[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3771-3786]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               ELECTRICITY SECURITY AND AFFORDABILITY ACT


                             General Leave

  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to 
include extraneous material on H.R. 3826.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nugent). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 497 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. 3826.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1549


                     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 consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3826) to provide direction to the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency regarding the establishment of 
standards for emissions of any greenhouse gas from fossil fuel-fired 
electric utility generating units, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Fortenberry 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 Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, I rise this afternoon in support of H.R. 3826, the 
Electricity Security and Affordability Act.
  Recently, a constitutional law professor at George Washington 
University named Jonathan Turley issued a dire warning. Professor 
Turley said that he voted for President Obama in the last election, 
that he agrees philosophically with President Obama on many issues, but 
he said that, if left unchecked, the U.S. President could effectively 
become a government unto himself. He was referring to the fact that 
this President has been overly aggressive in the use of executive 
orders and regulations through various governmental agencies to 
accomplish his political goals.
  The reason that we are here today is, with this legislation, it is 
our hope that we can overturn one of the most extreme regulations of 
the Obama administration.
  In January of next year, it is anticipated that they will finalize a 
rule from EPA that will make it impossible to build a new coal-powered 
plant in America. That is hard to believe that that can be the 
situation in our great country, particularly since 40 percent of our 
electricity comes from coal. The reason that it would be impossible to 
build a new coal-powered plant because of these new EPA regulations is 
the fact that the emission standards have been set so high, and I might 
add that it is pretty clear that those emission standards, the way they 
were set, violates the Energy Security Act of 2005.
  We have written a letter to EPA setting out our concerns. They still 
have not responded to us. We have talked to lawyers throughout the 
country who are ready to file a lawsuit if this happens because it is 
impossible to believe that the three plants in America that used to set 
the emission standards for new coal-powered plants, none of those 
plants are in existence today. None of them are operating today. So our 
legislation, we believe, is a reasonable approach to a serious problem 
for America.
  I might add that 41 out of 50 States last year indicated that their 
electricity rates have gone up under the Obama administration. I know 
that the President is greatly concerned about the less fortunate in our 
society. He has talked a lot about the minimum wage bill, for example, 
but these electricity rates going up hit the most vulnerable in our 
society the most, particularly those on fixed incomes. Yet it is his 
policies that are driving up these electricity costs.
  So the legislation that we have on the floor today is very simple. 
First of all, it acknowledges for the first time by legislation that 
EPA can regulate greenhouse gases. This bill goes farther than any 
other bill has. So you can

[[Page 3772]]

regulate greenhouse gases, but when you set the emissions standard, the 
unit must be in operation for a period of time. It must be commercially 
available to the utilities to buy it, as opposed to the proposed 
regulation in which the technology is simply not available.
  So our legislation, as I said, we don't anticipate a new coal-powered 
plant to be built anytime soon in America because our natural gas 
prices are so low. But in Europe, which it is acknowledged is the green 
sector of the world, they mothballed 30 gigawatts of gas-powered plants 
in the last 20 months because the gas prices coming from Russia are so 
expensive that it is raising their electricity rates to such an extent 
that it is damaging the area. With our legislation, if those gas prices 
go up, an option available to the American people, to the American 
utility sector, is they can go out and build a coal-powered plant with 
reasonable regulations.
  Then the second thing that our legislation does--and when I say 
``our,'' I am talking about Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West 
Virginia, has introduced this bill in the U.S. Senate. I, along with 
Democratic support, was able to get it out of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
  So this debate is vitally important today because the President is 
going so fast, in such an extreme way, that it would make it impossible 
to use coal in America with a new plant, and we have never had a 
national debate on the issue. So today we can at least have this 
debate.
  The second thing that our legislation does applies to existing 
plants. EPA said they are going to regulate existing coal plants. We 
say go ahead and do it, set the standards, but Congress will set the 
effective date for that regulation.
  It is a very simple piece of legislation, one that I think is 
necessary to protect the American people and to ensure that America 
remains competitive in the global marketplace.
  In addition to that, I want to make one other comment. Emissions from 
the energy sector in America are the lowest, CO2 emissions 
are the lowest that they have been in 20 years. So America does not 
have to take a backseat to anyone on having a clean emission standard 
and regulation.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, Kofi Annan, the former Secretary-General of the United 
Nations wrote in The Washington Post earlier this year:

       Climate change is the biggest challenge of our time. It 
     threatens the well-being of hundreds of millions of people 
     today, and many billions more in time.

  Robert Rubin, the former Treasury Secretary, said recently:

       There are a lot of really significant monumental issues 
     facing the global economy, but this supersedes them all.

  The Energy and Commerce Committee is the committee in the House that 
has the power to tackle this monumental issue, the biggest challenge of 
our time, but we are missing in action. Instead of listening to the 
scientists and working on a bipartisan basis to protect the planet for 
our children and future generations, we are considering today a science 
denial bill that would strip the EPA of authority to stop dangerous 
carbon pollution.
  The venerable John Dingell, the longtime chairman of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, is famously known for pointing to a photo of the 
Earth, which I have here to the right, to describe the committee's 
jurisdiction. Under his leadership, the committee was known for 
listening to the experts, tackling the toughest problems, and crafting 
responsible science-based policies. But today we need a new symbol to 
represent what we are doing.
  The Energy and Commerce Committee has joined The Flat Earth Society. 
We considered a very similar bill to this one last Congress.
  Here is what Nature, one of the world's leading science journals, 
said at the time:

       Misinformation was presented as fact, truth was twisted, 
     and nobody showed any inclination to listen to scientists, 
     let alone learn from them. It has been an embarrassing 
     display, not just for the Republican Party, but also for 
     Congress and the U.S. citizens it represents.

                              {time}  1600

  It is hard to escape the conclusion that the U.S. Congress has 
entered the intellectual wilderness--The Flat Earth Society.
  The United States is a major contributor to climate change. It cannot 
be stopped without us. We have a moral responsibility to act, but the 
Republican majority has brought a bill to the floor that does just the 
opposite. It makes the problem worse by preventing EPA from acting.
  If we pass this terrible bill, we will vote to let China leap ahead 
of us in the race to build the clean energy economy for the future, and 
we will be ignoring our moral obligation to protect the planet for our 
children and grandchildren.
  As you might have guessed, I strongly oppose this bill. Future 
generations will be appalled that we are considering it today. Coal-
fired power plants are the largest single source of carbon pollution in 
the country. Today, there is no limit on how much carbon pollution 
these power plants can emit. That is why President Obama directed the 
Environmental Protection Agency to use its existing authority under 
law, under the Clean Air Act, to require power plants to control carbon 
pollution. EPA has proposed a rule to require new coal plants to use 
available pollution control technology to capture and sequester carbon. 
For existing coal plants, EPA is working with stakeholders to think 
through the best approach. H.R. 3826, the bill under consideration 
today, would stop EPA from issuing any rules and allow these plants to 
continue to keep emitting unlimited amounts of carbon pollution.
  Republicans complain they don't like EPA's approach, but they won't 
even admit climate change is a problem, much less accept the 
President's invitation to work together on a solution. Instead, they 
want to pass a bill to deny the problem, block EPA action, and weaken 
the Clean Air Act.
  My message to my Republican colleagues is simple: if you don't like 
what EPA is doing, tell us your plan. If you have other ideas for 
reducing carbon pollution to prevent catastrophic climate change, let's 
hear about them. If you don't, you should step aside and let the 
President lead.
  Today is an embarrassing day for our committee on Energy and Commerce 
and the U.S. House of Representatives if this bill is to be passed. I 
hope that does not come about.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority 
whip.
  Mr. McCARTHY of California. Mr. Chairman, in 2008 in an interview 
with the San Francisco Chronicle, President Obama warned us that under 
his policies for energy, ``electricity rates will necessarily 
skyrocket.'' Now it appears with high electricity costs, that this is a 
promise that the President chose to keep.
  Today, millions of Americans are suffering from one of the coldest 
winters in recent memory, and in some cases, the most expensive. In New 
York, some homes are seeing their heating bills double, but it doesn't 
have to be this way. The U.S. is currently enjoying a revolution in 
energy production, the energy that heats our homes and keeps us warm 
during the cold winter nights. Americans across the country should be 
celebrating this breakthrough. In an economy where the Nation's income 
today is lower than in the year 2000, abundant energy should provide a 
sense of relief to strained budgets, but because of this 
administration's policies, Americans are simply left out in the cold 
with their energy bills.
  First, the Democrats tried cap-and-trade, but that failed in a 
Democrat-led Congress. Now this administration has proposed arguably 
the most expensive regulation ever by the EPA, one that would render 
the construction of any future coal power plant impossible through the 
mandating of technology that isn't readily attainable.

[[Page 3773]]

