Ed Whitfield

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Mimi Walters).

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the distinguished majority whip.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, once again, I ask how much time is remaining.

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. The reason we are acting is because the 5 years that I have been chairman of this subcommittee, we have had many hearings on proposed rules and regulations coming out of EPA, and only one time did they actually sit down with the affected parties and try to work out a real compromise, and that was on the cement rule. Other than that, they have made it very clear they intend to move forward with this regulation. Lawsuits have been filed, but the courts have said it is not right yet. So if we don't take action, it is going to become final, and then you go to court, and then it takes years. So we are simply saying let's pass this legislation to delay the implementation until the court makes a decision on whether or not it is legal. We have real reason to believe that it is not legal because never have they ever attempted to regulate an existing source under section 111(d) except in very minute circumstances. Now, I agree that since the original Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, our economy has improved. We have had a lot more jobs. But the Global Markets Institute last month issued a report--it is an arm of Goldman Sachs, a respected institution--and they pointed out that in the Obama administration, since 2009, the number of small businesses in America are 600,000 less today than in 2009; 6 million fewer jobs today than in 2009. They also went on to say that the reason for this is the overzealous issue of regulations in this administration. That is why the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, representing thousands of small-business men and women around the country has endorsed this legislation. That is why the African American Chamber of Commerce has written a letter explaining the detrimental impacts of this regulation. That is why over 30-some States have come to us and asked us to give them more time. As I said in the beginning, this is a complex rule. It certainly applies to more than just coal, because it is the first time that EPA has ever attempted to go outside the source of the emission to reduce the emission. So we are not talking about only coal-powered electricity plants, but the EPA sets the standard for every State, the emission cap, and then they say you go fix it. So the States are going to be forced to go to other industries, to maybe look at building materials in homes, to adopt renewable mandates to meet these very stringent standards. So it is a complex rule. EPA usually gives States 3 years to come up with their State implementation plan, but in this instance, they are giving them 13 months, which is unheard of. This legislation is very simple. Let's delay the State implementation plans until the courts render a decision. I urge our Members to support this commonsense legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan for raising the issue and the gentleman from Georgia. It does illustrate some of the shortcomings of this proposed regulation because, instead of encouraging clean renewable energy, it, in effect, is discouraging it because they are not getting credit for it. That is another problem. For that reason, we would be happy to accept this amendment and include it as part of this bill. Thank you all very much for bringing it to our attention. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chair, I want to say that I have the utmost respect for my colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, who is the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. He is always thoroughly prepared and does a great job, but I respectfully must disagree with him on this amendment. Just reading the amendment, there doesn't seem to be that much wrong with it, and really there is not that much wrong with it; but I would point out that this amendment suggests that the Federal Government is not taking action about climate change. The fact is, we have 18 Federal agencies administering 61 separate programs on climate change, and since 2008, we have spent over $77 billion addressing it. That is not even including the regulations coming out of EPA. Last year alone, the Federal Government spent $23 billion on climate change. I would just point out that this bill is about responding to States who are asking us for help. They need more time to address this very complex regulation that will be coming out of EPA very soon. We can't have a debate about it without talking about climate change. But as I said earlier, everyone recognizes the climate has been changing since the beginning of time. I read an article the other day, in the 13th century, they had grape vineyards in northern England. That is not true today. Where we differ with the President is that the President has made it very clear that he thinks climate change is the number one issue facing mankind. We recognize that it is a problem, but we think there are other more pressing issues out there and that this administration seems to be obsessed with climate change. We think creating jobs, economic growth, clean water, health care, and trying to solve pancreatic cancer are more important. We have countries in Africa, representatives in Africa and Bangladesh telling us we are more concerned about just having electricity, just having enough food. So that is the big difference between us and the President. Like I said, we are simply trying to give States more time, giving them the option to opt out if they need to. We want the courts to render a decision that this is legal before they have to start spending the resources and the money to respond to it. For that reason, I would respectfully disagree with this amendment and ask that our Members vote against it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, with great respect to my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), whom I have had the privilege of sitting through 5 years, it seems like, of hearings almost every day, while I have the greatest respect for him, I do rise in opposition to this amendment. His amendment would basically say that State Governors must certify that the cost to the ratepayers under EPA's 111(d) rule would exceed the costs associated with responding to extreme weather events. I point out once again that in The Economist magazine just this May, a few weeks ago, they were quoting scientists who were saying it is impossible to say categorically that climate change has caused any individual storm, flood, drought, heat wave, tornado, hurricane, or any other adverse weather effect. So that correlation has simply not been established scientifically. This amendment would require State Governors to make a certification on something that they cannot do, even the EPA itself will not and cannot do, which is to show any direct benefit on climate events from their rule. EPA has said in their own testimony that this rule, this regulation, will not have a significant impact on climate events in the U.S. As a matter of fact, in April testimony before Congress, Acting Assistant Administrator McCabe indicated that EPA could not predict the impact of the rule on any of its climate indicators. So they are adopting this rule as simply following up on the President's Georgetown speech in which he laid out his climate plan. But I would like to point out that America is addressing climate change. I would say once again, we have 61 government programs involved. We have 18 Federal agencies involved. We spent a total of $77 billion since 2008. We are doing all sorts of things. This bill is simply to give States enough time to respond to this very complex regulation until after the courts have rendered a decision. And so, with that, I would respectfully request Members to oppose the Rush amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I am not going to oppose the amendment, but I would like to speak to the amendment.

