rep. joe barton's committee on energy and commerce

8/7/2019 Rep. Joe Barton's Committee on Energy and Commerce

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/rep-joe-bartons-committee-on-energy-and-commerce 1/140

Rep. Joe Barton

Committee on Energy and Commerce

Steering Committee Questionnaire Responses



Executive Summary

Rep. Joe Barton

Steering Committee Questionnaire Responses

• The chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee is the tactical arm for

the strategic decisions made by the Leadership for the issue areas under the jurisdiction of the Committee. As Chairman, I will work to advise Leadership on

those strategic decisions. Once that strategic vision is set by Leadership, my job isto implement those decisions as expeditiously as possible, and with a view to

maximizing public support for our Conference and our policy positions.

• All programs within the President’s new health care law should be reviewed and

cut. Examples include The Office of Consumer Information and Insurance

Oversight, the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality, and Medicare’sAdvertising Budget. Additionally, the Universal Service Fund, the “stimulus”

program and multiple programs within the Environmental Protection Agency and

the Department of Energy deserve scrutiny and elimination, as does spending on“government motors” and travel benefits.

• CutGo, which would require offsetting spending reductions for all new

authorizations, could be used as a means of effectively reforming our entitlementprograms, beginning with the upcoming extension of Medicare payment rates to

doctors which expires on January 1, 2011, when doctors will face an

approximately 26 percent cut in their payment rates.

• “Such-sums” authorizations constitute a signed blank check. I terminated thispractice during my term as Chairman, and have objected to it during the

chairmanships of John Dingell and Henry Waxman.

• Repealing the job-killing health care law will be a top priority, as will focusingefforts to make Medicaid sustainable and reviewing the economic impact of Food

and Drug Administration regulations that constrain competitiveness. The Energyand Commerce Committee will work to pass legislation to get more spectrum into

the hands of the free market while raising billions to bring down the deficit. And

the Committee will conduct vigorous oversight of the Federal CommunicationsCommission to ensure job- and investment-killing regulation of the Internet is

prevented or overturned. The Environmental Protection Agency’s economy-

strangling regulations are our foremost concern. If Congress’s resolution of disapproval of EPA’s endangerment finding were enacted, it would have an

immediate positive impact on employment, particularly for the construction

sector, because it would prevent the impending construction moratorium that will

be caused by EPA’s new greenhouse gas preconstruction and operating permittingrequirements scheduled to start on January 2, 2011. We will develop legislation to



reform the Consumer Protect Safety Commission and modify the ConsumerProduct Safety Improvement Act of 2008 in a way that balances consumer

protection with the needs of our nation’s job- and wealth-creators, particularly the

small businesses that have been severely affected by the law.

• We will provide quarterly plans of expected committee activity. Our first-quarterpriorities will include reviewing all federal agencies under our jurisdiction for

general management and budget issues, for submission to the Budget Committeeand consideration in the April budget. Included in this document is a month-by-

month plan for the first quarter of 2011.

• The Committee will prioritize oversight of the various agencies under its jurisdiction, beginning with a split of the Oversight and Investigations

Subcommittee into two subcommittees. We will have an Oversight Subcommittee

to focus on matters concerning the new health care law and Administrationleaders and an Investigations Subcommittee to investigate waste, fraud and abuse

and issues important to Leadership and members of the Committee.

• High oversight standards have already been implemented and are daily practice

for the Committee staff. We have fact-based, data-driven oversight in which we

gather information and review documents (sometimes in the tens of thousands)before we go public.

• During my tenure as both Chairman and Ranking Member, I have directed my

staff to keep attendance at each hearing and markup at both the Full Committeeand Subcommittee levels. We have encouraged members with poor participation

to improve by sharing this attendance data with them privately.

• In the upcoming 112th Congress, we intend to have one cabinet head testify beforethe Committee each and every week. In addition, these hearings would be

followed up by oversight and investigatory letters on a timely basis.

