Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 910) to amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, it has been a remarkable April in the House of Representatives. Last week, the majority rewrote the Constitution with a bill stating that one House of Congress can deem a law made all by itself regardless of what the Senate or the President of the United States might think. And if that wasn't enough, today the majority is proposing to rewrite the laws of science itself, the definition of taxes, and the laws of economics.

Despite indisputable scientific evidence, the Republicans are seeking to bar the Environmental Protection Agency from protecting Americans' health and safety from what the scientific consensus agrees is the worst environmental threat in the world's history: global climate change.

It's akin to telling Homeland Security to stop protecting the homeland. It denies scientific proof and logic. Even the Supreme Court stated that the EPA has a responsibility to act to keep the public safe. We're witnessing nothing less today than a full assault on four decades of progress in protecting Americans from environmental dangers.

Madam Speaker, for nearly 40 years the EPA and the Clean Air Act have protected the health of Americans from dangers both seen and unseen. Over the last 20 years, the Clean Air Act prevented an estimated 843,000 asthma attacks, 18 million cases of respiratory illness among children, 672,000 cases of chronic bronchitis, 21,000 cases of heart disease, and 200,000 premature deaths--not only saving people from the human toll of dealing with illness among themselves and their family, but saving the economic costs to society and individuals from all of these conditions.

Yet my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to ignore this progress and prevent the EPA by handcuffing it and preventing it from protecting us in the future.

Repealing the EPA's authority to limit pollution would have devastating consequences. It would increase the number of children and adults who suffer from asthma. It would increase the number of individuals with emphysema, lung cancer, bronchitis, and many other respiratory diseases driving up health care costs for all Americans significantly.

For this reason, 280 groups--including the American Heart Association, the American Public Health Association and many others-- sent a letter to Congress urging us to reject measures that would block or delay the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from doing its job to protect all Americans from life-threatening air pollution.

Madam Speaker, my friend from Texas mentioned the word ``tax'' six times in his remarks, to my count. It's possible I missed a couple of instances of that word as well. And yet yesterday in committee, both Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Waxman agreed that the EPA does not have the statutory authority to confer any taxes whatsoever.

Therefore, the name of this bill, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, is a complete misnomer. This bill has not even originated in or been passed out of the committee in Congress that has jurisdiction in tax matters, namely, the Ways and Means Committee. It's a completely inappropriate and misleading way to convey what this bill does.

Madam Speaker, America's science and environmental policy should be driven by science and science alone. The EPA should be allowed to move forward. And I urge my colleagues to reject the rule and the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Parliamentary Inquiries

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield myself 1 minute to respond.

I know the gentleman from Florida mentioned the cow flatulence in our committee meeting last night, and it sounded like a topic that bore looking into. I did have a chance to look it up in the interim, and Fox News had reported the prospect of EPA regulating cow and livestock gas.

However, it never existed. FactCheck.org, which I looked it up on, dispelled the myth and EPA itself actually came out with a statement that said not only is there no such regulation that it discussed or was in the works, but even EPA admitted it's not under their authority to regulate that in any way, shape or form.

So it is a false accusation with regard to the issue regarding livestock.

Madam Speaker, it's my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a former member of the Rules Committee and a former member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. He has racked up quite a few former memberships.

Will the gentleman yield?

I yield myself 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, it's hard to figure out where to start with regard to refuting some of the statements that were made.

First of all, again, with regard to the information regarding methane emissions on the EPA Web site, there is a difference between a statement of fact and an action, and part of what the EPA does is it provides good scientific facts.

They, EPA itself, concedes and says they don't have the authority, nor should they have the authority, to monitor emissions from livestock. So they will publish good information. I don't refute the information the gentleman said, and I hope they publish more useful information about the impact of livestock, but they are not seeking to regulate it.

The gentleman said they are going to tax cattle. Again, very clearly, Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Waxman, said the EPA does not have the ability to impose a tax.

I would ask my colleague from Texas a simple ``yes'' or ``no'' question: Does the EPA have the ability to impose a tax?

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, it's a simple ``yes'' or ``no'' question. If there is an additional statement the gentleman would like to make, I would be happy to have him explain it on his own time. My time is limited and I have many speakers.

But I would be happy to enter into a dialogue with him on his time or allow him to respond to whether or not the EPA has the ability to impose a tax.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, a colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

The gentlelady mentioned science. One of the expert witnesses the Republicans called for last week's congressional hearing on climate science was Professor Richard Muller of Berkeley. Now, this was a physicist who had gotten into the climate skeptic game. And I have to say, the climate skeptic game is a very lucrative one for people. Anybody who finds a way to deny climate change sells lots of books, gets booked on the conservative talk show circuit, and does very well for themselves. And yet, despite the intensive economic pressure for climate scientists to deny climate change, 99 percent have stayed true to the scientific method; and the conclusion of the vast majority is that climate change exists.

Now, Professor Muller reported that his group's preliminary findings were that the global warming trend is very similar to that reported by prior groups. Now, this took some courage. Because of his belief in science, no doubt it hurts his own earning potential. I think he had been doing very well as a climate skeptic. Now he is somebody who has put his scientific principles above his own economic need.

What science tells us is not always convenient. Every climate scientist that I know wishes that they could say that there is no danger from climate change, wishes there was no danger from carbon emissions. Nobody wants to be a harbinger of disaster--what a terrible thing to be--and yet they value the integrity of the scientific process.

[From the New York Times, Apr. 3, 2011]

The Truth, Still Inconvenient

(By Paul Krugman)

So the joke begins like this: An economist, a lawyer and a

professor of marketing walk into a room. What's the punch

line? They

were three of the five ``expert witnesses'' Republicans

called for last week's Congressional hearing on climate

science.

But the joke actually ended up being on the Republicans,

when one of the two actual scientists they invited to testify

went off script.

Prof. Richard Muller of Berkeley, a physicist who has

gotten into the climate skeptic game, has been leading the

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, an effort

partially financed by none other than the Koch foundation.

And climate deniers--who claim that researchers at NASA and

other groups analyzing climate trends have massaged and

distorted the data--had been hoping that the Berkeley project

would conclude that global warming is a myth.

Instead, however, Professor Muller reported that his

group's preliminary results find a global warming trend

``very similar to that reported by the prior groups.''

The deniers' response was both predictable and revealing;

more on that shortly. But first, let's talk a bit more about

that list of witnesses, which raised the same question I and

others have had about a number of committee hearings held

since the G.O.P. retook control of the House--namely, where

do they find these people?

My favorite, still, was Ron Paul's first hearing on

monetary policy, in which the lead witness was someone best

known for writing a book denouncing Abraham Lincoln as a

``horrific tyrant''--and for advocating a new secessionist

movement as the appropriate response to the ``new American

fascialistic state.''

The ringers (i.e., nonscientists) at last week's hearing

weren't of quite the same caliber, but their prepared

testimony still had some memorable moments. One was the

lawyer's declaration that the E.P.A. can't declare that

greenhouse gas emissions are a health threat, because these

emissions have been rising for a century, but public health

has improved over the same period. I am not making this up.

Oh, and the marketing professor, in providing a list of

past cases of ``analogies to the alarm over dangerous manmade

global warming''--presumably intended to show why we should

ignore the worriers--included problems such as acid rain and

the ozone hole that have been contained precisely thanks to

environmental regulation.

But back to Professor Muller. His climate-skeptic

credentials are pretty strong: he has denounced both Al Gore

and my colleague Tom Friedman as ``exaggerators,'' and he has

participated in a number of attacks on climate research,

including the witch hunt over innocuous e-mails from British

climate researchers. Not surprisingly, then, climate deniers

had high hopes that his new project would support their case.

