Volume 156, No. 16 covering the 2nd Session of the 111th Congress (2009 - 2010) was published by the Congressional Record.
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“CONGRESS SHOULD GET A BETTER HANDLE ON THE EPA” mentioning the Environmental Protection Agency was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E144-E145 on Feb. 3, 2010.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
CONGRESS SHOULD GET A BETTER HANDLE ON THE EPA
______
HON. IKE SKELTON
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, in 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, had authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Since that time, EPA has been putting in place a framework to do just that.
I do not agree with the Supreme Court. Congress never explicitly granted EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, under the Clean Air Act. That law was enacted years ago and was meant to eliminate lead in the air and to reduce smog.
Because of the Supreme Court's ruling, the EPA has put in motion the process of writing complex rules to regulate emissions from both mobile and stationary sources in the United States--meaning both from automobiles, mobile, and from factories, farms, and power plants, stationary.
I have serious concerns with the powers given to the EPA by the 2007 Supreme Court ruling, and many people in Missouri's Fourth Congressional District share my view, particularly relating to possibly costly regulations of stationary emitters.
In recent years, Congress has been working to get a better handle on EPA and to create a different approach to confronting global climate change, an issue that many scientists and national security experts have concluded could be a real threat to America's long-term domestic and international interests.
In most cases, the discussion in Congress and throughout the country regarding the need for action to slow climate change has been very non-
partisan, with Republicans, Democrats, and Independents agreeing that some sort of shift in energy policy should occur. There has been tremendous debate, however, regarding just how best to gain better oversight of EPA while reducing potentially harmful emissions.
After hearing for years from farmers, rural electric cooperative members, and others about their fear of the EPA in this area, I voted in 2009 for legislation that would, among other things, prevent EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions on farms and elsewhere and would instead create a market based trading system, called cap and trade, designed to cap these emissions over time.
The legislation that passed in the House, H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, would also promote homegrown, clean burning renewable fuels by eliminating regulatory requirements at EPA that unfairly restrict renewable energy production in rural America. In particular, it would temporarily stop the EPA from holding U.S. producers responsible for land use changes in other countries, expand the definition of what qualifies as renewable biomass, and include a program to help fund the installation of blender pumps that will help make clean-burning renewable fuels more readily available in America. These provisions are valuable for rural America, which is why it was important to keep this bill moving forward and not to let it die in the House.
I realize H.R. 2454 contained other controversial provisions, some of which I did not support. That is why I pledged at the time to work with my colleagues to refine the bill or to oppose it during final deliberations if that was not possible.
In particular, I was skeptical of the so-called cap and trade system envisioned under H.R. 2454. I have met with Fourth District residents about cap and trade since the vote and am more convinced than ever there is little support for it in my district. In fact, many rural Missourians are downright fearful of the unintended consequences associated with cap and trade.
This year, Congress must set aside cap and trade and instead piece together a scaled back, bipartisan energy bill that gets a better handle on EPA; strengthens America's renewable fuels policies for ethanol, biodiesel, and biomass; encourages responsible domestic exploration of oil and natural gas; expands clean nuclear energy; ensures America's propane industry, which is vital to rural America, remains a key priority; imposes a reasonable renewable electricity standard, with close consultation with utilities, that requires use of renewable fuels in addition to coal and natural gas; and invests in clean energy research and development that will benefit colleges and universities, non-profits, and businesses and allow the United States to become a leader in renewable energy jobs.
Right now, it appears that even a scaled back energy bill is on shaky ground in the Senate. While Senator Jeff Bingaman, a Democrat from New Mexico, and Senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican from Alaska, have passed a bipartisan bill out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, more recent attention has focused on a bill introduced by Senator Barbara Boxer of California and passed out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. The more liberal tone of the Boxer legislation has, frankly, alienated conservative Democrats, such as I.
Legislative stalemate combined with aggressive actions by EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions without explicit authority from Congress make more urgent Congress' need to assert leadership and to make clear that EPA does not have authority to regulate these sorts of emissions under the Clean Air Act.
That is why I have introduced bipartisan legislation in the House to address this very serious issue.
On February 2, 2010, I introduced H.R. 4572, a bill to prohibit EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the authority of the Clean Air Act. My bill would also stop EPA from holding U.S. producers and renewable fuels industries responsible for land use changes in other countries and would expand the definition of what qualifies as renewable biomass under U.S. energy law.
Congressman Collin C. Peterson, the Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, and Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson, R-Missouri, joined me as original cosponsors of H.R. 4572. This legislation will send a clear message that many of us in Congress are just plain concerned about what EPA is trying to do under the authority of the Clean Air Act and are ready to do something about it.
I am very hopeful that H.R. 4572 will become law or will be included in any sort of scaled back energy bill that could conceivably be drafted this year. In my view, enacting common sense, bipartisan energy legislation, like the bill I have introduced, will help build consensus among the American people and Congress on energy and environmental policy issues and would allow for the United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions over time.
____________________
Alerts Sign-up