Ed Whitfield

I claim the time in opposition to the amendment. The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 minutes.

I will reiterate and make sure that everyone understands that S.J. Res. 24 does not eliminate the EPA. It refers only to the President's existing coal plant rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack)…

I respectfully disagree with the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida who says this is a symbolic vote. We want this vote to be held because the Senate has already adopted this resolution. We want the House to adopt this resolution while…

Kentucky went from 18 to 41. And all of those caps were set by EPA.

There are valid concerns that FERC is allowing itself to become a helpless bystander as EPA increasingly dominates the electricity sector.

EPA's Clean Power Plan and other regulations pose a serious threat to fuel diversity and electric reliability.

FERC also plays a central role in the approval of LNG export facilities, which hold the potential to create jobs at home and help our allies abroad.

The work that FERC does often places it at the center of this change.

So in some respects, the energy situation in America is better than it has been in decades.

If it is illegal, that should be of concern to all of us.

The reason they reversed this was that it was the only way that they could institute this extreme, radical, unprecedented plan

There are serious constitutional concerns with what many see as an executive branch power grab.

I, along with others, would be flabbergasted if the Court ruled this action is legal.

If Congress wanted to authorize a comprehensive transformation of the way America gets its electricity, it would have said so.

There is nothing in the Clean Air Act that even suggests such sweeping agency action is authorized.

This EPA has become the political arm of the White House issuing regulations by fiat.

You arbitrarily set the CO2 emission caps for every State, so it's going to be extremely difficult for many of the States to reach these caps.

There's not any practical way available for anyone using reasonable cost figures to comply with this new rule, because the emission standard is so low that it simply cannot be achieved.

We perceive that that's precisely what is going to happen with this existing and new coal plant rule, that your goal is to have this implemented.

In July, the United States Supreme Court ruled in the Michigan Case that the EPA had acted unreasonably and beyond its scope of authority on Utility MACT by not considering cost.

I think that certainly is very important issue to be focused on.

On August 3rd, EPA finalized its Clean Power Plan under section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act.

I had sent a letter with Chairman Upton expressing concerns over the inappropriate use of 'qualitative factors' by the NRC.

The NRC's reputation as the 'gold standard' nuclear regulator was established over the 40 years since its creation in 1975.

Thank you very much, Chairman Shimkus. And I want to thank the Commissioners for being with us today.