You can guess what happened when those hopes were dashed.

Just a few weeks ago Anthony Watts, who runs a prominent

climate denialist Web site, praised the Berkeley project and

piously declared himself ``prepared to accept whatever result

they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.'' But never

mind: once he knew that Professor Muller was going to present

those preliminary results, Mr. Watts dismissed the hearing as

``post normal science political theater.'' And one of the

regular contributors on his site dismissed Professor Muller

as ``a man driven by a very serious agenda.''

Of course, it's actually the climate deniers who have the

agenda, and nobody who's been following this discussion

believed for a moment that they would accept a result

confirming global warming. But it's worth stepping back for a

moment and thinking not just about the science here, but

about the morality.

For years now, large numbers of prominent scientists have

been warning, with increasing urgency, that if we continue

with business as usual, the results will be very bad, perhaps

catastrophic. They could be wrong. But if you're going to

assert that they are in fact wrong, you have a moral

responsibility to approach the topic with high seriousness

and an open mind. After all, if the scientists are right,

you'll be doing a great deal of damage.

But what we had, instead of high seriousness, was a farce:

a supposedly crucial hearing stacked with people who had no

business being there and instant ostracism for a climate

skeptic who was actually willing to change his mind in the

face of evidence. As I said, no surprise: as Upton Sinclair

pointed out long ago, it's difficult to get a man to

understand something when his salary depends on his not

understanding it.

But it's terrifying to realize that this kind of cynical

careerism--for that's what it is--has probably ensured that

we won't do anything about climate change until catastrophe

is already upon us.

So on second thought, I was wrong when I said that the joke

was on the G.O.P.; actually, the joke is on the human race.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, when we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up Senate bill 388, a bill that prohibits Members of Congress and the President from receiving pay during government shutdowns.

It is my honor to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, a sponsor of a bill to do the same, Mr. Moran.

I yield myself 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I want to be clear that we can in this body take up and pass Senate bill 388 if we can defeat the previous question, and this will go directly to the President's desk. There is still time.

I think the American people don't know that if government shuts down at the end of the day Friday as it might--it seems increasingly likely--Members of Congress will still continue to receive their paycheck. I had a tweet from one of my constituents that said, ``If there is a government shutdown, are Congressmen and Senators considered essential employees?''

I responded that we had a bill, Senate bill 388, that would make sure that Members of Congress don't get paid in the event of a shutdown, but Speaker Boehner refuses to bring it to the floor of the House in spite of passing the Senate unanimously.

My constituent responded, ``Maybe if the rulemakers had to live by the same rules they created, a solution would come faster. Gridlock is not governance.''

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

I thank the gentleman. I am the last speaker for my side, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

I would like to submit into the Record a Nature editorial entitled, ``Into Ignorance: Vote to Overturn an Aspect of Climate Science Marks a Worrying Trend in U.S. Congress.''

Madam Speaker, time and time again we've heard our colleagues cry wolf and make outlandish claims about what the Environmental Protection Agency is attempting to do. But the American people aren't fools. They know that every time the EPA stands up to big polluters, big polluters claim the sky is falling.

That's exactly what happened when the EPA tackled the acid rain problem. Polluters claimed new safeguards would end their industries, increase the price of consumer goods, and cause massive job loss. In reality, acid rain has been dramatically reduced and the limits on pollution were met faster and at roughly a tenth of the cost that industry estimated--all without driving consumer prices up.

A recent MIT study even suggests that implementing the EPA safeguards we are debating today would create 1.4 million jobs as companies invent, build and install newer and cheaper pollution control tools and renewable energy.

Rather than discussing ridiculous and already disreputable and refuted claims of cow flatulence and other elements that aren't even considered by the EPA, let's discuss science and the facts.

Republicans have claimed that the EPA has found carbon dioxide to be dangerous, the same gas we exhale. They say, how can carbon dioxide be dangerous? In reality, the endangerment finding was based on sound science and found that as climate change increases, so does ground- level ozone, longer pollen seasons, and more mold allergies. These affect health problems like asthma and heart disease. Once again, Republicans were oversimplifying a serious problem to support their big polluter buddies at the cost of public health.

Science will guide us in the right direction, and science is a blind goddess. It doesn't care what we want science to

say. What matters is what good science done actually says.

The supporters of this legislation want to present a false dichotomy that somehow protecting the environment would hurt job creation. Instead, the exact opposite has been proven to be true.

Since 1970, the economic benefits of the Clean Air Act have been shown to outweigh all costs associated with the law, and the economic benefits of the Clean Air Act are expected to reach nearly $2 trillion in 2020--exceeding costs by more than 30 to 1.

That's why a number of business organizations representing over 60,000 firms wrote to President Obama and congressional leaders urging them to support the EPA's mission and to reject efforts to block, delay or weaken implementation of the Clean Air Act. In their letters, the groups note that studies consistently show that the economic benefits of implementing the act far exceed the costs of controlling air pollutant emissions.

The EPA's rule is strictly tailored to only the country's biggest power plants and industrial polluters. These safeguards apply to about 700 of the top polluting power plants and oil refineries, facilities that need new permits, anyway, under current law.

It's been proven countless times that we can protect the environment and public health and grow and strengthen our economy at the same time. To say otherwise simply ignores the facts.

Madam Speaker, I want to make sure that no one is misled by the title of the bill we're considering, the Energy Tax Prevention Act. The only amendment that would have actually prevented energy taxes was offered by my friend from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) and was denied even a floor discussion and debate or a vote under this rule. The only thing this bill is taxing is our patience. As serious issues confront America, including the government shutdown, the majority seems intent on legislating by false bumper-sticker slogans.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to consider Senate bill 388.

I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so we can debate and pass a bill that actually does something useful, ensures Members of Congress don't get paid during a shutdown of government and has a real chance of being enacted into law and signed by President Obama, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

[From Nature]

Into Ignorance

Vote to overturn an aspect of climate science marks a worrying trend in

US Congress

As Nature went to press, a committee of the US Congress was

poised to pass legislation that would overturn a scientific

finding on the dangers of global warming. The Republican-

sponsored bill is intended to prevent the US Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse-gas

emissions, which the agency declared a threat to public

welfare in 2009. That assessment serves as the EPA's legal

basis for regulation, so repealing the `endangerment finding'

would eliminate its authority over greenhouse gases.

That this finding is scientifically sound had no bearing on

the decision to push the legislation, and Republicans on the

House of Representatives' energy and commerce committee have

made clear their disdain for climate science. At a

subcommittee hearing on 14 March, anger and distrust were

directed at scientists and respected scientific societies.

Misinformation was presented as fact, truth was twisted and

nobody showed any inclination to listen to scientists, let

alone learn from them. It has been an embarrassing display,

not just for the Republican Party but also for Congress and

the US citizens it represents.

It is tempting to write all of this off as petty

partisanship, a populist knee-jerk reaction to lost jobs and

rising energy prices by a well-organized minority of

Republican voters. After all, US polling data has

consistently shown that, in general, the public accepts

climate science. At a hearing last week, even Ed Whitfield

(Republican, Kentucky), who chairs the subcommittee, seemed

to distance himself from the rhetoric by focusing not on the

science but on the economic effects of greenhouse-gas

regulation. ``One need not be a sceptic of global warming to

be a sceptic of the EPA's regulatory agenda,'' said

Whitfield.

``The US Congress has entered the intellectual

wilderness.''