• Currently, one-third of the professional staff positions on the Committee havebeen dedicated to Oversight and Investigations on a full-time basis. (Currently, 11

of 27 professional staff, including two detailees, do oversight on a full-time

basis). In addition, we have had four (Republican) detailees (two from the FederalCommunication Commission, one from the Federal Trade Commission and one

from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) who have given assistance

with oversight of those agencies, or in the case of the ICE detailee, food safetyinvestigations falling within the Committee’s jurisdiction.

• The Committee will not continue the current practice of relying on omnibus

legislation to assert policy. My strong preference is to move targeted bills using

an open, transparent process.



• Sunset is a useful tool for getting rid of laws whose utility has passed but whichretain a political constituency.

• Open rules and regular order produce not only fair consideration of all points of view, but dramatically superior legislation.

• The Committee will bifurcate the workweek into subcommittee workdays and fullcommittee workdays. Every Monday and Tuesday will be occupied by

Subcommittee legislative and oversight hearings. Every Wednesday and Thursday

will be used for Full Committee legislative and oversight hearings or markups.

• Subject to Leadership approval, the Committee will organize a task force for allfreshmen not on Committee who wish to raise issues that fall within our

jurisdiction and to provide recommendations. These task forces will hold selective

field hearings on the health care law in key media markets important toLeadership and my Committee members.

• I am committed to lead a schedule that will most benefit the work of the entire

Conference. I am ready to work Monday through Friday, three weeks per month.The fourth week of the month will usually be reserved as a district work period, or

regional field hearings could be scheduled during that week.

• To encourage maximum Member participation, the Committee instituted the

practice of routinely tabulating all attendance at hearings, markups and otherformal sessions, not only for the Full Committee, but also its five Subcommittees.

Rarely, private follow-up discussions with staff or Members have occurred when

gentle remedial action seemed appropriate, and these discussions have never

failed to produce the intended effect. Consequently, the mechanism for gatheringthe information is currently in full operation, and future compilations could be

made immediately available for public examination should the Conference

determine that is desirable.

• Similarly, while in the minority, we have compiled, posted and distributed to thenews media both narratives and tables covering votes cast in Committee onimportant legislation. Such was expressly the case in the cap-and-trade markup

and the health care markup, in which every vote of every member was explained,

posted on the front page of the committee Web site and distributed via news

release, usually within 10 minutes of the conclusion of voting.

• The Committee currently consists of 36 Democrats and 23 Republicans. In thelast year that Republicans were in the majority, the makeup was 31 Republicans

and 26 Democrats. I recommend a Committee size of 51 or 53 Members with aratio reflecting that of the full House, plus one. Accordingly, the breakdown of

majority/minority would be 31/20 or 32/21.



• The Republican communications strategy should embrace, not resist, theindividualization of interactive public outreach through the New Media. The

Energy and Commerce Committee’s Republican staff already has one person

designated specifically to deal with New Media, but that’s only the beginning.

Every Member and every Committee and should have in their holster an active

Twitter, Facebook and YouTube account.

• No one can ignore the earthquake that the Tea Party just sent through the

foundations of government. The Tea Party movement fractured the Roosevelt-era

coalition that had been the Democrats’ core strength since the Great Depression.Voters wanted real change, liked our ideas, voted for us and have given us a

second chance. We should use this second chance to build a conservativecoalition that repeals ObamaCare, replaces it with a market-driven health care

policy and uses conservative values to reform government across the board for a

better future for our children and our country.



P a g e | 1

Spending

Q. 1: Weekly Spending Cuts: The Pledge to America included a commitment to bring a

proposal to cut spending to the floor each week. This will require that each Committee

produce proposed spending reductions. Please provide specific examples of programs inyour Committee’s jurisdiction that you believe ought to be considered for elimination or

significant reduction.

Health:

All programs within ObamaCare should be reviewed and cut. Below are some specific examplesof savings to be found within that law:

The Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight: This agency was created bythe Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to oversee every change

in ObamaCare makes to the private insurance market. Invested with immense powers, this is theagency that decides who will or will not obtain a waiver from the law’s requirements, and yet itcontains absolutely no authorizing language within the text of the law. Through the work of ouroversight team and Subcommittee Ranking Member Burgess, our Committee obtained one of thefirst briefings by the office’s director and obtained a guarantee by the director to provide acomplete accounting of its staff, their duties, and the amount of money that this office will obtainannually, as well as a complete listing of the waivers granted, denied, and the reasons why. Thisinvestigation is ongoing. Without this agency in place and fully functioning, the ObamaAdministration will not be able to drastically change the private insurance market.

