Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the small community of Columbia in south central Kentucky is not unlike many of the rural areas of America that have given of their best young men and women to guarantee our freedom. As of today, however, Columbia has the distinction of being the birthplace of Dakota Meyer, only the third living recipient and the first Marine to be awarded the Medal of Honor for actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Today, President Barack Obama will award Dakota Meyer the Medal of Honor for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty. He will receive the Medal of Honor for his courageous actions while serving as a member of Marine Embedded Training Team 2-8, Regional Corps Advisory Command 3-7, in Kunar Province, Afghanistan, in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. He and his family will join the President at the White House to commemorate his example of selfless service.

The Medal of Honor is awarded to members of the Armed Forces who distinguish themselves with meritorious conduct involving great personal bravery or self-sacrifice so conspicuous as to clearly distinguish the individual above his or her comrades, and the action must have involved risk of life. There must be incontestable proof of the performance of the meritorious conduct, and each recommendation for the award must be considered on the standard of extraordinary merit.

On September 8, 2009 an Afghan battalion was set to go to a village in the Ganjgal Valley. According to the plan, Meyer was to stay with the vehicles near the mouth of the valley and the Afghan soldiers and their U.S. advisers would walk into the village from there. But as the lead of the column approached the village more than 50 insurgents fired from positions on mountains surrounding the valley and from within the village. The troops were trapped.

Back at the vehicles, Meyer heard the firing. When requests for airstrikes and permission to drive into the valley were repeatedly denied, Meyer set himself in the turret of a Humvee and rode straight into the firefight, taking fire from all directions. He went in not once, but five times, trying to rescue his comrades and taking to foot in an effort to locate his team. During about six hours of chaotic fighting, he took out eight Taliban militants and provided cover for Afghan and U.S. servicemen to escape the ambush, according to a Marine Corps account of the events. Meyer saved the lives of 13 U.S. troops and 23 Afghan soldiers.

I join Dakota Meyer's hometown of Columbia, Kentucky in pride as they celebrate this rare distinction for their native son. Meyer joins the ranks of a small company, who in the face of adversity rise to the occasion and do what needs to be done regardless of the consequences. His heroic actions reflect the values taught and practiced in small communities throughout the heart of America.

I rise in support of this legislation, and I think that President Obama and the leaders in the House and the Senate should be given a warm congratulations on being able to come to some agreement to prevent America from defaulting on its debt.

We all know that this is not a perfect piece of legislation, but one of the real positives of this legislation is the joint commission that's going to be established by six Members from the House and six Members from the Senate who will come up with recommendations to reduce Federal spending. We do know that exempt from that is Social Security, veterans' benefits as well as Medicaid, for those who really need health care the most.

Yet I've heard a lot of discussion today about ``this is not about jobs''; so I would just point out that getting our financial house in order is very important. If you've read any newspaper recently, you will find out that, in this administration, the excess of regulations coming out, particularly from the EPA, have been a real hindrance to job creation in America as well as the uncertainty of the health care bill that was adopted last year.

So this is an important first step in getting our financial house in order. Next, we need to start working on removing uncertainty on the regulatory side of the government. So I would urge everyone to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, I rise today to support H.R. 1938, the North American-Made Energy Security Act, and give a long overdue green light to the Keystone XL pipeline project. The Keystone XL expansion project would allow up to 1.29 million barrels per day to flow into refineries in the Midwest and gulf coast, a 700,000-barrel-per-day increase over existing capacity from Canada. More oil means lower prices, and more imports from a stable ally like Canada means less from unstable nations and potential adversaries.

According to a study conducted for the Department of Energy, the Keystone project has the potential to significantly reduce oil imports from the Middle East. The good news only gets better when one looks at the job impacts of the Keystone project. Construction of the expanded pipeline system alone would create an estimated 20,000 jobs.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration continues to delay this project, and there seems to be no end in sight. Let's just look at the timeline to date:

In September 2008, TransCanada, the developer of this project, first submitted its application for a Presidential permit. The State Department didn't release its draft environmental impact statement until April 2010. After this first step, EPA rejected the draft statement and told the State Department they had to perform more work. After another year, the State Department issued a supplemental draft statement that addressed EPA's concerns. Even then, EPA seems to think the thousands and thousands of pages of objective and honest analysis performed by various Federal agencies is not enough.