Perhaps, but the legislation is fundamentally anti-science,

just as the rhetoric that supports it is grounded in wilful

ignorance. One lawmaker last week described scientists as

``elitist'' and ``arrogant'' creatures who hide behind

``discredited'' institutions. Another propagated the myth

that in the 1970s the scientific community warned of an

imminent ice age. Melting ice caps on Mars served to counter

evidence of anthropogenic warming on Earth, and Antarctica

was falsely said to be gaining ice. Several scientists were

on hand--at the behest of Democrats on the subcommittee--to

answer questions and clear things up, but many lawmakers

weren't interested in answers, only in prejudice.

It is hard to escape the conclusion that the US Congress

has entered the intellectual wilderness, a sad state of

affairs in a country that has led the world in many

scientific arenas for so long. Global warming is a thorny

problem, and disagreement about how to deal with it is

understandable. It is not always clear how to interpret data

or address legitimate questions. Nor is the scientific

process, or any given scientist, perfect. But to deny that

there is reason to be concerned, given the decades of work by

countless scientists, is irresponsible.

That this legislation is unlikely to become law doesn't

make it any less dangerous. It is the attitude and ideas

behind the bill that are troublesome, and they seem to be

spreading. Fred Upton, the Michigan Republican who chairs the

full energy and commerce committee, once endorsed climate

science, but last month said--after being pinned down by a

determined journalist--that he is not convinced that

greenhouse-gas emissions contribute to global warming. It was

yet another blow to the shrinking minority of moderate

centrists in both parties.

One can only assume that Congress will find its way at some

point, pressured by voters who expect more from their public

servants. In the meantime, as long as it can fend off this

and other attacks on the EPA, President Barack Obama's

administration should push forward with its entirely

reasonable regulatory programme for reducing greenhouse-gas

emissions where it can, while looking for ways to work with

Congress in other areas. Rising oil prices should increase

interest in energy security, a co-benefit of the greenhouse-

gas and fuel-efficiency standards for vehicles that were

announced by the administration last year. The same advice

applies to the rest of the world. Work with the United States

where possible, but don't wait for a sudden change of tenor

in Washington, DC.

One of the scientists testifying before Whitfield's

subcommittee was Christopher Field, director of the Carnegie

Institution's global ecology department in Stanford,

California. Field generously hoped that his testimony at last

week's hearing took place ``in the spirit of a genuine

dialogue that is in the best interests of the country''.

Maybe one day that hope will be justified.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I have an amendment at the desk.

I want to thank the ranking member of the

full committee for reading a very important letter into the Record that the EPA has no intention to manipulate or to utilize cap-and-trade as part of their responsibilities. This is not a cap-and-trade initiative or legislation. It has nothing to do with cap-and-trade.

In fact, I think the whole concept of this Energy Tax Prevention Act is muddled and befuddled. I don't understand it. I practiced oil and gas law for almost 15 or 20 years. I come from Houston, and I recognize the difficulties that we have in the industry and understanding the industry. But I also am cognizant that this majority, my good friend on the other side that represents that, they are interested in adhering to the Constitution.

And I don't know why they have not studied the Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts versus EPA that clearly indicates, even though this was motor vehicle emissions that they were talking about, but it held that greenhouse gases, widely viewed as contributing to climate change, constitute air pollutants, and therefore that phrase as utilized under the Clean Air Act and the EPA has jurisdiction to regulate under the Clean Air Act.

I assume what we are doing is trying to bash a long-standing process rather than coming up with better ideas. I think my amendment brings about a better idea, because energy is a national security issue. And what my amendment poses to do is to ask serious questions about the impact of eliminating the EPA authority, finding a way to work through this question: What would be the long-term impact? Because the legislation that is now written by my friends on the other side of the aisle is telling the United States of America, in conflict with the United States Supreme Court decision--and let me just hold up a visual, the Constitution, which is what this majority says that they are basing their whole legislative agenda on.

Well, we have constitutional authority. And they are now telling us that we should not regulate water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and any other substance. I don't hear a scream and cry of the industry. I do hear the idea that there are burdens that will come upon the industry that we should address.

So the amendment that I have that I am asking for real consideration on the basis of a national security question, How will we provide for resources that will provide for the engine economy of this Nation, the long-term impact of the Environmental Protection Agency having no authority to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases? Also, if there are alternatives to ensure compliance with the Clean Air Act, if you have a better alternative. And best practices with respect to greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act, which the Supreme Court decision clearly dictates that it has the authority to regulate it. But we need to collaborate and cooperate and understand how we balance the needs of an energy policy.

Might I also say that energy recognizes all forms of energy. And energy companies that are in oil and gas are looking at alternatives. They have whole sections that are addressing the question of alternative fuels. Why are we raising a bill that has no sense of direction in what it is trying to do and to eliminate an oversight that is protecting the American public in their quality of life and also doesn't speak to how we work with the industry to actually make sure that we check these emissions but as well provide the opportunity for domestic growth and domestic energy growth?

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I ask the remaining time.

I yield 30 seconds to my good friend from California (Mr. Waxman).

I thank the distinguished gentleman for all of his work.

I come as a peacemaker, Madam Chair. Houston, by the American Lung Association, is the seventh most ozone-polluted city in the Nation. The Supreme Court clearly said under the Clean Air Act that it authorized the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases as it makes a judgment that it impacts on climate change. At the same time there are industries that happen to be oil and gas that can sit down and benefit from a real study that will talk about best practices and also have the engagement that we need to have.

It is reckless to talk about what scientists have said. The Members are not scientists, and I believe you cannot rid the EPA of its jurisdiction.

I would ask my colleagues to be thoughtful, along with the industry, and let's have a reasonable study. This impacts national security.

I ask my colleagues to support my amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 910, ``Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011.'' H.R. 910 prematurely eliminates the responsibilities of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. My amendment would require an assessment of the industry by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ensure accurate consideration of how proposed regulations would affect energy production levels, feasibility of implementation on the industry, as well as the adverse environmental effects of delaying implementation of proposed regulations. My amendment would also ensure the Environmental Protection Agency retains its ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the authority provided by the Clean House Act.

I cannot envision any American living in a polluted area wanting to support a permanent ban on the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to regulate greenhouse gases. The potential negative impact of greenhouse gases is supported by the scientific community. The National Academy of Sciences reported in 2010: ``Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for-- and in many cases already affecting--a broad range of human and natural systems.'' It is clear that quality of our air impacts the quality of our health. The Clean Air Scientific Advisor Committee, EPA's independent science advisors, reviewed evidence from roughly 1,700 studies in the scientific research of the health impact of ozone. They unanimously concluded that the EPA needs ozone standards. This would ensure an adequate margin of safety for the public as required by law. This is about protecting our nation's health, industry, and our environment.

As a Houstonian the affects of H.R. 910 are of particular concern to me. A study conducted by the American Lung Association ranked Houston as the 7th most ozone-polluted city in the country. Children, teens, senior citizens, and people with lung diseases like asthma, chronic bronchitis, emphysema and others are particularly vulnerable to poor air quality and are at risk for developing irreversible lung damage. A rise in poor air quality has the potential to increase emergency room visits and hospital admissions for respitory problems which increases the cost of healthcare to tax payers.

In Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX, over a million children under the age of 18 will be negatively impacted if air quality continues to decline. Children exposed to air pollution suffer stunted long growth, as well as development of asthma, and increased respitory infections.

According to the American Lung Association, researchers have also concluded that prenatal exposure to air pollution harms children, and increase the risk of babies being born with low birth weight.

We owe it to our children to provide clean, healthy air. We have an agency that is charged with regulating our air quality. My amendment would ensure the EPA can continue to protect our nation's health by regulating green house emissions.

