because it negatively impacted the 
New York 23rd. I think we need to act responsibly in each of these 
situations, and we need to make sure that we are working off, not the 
science of proponents, but the science of understanding of the issues.
  When we look at my district, it has taken great strides in terms of 
moving forward with green and renewable energy. We have wood--which we 
have plenty of in the Adirondacks--we have wind energy, and we have 
hydro, all of which are contributing to jobs and making our economy a 
green and sustainable economy.
  I think it is very important to understand that what this legislation 
does

[[Page 5328]]

is, in fact, eliminate regulation for the small businesses and farms in 
my district. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to 
reject the underlying legislation.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 3 minutes 
remaining; the gentleman from Wisconsin has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Bilbray).
  Mr. BILBRAY. I apologize, but I have to say to the gentleman, you 
know, wood burning, under oxygen-deprived environment, is a terrible 
particulate pollutant. So I don't think anybody involved in air 
pollution issues would ever point out that wood burning is something we 
want to point to. It may be renewable--and I appreciate you saying 
that, and I think it's very good that you said that because I think we 
mix renewable with clean all the time. But there are those renewable 
sources that are very, very bad for the air pollution issue. I just 
wanted to make sure we went by and didn't point at that.
  In California, we have actually tried to outlaw wood-burning stoves 
because of the problems with the air pollution and the toxin emissions 
that are caused by the particulate problem with it.
  Mr. KIND. Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the ranking 
member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman).
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds.
  Mr. WAXMAN. The advocates of the underlying bill have said that EPA 
is going to regulate a lot of other sources. What this Kind-Owens 
amendment does is says that EPA will not be allowed to regulate farms, 
small businesses, and other small and medium-size sources of pollution. 
This makes sense, and it deals with the problem that has been raised 
about EPA. It is a commonsense solution. We ought to support it and 
make sure that the tailoring rule is all that would be applicable for 
EPA to do.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Well, I would say to you that EPA adopted this tailoring act because 
they bit off more than they could chew, initially. That's why a lawsuit 
has been filed against them, because they violated the clear language 
of the Clean Air Act that says if anything emits more than 150 tons per 
year, or 250 tons per year, it must be regulated if they've had an 
endangerment finding, as they did in this case.
  And so this amendment would simply gut the entire bill and place the 
tailoring law there in its place. Under this tailoring rule, they would 
be able to go down to 50-tons-per-year emissions. But the question 
becomes, what happens after the year 2013? You have two conflicting 
parts of this Clean Air Act as a result if we adopt this amendment.
  One thing we know for certain, EPA is already involved in too many 
lawsuits. In fact, we're trying to find out now exactly how many 
lawsuits. We feel like this bill that we are trying to pass in the 
Congress today, H.R. 910, is simply Congress reasserting itself into 
the Clean Air Act because for too long decisions have been made by 
unelected bureaucrats at EPA; lawsuits are being filed. Almost every 
time anyone applies for a permit EPA runs and enters into a consent 
decree, and then the Federal judge will award legal fees to the 
plaintiffs. We think it's time to reassert ourselves into this process.
  This is a good bill, H.R. 910. It says that it was never the intent 
of Congress for EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. We do not in any way 
interfere with their ability to regulate ambient air quality standards, 
particulate matter, the hazardous air pollutants--we have about 200 or 
so of those listed--acid rain, any of those things.
  This is a great bill. Let's defeat this amendment. I urge passage of 
H.R. 910.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KIND. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
will be postponed.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 112-54 on 
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
  Amendment No. 2 by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
  Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Murphy of Connecticut.
  Amendment No. 6 by Mr. Waxman of California.
  Amendment No. 8 by Mr. Polis of Colorado.
  Amendment No. 9 by Mr. Markey of Massachusetts.
  Amendment No. 10 by Mr. Rush of Illinois.
  Amendment No. 11 by Mr. Doyle of Pennsylvania.
  Amendment No. 12 by Mr. Kind of Wisconsin.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


          Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 161, 
noes 259, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 233]

                               AYES--161

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--259

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)

[[Page 5329]]


     Cole
     Conaway
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Cantor
     Costa
     Critz
     Frelinghuysen
     Giffords
     Honda
     Meeks
     Moore
     Olver
     Pingree (ME)
     Rangel
     Sanchez, Loretta

                              {time}  1843

  Mr. MEEHAN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. BALDWIN, Messrs. CARNEY, BERMAN, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY and Mr. CLEAVER 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


          Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Westmoreland). The unfinished business is the 
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) on which further proceedings were 
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 157, 
noes 266, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 234]

                               AYES--157

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--266

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hirono
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Costa
     Frelinghuysen
     Giffords
     Gutierrez
     Meeks
     Olver
     Pingree (ME)
     Rangel
     Sanchez, Loretta


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in 
the vote.

