Ed Whitfield

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. I would just reiterate that America doesn't have to take a backseat to anyone on its emissions from energy sources. Our emissions today are lower than they were 20 years ago. Why should the U.S. unilaterally take this extreme position and other countries around the world, particularly in Europe and in Asia, are using coal and using coal, and we don't even have the flexibility to do that when they finalize this rule. So that is what we are up to today. At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).

Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Indiana, Congresswoman Brooks.

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 H.R. 3826.

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I rise this afternoon in support of H.R. 3826, the Electricity Security and Affordability Act. Recently, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University named Jonathan Turley issued a dire warning. Professor Turley said that he voted for President Obama in the last election, that he agrees philosophically with President Obama on many issues, but he said that, if left unchecked, the U.S. President could effectively become a government unto himself. He was referring to the fact that this President has been overly aggressive in the use of executive orders and regulations through various governmental agencies to accomplish his political goals. The reason that we are here today is, with this legislation, it is our hope that we can overturn one of the most extreme regulations of the Obama administration. In January of next year, it is anticipated that they will finalize a rule from EPA that will make it impossible to build a new coal-powered plant in America. That is hard to believe that that can be the situation in our great country, particularly since 40 percent of our electricity comes from coal. The reason that it would be impossible to build a new coal-powered plant because of these new EPA regulations is the fact that the emission standards have been set so high, and I might add that it is pretty clear that those emission standards, the way they were set, violates the Energy Security Act of 2005. We have written a letter to EPA setting out our concerns. They still have not responded to us. We have talked to lawyers throughout the country who are ready to file a lawsuit if this happens because it is impossible to believe that the three plants in America that used to set the emission standards for new coal-powered plants, none of those plants are in existence today. None of them are operating today. So our legislation, we believe, is a reasonable approach to a serious problem for America. I might add that 41 out of 50 States last year indicated that their electricity rates have gone up under the Obama administration. I know that the President is greatly concerned about the less fortunate in our society. He has talked a lot about the minimum wage bill, for example, but these electricity rates going up hit the most vulnerable in our society the most, particularly those on fixed incomes. Yet it is his policies that are driving up these electricity costs. So the legislation that we have on the floor today is very simple. First of all, it acknowledges for the first time by legislation that EPA can regulate greenhouse gases. This bill goes farther than any other bill has. So you can regulate greenhouse gases, but when you set the emissions standard, the unit must be in operation for a period of time. It must be commercially available to the utilities to buy it, as opposed to the proposed regulation in which the technology is simply not available. So our legislation, as I said, we don't anticipate a new coal-powered plant to be built anytime soon in America because our natural gas prices are so low. But in Europe, which it is acknowledged is the green sector of the world, they mothballed 30 gigawatts of gas-powered plants in the last 20 months because the gas prices coming from Russia are so expensive that it is raising their electricity rates to such an extent that it is damaging the area. With our legislation, if those gas prices go up, an option available to the American people, to the American utility sector, is they can go out and build a coal-powered plant with reasonable regulations. Then the second thing that our legislation does--and when I say ``our,'' I am talking about Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia, has introduced this bill in the U.S. Senate. I, along with Democratic support, was able to get it out of the Energy and Commerce Committee. So this debate is vitally important today because the President is going so fast, in such an extreme way, that it would make it impossible to use coal in America with a new plant, and we have never had a national debate on the issue. So today we can at least have this debate. The second thing that our legislation does applies to existing plants. EPA said they are going to regulate existing coal plants. We say go ahead and do it, set the standards, but Congress will set the effective date for that regulation. It is a very simple piece of legislation, one that I think is necessary to protect the American people and to ensure that America remains competitive in the global marketplace. In addition to that, I want to make one other comment. Emissions from the energy sector in America are the lowest, CO2 emissions are the lowest that they have been in 20 years. So America does not have to take a backseat to anyone on having a clean emission standard and regulation. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I have a great deal of respect and admiration for the gentlelady from Illinois. I might say, this legislation would never have been necessary if EPA had adopted a standard that had been adequately demonstrated and was not in violation of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. I would also say in wanting to add this language to the bill, EPA itself, in discussing its proposed regulation, projected that its rule would result in almost zero CO2 emission changes or quantified benefits in cost by 2022. So even EPA does not think that their regulation is going to really significantly reduce CO2 emissions because 96 percent of CO2 emissions are naturally occurring; less than 4 percent are man-made. I might also point out once again that no one is a denier of climate change, but more and more scientists seem to be disagreeing with the impact of manmade CO2 versus naturally occurring CO2. After the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in the fall of last year, a group of scientists from the non-governmental Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in a 1,200- page report with thousands of references to peer reviewed papers made the argument that natural forces, not man-made forces, are really driving the Earth's climate. So we are particularly concerned that this regulation would prevent America from flexibility. In the future if natural gas prices go up, we would not have the option, like most every other country in the world, of building a coal plant, and so that is why we respectfully oppose her amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentlelady's amendment.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield myself the balance of my time. In reply to this case closed argument, I would just point out that the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which came out in the fall, acknowledged a lack of warming since 1998 and a growing discrepancy between the model projections and the reality of the observations actually made; that the discrepancy between the models and reality was increasing. It also acknowledged the evidence of decreased climate sensitivity to the increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. It also acknowledged that sea level rising during the period 1920-1950 was the same as in 1995 to 2012. Now that is the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. With that, I respectfully request that we defeat the gentlelady's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority whip.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chair, the purpose of our legislation is, whenever EPA sets the standard, we want the technology to be in the U.S. for at least a year--operating for a year, and six units have the proof of that; so that is why we object to the gentlelady's amendment, and I would urge Members to vote against her amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that we believe the President's views are extreme when he sets a goal of reducing by 83 percent below the 2005 emission levels. For that, we think this legislation is absolutely essential to give the American people the flexibility in the future to build a coal plant to help meet the electricity needs of this great country. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I would point out once again, as I did in the beginning of this debate, that the Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley, testifying before the Judiciary Committee, recently made the statement that: If left unchecked, the United States President could effectively become a government unto himself because of excessive executive orders and excessive regulations. The only reason that we are here today is that the President, without any really national debate, went to Copenhagen and other international groups and made commitments for the U.S. on the reduction of CO2 emissions. In the energy sector, our emissions are the lowest that they have been in 20 years. If EPA had adopted emission standards and technology was available that had been adequately demonstrated to meet those standards, we wouldn't have any problem, but they did not do that. In fact, they violated the 2005 Energy Policy Act in setting these emission standards. We tried to talk to EPA; we tried to talk to the President; we tried to talk to his representatives; and we got the cold shoulder. So the only option available to us in trying to overcome these executive orders and regulations is to adopt some legislation. In our legislation, we don't expect a coal plant to be built, but if natural gas prices go up, America--like every other country in the world practically--will be able to build a coal plant, and the technology will be available to meet those emission standards. With that, I would respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2126) to facilitate better alignment, cooperation, and best practices between commercial real estate landlords and tenants regarding energy efficiency in buildings, and for other purposes, as amended.

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 materials in the Record on the bill.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to add on the words of the gentleman from Vermont, first of all, once again, just to say how much we enjoyed working with him and the others on this important legislation. We do firmly believe that the American people will benefit from this. We all recognize that energy is one of the components that goes a long way in determining how competitive America can be in the global marketplace, and any time you can improve efficiency, you improve that competitiveness. So I would urge all of our Members to support H.R. 2126, the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2014. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, we do not have any more speakers, so I would reserve the balance of my time if the gentleman wants to proceed.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I want to thank the gentleman for his remarks. Also, I certainly want to thank Ms. Eshoo of California for the leadership she's had on this position, as well as our chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Upton. At this time I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).