Ed Whitfield

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. I might say to the gentlelady from California, the air transport rule we have in effect today, when it was implemented, EPA said it would reduce SOX and NOX by 73 and 57 percent by the year 2015. So it's not like we don't have something already in place. At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Member from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. WHITFIELD. I might just say first of all that I would tell Mrs. Jackson that we are not preventing her from implementing new air transport rules. We're going to keep in place what we have today that EPA said was a splendid program and even defended it in the court system. If my amendment is adopted, 3 years after the final report is made, they're totally free to go in and implement a new rule. At this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the vice chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).

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. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The last time the Clean Air Act was significantly changed was in 1990, nearly 21 years ago, and since that time, a lot of changes have occurred in America. First of all, we find ourselves today with a situation where over 14 million Americans are unable to find work and millions more have given up trying. It appears that the only place where the job situation is good is at Federal regulatory agencies. Employment at Federal regulatory agencies has climbed 13 percent since President Obama took office, while private sector jobs shrank by 5.6 percent. I believe these two divergent trends are related because the breaking pace at which the Environmental Protection Agency is cranking out new regulations is creating obstacles to job creation in America, and also to stimulating the economy. I don't care if you speak to small business people today or large business people today, they will tell you that one of the reasons that they are not investing is because of uncertainty--uncertainty about the health care bill that was passed last year, uncertainty about the financial regulations that are raising capital requirements and making loans more difficult to obtain, but primarily they talk about the excessive regulations coming out of the Environmental Protection Agency. Now, these regulations normally are not scrutinized very much, but I believe that the legislative branch has the responsibility, particularly when this many regulations are coming down the road, at a time when it's having impact on our ability to grow the economy, that the legislative branch needs to look at it, and that's precisely what we're doing with the TRAIN Act. Under the TRAIN Act, we are establishing a government body that will look at the cumulative impact of about 12 regulations that have come down from the EPA in the last year or so. For example, there are a number of costly new rules impacting coal-fired electric power plants. These include utility MACT, Cross-State Air Pollution Rules, greenhouse gas rules, coal combustion residuals, and others. Each of these rules, alone, will force some existing power plants to shut down, while also blocking new ones from being built. This is bad enough, not just for jobs, but also because it will raise electricity prices. But the combined effect of all these rules is far worse. In fact, it could even reduce generating capacity enough that it would jeopardize the reliability of the Nation's electric grid system. And we need to know all of the information that we can obtain about these regulations so that we can move forward in a legitimate and conscientious way. If America is going to remain competitive in the global marketplace, it is going to have to have reasonable electricity prices, and that's going to be essential if we're ever going to stimulate this economy and create jobs in America. The cumulative burden of regulations really has not been much of a burden in the past because it's seldom that EPA has ever come forth with this many regulations. But the Obama administration's attempt to squeeze at least a decade's worth of major Clean Air Act regulations into less than 3 years, and do so in the midst of a weak economy, creates serious problems for America. The TRAIN Act, which really is very simple, will require an analysis of the cumulative impacts of the listed rules on energy prices and reliability, on jobs, and the effect on American competitiveness. Two upcoming rules that pose a particularly serious threat and are a major component of EPA's agenda are the utility MACT and the Cross- State Air Pollution Rule. For these two rules, we will be offering an amendment that would put them on hold, pending completion of the cumulative impact study, as well as make substantive changes to make sure that they are achievable in real life. I might point out that the utility MACT is not in effect yet. The final rule is expected in November of this year. But the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule is in effect, and they'll start implementing it the first of the year. We're going to ask that that implementation be delayed until the final rule of our committee that's established under the TRAIN Act makes its final report on August 1, 2012. Some people are saying, well, if you delay this, then what are we going to do about our air transport rule? Well, the reality is that we have an air transport rule in effect today. I might add that EPA, when they implemented this bill, the CAIR Act, which was invalidated by a Federal court, showed that the SO2 emissions, the NOX emissions would be reduced significantly. And just about every environmental group in America supported the implementation of CAIR. I might also say that with CAIR, at that time, EPA came out with one of their benefit analyses, and they said CAIR will result in $85 billion to $100 billion in health benefits each year, preventing 17,000 premature deaths, 22,000 nonfatal heart attacks, 22,300 hospital admissions, 1.7 million workdays, 500,000 lost schooldays. What we have in place today is doing a tremendous job; and until a court invalidated it, everyone was pleased with it. And so there's little reason for us to rush forward to put in a new air transport rule when we have one that is working fine today. I might also say, some people have criticized this by trying to look at the cumulative impact of all these 12 or 13 regulations that EPA has implemented, but I would point out that President Obama, in his Executive Order 13563, said: I'm asking people in my administration to tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, taking into account other things, including the cost of cumulative regulations. So this legislation, which some people are going to describe as radical, is simply implementing what President Obama has asked his Environmental Protection Agency to do, and yet they refuse to do it. With that, I do hope that people will support H.R. 2401. It's a commonsense approach to remove regulations that are prohibiting jobs from being created in America and stimulating the American economy. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson), who is a cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I might say to the gentleman from Massachusetts, there is nothing in the TRAIN Act that would delay for 1 day the greenhouse gas regulations that EPA adopted last January. There is nothing in this bill relating to the Cement MACT as well. At this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith).