Because of the endless delays, H.R. 1938 is a simple bill that calls on the Obama administration to make a decision on this project by November 1, 2011. The administration has stated that they could have a decision by December 16, 2011, so we're only asking them to speed that up a few months, and we're not saying what the decision should be.

At a time when the national average of a gallon of gas is $3.70 per gallon and unemployment is still above 9 percent, the Obama administration should be doing everything it can to approve projects expeditiously if they are creating jobs and reducing gasoline prices.

H.R. 1938 is a bipartisan bill that cuts through the endless delays and creates a hard deadline for the administration to render a decision on Keystone. It's time to get moving on reducing energy prices, reduce unemployment, and pass this bill.

I urge all Members to support this important bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), the author of the bill.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Chair, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner).

Madam Chair, I would remind everyone that in America today, we're using about 22 million barrels of oil a day and that we're producing about 7 million barrels of oil a day in this country. We need more efficiency--there is no question about that--to make better gas mileage.

We also have to recognize that we have the responsibility to bring more product into the United States. To do so from Canada would be good for the American people. It would create, it has been said, 20,000 construction jobs at a time when unemployment is at 9.2 percent. We also understand that, if that pipeline does not come to America, it's going to go to west Canada, and then that oil will be going to China. We have to remain competitive in the global marketplace if we're going to create jobs in America, and that's what this pipeline is about.

I would remind everyone that we're not short-circuiting any studies. Comprehensive studies have been made, and environmental impact statements have been examined, so I would urge everyone to support this important legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 530, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

(By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to speak out of order.)

Congratulating Representative John Dingell on His 85th Birthday

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 504, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment Offered by Mr. Poe of Texas

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 2021.

Madam Chair, as we prepare to take up an important piece of legislation today, H.R. 2021, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

At this time, Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the author of this bill, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner).

Madam Chair, I might just add here that the University of Alaska did a study on this legislation in oil and gas development in Alaska's arctic seas, and they concluded that the full development there would create 54,000 jobs.

At this time, 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.)

I might remind our friend from Massachusetts that EPA actually approved the drilling permit, the exploratory drilling permit for Shell, in this case, on three separate occasions; but the delay has been the appeals by the opposing party to the Environmental Appeals Board, which is not even in the clean air statute. So this bill is simply designed to speed up the process and give people an adequate time to oppose the exploratory permitting.

At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), who's a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Chair, I might just also remind everyone that this 5-year, 6-year period for this permit was for only an exploratory permit, not even a production permit.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Madam Chair, I would also like to clarify that this bill does not change the Clean Air Act in any way as it relates to monitoring

stationary sources or mobile sources. I wanted to point that out.

Second of all, the gentlelady from California mentioned additional drilling going on in the Pacific region. The government records show that since 1994, not one exploratory permit has been issued. There are production wells out there, but not one new exploratory permit since 1994.

I would now like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).

Madam Chair, my friends on the other side of the aisle would make it appear that we are abandoning all environmental protections, and I would say that under this bill, there are still five opportunities for public comment. The NEPA process is not changed in any way.

At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

I yield myself 5 minutes.

I would like to say that the American people expect the Congress to provide opportunities for us to fully explore our natural resources. This is a very modest bill that only changes one very small part of the Clean Air Act. It relates explicitly only to exploratory drilling permits, and it changes only appeals to the Environmental Appeals Board. The Environmental Appeals Board is not even in the statute of the Clean Air Act; it was put in by regulation.

And what's happening here in the one issue that we're talking about today, the EPA has approved this drilling permit on three separate occasions, yet it's been appealed to the Environmental Appeals Board, and it's tied up and tied up and they will not make a final decision. And if you cannot exhaust your administrative remedies, you cannot even go to the court system. So this legislation simply expedites the process without removing protections for people concerned about the environment, as we all are. And I wanted to make that comment.

I would also at this point like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

I yield myself 3 minutes.

The gentleman, in his statement, noted that we consume 25 percent of the world's oil, but we possess only 2 percent of the world's reserves. And that's precisely why we're trying to pass this bill, because oil resources can only be counted as proven reserves if they've been fully explored, and we have not had the opportunity to fully explore.

And so why should we continue to be dependent on foreign oil when we have not been able to even explore because we have a bureaucratic agency at EPA, the purpose of which is to deny the opportunity to fully explore?

This is modest legislation. It simply clarifies that if you have a ship, that ship is going to be treated as a mobile source. If you have a drilling platform, that's going to be treated as a stationary source.

