Cory Gardner

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to another gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores).

Mr. GARDNER. I would like to yield 2 minutes to the majority whip, the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy).

Mr. GARDNER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. GARDNER. I would like to yield 1 minute to the majority leader, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from Alabama (Mrs. Roby).

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway). (Mr. CONAWAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, at this point I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Landry), my freshman colleague.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. GARDNER. I am prepared to close. I have no further requests for time.

Mr. GARDNER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, at this point I would like to yield 1 minute to another freshman, Mr. Gosar from Arizona.

Mr. GARDNER. I would just inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. GARDNER. Reclaiming my time, we know that a penny increase in a gallon of gasoline, the Federal Trade Commission has said, can be a significant burden, meaning as much as $4 million to individuals and businesses around the country for every single penny in the increase of the price of gasoline. Again, this does not prevent the EPA from developing rules on the current schedule. It says, Look before you leap. That's why I object to this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, we had a discussion on this very issue in the Energy and Commerce Committee, and we made very clear that the language dealing with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve did not affect existing land management policies or management policies, or those policies in place to protect our resources. So, again, we actually adopted an amendment by Chairman Dingell, the gentleman from Michigan, the chairman emeritus, to make sure that we restated that this does not change or affect our Federal land management policies and those intended to protect our Federal resources. So we made that clear in the Energy and Commerce provisions in this bill as well.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, again, to repeat, to reiterate, to restate this point: Nothing in this bill--nothing in this bill--changes the EPA's obligation to protect the public health with an adequate safety margin. Nothing changes the obligation to protect the public health. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I want to tell a little bit of a story. I grew up and live in a very small town in the eastern plains of Colorado. There are about 3,000 people who live in this small town. And when I was growing up, there was a mother and her daughter who lived across the street from where I was growing up in a little home. They had an older car. And in this small town, the grocery stores, gosh, can't be more than four blocks away. But when they went to the grocery store, they walked. As the years went by and the mother got older, they still walked to the grocery store. In the winter, a lot of times they walked. And in the summer, they walked. I remember asking them one time, they have a car, how come they're not driving? It's just four blocks away. And as she got older and it was more difficult to walk, her response was because we can't afford the gas. That's four blocks of driving. It can't use much gasoline. But the fact is, the price of gas mattered to that family. It made the difference of getting groceries, putting food on the table. We talk about people's ability to afford health care. If you're left with the option of getting to work or buying health care insurance, what are you going to do? What choice are you going to make? By making sure that we have abundant, affordable energy, we are making sure that families can make ends meet easier, that they can make those choices to go see the doctor when they need to, because high prices of energy certainly impact the ability of families to lift themselves out of poverty to make sure that they're improving their own lives. Your amendment would stop the look that we're asking to take at what regulations do when it comes to the price of gasoline, when it comes to the price of energy. Nothing in this bill prevents the EPA from developing rules on their current schedule, but it does say we need to understand the impact that they are going to have on the price of gasoline, because I bet those neighbors of mine are very interested in what government is doing to increase the cost of them getting to the grocery store or not, and maybe they could drive when it's cold outside.

Mr. GARDNER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, if I could reclaim my time so that I can have the ability to close on my amendment, and I appreciate my colleague's debate on this. But again, this issue is not about stopping or blocking the EPA from doing it, because they're fully able to develop rules on their current schedule. Nothing prevents them from protecting the public health and the environment as the law requires them to do--nothing. So your amendment, though, when you talk about rules affecting gas prices should be delayed until the report is completed because those rules could increase gas prices; that's all we're trying to do. Allowing a single member of this committee, which your amendment would do, to circumvent the analysis would defeat the purpose of the act. Gas prices impact, as we know, all parts of our economy, and we need to have multiple experts. But the EIA, of which your amendment deals with, doesn't have the expertise in national competitiveness. They don't have the expertise in job impacts or agriculture or health benefits analysis. Again, I think we have just got to be at the point where we let the American people know what's happening to the price of gasoline because of these regulations. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GARDNER. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. GARDNER. Reclaiming my time, again, I'm not in a position to tell constituents who may find it tough to make ends meet that it's okay if we increase your price of gasoline by a penny here and a penny there, a couple of pennies, maybe even a nickel.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, we heard a lot of powerful words there: ban, bar, block. The fact is that this bill does not ban, bar, or block these regulations. In fact, nothing prevents and nothing bars, bans, or blocks the EPA from developing rules on their current schedule. And nothing bars, bans, or blocks the EPA from protecting the public health and the environment as the law requires them to do so. In fact, it's quite commonly known that the EPA is unlikely to even finalize these rules prior to the completion of the study. We've already got tremendous protections in current law, stringent regulations, some of which were just issued in the past few months. But I think we ought to take a look to understand what impact regulations are going to have on the cost of people's energy. Our colleague mentioned picking up the tab. I'll tell you who else is picking up the tab: people in poverty are picking up the tab of increasing energy costs, which is making it more and more difficult for them to make ends meet. They are picking up the tab of rising gas prices, costing $50, $60, $70 a tank to fill up with gas to drive to work. That's who is picking up the tab, our constituents who are trying to lift themselves up and out of poverty and are having difficulty trying to make ends meet because of rising energy prices, because this Congress refuses to enact legislation that says, Hey, let's look before we leap and understand the impact these regulations are going to have on the price of gasoline. Again, the purpose of the bill is to require a study. Nothing in this bill relieves the administrator of the EPA from the responsibility to issue rules required by the Clean Air Act or any other legal obligation. Nothing in this bill changes the EPA's obligation to protect the public health. Nothing in this bill prevents the EPA from developing and proposing new regulations, taking public comments, or from preparing a final rule, a process that typically requires at least a year. In fact, it would be highly unlikely, as I said before, that they could even both propose and finalize this rule before the study was finished. Our colleague also mentioned that we don't know enough information about proposed regulations to study them. EPA's own action development process--the internal ways that the EPA works, their own internal action development process--requires that the analysis of a regulation start early in the rule development. So they're already talking about what impact these have, including the President's own executive orders that require agencies to perform analysis and consider the cumulative effects of regulations. So this is an unnecessary amendment. Our colleague mentioned some of the most toxic emitters of air pollution. There's a lot of people around the country that believe the most toxic emitter of air pollution is Congress. In this case, some of those arguments have been used in the bill on this amendment. I would just urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and thank Colorado State Senator Bob Bacon for his 14 years of service in the Colorado State Legislature. After serving for 6 years in the Colorado House of Representatives and 8 years in the Colorado Senate, Bob is retiring from elected office to uphold the Colorado State Legislature's commitment to term limits. I had the opportunity to serve alongside Senator Bacon in the State legislature and know that Coloradans will miss a true champion for northern Colorado. As an educator for over 35 years, Senator Bacon's insight into the classroom and education system helped shape the policies that support Colorado students. Senator Bacon served Coloradans well and has a genuine passion to help the students and citizens of Colorado. He was twice elected to the Poudre School District for the board of education before he served in the State legislature, and his commitment and service were recognized by the naming of Bacon Elementary School in Fort Collins in his honor. Today, I would like to formally recognize Senator Bacon's outstanding commitment and thank him for his hard work, dedication, and selfless nature when serving the citizens of Larimer County and the students of Colorado.