                              {time}  1847

  Ms. CHU and Mr. YARMUTH changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.

[[Page 5330]]

  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


          Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Murphy of Connecticut

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182, 
noes 240, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 235]

                               AYES--182

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--240

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Akin
     Costa
     Frelinghuysen
     Giffords
     Meeks
     Olver
     Pingree (ME)
     Rangel
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Waters


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining on 
this vote.

                              {time}  1850

  Mr. McINTYRE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 235, I voted ``aye'' and 
I intended to vote ``no.''
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Dingell was allowed to speak out of 
order.)


                       Rahall Casts 20,000th Vote

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to pay tribute to our good friend 
from West Virginia, Representative Nicky Joe Rahall, who will cast in 
this next vote his 20,000th vote in this House of Representatives.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a milestone event. It gives us an opportunity 
to recognize the great work done by our distinguished friend and 
colleague from Beckley, West Virginia. He is always serving his 
constituents and doing so well. He also strives to work across the 
aisle, and he is the kind of Member I believe we all feel we should be.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleague, Mr. Rahall, to rise so that we may 
all join together in paying tribute to our friend and colleague on the 
occasion of his 20,000th vote.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Waxman

  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, 2-minute voting will continue.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Waxman) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 184, 
noes 240, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 236]

                               AYES--184

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello

[[Page 5331]]


     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--240

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Frelinghuysen
     Giffords
     Latham
     Meeks
     Olver
     Pingree (ME)
     Rangel
     Sanchez, Loretta


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining on 
this vote.

                              {time}  1857

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Polis

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Polis) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 168, 
noes 257, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 237]

                               AYES--168

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--257

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford

[[Page 5332]]


     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Frelinghuysen
     Giffords
     Meeks
     Olver
     Pingree (ME)
     Rangel
     Sanchez, Loretta


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in 
the vote.

                              {time}  1902

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 237 I 
inadvertently voted ``yea'' when I intended to vote ``nay.''


                 Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Markey

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 156, 
noes 266, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 238]

                               AYES--156

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--266

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Akin
     Frelinghuysen
     Giffords
     Gutierrez
     Meeks
     Olver
     Pingree (ME)
     Rangel
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Wilson (FL)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in 
the vote.

                              {time}  1905

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Rush

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Rush) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.

[[Page 5333]]

  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 165, 
noes 260, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 239]

                               AYES--165

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--260

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Frelinghuysen
     Giffords
     Meeks
     Olver
     Pingree (ME)
     Rangel
     Sanchez, Loretta


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in 
this vote.

                              {time}  1909

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Doyle

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 173, 
noes 250, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 240]

                               AYES--173

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--250

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Doggett
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry

[[Page 5334]]


     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Holden
     Honda
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Brady (TX)
     Frelinghuysen
     Giffords
     Gohmert
     Meeks
     Olver
     Pingree (ME)
     Rangel
     Sanchez, Loretta


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in 
this vote.

                              {time}  1912

  Mr. CONYERS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Kind

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Kind) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 160, 
noes 264, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 241]

                               AYES--160

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Petri
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--264

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Holden
     Holt
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Dicks
     Frelinghuysen
     Giffords
     Meeks
     Olver
     Pingree (ME)
     Rangel
     Sanchez, Loretta


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in 
this vote.

                              {time}  1917

  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Rivera) having assumed the chair, Mr.

[[Page 5335]]

Westmoreland, Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under 
consideration the bill (H.R. 910) to amend the Clean Air Act to 
prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from 
promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or 
taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address 
climate change, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to House 
Resolution 203, reported the bill back to the House with an amendment 
adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
  If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further 
proceedings on this bill will be postponed.

                          ____________________