Date: 2011-04-06
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to H.R. On April 2. 2007. the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA held that greenhouse gases. including carbon dioxide. are "air pollutants" under the Clean Air Act. As a result. the EPA was legally obligated to determine whether greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles could be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. If the EPA made a positive finding. then it would also have to issue regulations to reduce such emissions. On December 7. 2009. the EPA issued its endangerment finding. The finding was based on a 200page synthesis of major scientific assessments authored by not only the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. but also by the U.S. Global Change Research Program. the U.S. Navy. the U.S. Department of Agriculture. the National Research Council. NOAA. NASA. the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. the CDC. the U.S. Geological Survey. the National Snow and Ice Data Center. and others. The EPAs scientific basis for the finding was extensively reviewed by. among others. a group of leading scientists from federal agencies. In order to limit the number of industrial sources that would be subject to regulation. the EPA issued its "Tailoring Rule" last May which raised the Clean Air Act statutory thresholds to require greenhouse gas permitting only for the largest industrial sources of greenhouse gas emissions from 100/250 tons to 100.000 tons per year. In response to these actions. House Energy and Commerce Chairman FRED UPTON introduced the Energy Tax Prevention Act to strip the EPA of its authority to regulate carbon under the Clean Air Act. My two largest concerns with the bill is that it overturns both the Supreme Courts finding that the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act and the EPAs scientific determination that greenhouse gases endanger human health and the environment. By doing this. the Energy Tax Prevention Act could also: prohibit EPA from enforcing existing greenhouse gas reporting requirements. prevent EPA from taking impacts on climate change into consideration when approving alternatives to ozone depleting substances under Title VI of the Clean Air Act and the Montreal Protocol. create legal uncertainty about the status of the recent motor vehicle standards adopted by EPA. and call into question EPAs authority to implement voluntary programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I must emphasize that I am opposed to the EPA moving forward with regulations on large utilities and refineries in our country. because I believe that the Congress should be the decision maker on carbon control issues. However. we cannot discount the Supreme Court decision. say climate change is not an issue and move on with it. which is the approach the Energy Tax Prevention Act takes. Instead. we should pass a bill that would delay the EPA from moving forward with these regulations so that the Congress has time to address this issue with input from Members that represent diverse constituencies nationwide. So I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to provide leadership on this front. Lets address carbon so that we dont have to worry about what the EPA is doing and whether they will be sued by outside groups to further regulate these industries or move up already announced dates for rulemaking. This Congress has the power to be 100% in control of giving our manufacturing base the regulatory certainty it needs. Cap and Trade legislation will not pass this Congress. but I believe a solution can be found for controlling carbon emissions by using nuclear and natural gas to generate electricity. As such. I encourage my colleagues to vote against this bill and instead. let us pass into law a bipartisan. comprehensive carbon control program that regulates emissions with the least disruption to our economy.