Ed Whitfield

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I rise to claim time in opposition.

Mr. WHITFIELD. We have great respect for our friends on the other side of the aisle. I think we all recognize that we do have basic differences in our philosophy about the way energy is produced in America. It's quite clear that many people on the other side of the aisle are very much opposed to coal. Not only do they not want us to burn coal in America; they don't want us to export coal to other countries even though it would help our trade deficit and would preserve jobs in the coal industry. This particular amendment on fugitive dust is really unnecessary because fugitive dust from the transport of coal is already regulated at the Federal and State level under the Clean Air Act, as well as State fugitive dust laws and regulations. EPA already is required to study the environmental and health impacts from particulate matter from all sources, including fugitive sources, and of all compositions, including coal dust. The most recent summary of that science was published by EPA in 2009 and supplemented in 2010. In fact, this week the Army Corps of Engineers also announced that it will conduct an environmental assessment of the proposed coal terminal in the sponsor's district. So I would say that we already have adequate protection. There's no need for this amendment, although I'm sure it's offered with the very best of intentions. So I would urge our Members to oppose this amendment and would yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, I'm just reading from page 7. Anyway, this amendment simply creates a national renewable electricity standard. We've seen it before. It was in the Markey-Waxman cap-and-trade bill in the last Congress, which was rejected by the Congress. This amendment does nothing more than determine for the American people where their electricity will come from and that they are going to be paying more for it. So I urge people to vote against the Markey amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3409.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, we haven't declared war on wind or solar or anything else. We simply don't believe that when you have a $16 trillion Federal debt that the Federal Government should use taxpayers' money to serve as venture capital for risky ventures like Solyndra that received $538 million and now is bankrupt. If this technology is so good, let the free market develop it. It does not need taxpayer support. Yet, on the other hand, this administration has adopted policies that you can't even build a new coal-powered plant in America because there's no technology available to meet the new emissions standards of the Obama EPA. On this particular amendment, on page 7 of the amendment, it says that by the year 2035 that 50 percent of the electricity would have to be produced from renewables. The gentleman in his comments said 25 percent, but this amendment says 50.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. America would not be where it is today economically without the use of coal. I think all of us recognize that. I would like to just read a couple of statements from recent court decisions about EPA. The court called EPA's rationale magical thinking and its stunning power for an agency to arrogate to itself. It says, EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously and in excess of its statutory authority. The President says different things at different times. When he was a candidate last time, he said that he would bankrupt the coal industry. When he's a candidate today, he says he supports the coal industry. But his administration, through the EPA, shows clearly that they oppose coal. The proposed greenhouse gas regulations, if finalized, would prohibit the building of a coal-power plant in America. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I would say to the gentleman that we can accept all of the scientific evidence. When the Administrator of the EPA, Lisa Jackson, came to the committee, she was asked the question: What will happen if other countries don't do the same thing that we're doing? In other words, what's going to happen if other countries don't regulate greenhouse gases? She said the benefits for Americans will be very small, if anything, if that happens. EPA even conceded in its own analysis of its automobile regulations that it estimates it will reduce the Earth's future temperature by one one-hundredth of a degree in 90 years. So let's just do a balancing act here. We have a regulation proposed which, when finalized, would prohibit the building of any coal-powered plant in America, and the administrator of EPA says that the regulation would be ineffective unless other countries joined in. With that, I respectfully request the defeat of the gentleman's amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I've already stated my reasons to oppose the amendment, and I would urge everyone to vote in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. We have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), who's a valuable member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. WHITFIELD. May I ask how much time we have remaining on our side?

Mr. WHITFIELD. I stand in opposition to the gentleman's amendment very simply because we know that the Clean Air Act--under the greenhouse gas regulations as proposed by EPA, it will be impossible to build a new coal-powered plant in America. Because of that, we're going to lose a lot of jobs in this country. At this time, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley).

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan), who's the vice chairman of the Energy and Power Subcommittee.

