Ed Whitfield

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to reiterate once again that there were a lot of people involved in bringing this legislation to the floor. It would not have happened except for the persistence and commitment of Mr. Rush of Illinois. So I want to thank him again. I also want to say that every Member of Congress comes to this floor, and we talk about regulations and the impact they have on creating jobs. We talk about uncertainty in tax policies, and we talk about the ability of America to be competitive in the global workplace. We talk about a lot of macro issues. But for men and women out there in the country, like coal miners who are losing jobs because of the policies of this administration, veterans who have extensive leadership skills but can't find good jobs, and minorities who are not trained in the right way, this legislation goes a long way in providing the training that people need to find a good job. I urge all Members to support this legislation. I want to thank everyone who worked for it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Art of Living Foundation, and founder Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, as the Foundation commemorates its 35th anniversary with the upcoming World Culture Festival in New Delhi on March 11-13, 2016. The three day major cultural event will be held at a venue that covers over 1,000 acres and will feature the world's largest stage spread over an area of seven acres. The festival emphasizes co-existence and celebrates diversity by bringing together an estimated 3.5 million people to a common platform. We must all remember that while lifestyles vary from one culture to the next, we are all human beings who should learn from one another. I believe celebrating cultural diversity around the globe, as the Art of Living Foundation is doing with this wonderful event, will open lines of communication and understanding between nations, and I certainly wish them well.

Mr. WHITFIELD

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, with all due regard to the gentleman who is offering this amendment, I rise to oppose the amendment, which would reinstate the provisions of section 433 which prohibit the use of fossil fuels in new and modified Federal buildings after the year 2030. Now, it is true that the Department of Energy is trying to thread a needle through regulations that might allow fossil fuels to be used in new and modified Federal buildings after 2030. But we know the reality is that every environmental group in the country will file a lawsuit against that regulation when it comes out if it is interpreted in any way that fossil fuels might be used. I am really shocked that people would be opposed to our wanting to use fossil fuels after the year 2030. We are not mandating that they be used, but everyone that comes to this floor, and particularly President Obama when he goes anywhere, talk about an all-of-the-above energy policy, and yet the 2007 Energy Policy Act prohibits fossil fuel use in new and modified Federal buildings after the year 2030. Our base bill does not mandate the use. It simply says, basically, that the government will be able to do it if it is necessary. So why should the Federal Government not allow the opportunity to use any fossil fuel after 2030? We already have a Federal debt approaching $20 trillion. Natural gas prices are pretty low right now, but let's say they go up. Let's say that renewables go up, that for some reason maybe using coal is more economical, and using a ultra-supercritical facility. We know that the President does not want to build any new coal- powered plants because regulations now prohibit that. We think it is important that we have an all-of-the-above energy policy. Our base bill allows that even in government buildings. And so, for that reason, I would respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment and ask that Members vote against the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WHITFIELD

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

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 S.J. Res. 24.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, even more sweeping than EPA's new source performance standard for power plant greenhouse gas emissions is the rule governing existing sources. And that is what S.J. Res. 24 is about, and the impact that this rule is going to have on every existing coal plant in America and the impact that it could have on the electricity rates and the impediments that it could establish for future economic growth in America. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson), who is vice chair of the Energy and Power Subcommittee.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 539, I call up the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 24) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units'' and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Texas an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon). He is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost).

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully disagree with the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida who says this is a symbolic vote. We want this vote to be held because the Senate has already adopted this resolution. We want the House to adopt this resolution while the climate change conference is going on in France so that the world will know that in America there is a disagreement about the extreme power grab that this President is initiating under his clean energy plan. At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), who has been a real leader for Ohio in this issue and in the Congress.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 539, I call up the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 23) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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 S.J. Res. 23.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today, we will debate resolutions of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act for the two EPA rules regulating greenhouse gas emissions from new and existing electric generating units. I might say that it is appropriate that we are debating these resolutions today. As we know, the President and other leaders are meeting in France as we speak. They are speaking in generalities; they are not being detailed in their plans. Yet, in America, we are becoming aware more each day of exactly the impact the EPA's regulations are having on the American people. I remind everyone that Congress was not a part of any of this. The White House did not talk to us about any of this. The clean energy plan comes from the White House and is being implemented by the EPA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We are taking this action today to protect the American people. The American people do not expect unelected bureaucrats, acting at the discretion and the direction of the President of the United States, to unilaterally adopt regulations that are questionably illegal. We have 23 States that are filing lawsuits on the new coal plant rules, and we have 27 States that have already filed lawsuits on the existing electric generating rules. I might add that, in the last 5 years, this administration has spent a total of $77 billion on climate change. People ask why we have not taken action. This administration has been so extreme, so aggressive--and view this as the number one priority facing mankind--that we don't have enough money to act. Also, there are 61 separate Federal programs under the Obama administration that address climate change. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Brooks).

