Ed Whitfield

Mr. WHITFIELD

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, I would say first to the distinguished gentleman that while we're delaying this Cross-State Air Transport Rule, we have in effect today the CAIR Act, which has been in effect since 2005. The EPA itself has said that this act that is currently controlling the cross-wind interstate movements will reduce sulfur dioxide and NOX emissions by 57 and 63 percent respectively. That regulation is still going to be in effect. I would also remind everyone that EPA, when they implemented the CAIR Act, pointed out that it would have $100 billion in health benefits each year, preventing 17,000 premature deaths, 22,000 nonfatal heart attacks, 12,300 hospital admissions, 1.7 million lost workdays, 500,000 lost school days, and it goes on to all of the benefits. Simply because a court invalidated the CAIR Act because EPA was looking at a regional program rather than at a State-by-State program does not mean that this is not an effective regulation that's in existence today. Even many environmental groups actually supported EPA in opposing the effort to invalidate the CAIR Act. EPA made strong arguments that the CAIR Act was adequate. So all we're doing is trying to delay this cross-State rule. As I said, even respected independent analyses have indicated that these two rules--the Utility MACT and the Cross-State Air Transport Rule--will have a net effect of a loss of 1.4 million jobs and will increase electric utility bills by 23 percent. Now, at a time when our economy is so weak and when we're trying to create jobs, we simply wanted to look at it more closely and give EPA a little bit more time. That's all that we're trying to do with our act, and that's why we're very much opposed to the Rush amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I would say to the gentleman, we all recognize the importance of green energy, but there isn't one of these regulations that we are looking to for an analysis that has any negative impact on green energy. In fact, every one of these regulations will help green energy. And, as I said, the government's philosophy right now is to do everything possible for green energy, more subsidies, a study going on all of the time on the impact on the jobs. For that reason, we do not feel that this amendment is necessary and would ask the Members to oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. May I ask how much time I have remaining?

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes, ma'am.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I would just like to remind the gentlelady that the CAIR Act is still in effect. As I read earlier, all the benefits are there that the EPA said would be there, and it's significantly reduced NOX emissions, SOX emissions. We're not doing anything to change that existing law. Thank you for making the amendment. As I said, we feel like it will really help on this study. I yield back the balance of my time.

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 include extraneous material on H.R. 2401.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I rise in opposition to this amendment for a number of reasons. First of all, the TRAIN Act, the underlying bill that we're talking about here, applies to 14 regulations of EPA. It does not delay in any way any of those regulations, except for two, and that's referred to as the Utility MACT and the Cross-State Air Transport Rule. And even on those two acts, it only delays the Cross-State Transport Rule by 3 years, and it delays the Utility MACT by 1 year. The whole purpose of the TRAIN Act is simply to look more closely at the cumulative impact on jobs, on electricity prices, on American competitiveness in the global marketplace. EPA has done a very thorough job on most of these regulations in calculating benefits, but they had not looked closely in all of them on cost. Under the TRAIN Act, we're simply asking this independent government agency to look at all costs and all benefits. Another reason that I would speak in opposition to this amendment, one of the things that it requires this independent body to do is to examine the effect on green energy companies. Now, there's nothing in the TRAIN Act that's selecting one industry to give some favorable treatment to, and that's particularly what this amendment does. I might add, on green energy, the green energy industry has received increases of 153 percent of subsidies. Subsidies have increased 153 percent for green energy. So I don't think that they should be receiving some special benefit from this Rush amendment; and that's why I would oppose it, and I would ask all Members to oppose it. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. I would like to remind everyone once again that the TRAIN Act is applied to 14 regulations coming out of EPA, and it's seldom that Congress intervenes in these regulations. But there are so many of these, and the cost of jobs and the cost of buying the equipment and the lack of achievability of many of them to meet the criteria is the reason we want to do this study. I would remind everyone we do not delay in any way any of these regulations except two of them. I would say to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin that I agree with her. Many of the communities that would most suffer high energy prices and unemployment as a result of the EPA regulations are those communities that rely on affordable, reliable, coal-fired energy to light their homes and run their businesses. These communities are the least able to afford increased unemployment, increased energy prices, and the illness that results from unemployment and being unable to afford fuel. And I might say that when EPA does their analysis, they never look at the effect of the health of the children of the people working in the coal mines and the utility plants who lose their jobs, and there is an impact on it. But I think this is a good amendment that would help the analysis, and I would like to tell the lady from Wisconsin we would be happy to accept this amendment.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Does the gentleman from California have anything else to say on the amendment?

