Ed Whitfield

Mr. WHITFIELD

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 insert extraneous material on S. 2012.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, the main objection here and the basis of the motion to commit relates to climate change. Contrary to the gentleman's statement that the House does not recognize climate change, all of us recognize that the climate is changing. We do, however, have some significant differences with the President of the United States and with some other Members of the House and Senate in that we, many people, do not believe that climate change is the number one issue facing mankind. There are many other issues as well. The United States does not have to take a backseat to anyone on this issue. The Congressional Research Service recently reported that over 18 Federal agencies are already administering climate change programs. There are over 67 individual climate change programs in the Federal Government. We are already spending in excess of $15 billion a year on climate change. One of the problems that we have is that the President has been acting unilaterally on this issue. He went to Copenhagen and made agreements. He went to Paris and unilaterally entered the United States into an agreement without there being any consultation with the U.S. Congress, without discussing it with U.S. Congress on what he was agreeing to. He used that agreement in order to have the EPA issue its Clean Power Plan. In the Clean Power Plan, the EPA arbitrarily sets CO2 limits for every State in America and each State would have had to have had its State implementation plan adopted by this September except that, since Congress was not involved and since many people throughout the country were vitally concerned about this unilateral action, they took the only thing available to them, and that was to file a lawsuit to stop it. What happened? It went all the way to the United States Supreme Court. I might add that the Supreme Court issued an injunction to prohibit the implementation of the President's clean energy plan until there could be further discussion about it. I might also say that Congress had many hearings on the clean energy plan. That was our only involvement. We certainly were not a part of the plan. It was interesting that a professor from Harvard University who is generally considered pretty liberal and who taught the President constitutional law came to Congress and testified that the President's clean energy plan, to use not the President's words, but the professor's words, ``was like tearing up the Constitution and throwing it away.'' We agree that climate change is an issue. We simply disagree with this President's unilateral action in trying to decide the way it is addressed. We are amending the Senate bill because we want to use some commonsense approaches so that we can continue to bring down CO2 emissions. We can also allow our economy to expand, to create jobs, and we don't have to take a backseat to any country in the world. The U.S. is doing as much as any country in the world on climate change. I might also say that we expect that our carbon dioxide emissions will remain below our 2005 levels through the year 2040. Now, if you look at India, if you look at China, if you look at many developing countries and even at parts of Europe, they do not meet that standard. Let's be pragmatic. Let's use common sense. That is precisely what we attempt to do with our amendments to S. 2012, the Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2016. I would respectfully request that we deny this motion to commit. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's motion to commit.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), who is a real expert on energy issues.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 744, I call up the bill (S. 2012) to provide for the modernization of the energy policy of the United States, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of my friend, Mrs. Clarissa (T.C.) Freeman. T.C. passed away last Thursday morning after a long, courageous battle. She was a personal friend, but more importantly, she was a friend to every man and woman who wears our Nation's uniform. Her dedication to the United States Army endured throughout her life and her distinguished record of service to our country has left a lasting impression on everyone who knew her. This point became abundantly clear during her funeral service over the weekend where several hundred people came to pay their respects to the woman affectionately known as ``Fort Campbell's Mom.'' Among those was General Richard A. Cody, former Vice Chief of Staff of the United States Army and former Commanding General of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) and Fort Campbell, who provided the eulogy. General Cody's remarks perfectly captured what made T.C. so special to us, and with his permission, I share his words again today: ``As we gather here today to celebrate the life and the gift of T.C. Freeman, I have the distinct privilege and honor of putting into words and trying to capture a very extraordinary human being and how she touched each and every one of us. As difficult as this is, I hope my thoughts and words represent the feelings of so many of you. In describing T.C. Freeman many cliches come to mind, like ``one of a kind--a true force of nature--a friend to all and a stranger to none-- small in stature but larger than life.'' She was those things--but T.C. was anything but cliche. We will never meet another T.C. Freeman. She wore many hats, played many roles--as she championed her many causes; every one of them having to do with Soldiers, their families, her beloved 101st Airborne Division, the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, and 5th Special Forces Group. She was an untiring champion of all of Fort Campbell and we will all feel a little bit lost without her in our lives. The list of her accomplishments is significant and long--T.C. has been honored here within the gates of Fort Campbell and this community--in the Corridors of the Pentagon--and in the Halls of Congress. I believe most of you know all of her awards and honors--but a list of things does not fully define a person--especially a T.C. Freeman. What this amazing woman left behind is far greater than the awards and accolades she received here on earth. She left a legacy in Generations of Soldiers and Families--past, present and future. That is why we all have gathered