This amendment will ensure that the EPA reports to Congress its findings on the long term negative impacts of greenhouse gases. Findings from a recent EPA study titled ``Assessment of the Impacts of Global Change on Regional U.W. Air Quality: A Synthesis of Climate Change Impacts on Ground-Level Ozone'' suggest that climate change may lead to higher concentrations of ground-level ozone, a harmful pollutant. Additional impacts of climate change include, but are not limited to: increase drought; more heavy downpours and flooding, and harm to water resources, agriculture, wildfire and ecosystems.''

Not only would the deregulation of greenhouse gases impact the health of our citizens, it will also, have a negative impact on our ability to maintain and create new jobs. Poor health and low air quality only discourages industries from coming to an area. New industries will not be willing to move into areas that are polluted which negatively impacts job growth in those communities.

Currently there are programs in Houston such as the Energy Efficiency Incentive Program which aims to significantly reduce Houston's emissions of greenhouse gases and criteria air pollutants. The oil and gas industry is also investing alternative energy sources and improving air quality standards; such initiatives look towards the future, ensures job creation, and protects our nation's health.

I believe the Environmental Protection Agency plays an essential role in providing appropriate and balanced guidance to the industry, which in turn encourages them to have a workable timeframe to determine the appropriate measures to improve our nation's air quality. The EPA ensures that energy industries have a reasonable standard to base their operations.

My amendment requires the EPA to carefully study this issue and to determine the long term impact on health, the industry and the environment. I strongly urge my colleagues to support a reasonable, fair and measured response to addressing regulation of greenhouse gases.

Under current law, The Clean Air Act provides the EPA with the authority to take steps that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. On April 2, 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that greenhouse gas, constitute ``air pollutants'' as the phrased is used in the Clean Air Act. Such pollutants may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. As a result, the government has the legal authority to issue standards for greenhouse gas emissions. As the Clean Air Act falls under the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency, it is therefore legitimate for the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. My amendment ensures compliance with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling. As written, H.R. 910 would overturn Massachusetts v. EPA. As written H.R. 910 would overturns a ruling by the Supreme Court. Such an action is too extreme when there are other more tenable solutions available.

We cannot allow a total eradication/elimination of the responsibilities of the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. This would impact the health of our nation, negatively impact industries, and overturns a Supreme Court ruling. The present version of H.R. 910, without amendment fails to provide a studied and measured approach when trying to find a balance between the need for our nation to maintain quality air levels and the need for our nation to continue job growth. This bill takes a sledge hammer approach that is too extreme.

The purpose behind my amendment is to reach a compromise. To ensure that fair and reasonable regulations can be implemented without adverse effects to our nation's air and our nations industry.

Madam Chair, I believe it is very important to provide the EPA with the opportunity to carefully study this matter and report back to Congress within 60 days and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.

Houston Mayor's Task Force on the Health Effects of Air Pollution

Thousands of tons of potentially harmful chemicals are

discharged each day into Houston's atmosphere as a result of

human activities, substances, and technologies. Consequently,

people living in Houston are exposed routinely to a myriad of

pollutants in the air they breathe. Estimated and/or measured

concentrations of some of these airborne chemicals in ambient

air are high enough to cause illness or injury in exposed

individuals, especially those in our society who are most

vulnerable, such as children and seniors. Although the

available data are incomplete and uneven, the Task Force

surveyed information on 179 air pollutants and identified 12

substances in Houston's air that are definite risks to human

health, 9 that are probable risks, and 24 that are possible

risks. Sixteen substances were found to be unlikely risks to

Houstonians at current ambient levels, and 118 substances

were labeled uncertain risks because there was inadequate or

insufficient information to determine whether they presently

pose a health threat to Houston residents.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I am going to take a slightly different perspective and ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Again, I am hoping, I know there are a lot of letters that my good friend from Michigan says that he has, and any time you put forward legislation that trade groups send word out to membership and say, this is going to save you a bucket full of money, and you better jump on the bandwagon, and there is no alternative or there is no basis of understanding the underpinnings of what we are doing, then you get that kind of praise.

I hope that many people who are with the industry, having practiced the law, and I have seen some of the mountains that all industries have to climb, I think we can find a reasonable way of functioning.

I just want to put in the Record that the industry, which is part of the drive of my friends on the other side, the oil and gas industry does generate 9.237 million jobs, $1 trillion contributed to the economy, $178 billion paid to the U.S. Treasury or to the government in royalties and bonus payments, and $95.6 billion in taxes, income taxes, $194 billion invested to improve the environmental performance of its products, and $58.4 billion invested in low- and zero-carbon emission technologies from 2000 to 2008.

I encourage them to keep going. But the way that you keep going is not to eliminate the oversight body, but you work with it. And my amendment is very clear. I create a pathway for the industry to be engaged on any rulemaking. It shall provide a notice period of no less than 30 days specifically to the affected greenhouse gas producers--and this is a sort of pipeline for the industry--proposed to be regulated and allow industry-specific comments to be submitted to the administrator separate and apart from the public comment period and to discuss the economic impact of the proposed regulation; provide for an opportunity for the regulated industry to request and receive a 60-day extension. And we should take into consideration the effect of the proposed regulation on greenhouse gas emissions.

These companies have employees living in our community. And it is noted that Houston, the Houston area to Huntsville has some of the largest pollutants in the air. We should also consider the effect of the proposed regulation has on energy production, the feasibility of the implementation of the regulation on the entities being regulated, the effect of the proposed regulation on the availability of energy to consumers, and the adverse environmental effects of delaying implementation of the proposed regulation.

It allows a discussion that may not be at the level that we would like it today. I can't imagine, and I guess my friend on the other side of the aisle will come up and show me all the letters that he's saying that are supporting legislation that completely obliterates the opportunity for any governmental oversight. I disagree. I want to know the question of whether or not we have had the kinds of discussions that warrant a deliberative process and to bring

about a concept of listening to industry and industry listening on the question of air pollutants.

I hold up the mayor's task force on the health effectiveness. It talks about Houston. But I'm not going to narrow this to Houston. Wherever there are companies that are refineries, as they so discussed, we are not trying to undermine that work. But does anyone want to live in China with the air pollutants that they have?

Let me just say that what we are addressing is a question of balance. My amendment provides input by the industry and by the EPA collaborating on how this will impact going forward. I would like you to support my amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 15 seconds to the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

I thank the gentleman.

My friend from Illinois, have I got an amendment for you. I'm answering your concern.

My amendment says it requires, before finalizing emission regulations on greenhouse gas producers, the EPA must provide the producer with adequate notice of at least 30 days. The provision would also allow for industry input, encouraging collaboration between EPA and energy providers during the regulation process.

Currently, the EPA does not have a minimum time requirement. It also gives another 60-day extension. This is about national security because air pollutants and then no energy, bad on one side and bad on the other. Let's get together. Because we can't dismiss any of these energy sources, but they need to be better. And how can we, since this is supposed to be the Supreme Court Constitution side, how can you dismiss the constitutional right that EPA has to regulate?

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. This is an amendment for them.

Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment No. 37 to H.R. 910, ``Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011.'' H.R. 910 prematurely eliminates the responsibilities of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. My amendment would protect our national security by considering industry specific energy providers that are uniquely connected to our national security. This measure would expand the opportunity to garner industry input during the rulemaking process, and would provide the Environmental Protection Agency with a timeframe to engage with the industry during the process.

