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

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.

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.

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…

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

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

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

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.

Amen. I was just in China and we saw their reports in the local press. They're building new power plants they know they don't need. They just want the jobs, more coal emissions. So, again, it's a global challenge. It's not just America's…

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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...

we created the policy so we have to change it.

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

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.

As I see it, the RFS was enacted largely for three reasons--to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil, to lower greenhouse gas emissions, and to strengthen rural economies.