Ed Whitfield

May I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky has 16\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from New York has 14\1/2\ minutes remaining.

We are taking this action today to protect the American people. The American people do not expect unelected bureaucrats, acting at the discretion and the direction of the President of the United States, to unilaterally adopt regulations…

I certainly want to thank Mr. Pallone and the great job he does as ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. I am delighted that we have the opportunity to come to the House floor to debate things like S.J. Res. 24. The…

Today, we will debate resolutions of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act for the two EPA rules regulating greenhouse gas emissions from new and existing electric generating units. I might say that it is appropriate that we are…

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 might say that no one on our side of the aisle has denied climate change. I think we still live in a country where we all can express our views and we simply disagree with the President on the urgency of the issue. The President has even…

One of the great things about having a debate in this body is that we all get to express our different views, and the world benefits when different views can be expressed. One of the reasons that we brought these resolutions to the House…

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…

May I inquire as to the time remaining. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky has 10 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New Jersey has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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'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.

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.

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.