Ed Whitfield

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, we all have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) and know that he focuses on these particular issues and is quite familiar with them. The reason that we are opposing this amendment is that his amendment would make changes to section 112 of the Clean Air Act by adding, specifically, hydrogen sulfide as a hazardous air pollutant. Now, there is a well-established regulatory process for listing new hazardous air pollutants set forth in the Clean Air Act, section 112. The underlying legislation, H.R. 4775, really is dealing only with sections 107 to 110 and part C and D of title I of the Clean Air Act. And we are not doing anything with section 112, nor have we had any hearings in the Energy and Commerce Committee on adding hydrogen sulfide as a hazardous air pollutant. On the other hand, we have had four hearings about ambient air quality standards. We have had four forums on the Clear Air Act relating to ambient air quality standards. So for that reason, the fact that there is an established way to add, we would respectfully oppose this amendment and ask the other Members to oppose it at this time. We would welcome the opportunity to work with Mr. Polis in letting the Energy and Commerce Committee do it in a regular manner. I oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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 such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson).

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4775, as I said, requires the EPA to develop two studies and reports to submit to Congress. I talked about that in my closing statement. My amendment is relating to those studies. The first is a study of the impacts of foreign emissions on the ability of States in America to meet new ozone standards. The second study relates to ozone formation and the effective control strategies for that. These studies will assist EPA and State regulators in better understanding background ozone and implementing ozone standards. In its estimate for H.R. 4775--as you know, we must always consider cost--the Congressional Budget Office estimated a cost of $2 million associated with the development of these studies. My amendment would clarify that no additional funds are authorized by this legislation. Developing the studies required by this bill is part of EPA's job and can be covered by the Agency's existing budget. I might point out that the President's clean energy plan, which was implemented by EPA, never passed the House of Representatives, never passed the U.S. Senate, and was never even considered by the United States Congress. Yet, EPA issued that clean energy plan without any additional appropriations. I can tell you, it cost millions of dollars to do it. This small amount to come up to reprogram funding within EPA to require these studies I do not believe is much of a burden on EPA. EPA's budget for regulatory activity is over $2 billion annually. These are analyses EPA should have already been undertaking as part of its existing responsibilities. This amendment simply says we are not appropriating additional money. EPA can reprogram some of the $2 billion that it already has to develop these studies and provide useful information to the States and other agencies. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, we have no further speakers on our side of the aisle except for myself, and I think I have the right to close. I don't know if the gentleman from Illinois has additional speakers or if he would like to go at this time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank our fellow legislators from the other side of the aisle for working with us on this legislation. One of the great things about the House of Representatives is we have the opportunity to come and talk on different sides of the issues. We can have different opinions, we can talk about it, disagree, and then try to move forward. Now, some of the speakers today, when we discussed this legislation, H.R. 4775, have described it as irresponsible, as a radical action to gut the Clean Air Act, to fundamentally weaken the Clean Air Act, and to undermine the Clean Air Act. I would say that that absolutely is not our intent. I think all of us living in America understand that we do, in this country, more than any other country in the world, work to ensure clean air for our constituents and our citizens. We don't have to take a backseat to anyone to make that statement. I might say that the criteria of pollutants, the six of them, the emissions have been reduced by a total of 63 percent--making up the National Ambient Air Quality Standards has been reduced by 63 percent, those emissions--since 1980. So we are committed to clean air. But many people do not realize that, today, 24 States, counties in 24 States and the District of Columbia do not even meet the requirement of the 2008 Ambient Air Quality Standards, which is 75 parts per billion. And we know that even though that standard was set in 2008, EPA did not come forth with the guidelines to help the States meet that standard until 2015--7 years later. Now they have come out with a new standard in 2015 saying that States must meet that in 2017. This legislation is brought to the floor in response to concerns by entities and individuals responsible in the States for implementing the Federal standards set by the Federal EPA, so that is why we are here. So what are we doing in this legislation? Let me just point out that I mentioned the 24 States, counties in 24 States and the District of Columbia are in noncompliance with the 2008 standard. Los Angeles is never going to be in compliance. San Joaquin Valley is probably never going to be in compliance, and many parts of the West are never going to be in compliance because of their geographical location and because of foreign emissions coming in from other countries. If you are in noncompliance, it has a drastic impact on your ability to create jobs and to bring in new industry because it is much more difficult to get a permit. So these over 270 counties in these 24 States at a time when our job growth is stagnant are going to find it even more difficult to create jobs. Poverty also has a tremendous impact on people's health. Yes, we want clean air, but we want jobs so people can provide health care for their families and their children. So we need a balancing act here, and that is what this legislation is designed to do. Under existing law, EPA at the Federal level must, they are mandated to review the national air quality standard every 5 years. They can do it in 2 if they want to, or 3, but they must do it in 5. So, because we are now trying to implement the 2008 and the 2015 all at the same time in certain areas, all we are saying is, instead of mandating EPA to do it every 5, we mandate them to do it every 10. They can do it in 4 if they want to, or 3 or 2, but they must do it in 10. So is that irresponsible? Is that trying to gut the Clean Air Act? What are some other things we are doing here? We are also saying that we are authorizing--we are not mandating, but we are authorizing--the EPA Administrator to consider that technology is available to meet the new standard--not that it is required to, but it is authorized to. Is that unreasonable? Is that trying to gut the Clean Air Act? Then we are also saying, before EPA revises its National Ambient Air Quality Standards, that they must get the advice of the Agency's independent scientific advisory committee. Now they do that, but we are saying we also want you to do it to look at potential adverse effects relating to implementing a new standard as required by section 109 of the Clean Air Act. So you have got this advisory body already there. We want you to talk to them and at least consider any adverse effects that may come from the new standard. And we also are saying--we have talked about this a lot already--if you issue a new standard, at the same time give the States the implementation and guidance so they know what to do to meet the new standard instead of being 7 years late, as they were on the 2008 standard. And then we want to ensure that for certain ozone and particulate matter nonattainment areas--and I have already talked about the nonattainment areas of the 2008--that we do not require the States to include an economically infeasible measure to meet it. In other words, if it is going to be self-defeating, if it is going to be economically infeasible, you are in a nonattainment area, you don't have to do that. And then we want to ensure that States may seek relief with respect to certain exceptional events. For example, there are some areas of the country that are having their worst drought since the early 1800s, hundred-year droughts, and yet they can't get relief from EPA because of these exceptional events; and because of that, they are going to suffer in trying to bring in new jobs that create economic growth. And then, finally--and this makes a lot of sense to me--I want to quote a statement that was made by a regulator from Utah. He said that international emissions and transports, dirty pollution and air coming from outside America can, at times, account for up to 85 percent of the 8-hour ambient ozone concentration in many Western States. Many areas in the West have little chance of identifying sufficient controls to achieve attainment because they are not causing it. So we are simply saying to EPA: Do a study so that we know what is being caused by other countries. That is what this bill is all about. I might say that we are doing this after we had four forums on the Clean Air Act, we had four hearings on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and ozone. These suggestions were made not by Republican legislators per se, but by regulators responsible for meeting EPA standards back in their States. They came and said: Would you help us with this? So that is what we are attempting to do. It is not our intent to gut the Clean Air Act. We recognize how important it is. The importance of health care and clean air is a part of what America is all about. I urge our Members to pass this legislation. It is a commonsense approach to address concerns raised by people with the responsibility of meeting the standards required by the Federal EPA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber).