Mr. WHITFIELD. Does the gentleman from California have the right to close?

Mr. WHITFIELD. While I have great respect for the gentleman from California, I would remind everyone that, in his 2008 convention speech, Barack Obama promised to create 5 million green energy jobs, and those jobs have not been created. I would also point out that renewable energy subsidies increased by 186 percent over the last 3 years: from $5.1 billion to $14.7 billion. The wind industry, for example, received a tenfold increase: from $476 million to $4.986 billion. Solar subsidies increased by more than a factor of 6: from $179 million to $1.134 billion. Then we noted that, over at the Department of Energy, there are loan guarantee programs. As this article in The New York Times stated, they gave an example of one company that had received $300 million to create green technology jobs. They ended up creating 150 jobs at a cost of $2 million per job. Now, coal, nuclear, and natural gas still provide about 95, 96 percent of the electricity produced in America; but the reason we oppose this amendment is that it also gives special treatment to green energy. As illustrated by the increase in renewable subsidies available to them, I think it's quite obvious that government programs favor green energy right now. Our position is, with the three basics--coal, nuclear, and natural gas--providing the base load to create the industrial growth of this country by providing low-cost electricity, we do not need this amendment to instruct this independent body to look at specifically the impact on green energy exporting companies. So, for that reason, I would oppose the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Once again, I oppose the amendment. Green energy is getting every benefit possible from this administration--money, studies, and in every other way. It will never be able to meet the base load of our electricity needs. Therefore, unless we can continue to have low-cost electricity, we're not going to compete in the global marketplace, and we're going to continue to lose jobs. The EPA is making direct attacks against an industry. For that reason, I respectfully oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion.