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I might say that no one on our side of the aisle has denied climate change. I think we still live in a country where we all can express our views and we simply disagree with the President on the urgency of the issue. The President has even told the world that climate change is a more pressing issue to mankind than terrorism. When we talk to people in the developing world, when we talk to people in Europe and around the globe, representatives come here and they stress to us that they are more concerned about clean water, a job, electricity, health, hygiene, issues like that, than they are about climate change. Even in the polls here in America, only about 5 percent of the American people view climate change as one of the most pressing issues facing mankind. So that is why we have over 180 separate groups around the country that support these joint resolutions to turn back what President Obama is doing in an extreme and unprecedented way. I would also just like to read that the Partnership for a Better Energy Future, which is a 181-member coalition, including national as well as State and local organizations in 36 States, writes of EPA's rule for new plants, which is precisely what we are discussing today: The EPA set a regulation so strict that the only technology that meets the requirement for a coal-fired power plant, carbon capture and sequestration is not commercially available. There is no technology available to meet the stringent emissions standard set by EPA. Yet, China, India, and every other country in the world can build a new coal plant if they decide to do so. We are not mandating that a plant be built, but we are recognizing the increased need for electricity in America and that it must be affordable and it must be abundant. For us to compete in the global marketplace, we simply want that option, and that is what this is about. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. One of the great things about having a debate in this body is that we all get to express our different views, and the world benefits when different views can be expressed. One of the reasons that we brought these resolutions to the House floor today is because of the climate change conference in France going on today. We want the world to know that there is disagreement with the President on this issue, not about the fact that the climate is changing, but about the priority that is being placed on it. Why should this President penalize America and put us in jeopardy compared to other countries of the world and require us to do more than other countries of the world are doing just so that he can go to France and claim to be the world leader on climate change? According to the Energy Information Administration, energy-related CO2 emissions in America will remain below 2005 levels through 2040. Our CO2 emissions today are roughly the same as they were 20 years ago. America does not have to take a backseat to anyone on addressing climate change. That is the point that we want the world to understand. We are doing a lot. We would like to help other countries do more, but why should we be penalized? At this time, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides.

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I might say that this is really not a debate about science today. I have said repeatedly and most people have said, yes, we agree the climate is changing, but this is a debate about the solution and about the policies being advanced by this administration. That is why for both rules you have a total of 50 States and a multitude of other entities that have filed lawsuits--because we believe it is illegal. In fact, on the existing rule, which we will discuss in the next hour, EPA changed 30 years of its legal opinions, saying that they could not regulate under 111(d) the way they intend to do it now. So I have the greatest respect for every Member of this body, and certainly those on the Energy and Power Subcommittee and the Energy and Commerce Committee, but I think it is important that we be able to have the debate. And that is what we are doing: showing how we disagree with the President's policies and his solutions. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hurd), who has been involved on this issue.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it raises the question once again. As I said, we have been very successful in America under the Clean Air Act. Our CO2 emissions are as low as they were 20 years ago, and they are projected to be below 2005 levels through 2040. We are making great progress. So why is the President committing America to being a country that cannot build a new coal-powered plant? We are not saying you should build one, but the President said he is for an all-of-the-above energy policy; yet he is prohibiting, through regulation, the building of a new coal-powered plant because the technology is not available to meet the emissions standards. You don't think the Chinese would agree to not build a coal plant, do you? They are providing money for Pakistan to build coal plants. They are providing money for India to build coal plants. And even in Europe, with the natural gas prices from Russia so high, they are building new coal plants as they close down some gas plants. So that is the kind of policy that we are discussing here today. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), who has been focused on this issue for his entire congressional career.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Tonko, who does a great job on our committee, and I certainly respect his views. I wanted to just touch previously on and reiterate why we are here today. The Senate has already passed both of these resolutions by a vote of 52-46 of disapproval of the President's clean energy plan and his regulation relating to new coal-fired plants. We wanted this on the floor today because we want to send a message to the climate change conference in Paris that in America there is serious disagreement with the extreme policies of this President. I would like to just point out briefly one of the reasons why we are so upset with this particular resolution about the emission standards for new coal-fired plants if one is going to be built. EPA went to great detail of setting an emission standard, and they based that standard on four plants. And guess what? None of the three plants in America are even in operation. In fact, the one in Texas, it looks like it is not going to be built at all. The one in California, DOE has suspended funding for it. The one in Mississippi has already experienced a $4.2 billion cost overrun. And it is close to an oil field for enhanced oil recovery to make it work, but it is not in operation. The only plant that is operating, on which EPA set this emission standard, is a very small project in Canada that would not have been built without the Canadian Government funding. And it looks like it will never achieve a technical readiness level that would show it is available for commercial demonstration. So here you have EPA taking this drastic step based on emissions of plants that really are not even in operation. Why should America be the only country where you cannot build a new coal plant because EPA has set an emission standard that commercially and technically is not feasible? That is what we are talking about here, just the policy, just the disagreement on the solution. I would urge our Members to support this resolution, and let's send a message to the White House and to those conferees in Paris. I yield back the balance of my time.