The Agency for Health Care Research and Quality: Operating as an arm of HHS, the Agencyfor Health Care Research and Quality (AHRQ) directs and funds research into determining whatit deems to be the “best” course of treatment for a variety of diseases or conditions. ObamaCaredrastically extends the powers of this agency. The AHRQ will play a large role in assertinggovernment control of health care. The oversight team of the Committee is now identifyingAHRQ’s new funding, powers, and duties, and is working with the Government AccountabilityOffice (GAO) to provide a full accounting of the agency that will help us pick and chooseprecisely the functions and authority that should be removed from this agency.

Medicare’s Advertising Budget: In the two months before the election, the ObamaAdministration spent $3 million on television advertisements featuring actor Andy Griffith. Thesole purpose of these ads appeared to be to drive support for ObamaCare among seniors in theweeks leading up to the election. Some might not think $3 million is much money in the contestof bailouts and deficits, but the Committee will have zero tolerance for this misuse of taxpayers’funds. To that end, the Committee has already asked the GAO to provide a thorough accountingof HHS’ spending efforts—via print, radio, television, etc.—to “educate” the public about thealleged benefits of the president’s signature program during a time when such efforts seemed soplainly aimed at producing votes for Democrats.



P a g e | 2

Waste, Fraud and Abuse: The President claims that savings gained from eliminating waste,fraud and abuse would pay for his health care law. Yet Democrats made no noticeable effort toactually eliminate anything, instead opting to simply raise taxes and cut more than $500 billionout of Medicare. The Committee is in the initial stages of launching a strenuous program in 2011to finally combat waste, fraud and abuse through both oversight and policy. We will demand

answers from the joint HHS-DOJ Task Force (“Project HEAT”) on health care fraud, whiledeveloping a comprehensive policy that will make Medicare and Medicaid fraud a thing of thepast. Analysts have estimated that the amount of money lost to waste, fraud and abuse in thegovernment health care system can be as high as $60 billion a year, yet this past May HHSproudly called it a major success when it managed to track down just 3.3 percent of the totallosses. Even with resources that are microscopic relative to the vast capacities of theAdministration, this Committee will do much better.

ObamaCare’s Early Retiree Program: Despite our persistent inquiries, HHS refuses toprovide the Congress with basic information about how the $5 billion for the law’s “earlyretiree” program is being spent. It is likely that the same scenario is playing out here as it did

with the granting of health care law waivers: This Administration will favor labor unions andbring its public relations machinery to bear to minimize potentially negative stories about itsactions and inaction. In January, we will begin a formal quest to follow the money when HHScan no longer resist our efforts.

The High-Risk Pools: ObamaCare gave each state an option to either set up high-risk pools orstep aside and let the federal government do so on the state’s behalf. In the new year, thisCommittee will obtain information from all 50 states on how this decision has played out,exposing the fact that the law simply asked states to create an entirely new entitlement overnightand virtually guaranteed that many states would be forced to cede this responsibility to thefederal government. The result? News reports indicate that enrollment in these pools is far lowerthan expected, that resources are being wasted, and that a full-scale reevaluation of this spendingis required.

The Dodd Hospital Provision: While the Senate was busy spending the early days of the lastChristmas season on ObamaCare, Senator Chris Dodd gave himself a going-away present:Section 10502 of the law, which delivers $100 million for any hospital “that contains a state’ssole public academic medical and dental school.” As you know, the eligible hospital was locatedin Connecticut. Representatives from other states are already complaining that their efforts tocompete for this money are being ignored by HHS. This Committee will restore honesty tohealth policy and end the use of HHS to deliver political patronage, including monument-to-megrants like Senator Dodd’s.

