[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12861-12865]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  ENERGY CONSUMERS RELIEF ACT OF 2013


                             General Leave

  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
on the bill, H.R. 1582.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 315 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 1582.
  Will the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Yoder) kindly take the chair.

                              {time}  1353


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 1582) to protect consumers by prohibiting the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating 
as final certain energy-related rules that are estimated to cost more 
than $1 billion and will cause significant adverse effects to the 
economy, with Mr. Yoder (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.

[[Page 12862]]

  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, 
July 31, 2013, a request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 3 printed 
in part B of House Report 113-174 offered by the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Connolly) had been postponed.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Woodall

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in part B of House Report 113-174.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, 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 2, lines 11 through 17, amend subparagraph (D) to read 
     as follows:
       (D)(i) an estimate of the total benefits of the rule and 
     when such benefits are expected to be realized;
       (ii) a description of the modeling, the calculations, the 
     assumptions, and the limitations due to uncertainty, 
     speculation, or lack of information associated with the 
     estimates under this subparagraph; and
       (iii) a certification that all data and documents relied 
     upon by the Agency in developing such estimates--
       (I) have been preserved; and
       (II) are available for review by the public on the Agency's 
     Web site, except to the extent to which publication of such 
     data and documents would constitute disclosure of 
     confidential information in violation of applicable Federal 
     law;

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 315, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to talk about an amendment that recognizes that knowledge is power.
  So often today, we've talked about what we can do to make the 
government more accountable to the people. One of those things is 
entailed in the underlying bill that says, for these big rules that 
make a big difference, tell us what it is that you did. How did you 
come to this decision that this is the rule that you want to implement? 
My amendment goes one step further and asks for the underlying data on 
which that decision was made. We want to know what those calculations 
were.
  It's going to be a good step forward if we can get agencies to share 
with us their modeling, but one step further would be those 
calculations that went into the modeling and came out of the modeling. 
What about the underlying data, Mr. Chairman? How in the world can we 
be in a conversation with the American people as the Congress with the 
agencies if we don't have access to the underlying data?
  This is not a trade secret. This is not private information. This is 
the information that the agency uses to promulgate these rules that 
will then govern the entire United States of America. We simply say, if 
the disclosure of that data won't violate any laws, if it won't violate 
any trade secrets, if it's not going to be in violation of any 
applicable Federal laws, share that with America, post that on your Web 
page so that anyone who is interested in understanding how it is that 
these decisions that often go on behind closed doors, that often go on 
without the oversight of the public, not just what did you decide, but 
how did you decide it.
  It's very difficult, whether you're a Republican or whether you're a 
Democrat, to hold the considered experts at these agencies accountable 
if you can't see the underlying data that went into their calculations. 
It's a simple amendment that says please share that with us. We're not 
questioning your expertise. We simply want to be a part of that 
process.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, as I rise in opposition 
to this amendment, the supporters would claim that it's about 
transparency. What it's really about is not transparency. It's about a 
way to block or delay critical EPA rules. That's what this whole bill 
is all about. The amendment does the same thing. They use rhetoric 
about transparency to cloud the amendment's true impact.
  The amendment would prevent EPA from using the best science available 
when implementing its public health laws. It accomplishes this by not 
allowing EPA to rely on any scientific study unless the agency can 
publish, on its Web site, all of the underlying data associated with 
that study.
  Today, EPA prides itself on using the best science available. The 
Agency understands that ideology will not stand the test of time, but 
science will; and their rules and regulations have to be based on the 
science, so they gladly inform stakeholders and the public about the 
studies upon which they rely.
  The underlying data to peer-reviewed studies is often not published. 
That's because the data sets underlying peer-reviewed scientific 
studies are the property of the scientists that spend their careers 
gathering that information. The EPA cannot require the scientists to 
give up their private information. Oftentimes, those studies involve 
going to a lot of people and trying to find out the impact of certain 
exposure to pollutants. Those people agree to the study on the basis 
that this information about them will not be made public. But this 
amendment would say it would be impossible for EPA to use gold-standard 
scientific studies available to them unless they post this other data 
on their Web site.
  Why do we want to prevent EPA from using high-quality scientific 
studies to set new pollution standards?