  Today, coal accounts for 37 percent of total U.S. electricity 
production. The EPA's regulation will cost approximately $1,200 per 
household per year in lost income. That is $100 more a month. Most 
importantly, this regulation will cause the greatest amount of harm, 
lost jobs, diminished incomes, and higher electricity bills in areas 
where incomes are modest, as are the lifestyles of those who live 
there. It isn't the rich on Fifth Avenue or in Beverly Hills who will 
be impacted; it is the American working class. Communities like 
Indiana's Second District, home to our good friend, Congresswoman 
Jackie Walorski; or Ohio's Fourth District, home to our friend Jim 
Jordan; or the First District, home to Chairman Ryan; or even 
Wisconsin's Second or Iowa's First District, both represented by my 
colleagues on the other side. All will be unnecessarily hurt by this 
regulation.
  For all the talk from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
about fairness, this regulation is profoundly unfair. The Electricity 
Security and Affordability Act sponsored by my friend, Ed Whitfield, 
rejects the administration's back door attacks on America's energy 
bills. This legislation restores opportunity and fairness by ensuring 
more American paychecks do not unnecessarily go to expanding 
electricity and heating costs.
  Mr. Chairman, at a time when energy production is booming, the cost 
per family should be dropping, not rising. I suppose the President 
actually held true to another promise: he has promised an all-the-above 
energy policy. I had hoped that meant increasing energy production from 
all sources, not increasing prices on all consumers.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the President's plan for higher energy 
costs and support this legislation.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker said that heating oil 
prices are going up, energy costs are going up. Well, if they are going 
up, it is not because of what President Obama has done by regulation 
because he has not adopted any regulations through EPA. The bill before 
us would stop any regulations from being adopted under current law. 
They would change the current law and say nothing could be adopted in 
the future.
  The chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy made the statement no coal 
power plants are being proposed, yet what he is also suggesting is that 
we not allow them to be built in the future should they want to be 
built in a way that would reduce the pollution of carbon. What is 
unfair, it seems to me what is unfair is that coal-burning power plants 
can burn all the coal they want and put out all the pollution they 
want, and we are allowing it even though everyone is suffering from the 
consequences. So I find it amazing to hear the arguments: One, coal 
burning power plants are not going to be built; on the other hand, we 
are already paying higher prices and nothing has even been passed by 
the EPA and put into effect.
  At this time I yield 5 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McNerney).
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding 
to me, and I want to talk about this bill, H.R. 3826. Basically from 
where I can see, H.R. 3826 will essentially prevent the EPA from 
limiting coal-fired power plant emissions, including health-endangering 
pollution as well as carbon. We are all interested in health, but I 
want to talk about carbon pollution.
  Climate change is one of the most important national issues we face 
right now, and the evidence for climate change is overwhelming, whether 
it is superstorms that are occurring more regularly, whether it is a 
record-changing drought, whether it is migration patterns of biological 
systems, melting of the polar icecaps and the related issue, ocean 
acidification, all of these current phenomenon are very dangerous and 
very threatening. The leading scientists of this Nation and around the 
world agree that this is a threat, that it is a problem. In fact, about 
97 percent of planet scientists believe this is a problem, and the 
predictions and the models for the climate sciences are horrifying 
enough. Unfortunately, actual measurements and actual predictions and 
happenings are worse than the predictions, than the actual models are 
predicting, so we are facing a very dangerous situation.
  I ask my colleagues, Why are you willing to take this risk? Climate 
change is a very big problem. It is a very big risk. Ninety-seven 
percent of the scientists agree it is a risk, and yet we are going to 
say it is not really a risk, we can worry about that later. No, we have 
to worry about it right now, today.
  The good news out there is that carbon-capture sequestration 
technology is coming along pretty well. What this bill would do, 
unfortunately, is prevent carbon-sequestration technology from being 
adopted in power plants. I submit that allowing carbon sequestration 
technology to be developed is in the interest of the coal industry. If 
the technology is developed and climate change keeps happening, which 
it is, then the public is going to demand that we incorporate climate 
change, carbon sequestration technology, and if it is not there, then 
coal plants are going to be shut down.
  So now, when we have the opportunity when technology is being 
developed, there is money being spent by the Federal Government and by 
private industry to develop carbon-capture sequestration, let's go 
ahead and take advantage of that, implement it in our power plants on a 
limited basis now so when the need is there, it will be available. I 
don't understand why that is being ignored.
  H.R. 3826 ignores that and other possibilities. It prohibits us from 
using existing carbon capture projects in the United States as a 
technical basis for implementing that technology in coal-fired power 
plants. We must take advantage of this technology in the United States 
and abroad. We shouldn't prevent the development of this technology. CS 
technology is improving. It is becoming more cost effective, and it is 
becoming more effective technologically. It is in the best interests of 
the long-term coal industry, and I strongly urge opposition to this 
bill.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I would just reiterate that America doesn't have to 
take a backseat to anyone on its emissions from energy sources. Our 
emissions today are lower than they were 20 years ago. Why should the 
U.S. unilaterally take this extreme position and other countries around 
the world, particularly in Europe and in Asia, are using coal and using 
coal, and we don't even have the flexibility to do that when they 
finalize this rule. So that is what we are up to today.
  At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Rothfus).
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, many families and businesses have had to 
spend more to heat their homes this cold and snowy winter. 
Unfortunately, regulations recently introduced by unelected elites in 
President Obama's EPA will increase their utility and electricity bills 
further.
  These regulations effectively ban new power plants by forcing them to 
meet an emissions standard that cannot be achieved with any 
commercially available technology. They are unworkable and 
unaffordable, and will result in more lost jobs.
  I stand in solidarity with the hardworking coal miners, power plant 
workers, steelworkers, boilermakers, carpenters, and truck drivers, but 
the victims of the President's war on affordable energy are the 
families and businesses whose energy costs are skyrocketing, and the 
workers who are losing their jobs and incomes because of these 
regulations.
  I strongly support H.R. 3826, the Electricity Security and 
Affordability Act. The bill will direct the EPA to adopt new coal-fired 
power plant emission standards that make sense and subject any new 
regulations on existing power plants to congressional review, where the 
people's Representatives can be held accountable.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to approve this job-
saving bill.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, House Republicans are telling us greenhouse

[[Page 3774]]

gas emissions are falling in the United States. They suggest the U.S. 
doesn't need to do anything more about climate change, but they 
couldn't be more wrong.
  A couple of years ago when the utilities were switching out of coal 
and going to natural gas because natural gas was cheaper, we saw some 
leveling off of those emissions, but what matters most is whether the 
U.S. emissions are on track to decline in the future by the amount 
needed to prevent dangerous climate change.

                              {time}  1615

  Scientists say we need to reduce carbon pollution by 80 percent by 
2050, but will not get anywhere near that level of reductions if we go 
about business as usual and stop EPA from acting and Congress doing 
nothing to respond to this emergency.
  At this time, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlelady from California 
(Mrs. Capps), a member of our committee.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  There is an argument on the other side of the aisle--in fact, we 
heard it just a few minutes ago--that we shouldn't take action to 
address climate change because doing so will hurt poor people.
  That is a particularly galling statement because the truth is that 
the world's poorest have the most to lose if we don't take urgent 
action to cut carbon pollution.
  Poor people are on the front lines of climate change. World Bank 
President Jim Yong Kim says that, unless we address climate change, 
``We could witness the rolling back of decades of development gains and 
force tens of millions more to live in poverty.''
  According to the United Nations Development Programme, without 
coordinated global action to address climate and environmental threats, 
3 billion more people could be pushed into extreme poverty by 2050.
  That is the reality. The world's poorest will be the most affected by 
the impacts of climate change, and yet they have the fewest resources 
to adapt to or respond to it.
  To hear the other side tell it, the only way to protect the health 
and well-being of poor people is to weaken EPA's ability to cut carbon 
pollution, and that is nonsense.
  It is time to stop denying the science and accept reality. We need to 
take action now to cut carbon pollution. The longer we wait, the higher 
the costs will be, especially for the poor.
  Indeed, addressing climate change is in the economic self-interest of 
all of us. Consider recent comments by Robert Rubin, who was a 
universally respected Treasury secretary.
  During his tenure, the budget deficit was reduced from $290 billion 
to $70 billion, the Dow Jones Industrial Average more than tripled, 
unemployment decreased to 4.3 percent, and more than 18 million new 
jobs were created.
  Senator Bob Dole described Secretary Rubin as a man of honesty and 
integrity. Alan Greenspan called him one of the most effective 
secretaries of the Treasury in this Nation's history. When he resigned 
in 1999, Secretary Rubin received glowing tributes from Democrats and 
Republicans alike.
  Over the past year, Secretary Rubin has focused on the threat of 
climate change to our economic well-being. Here is what he said about 
climate change a few weeks ago: ``There are a lot of really significant 
monumental issues facing the global economy, but this one supersedes 
all else.''
  Experts are telling us that inaction on climate change threatens the 
global economy. Responding to this threat isn't about disadvantaging 
ourselves; it is about seizing opportunities. There are already 143,000 
solar jobs and 80,000 wind jobs in the United States.
  Winning the global clean energy race will mean millions of jobs and 
faster economic growth. Our competitors in China and Europe understand 
this. We risk being left behind if we don't recognize it as well. We 
should abandon this bill and start getting serious about climate change 
and the economy.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining on both sides?
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Yoder). The gentleman from Kentucky has 19 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from California has 16 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from 
Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).
  Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3826. I 
appreciate Congressman Whitfield's leadership on this commonsense bill. 
I am proud to be an original cosponsor.
  This bill addresses President Obama's sweeping proposed rule for new 
power plants, which set the mediation standard so strict that the 
creation of a new coal-fired power plant is virtually impossible.
  Indiana is the backbone of manufacturing in America, but 
manufacturing depends on affordable energy. More than 80 percent of 
Indiana's electricity is coal-powered, and electricity rates in Indiana 
are expected to rise 32 percent by 2023, partly due to these EPA 
regulations.
  If President Obama is able to implement his radical environmental 
agenda, energy prices could skyrocket, having a devastating impact on 
economic growth and job creating and hurting Hoosiers trying to pay 
their bills.
  This bill provides a commonsense way to protect our environment by 
setting emission standards that are actually achievable.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the ranking member of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee yielding me this time, especially since 
we do not see eye to eye on this particular piece of legislation.
  We do see eye to eye on numerous other issues before the Congress and 
the American people, such as protecting the health and safety of our 
Nation's coal miners and our American workers; and, indeed, we all, 
both sides of the aisle, share the common goal of wanting to provide 
clean water, clean air, and health and safety for our families each and 
every day of the year. In that sense, we all have that common ground.
  There is a fear though in the coal fields today. I really wish the 
distinguished Majority Whip on that side of the aisle had mentioned my 
home State of West Virginia, one of the largest coal-producing States 
in the country when he mentioned and was going district by district 
about the various people that are going to be affected by these 
proposed regulations.
  I do rise in support of H.R. 3826 as a cosponsor. I commend my coal 
country colleague, Ed Whitfield, for his leadership on this issue and 
bringing it through his committee.
  Those of us from the coal-producing regions of this country have 
truly become sick and tired--sick and tired--of this EPA turning out 
anti-coal regulations, while showing little or no appreciation of how 
these regulations will affect the lives and the livelihoods of the real 
people who have to work and live under them.
  Granted, some are proposals; but, nevertheless, I remind my 
colleagues, it strikes fear--it strikes fear--in the very heart and 
soul of coal country.
  Many of our coal companies that are laying off workers, as we speak, 
have this fear of what is coming down the pike as a main factor in 
laying off workers today.
  Granted, there are many other factors affecting the current slump in 
the coal fields. I don't deny that for one minute; but we have been 
frustrated--frustrated--with an EPA that has, time after time and time 
again, pushed out piles of guidance documents, regulations, using 
slanted science, and inflating claims about the benefits of their 
regulatory agenda without any consideration--one iota--of the affects 
upon jobs--the affects upon jobs in the real America that their 
regulatory agenda means.
  Last September, when the EPA proposed regulations limiting greenhouse 
gas emissions for future power plants, it did so hinged upon the 
promise that the technologies required to achieve the new standards 
were proven and ready.