Other options for cuts in HHS include:

• Repealing the public health slush fund created under Section 4002 of the new health carelaw, which would save $15 billion.

• Repealing the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation created under Section 3021of the new health care law, which would save $10 billion.

• Eliminating duplicative prescription drug-monitoring programs.



P a g e | 3

• Consolidating the numerous Offices of Women’s Health that are in almost every HHSagency into a single Office of Women’s Health.

• Eliminating ineffective public service campaigns.

• Eliminating the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, as theoffice lacks a clear mission and simply acts as a think tank without any substantive

responsibilities.

Energy and Environment:

Cutting back spending to FY 2008 levels and freezing hiring would save substantial sums. If wecut The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) budget back to FY 2008 levels, we’d save$2.8 billion. In FY 2008, EPA’s budget was $7.472 billion. In FY 2010, EPA’s budget was$10.297 billion. That’s an increase of 37.8 percent when working families across the country arescrimping and saving and wondering how they’re going to pay for their retirement and theirchildren’s education. This isn’t even counting the $7.12 billion which the EPA received in thestimulus funding, which would make its total FY 2010 numbers a 133 percent increase from FY

2008.

The Department of Energy (DOE) was given $33.31 billion in the stimulus, only $9.69 billion of which has been paid out. We need to investigate both where this money has been spent and whatamounts are still unobligated or can otherwise be recovered.

Just a few programs which should be eliminated, reformed or reduced:

• DOE’s Weatherization Assistance Program has been plagued by fraud and inefficiency.

• The Energy Star program, split between EPA and DOE, is duplicative of private sectorefforts, vulnerable to fraud, poorly managed and ineffective.

• The Green Power Partnership is an EPA program to help people and businesses buygreen electricity. The businesses which sell green electricity are capable of marketing itthemselves.

• The EPA’s SmartWay Transport helps encourage more fuel-efficient transportation,including personal vehicles and fleet trucks. Surely individuals and trucking companieshave sufficient incentive to save fuel without a federal program telling them they shoulddo so.

• The EPA’s SunWise Program teaches children and their caregivers how to protectthemselves from overexposure to the sun. We are actually funding a program to teachpeople to use sunscreen.

• EPA’s Environmental Education Program provides program grants, such as $121,953 for

Cornell University’s “Bird Sleuths,” a children’s bird-watching program, and $15,000 fora sustainable gardening program in Alameda County, California. Although these may beexcellent programs, they seem like luxuries, not necessities.

• Do we really need eight science and advisory councils at the EPA? The duplication inscientific advisory councils is ridiculous—we strongly support science-based regulation,but the scientific advisory system should be effective and efficient.

o Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysiso Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee



P a g e | 4

o Environmental Technology Councilo National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technologyo Office of Science Policyo Science Advisoro Science Advisory Boardo

Science Policy Council• EPA’s Climate Change Kids program, to indoctrinate children on EPA’s view of climate

change.

• The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) (formerly known as the U.S.Climate Change Science Program) coordinates and integrates federal research on changesin the global environment; its research contributes to the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change.

• And here are several greenhouse gas (GHG) budget-related requests identified in the EPAproposed 2011 budget that also deserve attention:

o GHG Reporting Rules Implementation: $20.8 Milliono Clean Air Act GHG Permitting (i.e., for new GHG preconstruction and operating

permitting): $30 Milliono GHG New Source Performance Standards: $7.5 Milliono Green Travel/Conferencing: $5 Million

Other ideas within E&C Jurisdiction:

The Universal Service Fund: The Committee will seek to reform the $7 billion, high costUniversal Service Fund, which should be significantly reduced and focused on present priorities.

The Stimulus: This Committee will consider legislation to rescind all unspent stimulus moneywithin our jurisdiction. The stimulus didn’t work, and we are going to get that taxpayer money

back.

Government Motors: As many Members of Congress experienced, the Administration has beenunwilling to provide basic information on its efforts to control General Motors and Chrysler. Inthe new year, we will seek to obtain a complete breakdown of what the administration has done,what they have spent, and what they are planning to do in the future with the goal of findingareas to cut.