                              {time}  1400

  This is an issue that came up many years ago. In 1997, EPA used a 
study conducted by researchers at Harvard to set a new air quality 
standard for particulate matter. They did a rigorous peer-reviewed 
study that was conducted over a period of 16 years. The Harvard people 
showed conclusively that exposure to particulate matter in the air can 
kill people, while polluters said: We don't want EPA to issue this 
rule, it's going to cost us money.
  So they said that EPA should publish all of the Harvard scientists' 
data, claiming that the scientists were keeping a secret. Well, the 
data is the work product and property of the Harvard scientists, not 
EPA. The agency couldn't release that information. They're relying on 
the Harvard scientists to give independent scientists access to the 
data after the scientists signed a confidentiality agreement. So 
independent scientists spent the next 3 years reanalyzing the data, and 
came to exactly the same conclusion.
  There should be no objection to EPA relying on studies like this one. 
It's a long-term study with a huge sample. This is exactly the kind of 
rigorous review we expect of EPA. I urge opposition to this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to say nothing 
can be further from the truth. There is a specific provision in this 
amendment that says you shall not disclose anything for which the 
disclosure would violate your commitments under Federal law. All we're 
asking is for whatever EPA saw, whatever the agency saw to make their 
decision. If it was good enough for the agency, shouldn't it be good 
enough for Congress as well?
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Cassidy).
  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chairman, I cannot understand why somebody would 
object to this. The bill is about transparency, and this amplifies that 
transparency. EPA can impose rules which cost tens or even hundreds of 
billions of dollars on the U.S. economy. Those expenses translate into 
jobs lost.
  Having access to the underlying information, and the estimates of 
cost and benefits, is critical to know why that is. And as my colleague 
said, there is no reason to have to reveal information about 
individuals. And let me just point to the medical literature. In the 
medical literature, there is a push that when the Federal Government 
funds research, that that underlying data is made subject, is made 
available to the general public. When the FDA reviews drugs, FDA will 
look at underlying data. So why would we require it for

[[Page 12863]]

medications, which obviously affect many people, but not for the EPA. 
Having methodology which is transparent is absolutely essential in 
modern scientific literature. I don't see why there is an objection to 
it unless the hope is that EPA can satisfy an ideological bent without 
having to justify it.
  This amendment will provide more transparency for EPA's billion-
dollar rules. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the amendment and 
``yes'' on the underlying bill. The American people cannot afford to 
have jobs shipped overseas or have their economy otherwise wrecked. 
More rationality, transparency, and accountability must be brought to 
the EPA and its rulemaking process.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that EPA does not 
have this underlying data. It doesn't belong to EPA. It belongs to the 
scientists who did the study.
  Consider this issue in a different context. If a pharmaceutical 
manufacturer wants to bring a new product to market, they would never 
be required to post all of their underlying data on the public Web site 
in order for FDA to rely on it. There's no other agency that would be 
held to such an unreasonable requirement as this amendment would impose 
on EPA. They review the data, but they don't put it on their Web site. 
EPA does not have the underlying data, and they can't require that the 
owners of the underlying data who did the study, often based on 
confidential agreements for those who participate in the study, they 
can't require that study be given to them. They are relying on the 
scientific data and the study results.
  I think all this would do is make it more difficult for EPA to 
protect the public health.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia has 1\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
say that I think I speak for most of America that says I understand the 
government has to make decisions, but since the government is making 
those decisions on my behalf, shouldn't the government share with me 
the data that it uses to make those decisions?
  The gentleman says this is going to hold EPA to a higher standard 
than the other agencies. I would say to the gentleman, you can look 
forward to me being back with this same amendment for absolutely every 
agency.
  All we're saying is if you've seen the data, if you've utilized the 
data, if you believe this is sound enough science on which to base a 
regulation that is going to cost not $1, not $100, not $1,000, not $1 
million, but more than $1 billion, isn't it worth sharing with the 
American people how you reached that conclusion?
  Mr. Chairman, the work that we do here, we should be proud enough of 
to share with absolutely anyone who asks. This is about transparency. 
And even if you don't support the underlying bill--I'm a strong 
supporter, but even if you don't--you should support in the context of 
transparency providing the underlying materials to the American public 
that went into this decisionmaking process.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a great step forward as a transparency tool for 
the American public to restore that faith in government that has been 
lost.
  I rise in strong support of the underlying bill and ask my colleagues 
to support the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Fortenberry). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 5 will not 
be offered.


         Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in part B of House Report 113-174.
  Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, 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 committee print, add the following 
     section:

     SEC. 5. PROHIBITION ON USE OF SOCIAL COST OF CARBON IN 
                   ANALYSIS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     or any executive order, the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency may not use the social cost 
     of carbon in order to incorporate social benefits of reducing 
     carbon dioxide emissions, or for any other reason, in any 
     cost-benefit analysis relating to an energy-related rule that 
     is estimated to cost more than $1 billion unless and until a 
     Federal law is enacted authorizing such use.
       (b) Definition.--In this section, the term ``social cost of 
     carbon'' means the social cost of carbon as described in the 
     technical support document entitled ``Technical Support 
     Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for 
     Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866'', 
     published by the Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of 
     Carbon, United States Government, in May 2013, or any 
     successor or substantially related document, or any other 
     estimate of the monetized damages associated with an 
     incremental increase in carbon dioxide emissions in a given 
     year.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 315, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I have an amendment in order that would prohibit the EPA from using 
``social cost of carbon'' estimates for any energy-related rule that 
costs more than $1 billion unless and until a Federal law is enacted 
authorizing such use.
  The administration slipped into a rule about microwave ovens a new 
prediction for the cost of carbon dioxide between now and the year 
2300. Despite the profound implications to the economy and the families 
who make a living from coal, there was no public debate, no stakeholder 
comment, no vote in Congress on this new estimate.
  In southwestern Pennsylvania, coal is our heritage. It fires the 
steel mills that built the Empire State Building, the St. Louis Arch, 
and the Golden Gate Bridge. But that heritage and prosperity is 
threatened by this new regulation. We've already seen what the social 
cost of the war on coal is today--the cost is jobs.
  Three weeks ago, more than 380 workers at the Hatfield's Ferry and 
Mitchell power plants in Pennsylvania were told they are losing their 
jobs. The plants had to shut down under EPA regulations after they had 
spent hundreds of millions of dollars in new environmental 
modernizations.
  More than 15 organizations representing workers and stakeholders 
endorse my amendment because these groups share my concern that this 
bypassed congressional oversight and will put hundreds of thousands of 
miners, boilermakers, factory workers, laborers, railroaders, 
electricians, operating engineers, steamfitters and machinists out of 
work.
  My amendment says Congress, not the EPA, decides regulations by 
considering what this means to the families and workers. The EPA's 
policies have real-world consequences. Annual coal production in 
central Appalachia is dropping sharply--by more than half in just 5 
years' time. There are towns where mines are shutting down, where a 
staggering 41 percent of the residents fall below the poverty line.
  The social cost of carbon and the wider war on coal is a war on the 
American worker and their family.
  Let me show you the real cost of the EPA's rules. Those who oppose 
this amendment ignore the health effects on those living in poverty, 
who are twice as likely to have a risk of depression, asthma, obesity, 
diabetes, heart attacks, and other health effects. Poverty leads to 
devastated communities, early death, and lost dreams of a generation of 
Americans and their children.
  Many of us can remember Bobby Kennedy's walk through those broken 
Appalachian coal towns back in the 1960s to illustrate the abject 
poverty where families and children were living. I worked and 
volunteered in those towns, trying to help families hang on

[[Page 12864]]

to some sort of semblance of hope in a hard-scrabble life.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Too often their hope failed, and now history is about to repeat 
itself. First, jobs are lost by the tens of thousands and, after that, 
the hundreds of thousands. And when people lose their jobs, we give 
them unemployment compensation. They go hungry; we give them food 
stamps. They lose unemployment; we give them welfare. They lose their 
homes; we give them public housing. They lose their dignity and pride, 
and the government has nothing left to give--nothing--when all these 
folks ever really wanted was a job--a job and a chance for the American 
dream not shattered by the EPA.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WAXMAN. The Murphy amendment denies that carbon pollution is 
harmful. It prohibits the Environmental Protection Agency from 
considering the costs of climate change when analyzing the impacts of 
its rules. According to this amendment, the cost of carbon pollution is 
zero. Well, that's science denial at its worst. We are telling EPA the 
cost of carbon pollution is zero. It's like waving a magic wand. We are 
going to decree that climate change imposes no costs at all.
  The House Republicans can vote for this amendment. They can try to 
block EPA from recognizing the damage caused by climate change, but 
they cannot overturn the laws of nature. We should be heeding the 
warnings of the world's leading climate scientists, not denying 
reality.
  In the real world, scientific instruments accurately measure the 
levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the levels trapped in 
ancient ice. Those measurements tell us that carbon dioxide levels just 
hit 400 parts per million this spring, and that's the highest levels in 
the last 3 million years. In the real world, higher levels of heat-
trapping carbon pollution are warming the planet and changing the 
climate. We are experiencing more record-breaking temperatures, worse 
droughts, longer wildfire seasons with more intense wildfires, and an 
increased number of intense storms, more flooding, and rapidly rising 
sea levels. Pretend it doesn't happen. Pretend that's not the reality.
  On the other hand, as the proponent of this amendment suggested, 
let's look at the impact on the family that may lose its job. Well, I 
think that ought to be under consideration, but let's not have an 
amendment that would ignore the cost of carbon pollution.
  We are seeing the effect of climate change not some time in the 
future but right now. And we're being told it's not going to get better 
by itself; it's going to get worse. Scientists have been telling us for 
years. EPA and other Federal agencies have a responsibility to 
calculate the cost of climate change and take them into account when 
they issue new standards. That's common sense, and that was the clear 
message from the Government Accountability Office when it added climate 
change to its high-risk list earlier this year, and that's exactly what 
the Obama administration is doing.