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta), who is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, a cosponsor of this legislation, and a gentleman focused on energy issues.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining on both sides?

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson), the vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores), who is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and, I believe, a cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

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. 4775.

Mr. WHITFIELD

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. To our friends on the other side of the aisle, I want to thank them for working with us on this legislation. I know it is difficult to please everyone. Any time you talk about energy today, of course, people raise the issue of climate change. And I might say that America does not have to take a back seat to any country in the world on climate change. We have 64 different government programs addressing climate change, so I think America is doing more on that issue than anyone else. But we have other problems that we have to deal with as well. For example, the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that power outages in America cost Americans at least $150 billion annually. One of the reasons we have a lot of power outages is because of our infrastructure needs, but also because of regulations coming out of this administration. One of the provisions in this bill requires FERC to analyze the impact on electric reliability of new Federal regulations that have many experts concerned. So we want an analysis of all these regulations and its impact on reliability. We have heard a lot of discussion about the need for work-training programs for people to work in energy, in the renewable sector, and all sectors. And we had a serious discussion with our friends on the other side of the aisle as we were marking up this legislation. We had basically agreed on a provision to provide training for African Americans, for Hispanics, for women, and for other minorities, to get them involved in the energy field, which we all wanted to do. We even provided some money for that training program. But we had said, if we do this, we want to change a couple of provisions in the 2005 Energy Policy Act. For example, in that act, there was a prohibition against the Federal government in Federal buildings using any fossil fuels after the year 2030. We think that is pretty draconian. So we said we are not going to mandate the use of fossil fuels, but in keeping even with the President's statements about an all-of-the-above energy policy, we wanted a provision in there that would repeal that so if there was a time in the future when we needed fossil fuels because fossil fuels are still providing about 50 to 60 percent of all the electricity in America--even more than that--coal and natural gas. So this provision simply says we are going to allow it. We are not mandating it, but the government has the option, after 2030, of using fossil fuel in government buildings. We think that is a sensible approach, but our friends on the other side of the aisle had dug in the sand so much, they refused that: We will not support it if that is in there. So some of these provisions that we all wanted, we don't have in here, but we are trying to do the best that we can do. I think this is a major step forward for the American people, and I would urge everyone to support S. 2012, the Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2016, and the House amendment to it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao).

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire how much time is remaining on both sides.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), who is a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and is quite familiar with energy issues.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the House amendment to S. 2012, the Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2016. In December of last year, the House passed H.R. 8, the North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2015, which is a large portion of the language we are considering today. This legislation, together with provisions from the Committee on Natural Resources and the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, would be the first major piece of energy legislation in 8 years, and it addresses many outdated aspects of our Federal energy policy. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.