here today--many of you traveling great distances to be here--We are Her Legacy. T.C. was a devoted wife to Bobby for 55 years, loving him, following him, and supporting him in his Army career, and a devoted mother to Gil, William, and Robert. A true military family with both sons serving and their daughter, an Army wife. Later T.C. reveled in the accomplishments of their 3 grandchildren--Clytie, Richard and Sarah. We thank each of you--her family--for sharing her with us for all these years. I first met the Freemans in 1984 . . . Bobby was still on active duty, the Garrison Commander of the 101st and T.C. was not just any Army wife, but the epitome of an Army wife. Like others in her generation, she saw being a supportive Army wife as a privilege and an honor that carried with it the responsibility of passing on the traditions of Army life to the next generation of wives. As a young major's wife, new to the 101st Airborne Division, my wife Vicki, like so many others, found a role model in T.C. Freeman. And that was just the beginning of a long and enduring friendship. In the early years--As an Army wife to Bobby--she sent him off to war and welcomed him home from Viet Nam. Later she would remind us all how important it is to take care of the Families of our deployed Soldiers and to give a Hero's Welcome to our returning Soldiers--something that was not done for our Viet Nam Veterans. T.C. vowed that would not happen again and was part of the driving force behind hundreds of Welcome Home Ceremonies beginning after Desert Storm, continuing through the 90's and the Kosovo rotations, and currently the deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. At any hour of the day or night, you would find T.C. at Hangar One talking to our waiting Families, setting up refreshments, offering advice, encouragement, and thanks. Once the official ceremony was over and the Families left the bleachers to embrace their Soldier, T.C. watched for any Soldier who did not have someone--she would walk up and hug that Soldier, saying, ``I am T.C. Freeman--I love you and thank you for your service . . . Welcome home!'' She was tireless in her commitment to our returning Soldiers. Those of us who have known T.C. for decades have watched her transition and change with the times . . . from Army wife to Army mom to a powerful voice for Soldiers and their families. For the first half of her life she supported Bobby in his career, but in the second half, it was Bobby by her side, supporting her endeavors. What an inspiration for women of any generation. And through all of the years, all of the many changes in our Army and Fort Campbell, T.C. never lost sight of her true mission in life . . . to make the Army, specifically Fort Campbell, a better place for everyone, Soldiers and family members alike. She opened her home, her arms, and her heart to each and every one of us. Advocating for Soldiers and their families would become T.C.'s most important role and contribution to our Army. By the time we entered this new era and what is now our Nation's longest war with unprecedented deployments and stress on families, T.C.'s reach had gone far beyond the gates of Fort Campbell. As an AUSA Chapter president and a Civilian Aide to the Secretary of the Army, T.C. was able to advocate and reach even more Soldiers and families throughout our Army. Even with her exhausting schedule traveling to D.C. and beyond; she never tired of greeting planeloads of Soldiers returning to Campbell Army Airfield. Often driving to the airfield in the middle of the night, to greet a plane, she was devout and steadfast in her loyalty to Soldiers. The 101st Airborne Division, with all of its tenant units, was her family. It was obvious to any and all of us, that she would do anything for her post. And how great it was for so many of us to return again and again, knowing that T.C. and Bobby were always there to welcome us. I remarked more than once that, First Ladies of the 101st come and go every 2 years--but T.C. Freeman was the First Lady of Fort Campbell for life. One of her many unique qualities was her ability to relate to anyone; Soldier or 4 star general. She was as comfortable in the hangar welcoming Soldiers as she was shaking hands with Senators and Congressmen on Capitol Hill. And as she mentored Army spouses, she was not above mentoring and lecturing commanding generals, to include this one. I always knew when T.C. began a sentence with Richard, instead of Dick, that I was about to get a tasking. But I didn't mind because her tasking always had to do with a Soldier or family member who needed help, had fallen through the cracks, or was getting a bad deal; it was never for her . . . so how could I say no? One time after one such tasking, I was curious and I asked her if she had already told the Soldier it was a done deal. She replied, ``Of course I did, Richard. Now you will have to figure out how to get it done!'' I couldn't help but laugh. She was a piece of work . . . But the one task I hoped never to have to do, the one thing I did not want to be asked came last year when she realized what was ahead of her . . . Her final tasking was for me to give the eulogy at her funeral. Not wanting to face the inevitable, I jokingly replied, ``I'll do yours, if you'll do mine.'' I wanted so much to turn her down, but I had never said no to T.C. Freeman and I wasn't about to say no for something so important to her. Especially when she remarked with her sly grin--``Besides Richard, You are an Army Aviator--and I know you will exaggerate . . . like you always do!'' In her last role, she was sidelined and forced to work out of her bedroom for the past year. But work it she did . . . texting and facebooking with her many fans and admirers, both young and old. Until the end, she entertained her hundreds of well-wishers from her bed, showing us the grace and dignity that were synonymous with her. I hope that someday there is a bronze statue of T.C.--and I think it should be of her hugging a Soldier, something that she did for decades and something we will always remember her for. I have a feeling she is looking down today, very pleased with the love and support being shown her family but she knew that she was needed in heaven. On Thursday there was a Welcome Home ceremony . . . but this one was not in Hangar One . . . it was in Heaven. I picture her now surrounded by Soldiers embracing her, saying, ``We love you . . . thank you for your service . . . Welcome Home!''