                              {time}  1415

  They have an interagency task force that worked, over the course of 
several years, to estimate the cost of the harm from carbon pollution. 
It incorporated the latest scientific and technical information.
  I'm sorry people lose their jobs, but they don't have to lose their 
jobs. If an industry is told to reduce carbon emissions, they don't 
have to fire people. They can develop and buy the technology that would 
reduce that pollution.
  So to help those polluters not have to do that, we're going to 
pretend there's no cost. Mr. Murphy's amendment would require the 
government to assume zero harm, zero cost from carbon pollution and 
climate change.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. It's based on magical 
thinking. Don't be a science-denier. Vote against the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have 
left on our side?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from California has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the number two coal-
producing State in America.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of my colleague 
Mr. Murphy's amendment and in opposition to the EPA's arbitrary, 
backdoor approach to regulating carbon dioxide emissions. These 
regulations would and are having a catastrophic effect on jobs and 
economic activity across the country, especially in our coal-producing 
States such as West Virginia and Pennsylvania.
  The administration's new Social Cost of Carbon calculation is nothing 
more than a gimmick used to circumvent Congress so that job-killing 
regulations and an anti-domestic energy agenda can move forward.
  Perhaps to no one's surprise, just as the administration is stepping 
up its efforts to issue regulations aimed at closing existing plants 
and stopping new ones, it decided, without public comment or 
transparency, to increase the cost of carbon by 44 percent. The fact 
is, U.S. carbon emissions from the energy sector have fallen in the 
last 4 of 5 years.
  I am not willing to sacrifice West Virginia jobs to the 
administration's ideological efforts. I ask my colleagues to put jobs 
ahead of politics and pass the Murphy amendment.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
  Mr. BARTON. I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Murphy amendment, and I 
also want to say we should vote for that in conjunction with the 
gentleman from Georgia's amendment that was just heard previously.
  If you walk into a greenhouse anywhere in America, do you know what 
the average carbon concentration will be? It won't be 350 parts per 
million. It won't be 400 parts per million. It will be over 1,000 parts 
per million. We have records that indicate the CO2 
concentration in the upper atmosphere has been as high as 5,000 to 
6,000 parts per million in the past.
  The gentleman from California and those adherents of his philosophy 
would have you believe that having a carbon concentration between 350 
and 400 parts per million is somehow cataclysmic. Nothing could be 
further from the truth.
  And this new cost of carbon calculation that the EPA and the DOE have 
begun to include needs to be, at a minimum, made transparent. I think 
it's fine until we have the facts that it shouldn't be allowed at all.
  So vote for the Murphy amendment.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, this is not my philosophy 
that would lead me to urge that we reduce carbon emissions. It's based 
on the science. Thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies have 
indicated that carbon causes problems. It causes health effects, and it 
threatens the climate.
  The homeowners in Arizona, Texas, Colorado, and California who have 
seen their homes ravaged by drought-stoked wildfires know the cost of 
carbon pollution. The families of brave firefighters know the cost of 
carbon pollution.
  The farmers and ranchers suffering the effects of prolonged drought, 
many of whom have lost entire crops or been forced to sell their 
livestock, know the cost of carbon pollution. And the thousands who 
lost businesses and homes after Hurricane Sandy slammed into the east 
coast know the cost of carbon pollution.
  That cost is not based on a philosophy. It's based on the science and 
the reality.

[[Page 12865]]

  Reject this magical-thinking amendment. Don't be a science-denier. 
Vote against the amendment and the underlying bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, this isn't about denying 
science; this is about denying jobs and denying opportunity.
  The underlying amendment here is supported by the boilermakers, the 
electrical workers, the operating engineers, the carpenters, and United 
Mine Workers, the American Energy Alliance, National Mining 
Association, National Taxpayers Union, and Chamber of Commerce because 
they want jobs and they don't want poverty.
  And poverty, Mr. Chairman, is the number one threat to the 
environment. Poverty is the number one threat to public health. It's 
time Congress took charge of regulations and not unregulated divisions 
of the government.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask Members to support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, 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.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Woodall) having assumed the chair, Mr. Fortenberry, 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. 1582) to 
protect consumers by prohibiting the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency from promulgating as final certain energy-related 
rules that are estimated to cost more than $1 billion and will cause 
significant adverse effects to the economy, had come to no resolution 
thereon.

                          ____________________