[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10337-10355]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    RATEPAYER PROTECTION ACT OF 2015


                             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 the bill, H.R. 2042.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 333 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. 2042.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1424


                     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. 2042) to allow for judicial review of any final rule addressing 
carbon dioxide emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired electric 
utility generating units before requiring compliance with such rule, 
and to allow States to protect households and businesses from 
significant adverse effects on electricity ratepayers or reliability, 
with Mr. Duncan of Tennessee 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 
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.

[[Page 10338]]

  Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today addresses EPA's proposed clean 
power plan for existing power plants under section 111(d) of the Clean 
Air Act.
  Unfortunately, the Obama administration has made a decision that they 
are not going to work with Congress, and in order to accomplish his 
public policy goals, he has indicated that he is going to use executive 
orders and regulations.
  Now, this proposed regulation focuses on power plants. That is why it 
is called the existing coal plant rule. But because of this regulation, 
once it becomes final, it is only the first step in the 
administration's plan to regulate other areas of our economy, including 
sources such as refineries, industrial boilers, cement plants, pulp and 
paper mills, and steel mills.
  Since its proposal in June 2014, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power 
has held five hearings on the proposed rule, where we heard from EPA, 
FERC, entities within the States, legal experts, and industry 
stakeholders and manufacturers.
  Now, when Mrs. McCarthy comes to Congress, she always says that this 
proposed rule gives maximum flexibility to the States, but what she 
does not say is that EPA, and EPA alone, sets the emissions standard 
for every State, and there is no flexibility in that.
  Even Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe, who taught 
President Obama constitutional law at Harvard, testified at one of the 
hearings that ``EPA's proposal raises grave constitutional questions, 
exceeds EPA's statutory authority, and violates the Clean Air Act.''
  The hearings also identified implementation challenges, risks to 
electric reliability, and significantly higher energy costs under the 
rule.
  For example, economist Eugene Trisko estimated that, for 31 
geographically diverse States, electricity rates under the rule could 
increase by an average of 15 percent, with peak year increases of 22 
percent during the period 2017-2031.
  State officials also appeared, expressing the same concerns. And I 
might say, this rule is so complicated that, generally, EPA allows 
States 3 years to develop their State implementation plans. But under 
this proposed rule, which we know will be final soon, they are giving 
States 16 months, which is going to be extremely difficult for them to 
meet.
  So the States are not only filing lawsuits, as are other entities, to 
try to slow this process down, but they are coming to Congress and 
saying, you know, Congress didn't pass this regulation, Congress has 
not asked for this, but the administration, unilaterally, is imposing 
it upon the American people, and so they are asking us to give them 
some more time.
  So this legislation does specifically that. It does two things: One, 
it delays the time for the States to submit their implementation plans 
until after the courts have rendered a decision on whether or not the 
rule is legal. And then, if it is found to be legal, the State 
Governors have an option, after consulting with their economic 
development people, the EPA people, the Attorney General, and other 
authorities in the States. They have the option, if they find that it 
significantly and adversely affects their electricity prices and the 
reliability of electricity, they can opt out of the program.

                              {time}  1430

  This bill is simple. It simply gives States more time. We are not 
repealing this power grab of a regulation, but simply responding to 
requests from the States and other entities.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the 
Ratepayer Protection Act, and I want to commend Representative Ed 
Whitfield for his leadership on this important issue.
  We all agree that it is vital that we protect our environment today 
and for future generations. At the same time, though, we must ensure 
that we are acting within the law, as well as safeguarding American 
jobs and the economy.
  I have serious concerns that the Environmental Protection Agency's 
proposed clean power rule will be a vast and unprecedented regulatory 
overreach, resulting in high energy costs; loss of jobs; and a 
disruption in the states' ability to generate, transmit, distribute, 
and use electricity.
  As the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) noted earlier, no less 
than the renowned Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe has 
testified that ``the EPA lacks the statutory and constitutional 
authority to adopt its plan.'' He described the proposed clean power 
plan as a ``power grab'' from the three branches of government.
  I am especially concerned, Mr. Chairman, about the impact that the 
EPA's proposed rule will have on Georgia ratepayers. The State of 
Georgia already has reduced CO2 emissions by 33 percent 
between 2005 and 2012 but will have no credit for these reductions. 
Under the proposed regulation, Georgia would be required to reduce 
emissions by an additional 44 percent, the sixth largest reduction of 
any State.
  Georgia also will receive no credit towards achieving EPA's mandated 
State goal for the two nuclear plants that are being constructed.
  Ratepayers in Georgia served by Georgia Power, MEAG, and the Electric 
Membership Corporation would face hundreds of dollars in higher energy 
bills, which would be especially devastating to rural households in the 
Second Congressional District, which I represent.
  I believe that this legislation takes a commonsense approach that the 
issue that allows for the completion of judicial review before States 
are required to comply with the clean power plan.
  In addition, the Ratepayer Protection Act provides for a safe harbor 
if a Governor determines that the proposed rule's implementation will 
have an adverse impact on ratepayers or on the reliability of this 
electrical system.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill to ensure that ratepayers 
as well as our Nation's economy are protected from an overzealous EPA.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I rise in opposition to this legislation.
  The bill before us is dangerous, unnecessary, and premature. It 
undermines the cornerstone of the administration's plan to tackle 
unchecked climate change, and the President has made clear that he will 
veto this legislation.
  Yesterday, we passed a bipartisan bill amending the Toxic Substances 
Control Act. That is the type of legislation that we should be spending 
our time on, not messaging bills aimed at gutting draft EPA rules.
  As we sit here today, climate change continues to reshape our world. 
According to NOAA, 2014 was the warmest year ever recorded, and 9 of 
the 10 hottest years have occurred since 2000, and that trend shows no 
sign of slowing down.
  We know this warming is due to carbon pollution from fossil fuels 
accumulating in the atmosphere, trapping more heat, and changing our 
climate.
  Last week, the Pope highlighted our worldwide moral obligation to 
address climate change. This week, EPA released a report which confirms 
what many in the country are already experiencing, that failing to 
address climate change will have enormous financial costs.
  Just look at the skyrocketing costs of fighting wildfires, the 
mounting costs to farmers of losing their crops and cattle to more 
frequent and severe droughts, the enormous costs of rebuilding 
infrastructure swept away by more intense storms or threatened by 
steadily rising seas.
  Ignoring these costs won't make them go away; and the longer we wait 
to act, the more we allow the risks to compound and accumulate, the 
more costly it will be to solve the problem.
  In fact, the projected costs of climate change impacts dwarf any 
projected short-term costs associated with transitioning to a clean 
energy economy, which is happening already.

[[Page 10339]]

  Mr. Chairman, EPA has proposed a workable plan to reduce emissions of 
carbon pollution from power plants, which are the largest uncontrolled 
source of manmade greenhouse gases in the United States.
  The clean power plan outlines a path to cleaner air, better health, a 
safer climate, and a stronger economy. The proposed rule also gives 
States a lot of flexibility to choose how to achieve their emission 
reduction goals, which are State specific and cost effective. This is a 
moderate and reasonable approach and falls well within the legal 
authority and responsibility of the EPA to address carbon pollution 
from power plants.
  This bill we are considering today would dismiss all of this progress 
and would cripple the efforts of the EPA to move forward in the fight 
against climate change. Effectively, this bill would amend the Clean 
Air Act in a harmful and dangerous fashion.
  This bill establishes an unprecedented extension for every clean 
power plan deadline until all litigation is concluded. This blanket 
extension would be given to all polluters, incentivizing opponents of 
the rule to run the clock on frivolous litigation, simply to put off 
having to reduce their carbon emissions.
  The bill also allows a Governor to say: ``The requirements of the 
clean power plan don't apply to me.'' Under the bill, a Governor can 
opt out of a Federal plan, giving certain States a free ride to pollute 
without any consequences. It is one thing to encourage States to just 
say no, but to let a Governor declare that his State is not subject to 
the Federal Clean Air Act at all? Mr. Chairman, I think that just goes 
too far.
  As I have said before, EPA's proposed clean power plan is both modest 
and flexible and will help us tackle our urgent need to reduce our 
carbon emissions. Just saying no, as this bill would have us do, and 
condemning future generations is simply not an option. I strongly 
oppose the bill and urge a ``no'' vote.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk).
  Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Ratepayer 
Protection Act, which is a critical piece of legislation that helps 
protect our Nation's consumers and businesses from skyrocketing 
electricity costs.
  Last year, the EPA proposed a new set of regulations on existing 
power plants which will dramatically effect our economy if implemented.
  The Obama administration has been doing its best to convince the 
American people that these new standards would achieve great progress 
for our Nation, calling the proposal the clean power plan. Despite the 
illusions of good intentions, the devil is in the details of this 
proposed rule.
  What the administration does not want us to know is that these 
standards would wreak havoc on our economy and inflict enormous costs 
on the American consumer. According to the National Economic Research 
Associates, these regulations would increase electricity prices in my 
home State of Georgia by 12 percent.
  While this would be a problem for any State, it is especially 
alarming for me, given that Georgia already has the tenth highest 
average electricity bill in the Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, right now, the temperature in my State is 95 degrees. 
My constituents depend on affordable electricity to stay cool all 
summer long, and the administration's assault on our Nation's power 
plants is totally unacceptable.
  What is more, the average American household already spends about 
$15,000 a year to comply with Federal regulations. It has been radical 
proposals like these which have caused our economy to stagnate 
throughout this administration.
  Even the EPA admits that the rule will cost our economy more than $7 
billion a year by the year 2030. Washington bureaucrats may be able to 
afford this assault on our economy, but my constituents cannot.
  The EPA also promotes these regulations with a promise that they 
would cut 30 percent of carbon pollution by the year 2030. The 
inconvenient truth is my State has already reduced its carbon emissions 
by 33 percent from 2005 to 2012.
  Why is the administration pursuing these unrealistic regulations when 
Georgia and other States have already dramatically reduced their 
pollution levels?
  The bill we are considering today, H.R. 2042, would halt the rule's 
compliance deadlines until litigation on the rule has been completed. 
This bill would also allow the Governor of any State to opt out of the 
rule's requirements if their State's electricity rates would increase 
significantly, as they would in my home State.
  This commonsense piece of legislation would help to bring the U.S. 
environmental policy back into the real world and allow us to remain 
economically competitive.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rush), the ranking member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pallone), the fine ranking member of the full committee, for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Chair, I applaud the Obama administration for its veto threat of 
this abhorrent legislation that we are now considering, this just say 
no bill, which would effectively give Governors the power to sabotage 
EPA's proposed clean power plan by allowing them to opt out of the 
Federal requirements of the plan based on arbitrary and ambiguous 
determinations.
  Mr. Chair, when implemented, the clean power plan will allow the EPA 
to cut common pollution from some of the Nation's oldest, dirtiest, and 
most inefficient power plants.
  We know, Mr. Chair, that these same power plants account for the 
largest share of greenhouse gases from stationary sources in the 
country, and they are responsible for about one-third of the total U.S. 
greenhouse gas emissions.
  Currently, Mr. Chair, there are no Federal limits on the amount of 
carbon pollution that these very same power plants are allowed to emit. 
The clean power plan would decrease power sector carbon emissions by 30 
percent from 2005 levels by the year 2030.
  However, Mr. Chair, this bill is an attempt to abort EPA's efforts 
before they even have the chance to take hold, despite the fact that 
the clean power plan gives States great flexibility when implementing 
the rule, based on their existing utility infrastructure and policies.
  Mr. Chair, the proposed clean power plan could not be more timely, as 
we are experiencing more and more frequent extreme weather events due 
to climate change, with disastrous effects being felt in our economy 
and in our communities all across our Nation.
  In fact, no region in America has been safe from the impacts of 
climate change, with nearly annual record wildfires and heat waves in 
the West and the Southwest, perennial flooding along the coasts, and 
damaging and costly droughts and crop loss in the Plains and the 
Midwestern portions of our Nation.
  Mr. Chair, when implemented, the clean power plan would help to 
reduce carbon pollution by hundreds of millions of tons, decreasing 
particle pollution, such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides by 
hundreds of thousands of tons annually.
  Additionally, Mr. Chair, the clean power plan would help protect the 
health of our most vulnerable citizens, our children, older Americans, 
and low-income and minority communities.
  Mr. Chair, not only do the vast majority of the American people 
believe that climate change is a serious problem and that the 
government--our government, this Federal Government, we in this 
Congress--should take action to address it and take it now, but also, 
the overwhelming majority of our Nation's doctors believe so, also.