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the question of adopting a motion to commit on S. 2012 may be subject to postponement as though under clause 8 of rule XX.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Carr's Steakhouse in Mayfield, Kentucky, on receiving the National Restaurant Association's ``Restaurant Neighbor Award.'' This award was established to honor restaurants in the field of outstanding community service and involvement. Carr's Steakhouse is among four national winners to receive this award during a gala dinner tonight here in Washington, D.C. Though the Carr family has had extensive ties to the community through their BBQ business in town for more than 60 years, Carr's Steakhouse is only six years old but already has an impressive record of giving back. The restaurant hosts an All-Kids-In event that raises funds to assist children enrolling in youth sports and activities, regardless of a family's ability to pay. They also donate excess food to local homeless shelters; provide meals for the area's high school football teams; partner with community and school groups to host fundraisers as well as the community's Empty Bowls Project to support local food pantries. Carr's Steakhouse sees community involvement as a win-win for the restaurant as well as the community. This was exhibited recently when General Manager, Daniel Carr, hosted a fundraiser for Princess Theaters of Mayfield. Saddled with outdated amenities and technology, the theater was struggling to stay afloat and in desperate need of upgrades. Carr decided he wanted to do more than raise money--he wanted to send a strong message to the theater's owner that the community was behind them. The response was overwhelming when Carr's provided a free meal for a donation to the movie theater. In just a few hours, the 200- seat restaurant raised more than $5,000 to be used for stadium seating and digital projectors. This is just one of several examples of Carr's Steakhouse going above and beyond to help their community. Businesses such as Carr's Steakhouse make me proud to represent the First Congressional District of Kentucky and I am pleased they are receiving the recognition they deserve for their ongoing commitment to the community.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the career of Edwina Lyons from Scottsville, Kentucky. It can often be difficult to find employees who truly exemplify service, loyalty, integrity and commitment but Edwina has showcased all of these and more during her thirty-four years of service at Dollar General. Edwina joined Dollar General on May 20th, 1982. She began in the Rework department at the Scottsville Distribution Center and grew her career and her influence through her hard work and dedication to excellence, eventually becoming the Senior Manager of Merchandise Support for the company. The length of Edwina's tenure has only been matched by the depth of her commitment to the Dollar General family. What is truly inspirational about Edwina is the positive impact she has had on the employees at Dollar General and her community. When she departs in April, her passion for doing the right thing and her deeply rooted values will be missed. I congratulate Edwina on an exceptional career and wish her well on her next chapter. Undoubtedly, she will continue to be of service to others.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I would remind everyone that we are talking about 19 coal refuse plants around the country. They have already cleaned up 214 million tons of coal refuse that are creating significant environmental problems. The SENSE Act does not change or increase in any way the sulfur dioxide emission caps. So it does not have any impact on that. The EPA itself said that the only benefit from their Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and their sulfur dioxide emission rule would be the reduction in particulate matter, which is regulated in another aspect of the Clean Air Act, and the SENSE Act does not affect or have any impacts on that. So even the EPA has said that this is not really an issue of polluting or endangering the clean air. They simply made a decision that they were not going to have a subcategory to deal with these plans. The gentleman's amendment would require the EPA Administrator to certify that the act would not result in the increase in emission of air pollutants. They have already basically said that. One thing that he does not look at in his amendment is the tremendous benefits that the public is receiving by the cleaning up of these coal refuse piles around the country. So, for those reasons, we respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment. I would remind everyone once again that the SENSE Act is designed to clean up these environmental problems, protect 1,200 direct jobs and 4,000 indirect jobs and an $84 million payroll, all doing so without increasing any emissions toxics to the American people. For that reason, I would respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment would require a GAO report detailing an increase, if any, in sulfur dioxide and other emissions and the effect of implementing the legislation on public health. Now, this legislation has come about because of two EPA rules--the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule--and I might say that the SENSE Act does not change in any way the caps on the sulfur dioxide. That would basically remain the same. Coal refuse-to-energy plants are negligible emitters of mercury. In fact, EPA testified that by closing down the coal refuse plants, there would not be any significant benefit on the mercury side. All of the benefits come from the reduction in fine particulate matter, and we are not addressing that. I would point out once again that 214 million tons of this refuse have already been cleaned up. If we allow these regulations to go into effect and these plants close down, those refuse piles will not be cleaned up, 1,200 people will lose their jobs, 4,000 indirect people will lose their jobs, and $84 million in payroll will be lost. EPA has admitted that there is no significant environmental benefit, and they had the opportunity to set up a special category for these coal refuse plants, all of which are less than 100-megawatt plants. They are very small. There are only 19 in the country, 14 in one State. The gentleman from Pennsylvania and others from Pennsylvania have asked Congress to intervene to help them on this matter. For that reason, I would respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment and ask that the amendment be defeated. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