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I certainly have great respect for the gentlelady from Colorado, whom I've had the opportunity to work with on a lot of issues, but I would say to her and to others the only regulation that we're delaying relating to mercury is the Utility MACT. And I might say that EPA said that the health benefits from the reduction of mercury because of the Utility MACT was so insignificant that they did not even include it as a benefit. At this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I would say to my friend from Virginia that EPA is not always as transparent as they may seem. When they issued the greenhouse gas regulation in January of this year, they did not give the public any information about cost or benefits, and the reason they didn't is they didn't conduct one. At this time, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished former chairman and chairman emeritus of the Energy and Commerce Committee, a real leader in our committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton). (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield the gentleman another minute.

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).

Mr. WHITFIELD. I might say to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon that it is correct that the court invalidated the current Air Transport Rule that we have in effect in America today, but I would also like to read from that decision because one of the reasons they invalidated this law was because EPA was looking at a regional basis rather than within individual States. The court said: ``It is possible that CAIR would achieve air transport goals. EPA's modeling shows that sources contributing to North Carolina's non-containment areas will reduce their emissions even after opting into CAIR's trading programs.'' My point in saying that is this still is a particularly effective Air Transport Rule. At this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).

Mr. WHITFIELD. I was prepared to close, but we do have one other speaker, and then I will close. He just came in, and we were not totally aware.

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Harper), who is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. (Mr. HARPER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren).

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold). (Mr. FARENTHOLD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), who is a valuable member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and a chairman of one of our subcommittees. (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield 4 minutes to the gentlelady from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).

