Ed Whitfield

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. We certainly want to thank the gentlelady from New York for introducing this amendment. To answer the question about how is this bill going to help oil prices and provide more oil for the marketplace, obviously it can't do it overnight. But the reason that we're here is because it has taken EPA 5 years and they still have not even rendered a decision on a simple exploratory drill permit request, which is not even a long-term activity. It's simply to explore to determine is oil there and can we use it. Now, in America we're using around 20 million barrels of oil a day, and the vast majority of that is being imported into the U.S. from other sources. And so all we're attempting to do in this bill--we're not changing any aspect of the Clean Air Act, we're not changing mobile source rules, stationary source rules, national ambient air quality standards. We're not changing that. We're not changing the Environmental Appeals Board from hearing appeals on any other permit other than an exploratory permit, and that's all this bill does. And we want to do it because we're trying to find additional oil in America, and we know we have it. And we also know that if we have more oil, obviously we can't get it produced tomorrow. We've been trying 5 years just to get the permit, and we don't have that yet. But we want any company to have the ability to go out and drill and to get an expedited answer from EPA. We're not even directing EPA to approve the permit. We're simply saying make a decision. And then if the other side does not like the decision, they have an opportunity to go to court. Under the way it's operating today, we can't get a final decision to even go to court. So here we are in limbo. I might also say that on the gentlelady's amendment, she does not give any time for this report to be issued. And knowing EPA's track record, we could be here 10 years waiting for a report. But more important than that, EPA really does not perform economic analyses of energy markets. The Energy Information Administration does that. They have the modeling to do it, they have the technicians to do it, they have the information to do it. EPA really does not even do a very good job on their regulations of thinking about the impact on jobs in America. So I understand the gentlelady's intent; I think it's a very good intent. But as I said, one of the real weaknesses here is she doesn't even set a timeline for this. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner.)

Mr. WHITFIELD. I would like to make one additional comment. I think you have a very good point on the balkanization. We have these Federal waters, the Outer Continental Shelf. We have a lot of oil reserves, and we're trying to explore, trying to produce more oil. And if this amendment is adopted, different States can have different rules, so that would complicate things. And we already have a situation where we have different agencies of the Federal Government issuing these permits. In some areas we have the Department of the Interior. In other areas we have EPA. If you take that, on top of the balkanization, it's going to take a lot longer than 5 years. We may never get a permit. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, our friend from California's amendment sort of makes a lot of sense. There are a couple of issues that I would like to point out about it. First of all, under her proposal, you would appeal the decision of the EPA at the local district court, wherever the project might be, let's say California. So you go through that appeals process through the U.S. District Court, and then if you don't like that decision, then you have to go to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Well, today, if our bill did not pass, anyone could appeal a decision of the Environmental Protection Agency to the Environmental Appeals Board, which is located in Washington, D.C. So, today, any appeals to that board have to come to Washington, D.C., and it really is a judicial hearing. There are lawyers. There are judges. There is evidence. And so, today, that's the case. Our bill simply says that in order to curtail the length of time it takes to receive or to even get a decision for an exploratory permit only, nothing else--we're not changing any other aspect of the EPA or Clean Air Act. We're simply saying, for this one purpose, we want a decision within 6 months, yes or no, so that the administrative decisions are exhausted. And then once the decision is made by the EPA, any party can go to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. They don't even have to go through that extra layer at the Federal court but go right to the district court of appeals here in Washington, D.C. So this legislation does not in any way change the venue. As I said, if we did nothing, as it is today, if they appeal to the Environmental Appeals Board, they come to Washington, D.C., to have the hearing. So I have been sympathetic to her desire to save people money, not require them to come all the way to Washington, but that's the way the law is today. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I've had the opportunity to serve many years with the gentleman from Illinois, who's the ranking member of this subcommittee, and have a great deal of respect and admiration for him. But I would point out to him that this legislation does not in any way curtail, stop, impose the opportunity for anyone to express opposition or comment about a permit. We do not in any way change the comment period that EPA has to determine if they're going to issue, in this case, an exploratory permit. We do not in any way change the National Environmental Policy Act that provides four additional opportunities for communities, local, State, individuals, environmental groups to comment on an exploration permit. There are today five opportunities for people to comment about air permits. After this bill is passed, there will still be five opportunities for entities to comment. Today, individuals and entities can file a lawsuit against the EPA and their actions. After this bill is passed, they can still file a lawsuit. This amendment basically gives the EPA Administrator the opportunity to grant 30-day extensions on final agency action as the Administrator deems it necessary; but it's not limited to one 30-day period, two 30- day periods or three 30-day periods. In fact, it could go on ad infinitum, and that's the whole reason we have the bill here today, because I don't care what company it is out there trying to explore to determine if the oil is there, if you cannot even get an administrative decision, as in the case in point it has taken 4 or 5 years and there's still no decision, you can never get to the court system. So this bill is a commonsense bill that provides some balance, some checkpoints at EPA so that we have the maximum opportunity to explore, to determine how much oil we have off the coast of Alaska. And I might say, in the hearings Alaska government authorities came up and pleaded for us to do something to help get a decision from EPA. So I would oppose this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield myself 2 minutes. To close this debate, I would simply say that we think 6 months is totally adequate to make some decisions about air quality permits for exploratory purposes only, and I would remind everyone here that EPA had a 60-day comment period for its utility MACT regulation that was a 1,000-page regulation imposed by EPA's own estimate of $10 billion on the American people and increased electricity costs, if it goes into effect, by 4 or 5 percent, and they did that in 60 days. Certainly, the 6 months that we give in this bill for an air quality permit for drilling purposes alone is adequate, and I would respectfully request that we oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield the balance of my time, in opposition, to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner).

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, I would like to quote from Lisa Jackson, who was talking explicitly about the permitting issue here. She said: I believe that the analysis clearly shows that there is no public health concern here. And that's why EPA, on three separate occasions, approved this air quality permit, but on the appeal process it was denied by the Environmental Appeals Board. Now, if you look at the legislative history of the Clean Air Act, it is very clear in that legislative history that, as it pertains to Outer Continental Shelf sources, they were concerned about the impact onshore and the ability of onshore to attain and maintain their Clean Air National Ambient Air Quality standard requirements. And so all this legislation does is to clarify that point. We're not changing the ambient air quality standards. We're not changing the way they monitor stationary sources. We're not changing the way they monitor mobile sources. We're simply clarifying that that was the legislative history, that was the intent, and the full range of environmental protections are still in place. So I believe that this amendment is not necessary. We already have adequate monitoring in place. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the people of the Republic of Azerbaijan, a strong strategic partner and ally of the United States, and congratulate them on celebrating their Republic Day on May 28. As co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on Turkey, I have been particularly interested in the development of nations in the Middle East and Central Asia. On May 28, 1920, Azerbaijan declared its independence from the rapidly disintegrating Russian Empire. In doing so, Azerbaijan not only adopted a democratic form of government, but it also granted women the right to vote and embraced many other integral cornerstones of democracy. Sadly, their independence was cut tragically short when the Soviet Union invaded the nation in 1920 and ended Azerbaijan's dream of democracy in the 20th Century. That dream re-emerged in 1991 with the disintegration of the Soviet Union, and Azerbaijan declared its independence yet again and rejoined the world's community of democratic Nations. Having lived under Soviet rule, the people of Azerbaijan appreciate their role in a democratic civil society. Azerbaijan's geographical location has made it a crossroads for interaction between a number of diverse nations and religious traditions. This position has given it a unique ability to serve as a cultural and political bridge between traditionally Western and Eastern viewpoints. It also has a proud history of influential writers and artists, and its people have made a tremendous impact on the rich cultural framework of the South Caucasus region. I congratulate the people of Azerbaijan, and commend them on their continued efforts and commitment to build a strong and vibrant democracy in the critically important region of the South Caucasus.