If you're drilling, we're going to look at the ambient air quality impact onshore, not offshore. And then we're just going to ask the EPA to eliminate the Environmental Appeals Board for exploratory permits only, nothing else, and to make a decision within 6 months after the completed application is there.

I think that this graph adequately demonstrates what our problem is here in America. This is the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. In 1985 we were moving 2.1 million barrels a day through that pipeline. Today, we're down below 600,000 barrels a day. So if we have the reserves, the American people are simply asking us to restore some balance in these Federal agencies. We want to protect the environment, but we also want an opportunity to explore and use our own oil resources, and we have reason to believe that they are abundant.

I want to thank Mr. Gardner for his leadership on this issue. And I would urge everyone in this body, just like we had five Democrats in committee who voted for this bill, I think it's imperative for the American people that we do so, and I would urge that we adopt H.R. 2021.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I would like to quote from Lisa Jackson, who was talking explicitly about the permitting issue here. She said: I believe that the analysis clearly shows that there is no public health concern here. And that's why EPA, on three separate occasions, approved this air quality permit, but on the appeal process it was denied by the Environmental Appeals Board.

Now, if you look at the legislative history of the Clean Air Act, it is very clear in that legislative history that, as it pertains to Outer Continental Shelf sources, they were concerned about the impact onshore and the ability of onshore to attain and maintain their Clean Air National Ambient Air Quality standard requirements.

And so all this legislation does is to clarify that point. We're not changing

the ambient air quality standards. We're not changing the way they monitor stationary sources. We're not changing the way they monitor mobile sources. We're simply clarifying that that was the legislative history, that was the intent, and the full range of environmental protections are still in place.

So I believe that this amendment is not necessary. We already have adequate monitoring in place.

Madam Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

I yield the balance of my time, in opposition, to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner).

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I've had the opportunity to serve many years with the gentleman from Illinois, who's the ranking member of this subcommittee, and have a great deal of respect and admiration for him. But I would point out to him that this legislation does not in any way curtail, stop, impose the opportunity for anyone to express opposition or comment about a permit. We do not in any way change the comment period that EPA has to determine if they're going to issue, in this case, an exploratory permit.

We do not in any way change the National Environmental Policy Act that provides four additional opportunities for communities, local, State, individuals, environmental groups to comment on an exploration permit. There are today five opportunities for people to comment about air permits. After this bill is passed, there will still be five opportunities for entities to comment.

Today, individuals and entities can file a lawsuit against the EPA and their actions. After this bill is passed, they can still file a lawsuit.

This amendment basically gives the EPA Administrator the opportunity to grant 30-day extensions on final agency action as the Administrator deems it necessary; but it's not limited to one 30-day period, two 30- day periods or three 30-day periods. In fact, it could go on ad infinitum, and that's the whole reason we have the bill here today, because I don't care what company it is out there trying to explore to determine if the oil is there, if you cannot even get an administrative decision, as in the case in point it has taken 4 or 5 years and there's still no decision, you can never get to the court system.

So this bill is a commonsense bill that provides some balance, some checkpoints at EPA so that we have the maximum opportunity to explore, to determine how much oil we have off the coast of Alaska. And I might say, in the hearings Alaska government authorities came up and pleaded for us to do something to help get a decision from EPA.

So I would oppose this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

How much time do I have remaining?

I yield myself 2 minutes.

To close this debate, I would simply say that we think 6 months is totally adequate to make some decisions about air quality permits for exploratory purposes only, and I would remind everyone here that EPA had a 60-day comment period for its utility MACT regulation that was a 1,000-page regulation imposed by EPA's own estimate of $10 billion on the American people and increased electricity costs, if it goes into effect, by 4 or 5 percent, and they did that in 60 days.

Certainly, the 6 months that we give in this bill for an air quality permit for drilling purposes alone is adequate, and I would respectfully request that we oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, our friend from California's amendment sort of makes a lot of sense. There are a couple of issues that I would like to point out about it.

First of all, under her proposal, you would appeal the decision of the EPA at the local district court, wherever the project might be, let's say California. So you go through that appeals process through the U.S. District Court, and then if you don't like that decision, then you have to go to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Well, today, if our bill did not pass, anyone could appeal a decision of the Environmental Protection Agency to the Environmental Appeals Board, which is located in Washington, D.C. So, today, any appeals to that board have to come to Washington, D.C., and it really is a judicial hearing. There are lawyers. There are judges. There is evidence. And so, today, that's the case.

