Ed Whitfield

How many minutes are remaining on both sides? The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from New Jersey has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining.

I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan for raising the issue and the gentleman from Georgia. It does illustrate some of the shortcomings of this proposed regulation because, instead of encouraging clean renewable energy, it, in…

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

I demand a recorded vote. A recorded vote was ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, this will be a 5-minute vote. There was no objection. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 247, noes 180, not…

I would like to inquire on the remaining time. The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New Jersey has 9 minutes remaining.

We have heard a lot of discussions today about how important it is with a clean energy plan to address CO<INF>2</INF> emissions in the U.S. You would think that this clean energy plan is going to make a tremendous difference. I would just…

At this time, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).

I want to say that I have the utmost respect for my colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, who is the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. He is always thoroughly prepared and does a great job, but I respectfully must…

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith), one of the original cosponsors of this legislation, who is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

With great respect to my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), whom I have had the privilege of sitting through 5 years, it seems like, of hearings almost every day, while I have the greatest respect for him, I do rise in…

Once again, I ask how much time is remaining. The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New Jersey has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.

There has got to be some discussion about that as well.

A study from the National Association of Manufacturers estimates costs of $140 billion dollars annually and 1.4 million job losses as a result of this rule.

As policymakers, we are always searching to find the right balance between protecting our air and water through regulations without unnecessarily saddling industry with unreasonable burdens that might stifle growth.

EPA came up with this standard in 2008 and only a few months ago did they provide the implementing guidelines to the states.

But the truth of the matter is EPA cannot look at costs when setting the standard.

the agency is inclined to overstate both the extent and the certainty of the benefits, while downplaying the costs.

Isn't that a relevant factor? What is the impact on the healthcare of those families who may not have health insurance?

We are so innovative in America that we come up with new solutions, and I think that is true.

Most of the compliance burden would fall on manufacturers and energy producers.

And that concludes today's hearing.

Many of us believe that the Clean Air Act needs to be changed.

There are detriments to these actions because, as you know, when an area is in noncompliance, they can't build a new plant unless they can get a permit.

How much time does Los Angeles have to comply?

Without objection, so ordered.