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am going to say that I'm a little bit shocked that people would be so critical of this bill and saying that this bill is not important. All of us know that President Obama, when he was running for President, made the comment that if he was elected President, you could build a coal-power plant, but he would bankrupt the industry. Our friends on the other side of the aisle say, well, coal is having problems today because natural gas prices are going down. Let's let the free market work, and coal is losing out because of these natural gas prices. The truth of the matter is, if natural gas prices were higher than they had been in the history of America, under this administration, if they finalize the greenhouse gas regulation, you cannot build a new coal-powered plant in America. One of the things that this bill does is it simply says, no, you're not going to regulate the greenhouse gases with this regulation. The second thing that it does is this administration has been more aggressive than any in recent history on regulating the coal industry. The second thing that we do is we simply require the Department of Commerce to lead an interagency committee that will complete analysis of key EPA rules and regulations and the impact that they have on jobs in America, on our ability to compete in the global marketplace, on the energy prices, on energy reliability, and on the benefits. What is so radical about that? An interagency task force to simply examine the cost of this cumulation of the impact of the regulations on energy prices, impact on global competitiveness, impact on energy reliability. What is so radical about that? Then, finally, the third thing that it does is we say we're going to establish minimum Federal requirements for the management of coal ash. Coal ash has been used in America for 50 years or more to build highways and to be used in concrete. All we're saying is we're going to set a minimum Federal standard, and we're going to let the States enforce it through enforceable permits. Then EPA can get into the action if they want to if the State fails to act. I don't view this as anything radical. If you go to any coal mine today, and you tell people that work in those coal mines that this administration is not harming their ability to work, I think you would be facing a losing argument. One of the things that upsets me most about all these regulations is that when Lisa Jackson comes to testify, she talks about all of the benefits from a health perspective. I would be the first to acknowledge our air today is cleaner than it has ever been and all of us can take pleasure in that and feel very proud about the effectiveness that the Clean Air Act has given us. The important thing today is to recognize that there are diminishing returns in these additional regulations. If you look at the cost to the coal miner and his family when they lose their health care, the EPA does not look at the impact that that will have, the costs that that will have to society; but they look at models, and they determine that maybe next year they're going to prevent 1 million people from having asthma, which is quite subjective. This is a reasonable piece of legislation that simply tries to slow down EPA, particularly at a time when our economy is weak, when we're trying to create jobs, not lose jobs, and when we're trying to be and remain competitive in the global marketplace with countries like China that are stepping up the use of their coal when we're sitting here with a 225-year reserve of coal. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I rise to claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. First, I want to thank the chairman of the full committee and the chairman of the Oversight Committee, Mr. Stearns, for the great effort they did over the last year-and-a-half of bringing the facts of these loan programs to the Congress and to the American people. I'm also personally glad that we have the opportunity to talk about this issue today because transparency is vitally important, I believe, for the American people. This legislation applies to two loan guarantee programs at the Department of Energy, section 1703 loans and section 1705 loans. The 1703 program was adopted in 2005. Most of us in here voted for it. President Bush was in the White House at that time, but no loan guarantees were issued under President Bush under that program. The second program was 1705, which was part of President Obama's stimulus package. Now, I believe that the President made a mistake, and maybe it was deliberate, maybe it wasn't, but I don't think that he ever had a sound policy to help stimulate the economy in America. I believe that his stimulus program, particularly this loan guarantee program, he was using that as an opportunity to push an agenda to move America into green energy before America was able to go to green energy. And he loaned $538 million to Solyndra, a company of which Mr. George Kaiser, one of the President's major political donors, was a part owner. That company went bankrupt. And not only did it go bankrupt, but the bankruptcy's terms were such that the venture capitalist, the private capitalist, Mr. Kaiser, and others would get their money back before the taxpayers did. And so this 1705 program and the 1703 program, in my view, put the government in as a venture capitalist in risky projects. We know they're risky because Solyndra's already bankrupt, Abound Solar is bankrupt, Beacon Power is bankrupt, Nevada Geothermal has no positive cash flow, First Wind has withdrawn its IPO and is having significant financial problems. So the President was not really developing a sound policy to stimulate the economy. He was providing money to risky ventures to push America into green energy before the technology was really available. So this legislation simply puts an end to the program.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Now, I would be the first to say that there's still $34 billion left. We have 50 companies that have presented applications to the Department of Energy. They've spent a lot of money. So to just cut it off right now would be basically unfair. I would like to end it right now. But it would be unfair. But let me just finish with this note. The Department of Energy's own Web site said that because of these loan guarantee programs, 1,175 new jobs were created in America in green energy. Guess what? Each job cost $12.8 million. Now, if you're a hardworking taxpayer out there, I don't think you want your taxpayer dollars going to risky ventures in which private capitalists get their money back before anyone else does and for every job created it costs $12.8 million. Let's pass this legislation.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. I might add that health insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies helped write the President's health care bill. And 2 years ago, when the discussion was on the floor about this bill, our friends on the other side of the aisle never talked about tax increases in the bill. I assume they didn't talk about it because they didn't know about it because the Speaker at that time said we'll find out what's in the bill after we pass the bill. Well, when the Supreme Court upheld this law, they did so because of the taxing power of the Congress, and they said certain things were taxes. That brought up the issue of taxes. So when we went through this bill, we found 21 new taxes on the American people that will amount to about $800 billion over 10 years. Taxes on high-cost health plans, taxes on health insurance providers, taxes on brand-name drugs, taxes on medical devices, taxes on flexible spending accounts, and others. I could go on and on and on. I would urge the repeal of this legislation.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4850) to allow for innovations and alternative technologies that meet or exceed desired energy efficiency goals.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), who is the author of this legislation.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be allowed to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 4850 and H.R. 5625.