Our bill simply says that in order to curtail the length of time it takes to receive or to even get a decision for an exploratory permit only, nothing else--we're not changing any other aspect of the EPA or Clean Air Act. We're simply saying, for this one purpose, we want a decision within 6 months, yes or no, so that the administrative decisions are exhausted. And then once the decision is made by the EPA, any party can go to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. They don't even have to go through that extra layer at the Federal court but go right to the district court of appeals here in Washington, D.C.

So this legislation does not in any way change the venue. As I said, if we did nothing, as it is today, if they appeal to the Environmental Appeals Board, they come to Washington, D.C., to have the hearing. So I have been sympathetic to her desire to save people money, not require them to come all the way to Washington, but that's the way the law is today.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would like to make one additional comment. I think you have a very good point on the balkanization. We have these Federal waters, the Outer Continental Shelf. We have a lot of oil reserves, and we're trying to explore, trying to produce more oil. And if this amendment is adopted, different States can have different rules, so that would complicate things.

And we already have a situation where we have different agencies of the Federal Government issuing these permits. In some areas we have the Department of the Interior. In other areas we have EPA. If you take that, on top of the balkanization, it's going to take a lot longer than 5 years. We may never get a permit.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

We certainly want to thank the gentlelady from New York for introducing this amendment.

To answer the question about how is this bill going to help oil prices and provide more oil for the marketplace, obviously it can't do it overnight. But the reason that we're here is because it has taken EPA 5 years and they still have not even rendered a decision on a simple exploratory drill permit request, which is not even a long-term activity. It's simply to explore to determine is oil there and can we use it.

Now, in America we're using around 20 million barrels of oil a day, and the vast majority of that is being imported into the U.S. from other sources. And so all we're attempting to do in this bill--we're not changing any aspect of the Clean Air Act, we're not changing mobile source rules, stationary source rules, national ambient air quality standards. We're not changing that. We're not changing the Environmental Appeals Board from hearing appeals on any other permit other than an exploratory permit, and that's all this bill does.

And we want to do it because we're trying to find additional oil in America, and we know we have it. And we also know that if we have more oil, obviously we can't get it produced tomorrow. We've been trying 5 years just to get the permit, and we don't have that yet. But we want any company to have the ability to go out and drill and to get an expedited answer from EPA. We're not even directing EPA to approve the permit. We're simply saying make a decision. And then if the other side does not like the decision, they have an opportunity to go to court. Under the way it's operating today, we can't get a final decision to even go to court. So here we are in limbo.

I might also say that on the gentlelady's amendment, she does not give any time for this report to be issued. And knowing EPA's track record, we could be here 10 years waiting for a report.

But more important than that, EPA really does not perform economic analyses of energy markets. The Energy Information Administration does that. They have the modeling to do it, they have the technicians to do it, they have the information to do it. EPA really does not even do a very good job on their regulations of thinking about the impact on jobs in America.

So I understand the gentlelady's intent; I think it's a very good intent. But as I said, one of the real weaknesses here is she doesn't even set a timeline for this.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the people of the Republic of Azerbaijan, a strong strategic partner and ally of the United States, and congratulate them on celebrating their Republic Day on May 28. As co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on Turkey, I have been particularly interested in the development of nations in the Middle East and Central Asia.

On May 28, 1920, Azerbaijan declared its independence from the rapidly disintegrating Russian Empire. In doing so, Azerbaijan not only adopted a democratic form of government, but it also granted women the right to vote and embraced many other integral cornerstones of democracy.

Sadly, their independence was cut tragically short when the Soviet Union invaded the nation in 1920 and ended Azerbaijan's dream of democracy in the 20th Century. That dream re-emerged in 1991 with the disintegration of the Soviet Union, and Azerbaijan declared its independence yet again and rejoined the world's community of democratic Nations. Having lived under Soviet rule, the people of Azerbaijan appreciate their role in a democratic civil society.

Azerbaijan's geographical location has made it a crossroads for interaction between a number of diverse nations and religious traditions. This position has given it a unique ability to serve as a cultural and political bridge between traditionally Western and Eastern viewpoints. It also has a proud history of influential writers and artists, and its people have made a tremendous impact on the rich cultural framework of the South Caucasus region.

I congratulate the people of Azerbaijan, and commend them on their continued efforts and commitment to build a strong and vibrant democracy in the critically important region of the South Caucasus.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the team of students from Paducah Middle School who won second place in the U.S. Department of Energy's 21st Annual National Science Bowl. Team members Erin Burba, Reese Butler, Grant Hutcheson, Parker Lloyd, and Palmer Stroup were led by Cindy Glisson and Dianne Cypret in their successful creation of a hydrogen-fueled model car.