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the team of students from Paducah Middle School who won second place in the U.S. Department of Energy's 21st Annual National Science Bowl. Team members Erin Burba, Reese Butler, Grant Hutcheson, Parker Lloyd, and Palmer Stroup were led by Cindy Glisson and Dianne Cypret in their successful creation of a hydrogen-fueled model car. After placing first in the regional competition in February, the team of seventh and eighth graders had only 5 weeks to create the hydrogen-fueled vehicle and prepare for competition with 41 middle school teams from across the country. In addition to building the car, the students also prepared for a quick recall competition and wrote a research paper about their project. Energy Secretary Steven Chu noted at the event that our Nation is in need of outstanding young researchers and scientists, and I am extremely proud of these young students for their ingenuity and dedication to scientific knowledge. The National Science Bowl is the largest academic competition of its kind, and tests students' knowledge in all areas of science, including biology, chemistry, earth science, physics, astronomy, energy, and math. After the day of question and answer rounds, students had the opportunity to race their hydrogen-fueled cars against one another. Through their innovative design, Paducah Middle School's team finished the ten-meter race in a mere 3.84 seconds as the runner-up in the competition. Congratulations to the Paducah Middle School team members for their accomplishment at the Regional and National Science Bowl competitions, and best wishes for you in your next academic endeavors.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), the chairman of the Environment and the Economy Subcommittee.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I am delighted that we have this opportunity today to debate this important legislation. Over the last 2 years, the Environmental Protection Agency has been the most aggressive agency representing environmental causes in many, many years. Today, we have an opportunity to try to stop their unprecedented power grab. Even the longest-serving Member of this House, the distinguished Democrat from Michigan, Mr. John Dingell, whom we all respect and admire, said it would be a glorious mess if EPA ever tried to regulate greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide, one of the things they are trying to regulate, is necessary for human life. When we had hearings on this issue, Lisa Jackson, the administrator of EPA, came to the Congress. And she said, when asked the question, what kind of impact would their regulations have, she said it would have negligible impact on solving global warming unless other nations were willing to act as well. Now, what this really gets down to is about coal, because coal in America produces 52 percent of our electricity. In China, coal produces about 80 percent of their electricity. Electricity is produced at the lowest rate with coal. And that is necessary if America is going to be competitive in the global marketplace. That's why today you see China expanding its coal marketing and coal utilities to produce electricity. That's why in China you see so many jobs being produced because they produce at a very low cost. This legislation will stop EPA from driving up electricity costs in America. It will make it less likely that we are going to continue to lose jobs to China if we stop EPA. And I would remind all of you that when Gina McCarthy, the air quality director of EPA, came to Congress, she said herself that trying to regulate greenhouse gases in America just for the enforcing arms of the greenhouse gas bill, which would be every State in America, would cost the enforcing agencies $24 billion, not including the additional cost to all of the utility companies, those people who have boilers, farmers, others, the additional costs that it would provide for them. So if we want America to be competitive, to create jobs, to compete with China, we must stop this out-of-control EPA. And that is precisely what this legislation is designed to do. We're not changing the Clean Air Act in any way. Ambient air quality, all of those things, will still be in force. So I would urge passage of this legislation.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

Mr. WHITFIELD. I'm actually surprised the gentleman has offered an amendment related to oil because our bill that we have on the floor today completely preserves in every way the car rule under which EPA sets greenhouse gas emission standards for passenger cars and trucks for model year 2012 through 2016. That was agreed to by the Obama administration, the automobile industry, environmentalists, EPA and everyone; and that is preserved in this bill. But let's talk about the electricity side. If we allow EPA to regulate greenhouse gases, we're going to skyrocket the cost of electricity which is going to make us less competitive in the global marketplace; we're going to lose more jobs to China and more jobs to India because those two countries are burning more coal because coal produces the lowest-cost electricity. And that's why we are opposed to this amendment of the gentleman because we've already preserved the car rule that the gentleman is concerned about.