[[Page 3775]]

  Based on this claim, we have to question whether this EPA is actually 
using good, sound science or if it is picking and choosing science that 
sounds good to meet whatever ends the agency desires.
  There are no power plants--there are no power plants in commercial 
service anywhere in the world that have installed and operated the CCS 
technologies necessary to comply with the proposed rule--none, nada.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield an additional minute to the gentleman.
  Mr. RAHALL. I thank the distinguished ranking member again.
  The proposed greenhouse gas rule for new power plants may be the 
mother of all anti-coal regulatory measures so far promoted by this 
particular EPA. It spells curtains for the development of new coal-
fired capacity in this country. That means decreased energy reliability 
and increased costs for American families and businesses.
  What is more, the agency readily admits that the new regulations will 
have nearly zero impact on the emissions of greenhouse gases as 
economies around the globe continue to grow their use of coal power.
  That is why this legislation is so important. It would block the EPA 
from unilaterally imposing these caps, requiring that any such efforts 
be approved by the Congress.
  It would help set a course for the development of cutting-edge CCS 
technologies needed to ensure reliable, affordable coal-fired energy 
for America throughout the foreseeable future.
  For those of us from coal country, this legislation is fundamental to 
preserving the jobs of our coal miners, those who work hard every day, 
going beneath the bowels of this Earth to produce the energy that fuels 
this Nation and the economies of our communities and, indeed, a 
national energy security for the United States.
  I urge support of this legislation.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, my thanks to Mr. 
Whitfield, my colleague from Kentucky, and also my thanks to my 
colleague who I am lucky to follow, Mr. Rahall from West Virginia, for 
talking about such an important issue to my district in central 
Illinois.
  One of the reasons I am here, Mr. Chairman, is because I saw the 
devastation. The largest employer in my home county 20 years ago closed 
down because of a signature on a piece of paper here in Washington, 
D.C.
  Peabody Mine No. 10 shut down its coal mining families. Families 
whose children I went to school with and grew up with were forced to 
move to get a job once again.
  Now, we see this attack via the EPA on coal in middle America once 
again. I stand here today with my colleagues to say this bill is a 
commonsense proposal that is going to restrict the EPA's ability to 
overreach and cost families--all families, even the poorest families in 
this country--it is going to cost them more out of their family budget 
to turn the light switch on; it is going to cost jobs in my district at 
existing coal-fired power plants.
  They are some of the best jobs in central Illinois. They are 
organized labor jobs. This is about jobs; this is about the economy; 
and this is about low-cost power that allows our economy to grow.
  That is what we all want, Mr. Chairman, isn't it?
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to point out that the speakers in favor of this bill describe 
themselves as part of the coal-producing regions of the country. They 
are representing, they think, the coal-producing regions of the country 
because they fear, if the coal industry had to use some technology that 
would reduce carbon emissions, that would cost jobs.
  I want to dispute that in two respects. One, they claim that no one 
is using this technology, and that is not accurate. In fact, the 
control technology is already in effect, being used commercially in the 
United States for decades. There are seven large commercial CCS--that 
is carbon capture and sequestration--projects operating today.
  Dr. Julio Friedmann, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Clean Coal at 
the U.S. Department of Energy, recently testified: ``First generation 
CCS technology is commercially available today.''
  So why are they worried about jobs? They are being told by the coal 
miners that, if they have to use a technology that costs money, that 
would raise the price of coal and, therefore, coal will lose out to 
other technologies.
  Well, that hasn't been the case. I have been in Congress for 40 
years. I remember the coal industry coming in and saying: If we have to 
put scrubbers on, we will go broke; they will never burn coal again.
  The coal industry uses scrubbers right now. The cost of scrubbers has 
gone down. They overstated how much it would cost. They cried about the 
lost jobs. It didn't happen.
  The other thing I want to point out is that they talk about the coal 
jobs that will be lost. Well, coal jobs are being lost now because the 
utilities realize they can burn natural gas. It is cheaper, so coal is 
losing out in the market.
  If natural gas is cheaper than burning coal now, they are going to 
burn natural gas. That is called the market. It is like cars replacing 
horse and buggies.
  But the reality is that coal is going to be able to compete if we 
have new technologies imposed on them, just as they have been able to 
compete in the future. They can't compete if they are expensive, so 
they have got to figure out ways to produce coal that is less 
expensive.
  That may happen, but we shouldn't subsidize coal to compete by having 
the world have to deal with carbon pollution.

                              {time}  1630

  We decided years ago that we weren't going to help coal compete by 
poisoning people with toxic mercury pollution when we required they use 
the technology to stop toxic mercury pollution. We decided they had to 
use scrubbers. They said they would go broke, that they couldn't afford 
it, that people would lose their jobs, but we required it because it 
reduced pollution that harmed people. Carbon pollution harms people on 
this planet, as we see the impact of climate change continue, because 
we refuse to require them to use less carbon and spew it out into the 
atmosphere.
  Let me just say that you don't have to buy all of the arguments on 
climate change, but consider this: if there is a 10 percent chance that 
carbon pollution is going to cause greenhouse gases and climate change 
and do all of the terrible things that the scientists overwhelmingly 
tell us will happen, how many people want to take that 10 percent 
chance on the only atmosphere that we share on this planet?
  I know that the coal people say they are willing to take that chance. 
They are afraid their constituents will turn against them because the 
coal companies will tell them to turn against them. They may lose their 
next elections. I don't think that is the case, but that is their fear. 
They are speaking from fear. They are speaking from a fear of jobs 
being lost, but that hasn't been the experience under the Clean Air 
Act, and we shouldn't repeal the Clean Air Act now as it relates to 
giving the EPA the authority to regulate these coal-burning power 
plants.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I can assure you we are not speaking from fear today. I 
can assure you we are not being parochial about coal. Coal is still the 
base load for this country--for manufacturing, industrial use, 
electricity at home, and for our ability to compete in the world.
  I have great admiration and respect for the gentleman from 
California, and I am sorry that he has made the decision to leave 
Congress after having a distinguished career, but I can tell you there 
is no power plant operating in America today that is using carbon 
capture and sequestration, because the technology is not available.

[[Page 3776]]

  Now, there are some plants being built with government support and 
would not be built without that government support, but they are not in 
operation. There is a difference. When scrubbers were mandated by the 
EPA, scrubbers were already being put in plants at private expense. The 
government didn't pay for those scrubbers. They were already being 
used. Unlike this proposed regulation, there is no technology available 
to meet the emission standard, so there is a significant difference in 
what has happened and what is being proposed.
  At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Upton), the distinguished chairman of the full Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, today, we are going to continue our pursuit 
of an all-of-the-above energy strategy, taking up legislation to 
address the EPA's pending greenhouse gas rules for power plants, which 
is the latest threat by the Obama administration to affordable and 
reliable energy.
  While the President may boast support for an all-of-the-above 
strategy, his policies have been anything but. The President's approach 
seeks to limit our energy choices, to jeopardize jobs, to raise energy 
costs, and, indeed, to threaten America's global competitiveness.
  Our Nation has become the envy of the world because of recent 
breakthroughs unlocking vast amounts of oil and natural gas, but the 
game-changing developments do not give cause to regulate an entire fuel 
category out of the mix--gone--especially a resource that comprises, 
today, 40 percent of the fuel that provides affordable electricity for 
millions of Americans and countless job creators. Given that the U.S. 
has the world's largest coal reserves and is the largest producer of 
coal, it should remain a critical contributor to a diverse electricity 
portfolio for decades to come. We should proudly embrace that we are 
the Saudi Arabia of coal reserves.
  Fuel diversity gives us the flexibility to keep electricity costs low 
and to ensure reliability, particularly for the most vulnerable. As we 
have heard from many witnesses in hearings, the coal-fired power plant 
shutdowns already underway pose a serious threat to reliability in many 
regions, particularly in the Midwest. That threat will continue to get 
worse if the shutdowns increase in the years ahead while we will limit 
our options for new base load power. In sum, fuel diversity gives us a 
more stable, reliable, and affordable electricity supply, and any 
threat to coal, including the EPA's pending rules, is a threat to that 
diversity and a threat to affordable energy.
  I applaud both Chairman Whitfield and Senator Manchin for their 
efforts in authoring a workable bipartisan and bicameral alternative to 
the EPA's pending power plant rules. Their legislation is a good faith 
effort that requires a critical check on the EPA's misuse of the Clean 
Air Act to try to accomplish through regulation what was rejected by 
Congress through legislation.
  Their approach does not prohibit the EPA from setting a standard for 
new plants, but, instead, it focuses on setting standards that have 
been adequately demonstrated--a key ingredient missing from the EPA's 
regulatory proposal. Just in the last 2 weeks, as Mr. Whitfield 
indicated, we have heard testimony from administration officials that 
carbon capture technologies, which are not yet commercially viable, 
could increase electricity costs by, perhaps, as much as 80 percent. 
This important legislation provides a role for Congress in setting the 
effective date for any regulation for existing plants.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time we have on both 
sides?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 7 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Kentucky has 12 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Renacci).
  Mr. RENACCI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3826, the 
Electricity Security and Affordability Act.
  The United States is fortunate to have more coal than any other 
country in the world. This vital resource is currently used to meet 
nearly half of our electricity needs and to support over 550,000 jobs.
  As a Representative of Ohio, a State that produces more than 24 
million tons of coal per year and uses it to generate over 50 percent 
of our electricity, I understand firsthand the importance of keeping 
this abundant and affordable natural resource a part of America's 
energy supply. Unfortunately, over the past 5 years, this 
administration's policies have led to the closure of hundreds of coal-
fired plants across the country. In fact, in just 1 year, Ohio's coal-
generated electricity dropped nearly 20 percent as a result of the 
current regulatory environment.
  The EPA's recently proposed greenhouse gas standards for new coal-
fired plants are only the latest example of the administration's 
regulatory assault on America's power sector. Not only do these 
standards rely on a technology that is not even commercially viable at 
this point, but they will also lead to the loss of thousands of jobs 
and drive up the price of energy for American families and businesses 
that are already struggling to make ends meet. Ohio alone stands to 
lose an estimated 18,000 manufacturing jobs by 2023 as a result of 
these overreaching regulations. More than 1,000 of these jobs will be 
in my district. These estimates do not even include job losses by coal 
miners, utility workers, and all of those impacted directly by plant 
closures.
  Rising energy costs are one of the main problems facing many 
hardworking Americans. While we are all impacted by these rules, it is 
the most vulnerable citizens who, unfortunately, will be hit the 
hardest. It is the 387,000 Ohioans who are living well below the 
poverty line and who spend almost 30 percent of their incomes on energy 
costs that these standards will hurt the most. These standards are not 
just an attack on coal; they are an attack on those individuals who are 
having to choose between paying their electric bills and providing the 
basic necessities for their families.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. RENACCI. The bill before us today offers a realistic alternative 
to the EPA's misguided and unachievable approach to regulating new and 
existing power plants. I applaud Representative Whitfield's efforts on 
this critical piece of legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support 
it.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from 
Indiana, Congresswoman Brooks.
  Mrs. BROOKS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 
3826 because, late last year, the EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy, 
went on a listening tour through America to hear from the public about 
reducing carbon pollution from existing power plants. Unfortunately, 
the Administrator declined to go to those States most affected by the 
proposed regulations and, instead, opted to visit San Francisco, 
Seattle, and Boston. It is unfortunate that her stops didn't include 
places like my home State of Indiana, which stands to lose much from 
these misguided regulations.
  If Ms. McCarthy had taken the time to visit Indiana or other States 
like Indiana, she would have heard from people like Nina, in Anderson, 
who wrote me an anxious letter about what penalizing the coal industry 
would do to families on fixed incomes. She explained her church already 
has had to help many families pay for their electric bills, and she 
worries about how her community will cope when the EPA's new 
regulations are enacted.
  I wish I could tell Nina not to worry, but, sadly, her fears are very 
much warranted because the new regulations will have catastrophic 
impacts on our Hoosier economy. The State Utility Forecasting Group at 
Purdue University has estimated that, like Ohio, Indiana's electrical 
rates will increase 32