After placing first in the regional competition in February, the team of seventh and eighth

graders had only 5 weeks to create the hydrogen-fueled vehicle and prepare for competition with 41 middle school teams from across the country. In addition to building the car, the students also prepared for a quick recall competition and wrote a research paper about their project. Energy Secretary Steven Chu noted at the event that our Nation is in need of outstanding young researchers and scientists, and I am extremely proud of these young students for their ingenuity and dedication to scientific knowledge.

The National Science Bowl is the largest academic competition of its kind, and tests students' knowledge in all areas of science, including biology, chemistry, earth science, physics, astronomy, energy, and math. After the day of question and answer rounds, students had the opportunity to race their hydrogen-fueled cars against one another. Through their innovative design, Paducah Middle School's team finished the ten-meter race in a mere 3.84 seconds as the runner-up in the competition.

Congratulations to the Paducah Middle School team members for their accomplishment at the Regional and National Science Bowl competitions, and best wishes for you in your next academic endeavors.

I am delighted that we have this opportunity today to debate this important legislation.

Over the last 2 years, the Environmental Protection Agency has been the most aggressive agency representing environmental causes in many, many years. Today, we have an opportunity to try to stop their unprecedented power grab. Even the longest-serving Member of this House, the distinguished Democrat from Michigan, Mr. John Dingell, whom we all respect and admire, said it would be a glorious mess if EPA ever tried to regulate greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide, one of the things they are trying to regulate, is necessary for human life.

When we had hearings on this issue, Lisa Jackson, the administrator of EPA, came to the Congress. And she said, when asked the question, what kind of impact would their regulations have, she said it would have negligible impact on solving global warming unless other nations were willing to act as well.

Now, what this really gets down to is about coal, because coal in America produces 52 percent of our electricity. In China, coal produces about 80 percent of their electricity. Electricity is produced at the lowest rate with coal. And that is necessary if America is going to be competitive in the global marketplace. That's why today you see China expanding its coal marketing and coal utilities to produce electricity. That's why in China you see so many jobs being produced because they produce at a very low cost.

This legislation will stop EPA from driving up electricity costs in America. It will make it less likely that we are going to continue to lose jobs to China if we stop EPA. And I would remind all of you that when Gina McCarthy, the air quality director of EPA, came to Congress, she said herself that trying to regulate greenhouse gases in America just for the enforcing arms of the greenhouse gas bill, which would be every State in America, would cost the enforcing agencies $24 billion, not including the additional cost to all of the utility companies, those people who have boilers, farmers, others, the additional costs that it would provide for them.

So if we want America to be competitive, to create jobs, to compete with China, we must stop this out-of-control EPA. And that is precisely what this legislation is designed to do. We're not changing the Clean Air Act in any way. Ambient air quality, all of those things, will still be in force.

So I would urge passage of this legislation.

On this tailoring rule that was adopted by EPA saying that they would regulate only those emitters of 100,000 tons or more per year, that is in direct violation of the language of the Clean Air Act, which says they have to regulate anything 150 to 250 tons per year.

Lawsuits have already been filed against the EPA of violating the Clean Air Act, and there is a strong sense that the tailoring act would be ruled illegal. And if it is, as Gina McCarthy said, they would have to regulate everything in society, including small farms, small businesses, everyone. They do not have the manpower to do it; and as she stated, it would cost the enforcing agencies alone $24 billion, and that's not including the money that industries and others would have to spend to comply with the new regulations. So the statement that they will not be impacted is certainly not settled.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), the chairman of the Environment and the Economy Subcommittee.

I'm actually surprised the gentleman has offered an amendment related to oil because our bill that we have on the floor today completely preserves in every way the car rule under which EPA sets greenhouse gas emission standards for passenger cars and trucks for model year 2012 through 2016. That was agreed to by the Obama administration, the automobile industry, environmentalists, EPA and everyone; and that is preserved in this bill.