                              {time}  1445

  Earlier this year, the American Thoracic Society found that, by a 
huge

[[Page 10340]]

margin, most doctors believe that climate change is already negatively 
impacting their patients' health.
  Fully 77 percent of responding doctors reported that increases in air 
pollution caused by climate change is making their patients' illnesses 
even more severe, a trend, I might add, Mr. Chairman, that they expect 
will steadily increase in the future.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 
minute.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, these findings are in line with a similar 
study conducted by the National Medical Association last year which 
found that older Americans, low-income communities, and the sick will 
all be disproportionately impacted by climate change if we fail to act.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not just a political issue. This is not just a 
partisan issue. This is also a moral issue. Just last week, in a 
landmark encyclical, Pope Francis himself warned of the grave 
implications of climate change when he stated:

       Climate change is a global problem with grave implications: 
     environmental, social, economic, political, and for the 
     distribution of goods. It represents one of the principal 
     challenges facing humanity in our day.
       There is an urgent need to develop policies so that, in the 
     next few years, the emission of carbon dioxide and other 
     highly polluting gases can be drastically reduced.

  I urge all of my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, to heed the warning of our 
scientists, of our doctors, and one of the world's foremost moral 
authorities, the Pope himself.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that, obviously, you can't have a 
discussion about this regulation without climate change, and 
frequently, we hear that climate change is responsible for every 
extreme weather condition.
  I would point out that The Economist magazine, in its May 5 issue, 
stated that it is impossible to say categorically that climate change 
has caused any individual storm, flood, drought, heat wave, tornado, or 
hurricane. Scientists agree that it is impossible to say that.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one other comment. The President 
of the United States believes that climate change is the number one 
issue facing mankind.
  All of us recognize that the climate has been changing since the 
beginning of time, but where we fundamentally disagree with the 
President is we think there are other, more pressing issues dealing 
with poverty, creating jobs, economic growth, access to clean water, 
access to health care, and fighting diseases like pancreatic cancer. We 
think those are more urgent.
  But this President has got 61 individual government programs and is 
spending $23 billion a year on climate change in addition to trying to 
push regulations like this without any involvement of Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), a member of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
  Mr. CRAMER. I thank the chairman for yielding and for your leadership 
on this issue. Let me pick up where the gentleman left off relating to 
the comments made by the opposition to climate change's role in extreme 
weather conditions.
  Mr. Chairman, a couple of years ago, there was a weather condition 
that many people out here refer to as the polar vortex; in North 
Dakota, we call that winter, but I think what a lot of people don't 
know is that, during that cold snap, they don't know how very 
susceptible and fragile our system of transmitting and distributing 
electricity was, largely because we don't have the base load generation 
that we once had largely because of this attack on base load fuels like 
coal, and that is really what we are talking about.
  Mr. Chairman, I spent 10 years prior to coming to Congress as one of 
those energy regulators, one of those people in the State agency the 
Governor would consult as per this law, the Governor would consult 
before determining whether they should opt out of the clean power plan.
  It was my responsibility to make sure North Dakotans had reliable 
electricity, that a grid system and a distribution system was reliable 
and could deliver on a regular basis, as needed, electricity and that 
the rates remained as they are still today in North Dakota, among the 
very lowest in this country.
  I also had regulation over the coal industry. I am also very proud of 
the fact that, while North Dakota is a major coal-producing State that 
generates over 4,000 megawatts of electricity at the mine mouth and 
distributes it throughout a robust transmission and distribution system 
that generates lots of low-cost electricity, it also creates lots and 
lots of good-paying, important jobs.
  The chairman also in response referenced the importance that 
Republicans are placing on other things besides climate change, things 
like job creation. Well, the clean power plan is a jobs killer, and it 
makes us less competitive in the global marketplace.
  It is really, in many respects, a unilateral disarmament of the 
American economy at a time when the only really great thing going on in 
the American economy is energy development.
  A rule like the clean power plan goes exactly against the one robust 
and positive in the American economy, and that is energy development.
  Let's get back to the issue of the constitutionality, the judicial 
question. Our bill simply provides an opportunity for a judicial 
review, something that the President and the EPA should have done 
before doing this rule, finishing this rule, and putting this rule out.
  I find, frankly, the Ratepayer Protection Act to be a rather modest 
response to the overreach and the zeal of the EPA and this 
administration.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman again for his leadership on this 
important issue.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2042. The so-called 
Ratepayer Protection Act does nothing to protect any of us. In fact, it 
does just the opposite.
  This bill would simply continue this majority's policy of sticking 
their head in the sand and doing nothing to address the serious 
problems of climate change. The Pope has said that climate change is a 
reality. It is impacting our lives every day. It is impacting our 
economy, and it is only going to get worse.
  Mr. Chairman, we are confronted almost daily with new evidence that 
climate change is leading to increased health risks, threatening our 
environment, and costing our economy billions of dollars. Studies have 
shown that climate change can lead and does lead to higher rates of 
asthma, reduces crop yields, acidifies our oceans, and increases the 
risk for harmful algal blooms.
  More severe droughts are threatening drinking and agriculture water 
supplies in many locations, while warmer climates are increasing the 
severity and frequency of storms in others. A recent study also showed 
that climate change could undo many of the improvements that we have 
seen in human well-being and life expectancy over the last half 
century. The power sector is the largest source of U.S. greenhouse gas 
emissions, accounting for nearly one-third of the U.S. total.
  Mr. Chairman, while we will continue to depend on fossil fuels for 
some time, we can and we must do more to limit their impacts on our 
climate. The clean power plan does just that by setting carbon 
reduction goals for each State and allowing States to implement 
customized plans to meet those goals.
  The clean power plan will help maintain an affordable, reliable 
energy system while cutting pollution and protecting public health and 
the environment now and for future generations; yet H.R. 2042 would 
derail the clean power plan and all the health and economic benefits 
that will come with it. The bill is full of excuses to support 
inaction, but does nothing to solve the problem.

[[Page 10341]]

  Mr. Chairman, this inaction on climate change is putting our 
constituents and our future generations at risk. It is long past time 
to acknowledge the causes of climate change and to tackle the issue 
head on. It is time for us to work together to address this problem, 
not to pass legislation that continues to ignore it.
  For these reasons and so many others, I strongly oppose H.R. 2042, 
and I urge my colleagues to vote against it as well.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I continue to reserve the balance of my time, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
2042, the Ratepayer Protection Act of 2015.
  The EPA's clean power plan has raised a number of justifiable 
concerns. However, while I would like to find a solution to the issues 
raised by today's bill, I don't believe the present bill is the correct 
solution. For more than a decade, the focus of environmental debate has 
been on greenhouse gas emissions. In that time, we have passed two 
comprehensive bills, while the EPA has promulgated dozens of rules.
  Now, I am not raising Cain with the EPA. The Agency, backed by the 
Supreme Court, has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, 
including carbon. The Agency, however, has a different approach to 
regulating than I think many Members of Congress on both sides would 
prefer.
  I acknowledge that global climate change issues are difficult, and 
the legislation would require a compromise, but this bill doesn't 
accomplish that. Congress should create a regulatory framework for the 
21st century economy and environment. We should recognize that human 
activity has impacted the climate, but that does not mean regulating 
sectors of our economy out of existence.
  Regardless of the public outreach conducted by the Agency, regulatory 
overreach can occur. I don't think allowing each successive 
administration to prescribe policies that affect so much of our way of 
life is a correct course of action.
  We need to recognize our industries, and more importantly, our 
workers need time to adjust to the new environmental realities and 
implement changes, both technological and educational.
  Mr. Chairman, I know many of our colleagues agree that our job as 
legislators is to ensure each of our constituencies are equally 
represented. I prefer we sit down and craft a bill that addresses the 
many challenges we face not only domestically, but as a world leader.
  Unfortunately, the present bill doesn't address those issues I have 
laid out in a balanced and complete way. Allowing for endless legal 
challenges or partisan political decisions is not the proper way to 
handle an issue that affects the entire scope of the environment and 
the economy.
  Today's bill is only a part of the challenge, the part that is 
directly in front of us, and I don't agree with that approach. I would 
like the opportunity to sit down with my colleagues to draft a fair and 
comprehensive legislation that reasonably balances the interests of all 
parties rather than a sector-by-sector approach that balances none.
  I want to make sure that the folks back home get what they need, and 
I think it is an opportunity to bring all sides together. I have heard 
certainly from many groups they all want the same thing, but they want 
certainty.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. PALLONE. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, we want to be certain that 
their companies will be profitable, that their livelihoods will be 
protected, and their grandchildren have a clean environment. We can 
accomplish these goals not with endless delay or agency decree.
  I want to thank my colleague, Chairman Whitfield, for addressing part 
of the problem, but let's work together to solve the whole problem.
  For this reason, I oppose the bill and urge my colleagues to do the 
same.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chair, how many minutes are remaining on both 
sides?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from New Jersey has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Griffith), one of the original cosponsors of this legislation, who is a 
member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, earlier, we heard 
the gentleman from Illinois say that this was a just say no bill. You 
bet it is. That is exactly what it is.
  It is the just say no bill--no to a weaker electric grid; no to fewer 
jobs, particularly in manufacturing and also in the coal and energy 
industries; no to regulations that do little to help the environment, 
but do a lot to raise your electric rates.
  When we are talking about protecting the ratepayer--that is who we 
are talking about, the average man and woman in this country, the 
families that are out there struggling, trying to make ends meet in an 
economy that is flat--this bill says no, we are not going to pass a 
bill on to you for little gain in the environment, but to raise your 
electric rates tremendously. The American families cannot afford it.
  Mr. Chairman, as an example, we heard from a former regulator 
earlier, but the Virginia State Corporation Commission--and that is the 
organization in Virginia--appointed judges who make the decisions on 
what you are going to pay for power in Virginia based on what is an 
appropriate amount.
  They said that customers in Virginia will likely pay significantly 
more for their electricity.