Mr. WHITFIELD. On this tailoring rule that was adopted by EPA saying that they would regulate only those emitters of 100,000 tons or more per year, that is in direct violation of the language of the Clean Air Act, which says they have to regulate anything 150 to 250 tons per year. Lawsuits have already been filed against the EPA of violating the Clean Air Act, and there is a strong sense that the tailoring act would be ruled illegal. And if it is, as Gina McCarthy said, they would have to regulate everything in society, including small farms, small businesses, everyone. They do not have the manpower to do it; and as she stated, it would cost the enforcing agencies alone $24 billion, and that's not including the money that industries and others would have to spend to comply with the new regulations. So the statement that they will not be impacted is certainly not settled.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith).

Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield myself the balance of my time. Well, I would say to you that EPA adopted this tailoring act because they bit off more than they could chew, initially. That's why a lawsuit has been filed against them, because they violated the clear language of the Clean Air Act that says if anything emits more than 150 tons per year, or 250 tons per year, it must be regulated if they've had an endangerment finding, as they did in this case. And so this amendment would simply gut the entire bill and place the tailoring law there in its place. Under this tailoring rule, they would be able to go down to 50-tons-per-year emissions. But the question becomes, what happens after the year 2013? You have two conflicting parts of this Clean Air Act as a result if we adopt this amendment. One thing we know for certain, EPA is already involved in too many lawsuits. In fact, we're trying to find out now exactly how many lawsuits. We feel like this bill that we are trying to pass in the Congress today, H.R. 910, is simply Congress reasserting itself into the Clean Air Act because for too long decisions have been made by unelected bureaucrats at EPA; lawsuits are being filed. Almost every time anyone applies for a permit EPA runs and enters into a consent decree, and then the Federal judge will award legal fees to the plaintiffs. We think it's time to reassert ourselves into this process. This is a good bill, H.R. 910. It says that it was never the intent of Congress for EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. We do not in any way interfere with their ability to regulate ambient air quality standards, particulate matter, the hazardous air pollutants--we have about 200 or so of those listed--acid rain, any of those things. This is a great bill. Let's defeat this amendment. I urge passage of H.R. 910.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Bill Samuels for his extraordinary career with Maker's Mark. Mr. Samuels is retiring from his position as President of Maker's Mark, the world's oldest operating bourbon distillery. As the seventh generation distiller in his family, bourbon was a part of Bill's life from the beginning, and just as his own father made Maker's Mark a unique product, Bill made the world famous brand his own through innovative marketing and large scale production with home-grown Kentucky flavor. When he took over the helm of Maker's Mark 35 years ago, Bill used unmatched and unprecedented creativity to reinvent the way the world understood and appreciated bourbon. He paired a family recipe with a marketing campaign that brought out a little bit of Kentucky in people across the world. Bill left no event, newsmaker, or story off his list of characteristic jokes, and his knack for simple one-liners lured patrons to Maker's Mark through thousands of unforgettable advertisements. The world responded to Bill's humor in a big way--by buying all the bourbon he could make and elevating Maker's Mark to a worldwide symbol of excellence. Like the ads that graced pages across the world, Bill's instructions for production of his family's legacy were simple and clear--``don't screw it up.'' One of the few things Bill made no joke about during his tenure was that no amount of success could compromise the taste of each and every drop of bourbon. Bill's world renowned success and innovative marketing techniques never lost sight of the home grown taste of Kentucky in each family- made bottle. The distillery in Kentucky remains the only spirits related National Historical Landmark in the world, and a tradition that Kentucky is proud to share. Under Bill's careful watch, no bottle of Maker's Mark traveled across the globe without bringing a piece of Kentucky pride with it. During his 44 years long career with the family company, Mr. Samuels brought a piece of history and a piece of Kentucky to households, bars, and restaurants around the world. I congratulate my friend, Bill Samuels, on his extraordinary success throughout his time with Maker's Mark. Thank you, Bill, and best wishes for you in your next endeavors.