But let's talk about the electricity side. If we allow EPA to regulate greenhouse gases, we're going to skyrocket the cost of electricity which is going to make us less competitive in the global marketplace; we're going to lose more jobs to China and more jobs to India because those two countries are burning more coal because coal produces the lowest-cost electricity. And that's why we are opposed to this amendment of the gentleman because we've already preserved the car rule that the gentleman is concerned about.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Well, I would say to you that EPA adopted this tailoring act because they bit off more than they could chew, initially. That's why a lawsuit has been filed against them, because they violated the clear language of the Clean Air Act that says if anything emits more than 150 tons per year, or 250 tons per year, it must be regulated if they've had an endangerment finding, as they did in this case.

And so this amendment would simply gut the entire bill and place the tailoring law there in its place. Under this tailoring rule, they would be able to go down to 50-tons-per-year emissions. But the question becomes, what happens after the year 2013? You have two conflicting parts of this Clean Air Act as a result if we adopt this amendment.

One thing we know for certain, EPA is already involved in too many lawsuits. In fact, we're trying to find out now exactly how many lawsuits. We feel like this bill that we are trying to pass in the Congress today, H.R. 910, is simply Congress reasserting itself into the Clean Air Act because for too long decisions have been made by unelected bureaucrats at EPA; lawsuits are being filed. Almost every time anyone applies for a permit EPA runs and enters into a consent decree, and then the Federal judge will award legal fees to the plaintiffs. We think it's time to reassert ourselves into this process.

This is a good bill, H.R. 910. It says that it was never the intent of Congress for EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. We do not in any way interfere with their ability to regulate ambient air quality standards, particulate matter, the hazardous air pollutants--we have about 200 or so of those listed--acid rain, any of those things.

This is a great bill. Let's defeat this amendment. I urge passage of

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Bill Samuels for his extraordinary career with Maker's Mark. Mr. Samuels is retiring from his position as President of Maker's Mark, the world's oldest operating bourbon distillery. As the seventh generation distiller in his family, bourbon was a part of Bill's life from the beginning, and just as his own father made Maker's Mark a unique product, Bill made the world famous brand his own through innovative marketing and large scale production with home-grown Kentucky flavor.

When he took over the helm of Maker's Mark 35 years ago, Bill used unmatched and unprecedented creativity to reinvent the way the world understood and appreciated bourbon. He paired a family recipe with a marketing campaign that brought out a little bit of Kentucky in people across the world. Bill left

no event, newsmaker, or story off his list of characteristic jokes, and his knack for simple one-liners lured patrons to Maker's Mark through thousands of unforgettable advertisements. The world responded to Bill's humor in a big way--by buying all the bourbon he could make and elevating Maker's Mark to a worldwide symbol of excellence.

Like the ads that graced pages across the world, Bill's instructions for production of his family's legacy were simple and clear--``don't screw it up.'' One of the few things Bill made no joke about during his tenure was that no amount of success could compromise the taste of each and every drop of bourbon.

Bill's world renowned success and innovative marketing techniques never lost sight of the home grown taste of Kentucky in each family- made bottle. The distillery in Kentucky remains the only spirits related National Historical Landmark in the world, and a tradition that Kentucky is proud to share. Under Bill's careful watch, no bottle of Maker's Mark traveled across the globe without bringing a piece of Kentucky pride with it.

During his 44 years long career with the family company, Mr. Samuels brought a piece of history and a piece of Kentucky to households, bars, and restaurants around the world. I congratulate my friend, Bill Samuels, on his extraordinary success throughout his time with Maker's Mark. Thank you, Bill, and best wishes for you in your next endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, today I join with my colleague, Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO-02) to introduce two important pieces of legislation, the EEOIPCA Amendment Act of 2011 and the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Improvement Act of 2011, which will help ensure former employees at certain Department of Energy sites receive the benefits and care they are due while also bringing transparency and oversight to the program charged with administering compensation.

During the Cold War, thousands of workers employed in the nation's atomic weapons programs were exposed to radioactive and toxic substances. For this reason, Congress passed the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) in 2000 to provide compensation to employees who have become ill as a result of work at atomic weapons facilities. Individuals, or their eligible survivors, who worked as an employee, contractor, or subcontractor at certain Department of Energy facilities may be eligible for compensation in the form of lump sum payments and medical expenses. Yet all too often workers and surviving family members, such as those in my Congressional District,

run into challenges when weaving through the federal government maze to claim the benefits they deserve.

The EEOIPCA Amendment Act is based upon a recent study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on how best to improve the EEOICPA program. Specifically, this legislation will require the President to establish and appoint an advisory board on toxic substances and worker health responsible for overseeing a portion of the original EEOICPA legislation known as ``Part E.'' The Part E program provides eligible employees with compensation payments of up to $250,000, plus medical expenses for health conditions as a result of having been exposed to toxic substances while working for DOE. Further, the Ombudsman for the Department of Labor will be required to provide an annual report to Congress on the program and make the report available to the public online.

