Providing for Consideration of H.R. 910, Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 203

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union 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. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 hour.

Mr. SESSIONS. 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

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

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?

There was no objection.

Mr. SESSIONS. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SESSIONS. 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.

Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from Texas for yielding time.

Madam Speaker, our colleagues on our side of the aisle have made it abundantly clear that this bill does not affect the Clean Air Act. What it does is help us rein in unelected bureaucrats who are arrogant and who believe that they have all the answers to what needs to be done in this country.

After listening to the debate over this issue, it's clear to me that nary a liberal here has read a book entitled ``Heaven and Earth'' by Ian Plimer, a renowned Australian geologist who takes a science-based approach to disproving so many of the myths underlying the manmade global warming theories. It is a unique, gripping, and powerful book that would undoubtedly leave a deep impression on any independent thinker. And I also want to mention, Madam Speaker, another book, the Heartland Institute book review of a book called ``The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism'' by Christopher Horner, which highlights some of the motivations for liberals to persist with the manmade global warming theory.

Horner tells us, ``Global warming hysteria is truly the environmentalist's dream come true. It is the perfect storm of demons and perils, and the ideal scare campaign for those who would establish global governance.'' And he goes on, ``We are daily told of an alleged 'consensus' on the issue--a concept actually foreign to science--and global warming alarmists want to put disbelievers on trial. They want to control our lifestyles without anyone being allowed to question their cause.'' And he says, ``Nowhere is Horner more brilliant than in convincing the reader of the odious concept of consensus taking root regarding climate science, where alarmists and the rest of the global warming industry assail scientists and other experts with ad hominem campaigns to discredit them. History is `full of efforts to stifle innovation by reference to unchallengeable authority of consensus.' Galileo and Copernicus come quickly to mind.''

Madam Speaker, this shows the arrogance of our colleagues across the aisle and the arrogance of the bureaucrats. They think that we human beings have more impact on the climate and the world than God does. And we don't.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SESSIONS. 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.

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT .....

Here's a quick roundup of Monday's E2 stories:

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said the country's nuclear reactors need to be re-examined.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission detailed its review of U.S. reactors.

The Environmental Protection Agency warned of a banned pesticide in a product used to kill ants.

A top House Democrat said military action in Libya is motivated by oil.

Top lawmakers on the Senate Energy and Commerce Committee put out a call for input on the ``clean energy standard.''

And the Obama administration approved the first deepwater exploration plan since last year's Gulf oil spill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SESSIONS. 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.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 203 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

At the end of the resolution, add the following new sections:

SEC. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (S. 388) to prohibit Members of Congress and the President from receiving pay during Government shutdowns, if called up by the Minority Leader or her designee. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration; and (2) one motion to recommit.

SEC. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of S. 388.

(The information contained herein was provided by the Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 110th and 111th Congresses.)

The Vote on the Previous Question: What it Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.''

Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution ..... [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by voting down the previous question on the rule. ..... When the motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering the previous question. That Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of amendment.''

In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.''

Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Republican majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source