                              {time}  1500

  The incremental cost of compliance for one utility alone--Dominion 
Virginia Power--would likely be between $5.5 billion and $6 billion on 
a net present value basis. That is just for one of the companies 
providing power.
  Let me give you an idea, Mr. Chairman, of exactly what that means to 
the people of Virginia. In my district, I have 29 geopolitical 
subdivisions, 29 different jurisdictions. Only two of those 
jurisdictions get their power from Dominion Virginia Power. Now, 
remember, Dominion Virginia Power is going to cost the ratepayers $5.5 
billion to $6 billion, but that doesn't cover the whole State and 
doesn't cover very much in my district at all.
  And, accordingly, again going back to the statements of the Virginia 
State Corporation Commission, they say that, contrary to the claim that 
rates will go up but that bills will go down, experience and costs in 
Virginia make it extremely unlikely that either electric rates or bills 
in Virginia will go down as a result of the proposed regulations.
  So this is a very important measure. One of our prior speakers said 
that we should take the time to craft some kind of a compromise. This 
bill puts everything on hold until court cases can be decided and let 
Governors come in and say: Well, wait a minute. We can't make this 
happen in our State--or in our Commonwealth, as the case would be with 
Virginia. That is important.
  And maybe if we get this bill passed, we can sit down and find some 
way to compromise between the regulators at the EPA and the interests 
of the ratepayers. But because they are going to come out with this 
rule sometime later this summer, and the States have roughly 13 months 
thereafter to come up with their plan to meet the regulations, we do 
not have the ability to give that time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Castor).
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the climate change denial bill. Don't be fooled 
by its name. Ignoring the impact of climate change will heap huge costs 
on taxpayers. This bill is a disservice to America. And in addition to 
being very

[[Page 10342]]

costly to consumers, it shirks our responsibility for addressing the 
costly impacts of the changing climate.
  The bill we are considering today shows that the Republicans' plan is 
to just say no and to let our children and grandchildren suffer the 
consequences of the changing climate without doing anything meaningful 
to protect them. This position is indefensible, and it will prove very 
costly, indeed.
  Today's bill would essentially amend the Clean Air Act to give a free 
pass to States that refuse to comply with the requirements of the clean 
power plan. Unless we work together to meet the modern challenge of the 
changing climate, this is going to be very expensive for our friends 
back home, especially in States like mine--Florida.
  Here are some of the huge costs we are looking at already: rising 
property insurance rates and flood insurance rates because of extreme 
weather events; Federal emergency aid that we have to pay out for 
things like Superstorm Sandy and other storms, tornadoes, electrical 
storms, tropical storms, drought, fire, and extreme heat.
  In addition to property insurance and flood insurance, property taxes 
are going to go up because our local communities are going to be 
saddled with the cost of repairing storm water infrastructure and 
addressing drinking water. This is going to be very expensive. In 
Florida, we already see saltwater intrusion into our drinking water 
aquifers because of rising tides.
  There is a terrible drought in California. These are going to require 
very expensive solutions unless we tackle it on the front end.
  And I am fearful that there will be economic harm to coastal 
communities like mine in the Tampa Bay area where we will have to pay 
more to renourish our beaches and take care of the lifeblood of our 
economy, which is tourism, fishing, for a beautiful, healthy economy.
  I recommend a ``no'' vote on this bill.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman. I appreciate it 
very much.
  This bill is about commonsense safeguards to ensure my constituents 
are protected from the EPA's overreach and higher energy prices.
  The EPA's proposal under this rule has drawn widespread concern. It 
places a heavier burden on Florida than other States, despite the fact 
that Florida has reduced its carbon emissions by 20 percent since 2005.
  Congress must act now to protect the everyday American who faces the 
potential threat of unreliable services and ballooning electricity 
costs.
  With the economy growing at a feeble pace, my constituents cannot 
afford to have their power bill increase. We should be working to 
support new technologies to safely harness America's energy boom, not 
saddle our constituents with regulations that will increase their cost 
of living.
  Let's focus on an all-the-above energy strategy, unleashing America's 
domestic, renewable, and nonrenewable resources to reduce the costs of 
groceries and the costs for heating and cooling your home.
  This bill will allow each State to have their own opportunity to 
assess the proposed plan for their State. Thirty-two States have made 
legal objections to this rule; 34 States have objected to EPA's rushed 
timeline.
  I am glad that we are taking action here today in a bipartisan 
fashion. I commend Chairman Whitfield, Representative Griffith, 
Representative Bishop, and Representative Peterson for their bipartisan 
work on the Ratepayer Protection Act. Please vote for this bill.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Tonko).
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, this bill represents a misguided attempt to 
hold back change and progress.
  Climate change is a problem. We must deal with it. The clean power 
plan is an important step in that direction.
  It is very disappointing to hear such a ``can't do'' attitude. We 
have always been a nation that tackles big problems rather than denying 
them.
  Many States have already achieved significant reductions of 
greenhouse gas emissions through regional carbon trading, renewable 
portfolio standards, energy efficient programming, and investments in 
clean energy.
  My home State has made great strides. And if there is a flaw in the 
proposed rule, it is that the proposal asked States that have already 
done a lot to reduce their emissions and modernize their electric grids 
to do even more.
  By contrast, the requirements on the States that have resisted change 
and have done far less, are asked only to get started. This bill 
invites some States to continue to avoid doing their fair share to 
address the serious environmental and economic threat posed by climate 
change.
  New York State will continue to work on this problem, as will a 
number of other States that have already taken the steps that I 
mentioned earlier, but it would be nice if our neighbors also helped to 
address the problem that we all had a role in creating.
  This bill should be defeated. It certainly will not go far in the 
Senate, and it would not get signed by our President. Its consideration 
is, indeed, a waste of time. We should be using our time to find real 
solutions to the problems we all face. This bill offers no solutions, 
just another way to avoid addressing our problems.
  With that, I urge defeat of H.R. 2042.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  We have heard a lot of discussions today about how important it is 
with a clean energy plan to address CO2 emissions in the 
U.S. You would think that this clean energy plan is going to make a 
tremendous difference.
  I would just like to point out that the Energy Information 
Administration recently reported that U.S. energy-related 
CO2 emissions will remain flat through 2040 and below their 
2005 levels without the clean energy plan. So this clean energy plan is 
being elevated to do some dramatic good. The fact is the U.S. is 
already doing more than most countries. And I would point out that, in 
the coming decades, more than two-thirds of the world's energy-related 
CO2 emissions will come from the developing countries of the 
world.
  So we are being penalized in America, although we have already made 
great strides. That is why we are trying to give States more time to 
address this very complex regulation.
  At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Johnson), who is a member of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of 
Chairman Whitfield's legislation, H.R. 2041, the Ratepayer Protection 
Act.
  This rule, the clean power plan, by the EPA is an unprecedented rule, 
one that has the potential to devastate Ohio's coal industry. That is 
the very same industry that employs thousands of people throughout 
eastern and southeastern Ohio and provides homes and businesses with 
affordable, reliable electricity.
  The Ratepayer Protection Act will stop this devastation. Almost 70 
percent of Ohio's electricity today--70 percent of Ohio's electricity--
is currently provided by coal. Moreover, coal miners already have a 
difficult and stressful job as it is. And now, because of the EPA's 
clean power plan, they will have to worry about whether or not they 
will even have a job when they show up for work.
  The Ratepayer Protection Act is an essential check on the EPA's 
extreme emission standards. It allows Governors to use common sense to 
opt their State out of the rule should they determine that it will 
negatively affect its ratepayers or grid reliability.
  The legislation also extends the rule's compliance dates, pending 
judicial review. That is just common sense, Mr. Chairman, because 
shouldn't our States have a say in our energy future? Especially when 
you consider that over 32 States have already raised legal objections 
to the rule, and 34 have objected to the EPA's rush regulatory 
timelines.

[[Page 10343]]

  EPA's carbon emission regulations have already made it economically 
unfeasible to build a new coal-fired power plant in America. We cannot 
afford to shut down existing plants and this very important industry as 
well.
  I support the legislation, and I urge my colleagues to.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lowenthal).
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, first, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey for yielding.
  I also rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2042.
  No one wants to see new rules and regulations just for the fun of it, 
and we should not take this EPA rule lightly. But here is why we must 
let this rule move forward: one, climate change is real; two, it is 
caused by greenhouse gases that are released from human activities; and 
three, it has already been changing the world as we know it.
  Pope Francis, in his encyclical, ``Laudato Si,'' or, ``Praise Be to 
You,'' points out that ``reducing greenhouse gases requires honesty, 
courage, and responsibility, above all on the part of those countries 
which are more powerful and pollute the most.''
  The Pope is right. We need to be honest about climate change, we need 
to be courageous and face the future, and we need to take 
responsibility for our carbon pollution.
  That is exactly why we need to work with the EPA, with States, with 
our great research centers, and with our energy sector to increase 
efficiency and to transition to cleaner fuels and renewable energy 
sources.
  The clean power plan and the authority granted by the Clean Air Act 
is the vehicle we have right now to cut greenhouse gas emissions and to 
clean up polluted air. But my colleagues are telling States they should 
just say no and completely opt out of doing their part and subject this 
rule, which, by the way, we have not even seen it in its final place, 
to years and years of delay.