The second bill we introduce today, the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Improvement Act of 2011, will amend Part E of the EEOICPA program to allow survivors of family members who file claims under Part E but who pass away before their claims are approved to receive the full benefit that would have been awarded to the claimant, rather than a lesser survivor's benefit. This bill will correct the sort of inequity in the case of a Kentucky resident who passed away from complications sustained while working for DOE and whose claim was approved just days after his death.

The EEOIPCA Amendment Act of 2011 and the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Improvement Act of 2011 are two important pieces of legislation that will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of EEOICPA and, in turn, help ensure workers and their families receive just compensation in a timely manner.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these two bills and to push for swift passage in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about legislation I have introduced that will reinforce our Nation's commitment to combating prescription drug abuse by reauthorizing the National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act, NASPER, for three additional years.

On August 11, 2005, NASPER was signed into law to assist States in combating prescription drug abuse of controlled substances, through prescription drug monitoring programs, PDMPs. NASPER is administered by the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, and provides grants to States to establish and improve prescription drug monitoring programs.

Just last week, the head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, ONDCP, Gil Kerlikowske, embarked on a three-day visit to Kentucky where he saw firsthand the significant problems with prescription pill abuse, an issue many in my district struggle with. It's estimated that 82 Kentuckians die each month as a result of overdoses. Nationwide there were more than 27,000 deaths from prescription drug overdoses in 2007, a number that has risen five-fold since 1990. These statistics are unacceptable and a testament that more must be done.

While Kentucky has made great strides through its PDMP and collaboration between the public and private sector, illicit drugs continue to flow across our borders from States without PDMPs, such as Florida. Last Wednesday, law enforcement officials from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, conducted a massive raid in South Florida arresting 20, including five doctors, after a yearlong investigation involving trafficking of prescription pills. What's more concerning is the recent decision by the Governor of Florida to repeal funding for the creation of a PDMP approved by the State legislature in 2009.

By reauthorizing the NASPER program we will ensure States have the support they need to address prescription drug abuse by making NASPER grants available for planning purposes as well as for ``establishing, improving, and maintaining'' their programs. Through these grants, States will be given resources to help prevent patients from doctor shopping and abusing prescription drugs. This also will help to ensure that appropriate law enforcement, regulatory and State professional licensing authorities have access to prescription history information for the purposes of investigating drug diversion and errant prescriber/ pharmacist prescribing and dispensing practices.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this vital piece of legislation and to push for swift passage in the House.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I am wondering if the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) would be willing to engage in a colloquy with me concerning the climate change provision in the bill.

I want to ask the gentleman, first of all, if he could explain section 1746 of the bill to me.

I thank the gentleman, and I do agree with you wholeheartedly.

I might add that Congress and the U.S. Senate have specifically addressed this issue on three separate occasions, and on every one of those three occasions have said ``no'' to EPA regulation.

I might also add that last week we had a hearing with Administrator Jackson, and Mr. Green, our colleague from Texas on the Democratic side, asked her a question. He said: My question is this. What happens if only the United States acts to reduce these emissions while major emitters like China or India do not take action, do not follow suit? Can we really address climate change without strong mandatory reductions by other major emitters around the world?

And Ms. Jackson, the Administrator of the EPA, said: We will not ultimately be able to change the amount of CO2 that is accumulating in the atmosphere alone.

So I would say, Mr. Chairman, that EPA's regulations will lead to higher costs for the coal industry, the oil industry, and natural gas industries that comprise 85 percent of America's energy mix, burdening both individuals and businesses and, most important of all, destroying jobs.

So let me ask the gentleman. Is this a debate about global warming science?

I thank the gentleman.

I do want to mention that the Committee on Energy and Commerce has released a discussion draft on exactly this same issue, called the Energy Tax Prevention Act, that would block EPA's global warming agenda under the Clean Air Act.

The bill does not weaken the Clean Air Act, however. It would have no effect on the agency's ongoing efforts to deal with smog, soot, lead, mercury, and all the other pollutants that have been addressed under the Clean Air Act. It is simply a bill to stop the agency and bureaucrats from issuing regulations absent congressional approval.

As our former chairman John Dingell said, avoiding the glorious mess is what we would be doing, because the Clean Air Act was never designed to regulate greenhouse gases.