Madam Chair, this amendment requires that before finalizing emissions regulations on greenhouse gas producers, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must provide the producer with adequate notice of at least 30 days. This provision would also allow for industry input, encouraging collaboration between the EPA and energy providers during the regulation process. Currently, the EPA does not have a minimum time requirement.

By mandating industry engagement during the rule making process We will ensure that the proposed regulations do not negatively impact industry jobs and domestic energy. This amendment would force a discussion between the government and the industry during We rule making process so that jobs can be maintained, U.S. dependence on foreign oil can be decrease, and the Supreme Court's confirmed responsibilities of the Environmental Protection Agency will not be extinguished by short sighted legislation.

As the Representative for Houston, the nation's energy capital, I am committed to finding a balance that will support continued growth in the energy industry while protecting the environment.

My amendment to H.R. 910 provides emissions producers in the energy industry the ability to engage in discussions and studies with the EPA. The provisions in this amendment will encourage communication between

the EPA and energy providers throughout the regulation process.

Americans should not have to risk living with highly polluted air. We must not shy away from the importance of the Clean Air Act and the role of the Environmental Protection Agency. This country needs energy. We utilize on and off shore drilling exploration. We must ensure that the industries impacted are engaged in the process while simultaneously regulating the affects of green house gas. This is crucial to the daily lives of Americans.

The Clean Air Act provides the EPA with the authority to regulate emissions reduction. This authority was upheld by the Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. Any attempt to strip the EPA of this responsibility would undermine the Clean Air Act and exacerbate global warming.

The EPA must be allowed to regulate the emission of greenhouse gases. The climate change caused by these emissions affects temperature, causes extreme weather and dramatically reduces air quality, resulting in asthma, respiratory disease and lung cancer. The EPA projects that continued improvements in air quality under the Clean Air Act will save more than a trillion dollars by 2020, and prevent 230,000 deaths per year. By allowing the EPA to protect our environment now, we provide security for future generations.

Prohibiting the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions to ensure clean air and slow the rate of climate change will have lasting consequences. We must, however, also consider the consequence to the energy industry.

H.R. 910 simply takes the wrong approach. Instead of focusing on developing standards upon which both the Environmental Protection Agency and the affected industries agree, it attempts to remove the Environmental Protection Agency from the process. Thereby baring the industry from developing standards upon which they can all agree. It is a matter of fairness. The EPA would ensure that industries would have a minimum standard to follow. This measure would ensure the industry would be involved when determining the best practices to ensure that reasonableness of those regulations.

Madam Chair, my amendment is essential to provide greater consideration to this sensitive issue by affording an opportunity for energy providers to state the impact that the proposed rule would have on their industry. This amendment will forge important compromises between the EPA and the energy industry. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting my amendment.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 203 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman, my friend from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 203 provides for a structured rule designated by the Rules Committee for consideration of H.R. 910. This rule allows for 12 amendments--that is, 12 amendments, Madam Speaker--submitted to the Rules Committee to be made in order.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill, including the open process that is taking place, not just in the Rules Committee, but also on the floor, where Members will be allowed to come and debate these 12 amendments, as opposed to a closed rule with no amendments.

This legislation, introduced by the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), has gone through regular order. There were hearings held on this issue. H.R. 910 was marked up in the Energy and Commerce Committee, and the chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman, Mr. Dreier, provided for a structured amendment process for 12 additional Democrat amendments to be considered.

The bill we are discussing today, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, would stop the Environmental Protection Agency--also known as EPA--from imposing a national energy tax in the form of carbon emission regulations.

Today, I will explain what the underlying bill does, and I will discuss the EPA's agenda, what this agenda would do to the Nation's job market and economy, the need for a stronger energy policy from not just our President, but also from the administration and also, as the guidepost that begins with this legislation today, from the United States Congress on behalf of the American people.

H.R. 910 prohibits the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act and repeals the steps the agency has already taken to begin this process. In this bill, we only focus on greenhouse gases and we leave EPA's authority to monitor and regulate pollutants intact.

In short, the underlying bill clarifies that the Clean Air Act is not a vehicle for regulatory taxing. The decision about whether and how to regulate greenhouse gases should be made by Congress and only by Congress, not the regulatory body of a President who wishes to place his overriding answers on unelected bureaucrats to fulfill this role.

The EPA has been aggressively pursuing a national cap-and-tax energy agenda through regulation and legislation for years.

After cap-and-trade failed in Congress last year, the EPA accelerated its efforts to regulate this controversial policy through a series of new rules on hundreds of thousands of buildings all across the United States. In other words, because the President couldn't get his political agenda through Congress, he's taking his political agenda in the administration to overlay the American people.

We disagree with that, and that is why we are on the floor of the House of Representatives today.

Regulating greenhouse gas emissions--primarily the carbon dioxide emissions that come from coal, oil, and natural gas--will increase the cost of everything from gasoline to household utilities and, of course, groceries.

Additionally, regulating and taxing emissions will ship American jobs overseas to countries that understand and recognize stable, affordable and energy policies that are vital for their economic growth.

According to a letter from the Chamber of Commerce on March 9 of last year to the Energy and Commerce Committee: ``These regulations will impose significant burden across the United States economy, including sectors that will create jobs and lead us in our economic recovery.''

Additionally, the letter references that the American Council for Capital Formation has ``estimated that EPA's greenhouse gas regulations could reduce business investment between $97 billion and $290 billion in 2011 and as much as $309 billion in 2014,'' a tremendous hit on the economy when it comes from the President of the United States, Barack Obama, and his administration. This is not a way for America or our future to be successful.

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity also references the American Council for Capital Formation in a press release just last month that estimates that a greenhouse gas tax ``could result in the loss of between 476,000 to 1.4 million jobs.''

Republicans are committed to putting Americans back to work, and our Democratic colleagues continue to pursue a reckless agenda that puts more Americans out of work, drives business overseas--all the while limiting U.S. energy production and use.

So, Madam Speaker, today the Republican Party is on the floor of the House of Representatives with good news not just for the taxpayers but for the American people, in particular, not just consumers, but those who have lost their job or who are underemployed. We believe that what we're doing today is a jobs-saver bill.

The House Natural Resources Committee reported last month that the Obama administration policies have caused domestic oil production to drop by 16 percent versus projected levels and future projections show continued decreases in domestic production and more foreign imports to make up for this difference.

A recent Rasmussen poll from March 3, 2011, shows that three-quarters of Americans believe this country does not do enough to develop its own oil and gas resources.

So whether through greenhouse gas regulation permit delays or permitting moratoriums, which the President stands behind in his administration, this administration should change their policies and their direction.

We must find new sources of energy and not tax those that exist for the freedom of this country.

So while energy prices soar and continue to soar and projections estimate a $5-a-gallon gasoline by summertime, this administration wants to inflict more costs on consumers.

The bill today would help to ease the cost of energy prices. It would assist in the global competitiveness of America.

It would help ensure that this Nation does not lose millions of more jobs and does not threaten the intent of the Clean Air Act.

No, Madam Speaker, the Republican Party is here because this is yet another opportunity at a jobs bill that is pro-consumer and pro the American people who want and need to be able to help in a desperate time when we're losing our jobs and things are tough back home to do something positive on behalf of the American public.

This is a bipartisan bill that provides good policy for our Nation, and we're asking every single Member of Congress to understand clearly and see this for what it is. It is a jobs-protection bill.

Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Beaumont, Texas, Judge Poe.

I appreciate the gentleman engaging me in a colloquy, and I will just give him a straight answer.