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. First, I would like to say to the gentlelady from Texas, who does such a great job on all of these issues, that we do not intend in any way to remove any of the authority of the EPA to regulate the Cross-State Transport Rules. As a matter of fact, of the 14 rules that we're examining that EPA has issued, 12 of them we do not delay in any way. On the Air Transport Rule, we simply go back to the original Air Transport Rule of which EPA talked about all of the marvelous benefits. The EPA defended it in court. The environmental groups supported it: 67 and 53 percent reductions in SO2 and NOX emissions. That will remain in effect. As far as the gentlelady's amendment, we would be happy to accept it, because I think it's a good amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. It's already been stated today that the TRAIN Act examines 14 EPA regulations. On 12 of them, we do not delay in any way, but we do ask for a study of the cumulative impact on jobs, on American competitiveness, on the price of electricity and the reliability of electricity. We do that because we are in a very fragile time in our economy. We have high unemployment, we've been unable to get out of it; and in order to do it, we have to have some certainty on these regulations. Business people tell us they are not investing right now because of uncertainty about health care, uncertainty about the new financial regulations and uncertainty about the plethora of EPA regulations coming down the road. So although we don't touch 12 regulations, the two that we are concerned about--and the reason we're concerned about them--is that they are the most expensive ever issued by EPA. Independent analysts have indicated that there will be a net, after including job gains, a net loss of almost 1.4 million jobs. My amendment would do this: it would provide that the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule has no legal force or effect, and it does direct EPA to continue to apply the Clean Air Interstate Rule, which is in effect today. As I had indicated earlier, EPA, when they adopted CAIR, they talked about the billions of dollars in health benefits, 17,000 premature deaths that they would prevent, 22,000 nonfatal heart attacks that they would prevent; and I could go on and on and on. And EPA defended the CAIR Act in court. The environmental groups supported the CAIR Act. Our air transport rules and regulations are still going to be in effect; and we simply say that for at least 3 years, EPA cannot change the CAIR Act, but during that time do a more detailed analysis of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule because of the enormous cost, the enormous impact on jobs and so forth. The amendment also requires that the proposed Utility Maximum Achievable Control Technology rule has no legal force in effect and that any subsequent Utility MACT rule be issued no sooner than 1 year after the study called for in the TRAIN Act. So we simply ask the EPA to repropose the utility rule. Now, people are saying, oh my gosh, if we don't have this utility rule in effect, mercury is going to do all of these horrible things. I would remind everyone once again EPA says that 99 percent of the mercury in America comes from nature and from trade winds coming in from other countries. And EPA itself said Utility MACT benefits by mercury reductions of that whole bill would be .004 percent. I would also say that utility companies have no problem with mercury. They're doing a good job on that, and they can do even better. But the two gases that they are asking them to regulate have never been regulated before--I had the name of them awhile ago and I can't remember them--but the technology is not available to meet the requirements of the Utility MACT. So you are asking these companies to spend this money, provide this uncertainty, and so that's what my amendment does. It basically delays the implementation of the Utility MACT, asks for a reproposal, and it also maintains the existing CAIR air transport rule. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I would just say that the two gases I was trying to think of are hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride. Those are the real problems in this Utility MACT: the lack of technology, the unachievability of the standards, and that's why this amendment is asking that the implementation be delayed for 3 years of this air transport rule. With that, I urge Members to support my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I would say to the gentlelady that not only are we concerned about the Great Lakes, but we're concerned about every body of water in America, and we believe that the TRAIN Act protects that water, does not take away any authority from the EPA to deal with water issues. The TRAIN Act is very simple. It asks the government commission to study 14 regulations of EPA. On 12 of them we do not delay them in any way. On the other two, we delay one for 1 year and the other for 3 years. We have adequate protections in place. We simply think that we should examine the cumulative impact of the regulations from the most aggressive EPA in recent memory to determine what impact it is going to have on jobs; what impact it is going to have on electricity prices; what impact it is going to have on electricity reliability, and will it damage America's competitiveness in the world marketplace. I would urge passage of this legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. The direct expenditure for coal was $42 million last year, and for wind it was $3.556 billion. I will tell you that oil and gas and coal are willing to give up all of their subsidies if green energy wants to give up their subsidies, because they're getting a lot more than anyone else. At this point, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Let me just finish this one sentence. So these strategies can't work without government support. I don't object to government supporting them, but they do not need to get even more special privileges from this amendment. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. WHITFIELD. While I have great regard for the gentleman from Virginia, I must rise to oppose this amendment. In his 2008 convention speech, Barack Obama promised to create 5 million green energy jobs. An article in The New York Times headlines, ``Where the Jobs Aren't,'' talks about all the government money that's being spent to subsidize green energy today. They gave an example of one government program that provided $300 million to a company. They created 150 jobs at what turned out to be a cost of $2 million for every job. The reason that solar and wind are not taking off is they are too expensive and too inefficient. Having said that, I recognize that they have a part in our economy and that they have a part in producing electricity, but they can never be the base load. That cannot be attained. We cannot provide enough electricity without coal, nuclear, and natural gas. Now, this amendment gives special attention to the green energy field. I would remind everyone, once again, that renewable energy subsidies increased over the last 3 years by 186 percent: from $5 billion to $14 billion. Renewables saw, by far, the largest increase in Federal benefits. Wind alone received a tenfold increase in subsidies: from $476 million to almost $5 billion. Solar increased by a factor of 6: from $179 million to $1.2 billion.