As it is, EPA's global warming regulatory agenda, which is just beginning to roll out, is so open-ended that it is already having a chilling effect on investment and job creation. The longer it moves forward, the more domestic manufacturing jobs will be forced overseas to countries not similarly burdened.

I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.

We have already had our first hearing, which was on February 9. We have heard from a wide range of industries about the job creation issue, and I expect that we will be moving this legislation within the next month and a half.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, this amendment is very simple. We're going through this process, or the continuing resolution, and we're trying to reduce spending to help bring down the Federal debt, which is now around $14 trillion.

I might also say that I would certainly want to commend Chairman Rogers, ranking member Norm Dicks, and Speaker Boehner for allowing unlimited amendments to this continuing resolution. It certainly is an open process. And it's my understanding that over 700 amendments were printed in the Record to give Members an opportunity to represent their districts and try to bring spending under control. And I might say, that's in direct contrast to when the health care bill was brought to the floor in the last Congress, a bill, 2,400 pages, that had direct impact on the health care throughout America--not one amendment was in order on the floor. So there certainly is a contrast here in the way we're proceeding with the people's business.

But this amendment basically simply removes $1.5 million from the greening of the Capitol project. There was a total of about $7 million in this project. The project is basically over with, and there is approximately $1.5 million left. If we go on and eliminate the program now, that $1.5 million can be put directly to reducing the debt.

Now, some people would say, well, my gosh, $7 million is not much money. But, back in March of 2009, I wrote a letter to the Architect of the Capitol because one of the parts of the Greening of the Capitol was to stop buying coal for the Capitol power plant. And when they stopped buying coal for the Capitol power plant, a coal mine in West Virginia that was providing that coal closed down and those jobs were lost.

The Architect of the Capitol, in responding to my letter, also indicated that by switching away from coal, the annual cost to the taxpayers of America went up between $7 million and $8 million a year, and that's an ongoing expense. And that does not include the conversion that had to take place with the Capitol power plant, and we know that at least $1.5 million was spent on the conversion. We do not know what additional funds were spent, but the Architect of the Capitol said additional funds were spent. And I might add, there was never any discussion about this on the House floor. There was never any notice given to any of the Members about this. But it came about simply because Speaker Pelosi and Senate Leader Harry Reid wrote a letter to the Architect of the Capitol directing him to do so.

So all we are doing with this amendment is trying to reduce our Federal

debt by $1.5 million. The Greening of the Capitol program is basically over with. In fact, the only thing they are doing now, according to the information I have, is they are calling around to congressional district offices to go down there to see about buying more up-to-date light bulbs. So I would respectfully request that the Members support this amendment.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, March 4, 2009.

Mr. Stephen Ayers,

Acting Architect of the Capitol,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Ayers: There have been several articles written

about the Capitol Power Plant in recent weeks and I have had

several groups in my office lobbying to stop using coal at

the plant. I would appreciate your providing me some basic

facts about the plant.

1. When was it constructed, what was its initial cost, and

when did it begin operations?

2. What was/is the rated electrical capacity of the plant?

3. How much coal was burned at the plant during its peak

years of operation?

4. When was natural gas first used as a fuel in the plant,

and what was the cost to convert the plant so that natural

gas could be used?

5. What is the mix of fuel used today at the plant, in

percentages?

6. What has been the additional cost or cost-saving

associated with the use of a mix of natural gas and coal,

instead of coal only?

7. What is the timeline for converting the plant to natural

gas only, and what will be the cost of the conversion?

8. What is the projected additional cost or cost-saving

over the next five years, by converting the plant to operate

only on natural gas?

9. What type of coal is presently burned at the plant, and

where is it produced?

10. Does the plant produce electricity, or only steam and

cooled water for the Capitol complex?

11. If electricity is produced, what amount of income does

the sale of the electricity produce annually?

12. If electricity is not produced, why not?

13. If electricity is not produced, what would it cost to

convert the plant so that electricity could be produced and

sold, and what would be the projected annual income from

those sales?

14. What emissions controls are in place at the plant, when

were they added, and at what cost?

15. Is the plant presently in compliance with federal Clean

Air Act regulations?

16. If the plant is not in compliance with emissions

limitations, what additional controls might be needed to

continue to use coal or a mix of coal and natural gas, and

what are the estimated capital costs of those additional

controls?

Thank you very much for your attention to this request. I

will look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Ed Whitfield,

Member of Congress.