[[Page 3777]]

percent by 2023 because of EPA rules. The price increase will hurt 
every Hoosier who turns on a light switch. It will also cost up to 
17,000 jobs in Indiana and permanently ruin the prestige that our State 
enjoys as being one of the Nation's most business-friendly States.
  That is why I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important bill, 
which finally puts the brakes on unchecked EPA regulations and injects 
much-needed congressional oversight and consultation into the 
rulemaking agenda. We all have an obligation to leave the world a 
better place for our children and future generations, but we can't do 
it when we take away jobs and hurt the economy. That is why I support 
this bill, and I encourage all of my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).
  Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, Chairman Whitfield.
  Mr. Chairman, I think pretty much everybody I talk to around here is 
familiar with the fact that North Dakota has 25,000 job openings with 
fewer than 10,000 people looking for work. It is not an accident. It 
helps, for sure, to have an 800-year supply of coal under the ground, 
to have some oil and some gas, but it also is an indication of a 
regulatory and tax climate that champions work, that champions 
investment, that doesn't apologize for having the lowest priced 
electricity rates in the country most times of the year. We also have a 
robust manufacturing economy as a result of those same policies.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that America's economic security and 
America's national security depend on America's energy security. I 
would love to see every Member of this body go to North Dakota and see 
what that type of development looks like. I would also like to have 
them breathe some of the cleanest air, see some of the cleanest water 
and some of the richest topsoil in the world. We are very proud of the 
fact that we can feed a hungry world while also meeting the growing 
demands of our economy.
  If you really believe that there are several carbon-capture 
technology projects that are viable on power plants in this country, 
you should love this bill, because this bill actually prepares the 
standard for measuring that. It simply states that, for 12 consecutive 
months, six power plants--six different units--should be able to 
demonstrate it, with three of them being, of course, lignite, which is 
what we mine in North Dakota.
  We don't have to compromise quality of life for a high standard of 
living--we don't do it in North Dakota, and we can replicate it across 
this country--but the EPA's overreach will hurt that. I think this bill 
actually helps it, and I am very proud of my colleague Mr. Whitfield 
for his bicameral-bipartisan approach to this problem and to the 
solution that he has come up with. I urge all of my colleagues to vote 
for it.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 5\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from California has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that it was unfortunate to make a 
reference personally to Gina McCarthy, the head of the Environmental 
Protection Agency, on her listening tour. The Republicans have not 
allotted enough money to the EPA to let her go everywhere in the 
country, so she went to 10 regional offices as well as the Washington 
headquarters, and she invited people to come in and give their points 
of view.

                              {time}  1645

  That is the full amount of money she had available to her. So it 
seems to be unfair to criticize her for not going to every nook and 
cranny in coal country, when she went to every part of the country and 
had representation for those regions.
  At this time I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from the State of 
California (Mr. Peters).
  Mr. PETERS of California. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, proponents of this bill are arguing, in part, that 
EPA's plan to require carbon pollution controls under section 111 is 
going to hurt electric utilities. But it was just last month in the 
Utility Air Regulation Group v. EPA case that those same leading 
utilities argued to the Supreme Court that if EPA intends to address 
climate carbon pollution, it should act under section 111, which is 
what this bill would prevent EPA from doing.
  The Utility Air Regulatory Group represents about 60 utilities, from 
Duke Energy, the Southern Company, FirstEnergy, to the Salt River 
Project. On February 24, they told the Supreme Court that this was the 
appropriate way for EPA to address carbon pollution from utilities 
under section 111. That is exactly what the EPA would do, if it were 
not for this law.
  I know there may be some ideological desire to deny climate change 
and simply hope that the issue goes away, but that is not going to 
happen.
  More fundamentally, what we are getting caught up in today is this 
false choice that you hear over and over again that you have to choose, 
on one hand, between a healthy environment and, on the other hand, a 
prosperous economy. Americans deserve nothing less than both. We have 
to pay attention to this.
  I just offer comments from some of our leading health organizations--
the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Preventive 
Medicine, the American Lung Association, the American Public Health 
Association, and others--who point out:

       Cleaning up carbon pollution and other greenhouse gases 
     saves lives. Researchers found that efforts enacted now to 
     reduce greenhouse gases, including carbon pollution from all 
     sources in the United States, would prevent more than 16,000 
     premature deaths by 2030. The lives saved are a result of a 
     reductions in the ozone- and particulate-forming pollution 
     that is also reduced as carbon is reduced. Cleaning up carbon 
     pollution from power plants is essential to saving those 
     lives.

  We know, in turn, that will save money.
  So it is important to remember, too, the economic effect of 
unregulated carbon does not just extend to the climate but also to the 
by-products of clean air that come and help our economy and help people 
be healthy and ultimately contribute to the economy.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 
3826. I appreciate the work that the bills's sponsor, Mr. Whitfield, 
has done on this issue, and I am proud to be an original cosponsor of 
this bill.
  Wisconsin relies on coal for roughly two-thirds of our electricity 
production. Energy costs are consistently one of the many concerns my 
constituents share with me. The cold winter has made high energy bills 
the norm throughout Wisconsin. Instead of trying to alleviate these 
high costs, the EPA is pursuing policies that will drive energy prices 
even higher.
  The EPA's New Source Performance Standards require that now power 
plants capture, compress, and store about 40 percent of the 
CO2 produced in order to be compliant. However, the CCS 
technology required has not been adequately demonstrated. Ignoring the 
realities of today's technologies, the EPA is plowing full speed ahead.
  This action clearly marks yet another salvo in the Obama 
administration's war on coal. The next volley will be the rules 
concerning existing power plants. If done incorrectly, these new rules 
could effectively make it too expensive for our coal-fired power plants 
to continue operating. While this might be the dream of some, my 
constituents and yours simply cannot afford it.
  Fortunately, this bill restores common sense to the EPA's rulemaking 
process for power plants. By setting reasonable guidelines on the rules 
concerning new plants and subjecting any rules for current plants to 
congressional oversight, the bill will ensure that our constituents are 
able to afford their energy costs.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill and prevent the EPA from

[[Page 3778]]

unleashing chaos in the energy sector and picking the pockets of 
consumers.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time we have 
remaining on each side?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 4 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Kentucky has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from the State of Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a great champion 
of environmental protection.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Waxman. I appreciate your leadership 
and courtesy in permitting me to speak on this bill.
  Mr. Chair, I would like to reference the comments a moment ago that 
somehow there isn't available large commercial carbon capture 
sequestration and that this is somehow a figment. As a matter of fact, 
in the United States today, there are seven large commercial carbon 
capture sequestration projects operating today. The projects at large 
commercial coal-fired power plants will come online in the United 
States and Canada this year.
  Dr. Julio Friedmann, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Clean Coal at the 
U.S. Department of Energy, recently testified that:

       First generation CCS technology is commercially available 
     today. You can call up a number of U.S. and international 
     manufacturers, and they will sell you a unit at a large scale 
     for capture of more than a million tons per year.

  The idea that CCS technologies for coal are unavailable is simply not 
true. I would deeply suggest that this is one of the reasons we are 
having this bizarre conversation today. We are just sort of out of sync 
with reality.
  I strongly oppose H.R. 3826. The debate on this bill is about the 
reality of dangerous climate change.
  If you accept modern science, you cannot deny the combined weight of 
over 10,000 peer-reviewed, published scientific studies which tell us 
climate change is happening, is caused by humans, and will have 
extremely serious impacts. If you fight wildfires, farm, run a ski 
resort, or live in a low-lying coastal area, you are already living 
with the impacts of climate change on a daily basis.
  All these studies and experiences are telling us the same thing: 
carbon pollution produced by human activities is warming the Earth. It 
is driving more extreme weather events, more heat waves and droughts, 
longer and more intense wildfire seasons, rising sea levels, melting 
permafrost, and ocean acidification.
  Climate disruption is harming economic activities in my State such as 
agriculture and ski resorts. It is affecting the insurance industry. It 
is beginning to impose huge costs on those least able to bear them--
people living in the poorest and most vulnerable parts of the world.
  The United States is a major contributor to climate change and it 
cannot be mitigated without us. We have a moral responsibility to act, 
but H.R. 3826 does just the opposite. It makes the problem worse by 
preventing EPA from acting in the interest of the environment and our 
country.
  Coal-fired plants are the largest single source of carbon pollution. 
Today, there is no limit on how much carbon pollution they can emit. 
That is why President Obama directed EPA to use its existing authority 
under the Clean Air Act to require power plants to control carbon 
pollution, something long overdue.
  EPA has proposed a rule to require new coal plants to use available 
pollution control technology to capture and sequester carbon pollution. 
For existing coal plants, EPA is working with stakeholders to think 
through the best approach. EPA has not yet even issued a proposal, but 
industries are moving on.
  In my region, a major utility made the decision on sound economics 
and environment to shut down a coal-powered plant.
  H.R. 3826 would stop EPA from issuing any rules and allow these 
plants to keep emitting unlimited amounts of carbon pollution. For 
existing plants, the bill would be straight-out prohibition of any EPA 
rule from becoming effective unless Congress somehow passed a new law 
to implement the rule. As a practical matter, this repeals the EPA's 
existing authority to act.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is a dead letter. The Senate will never pass 
it, and even if it did, the President would veto it, as well he should. 
Let's spare him the agony and reject this misguided proposal now.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I am a cosponsor of the 
Electricity Security and Affordability Act. We have heard a lot of 
rhetoric on the floor about what is going on, but I want you to 
understand something. In Pennsylvania, over 40 percent of the 
electricity is generated by coal-fired power plants.
  If you go back to the election, during his candidacy the President 
said very clearly that if you want to continue to produce electricity 
using coal-powered power plants, you can, but we will bankrupt you. The 
only thing he didn't add to that was ``period.''
  That is the war on coal. That is where we are going.
  When we talk about these things, and we talk about the numbers of 
people in our society right now, not just the middle- and the lower 
middle-income, but the low-income people, what are we affecting? 
Everything that they put in their mouth, everything they put on their 
backs, everything that they do to heat and light their homes.
  The sum total of the cost of anything is everything that goes into 
it.
  The cost of energy and using coal to get there just makes sense. Coal 
has done so much for this country for so many years. I am not just 
talking about a few people. If you do not believe this is affecting 
people, please come back to western Pennsylvania. Walk with me. Go into 
these little towns where there no longer is a coal mine open. Not only 
that--their towns are shut down.
  Now isn't that a marvelous thing to accomplish and champion and say 
we are doing the right thing for America? We are going to drive your 
energy costs up and make it impossible for you to heat and light your 
homes. We are going to change the cost of everything you use to raise 
your children. It affects the cost of everything. The sum total is made 
up of energy costs also.
  What we will do is we will raise the bar so high that it will no 
longer be possible for these people to operate at a profitable level 
and then we will back off and say, My goodness, they just couldn't meet 
the standard.
  We ask, What does the standard have to be? Just a little bit better 
than it is now.
  We say, How would we begin to measure it? Well, we haven't determined 
that yet. We have set standards for you, but we don't have any way of 
doing it. We can't get to the point where we can measure the metrics on 
it.
  I would just ask you for one thing: I want you to think about those 
thousands and millions of people who have forever relied on coal and 
the electricity that we can supply and the energy we can supply at a 
unit that is low enough that they can continue to live a normal life. 
That is all we are asking.
  This bill is common sense, which is so devoid in this House.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, to conclude, I would point out to my 
friends on the other side of the aisle there has been a lot of 
discussion today about the availability of carbon capture and 
sequestration. Let's not forget that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 
said:

       Emission standards will not be set by plants receiving 
     funds from the Clean Energy Initiative at the Department of 
     Energy.