We did not offer any waivers. All 12 amendments offered by Democrats were germane. This, and perhaps others that were submitted to the Rules Committee, were not germane to the House rules, so we did not offer any waiver. But the others that we did, the 12, were all germane and did not have to have a waiver.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to one of our brand- new freshmen, a gentleman who is not only on what is called an A committee but an exclusive committee of the United States Congress, who has had a distinguished career as a sheriff in Florida and who is a distinguished member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, there was a dialogue back and forth about cows, cattle, and that the EPA really is not after that issue. But if you go to the EPA Web site, epa.gov, and you look under the portion called ``Frequent Questions'' where it deals with livestock, in fact, the EPA is trying to talk about methane produced by livestock. And it ends up saying, as I read from my BlackBerry, that essentially 20 percent of all the methane content in the air comes from livestock.

Well, that's what they want to regulate, which means they would get in the business whether we said this or not.

The gentleman will have his own time in a minute, and I'm sure he will be very effective.

But I encourage the gentleman to get on his BlackBerry and go to the Web site and look this up. They're going to blame it on cattle. They're going to tax cattle. They're going to tax the output because that's what they are proposing.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ennis, Texas (Mr. Barton).

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, my, oh my, we've heard this tirade before. If it wasn't just Republicans and the House, which we've had now for about 4 months, it was something else. The Democrats are looking for somebody to blame their woes on, their tax increases, their overregulation, all the big spending and the debt. Madam Speaker, we know what it is. If they search quickly enough, they can find out what the American people know: It is pin the tail on the donkey. We know how this happened.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Grandfather Community, North Carolina, Dr. Foxx.

Madam Speaker, we are talking about 1.4 million jobs, a lot of cattle, and a lot of bull.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Melbourne, Florida (Mr. Posey).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, there was a discussion a few minutes ago about Republicans and oil companies and a lot of very interesting comments. Yet many on our side have alluded to President Obama supporting the Brazilian Government and people by supporting their oil drilling, drilling for natural resources that they have. The President is willing to go down and back up a 2009 commitment to proposing $2 billion from the Export-Import Bank to the Brazilian company that is their energy company.

And I would like to quote what he said, if I can, because I think it's very interesting: ``At a time when we've been reminded how easily instability in other parts of the world can affect prices, the United States could not be happier for a new, stable source of energy.''

Madam Speaker, what he just spoke of was the United States' ability to produce our own oil so we don't have to look to foreigners to get that done.

[From The Hill, Mar. 21, 2011]

Overnight Energy: Republicans Pounce on Obama's Brazilian Oil Support

(By Andrew Restuccia and Ben Geman)

State of Play: Republicans and the oil industry are working

to translate President Obama's weekend comments in support of

Brazilian oil development into political ammunition in their

battle against the White House's U.S. drilling policies.

The American Petroleum Institute, the country's most

powerful oil and gas trade association, and Republicans,

including House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), said Monday

that the administration should be doing more to develop U.S.

oil-and-gas reserves.

Here's Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who is among the

lawmakers pushing for wider U.S. offshore drilling: ``It's

ridiculous to ignore our own resources and continue going

hat-in-hand to countries like Saudi Arabia and Brazil to beg

them to produce more oil,'' Vitter said in a statement. ``We

need to get serious about developing our resources here at

home and working toward lower gas prices and long-term energy

independence.''

But President Obama said Saturday during his visit to

Brazil that an energy partnership with the nation will offer

major benefits for the United States. Obama, in announcing a

``Strategic Energy Dialogue'' with Brazil, noted that the

country has nearly twice the oil reserves as the United

States and lauded its stability compared to some other oil-

exporting countries.

``We want to work with you. We want to help with technology

and support to develop these oil reserves safely, and when

you're ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best

customers,'' Obama told a group of business leaders Saturday.

``At a time when we've been reminded how easily instability

in other parts of the world can affect the price of oil, the

United States could not be happier with the potential for a

new, stable source of energy.''

Under the Strategic Energy Dialogue, the United States will

work with Brazil ``in the environmentally responsible and

technologically advanced development'' of Brazilian oil

resources, according to a White House summary of the plan.

Administration officials also say they are working

diligently to expand U.S. oil-and-gas development. The

Interior Department has recently issued three deepwater

drilling permits for the type of projects halted after last

year's Gulf oil spill. And the department on Monday approved

an exploration plan that paves the way to expanded Gulf

drilling.

Still, it's not the first time Republicans have criticized

the administration for its oil dealings with Brazil. Vitter

and others railed against a 2009 proposed $2 billion

commitment from the U.S. Export-Import Bank to the Brazilian

oil company Petrobras to ensure the purchase of U.S. goods as

the company explores for oil.

Many Republican claims about the Export-Import proposal

have been shown to be overblown.

Forbes ran a handy fact-check Monday on Republicans' claims

about the proposed Petrobras loans. And the Export-Import

Bank takes on Republican charges here.

Progress and setbacks at stricken Japanese nuke plant

``Tokyo Electric Power Co. continued to report progress in

restoring order at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactors,

but finishing the job is turning out to be a painstaking

process plagued by damaged equipment and unexpected

incidents,'' The Wall Street Journal reports.

Court ruling hits California climate program

``California did not adequately consider alternatives to

its plan to create a cap-and-trade market for carbon

emissions, a judge ruled on Monday, throwing a wrench into

the most aggressive U.S. effort to combat climate change,''

Reuters reports.

U.S., Chile strike green deals

President Obama's trip to South America is bearing green

fruit, according to the White House, which is touting

expansion of work with Chile on energy and climate change.

The White House noted several areas of cooperation. Under

the existing Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas,

``the United States intends to support the establishment of a

regional research network for glacier monitoring and modeling

led by Chile's world-class researchers,'' the White House

said.

``This network will inform policy and decisionmaking by

providing a more robust understanding of how glacial retreat

will impact water security in Andean glacier countries,'' a

summary states.

President Obama lauded the various areas of cooperation

during a press conference with Chilean President Sebastian

Pinera. ``I want to commend President Pinera for agreeing to

take another step, hosting a new center to address glacier

melt in the Andes. In addition, a new U.S.-Chile energy

business council will encourage collaborations between our

companies in areas like energy efficiency and renewable

technologies,'' Obama said at a joint news conference in

Santiago.

Three days ago the two nations also inked a formal

``memorandum of understanding'' on peaceful uses of nuclear

energy.

House vote on pesticides looms

House lawmakers will vote next week on a bill to limit the

Clean Water Act's jurisdiction over pesticide applications.

The Hill's Floor Action blog reports:

The House is expected to take up legislation next week that

would reverse a court decision that said pesticide use is

regulated by the Clean Water Act, in addition to a federal

pesticide law.

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee last

week marked up the bill, H.R. 872, and Republicans want to

move the measure quickly so it can take effect before April

9. That date is the deadline by which the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) is due to announce a new permitting

process for pesticides that takes the court ruling into

account.

Staff for Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-Ohio), who sponsored the bill,

said they expect it to be considered next week in order to

meet that deadline.

The bill is a reaction to a decision by the 6th Circuit

Court of Appeals in the case National Cotton Council v. EPA.

According to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee,

that decision vacated an EPA rule that said using pesticides

in compliance with federal pesticide regulations means a

permit is not required under the Clean Water Act.

Chamber to host discussion on regulatory process

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce will host an event Tuesday

called ``restoring balance to the regulatory process.'' The

event will focus in part on the Obama administration's energy

and environmental regulations.

``Tuesday's discussion, hosted at the Chamber, will focus

on how we implement more checks and balances to improve the

process and guarantee sensible regulation, while also

ensuring that federal agencies are held accountable to the

people,'' said Bill Kovacs, senior vice president for

environment, technology and regulatory affairs at the

Chamber.