Mr. WHITFIELD. First, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. Once again, I would like to thank Mr. McNerney for this amendment. I have certainly enjoyed working with him on our committee. He certainly understands energy. I must say that I have to respectfully disagree with him on this amendment. His amendment would basically strike the substantive part of our bill. As I have said in the beginning, this proposed regulation is so far outside the bounds of anything EPA has ever attempted before because these plants are already regulated under section 112. It specifically states if they are regulated there, they can't be regulated under 111(d). So we are trying to respond to the States. EPA, we expect, is going to give them 13 months to comply. There have been many lawsuits already filed. There are going to be more lawsuits filed. Because it is so costly, so complex, and they are under such time constraints, we simply want to delay the State implementation plans until after the courts have made a decision. Also, his amendment would eliminate the Governor's finding of a significantly adverse impact on electricity rates and reliability and simply say that they have got to come up with this State implementation plan by working with utility commissioners and NERC, which they will be doing anyway. So if our bill is vetoed, that is where they are going to be anyway. So I would respectfully oppose this amendment as certainly defeating what we are trying to do. With great respect to Mr. McNerney, I would oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate West Kentucky Community and Technical College (WKCTC) on recently being named one of the top three community colleges in America by the Aspen Institute. Selected from 1,123 community colleges nationwide, this marks the second time WKCTC has been chosen as Finalist-with-Distinction in addition to having been ranked as a top ten finalist every year the Aspen Prize has been awarded since its launch in 2011. Created by the Aspen Institute, The Aspen Prize is the nation's preeminent recognition of high achievement and performance in America's community colleges and is awarded every two years. The prize recognizes institutions for outstanding outcomes in four areas: student learning; certificate and degree completion; employment and earnings; and high levels of access and success for minority and low-income students. WKCTC students graduate and transfer at rates that exceed the national average by eight percent and asserts no gap in graduation rates between minorities and other students--a rare occurrence in most of the nation's colleges and universities. Working to draw first- generation students into college, WKCTC faculty and staff consistently track student learning and completion outcomes and use this data to improve teaching and guidance practices. These efforts have resulted in an increase in student retention and degree completion, and place them among the very best in graduating students who are prepared for meaningful employment and/or success after transferring to a four-year institution. WKCTC has been a primary player in efforts to expand economic growth, from a high-tech industrialized training facility for area companies to adding programs in anticipated growth areas, including marine technology, logistics and operations management. Community colleges today enroll more than 40 percent of all U.S. undergraduates--7 million students--working toward degrees and certificates. While fewer than half of all community college students graduate nationwide, Aspen Prize finalist institutions demonstrate community colleges can help students achieve higher levels of success while in college and after they graduate. West Kentucky Community and Technical College, located in Paducah, Kentucky, stands among these leading institutions and I am pleased to see its success once again being acknowledged.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Job Corps program as it celebrates its 50th anniversary. For fifty years, Job Corps has served America's most at-risk and vulnerable youths by providing an opportunity to finish their education while obtaining career training and the skills necessary to become productive members of society. It is Job Corps' unique model, partnering the federal government with private industry that has made the program so successful for so many years. Each year Job Corps serves over 50,000 at-risk youth at 125 residential campuses located across the country, and over eighty percent of Job Corps graduates find employment, enlist in the military, or enroll in higher education classes. I am honored to represent two of these outstanding centers: the Earle C. Clements Job Corps Center in Morganfield and the Muhlenberg Job Corps Center in Greenville. These centers are true assets to their communities. I have visited these centers in person, and I have met with educators, staff, and students. It is the students who are the true testament to the success of this program, and I am moved each time I visit with them and hear just how much Job Corps has changed their lives. I cofounded the Friends of Job Corps Congressional Caucus in 2006 because I believe in this program. I congratulate Job Corps on its fifty years of success, and I hope it will continue to enrich the lives of many more young people in the years to come.