Ed Whitfield

Mr. WHITFIELD

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Russell).

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the vice chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost).

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, would you explain again the amount of time remaining on each side?

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Harper), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer).

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In conclusion, I would like to point out a couple of things. First of all, this was a significant issue in the last election just a couple of months ago. This is a piece of legislation about the American people, not a Canadian oil company. In polls, 72 percent of the American people say they support this legislation. This is about jobs for people in America who need jobs. This is about increasing the energy infrastructure of our country. This is also a project that would not include one dime from the Federal Government. It is going to be at a cost of approximately $7 billion of private funds that will create a lot of jobs and make us less dependent on foreign oil. The application for the Keystone pipeline was filed in September of 2008. There are 2.6 million miles of pipelines in America. Most of those pipelines do not have to be approved by the President of the United States, but in this particular pipeline, since it crosses into the country from Canada to the U.S., the President must approve it. The President has said that one reason he is not going to approve it is because of litigation in Nebraska, which ended today in favor of the Governor of Nebraska who supports this pipeline. The second ostensible reason for the President to oppose it is CO2 emissions; yet the Secretary of State's office under Hillary Clinton and Mr. Kerry in their final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement have said on three occasions that it will have minimal impact on the environment. Today, we want to pass this legislation once again for the American people. The U.S. Senate said that they will pass it, and we would ask the President to join us and sign this legislation. I would urge the passage of H.R. 3, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Commerce be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 5803) to require the Secretary of the Interior to assemble a team of technical, policy, and financial experts to address the energy needs of the insular areas of the United States and the Freely Associated States through the development of energy action plans aimed at promoting access to affordable, reliable energy, including increasing use of indigenous clean-energy resources, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. WHITFIELD