  To my friend from the west coast, it is costing $5 billion, and the 
president of the Southern Company said:

       This plant cannot be consistently replicated on a national 
     level and cannot be the primary basis for new emission 
     standards.

  That is because they are artificially concocted.
  So our legislation simply says, in the future, if natural gas prices 
go up,

[[Page 3779]]

America, like most every other country in the world, will have the 
option of building a new coal-powered plant.
  I think it is a reasonable approach. It has bipartisan support.
  This is the first time that we have been able to have a national 
debate with this President, who has already made up his mind he does 
not want coal for America. This is our opportunity to express the 
opinion of the American people that we need coal moving into the 
future.
  I would urge the adoption of H.R. 3826, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3826 because it 
would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from ever regulating 
carbon emissions to stem climate change.
  H.R. 3826 moves the goalposts on the EPA's carbon emissions rules and 
would effectively guarantee that our nation's dirtiest power plants 
continue to spew carbon into the atmosphere and further exacerbate 
global warming.
  This bill is clearly a response to the President's Climate Action 
Plan, a series of executive actions designed to protect future 
generations from the harmful effects of climate change. I welcome the 
President's plan, and I regret the fact that House Leadership continues 
to steadfastly block action on climate change. Beyond the benefits to 
our air and climate, the EPA's proposed rules will provide regulatory 
certainty to fossil-fuel generators and would spur further development 
of renewable energy technologies that are our best chance to turn the 
tide of climate change.
  Simply denying that climate change is occurring is not a policy and 
is completely out of touch with reality. The Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change recently concluded with 95 to 100 percent certainty that 
humans are the principal cause of climate change. Such findings of the 
world's most highly regarded scientists cannot be more certain than 
this.
  The American people know that climate change is not a ``hoax'' or a 
``fraud,'' as some of our colleagues claim, because they are 
experiencing the hottest years on record, as well as the most severe 
floods, wildfires and droughts in modern history. My home state of 
California is currently facing an unprecedented drought which is 
threatening the prosperity of everyone from urban and rural communities 
to farmers, fishermen, wildlife, and large and small businesses.
  Steps to halt and reverse the effects of climate change are well 
overdue, and our window to act is quickly closing. H.R. 3826 does the 
exact opposite, and for all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to 
oppose this legislation.

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3826, which 
would short-circuit an ongoing process to engage stakeholders and 
develop reasonable, effective controls on carbon pollution from power 
plants.
  This pollution poses a serious threat to public health. According to 
the American Public Health Association, about half of the U.S. 
population lives in areas where air pollution is linked to illness, 
including asthma, heart attacks, lung cancer, and stroke. Moreover, an 
overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that carbon pollution 
is linked to climate change, causing sea-level rise and more extreme 
weather events across the globe. That is why the Supreme Court has 
confirmed that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority 
under the Clean Air Act to address carbon pollution and safeguard our 
health and natural resources.
  Power plants are the largest source of carbon pollution in the United 
States, but their carbon emissions are completely unregulated. 
Currently, the Environmental Protection Agency is engaged with 
stakeholders to develop a rule for emissions for new power plants, and 
they plan to address existing power plants as well. These rules would 
use available technologies for carbon capture and sequestration.
  Today's legislation would halt that process. It leaves pollution 
controls on new power plants to the discretion of the plants 
themselves, which are unlikely to take action unless an industry-wide 
standard is in place. And it effectively repeals the Environmental 
Protection Agency's authority to limit carbon pollution from existing 
power plants.
  By preventing any limitation on the largest source of carbon 
pollution in the United States, this bill recklessly endangers public 
health and the environment. I urge a ``no'' vote.

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chair, I agree with my dear friend Chairman 
Whitfield that we must provide clarity on EPA's authority to regulate 
greenhouse gases. However, as we have seen all too often in the 113th 
Congress, the legislation before us does nothing to address the 
underlying problem. Instead, this bill simply blocks the EPA from 
taking action without providing any alternative solution.
  My first problem with this legislation is that it creates a peculiar 
and entirely new process for regulations under the Clean Air Act. This 
bill would take a long-established and reasonably well understood and 
turn it upside down to the great detriment of all of those in industry 
who are seeking certainty. This bill would then eliminate the 
delegation of rulemaking authority to EPA and set up Congress as a 
regulatory agency. Traditionally, Congress has given EPA the authority 
to develop regulations to address particular issues. I'm concerned that 
we may be setting a troubling precedent that allows regulations to be 
set without extensive public comments or technical data and input from 
industry and stakeholders.
  Second, as I have seen time and time again this Congress, H.R. 3826 
attempts to address an issue without dealing with the underlying law or 
providing an alternative solution. This bill does not amend the Clean 
Air Act to address the regulation of greenhouse gases but rather 
abolishes over 40 years of precedent by establishing an entirely new 
regulatory process. If Congress truly wants to legislate on this issue 
and pass legislation that can be signed by the President, let's put 
forward a comprehensive, bipartisan solution with both industry and 
other stakeholder support. I don't see anything in H.R. 3826 that 
approaches compromise or resembles an honest solution to the problems 
I've outlined.
  Once again we have a bill before us that will pass with little 
bipartisan support, won't pass the Senate, and won't be signed by the 
President. While I understand this is an election year, we should be 
coming together to find workable solutions that can make meaningful 
change instead of creating more partisan rhetoric.

  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
of amendment under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 113-40. That 
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 3826

       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 ``Electricity Security and 
     Affordability Act''.

     SEC. 2. STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW FOSSIL FUEL-FIRED 
                   ELECTRIC UTILITY GENERATING UNITS.

       (a) Limitation.--The Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency may not issue, implement, or enforce any 
     proposed or final rule under section 111 of the Clean Air Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 7411) that establishes a standard of performance 
     for emissions of any greenhouse gas from any new source that 
     is a fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating unit 
     unless such rule meets the requirements under subsections (b) 
     and (c).
       (b) Requirements.--In issuing any rule under section 111 of 
     the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7411) establishing standards of 
     performance for emissions of any greenhouse gas from new 
     sources that are fossil fuel-fired electric utility 
     generating units, the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency (for purposes of establishing such 
     standards)--
       (1) shall separate sources fueled with coal and natural gas 
     into separate categories; and
       (2) shall not set a standard based on the best system of 
     emission reduction for new sources within the coal category 
     unless--
       (A) such standard has been achieved on average for at least 
     one continuous 12-month period (excluding planned outages) by 
     each of at least 6 units within such category--
       (i) each of which is located at a different electric 
     generating station in the United States;
       (ii) which, collectively, are representative of the 
     operating characteristics of electric generation at different 
     locations in the United States; and
       (iii) each of which is operated for the entire 12-month 
     period on a full commercial basis; and
       (B) no results obtained from any demonstration project are 
     used in setting such standard.
       (c) Coal Having a Heat Content of 8300 or Less British 
     Thermal Units Per Pound.--
       (1) Separate subcategory.--In carrying out subsection 
     (b)(1), the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency shall establish a separate subcategory for new sources 
     that are fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating units 
     using coal with an average heat content of 8300 or less 
     British Thermal Units per pound.
       (2) Standard.--Notwithstanding subsection (b)(2), in 
     issuing any rule under section 111 of the Clean Air Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7411) establishing standards of performance for 
     emissions of any

[[Page 3780]]

     greenhouse gas from new sources in such subcategory, the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall 
     not set a standard based on the best system of emission 
     reduction unless--
       (A) such standard has been achieved on average for at least 
     one continuous 12-month period (excluding planned outages) by 
     each of at least 3 units within such subcategory--
       (i) each of which is located at a different electric 
     generating station in the United States;
       (ii) which, collectively, are representative of the 
     operating characteristics of electric generation at different 
     locations in the United States; and
       (iii) each of which is operated for the entire 12-month 
     period on a full commercial basis; and
       (B) no results obtained from any demonstration project are 
     used in setting such standard.

     SEC. 3. CONGRESS TO SET EFFECTIVE DATE FOR STANDARDS OF 
                   PERFORMANCE FOR EXISTING, MODIFIED, AND 
                   RECONSTRUCTED FOSSIL FUEL-FIRED ELECTRIC 
                   UTILITY GENERATING UNITS.

       (a) Applicability.--This section applies with respect to 
     any rule or guidelines issued by the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency under section 111 of the 
     Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7411) that--
       (1) establish any standard of performance for emissions of 
     any greenhouse gas from any modified or reconstructed source 
     that is a fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating unit; 
     or
       (2) apply to the emissions of any greenhouse gas from an 
     existing source that is a fossil fuel-fired electric utility 
     generating unit.
       (b) Congress To Set Effective Date.--A rule or guidelines 
     described in subsection (a) shall not take effect unless a 
     Federal law is enacted specifying such rule's or guidelines' 
     effective date.
       (c) Reporting.--A rule or guidelines described in 
     subsection (a) shall not take effect unless the Administrator 
     of the Environmental Protection Agency has submitted to 
     Congress a report containing each of the following:
       (1) The text of such rule or guidelines.
       (2) The economic impacts of such rule or guidelines, 
     including the potential effects on--
       (A) economic growth, competitiveness, and jobs in the 
     United States; and
       (B) electricity ratepayers, including low-income ratepayers 
     in affected States.
       (3) The amount of greenhouse gas emissions that such rule 
     or guidelines are projected to reduce as compared to overall 
     global greenhouse gas emissions.

     SEC. 4. REPEAL OF EARLIER RULES AND GUIDELINES.

       The following rules and guidelines shall be of no force or 
     effect, and shall be treated as though such rules and 
     guidelines had never been issued:
       (1) The proposed rule--
       (A) entitled ``Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas 
     Emissions for New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility 
     Generating Units'', published at 77 Fed. Reg. 22392 (April 
     13, 2012); and
       (B) withdrawn pursuant to the notice entitled ``Withdrawal 
     of Proposed Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas 
     Emissions for New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility 
     Generating Units'', signed by the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency on September 20, 2013, and 
     identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0660.
       (2) The proposed rule entitled ``Standards of Performance 
     for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New Stationary Sources: 
     Electric Utility Generating Units'', signed by the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency on 
     September 20, 2013, and identified by docket ID number EPA-
     HQ-OAR-2013-0495.
       (3) With respect to the proposed rule described in 
     paragraph (1), any successor or substantially similar 
     proposed or final rule that--
       (A) is issued prior to the date of the enactment of this 
     Act;
       (B) is applicable to any new source that is a fossil fuel-
     fired electric utility generating unit; and
       (C) does not meet the requirements under subsections (b) 
     and (c) of section 2.
       (4) Any proposed or final rule or guidelines under section 
     111 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7411) that--
       (A) are issued prior to the date of the enactment of this 
     Act; and
       (B) establish any standard of performance for emissions of 
     any greenhouse gas from any modified or reconstructed source 
     that is a fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating unit 
     or apply to the emissions of any greenhouse gas from an 
     existing source that is a fossil fuel-fired electric utility 
     generating unit.

     SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Demonstration project.--The term ``demonstration 
     project'' means a project to test or demonstrate the 
     feasibility of carbon capture and storage technologies that 
     has received government funding or financial assistance.
       (2) Existing source.--The term ``existing source'' has the 
     meaning given such term in section 111(a) of the Clean Air 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 7411(a)), except such term shall not include 
     any modified source.
       (3) Greenhouse gas.--The term ``greenhouse gas'' means any 
     of the following:
       (A) Carbon dioxide.
       (B) Methane.
       (C) Nitrous oxide.
       (D) Sulfur hexafluoride.
       (E) Hydrofluorocarbons.
       (F) Perfluorocarbons.
       (4) Modification.--The term ``modification'' has the 
     meaning given such term in section 111(a) of the Clean Air 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 7411(a)).
       (5) Modified source.--The term ``modified source'' means 
     any stationary source, the modification of which is commenced 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (6) New source.--The term ``new source'' has the meaning 
     given such term in section 111(a) of the Clean Air Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7411(a)), except that such term shall not include any 
     modified source.

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in House Report 113-
373. 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.

                              {time}  1700


             Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Smith of Texas

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in House Report 113-373.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. 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 7 to 8, strike ``within the coal category'' 
     and insert ``within a fossil-fuel category''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 497, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Smith) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we should not stand by and let the EPA tear down 
America one regulation at a time, so I thank the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) for his work on H.R. 3826, the Electricity 
Security and Affordability Act.
  Economic growth depends on job creators, not Federal regulators. We 
need to increase access to affordable energy, not take energy options 
off the table.
  Now is the time to ensure a robust ``all-of-the-above'' energy 
strategy that includes our abundant fossil energies, as well as nuclear 
and renewables.
  But by requiring carbon capture and storage technology that doesn't 
even exist, the EPA's new power proposal effectively bans new coal 
power. There is no coal power plant anywhere in the world that can meet 
the EPA's radical proposal.
  What is equally troubling is that the EPA is planning to require this 
same unproven technology for new natural gas power.
  This amendment stops the EPA's attack on natural gas. It prevents the 
EPA from using make-believe technologies when setting standards.
  I am interested in protecting all forms of affordable energy from EPA 
overreach, including coal, natural gas, and renewables, and that is 
what this amendment does.
  Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is required to rely on a technology 
that has been ``adequately demonstrated'' in the words of the law, but 
once again, the EPA is trying to twist the law to suit its extremist 
agenda.
  The EPA does this by using an old legal trick: if you can't win the 
argument as it stands, start arguing about definition of words. By 
redefining what the term ``adequately demonstrated'' means, the agency 
is requiring the use of an unproven technology. In so doing, the EPA is 
making a tremendous power grab, one that reaches well beyond coal.
  Only in Washington can you call something ``adequately demonstrated'' 
that doesn't even exist.
  Over the past few months, it has become increasingly clear that the 
EPA isn't just going after coal. The administration has no intention of 
stopping there. Coal may be taking the hardest hit today, but the EPA 
is gearing up to take down natural gas.
  This administration has tried to demonize hydraulic fracturing and 
prevent the construction of the Keystone

[[Page 3781]]

XL pipeline, which would create thousands of jobs and provide many 
Americans with affordable energy.
  As America is finding hope in an energy renaissance, the EPA plans to 
impose harsh power plant requirements on all forms of fossil energy. 
The EPA and the Department of Energy have already begun to tout these 
plans around the world.
  This amendment requires the EPA to rely on proven technologies when 
it sets rules for any power plant. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
support of H.R. 3826, and help prevent the EPA from implementing 
reckless regulations that disregard the facts.
  This amendment promotes an all-of-the-above-energy strategy, supports 
good-paying jobs, American manufacturing, and helps us secure energy 
independence. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Hultgren). The gentleman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chair, the underlying bill, H.R. 3826, is a radical 
rewrite of the Clean Air Act. It effectively repeals the EPA's existing 
authority to address carbon pollution from coal-powered plants.
  It says that EPA cannot set a standard for new plants unless the 
standard is already being met by power plants using technologies that 
can achieve that standard.
  Well, why would any power plant want to spend the money to use 
technology to achieve a standard that their competitors do not have to 
achieve?
  So it is a chicken and egg problem. You cannot require them to do 
what they are not already doing.
  Well, this amendment goes a step further and it says, for natural 
gas-fired power plants, they shouldn't have to do anything that they 
are not already doing either. They would block EPA from requiring 
natural gas-fired power plants to install pollution controls.
  The problem is, EPA's current proposal for new natural gas plants 
doesn't require any pollution control technology. EPA is going to set a 
standard, and then let that standard be achieved however the industry 
would accomplish it.
  So this amendment would preemptively block EPA from ever considering 
rules that might further reduce carbon pollution from any future power 
plants, whether they be coal or natural gas.
  I think it makes no sense. It is a disaster for the climate. I urge 
my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on either 
side?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from California has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me say to my friend from 
California, we have one more speaker on this side, and if he is 
prepared to close, then we will go to our last speaker.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to close. I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, if you look at what is happening with this 
bill and this amendment, if both were passed, combined, coal and 
natural gas power plants emit a third of all carbon pollution in this 
country. They are responsible for virtually all carbon pollution from 
the electricity sector.
  This amendment would ensure that industry can keep building new 
fossil fuel power plants without modern pollution controls, whether 
they be natural gas or coal.
  So, in effect, if this amendment is agreed to, and the underlying 
bill is adopted, it would say, in effect, we are not going to control 
any of the carbon pollution coming from any power plant.
  Now, if we don't control the pollution from any power plant, and we 
let them emit whatever pollution they choose to emit, and it is 
obviously cheaper to pollute than to stop polluting, we will, in 
effect, condemn us to all that pollution which happens to be--let me 
repeat this again--it happens to be a third of the carbon pollution in 
this country today.
  That would mean there is no chance in hell that we will ever reduce 
the pollution in this country that we can reduce that is adding to 
climate change pollution, in addition to all the other pollutants 
coming from around the world.
  Those pollutants don't go away; they accumulate in the atmosphere, 
and when they accumulate in the atmosphere, we see the impact on the 
climate.
  At some point, we are going to have so many pollutants in the 
atmosphere from carbon that scientists are telling us we won't be able 
to do anything. We won't be able to continue to contribute to that 
pollution without making it impossible to do anything about climate 
change.
  We have a chance to do something about climate change now. We should 
not lose that chance by adopting this amendment and the underlying 
bill. So, I would urge that we vote against the amendment and the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), who is the chairman of the 
Environment Subcommittee of the Science, Space, and Technology 
Committee.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Science and 
Technology Committee, congratulations on yesterday.
  Sort of a one step off, I lost the ranking member. I was going to 
congratulate him on his years of service now that his decision is to 
leave the body.
  I am obviously standing here with two separate points I want to make. 
One is, I actually believe the underlying bill has been substantially 
misrepresented.
  If you take the totality of the Clean Air Act, NOX, and 
all the other pollutants that are regulated, that is not what this 
piece of legislation touches and does.
  Be that as it may, I am here to stand up and advocate for amendment 
No. 1, which is very simple in its elegance. It does a very simple 
thing. It says, this bill is not only a discussion about coal, but it 
is actually a discussion about all fossil fuels.
  If we are going to have a regime mechanic that says this technology, 
once it is properly demonstrated is appropriate to adopt, should not 
that demonstration be on other forms of fossil fuels that may be 
generating power?
  In many ways it is that concept of sort of optionality. If we are 
going to create a silo that says hey, these mechanics are only about 
coal, that is unfair. It should be about all forms of energy, because 
you would hate to find out, a year or two from now, that the bright, 
shiny object that I believe the EPA is often chasing has moved to 
something else, and we have allowed a hole here in our amendment 
process.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. 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 Texas will 
be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mrs. Capps

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 113-373.
  Mrs. CAPPS. 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:

       In section 2(b)(2)(A)(i), insert ``or elsewhere'' after 
     ``in the United States''.
       In section 2(c)(2)(A)(i), insert ``or elsewhere'' after 
     ``in the United States''.


[[Page 3782]]


  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 497, the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Capps) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3826 is about denial. It denies the 
realities of climate change. It denies EPA the ability to do its job.
  The Supreme Court has clearly stated that the EPA has the authority 
to regulate carbon emissions from power plants, and EPA has used that 
authority under the Clean Air Act to propose rules to improve the 
quality and safety of our air.
  These EPA rules are crucial to mitigating the harmful impacts of 
climate change, especially given the majority's refusal to take 
meaningful action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
  H.R. 3826 would nullify these proposed rules and restrict EPA's 
ability to write new ones. This not only does nothing to address 
climate change, it also creates tremendous uncertainty for the power 
sector.
  The bill also bizarrely restricts EPA to considering only pollution 
control technologies being used in the United States when setting new 
power plant standards. In other words, if a viable technology is being 
used abroad, EPA must pretend it doesn't exist.
  Under the Clean Air Act, EPA must determine the best system of 
emission reduction for new coal-fired power plants, and it must set 
standards based on this best technology. This bill would block EPA from 
considering pollution controls used outside of the U.S., even if such 
systems are readily available and proven abroad.
  As the global leader in innovation and technology, it is absurd that 
we would bar the EPA from even looking at the best technologies 
available just because of where it is being used.
  My amendment would make a commonsense correction to this problem. If 
adopted, it would simply allow the EPA to consider all existing 
pollution control technologies, regardless of where they are being 
used.
  For example, the EPA has proposed standards for new coal-fired power 
plants that would achieve greater carbon pollution reduction through 
the use of carbon capture and sequestration technology, commonly called 
CCS. If coal is going to be part of the clean energy future, CCS is 
precisely the kind of technology that we need to encourage.
  Understanding this, EPA and others have provided evidence to our 
committee that CCS is both feasible and available, and that coal-fired 
power plants with CCS are moving forward.

                              {time}  1715

  Some of these projects are in the United States, but some of them are 
being pursued abroad; but without my amendment, these improvements or 
projects abroad would not be considered by this innovation. This is 
ridiculous and wrong.
  I want to be clear. This amendment will not make this a sensible or 
reasonable bill, and I will be voting ``no'' even if my amendment 
should be adopted; but my amendment would at least avoid the 
embarrassment of the United States Congress requiring a science-based 
agency to pretend that technologies operating in other countries simply 
don't exist.
  I know that some of my colleagues like to deny the science of climate 
change, but I hope there can be bipartisan agreement that we shouldn't 
deny science just because it is being used by someone else.
  Effective CCS technologies are already being installed and used in 
other countries, including our neighbor to the north; and EPA surely 
should be allowed to consider these technologies. My amendment would 
simply ensure that EPA can do its job and consider all available 
technologies when setting pollution control standards.
  So I ask my colleagues to support this simple and sensible change and 
support my amendment.
  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. Mr. Chair, I certainly have a great deal of respect 
for the gentlelady from California, and I might add, we have heard a 
lot today about climate change.
  Former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, herself, stated in a hearing:

       We will not ultimately be able to change the amount of 
     CO2 that is accumulating in the atmosphere alone.