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today, we are considering S. 535, the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015, a bill to address energy efficiency in Federal buildings, energy conservation through the continued use of grid-enabled water heaters, and energy information for federally leased commercial buildings. I also want to thank the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) for working with us on this important legislation. Both sides of the aisle came together in this legislation, and I want to thank all of them and their staffs for the work that they have done. Madam Speaker, the first title in this bill would establish a Tenant Star program--a voluntary certification and recognition program--within ENERGY STAR to promote energy efficiency in separate spaces. This program allows for a voluntary, market-driven approach to aligning the interests of commercial building owners and their tenants to reduce energy consumption. The DOE would also be required to complete a study on feasible approaches to improving the energy efficiency of tenant- occupied spaces in commercial buildings. The second title in this bill relates to hot water heaters. There are approximately 250 electric cooperatives in 34 States that utilize large electric resistance water heaters in demand response programs to help with reliability and consumer costs during peak periods of energy use. In March 2010, the Department of Energy issued new energy efficiency standards for large electric resistance water heaters that would, in effect, prohibit the manufacture of these water heaters that are 55 gallons or larger in favor of heat pump technology for water heaters of 55 gallons or larger. These standards took effect last week. I might say that the American people from whom I frequently hear are totally frustrated by the micromanagement of the government in almost every aspect of their lives, and this regulation about water heaters is just one example. At the hearing that we held on this regulation, the manufacturers testified that this regulation would basically double the cost of these water heaters. We have a situation in which many heat pump water heaters are not compatible with certain utility thermal energy storage and demand response programs that allow utilities to reduce or to shift their loads during certain periods of energy use. Title II would allow for the continued manufacture of large electric resistant water heaters above certain gallons specifically for use in these energy savings programs. This is very common sense, Congress' responding to concerns by the general public that the Department of Energy is trying to micromanage this small part of the energy sector in the United States. I might mention that the third title of this bill requires that federally leased buildings without ENERGY STAR labels benchmark and disclose their energy usage data where practicable. Federally owned buildings are already subject to benchmarking requirements pursuant to section 432 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Title III simply requires the DOE to complete a study of best practices regarding State and local performance benchmarking and disclosure policies for commercial and multi-family buildings in addition to the impact of utility policies for providing aggregated information to owners of multi-tenant buildings to assist with benchmarking programs. This is a commonsense piece of legislation. It has passed the House and the Senate. The Senate bill was a little bit different than ours, so we are taking up their bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 535) to promote energy efficiency.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Speaker, I don't believe we have any additional speakers on our side, and I would like the opportunity to close, so I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials in the Record on the bill.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle once again, specifically Senators Shaheen and Portman, Congressmen McKinley and Welch, Mr. Upton and Mr. Pallone, and certainly Mr. Rush of Illinois. All of them worked very diligently on this, and I know they are committed to efficiency. I want to just say one more time that I am specifically pleased that this legislation will stop the Department of Energy's regulation that would prohibit the manufacture of heat-resistant water heaters above 55 gallons. If that regulation had been allowed to continue, it would have cost the American public a lot more money going to the heat pump technology. So this legislation has stopped that. It is going to improve efficiency. I would urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 48, I call up the bill (H.R. 351) to provide for expedited approval of exportation of natural gas, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs), who has been a real leader in helping America become energy independent.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order.