Travel Benefits: We will review and seek to minimize all travel benefits at all federal agencieswithin the Committee’s jurisdiction.



P a g e | 5

Q. 2: CutGo: Both the Speaker and the Leader have discussed instituting a new

requirement (often called CutGo) that any proposal to authorize new or increased spending

also include a proposed reduction in current actual spending elsewhere. (This requirement

is reflected in the proposed Conference Rules with respect to suspension bills.) Are you

willing to enforce a similar requirement with respect to all legislation moving through your

Committee?

Yes. I believe that the Leadership proposal to require offsetting spending reductions for all newauthorizations could be used as a means of effectively reforming our entitlement programs. Forexample, the latest extension of Medicare payment rates to doctors expires on January 1, 2011,when doctors will face an approximately 26 percent cut in their payment rates. A long-term fixwould cost hundreds of billions, but doing so with a rule to require offsetting reductions couldencourage Medicare reform and produce savings in other Medicare areas.



P a g e | 6

Q. 3: Authorizations: Many Committees have adopted the practice of authorizing “such

sums as may be necessary” rather than specific sums of money for certain programs or

activities. This blanket authorization undermines accountability and makes it difficult to

determine the true cost of proposals. Will you end the practice of authorizing “such sums

as may be necessary” in your Committee?

Yes. “Such sums” constitutes a signed blank check. I terminated this practice during my term asChairman, and objected bluntly, repeatedly and consistently to any authorization of “such sumsas necessary” during the chairmanships of John Dingell and Henry Waxman.



P a g e | 7

Jobs and the Economy

Q. 4: Agenda: With near 10 percent unemployment, the economy is obviously at the

forefront of our constituents’ concerns. What are some of the initiatives—legislative and

oversight—that your Committee can undertake to address barriers (including proposedand adopted regulations) to job creation and the economic growth?

Health Care

ObamaCare is disrupting the American health care sector and the economy as a whole. Fixing itwill be a three-part strategy: (1) we will pass a bill to repeal the bill; (2) we will try to end theuncertainty the American people face about how the law affects them; and (3) we will replace thelaw with market-based reforms to reduce health care costs, provide for greater price transparencyand consumer choice, and ease government control and regulation, which will encourage job andwealth creation.

An example is the uncertainty created in the health care law is the employer mandate. Theemployer mandate will encourage employers to refrain from hiring, either to stay under themandate threshold or to avoid having to pay an extra $2,000 for each additional employee. Byrepealing the employer mandate along with the rest of the law, we will free those employersfrom this burden and thereby encourage job creation again.

Constituents have told me that they are afraid to hire because they do not know how the mandatewill affect their businesses and they don’t have the money to hire high-priced lawyers andaccountants to figure it out. By holding hearings on the employer mandate and asking theAdministration and experts to explain how the mandate applies to our country’s smallbusinesses, we can help clear up that uncertainty so employers feel confident in hiring again.

Another important component is addressing the fiscal challenges Medicaid is creating byhandcuffing state governments. I am committed to reforming the welfare program known asMedicaid to make it sustainable and bring it back to its core mission of caring for the trulyneedy. We must eliminate many of the mandated benefit requirements to allow states to tailorbenefit packages to specific populations and allow states to charge and collect co-payments whenbeneficiaries go to the emergency room for non-emergency care. These will be first steps toreforming Medicaid and making the program sustainable and help states create favorableconditions for economic growth. We will also partner with willing governors to develop longer-term strategies to reform the Medicaid program.

There are other current policies that must be addressed through oversight and legislation. Wewill also review the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Because of its authority over food,drugs, devices, cosmetics and tobacco, FDA’s regulatory actions have a tremendous impact onthe American economy, ands its recent lack of regulatory competitiveness as compared to othercountries is killing American jobs. Recent studies have shown America falling behind othercountries in new therapy approvals. The FDA is delaying approval of new therapies to the pointwhere the same products are approved more quickly in Europe. This not only causes American



P a g e | 8

patients to wait longer for new treatments but puts American companies at a competitivedisadvantage. Unless the United States reclaims its position as the incubator of medicalinnovation, we will see medical technology development—and well-paying jobs—move to othercountries. The Energy and Commerce Committee will hold hearings to identify the currentregulatory hurdles at the FDA and author legislation if necessary to address them.