  By that, she meant the United States, and there are a couple of 
reasons she said that. First of all, 96 percent of CO2 
emissions are naturally occurring; manmade is around 4 percent.
  I might also point out that, in the recent fifth assessment report of 
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, they acknowledged a lack 
of warming since 1998, and they acknowledged the growing discrepancy 
between their climate model projections versus actual readings.
  So it is not that people are denying. It is that there is a 
significant difference among the scientific community about what is 
manmade CO2 contributing and what is naturally occurring 
CO2.
  To the gentlelady's amendment, the Premier of Saskatchewan was in my 
office today, talking about the Canadian project that the gentlewoman 
from California referred to. It is not in operation yet.
  He did say that it would not have been built without government 
funds; and her amendment would simply say that, if it is working in 
Canada, the EPA could apply that and make it mandatory here.
  We believe that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 made it illegal for EPA 
to even set the emissions standard that they have set in their proposed 
rule, and certainly, what the gentlelady's amendment would allow is the 
governments to put in large sums of money to make some projects work 
that may not, in reality, be able to be accomplished in the U.S. 
because of a lack of private capital.
  So if technology is working in another country, it can be brought to 
America, and if it meets our standards set in paragraphs B and C, it 
would be able to be utilized; so for that reason, I would make the 
argument that the gentlelady's amendment should be rejected.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chair, I would just make the comment that I think 
there is a little bit of a misunderstanding here. I was not implying 
that, if there was a technology in another country, such as Canada, it 
would automatically have to be used in this country.
  I would just propose, in my amendment, that we wouldn't want to deny 
a scientist the opportunity to be able to examine other technologies 
just because they came from a different country, such as Canada.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chair, what I object to is that the EPA would use 
that and mandate that private industry build that technology here in 
the U.S. And I think that your amendment would allow them to do that, 
and that is what I object to.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I will just add that I don't believe the 
word ``mandate'' or ``require'' is in my amendment. It would just be 
allowing the consideration of proposals and technologies from other 
countries, not just the United States, as far as my amendment was 
concerned.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple and straightforward. It makes a 
small change to the bill, as I just said, which would allow EPA to 
consider all available technologies when developing pollution 
controlled systems. This is an idea that really should have bipartisan 
support.
  My colleagues across the aisle often say how the government shouldn't 
be picking winners and losers, yet that is precisely what this bill 
does. It not only declares which technologies can be winners, but it 
doesn't even allow all available technologies to be considered. The 
bill allows polluters to keep polluting while our children and 
grandchildren will suffer the consequences down the road.
  My amendment won't make this deeply flawed legislation something I

[[Page 3783]]

can support, but it will at least allow EPA to look at the full picture 
when making its decision.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chair, the purpose of our legislation is, whenever 
EPA sets the standard, we want the technology to be in the U.S. for at 
least a year--operating for a year, and six units have the proof of 
that; so that is why we object to the gentlelady's amendment, and I 
would urge Members to vote against her amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. 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 California 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mrs. Capito

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in House Report 113-373.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of section 2, add the following:
       (d) Technologies.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to preclude the issuance, implementation, or 
     enforcement of a standard of performance that--
       (1) is based on the use of one or more technologies that 
     are developed in a foreign country, but has been demonstrated 
     to be achievable at fossil fuel-fired electric utility 
     generating units in the United States; and
       (2) meets the requirements of subsection (b) and (c), as 
     applicable.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 497, the gentlewoman 
from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from West Virginia.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chair, I rise to say that my amendment is a simple 
clarifying amendment that goes right along the discussion we were just 
having with the previous amendment.
  It makes clear that the underlying bill does not stop the EPA from 
relying on foreign technologies to establish a performance standard, so 
long as that foreign technology has been adequately demonstrated at 
power plants here in the United States, and I think my colleague from 
Kentucky was making that point in his rebuttal.
  The Electricity Security and Affordability Act is necessary because 
the EPA has taken the unprecedented step of requiring the use of 
technology that has not been demonstrated on a large commercial scale 
here in the United States. The rule is, therefore, a de facto ban on 
new coal plants anywhere in the United States.
  Well, why is this significant? As our existing coal fleet retires, 
either due to regulations or because plants have reached the end of 
their useful life, what takes their place to provide affordable and 
reliable electricity to families and businesses?
  In January, when temperatures dropped across the Eastern part of the 
United States, American Electric Power, AEP, which provides power in my 
region of the country, was operating 89 percent of the coal capacity 
that will retire in 2015.
  When that capacity is no longer available, our electric grid will be 
less reliable, and the energy prices paid by individuals and small 
businesses will increase.
  West Virginia has vast supplies of both natural gas and coal, so I 
fully support the development and use of all our domestic energy 
resources. We need a diverse energy policy that includes coal, natural 
gas, nuclear, and renewable to support our economic growth and keep the 
energy bills that families pay each month from skyrocketing.
  But we cannot turn away from coal, which provides 40 percent of our 
Nation's electricity and 95 percent of the electricity in my home State 
of West Virginia.
  Other countries understand that coal provides the energy necessary to 
power their own economies. The International Energy Agency released a 
report in December, stating that global coal consumption will continue 
to rise and increase by more than 2 percent through 2018. Between 2007 
and 2012, global coal consumption increased faster than oil or natural 
gas.
  China and India are constructing new coal plants. Even Germany is 
increasing its coal capacity in 2013.
  The rest of the world is willing to use coal. We, in the United 
States, have a strong competitive advantage because we have hundreds of 
years of supply. Increasingly, we are exporting coal for use abroad. 
West Virginia exports more coal than any other State.
  While we are glad the coal exports allow for production that provides 
jobs--real jobs in our State, it is difficult to understand why we 
would turn away from using our own domestic resources at the same time 
other countries are turning towards our domestic resources.
  Importantly, unilateral action by the United States will do virtually 
nothing to address the global problem of carbon dioxide emissions. In 
2012, carbon dioxide emissions from energy production in the United 
States fell by 3.8 percent to their lower level since the mid-90s.
  Despite this drop, carbon dioxide emissions from energy globally 
increased to their highest level on record. China's carbon dioxide 
emissions alone more than offset the decreased emissions from the 
United States.
  That is why I introduced legislation that would delay the 
implementation of the U.S. carbon dioxide regulations until other 
countries comprising 80 percent of non-U.S. emissions enact equally 
stringent regulations. Acting in concert with our global competitors 
would minimize the economic consequences and maximize the environmental 
benefits.
  Instead, the administration has chosen the opposite course, imposing 
a unilateral regulation that maximizes our economic pain and minimizes 
the environmental benefits. EPA's regulation means absolutely fewer 
West Virginia jobs and higher energy prices for consumers.
  Let's be clear about what today's legislation does. This legislation 
does not stop the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions from new 
coal plants. The bill simply requires EPA to base its regulations on 
the best performing existing coal plants.
  We should encourage the implementation of newer, cleaner burning coal 
technologies, but a de facto ban on new coal plants won't encourage new 
technologies. It will leave promising research on the shelf while 
energy prices increase and the economic advantage offered by our 
natural resources is lost.
  This is a good straightforward piece of legislation. My amendment 
makes it clear that we want the best commercially available technology 
to set the standards for new plants, regardless of where that 
technology is developed, as long as that technology is demonstrated in 
the United States coal plants.
  I urge the amendment's adoption and reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  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. I don't know how to oppose this amendment because it 
doesn't seem to make the underlying bill any worse.
  The problem is this: The bill requires that, before a new standard 
for coal-powered plants is set, there has to be six coal-powered plants 
in this country that are already using this technology; and we have 
argued: Well, that is not going to happen because no one is going to 
use the technology if their competitors aren't going to use the 
technology.
  And if there is technology outside of this country that is being used 
successfully, EPA can't rely on that. Mrs.

[[Page 3784]]

Capps' amendment would have changed that. That is still going to be 
voted on later.
  Mrs. Capito's amendment says EPA could consider technologies 
developed in other countries, but only if those technologies are also 
being broadly adopted in the United States, as I understand it.
  Well, in fact, that will lead to the exact same problem as we have in 
the underlying bill. Under both the amendment and the bill, EPA would 
still be prevented from proposing a standard based on cleaner coal 
technologies, such as ultrasupercritical boilers, which can reduce 
pollution by improving efficiency.
  That kind of technology is already being used in more than 100 
ultracritical coal units generating power in China, but the United 
States has only installed one. Well, we can't let that one and all the 
others that are being used in China allow the EPA to set a standard 
that would require that technology.

                              {time}  1730

  Under the bill and the amendment, that one U.S. plant won't be 
sufficient for EPA to set a new standard. So even if this amendment 
passes, EPA will still be prohibited from setting pollution control 
standards based on effective pollution controls that have been deployed 
overseas.
  Well, I guess if you are going to pretend that climate change isn't 
happening, why not pretend that clean air technologies used in other 
countries don't exist, either? So I can't oppose--I am not going to ask 
for a rollcall vote. I am not going to even--I will even vote against 
your amendment. I am not going to vote for it. But it seems to me the 
amendment has a problem that the underlying bill already has, and it 
doesn't fix anything.
  So if people want to vote for this amendment, vote for the amendment 
because it doesn't make anything any different than the problems that I 
see with the underlying bill.
  With those comments, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. McKinley

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in House Report 113-373.
  Mr. McKINLEY. 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 section 3, add the following new subsection:
       (d) Consultation.--In carrying out subsection (c), the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall 
     consult with the Administrator of the Energy Information 
     Administration, the Comptroller General of the United States, 
     the Director of the National Energy Technology Laboratory, 
     and the Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and 
     Technology.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 497, the gentleman 
from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, under this legislation, the EPA is 
required to submit a report to Congress regarding the impacts this 
proposed regulation will have on the economy, our competitiveness, our 
job losses, and electricity rates.
  Quite frankly, many here in Congress and the constituents we 
represent across America have come not to trust the EPA to tell the 
truth about the impacts the proposed New Source Performance Standard 
rule or the upcoming existing source rule will have on our Nation.
  The amendment before us adds stakeholders with whom the EPA should 
consult when finalizing this report. This includes the Energy 
Information Agency, who will provide the EPA with the necessary 
statistics and background. It includes the Comptroller General who 
oversees the Government Accountability Office because the GAO's reports 
have led to hearings and legislation, billions of dollars in taxpayer 
savings and improvements to a wide range of government programs and 
services.
  It also includes the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 
who works with industry to develop and apply our Nation's technology, 
measurements, and standards, and, finally, the National Energy 
Technology Laboratory, under the direction of the Department of Energy. 
NETL has been leading the charge in working with the private sector and 
academia in developing carbon capture and sequestration technologies.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does anyone seek recognition in opposition to the 
amendment? If not, the gentleman from West Virginia is recognized to 
close.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, during the House debate recently on 
Congressman Gardner's House bill H.R. 4480, the Domestic Energy and 
Jobs bill, I offered a similar amendment. This amendment passed by 
voice vote and ensured that NETL had a seat at the table.
  As background and for those of you who are unaware, NETL is our only 
government research, design, and development laboratory dedicated to 
domestic energy sources. Last year alone, NETL worked with academia and 
the private sector on over 1,000 projects. This represented over 55,000 
jobs and $12 billion in project funding in every State and nearly every 
congressional district. It is only fitting that they, along with 
others, are included in this process.
  Let's be clear here. If we support transparency by having relevant 
agencies consult with the EPA, these same agencies who provide us with 
statistics, develop our standards, develop our technology, and keep our 
agencies and Congress in line and accountable, then you would support 
this amendment. Members of Congress consult with their staffs, their 
respective committees, other Members' offices, and their constituents, 
so it is fitting the EPA should do the same under this amendment.
  Chairman Whitfield and his staff are to be commended for their hard 
work to put together such an incredible bipartisan effort in this 
legislation. I am a proud cosponsor to work with him and encourage all 
my colleagues to support this amendment and, more importantly, the 
underlying bill.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. McKinley