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. 4795, Promoting New Manufacturing Act.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, President Obama has made it very clear that if the U.S. Congress does not pass legislation that he has said that is a priority for his administration, that he intends to accomplish his goals by the use of executive orders and through regulations. Today, with H.R. 4795, we are here to address a specific problem caused by regulations coming out of EPA relating to the Clean Air Act. We know that announcements have been made for manufacturing expansions in the United States amounting to about $135 billion. But we also know that EPA has gone into a pattern of when they issue new regulations, it takes them sometimes years to come up with guidances so that State EPAs and manufacturing applicants for clean air permits will know what is required to meet the new regulations. Because of the lack of clarity and the time of meeting timely guidances, it creates great confusion and uncertainty for the States and for the specific manufacturing facilities trying to meet these requirements. To give you an example, the last ozone rule that was adopted by the EPA in 2008, the guidance for people trying to meet those requirements of that regulation still have not been issued. So we find ourselves in a situation where these new regulations are creating great obstacles to economic growth in the United States, and I think all of us recognize that economic growth has been quite stagnant for some time. We have had many hearings on this issue, and we hear from people on a regular basis that one of the reasons that they can't get new plants built is because of the uncertainty, the lack of clarity, the lack of guidance from the EPA when they come out with new regulations. Anyone that follows EPA is quite aware that they are particularly aggressive in new regulations. They have come out with new regulations on the Clean Air Act on a regular basis for the last 4 years. And so once again we find ourselves with lack of clarity, lack of guidance from EPA. This legislation, which was introduced by Mr. Scalise, simply says to EPA, if you come out with a new regulation, simultaneously you must provide the guidance for the States and the individual applicants who will be required to obtain permits to build their manufacturing facility. So that is what this bill is all about. I think it is a commonsense piece of legislation, and obviously all of us want to create new jobs. We have companies out there today with a lot of cash who want to produce these, build these new plants, but because of bureaucratic difficulties, lack of clarity, and lack of guidance on a timely basis from the EPA, it makes it extremely difficult to do. So that is why we are here today to discuss this legislation. I think it is very important that we adopt this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I might say that during the time we had the hearing on this legislation, we had several State representatives from the State EPA come in and testify, and they all were talking about the absence of timely implementation guidance from EPA produces a lack of clarity. Both the Colorado, Arkansas, even the National Association of Clean Air Agencies wrote a letter to EPA on September 4, 2013, complaining about this. Now, I would remind everyone, this bill does not do anything about the science, trying to diminish the importance of science and coming forth with new regulations. All it does is says that if EPA comes out with a new regulation under the Clean Air Act, they must provide the guidance to the States and to the entities who want to build new plants. I might also say that the American Chemistry Council, particularly, raised this issue with us--and through their membership--of companies trying to build new manufacturing plants and meeting great difficulty because of the lack of clarity. I might also say, all of us are very much concerned about climate change, but I don't think America has to take a backseat to any other country in the world. Our CO2 emissions are the lowest that they have been in 20 years. I might also say, we find ourselves today, because of regulations from this administration, being one of the only countries in the world where you cannot build a new coal-fired plant to produce electricity because the technology is not available to meet the stringent emissions standard unless you are going to spend huge sums of government money, as they are in the Kemper plant in Mississippi. By the way, the standard was set for that regulation, the emission standard, based on the Kemper plant, which is still not in operation. It is about 2 years overdue, is way over cost, and all the entities involved in it said that kind of plant would never be built again without huge government dollars involved. We would like to get back to a situation in America where, on energy projects, we use private money. I notice that Google recently was involved in the Ivanpah Solar facility out west, one of the largest in the world. They used a lot of government loans to build that plant, and now Google and other companies are coming back to the government and applying for grants to help pay off the loans. So this is a commonsense piece of legislation. It does not change the science; it simply provides additional clarity. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman), who has been a real leader on this issue.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chair, as I have said repeatedly, the intent of this bill is to ensure that when the EPA issues new air quality standards, the Agency provides timely guidance about how to comply with the new standards in the permitting process. Now, at the hearings that we have had and in individual discussion with other Members, people have argued that section 3(b) of this bill would prevent a State or local permitting authority that wanted to impose the new standards, even in the absence of EPA implementing regulations and guidance, from doing so. So that was not the intent of the bill, and this amendment clarifies that. So if you have a State like California or even Delaware, which are the two that I can think of, that would like to go on and impose the new standard without the guidance, then this amendment ensures that they have the opportunity to do that. So that is what this amendment does. It is simply a clarification. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chair, I would just remind everyone that even if EPA fails to do its job, the bill makes clear that nothing relieves new facilities of their obligations to install the best available control technology in attainment areas and the lowest available emissions rate technology in non-attainment areas. I would also say that while my amendment allows those States who want to go on and implement the new regulation without the guidance, they can do that; but on the other hand, our legislation is designed to protect those States and those entities who find that they are unable to interpret the new regulation. And because of that uncertainty, it has been the experience of many companies, when they build new facilities with technology under new regulations, they end up being sued over it frequently. So this legislation is about common sense. This amendment allows those States that want to implement the stricter standard, they have the ability to do that. I would urge the adoption of this amendment and the passage of this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chair, this amendment basically would eliminate section 3(b), or make it applicable in a different way of the legislation, which really would defeat the whole purpose of this bill. As I said in the beginning, this is very simple. We are not telling EPA what the regulations should be. We are not telling EPA not to use science. We are simply telling EPA, when you come out with a new regulation, you must provide the guidance for the States and for the entities that are trying to build new plants to create jobs in America. So this amendment would simply change that process. All of us understand and recognize the great contribution that has been made by the Clean Air Act, but yet anytime we try to come up and we try to amend the Clean Air Act, it is almost like we are touching the Holy Grail. Things change over time. As I said, the EPA has been so aggressive with so many regulations, they are not providing the guidance for clarity so that entities can invest dollars to create jobs. Obviously we want to balance a good, clean environment, but we also want a healthy economy. That is what this legislation is designed to do. And with as much admiration and respect that I have for the gentlemen from California, Mr. Waxman and Mr. McNerney, I do oppose this amendment and ask that the Members not adopt it. I yield back the balance of my time.