                              {time}  1515

  This is not honest. It is not courageous. It is not a responsible way 
to deal with greenhouse gas pollution.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the irresponsible and 
shortsighted Ratepayer Protection Act.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire on the remaining 
time.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining, 
and the gentleman from New Jersey has 9 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Mimi Walters).
  Mrs. MIMI WALTERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in 
support of H.R. 2042, the Ratepayer Protection Act. This bill would 
protect States and families from EPA regulatory overreach and 
significant spikes in electricity costs.
  Last June, the EPA proposed a rule for existing power plants known as 
the clean power plan. This rule would mandate new carbon reduction 
goals for each State, effectively changing the way electricity is 
generated, distributed, and consumed in the United States.
  The economic impact of this rule is very troubling. It could mean 
increased electricity costs and reduced reliability for consumers. In 
fact, under the clean power plan, electricity rates would increase by 
an average of 15 percent in a majority of States.
  This bill would protect ratepayers and exempt States from complying 
with the rule until all judicial reviews are complete. It would also 
allow Governors to opt out of compliance with the rule if there would 
be a significant impact on states' ratepayers.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
bipartisan, commonsense bill.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I find this whole conversation somewhat 
surreal because, in my community in Portland, Oregon, the city is 
unveiling a new climate action plan to reduce local carbon emissions 
even more.
  We are already below 1999 levels on a per capita basis, but our 
community has committed, in going forward, to a clean energy future in 
order to do our part.
  It is jarring that, at the same time, we would consider on the floor 
of the House rolling back the modest, balanced approach that the 
administration has undertaken with the carbon rule--a carbon rule that 
is not yet finalized, a carbon rule that is dedicated to working with 
local States to try and fine-tune it to make sure that it works right 
and with more public input. Nonetheless, even though it is a little 
late in coming, the United States must step up.
  We have a major responsibility as we are the largest contributor to 
carbon pollution in the world. We are number two now behind China. We 
have a responsibility to do our part, but we have a responsibility to 
do our part not just in terms of global leadership and in trying to 
change this tremendously destructive trajectory we are on with carbon 
pollution--as we will, no doubt, hear from the Pope in 3 months in this 
Chamber--but it is part of what is going to happen with other countries 
in the world.
  If the richest, most powerful nation in the world can't step up to do 
its part, how can we expect to exert global leadership and prevent 
catastrophic events elsewhere?
  The notion that somehow this is going to be an economic catastrophe 
is balderdash. The reason the coal industry is in trouble is that coal 
is dirty, inefficient, and it is more expensive than natural gas. It is 
not a foundation for our energy future. Being able to move to a low 
carbon future is a bedrock for economic prosperity in the future.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. PALLONE. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. We just heard from the gentlewoman from California, a 
State that has proven to be an international leader. Its economy is 
going great guns. It is reducing its carbon footprint, its carbon use.
  People confuse the price of energy with the cost of energy, and what 
has happened in States like California, which have been creative in 
terms of energy conservation and in pricing it properly, is that use 
goes down.
  Some of the people with the lowest rates waste the most energy. They 
actually spend more. Part of what we did with climate legislation, as 
the gentleman from New Jersey well knows, actually would have reduced 
the cost for most people.
  We don't want to be on the wrong side of history on this because it 
will have a devastating effect. The administration's modest proposal 
ought to be supported. We ought not to pretend that we can shatter it 
and piecemeal it out for the States to undercut it. We ought not to 
pretend that this is not a real problem that deserves our attention 
going forward.
  To waste time today with something that would turn the clock back and 
that won't pass the Senate--if it did, it would be vetoed--is sad. We 
ought to be working together on a low carbon future to be able to make 
it work right for each and every community.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the distinguished majority whip.
  Mr. SCALISE. I want to thank my friend from Kentucky, the chairman of 
the Energy and Power Subcommittee, for yielding and for bringing 
forward the Ratepayer Protection Act.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill goes directly to the heart of these radical 
regulations, which are coming out of agencies like the EPA, that are 
killing jobs in America. When you look at this regulation, this 
proposal by the EPA that this bill addresses, the EPA is proposing to 
bring forward more radical regulations that are going to increase the 
cost of household electricity for every family in this country. The 
estimates show you will see an over 12 percent increase in household 
electricity rates if the EPA is allowed to move forward.
  When you look at what this legislation does, at least it stands up 
and protects hard-working taxpayers who are

[[Page 10344]]

tired of all of these regulations--one after the other--coming forward, 
not through legislation passed by Congress--in open, public settings 
like this that you can watch on C-SPAN--but coming forward through 
unelected bureaucrats at the EPA who want to carry out their own 
agenda.
  They can't pass it through Congress, so they try to just ram it 
through in regulations that aren't backed up by science but that would, 
in fact, actually, lead to more jobs being shipped out of this country.
  Where would those jobs go, Mr. Chairman? They would go to places like 
China and India and Brazil and to other countries that don't have the 
environmental standards that we have. You will actually see more carbon 
emitted if the EPA is successful in moving forward with regulations 
like this that this bill is addressing.
  I want to commend the chairman for bringing this forward. I think you 
are going to see a large, bipartisan vote in support of this 
legislation because people across the country are saying enough is 
enough.
  If the proposal is so good by the EPA, why not move it through 
Congress? Why not have public hearings on C-SPAN and present the facts 
and point out and defend the increases that families are going to have 
in their household electricity rates?
  They want to hide, Mr. Chairman. They want to hide and try to just 
sneak this through with the regulation and not have any public vote on 
the bill.
  Here you have a bill, a bill that says let's slow this process down, 
that says let's actually give States the ability to opt out if they 
realize just how devastating it will be not only to the states' 
economies, but to the taxpayers in each State.
  In my State of Louisiana, this proposal by the EPA that we are trying 
to stop would yield about a 13 percent increase in people's household 
electricity rates. We are already paying too much. The costs of things 
are already too high because of regulations coming out of Washington 
not imposed by Congress, but imposed by unelected bureaucrats.
  Enough is enough. Let's rein in these unelected bureaucrats, and 
let's bring some common sense back to the process of getting our 
economy back on track. I urge the approval of this legislation, which 
is so important to getting our economy moving again.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It bothers me a great deal when I hear my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle acting as if we don't already have a Clean Air Act in 
place. The fact of the matter is the Clean Air Act was passed by both 
Democrats and Republicans back in 1970.
  It has been amended and changed several times since then, but the EPA 
is simply acting on a law that was passed by the Congress. There is no 
such thing here that the EPA is somehow doing something that they 
shouldn't be doing, which is what is being suggested by some of my 
colleagues on the Republican side and, I guess, is the basis for this 
legislation.
  The EPA is regulating based on laws that were passed by Congress--
that is what an agency does--but many of my colleagues on the 
Republican side continue to raise the false specter of job losses and 
high economic costs in order to try to block the President and the EPA 
from implementing the clean power plan to curb power plant carbon 
pollution.
  I just want to say again, in going back to the original Clean Air 
Act, the history of the Clean Air Act shows that they are wrong, that 
we can have both a clean environment and a strong economy.
  This is an argument that industry has used every time the Clean Air 
Act has been strengthened. Every time new regulations come out that are 
trying to address the problems with clean air and that are trying to 
make the air healthier for all Americans, we hear industry argue that 
somehow there are going to be job losses or that there are going to be 
huge rate increases.
  When Congress debated the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, the oil 
industry said that the technology to meet these standards simply does 
not exist today, and they predicted major supply disruptions, and 
chemical companies said the law would cause severe economic and social 
disruption. None of these gloom-and-doom predictions came true. 
Instead, our air got cleaner, and our economy flourished.
  The history of the Clean Air Act shows that the United States can 
reduce carbon pollution while creating jobs and strengthening the 
economy. Since its adoption in 1970, the Clean Air Act has reduced key 
air pollutants by two-thirds while the economy has tripled in size. The 
Clean Air Act has also made the United States a world leader in 
pollution control technology, generating hundreds of billions of 
dollars for U.S. companies and creating millions of jobs.
  I want to stress that I think we are at a critical crossroads here. 
If we continue to ignore the science, we will cause catastrophic 
climate change and saddle our economy with soaring bills for disaster 
relief; but, if we invest in the clean energy technologies of the 
future, we can protect our environment and grow our economy.
  This idea of juxtaposing jobs and the economy versus the environment 
is simply not true. The history of the Clean Air Act shows that it is 
not true.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, once again, I ask how much time is 
remaining.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining, 
and the gentleman from New Jersey has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The other question that I keep hearing from the other side of the 
aisle is that, somehow, they just ignore the public health aspects of 
this. Obviously, we are concerned about climate change, but it is also 
the question of public health.
  There are consequences to inaction. In other words, if this bill were 
to pass and if the clean power plan were not to go into effect, there 
are consequences.
  The EPA estimates that, in 2030, the clean power plan will avoid up 
to 3,300 heart attacks, prevent 150,000 asthma attacks in children, 
lead to 2,800 fewer hospital admissions, and avert 490,000 missed work 
or schooldays each year.
  These benefits are worth an estimated $93 billion per year, Mr. 
Chairman. These are human health benefits that could be delayed or, 
perhaps, permanently lost if this bill takes effect. The health 
benefits potentially blocked by the bill are especially important for 
the most vulnerable among us, our babies, our kids, our seniors, and 
those with asthma.
  The legislation grants a blanket extension for all clean power plan 
compliant States until all opportunities for legal challenges have been 
exhausted, and this unprecedented suspension of critical clean air 
regulations would occur regardless of a lawsuit's merits or its 
likelihood of success. What the Republicans are doing with this bill is 
denying the health benefits that come from the clean power plan.
  I just want to close, Mr. Chairman, by reminding everyone that the 
President has said he will veto this legislation, so this effort with 
the legislation is totally in vain, as it probably won't pass the 
Senate.
  The President would veto it, and there are no votes to override his 
veto. Let me just read what the President says in his statement when he 
says he will veto the bill.

                              {time}  1530

  He says:

       The bill is premature and unnecessary. It is premature 
     because the clean power plan has yet to be finalized; it is 
     unnecessary because EPA has made clear its commitment to 
     address concerns raised during the public comment period 
     (including concerns related to cost and reliability) when 
     issuing the final clean power plan. The effect of the bill 
     would, therefore, be a wholly unnecessary postponement of 
     reductions of harmful air pollution.
       The bill is unprecedented. The administration is not aware 
     of any instance when Congress has enacted legislation to stay 
     implementation of a clean air standard before judicial 
     review. To do so here, before the rule is even final, would 
     be an unprecedented interference with EPA's efforts to 
     fulfill its duties under the Clean Air Act.