State Department, World Bank look to boost water security

The State Department will mark World Water Day by expanding

cooperation with the World Bank. Secretary of State Hillary

Rodham Clinton will sign a memorandum of understanding with

the bank at its headquarters.

``The MOU will strengthen support to developing countries

seeking a water-secure future,'' an advisory states.

Think tank gets efficient

The Center for Strategic and International Studies will

host Obama administration officials and other experts at a

forum on energy efficiency. Speakers will include Rick Duke,

the deputy assistant secretary for climate change.

Group to release nuke poll

The Civil Society Institute will release polling that

explores attitudes about nuclear power amid the crisis at

Japan's stricken reactors.

The poll is the ``first major survey to look at the views

of Americans on the broad policy implications of the

Fukushima reactor crisis--including support for federal loan

guarantees for new U.S. reactors, the merits of shifting

federal resources from nuclear to less renewable energy

alternatives and whether or not to end federal

indemnification of the nuclear industry against nearly all

cleanup costs,'' the group said.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to notify the gentleman that I have no further speakers on this side.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado for this wonderful discussion and debate that we've had here today.

Madam Speaker, the bill we're discussing today does not weaken the Clean Air Act or the regulation of air pollution. It does not interfere with the EPA's longstanding authority to protect the environment. In fact, as I stated in the very beginning, it simply clarifies that the Clean Air Act was never designated, designed or shown to be for regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, we would be removing authority that the EPA has not had, should not have, and would not have because this Congress will not pass what is called cap-and-tax regulations.

By gaining control of government spending and eliminating government regulations, the private sector believes that the Republican Congress can be here for the interests of not only the taxpayer but also to make sure that jobs and investment in this economy in the future are very bright.

I applaud my colleagues for coming down to help debate this bill. I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, last November, Americans spoke with a very clear voice. They told us that we needed to get the country working again. They told us that Big Government was not the solution. They told us to lead or get out of the way on the economy, and our side got it, particularly with the cap-and-trade vote in the last Congress.

Well, Mr. Chairman, today the House has a chance again to vote for a bill that directly responds to the demands of the American people. This legislation will remove the biggest regulatory threat to the American economy. This is a threat imposed not by Congress, but entirely by the Obama Environmental Protection Agency.

We all know that this administration wanted a cap-and-trade system to regulate greenhouse gases, but Congress said no. So beginning in early 2009, EPA began putting together a house of cards to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide. The agency began with automobiles, declaring that their emissions endangered public health and welfare.

That single endangerment finding has since been used by EPA to launch an unparalleled onslaught. The result, 2 years later, is a series of regulations that will ultimately affect every citizen, every job creator, every industry, really every aspect of our economy and way of life.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is about protecting jobs. EPA regulations will hit our manufacturing sector hard, with direct limits on factory emissions, indirect costs from the higher prices to power their facilities.

It will hit small businesses hard too, because when the electricity to power your business and the gasoline to fuel your vehicles is more expensive, your profit is less and you hire fewer new employees. That's why the NFIB, the Farm Bureau, NAM, Chamber of Commerce, and others, have endorsed H.R. 910. This is a key vote with many of those different groups.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is also about energy prices for working families. Power plants will be forced to comply with strict new emission caps. You will have to purchase expensive new equipment to retrofit their facilities. We all know the costs have nowhere to go except on families' and businesses' monthly utility bills.

And it is about gas prices. The refiners that turn oil into gasoline will also be caught into the web of costly regs. When it costs more to make gasoline, it costs more to buy gasoline. And with prices already at $4 a gallon across much of the country, the last thing that our families need is government policies designed to make the price at the pump even higher.

I am from Michigan. I know what a struggling economy, indeed, looks like. And I think that it is a travesty that this government is deliberately imposing policies that are going to harm job creators and working families.

And for what, Mr. Chairman, for what? EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson herself admits that U.S. regulation of greenhouse gases will not affect global climate conditions. The only environmental impact may be to ship our jobs to countries with no environmental protections at all, so, Mr. Chairman, at the end of the day the EPA climate regime is all economic pain and no environmental gain.

So let's pass this bill today and get the American economy back on track.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman emeritus of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Energy and Power Subcommittee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the chairman of the Environment and the Economy Subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the former chairman of the Natural Resources Committee and the current ranking member on the Transportation Committee, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Berg).

(Mr. BERG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the House Ag Committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a cosponsor of the bill, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), the former chairman of the House Ag Committee and now ranking member of that committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the chairman of the Energy and Power Subcommittee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, if I might just enter in a brief colloquy with my friend, the gentleman from California.

Each of us has about the same amount of time left. I have allocated my time; I presume you have as well. My remaining speakers are meeting someplace, and I'm prepared to close and yield back if you are, unless somebody comes to the floor awfully fast.

Is it the same for you?

Fine.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we followed regular order on this bill. We had plenty of hearings. We issued a discussion draft. We had markups in both full and the subcommittee. We sought bipartisan support. In fact, we received it. Mr. Peterson, who spoke earlier, the former chairman of the House Ag Committee, Mr. Rahall, the former chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, are both original cosponsors.

We have different rules than the other body, the Senate. They are debating this same issue today in fact.

They have been debating it now for a couple of weeks. And it's interesting to me that a number of the amendments on the amendment tree in the Senate by different Democratic sponsors--in fact, I would confess that the EPA has run amok because they, too, though they might not be fully supportive of this legislation, they too are supporting a 2-year time-out to the EPA, to tell them to stop. They're not ready for this.

I supported, I voted for the Clean Air Act back in 1990. And I think most of my colleagues then, it was a strong majority that supported that. It allows the EPA to regulate 188 different contaminants. They do that. This bill does not weaken that work by the EPA.

There was an issue then that the Senate included in their version of the bill something that did regulate greenhouse gases. And when it went to conference with the House, John Dingell was then chairman of the conference committee, the House did not accept the Senate language. The Senate receded to the House, as the lingo goes, and in fact the Clean Air Act then ended up without regulating greenhouse gases.

We had a huge debate in the last Congress on cap-and-trade. Speaker Pelosi had an 86-vote margin here in the House. Cap-and-trade, yes, it did pass in the House. It passed by seven votes. So you switch four votes, it goes the other way. But despite that passage in June of 2009, the Senate did not take that legislation up. Didn't go through subcommittee, full committee, never got to the Senate floor, and it died with the conclusion of the 110th Congress.

What we are saying is that the Congress, elected leaders here, should decide what is regulated. We know from the testimony that we had in committee we may lose as many as 1.5 million jobs. We heard from the refineries. They know that it's going to increase costs because they're going to have additional regulation. They're going to pass those costs on. And, in fact, it will raise the price of gasoline by 20 cents to 50 cents over the next number of years. That's not what we want to see in this country.

And what's going to happen? What's going to happen to those jobs? They're going to leave this country, and they're not going to come back. And they're going to go to other places like, let's face it, India and China, where neither country has nearly the environmental laws that we have today. We are going to continue to enforce, to see the Clean Air Act enforced. This does not weaken that act. We just say we're not ready to regulate greenhouse gases, not when we have an unemployment rate where it is today--Michigan much higher than the national average--knowing that it's going to cost a lot of jobs.