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

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I would just reiterate, once again, far from undercutting States, the SENSE Act offers the best solution for States. The EPA, in these two regulations, is dictating to the States what can and cannot be done. Even if the States wanted to take additional action, they would have to meet the requirements of those regulations. The SENSE Act makes minor modifications to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and to the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, and it does not raise the cap of the emissions. I have a great deal of respect for both of the gentlemen on the other side of the aisle who have different views on this subject; but I can tell you the generating plants that are burning coal to produce electricity have not talked to us at all about being concerned about the SENSE Act. They are overwhelmingly concerned about the clean energy plan, which is basically going to change every aspect of the way they do business if the courts do not rule it in violation of the Clean Air Act. In closing, as a Member of Congress and as Congresspeople, we do have the responsibility to step in and change some parts of the Clean Air Act if we view it as being in the best interest of the American people. Because these coal refuse plants have already cleaned up, recycled, over 200 million tons of coal refuse by combusting it to produce electricity and because the overall caps are not going to be raised, there are going to be minor modifications, we are going to continue to clean up these refuse piles. We are going to continue to protect 1,200 direct jobs, 4,000 indirect jobs, $84 million in payroll. It seems to me that the benefits far outweigh the negative aspects of this legislation. For that reason, I would respectfully request my colleagues to support H.R. 3797 and pass this legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, there are no additional speakers on my side of the aisle. I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), the author of the legislation.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to point out, once again, that we are here because Congress wants to make the decision that the EPA should set up subcategories in this particular instance. Both the Clean Air Act and the EPA regulations promulgated under it, on a routine basis, divide regulated entities into separate categories, but the EPA was unwilling to do it in this case primarily because coal was involved. It is no secret that when the President was running, in an editorial interview in San Francisco, he made the comment publicly that he would bankrupt the coal industry; and that actually is happening. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), the author of this bill.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend Mr. Rothfus once again for introducing this important legislation. We find ourselves here today because the EPA in the Obama administration has been more aggressive than any EPA in history. I might say that the Supreme Court recently issued a stay on the clean energy plan because it was so extreme, so unprecedented, that even legal scholars like Professor Larry Tribe at Harvard University said that the clean energy plan was like tearing up the Constitution of the U.S., that what they are doing under that plan is so extreme. What we are talking about here is we are talking about 19 coal refuse-to-energy facilities operating in America. They employ about 1,200 people directly, about 4,000 people indirectly, and they have a payroll of about $84 million a year. Each one of these plants, on average, is less than 100 megawatts. The amount of emissions is very small. But the fact that they are able to use coal refuse that has been accumulating for years and years and years as America burned coal to produce electricity--we have a lot of waste refuse out there. These plants are cleaning it up. We know that, without this kind of cleanup, taxpayer dollars would be used to do it. It is true that they have some emissions. It is also true that there is a tremendous environmental benefit by cleaning it up, not to mention the jobs that are created. Now, people always say: Well, if you change this rule at all, if you adjust what EPA has done at all, you are going to make it more harmful to Americans who are breathing the air. In our hearings about this particular issue, the Mercury and Air Toxics rule, I want to point out that the EPA admitted that its own Mercury and Air Toxics rule would not generate significant mercury reduction benefits and, in fact, attributes nearly all of that rule's benefits to the indirect reductions in fine particulate matter that is regulated in another part of the Clean Air Act. EPA itself has admitted that allowing these plants to operate and the adjustments to be made is not a significant issue. If you consider the fact that--actually, the U.S. Court of Appeals rendered a decision because a lawsuit was brought about EPA not forming a special subcategory for these coal refuse plants and they said it was not a violation of the Clean Air Act, that a subcategory was not set up by EPA. But if you read the opinion, EPA certainly could have set up a special category for these coal refuse plants and decided not to do it. The reason we are here today is because we have a job. We are the party, we are the body, that wrote the Clean Air Act, and we disagree with the EPA on this particular issue. We are saying 19 plants, 14 in one State, 1,200 jobs directly, 4,000 jobs indirectly, $84 million in a payroll, and EPA itself says this is not a major environmental issue. We make the argument that the benefits of cleaning up these abandoned sites would offset the minute lack of reduction in the MATS rule and the SOx rule. For those reasons, I respectfully would say that I think, overall, the benefits are much greater by adopting the SENSE Act as authored by Mr. Rothfus. I reserve the balance of my time.

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. 3797.