[[Page 10345]]


  Once again, my colleagues on the Republican side have said that this 
is only a proposed rule. Why are they passing legislation to deal with 
a rule that hasn't even been finalized?
  I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  The reason we are acting is because the 5 years that I have been 
chairman of this subcommittee, we have had many hearings on proposed 
rules and regulations coming out of EPA, and only one time did they 
actually sit down with the affected parties and try to work out a real 
compromise, and that was on the cement rule.
  Other than that, they have made it very clear they intend to move 
forward with this regulation. Lawsuits have been filed, but the courts 
have said it is not right yet. So if we don't take action, it is going 
to become final, and then you go to court, and then it takes years.
  So we are simply saying let's pass this legislation to delay the 
implementation until the court makes a decision on whether or not it is 
legal. We have real reason to believe that it is not legal because 
never have they ever attempted to regulate an existing source under 
section 111(d) except in very minute circumstances.
  Now, I agree that since the original Clean Air Act Amendments of 
1990, our economy has improved. We have had a lot more jobs. But the 
Global Markets Institute last month issued a report--it is an arm of 
Goldman Sachs, a respected institution--and they pointed out that in 
the Obama administration, since 2009, the number of small businesses in 
America are 600,000 less today than in 2009; 6 million fewer jobs today 
than in 2009. They also went on to say that the reason for this is the 
overzealous issue of regulations in this administration.
  That is why the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, representing thousands 
of small-business men and women around the country has endorsed this 
legislation. That is why the African American Chamber of Commerce has 
written a letter explaining the detrimental impacts of this regulation. 
That is why over 30-some States have come to us and asked us to give 
them more time.
  As I said in the beginning, this is a complex rule. It certainly 
applies to more than just coal, because it is the first time that EPA 
has ever attempted to go outside the source of the emission to reduce 
the emission. So we are not talking about only coal-powered electricity 
plants, but the EPA sets the standard for every State, the emission 
cap, and then they say you go fix it. So the States are going to be 
forced to go to other industries, to maybe look at building materials 
in homes, to adopt renewable mandates to meet these very stringent 
standards.
  So it is a complex rule. EPA usually gives States 3 years to come up 
with their State implementation plan, but in this instance, they are 
giving them 13 months, which is unheard of.
  This legislation is very simple. Let's delay the State implementation 
plans until the courts render a decision. I urge our Members to support 
this commonsense legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chair, today we fight to keep electricity affordable 
with the Ratepayer Protection Act, a bill that protects folks all 
across the country from the potential rate increases and reliability 
risks that experts predict will occur under the EPA's proposed Clean 
Power Plan. I applaud my colleague Ed Whitfield for his efforts on this 
important bill and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  In my home state of Michigan, the American Coalition for Clean Coal 
Electricity estimates that the EPA's proposed plan would increase 
electricity prices by 12%. The last thing families in Michigan and 
across the country can afford right now are higher bills just as they 
are finally feeling as if they have turned the corner following the 
extended economic downturn.
  Legal experts, including President Obama's own law professor, 
Laurence Tribe have testified that the proposal raises grave 
constitutional questions, exceeds EPA's statutory authority, and 
violates the Clean Air Act. In fact, Professor Tribe equated the 
administration's action to ``burning the Constitution.''
  Low-income households and those on fixed incomes get hit the hardest 
when electric bills go up. In Michigan, there are nearly 2 million 
lower-income and middle-income families--representing 52% of the 
state's households. Unfortunately, the costs of this proposed rule 
would fall disproportionately on the most vulnerable.
  Small businesses would also face increased electricity costs that 
could harm their bottom line. And every extra dollar that goes toward 
higher energy cost is money that can't be spent on new hiring.
  For manufacturers, affordable energy is imperative to stay 
competitive in a global market. That is why the Chamber of Commerce, 
National Association of Manufacturers, and many other representatives 
of job-creating businesses have sounded the alarm on the serious threat 
posed by the administration's plan.
  I would also note that higher costs are not the only menace looming 
on the horizon--what's worse than expensive electricity is no 
electricity at all. But that is a real possibility. The North American 
Electric Reliability Corporation and others have warned that the EPA's 
proposed plan poses a serious threat to electric reliability as power 
sources are forced offline.
  The Ratepayer Protection Act is a thoughtful and straightforward 
answer to the potential rate shocks and blackouts. The legislation 
would allow for the completion of judicial review of any rule before 
requiring states to implement it, and if a governor of a state finds 
that the rule poses a significant threat to electricity affordability 
and reliability they would have the power to suspend compliance with 
the administration's plan.
  The Ratepayer Protection Act does not repeal the Clean Power Plan, it 
merely adds several reasonable safeguards to it. Regulatory overreach 
has defined this administration and it is time we all stood up to 
protect affordable energy. Vote yes in support of every American 
ratepayer and lower bills.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation 
which would significantly exacerbate climate change by gutting the 
President's plan to cut carbon emissions from power plants.
  My home state of California is currently experiencing the worst 
drought in its history, and scientists say it is made more severe 
because of the warming climate in California. High temperatures have 
caused record low levels of mountain snowpack and water evaporation in 
reservoirs, rivers, and soil. This means mandatory water cuts, fallowed 
fields, and higher risk of wildfires as we move into the heart of the 
dry season. With continued increases in global temperatures due to 
carbon emissions, droughts like California's will become even more 
common across the country.
  These extreme drought and wildfire conditions are not unique to 
California. States across the west including Oklahoma, Nevada, Utah, 
and Oregon are experiencing ``extreme'' or ``exceptional'' drought 
conditions, according to the USDA. This is a crisis across the West and 
scientists tell us that it will be more common as man-made carbon 
emissions continue to warm the planet.
  The costs of failing to address climate change grow with every year 
that we fail to take action. In 2012 alone, climate-related disasters 
including drought, wildfires, and severe weather including Hurricane 
Sandy, cost the economy over $100 billion. That works out to a $300 tax 
on every American, and it will continue to increase as severe weather 
becomes more common and sea levels continue to rise. On top of those 
disasters, the White House Council on Economic Advisers calculated that 
failing to meet our climate goals will cost the U.S. $150 billion per 
year in reduced economic output, and each decade of ignoring climate 
change increases the costs of mitigation by 40 percent.
  In the absence of Congressional action to address climate change, the 
Administration is taking strong action which I support. But the bill 
before us today would allow the Clean Power Plan to be blocked 
indefinitely and would set a dangerous precedent of allowing states to 
opt out of national air quality standards. The Supreme Court has upheld 
the authority of the EPA to regulate carbon emissions on three separate 
occasions since 2007, yet this bill would allow lawsuits to permanently 
delay the Clean Power Plan. The bill also removes the federal backstop 
that has made the Clean Air Act one of the most successful 
environmental laws in our nation's history, cutting harmful air 
pollution by 90 percent since its passage in 1970.
  Under the premise of protecting ratepayers, who will actually see 
their bills go down under the Clean Power Plan, this legislation is a 
major step backward for our country's efforts to fight climate change.
  I urge the rejection of this legislation.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this attempt to 
weaken our first real shot at reducing the harmful carbon pollution 
that is contributing to global climate change and endangering our 
communities.

[[Page 10346]]

  Last month was the hottest May on record. Last year was the hottest 
year. We've already seen extreme weather events across the globe--from 
unprecedented flooding in Texas to deadly drought in India. This is not 
a coincidence. It is not a fluke. It is a real trend identified by 
ninety-seven percent of climate scientists worldwide. And it requires 
our urgent action to protect our constituents and our environment.
  It is past time. And when skeptics in this Congress refused to 
acknowledge reality and refused to take any steps to prevent disaster, 
the President used his authority under the Clean Air Act to reduce 
carbon emissions, which are a leading contributor to climate change. 
His proposed Clean Power Plan is a flexible framework for states to cut 
carbon pollution from power plants for the first time. It's a plan that 
sets goals, provides options, and lets states figure out what works 
best for them.
  But today we are considering a bill that would undermine the very 
structure of the Clean Air Act. Currently, when states refuse or fail 
to fulfill their obligations to reduce pollution under the Clean Air 
Act, the federal government has the obligation to step in to put 
forward a plan that would meet the law's requirements. This federal 
backstop is a critical part of our nation's environmental laws. Today's 
legislation would allow states to ``opt out'' of a federal plan, giving 
them the authority to ignore their responsibility to comply with the 
rule and leaving their residents without protection from carbon 
pollution.
  Moreover, we are considering this bill before the Clean Power Plan is 
even finalized. The EPA is in the process of considering input from 
many states to refine the proposal before putting forward a final rule. 
This bill would simply delay efforts to reduce air pollution.
  Mr. Chair, just last week the Pope called on all of us to live up to 
our moral responsibility to act on climate change to protect our 
communities, our environment, and the most vulnerable among us. We 
should heed that call, reject this bad bill, and work together to 
prevent the most damaging impacts of climate change.
  The 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 114-20. 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. 2042

       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 ``Ratepayer Protection Act of 
     2015''.

     SEC. 2. EXTENDING COMPLIANCE DATES OF RULES ADDRESSING CARBON 
                   DIOXIDE EMISSIONS FROM EXISTING POWER PLANTS 
                   PENDING JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       (a) Extension of Compliance Dates.--
       (1) Extension.--Each compliance date of any final rule 
     described in subsection (b) is deemed to be extended by the 
     time period equal to the time period described in subsection 
     (c).
       (2) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``compliance 
     date''--
       (A) means, with respect to any requirement of a final rule 
     described in subsection (b), the date by which any State, 
     local, or tribal government or other person is first required 
     to comply; and
       (B) includes the date by which State plans are required to 
     be submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency under any 
     such final rule.
       (b) Final Rules Described.--A final rule described in this 
     subsection is any final rule to address carbon dioxide 
     emissions from existing sources that are fossil fuel-fired 
     electric utility generating units under section 111(d) of the 
     Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7411(d)), including any final rule 
     that succeeds--
       (1) the proposed rule entitled ``Carbon Pollution Emission 
     Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility 
     Generating Units'' published at 79 Fed. Reg. 34830 (June 18, 
     2014); or
       (2) the supplemental proposed rule entitled ``Carbon 
     Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary 
     Sources: EGUs in Indian Country and U.S. Territories; Multi-
     Jurisdictional Partnerships'' published at 79 Fed. Reg. 65482 
     (November 4, 2014).
       (c) Period Described.--The time period described in this 
     subsection is the period of days that--
       (1) begins on the date that is 60 days after the day on 
     which notice of promulgation of a final rule described in 
     subsection (b) appears in the Federal Register; and
       (2) ends on the date on which judgment becomes final, and 
     no longer subject to further appeal or review, in all actions 
     (including actions that are filed pursuant to section 307 of 
     the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7607))--
       (A) that are filed during the 60 days described in 
     paragraph (1); and
       (B) that seek review of any aspect of such rule.

     SEC. 3. RATEPAYER PROTECTION.

       (a) Effects of Plans.--No State shall be required to adopt 
     or submit a State plan, and no State or entity within a State 
     shall become subject to a Federal plan, pursuant to any final 
     rule described in section 2(b), if the Governor of such State 
     makes a determination, and notifies the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency, that implementation of the 
     State or Federal plan would--
       (1) have a significant adverse effect on the State's 
     residential, commercial, or industrial ratepayers, taking 
     into account--
       (A) rate increases that would be necessary to implement, or 
     are associated with, the State or Federal plan; and
       (B) other rate increases that have been or are anticipated 
     to be necessary to implement, or are associated with, other 
     Federal or State environmental requirements; or
       (2) have a significant adverse effect on the reliability of 
     the State's electricity system, taking into account the 
     effects on the State's--
       (A) existing and planned generation and retirements;
       (B) existing and planned transmission and distribution 
     infrastructure; and
       (C) projected electricity demands.
       (b) Consultation.--In making a determination under 
     subsection (a), the Governor of a State shall consult with--
       (1) the public utility commission or public service 
     commission of the State;
       (2) the environmental protection, public health, and 
     economic development departments or agencies of the State; 
     and
       (3) the Electric Reliability Organization (as defined in 
     section 215 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824o)).

