Ed Whitfield

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the distinguished majority whip.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will reiterate and make sure that everyone understands that S.J. Res. 24 does not eliminate the EPA. It refers only to the President's existing coal plant rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack), who has been very involved in this issue in his career in Congress.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber).

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. WHITFIELD. May I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I certainly want to thank Mr. Pallone and the great job he does as ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. I am delighted that we have the opportunity to come to the House floor to debate things like S.J. Res. 24. The Congressional Review Act is an instrument that is available to Congress to try to stop the President when we believe that the President has exceeded his legal authority, and that is precisely why we are here today on S.J. Res. 23 as well as S.J. Res. 24. We believe the President has exceeded his legal authority. Now, the President in 2013 went to Georgetown University and gave a speech on climate change, and he set out his clean energy plan. I might say that he never consulted with Congress. He never talked to Congress. He never asked for any input from Congress on this issue. That is his prerogative. But the EPA took him at his word, and then they started the process of adopting these final regulations. We have already talked about the regulation relating to new coal power plants so that America finds itself to be one of the only countries in the world today where you cannot build a new plant. But right now we are talking about the regulation on existing plants. The reason we have such concern about it is that, first of all, EPA's own legal team, their lawyers, reversed 20 years of legal opinion when they said that they could regulate under 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. Prior to that, they had always made the decision that, on this type of scale, they could not do it under 111(d). I might also add that Professor Larry Tribe of Harvard Law School, who taught Barack Obama while Barack Obama was a student at Harvard, came to Congress and testified on this clean energy plan that, in his view, it was like tearing up the Constitution. In other words, the President exceeded his legal authority. In other words, it was a power grab. Now, some people say, well, the end justifies the means. There are a lot of people who feel that way. But we are still a nation of laws. We believe--and not only we believe--every time the EPA has testified about this existing coal plant rule, they have stressed how they have met with the States, they give the States maximum flexibility to try to address this regulation. If that is the case, why have 27 States already filed lawsuits against the EPA and a multitude of other entities as well? This is even a violation of the Federal Power Act because States, generally speaking, have jurisdiction over electric generation and intrastate distribution. But under this regulation of existing coal plants, EPA will have that authority. Guess what. Normally, when EPA has a major rule like this, they will give the States 3 years to come up with their State implementation plan. But, in this instance, the rule came out and was finalized in September or October of this year. The States have until September, basically 1 year, to come up with a State implementation plan. They wanted to finalize this rule so that the President could go and tell the world leaders in France that America was doing more than anyone else, and we already were doing more than anyone else. With all due great respect to everyone, whether you agree with our position or not, we have the right to express that view. We decided explicitly to bring these resolutions to the floor as the climate change conference is taking place in Paris because we want the world to know that there are differences of opinion between the Congress and the President on this issue and on his clean energy plan. I would respectfully ask every Member of Congress to vote for this resolution. As we said earlier, the U.S. Senate has already passed both of these resolutions because they are concerned about the President exceeding his legal authority, his power grab, his extreme plan. Even Democrats in the Senate supported these resolutions. That is all we are trying to do today. We are not debating climate change. We are not debating the science of climate change. But we are debating the President's view on the way you address it and the fact that he is jeopardizing America because he is making us jump through more severe obstacles and hoops than any other country is being asked to do. That is why we are here today. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the bicentennial of Allen County, Kentucky, located in the First Congressional District. This momentous occasion not only celebrates the rich history of Allen County, but the many thousands of residents who over the years have made it a vibrant and thriving community. Allen County was formed in 1815, the fifty-seventh county in the Commonwealth, and named in honor of Colonel John Allen, a hero of the War of 1812. Soldiers made their way into the hilly terrain of Allen County during the Civil War, and Dumont Hill, which currently serves as a park, remains a link to this past. The area's largest source of tourism came about in 1964 when the Port Oliver Dam on the Barren River was completed, creating the 2,187-acre Barren River Lake State Resort Park. Aside from Barren River Lake, Allen County offers tourists a wide range of activities throughout the year. From summer concert series to one of the area's largest Christmas parades, Allen County boasts many active people and organizations and is always eager to showcase its recently revitalized downtown. Jacksonian Days, held in the fall, is a weeklong street festival revolving around the old hotel, long rumored to have been a stop on President Andrew Jackson's commute to and from his home in Nashville to Washington, D.C. This progressive community offers small-town hospitality with access to metropolitan amenities. It also has a thriving industrial base, including Halton Company and Sumitomo. Dollar General was founded in the area over 75 years ago and remains a leading employer today, along with the J.M. Smucker Company, whose plant produces in excess of one million sandwiches per day, making Allen County the largest peanut butter and jelly sandwich producer in the nation. To commemorate the county's bicentennial, community leaders and residents of Allen County have planned several events to educate Kentuckians about the history of Allen County and celebrate its residents and culture. One such event was a one-act play entitled, ``Allen County: A Work in Progress.'' The play featured familiar characters remembering the people, places, and events of Allen County's past. A free live concert was also held in July featuring Scottsville's own Sweetwater and starring country superstars Diamond Rio on the public square. It is my privilege to represent Allen County in the U.S. House of Representatives and I hope my colleagues in Congress will join me in celebrating this community and its residents.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1725, the National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Reauthorization Act, as we call it, NASPER. I introduced this legislation earlier this year with my colleagues, Congressman Larry Bucshon of Indiana, Frank Pallone of New Jersey, and Joe Kennedy of Massachusetts. I want to thank Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Pallone, as well as Subcommittee Chair Pitts, Ranking Member Green, and Congressman Guthrie for helping move this bill through the committee and subcommittee. It has already been stated, the importance of this legislation to reauthorize NASPER. Prescription drug overdose death is reaching an epidemic proportion. Tragically, it has increased in America by fivefold since 1980, and drug overdose now kills more Americans than automobile accidents. In my home State of Kentucky, more than 1,000 individuals die each year from prescription drug overdose, which is the third highest rate in the country. Ten years ago NASPER was signed into law to assist States in combating prescription drug abuse through the creation and improvement of prescription drug-monitoring programs, which experts agree are one of the most promising clinical tools to address this epidemic. So today we come to the floor to reauthorize this important legislation, and I hope that we can continue our efforts to obtain adequate funding from the Appropriations Committee for NASPER. While there is no silver bullet to solve the problem, we do have an opportunity to make a difference by advancing this reauthorization act. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting that effort.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Kazakhstan and its commitment to nuclear nonproliferation. As the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, I recognize the complexities of nuclear power and would like to commend Kazakhstan for its leadership helping to prevent the spread of nuclear materials and to advance the responsible, peaceful use of existing civilian nuclear energy. When it declared independence in 1991, Kazakhstan possessed the fourth largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world. By 1993, Kazakhstan had dismantled and secured its entire arsenal and chose to become an international partner in nuclear non-proliferation efforts. On July 21, 2015, I had the opportunity to meet with His Excellency Kairat Umarov, the Ambassador of Kazakhstan. During the meeting we discussed Kazakhstan's ongoing commitment to these issues. On August 27th, Kazakhstan will partner with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to establish the world's first international fuel bank. This unprecedented facility, planned for nearly a decade, will help prevent the spread of nuclear materials and support the appropriate commercial use of nuclear energy. The fuel bank, controlled by the IAEA and operated in northern Kazakhstan, will maintain a reliable supply of low enriched uranium available to countries if they lose access to fuel supplies for their nuclear power plants. The LEU Bank will provide a secure, guaranteed supply of nuclear fuel, paving the way for nations to pursue peaceful nuclear power under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) without the need for their own enrichment programs. Given the current global security environment and the recent focus on Iran's nuclear program, the establishment of the LEU Bank could also alleviate concerns that a country's peaceful energy program could be altered to produce weapons grade enriched uranium. As the world continues to explore the potential of nuclear power, we need a solution that removes the threat of enrichment from the peaceful development of nuclear energy. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating Kazakhstan on this important announcement that will empower nations to unlock the power of nuclear energy, while eliminating the need for domestic enrichment programs that put our safety at risk.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Robert Gene Lawson, a renowned professor who greatly contributed to law reform efforts and education in Kentucky. He retired on July 1 after 50 years of teaching at the University of Kentucky, College of Law. He advanced the lives of countless students through education and public service. A few of his students include U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Governor Steve Beshear, U.S. Representative Andy Barr, and most of the Kentucky Supreme Court. He was also one of my favorite professors, and I have a great deal of respect and admiration for him. Professor Lawson was born in 1938 in a small coal mining community in West Virginia. His father, a coal miner, urged him to escape the coal camp through education, and Professor Lawson worked his way through tuition-free Berea College and then went on to receive a law degree from the University of Kentucky in 1963. He practiced law for two years and then accepted an invitation to teach at his alma mater in 1965. He served as the Dean of the College of Law from 1971-1973 and again from 1982-1988. Professor Lawson is a Member of the University of Kentucky, College of Law Hall of Fame, and University of Kentucky Hall of Distinguished Alumni. In addition to his impressive teaching history, Professor Lawson has many other significant accomplishments that contributed to the Commonwealth of Kentucky. He was the principal drafter of Kentucky's Penal Code, and its rules of Courtroom Evidence, and led investigation into the Beverly Hills Supper Club fire in 1977 that killed 165 people in Northern Kentucky. Bob Lawson has tirelessly worked with the General Assembly to ensure that state jails and prisons are housing criminals and not people, such as the mentally ill and the addicted, who can be rehabilitated into productive members of society. Professor Lawson has written an important paper on criminal and evidence law, books that now occupy the shelves of law libraries and judicial chambers. The University of Kentucky and the entire Commonwealth have surely benefitted from Professor Lawson's time and service. His legacy will carry on as his students continue to serve in the legal profession and public service, and I personally thank him for his years of honorable dedication and tutelage.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 6, the 21st Century Cures Act, which will help uncover the next generation of ground-breaking cures and treatments for the thousands of diseases that currently have none. H.R. 6 will streamline the delivery process, enhance research and development, and modernize the regulatory system for approving drugs and medical devices. For patients, families, and loved ones affected by serious illnesses, this legislation offers real hope. Last summer, I was fortunate to meet a young man named Scott Andrew Mosley who lives in my district in Henderson, Kentucky. Scott is 13 years old and was diagnosed with Duchenne's Muscular Dystrophy (DMD) at the age of 6. DMD is a recessive X-linked form of muscular dystrophy, affecting around 1 in 3,600 boys, which results in muscle degeneration and premature death. DMD begins in the legs and over time attacks all the muscles in the body. Young Scott became unable to walk at the age of 9 because of DMD, but has never complained about the hand he has been dealt. He offers encouraging smiles to everyone he meets, despite knowing he faces a disease without a cure. Last year, a group of gentlemen in the Henderson community rallied together and volunteered to remodel and refit Scott's bedroom with his own shower and equipment necessary to transfer him from bed to bath. These gentlemen volunteered their time, talent, and money to help Scott and his family because it was the right thing to do. Mr. Chair, as a Member of this esteemed body, I believe it is our duty and obligation to pass the 21st Century Cures Act so that people like Scott Mosley can have hope for a cure for DMD and so many other diseases. Many other Kentuckians and Americans across this country are also in need, and passing the 21st Century Cures Act will bring them hope, and it also is the right thing to do. My thoughts and prayers remain with Scott and the Mosley family, and I thank them for the opportunity to speak on their behalf.

Mr. WHITFIELD

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. 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.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 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. 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. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk).

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

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. WHITFIELD. I continue to reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chair, how many minutes are remaining on both sides?

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

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. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire on the remaining time.