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in House Report 113-373.
  Mr. McKINLEY. 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 5, line 17, strike ``; and'' and insert a semicolon.
       Page 5, line 19, strike ``States.'' and insert ``States;''.
       Page 5, after line 19, insert the following:
       (C) required capital investments and projected costs for 
     operation and maintenance of new equipment required to be 
     installed; and
       (D) the global economic competitiveness of the United 
     States.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 497, the gentleman 
from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chair, once again, I would like to reference 
section 3 of the underlying bill. The amendment would strengthen the 
analysis and reporting the EPA is required to develop under this 
legislation.
  One of the problems our coal, gas, and oil industries face is the 
vast ideologically motivated regulations they must endure, such as the 
New Source Performance Standards. However, other nations don't seem to 
impose

[[Page 3785]]

such burdensome policies and regulations on their industries. Instead, 
countries in the Middle East and Asia promote their fossil fuel 
businesses and work to make it easier for those countries to get their 
fossil fuels to market. Mr. Chairman, it is called fairness.
  Now, I am sure you will hear that some of the opponents of this in 
the past have falsely claimed that this amendment is flawed and too 
broad. We have heard that this amendment might open up a Pandora's box 
of issues as we heard from our friends 2 years ago when I offered a 
similar amendment. That is simply not true, not accurate.
  This amendment and legislation will make certain that the United 
States remains viable in its manufacturing on a global scale, ensures 
that we don't put more people and their families or children out on the 
street or with uncertainty, and we can provide them with certainty and 
access to abundant and affordable electricity. This amendment is about 
protecting our liberties and providing transparency.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment so I 
can make a few points about this.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I didn't speak on the last amendment. I didn't think that 
last amendment did anything worse than the bill already does. This 
amendment modifies a section of the underlying bill which requires EPA 
to report to Congress on the economic impacts of any regulation of 
carbon pollution from existing fossil fuel-fired power plants.
  Well, this reporting requirement is largely meaningless because EPA 
already does this analysis, and if this bill were adopted, EPA wouldn't 
issue any rules to trigger the reporting requirement anyway. But this 
amendment would add more items to be considered in EPA's report on a 
rule regulating carbon pollution from existing power plants.
  For example, this bill would require EPA to look at the rule's 
potential effects on capital, operation, and maintenance costs for 
pollution control equipment. But that is exactly what EPA already does 
for every significant rule that requires pollution controls. The 
amendment also requires EPA to analyze how our particular pollution 
control requirement may affect the global economic competitiveness of 
the United States. I don't think that makes any sense to add this 
because it is questionable whether we even have reliable economic 
models to make this assessment.
  If this bill were adopted, EPA wouldn't be doing this report anyway, 
so it doesn't really matter. I am not going to object to the amendment, 
and I am not going to vote for the amendment, but it won't have any 
effect because the underlying bill is going to prevent the EPA from 
acting whether it is a new power plant or existing power plants.
  But I did want to single out this provision which I think is 
unreasonable to expect EPA to be able to do this global economic 
competitiveness analysis. That is not what EPA does. They are not in 
the position to do it, and to add that requirement, I think, is a very 
bad precedent.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank Congressman Waxman.
  Under this amendment, the EPA is required, as he just stated, is 
required to take into account the economic impacts this rule could have 
on our global competitiveness and the required capital investments and 
costs for operations and maintenance of new equipment.
  We know that, under the New Source Performance Standards rule, the 
cost of electricity could skyrocket by as much as 70 percent. This cost 
will be passed on to the consumers. Consequently, American 
manufacturers will indeed be put at a global disadvantage, and many 
will lose their business.
  We have seen testimony by economists, academics, and scientists who 
say that, under this proposed regulation, capital costs will increase 
by as much as 110 percent. This is unconscionable. At a time when Saudi 
Arabia, China, and India are helping their job creators thrive and open 
up global opportunities for them, this administration and its 
ideologically motivated EPA are exporting jobs, trading uncertainty, 
and trying to decarbonize America with little to show for health and 
economic benefits.
  The EPA needs to look at what other nations are doing to grow, 
stabilize, and sustain their fossil fuel industries. This amendment 
will help us show how we can improve and stop hindering the development 
of our natural resources.
  Ultimately, I offered this amendment because we are supposed to be a 
nation leading by example over the rest of the world. With nearly 23 
million people underemployed or unemployed, we really ought to be 
saying to our regulators: Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
  Mr. Chairman, again, I wish to thank Mr. Upton and Mr. Whitfield for 
their support of this amendment and the underlying bill that goes with 
it. Mr. Whitfield's work on the overall bill shows his true leadership 
and caring for the people of Appalachia and all across America.
  This country is a leader of the world, an innovator, and a job 
creator. It is time that it reins in the excessive regulations that 
create burdens resulting in families, children, husbands, and spouses 
worried about tomorrow. It is time their regulators pull back in. This 
amendment and this legislation overall will create that ability that we 
have in the American Dream again, but not an American Dream that is 
driven by regulations.
  I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Schakowsky

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in House Report 113-373.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chair, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Redesignate section 5 as section 6 and insert after section 
     4 the following:

     SEC. 5. CONGRESSIONAL ACCEPTANCE OF SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS.

       Congress accepts the scientific finding (contained in the 
     proposed rule referred to in section 4(2)) that greenhouse 
     gas pollution is ``contributing to long-lasting changes in 
     our climate that can have a range of negative effects''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 497, the gentlewoman 
from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  My dear colleagues, this is the simplest of simple amendments. It 
asks of this House only one thing, to acknowledge the truth of these 
words:

       Greenhouse gas pollution is contributing to long-lasting 
     changes in our climate that can have a range of negative 
     effects.

  Our country and this Congress are at a critical moment in the history 
of our small planet. We are privileged as leaders of the most powerful 
country on Earth to be in a position to lead the world in combating 
climate change. There is still time.

                              {time}  1745

  If we act now, we can protect our natural resources, like water, 
promote job growth, and ensure that our descendants are able to live 
healthy lives on this planet long after we are gone.
  Making the right choice begins with accepting the fact of climate 
change. It is hard to ignore this reality. The 10 hottest years in 
human history all occurred since 1998. This time last year, we had just 
completed the hottest year ever in the United States, a full degree 
hotter in terms of average temperature than the previous record. Though 
we are dealing with cold in many parts of

[[Page 3786]]

the U.S. this year, the scientists tell us global temperatures are 
continuing to warm.
  Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau, among others, will be 
submerged during this century unless meaningful action is taken. Here 
at home, we are seeing more and more severe droughts, wildfires, 
storms, and hurricanes--often all in the same year.
  There are tremendous economic incentives for the United States to 
take climate change seriously. In December, the Pew Charitable Trust 
estimated that the clean energy sector could generate $1.9 trillion in 
revenue from 2012 to 2018. We also know that there are three times as 
many jobs created per dollar spent on renewable energy than on fossil 
fuel. As we work to create an economy that supports 21st century jobs, 
how can we overlook one of the world's fastest-growing industrial 
sectors and the millions of jobs it would support?
  Large multinational corporations have joined environmentalists, 
scientists, and the vast majority of the American public who recognize 
the impact of carbon pollution on our world. For example, Coca-Cola has 
already suffered from a global water shortage that is driving up costs, 
and Coke has recognized climate change as a challenge to its future 
profitability.
  The business plans of ExxonMobil and other Big Five oil companies 
assume they will have to pay for the cost of carbon in the future. This 
Congress should recognize the same facts that these business leaders 
have accepted: climate change is real and requires a different game 
plan. History will not be kind to climate change deniers.
  The Schakowsky-Lowenthal amendment doesn't ask for much. It doesn't 
change the bill's provisions. It simply asks us as 21st century leaders 
of the most powerful country in the world to say ``yes'' to this simple 
fact: climate change is real and can have negative consequences.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentlelady's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I have a great deal of respect and admiration for the 
gentlelady from Illinois. I might say, this legislation would never 
have been necessary if EPA had adopted a standard that had been 
adequately demonstrated and was not in violation of the Energy Policy 
Act of 2005.
  I would also say in wanting to add this language to the bill, EPA 
itself, in discussing its proposed regulation, projected that its rule 
would result in almost zero CO2 emission changes or 
quantified benefits in cost by 2022. So even EPA does not think that 
their regulation is going to really significantly reduce CO2 
emissions because 96 percent of CO2 emissions are naturally 
occurring; less than 4 percent are man-made.
  I might also point out once again that no one is a denier of climate 
change, but more and more scientists seem to be disagreeing with the 
impact of manmade CO2 versus naturally occurring 
CO2.
  After the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change in the fall of last year, a group of scientists from the 
non-governmental Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in a 1,200-
page report with thousands of references to peer reviewed papers made 
the argument that natural forces, not man-made forces, are really 
driving the Earth's climate. So we are particularly concerned that this 
regulation would prevent America from flexibility. In the future if 
natural gas prices go up, we would not have the option, like most every 
other country in the world, of building a coal plant, and so that is 
why we respectfully oppose her amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal).
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois for yielding and 
for being a steadfast leader on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply confirms what world's scientists 
already know: that greenhouse gases contribute to long-lasting changes 
in our climate that can have a range of harmful effects.
  Disinformation by entities with conflicts of interest have fueled 
reports of scientific disagreement. However, the scientific community 
is not divided because there is no compelling scientific evidence 
denying human's role in climate change, period. Case closed.
  Every minute we waste on the myth of disagreement is a minute longer 
we wait to take concrete action, making our inevitable energy 
transition even more expensive.
  Mr. Chairman, we will be judged by our children for what we do here 
today. I urge an ``aye ``vote.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  In reply to this case closed argument, I would just point out that 
the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change, which came out in the fall, acknowledged a lack of warming 
since 1998 and a growing discrepancy between the model projections and 
the reality of the observations actually made; that the discrepancy 
between the models and reality was increasing. It also acknowledged the 
evidence of decreased climate sensitivity to the increases in 
atmospheric CO2 concentrations. It also acknowledged that 
sea level rising during the period 1920-1950 was the same as in 1995 to 
2012. Now that is the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change.
  With that, I respectfully request that we defeat the gentlelady's 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. 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 gentlewoman from Illinois 
will be postponed.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. 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. 
McKinley) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hultgren, 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. 3826) to 
provide direction to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency regarding the establishment of standards for emissions of any 
greenhouse gas from fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating 
units, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________