  The CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in House Report 114-
177. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered 
read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
of the question.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Pallone

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
House Report 114-177.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Page 4, after line 15, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsection (b) as subsection (c)):
       (b) Additional Certification Regarding Costs of Responding 
     to Human-Caused Climate Change.--For a Governor's 
     determination to have the effect described in subsection (a), 
     such determination shall include a certification that--
       (1) electricity generating units are sources of carbon 
     pollution that contribute to human-induced climate change; 
     and
       (2) the State or Federal plan to reduce carbon emissions 
     from electric utility generating units would promote national 
     security, economic growth, and public health by addressing 
     human-induced climate change through the increased use of 
     clean energy, energy efficiency, and reductions in carbon 
     pollution.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
in support of my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment includes language identical to an 
amendment recently offered by Senator Bennet and approved during the 
Senate budget process. It is simple enough. In order to opt out, a 
Governor must certify that the State or Federal plan would ``promote 
national security, economic growth and public health by addressing 
human induced climate change through the increased use of clean energy, 
energy efficiency and reductions in carbon pollution.''
  This clear and concise language passed the Senate in the budget bill 
with the support of seven Republican Senators along with all the 
Democratic Senators. Republican Senators like Dean Heller, Mark Kirk, 
and Rob Portman voted for this language, as did the chair of the Senate 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Murkowski, who is from 
Alaska, where the impacts of climate change are undeniable.

[[Page 10347]]

  Let me just start by quoting pro-coal Senator Manchin from West 
Virginia: ``There is no question that climate change is real and that 
billions of people have impacted the world's climate. This amendment 
supports investment in clean energy technology, including advanced 
fossil energy, and supports energy efficiency, which reduces carbon 
while saving customers money. We can protect the environment for future 
generations while ensuring that we have affordable and reliable energy 
sources today.''
  That is a quote from Senator Manchin from West Virginia.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we should be clear about where Members of this 
esteemed committee stand on the reality of human-induced climate change 
and whether or not it needs to be addressed. Senators have had to stand 
up and be counted, so we here in the House should do the same.
  Some on the Republican side of the aisle have said that they are not 
climate deniers. Well, if that is the case, then this should be a very 
easy vote for them, in my opinion. But it wouldn't surprise me if some 
or all on the Republican side oppose this amendment. In the Committee 
on Energy and Commerce, it was voted down twice: first in the 
subcommittee, and then in the full committee along party lines.
  Let me be clear, Mr. Chairman. This amendment still allows the 
Governor to opt out of the Federal plan. It doesn't really change the 
substance of the bill. This amendment is for anyone who believes in 
human-induced climate change, regardless of their views on various 
approaches to deal with the problem. You can vote for my amendment and, 
if you must, still oppose the clean power plan. But if you vote against 
my amendment, it can only mean, in my opinion, that you are against any 
solution to climate change.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chair, I want to say that I have the utmost 
respect for my colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, who is the 
ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. He is always 
thoroughly prepared and does a great job, but I respectfully must 
disagree with him on this amendment.
  Just reading the amendment, there doesn't seem to be that much wrong 
with it, and really there is not that much wrong with it; but I would 
point out that this amendment suggests that the Federal Government is 
not taking action about climate change. The fact is, we have 18 Federal 
agencies administering 61 separate programs on climate change, and 
since 2008, we have spent over $77 billion addressing it. That is not 
even including the regulations coming out of EPA. Last year alone, the 
Federal Government spent $23 billion on climate change.
  I would just point out that this bill is about responding to States 
who are asking us for help. They need more time to address this very 
complex regulation that will be coming out of EPA very soon. We can't 
have a debate about it without talking about climate change. But as I 
said earlier, everyone recognizes the climate has been changing since 
the beginning of time. I read an article the other day, in the 13th 
century, they had grape vineyards in northern England. That is not true 
today.
  Where we differ with the President is that the President has made it 
very clear that he thinks climate change is the number one issue facing 
mankind. We recognize that it is a problem, but we think there are 
other more pressing issues out there and that this administration seems 
to be obsessed with climate change.
  We think creating jobs, economic growth, clean water, health care, 
and trying to solve pancreatic cancer are more important. We have 
countries in Africa, representatives in Africa and Bangladesh telling 
us we are more concerned about just having electricity, just having 
enough food. So that is the big difference between us and the 
President.
  Like I said, we are simply trying to give States more time, giving 
them the option to opt out if they need to. We want the courts to 
render a decision that this is legal before they have to start spending 
the resources and the money to respond to it. For that reason, I would 
respectfully disagree with this amendment and ask that our Members vote 
against it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. I yield myself the remainder of my time to close.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just say once again that, again, I respect my 
colleague from Kentucky a great deal, but I don't see how this 
amendment even says that climate change is a priority. It is simply 
saying that it should be addressed in the context of any Governor's 
effort to opt out. Now, I don't think that Governors should be opting 
out, but at least if they decide to do so, then they should be able to 
certify the reference to these various issues, including public health 
and climate change.
  Again, we talk about climate change. I understand what the gentleman 
is saying, but in terms of priorities, keep in mind that public health 
is a priority. The gentleman mentioned pancreatic cancer. I was 
thinking that the group that are advocates for trying to cure 
pancreatic cancer probably came to see him yesterday as they came to 
see me. We don't even know what the cause of it is. It may very well be 
that there are environmental causes in the air that lead to pancreatic 
cancer. So I think that it does need to be a priority. Climate change 
does need to be a priority.
  But again, you can vote for this amendment without saying that 
climate change is your biggest priority. We are simply saying that when 
a Governor decides to opt out, which I don't think they should, that 
they have to say that they certify that they have looked at the public 
health, that they have looked at climate change, that they have looked 
at increased use of clean energy and other issues. I see no reason why 
anyone on either side of the aisle shouldn't support the amendment for 
that reason.
  I yield back the balance of my time and urge passage of the 
amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey will be 
postponed.

                              {time}  1545


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Rush

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
House Report 114-177.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 4, after line 15, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsection (b) as subsection (c)):
       (b) Additional Certification Regarding Costs of Responding 
     to Human-Caused Climate Change.--For a Governor's 
     determination to have the effect described in subsection (a), 
     such determination shall include a certification that the 
     inapplicability of a State or Federal plan described in such 
     subsection will not have a significant adverse effect on 
     costs associated with a State's plan to respond to extreme 
     weather events associated with human-caused climate change, 
     taking into account any costs necessary to--
       (1) adapt or respond to increased sea level rise or 
     flooding;
       (2) prepare for or respond to more frequent and intense 
     storms;
       (3) fight or otherwise respond to more frequent and intense 
     wildfires; and
       (4) adapt or respond to increased drought.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rush) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us, which I prefer to 
call

[[Page 10348]]

the ``Just Say No'' bill, would effectively give Governors the power to 
opt out of the Federal requirements of the EPA's proposed clean power 
plan if they decide that complying with the plan would have an adverse 
effect on either rates or reliability.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the language allowing a Governor to opt 
out is ambiguous and does not take into account other costs that States 
are already paying due to the impacts of climate change.
  So, Mr. Chairman, in order to address this issue, I am offering a 
straightforward amendment that simply states that a Governor must 
certify that, within his or her State, any ratepayer increases 
associated with implementing a State or Federal plan would be greater 
than any costs associated with responding to extreme weather conditions 
associated with human-caused climate change.
  Mr. Chairman, this would include the costs associated with cleaning 
up after mass flooding, intense wildfires, more frequent and intense 
storms, as well as the costs associated with loss of crops and 
livestock due to increased drought.
  Mr. Chairman, as any State that has had to deal with the aftermath of 
any of these destructive extreme weather events can attest, Americans 
are already shouldering the costs of climate change--and these costs 
are getting worse and worse. In fact, according to the National Climate 
Assessment, if we do not seriously invest in addressing climate change 
impacts now, we can expect to see more expensive and costly future 
damages associated with almost every facet of our society, from 
negative health impacts, to stressing our infrastructure and water 
system, to harming our national security, up to and including hurting 
our overall long-term economic growth.
  Mr. Chairman, just 2 days ago, on Monday, the EPA, in collaboration 
with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Pacific Northwest 
National Lab, and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, released a 
peer-reviewed study detailing the costs if we fail to address climate 
change. This report stated that failure to act could cost 12,000 lives 
from extreme temperatures and 57,000 lives from poor air quality in the 
year 2100, as well as cost the country hundreds of billions of dollars 
each and every year.
  The analysis also looked at the impact of climate change on health, 
electricity, infrastructure, water resources, agriculture, forestry, 
and the ecosystem. It found that if we acted to reduce emissions, we 
could avert loss of life, reduce the number of droughts and floods, and 
save up to $34 billion in power system costs in the year 2050 alone.
  So, Mr. Chairman, with all of these dire warnings coming from both 
the experts as well as from Mother Nature herself, we cannot allow 
Governors to ``just say no'' to reducing harmful pollutants from their 
States and simply put their heads in the sand.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment 
to ensure that Governors are held accountable for their failure to act 
to reduce harmful pollutants that impact the overall public good.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Illinois has expired.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, with great respect to my friend, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), whom I have had the privilege of 
sitting through 5 years, it seems like, of hearings almost every day, 
while I have the greatest respect for him, I do rise in opposition to 
this amendment.
  His amendment would basically say that State Governors must certify 
that the cost to the ratepayers under EPA's 111(d) rule would exceed 
the costs associated with responding to extreme weather events.
  I point out once again that in The Economist magazine just this May, 
a few weeks ago, they were quoting scientists who were saying it is 
impossible to say categorically that climate change has caused any 
individual storm, flood, drought, heat wave, tornado, hurricane, or any 
other adverse weather effect. So that correlation has simply not been 
established scientifically.
  This amendment would require State Governors to make a certification 
on something that they cannot do, even the EPA itself will not and 
cannot do, which is to show any direct benefit on climate events from 
their rule.
  EPA has said in their own testimony that this rule, this regulation, 
will not have a significant impact on climate events in the U.S. As a 
matter of fact, in April testimony before Congress, Acting Assistant 
Administrator McCabe indicated that EPA could not predict the impact of 
the rule on any of its climate indicators. So they are adopting this 
rule as simply following up on the President's Georgetown speech in 
which he laid out his climate plan.
  But I would like to point out that America is addressing climate 
change. I would say once again, we have 61 government programs 
involved. We have 18 Federal agencies involved. We spent a total of $77 
billion since 2008. We are doing all sorts of things.
  This bill is simply to give States enough time to respond to this 
very complex regulation until after the courts have rendered a 
decision.
  And so, with that, I would respectfully request Members to oppose the 
Rush amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois will be postponed.


          Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Huizenga of Michigan

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
House Report 114-177.
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of section 2 of the bill, add the following:
       (d) Sense of Congress.--The Congress encourages the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in 
     promulgating, implementing, or enforcing any final rule 
     described in subsection (b), to specifically address how the 
     megawatt hours discharged from a pumped hydroelectric storage 
     system will be incorporated into State and Federal 
     implementation plans adopted pursuant to any such final rule.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Huizenga) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my 
colleague, the gentleman from Kentucky, for bringing this important 
bill to the floor to empower States to protect consumers from higher 
electric rates and to ensure grid reliability. In fact, when I was in 
the State legislature back in Michigan, I served as the vice chair of 
our Energy and Technology Committee and spent a lot of time and work on 
grid reliability and cost issues.
  Under the clean power plan, the EPA would set mandatory carbon 
dioxide emission levels for each State and require that they submit 
State plans to meet their EPA-established ``goals.''
  While I have many concerns about the proposed rule, I am offering 
this amendment to highlight how the EPA's approach to calculating 
emissions actually discourages the kind of emission reductions that it 
is intended to promote.
  Here is how. The EPA's compliance formula does not include a way to 
calculate the benefits of clean energy storage. Michigan is a prime 
example of the importance of energy storage via the Ludington Pumped 
Storage reservoir in west Michigan, in the Second District.
  Ludington Pumped Storage was the largest pumped storage hydroelectric

[[Page 10349]]

facility in the world when it was constructed. I remember as a young 
man, my dad was in construction, and we would do Sunday drives an hour 
and a half north just to see progress on this. It is an 842-acre 
reservoir that is 2\1/2\ miles long and holds 27 billion gallons of 
water. In the last couple of years, it now includes a wind farm with 56 
turbines that are generating an additional 100 megawatts. Ludington can 
generate up to 1,872 megawatts, which is enough electricity to serve a 
community of 1.4 million residential customers.
  Here is how the pump storage works. At night, when electric rates are 
low--and oftentimes the wind is blowing in west Michigan, and those 
turbines are going--Ludington's reversible turbines down at the lake 
level pump water up the 363-foot hill from Lake Michigan to the 
reservoir. Then, during the day, when electric demand is high, the 
reservoir releases water to flow downhill and it turns the turbines to 
make carbon-free electricity. And that is very, very helpful, obviously 
especially in the summertime when we have peak times.
  In fact, when I was in the State legislature, I was standing next to 
those turbines and they got the call that they needed peak electricity 
because a substation had gone down in southeast Michigan. Literally, 
within 10 minutes, those turbines were spinning and producing 
electricity and putting it back out on the grid, thereby saving a whole 
lot of expenses they were going to look at in needing to go out on the 
MISO system to purchase that electricity.
  In addition to it being carbon-free, there are no other emissions 
being pumped from the storage generation either.
  Ironically, the proposed rule would penalize States like Michigan and 
Virginia that have prudently invested in energy storage technology 
because the emissions and megawatt hours from plants used to charge the 
system are included in the EPA's equation. However, the megawatt hours 
discharged from the storage system are not. Thus, according to the EPA, 
a State's emissions intensity actually increases if they utilize clean 
energy storage. That is the exact opposite of what I hope is the EPA's 
goal of this rule.
  This amendment simply encourages the EPA to explicitly authorize 
States to include clean energy storage in their compliance plans.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment and 
the underlying bill so that States can best protect their residents 
from the significant economic and reliability impact the proposed rule 
could have.
  At this time, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), my 
colleague.
  Mr. KILDEE. I thank my friend for yielding.
  He has his photo of the hydroelectric pump storage facility. His is 
from the right. I have a picture from the left. It is a different view, 
but it is the same facility.
  This is really important. I support this amendment. With electricity 
demands varying, as Mr. Huizenga said, throughout peak and nonpeak 
times, Michigan companies produce and store reserve energy in this 
facility for future use when demand is high, which provides, as was 
said, energy literally at a moment's notice, which is critical for grid 
stability and also critical to keep prices low for our consumers.
  This technology allows our companies to respond quickly when demand 
exceeds base load capacity, especially during extreme weather events 
such as heat waves and polar vortexes.
  The EPA has repeatedly recognized the need for large-scale storage 
facilities like Ludington's and how pumped hydroelectric storage can 
fill this role, but the EPA's proposed rule compliance formula does not 
include a way to calculate the benefits of pumped hydroelectric 
storage.

                              {time}  1600

  With this amendment, we would like to encourage the EPA to address 
specifically how pumped hydroelectric storage will be counted in 
Michigan and other States, so the consumers will have access. This is 
important for Michigan.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Michigan has expired.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I 
am not going to oppose the amendment, but I would like to speak to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Kentucky is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. First, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Collins).
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I am not going to take the time, 
maybe give it back to the two gentlemen whom I joined on this amendment 
as well.
  This is one of those things that is common sense--at least, we 
believe in. Our people back home, they don't understand this in dealing 
with some regulation on why we are trying to encourage this clean 
resource and this energy and pumping the hydroelectric and not getting 
the credit for it.
  I have had to deal with this on the core issues on some others where 
we are actually trying to do what is right for the environment and also 
trying to do for sustainable and renewable energy.
  So I just wanted to say thanks for this amendment. I think we are 
working toward the right way, and I think this sense of Congress to say 
``study this'' is the positive way we look at this and we work forward 
toward using all the resources and all the energy sources that we have 
and using those in a very productive way.
  I just wanted to put my support to this and look forward to this 
amendment being approved. I join with my two other cosponsors on this 
as well.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Michigan for raising the issue and the gentleman from Georgia.
  It does illustrate some of the shortcomings of this proposed 
regulation because, instead of encouraging clean renewable energy, it, 
in effect, is discouraging it because they are not getting credit for 
it. That is another problem.
  For that reason, we would be happy to accept this amendment and 
include it as part of this bill. Thank you all very much for bringing 
it to our attention.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. McNerney

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in 
House Report 114-177.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike section 2.
       Redesignate section 3 as section 2 and amend such section 
     (as so redesignated) to read as follows:

     SEC. 2. RATEPAYER PROTECTION.

       (a) Effects of Plans.--In developing a State or Federal 
     plan pursuant to any final rule described in subsection (c), 
     a State or the Administrator shall--
       (1) consult with the State's public utility commission or 
     public service commission, and the Electric Reliability 
     Organization; and
       (2) to the extent available, consider any independent 
     reliability analysis prepared by such entities during 
     development of such plan.
       (b) Independent Reliability Analysis.--In preparing an 
     independent reliability analysis for purposes of subsection 
     (a), a State's public utility commission or public service 
     commission, and the Electric Reliability Organization, shall 
     evaluate the anticipated effects of implementation and 
     enforcement of the final rule on--
       (1) regional electric reliability and resource adequacy;
       (2) operation of wholesale electricity markets within the 
     region involved;
       (3) existing and planned transmission and distribution 
     infrastructure; and
       (4) projected electricity demands.
       (c) Final Rules Described.--A final rule described in this 
     subsection is any final rule to address carbon dioxide 
     emissions from existing sources that are fossil fuel-fired 
     electric utility generating units under section 111(d) of the 
     Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7411(d)), including any final rule 
     that succeeds--
       (1) the proposed rule entitled ``Carbon Pollution Emission 
     Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility 
     Generating

[[Page 10350]]

     Units'' published at 79 Fed. Reg. 34830 (June 18, 2014); or
       (2) the supplemental proposed rule entitled ``Carbon 
     Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary 
     Sources: EDUs in Indian Country and U.S. Territories; Multi-
     Jurisdictional Partnerships'' published at 79 Fed. Reg 65482 
     (November 4, 2014).
       (d) Definitions.--In this section, the term ``Electric 
     Reliability Organization'' has the meaning given to such term 
     in section 215(a) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 
     824o(a)).

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McNerney) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, first, I want to commend my colleague 
from Kentucky on his efforts to protect consumers and ratepayers. I 
share that goal. However, we also need to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions; and we can protect customers, consumers, and reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions simultaneously.
  My amendment is intended as a compromise that is practical and would 
both protect consumers and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
  I worked in the energy industry for two decades before coming to 
Congress. I worked with the utilities sector, with the national 
laboratories, and with other stakeholders. I know these issues. I have 
been on the ground. So I can appreciate the need for a secure, reliable 
electric grid. I clearly understand the need for certainty and 
flexibility.
  That is one of the reasons I cofounded the bipartisan Grid Innovation 
Caucus, to help address the pressing issues affecting our Nation's 
electric grid. We are focusing on hardening the grid, protecting 
against cyber threats, responsiveness to extreme weather events, and 
ensuring grid reliability and resiliency.
  H.R. 2042 will stop the EPA's proposed clean power plan and proposed 
ozone standard from taking effect. This would sharply limit our 
Nation's ability to address climate change and the growing negative 
consequences it has on public health and our economy.
  To address this, my amendment will make two changes:
  First, it strikes section 2 of the bill, which prevents any rule from 
taking place until all litigation is complete. That provision would add 
considerable uncertainty to the entire process and introduce a 
significant precedent into the Federal rulemaking process. If a delay 
is appropriate, let's introduce a simple delay.
  Second, my amendment replaces the ability of States to opt out of the 
plan with the requirement that the State public utility commissions or 
public service commissions, as well as the appropriate electric 
reliability organization, issue reliability analyses on any State or 
Federal plan. In this bill's current form, allowing States to opt out 
of the Federal law would create a significant barrier to Federal 
authority.
  The analysis that my amendment calls for must include effects on 
regional electric reliability and resource adequacy, operation of 
wholesale electric markets, transmission and distribution 
infrastructure, and projected electricity demands.
  Federal agencies have varied expertise and missions and not all are 
equipped to properly assess potential impacts that a rule may have on a 
particular industry. Consequently, we need collaboration at all levels.
  In a letter to the EPA earlier this year, FERC stated that working 
together with the EPA, ISOs, RTOs, and the States will be essential as 
plans are developed. FERC wrote that, ``its rate jurisdiction, at 
times, has effects on reliability issues. But, reliability also depends 
on factors beyond the Commission's jurisdiction, such as State 
authority over local distribution and integrated resource planning.''
  So I think it is an overstatement to claim that the clean power plan 
or the ozone standard would be the sole cause of impacts on rates or 
reliability.
  My amendment mirrors FERC's comments and ensures that an independent 
analysis is conducted by experts who deal with the grid on a daily 
basis because the EPA is not an expert on grid reliability.
  If we want to add safeguards to add transparency and accountability, 
we need to ensure that States and regions have their voices heard. A 
practical way to accomplish that is by having the PUC and ISO submit a 
reliability report to the EPA.
  Grid reliability is a bipartisan issue. If my amendment is adopted, 
it will help move the ball forward on this important issue. If not, 
H.R. 2042 will just be another messaging bill that the President will 
almost certainly veto. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Once again, I would like to thank Mr. McNerney for 
this amendment. I have certainly enjoyed working with him on our 
committee. He certainly understands energy.
  I must say that I have to respectfully disagree with him on this 
amendment. His amendment would basically strike the substantive part of 
our bill. As I have said in the beginning, this proposed regulation is 
so far outside the bounds of anything EPA has ever attempted before 
because these plants are already regulated under section 112. It 
specifically states if they are regulated there, they can't be 
regulated under 111(d).
  So we are trying to respond to the States. EPA, we expect, is going 
to give them 13 months to comply. There have been many lawsuits already 
filed. There are going to be more lawsuits filed.
  Because it is so costly, so complex, and they are under such time 
constraints, we simply want to delay the State implementation plans 
until after the courts have made a decision.
  Also, his amendment would eliminate the Governor's finding of a 
significantly adverse impact on electricity rates and reliability and 
simply say that they have got to come up with this State implementation 
plan by working with utility commissioners and NERC, which they will be 
doing anyway. So if our bill is vetoed, that is where they are going to 
be anyway.
  So I would respectfully oppose this amendment as certainly defeating 
what we are trying to do. With great respect to Mr. McNerney, I would 
oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the chairman's 
thoughtful remarks and his concern about the effects of the clean power 
plan.
  My recommendation is that, if a delay is required, let's just 
introduce a specific delay, 1 year or 2 years. Introducing a bill that 
requires all the judicial matters to be settled before a plan can come 
into effect is just too vague. It doesn't make sense. I think it will 
do a lot more damage.
  What we are asking for is that the States and the local authorities 
produce a reliability plan so that they will understand the effects of 
the clean power plan. It is really a compromise position. If we want to 
move forward, then, let's adopt a compromise. If we want to make a 
message bill, let's move forward with the existing plan.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McNerney).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from California will be 
postponed.