Mr. WHITFIELD. May I inquire how much time is remaining, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to thank the gentleman for the debate today. I was not aware that we had sent out a letter of supporters of this legislation, and evidently in that letter there was a letter in opposition that should not have been in there. If that created any hardship for anyone or problems, we certainly do apologize for that. We should remind ourselves that by every public health measure, from infant mortality to life expectancy, we are healthier today and are exposed to fewer hazards than ever before. Our present day air is much cleaner now than years ago thanks to EPA, and our air quality is among the best in the world. And we recognize the importance of EPA. However, when EPA becomes so aggressive, as this EPA has become, and in a very short period of time they've come forward with 14 regulations--and we know that when you look at cost-benefit analyses, different entities come up with different figures on the cost and the benefits. We, for example, have come up with an analysis on the Utility MACT and the air transport rule alone saying that the annualized cost of that will be $17 billion, that industry will have to spend that kind of money to get new equipment, that the total cost between 2011 and 2030 would be $184 billion. But one of the figures that really scares you in this is that they say there will be a net loss of 1.4 million jobs. Now, we know that some jobs will be created in trying to build this equipment that these regulations are going to require, but most of the analyses that we've seen indicate that there is going to be more of a job loss. All the TRAIN Act is doing is saying let's have an independent government agency, including EPA, do an analysis of cost/benefit of all of these rules. We would also like them to look at what impact does it have on America's ability to be competitive in the global marketplace. We'd also like for them to look at what will be the job loss, net job loss. We would also like for them to look on what impact it's going to have on electricity prices as well as the reliability of electricity. And on 12 of those regulations, we do not stop them in any way; but on two of them, the ones that are most costly--Utility MACT, and what I refer to as the ``air transport rule''--we do, in this legislation, delay the effective date of those, the implementation of those until 6 months after the report is due that this legislation requires. Now, in my view, that's not being unreasonable. Some people think it is because it is the first time that Congress has ever come to the floor to question some of the EPA regulations, and I really think that that's our responsibility. They issue the regulations; but if they reach a point where we think they're being unreasonable, then we have an obligation to come and let's examine these, let's look at them before we move totally forward with it. Now, Lisa Jackson, when she has come before us and testified, she has always made the comment that ``I'm creating jobs with these new regulations.'' And as I said earlier, she does create new jobs, but the net effect is there is a loss of jobs. Now, some of these rules may be great in areas like California and New York and the Northeast and elsewhere; but in the areas of the country where coal--and, by the way, coal still provides 50 percent of all the electricity in America. Our electricity demand is going to increase significantly in the next 30 years, so we're going to have to rely on coal. But a lot of these regulations are going to put coal miners out of business because they're going to close some of these coal mines. It's going to put some coal-fired utilities out of business because they're going to close these utility plants because the cost is not going to be worth what they have to do to meet these air quality regulations. Now, on the air quality regulations, the question becomes, if you're 98 percent pure already, is it worth this much money to go 2 percent more? So that's the question we come down to, and that's why we ask for this analysis; and I would urge everyone to support this TRAIN Act legislation. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, the small community of Columbia in south central Kentucky is not unlike many of the rural areas of America that have given of their best young men and women to guarantee our freedom. As of today, however, Columbia has the distinction of being the birthplace of Dakota Meyer, only the third living recipient and the first Marine to be awarded the Medal of Honor for actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, President Barack Obama will award Dakota Meyer the Medal of Honor for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty. He will receive the Medal of Honor for his courageous actions while serving as a member of Marine Embedded Training Team 2-8, Regional Corps Advisory Command 3-7, in Kunar Province, Afghanistan, in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. He and his family will join the President at the White House to commemorate his example of selfless service. The Medal of Honor is awarded to members of the Armed Forces who distinguish themselves with meritorious conduct involving great personal bravery or self-sacrifice so conspicuous as to clearly distinguish the individual above his or her comrades, and the action must have involved risk of life. There must be incontestable proof of the performance of the meritorious conduct, and each recommendation for the award must be considered on the standard of extraordinary merit. On September 8, 2009 an Afghan battalion was set to go to a village in the Ganjgal Valley. According to the plan, Meyer was to stay with the vehicles near the mouth of the valley and the Afghan soldiers and their U.S. advisers would walk into the village from there. But as the lead of the column approached the village more than 50 insurgents fired from positions on mountains surrounding the valley and from within the village. The troops were trapped. Back at the vehicles, Meyer heard the firing. When requests for airstrikes and permission to drive into the valley were repeatedly denied, Meyer set himself in the turret of a Humvee and rode straight into the firefight, taking fire from all directions. He went in not once, but five times, trying to rescue his comrades and taking to foot in an effort to locate his team. During about six hours of chaotic fighting, he took out eight Taliban militants and provided cover for Afghan and U.S. servicemen to escape the ambush, according to a Marine Corps account of the events. Meyer saved the lives of 13 U.S. troops and 23 Afghan soldiers. I join Dakota Meyer's hometown of Columbia, Kentucky in pride as they celebrate this rare distinction for their native son. Meyer joins the ranks of a small company, who in the face of adversity rise to the occasion and do what needs to be done regardless of the consequences. His heroic actions reflect the values taught and practiced in small communities throughout the heart of America.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. I rise in support of this legislation, and I think that President Obama and the leaders in the House and the Senate should be given a warm congratulations on being able to come to some agreement to prevent America from defaulting on its debt. We all know that this is not a perfect piece of legislation, but one of the real positives of this legislation is the joint commission that's going to be established by six Members from the House and six Members from the Senate who will come up with recommendations to reduce Federal spending. We do know that exempt from that is Social Security, veterans' benefits as well as Medicaid, for those who really need health care the most. Yet I've heard a lot of discussion today about ``this is not about jobs''; so I would just point out that getting our financial house in order is very important. If you've read any newspaper recently, you will find out that, in this administration, the excess of regulations coming out, particularly from the EPA, have been a real hindrance to job creation in America as well as the uncertainty of the health care bill that was adopted last year. So this is an important first step in getting our financial house in order. Next, we need to start working on removing uncertainty on the regulatory side of the government. So I would urge everyone to support this legislation.