So I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It tells the EPA, no, you are not going to do this. We will see what happens with the Senate, as they debate this issue the rest of the day and perhaps into tomorrow. But I would urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 910, particularly now as we get into the amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I just want to say to my friend from Texas that with regard to the hue and cry of folks that support this legislation, not a lot of business folks, I have a whole series of letters of support for our legislation from the American Electric Power to the Farm Bureau, the Iron and Steel Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, American Public Power, Business Roundtable, Chamber of Commerce, Metalcasters Alliance, Multi-Traders Letters, auto dealers, Realtors, manufacturers, National Association of Manufacturers, cattlemen, Mining Association, petrochemical, Rural Electrical Cooperative, and on and on.

Letters of Support

AF&PA Press Statement

American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity Press

Statement

American Electric Power

American Farm Bureau Federation

American Iron and Steel Institute

Americans for Prosperity Press Statement

Americans for Tax Reform

API-ACC Coalition Letter

American Public Power Association

Business Roundtable Letter

Chamber of Commerce

Cornwall Alliance

Freedom Action Press Release

Industrial Energy Consumers of America Press Statement

Metalcasters Alliance

Midwest Power Coalition

Multi-Traders Letters

May I ask how much time remains.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), a member of the committee.

Madam Chair, will the gentleman yield?

We are prepared to accept the agreement.

Madam Chair, I think we have the right to close. How much time is remaining on each side?

Madam Chair, I would just urge again my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Since the Clean Air Act was adopted 40 years ago, we have made steady progress in cleaning our air and protecting the public health and welfare.

Today, however, the Clean Air Act is under attack and progress is threatened.

The Upton-Inhofe bill is a direct assault on the Clean Air Act. Its premise is that climate change is a hoax and carbon pollution does not endanger health and welfare.

But climate change is real. It is caused by pollution, and it is a serious threat to our health and welfare. We need to confront these realities, not put our heads in the sands.

American families count on the Environmental Protection Agency to keep our air and water clean. But this bill has politicians overruling the experts at the Environmental Protection Agency, and it exempts our biggest polluters from regulation.

If Upton-Inhofe is enacted, the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to control dangerous carbon pollution will be gutted.

That's why health experts like the American Lung Association are opposed to this legislation. They know it is a polluters' protection act. It is anti-science, anti-environment, and anti-health.

The Environmental Protection Agency made a scientific determination that carbon pollution endangers health and the environment. Our Nation's top scientists at the National Academy of Sciences agree with this finding and so do scientists around the world.

Yet this legislation repeals that scientific finding. That's something no Congress has ever done.

We need an energy policy based on science, not science fiction. With oil at $100 per barrel and rising, the Middle East in turmoil and a nuclear crisis in Japan, we urgently need clean energy policies. We need more vehicles that run on electricity, natural gas, and renewable fuels. We need more wind and solar power, and we need more energy efficiency.

What we need is to work together to develop energy policies that reduce our dependence on foreign oil and protect the health of American families. Instead, we are pursuing a divisive, partisan bill that takes us in exactly the wrong direction.

This extreme legislation won't pass in the Senate and, if it did, it would be vetoed by President Obama.

It is a distraction from the imperative of developing new sources of energy that will break our dependence on foreign oil, protect our health and preserve our environment.

Americans want clean air to breathe and sensible, science-based limits on carbon pollution.

I urge all Members to oppose this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member on the Energy Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Chairman, that information is incorrect. I would like to see a letter that pertains to this EPA action. I think it might have been a letter related to a different piece of legislation.

I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of our committee, the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

For the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on each side?

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

I want to clarify some statements that have been made that are absolutely inaccurate.

There may be Members who are unhappy about EPA regulations as they hear from their constituents, but that is not what is involved in this bill today.

This bill would stop EPA from regulating as it relates to carbon emissions; and EPA has undertaken this because of a scientific finding that carbon emissions are causing a danger to public health and the environment.

EPA, under the Clean Air Act, has a wide range of possible regulations, but EPA has decided that they would restrict their regulations only to large new sources or expansion of existing sources of pollution of 100,000 tons per year, and that is all.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself another 30 seconds.

So we heard these claims that they are going to come in and regulate in areas where they're not seeking to regulate, nor have they in fact done it. A new source, emitting 100,000 tons of pollution, is equivalent to burning a train car load of coal per day.

We hear concern from people from the coal-burning States, but they're not threatened unless there are new sources of that magnitude. The oil companies are not going to be regulated unless they are going to build a new source of that magnitude. Maybe they are fearful about other regulations, but that is no reason to support this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

I want to refute the statements that have just been made.

There is a court doctrine allowing EPA to design regulations that are tailored according to administrative necessity, and they need not go beyond that.

The complaint on the other side is that there is a wide-ranging regulation, but there is not. And there will be an amendment offered by Representatives Kind and Owens to restrict the regulations by law to what the EPA is implementing.

And I hope the gentleman that spoke just now will vote for that amendment. But whether it passes or not, EPA can tailor its regulation, and they ought not complain about a regulation that's not being proposed. They don't want even the minimal one that EPA is implementing.

If we don't legislate and we don't regulate, we are ignoring the problem and we're going to make it much, much worse and costlier to correct later on.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to the Democratic whip in the House, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

I continue to reserve my time.

I find myself in the same position. I am prepared to close and yield back my time, unless one of our Members shows up unexpectedly.

Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I have before me a letter from the United States Environmental Protection Agency. We asked them very specific questions, and one was whether this would establish a back-door cap-and-trade program. They said, one, EPA has not adopted a cap-and-trade program to address greenhouse gas emissions; two, EPA is not considering or evaluating a cap-and-trade program to address these emissions under existing Clean Air Act authority; and they further went on to say they do not anticipate that they will do a cap-and-trade program. None of the five programs that they have adopted or are considering adopting to limit harmful pollutions are cap-and-trade programs.

So when we hear Members get up and say, oh, they're about to adopt a cap-and-trade program because Jerry Seinfeld's show might lead you to that conclusion, it is not, according to Lisa Jackson, the head of EPA, their intent.

EPA, under the law, is required to look at the science. Once they determined that carbon is a pollutant that causes harm to public health and the environment, they must regulate. They could, under their powers, fashion the regulation in a modest way, which is exactly what they've done. The regulations that they are implementing can be met through greater efficiency in these new sources that would emit such large amounts of carbon. That is a reasonable thing to do because it is beneficial for the industries to be more efficient.

We have found over the years, under the Clean Air Act, when sources of pollution, industries, reduce their pollution, they become more efficient and more competitive. That's what will happen as a result of the regulations that are being implemented. Let us not tie EPA's hands and say they cannot deal with this subject.

For those who deny the science, I disagree with you. But if you're wrong, it will take a long time before any strategy will come into effect to reduce these emissions. Buy at least an insurance policy to reduce these dangerous pollutants so that we can avoid some of the terrible consequences of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, which are already evident in this country and around the world.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. Vote ``no.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you very much.

I just want to point out, Mr. Barton, my very good friend who used to be chairman of the committee and was ranking member when I asked him to work with us on a bipartisan energy bill policy, he said, I don't believe there is such a thing as global warming. It doesn't exist, it's not a problem. Why spend any effort or money to find the solution?

And now, while the gentlelady's amendment is saying at least study what will happen if you don't do anything in this area, and he said that's not needed either. I think at least we ought to know what the gentlelady is suggesting, and that is, what would be the long-term impact if we do nothing.

I support the Jackson Lee amendment.

Thank you for yielding to me.

This bill, the EPA does not put a price on carbon. The EPA is not setting up a cap-and-trade program. The EPA is only saying, in new facilities with large amounts of carbon emissions, put in efficiency standards so that you can reduce those emissions. That's all.

Madam Chair, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Parliamentary inquiry.

Madam Chair, my inquiry is: Must the debate be on the pending amendment or can the debate be on a broader bill?