Ed Whitfield

There are strong feelings on the issue because many people, and we are speaking for our constituents, believe that EPA is exceeding its legal authority under the direction of a president who is trying to impose his will on climate change…

I want clean air. I want clean water. But I don't want an organized attack on the energy-producing sector of America because of, to use Mr. McNerney's term, a political decision to go after hydrocarbons.

If that happens and if you're still at the EPA I want you to go to Fairfield, Texas with Congressman Bill Flores and explain to those people who've lost their jobs how you've improved their environment.

Well, a lot of us did not believe that to be true.

Despite the stay of the Clean Power Plan, last week EPA published a 44-page proposed rule setting forth the details for Clean Energy Incentive Program.

So many critics say that that flexibility argument--we're giving maximum flexibility to the State--is really a red herring.

The Clean Power Plan was like picking up the Constitution and tearing it up.

27 States filed a lawsuit against the Clean Power Plan, and the Supreme Court issued a stay.

Congress did not write the Clean Air Act to provide EPA with the ability to create new regulatory powers and authorities so it can transform the Nation's energy system.

Why do you think the Supreme Court issued a stay of the Clean Power Plan?

Well, some States would disagree with that. I've talked to many of them, and they view--even though you went through a process, that you set the standard.

This administration is engaged in favoritism as it pursues its carbon future for America.

EPA has created a de facto fuel and renewable energy standard for America.

EPA is pushing a back door cap-and-trade policy without congressional approval.

During the almost 6 years that I have been chairman of this subcommittee, we've had 40 hearings that have looked at various EPA rules and proposals that affect or will affect the Nation's energy and industrial sectors.

We created the policy so we have to change it.

There is an immense loss of wildlife habitat where because of the incentives that Congress has passed...

In order to reach Congress' statutory volumes there needs to be more ethanol in the system than can be absorbed just through E10.

We must do more to decrease our dependence on foreign oil and expand our use of renewable energy sources that boost economic development in our rural areas...

My bill, the Renewable Fuel Utilization, Expansion, and Leadership Act, or REFUEL, will create a new and retrofit existing infrastructure including pumps for biofuels and hydrogen tanks, piping, and electric vehicle chargers...

I believe we should have an open mind on whether changes are needed.

The third goal of the RFS is to boost rural economies, and here we can say that the program has delivered on its promise.

The RFS was also supposed to provide a means for significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but a growing number of scientists and environmental advocates are saying otherwise.

However, most of this trend is due to sharply increased domestic oil production--something that few imagined was even possible during the Congressional debates over the RFS.