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Newhouse

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in 
House Report 114-177.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

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

[[Page 10351]]



     SEC. 4. TREATMENT OF HYDROPOWER AS RENEWABLE ENERGY.

       In issuing, implementing, and enforcing any final rule 
     described in section 2(b), the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency shall treat hydropower as 
     renewable energy.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Newhouse) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the good gentleman 
from Kentucky for his work on this bill.
  I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 2042, the Ratepayer 
Protection Act of 2015, and urge my colleagues to support its adoption.
  This amendment, which I am proud to introduce with my friend and 
colleague from the State of Washington, Congresswoman Jaime Herrera 
Beutler, would very simply direct the Environmental Protection Agency 
to consider hydropower as a renewable energy source when issuing, 
implementing, and enforcing any final rule regarding carbon dioxide 
emissions from existing power plants under the Clean Air Act.
  EPA's misguided proposed clean power plan, which the Agency announced 
in June of 2014, attempts to regulate and reduce the amount of carbon 
emitted from the power sector by setting emission guidelines for each 
individual State. Under the proposed rule, my home State of Washington 
would be responsible for an unattainable 72 percent reduction in its 
carbon emissions by the year 2030.
  To put this into context, the State of Iowa would be required to 
reduce carbon emissions by 16 percent, the State of Kentucky by 18 
percent, and the State of North Dakota by 11 percent. I believe the 
proposed clean power plan would have devastating consequences for each 
and every State, as well as for the country at large, which is why I am 
proud to cosponsor and support H.R. 2042.
  Mr. Chairman, the requirements placed on Washington by this misguided 
rule are simply unachievable. It will hurt our families and our small 
businesses by raising the cost of electricity, and it will cost our 
economy billions of dollars just to comply.
  My amendment would seek to provide a reality check to EPA and 
highlight the effect this regulation would have on such States as 
Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and South Dakota, which are blessed with 
abundant sources of hydropower, a nonemitting energy source. However, 
under the EPA's plan, hydropower is not treated as a renewable energy 
source, despite the fact that the Obama administration has recently 
been touting the potential of hydropower as part of its all-the-above 
energy strategy.
  In fact, Mr. Chair, last April, Secretary Moniz discussed the 
importance of hydropower and described it as a renewable in an address 
to the National Hydropower Association. In his remarks, the Secretary 
stated: ``We have to pick up the covers off of this hidden renewable 
that is right in front of our eyes and continues to have significant 
potential.''
  Yet, despite this public praise for hydropower and recognition of it 
as a renewable, the EPA decided to push a plan that explicitly neglects 
hydropower as a renewable in favor of other sources, such as wind and 
solar.

                              {time}  1615

  Additionally, the EPA's plan uses the year 2012 as its baseline for 
each State's carbon reduction goals, and this will also negatively 
impact my home State and others in the Northwest.
  In 2012, Oregon and Washington experienced unusually high levels of 
rainfall, unfortunately, unlike this year, which led to a sharp 
increase in hydropower production; and, therefore, we used less energy 
from fossil fuel sources.
  As a result, the proposed rule seriously underestimates the average 
amount of carbon used by my State in its power production which, in 
reality, is much higher than the EPA 2012 baseline. Because hydropower 
is not viewed as a renewable, we will have to utilize impractical 
amounts of other renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, to 
meet the EPA's goals.
  Mr. Chair, the effects of this decision in States with large amounts 
of existing hydroelectric power, such as mine, Oregon, South Dakota, 
and Idaho, are significantly disadvantaged under the rule and will not 
get credit for their existing hydroelectric generation and 
infrastructure.
  However, my amendment would address this issue by directing EPA to 
simply recognize hydropower as a renewable energy source. This would in 
no way restrict the goals of H.R. 2042, which I fully support, nor 
would it negatively affect other nonhydropower States. It just 
highlights the misguided rule put forth by the Agency.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the Newhouse-Herrera 
Beutler amendment and the underlying bill, and I urge the amendment's 
adoption.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, the Newhouse amendment seeks to 
legislatively adjust an element of the EPA's clean power plan, but the 
amendment does nothing to fix the problems in the rest of the bill, 
which was actually designed to cripple the EPA's ability to curb 
emissions from power plants and allows Governors to thumb their noses 
at the Clean Air Act.
  The Newhouse amendment would make more sense if it were a comment 
submitted to the EPA on the proposed rule, rather than being attached 
to legislation that would gut the clean power plan altogether.
  In fact, the EPA is actively considering this issue already. The 
proposed clean power plan would have allowed new and incremental 
hydropower to count towards compliance with the rule, but it did not 
consider existing hydropower in either goal setting or for compliance.
  EPA received many comments on including hydropower in setting the 
clean power plan's goals and treating hydropower as an eligible measure 
to lower CO2 emissions.
  EPA has engaged in outreach to numerous stakeholders about 
hydropower, renewable energy, and other low- and zero-emitting sources 
of power to better understand issues raised in their comments; and it 
is giving careful consideration to all comments received.
  There are varying views on this topic, and it should be left, in my 
opinion, to the rulemaking process to sort out the best approach.
  Since EPA is actively considering the comments received on 
hydropower, the amendment is not necessary, and in fact, it could be 
counterproductive. Ultimately, approval of the Newhouse amendment would 
do nothing to change the fundamental flaws of the underlying bill. I 
urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Newhouse).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments printed in House Report 114-177 on which 
further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Pallone of New Jersey.
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Rush of Illinois.
  Amendment No. 4 by Mr. McNerney of California.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Pallone

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

[[Page 10352]]




                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 181, 
noes 245, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 381]

                               AYES--181

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--245

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Clyburn
     Hanna
     Kelly (MS)
     Napolitano
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Sarbanes

                              {time}  1649

  Mrs. WALORSKI, Messrs. MULLIN, WALKER, BARLETTA, RYAN of Wisconsin, 
POE of Texas, CHAFFETZ, HUELSKAMP, Mses. GRANGER and SEWELL of Alabama 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Messrs. CROWLEY, HUFFMAN, 
Mesdames LAWRENCE and TORRES changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, on Wednesday, June 24th, 2015, I was 
absent during rollcall vote No. 381. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``aye'' on agreeing to the Pallone Amendment.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Rush

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182, 
noes 243, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 382]

                               AYES--182

     Adams
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

[[Page 10353]]



                               NOES--243

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Clyburn
     Hanna
     Kelly (MS)
     Larson (CT)
     Napolitano
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Sarbanes


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1655

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, on Wednesday, June 24th, 2015, I was 
absent during rollcall vote No. 382. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``aye'' on agreeing to the Rush of Illinois Amendment #2.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chair, on June 24, 2015--I was not 
present for rollcall vote 382. If I had been present for this vote, I 
would have voted: ``yay'' on rollcall vote 382.
  Stated against:
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 382 I inadvertently voted 
``yes'', when I wanted to vote ``no.''


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. McNerney

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 177, 
noes 250, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 383]

                               AYES--177

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--250

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Engel
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik

[[Page 10354]]


     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Clyburn
     Hanna
     Kelly (MS)
     Napolitano
     Payne
     Sarbanes


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1701

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, June 24th, 2015, I was 
absent during rollcall vote No. 383. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``aye'' on agreeing to the McNerney of California Amendment No. 
4.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hultgren) having assumed the chair, Mr. Holding, 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. 2042) to 
allow for judicial review of any final rule addressing carbon dioxide 
emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating 
units before requiring compliance with such rule, and to allow States 
to protect households and businesses from significant adverse effects 
on electricity ratepayers or reliability, and, pursuant to House 
Resolution 333, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  (By unanimous consent, Mrs. Roby was allowed to speak out of order.)


           Seventh Annual Congressional Women's Softball Game

  Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleagues this afternoon to 
remind all that today is a very special day. Today is the Seventh 
Annual Congressional Women's Softball Game that we play for the Young 
Survival Coalition. Each of us is playing either in memory of or in 
honor of a survivor.
  No one in this room is untouched by cancer, so I would just encourage 
all of my colleagues to join us tonight. The first pitch is at 7 
o'clock at the Watkins Recreation Center.
  Members can bring all of their staffs and their interns and their 
friends and their families. It will be a great event.
  Beat cancer, and beat the press.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman 
Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, we are really 
so gratified to have been able to have spent the last 3 months 
practicing every morning at 7 a.m.
  Our team--I just keep repeating that over and over, and maybe it will 
come true--is bipartisan. It is an opportunity every year for us to 
come together and bridge the divide around a cause that is so 
meaningful and important for so many women all across America.
  I thank all of you every year for your support and for the turnout 
and for the love and affection that we have for one another in that we 
are able to put aside our differences. As a breast cancer survivor 
myself--diagnosed at 41--I just can't thank my colleagues enough for 
their time.
  I will close by saying that the Member team is the defending 
champion; and, tonight, we will keep the trophy. Go, Members. Beat the 
press. Beat cancer.
  Please join us at 420 12th Street Southeast, at the Watkins 
Recreation Center. The first pitch is at 7 p.m. It is a great game. 
Come by. Eat hot dogs. Cheer us on.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment 
to the amendment reported from the Committee of the Whole?
  If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, this will be a 5-minute 
vote.
  There was no objection.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 247, 
noes 180, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 384]

                               AYES--247

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carson (IN)
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--180

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah

[[Page 10355]]


     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Clyburn
     Hanna
     Kelly (MS)
     Napolitano
     Payne
     Sarbanes

                              {time}  1719

  Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. HANNA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 384 on H.R. 2042, I am not 
recorded because I was absent for personal reasons. Had I been present, 
I would have voted ``aye.''
  Stated against:
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, June 24th, 2015, I was 
absent during rollcall vote No. 384. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``no'' on passage of H.R. 2042, the Ratepayer Protection Act of 
2015.

                          ____________________