FDA regulatory actions (or lack thereof) on drugs and devices in the last two years have cost theUnited States jobs and should this inaction continue, will permanently send high-paying drug anddevice industry jobs overseas. We need to shed light on how foreign countries and theirregulators are proactively taking advantage of FDA’s inaction to attract jobs. Early nextCongress, the Committee will hold hearings on American competitiveness in the drug/deviceworld. In the next few months, we will have new studies showing how FDA’s lack of regulatorycertainty/transparency (drug- and device-approval processes) are responsible for sending high-paying jobs overseas. By shedding light on the FDA problems in 2011 through Committeehearings/reports and then pushing to solve these problems in the PDUFA/MDUFAreauthorizations in 2012, we can help Americans get back to work.

FDA’s lack of regulatory competitiveness also has an adverse impact on the food, device, andtobacco industries as well. Through effective oversight, we can force FDA to abide by the lawand engage in conversations with stakeholders, instead of ignoring them like FDA does now. Oureffective oversight will free these industries from FDA’s regulatory uncertainty so they cancreate jobs.

Communications, Technology, and the Internet

Broadband is becoming the heart of modern advanced economies, and access to radio spectrumis an absolute necessity for rolling out advanced networks. Auctioning spectrum for commercialuse is one of the most efficient and cost-effective ways we can advance broadband deployment,stimulate the economy, expand investment and create jobs. The experts in industry, at theFederal Communications Commission and in Congress have a similar view of the issue: there isa coming “spectrum crunch.” The Energy and Commerce Committee and the full Congress mustact to prevent it.

Expanding wireless broadband across the country—and particularly in rural areas—is one of themost effective ways to bring the economic benefits of the Internet to all Americans, and rebuildour economy. We should work to get free spectrum in the marketplace as quickly and efficientlyas possible, and to free up more. The Committee will play the central role in those efforts.

Not only does auctioning spectrum put more resources into the marketplace and incentivizeinvestment, but it allows industry to pay taxpayers for the privilege of deploying those resources,rather than forcing taxpayers to subsidize industry. That is one reason as Chairman, Ichampioned the digital television transition legislation five years ago. That transition both raised$19 billion and cleared spectrum that will be the backbone of next-generation wirelessbroadband services.



P a g e | 9

The Committee will take the next step logical step. For huge swaths of radio spectrum, licenseesare not free to put their spectrum to new, higher-valued uses. The Committee will push tofacilitate this through innovative solutions such as incentive auctions and to make better use of the current resources through advances in technology. The Committee must also work tostreamline the government’s use of spectrum, while ensuring that our national defense systems

are robust. Large amounts of spectrum that are allocated for the government are usedsporadically, incompletely, and inefficiently. Government agencies do not have the sameeconomic incentives as private companies to make the best use of these resources. Identifyinginefficiencies, getting the government out of the way, and allowing the private sector to do whatthey do best—all while raising revenue to lessen the deficit—will be a priority of technologypolicy for the Committee.

The best way to hinder this innovation and to deter investment is to impose governmentregulations without evidence of a problem. As we facilitate the rollout of these new networks,and as we continue to rely on our wired networks, the government must not stand in the way of this remarkable explosion of technological and economic activity. Network neutrality regulations

proposed by the FCC will almost certainly slow the economy. According to economist ColemanBazelon of The Brattle Group, if the FCC goes forward with regulation, revenue growth in thebroadband sector could slow by about one-sixth over the next decade, broadband sector jobs lostcould be expected to total more than 14,000 in 2011, and grow to more than 340,000 jobs by2020. Economy-wide, 65,000 jobs could be put in jeopardy in the coming year, with the totaleconomy-wide impact growing to almost 1.5 million jobs affected by 2020, due to reducedrevenue growth in the broadband sector.

The Committee will work to pass legislation to get more spectrum into the hands of the freemarket while raising billions to bring down the deficit. And the Committee will conduct vigorousoversight of the FCC to ensure job- and investment-killing regulation of the Internet is preventedor overturned.

Energy and Environment

EPA’s economy-strangling regulations are our foremost concern. If H.J.Res. 77, the resolution of disapproval I introduced this past March that currently has 121 cosponsors, was enacted, itwould have an immediate positive impact on employment, particularly for the constructionsector, because it would remove the impending construction moratorium that will be caused byEPA’s new GHG preconstruction and operating permitting requirements scheduled to start onJanuary 2, 2011.

The Pledge to America’s proposed requirement that Congress approve regulations that have aneconomic impact of $100 million or more annually would also significantly promote job growth,including restraining EPA’s ability to move forward with new regulations that have potentiallysevere impacts for jobs and the economy, including ozone National Ambient Air QualityStandards (NAAQs), the boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) rules, theanticipated utility MACT rule (expected to be proposed next year), and the cooling water intakestructures rule (also expected to be proposed next year). We would explore moving resolutionsof disapproval on all job-killing regulations, and hold hearings on their economic effects and the



P a g e | 10

science and procedures EPA is using to attempt to justify them. We have attached an extensivelist of these regulations.

Restoring budget and license application process for constructing a nuclear waste repository atYucca Mountain, as required by statute, and placing the project back on track for completing

construction by 2020 would (a) restore hundreds of contractor support jobs for applicationsupport construction planning, (b) more jobs for related infrastructure development in Nevada,(c) save Federal/taxpayer liabilities on the order of an average $500 million per year beginning in2020, and (d) help revitalize the nuclear industry.

DOE has already awarded most of the stimulus funds, though outlays lag. For example, theweatherization program has awarded almost all of its allotted $16.6 billion, yet only $4.5 billionhas been distributed. We will work to end those contracts/awards and give the remaining $12billion back to the Treasury.

The Department of the Interior and the EPA have proposed policies to regulated hydraulic

fracturing. Such regulation could chill domestic oil and gas development and would negativelyimpact our efforts to increase energy security and to provide for a reliable and affordable energysupply. We have repeatedly heard testimony before our Committee that access to reliable andaffordable energy is essential for our nation’s economic growth and competitiveness. Thisregulation would also put great costs on an industry that provides domestic jobs for Americans.The Committee will work to prevent this regulation and thereby encourage job creation in thisindustry.

In conjunction with the Committee on Natural Resources, which has primary jurisdiction overoffshore drilling, the Committee on Energy and Commerce will continue to investigate theAdministration’s ban on offshore drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Coast,which will cost the country tens of thousands of domestic jobs.

Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection

We will develop legislation to reform the Consumer Protect Safety Commission and modify theConsumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 in a way that balances consumer protectionwith the needs of our nation’s job- and wealth-creators, particularly the small businesses thathave been severely affected by the law.



P a g e | 11

Planning and Accountability

Q. 5: Quarterly Plans: Critical to our success will be our ability to plan our legislative

program, our oversight activities, and our message. This will require advanced planning on

everyone’s part, including the Committees. Would you be able and willing to provide theLeadership with detailed plans for your Committee on a quarterly basis? Please attach an

outline of your current plan for the first quarter of 2011. (We understand this plan may

undergo significant revision in the weeks ahead, but we are hoping for a sense of current

plans.)

Yes, we will provide quarterly plans of expected Committee activity. Our first-quarter prioritieswill include reviewing all federal agencies under our jurisdiction for general management andbudget issues for submission to the Budget Committee and consideration in the April budget.The following is a detailed, tentative plan of our priorities for the first quarter of 2011:

Energy and Commerce 2011—First-Quarter Plan

January

One of the top priorities of the new Congress will be the repeal of ObamaCare and replace withnew reforms by August 2011. The Committee will begin the work the public has demandedimmediately: we will hold a markup on a bill to repeal this law in the first month. This and futureactions will be accompanied by simultaneous oversight hearings probing the effects of the lawand how the Administration is implementing it. Starting the first week of session, under myleadership and coordinated with Leadership, Subcommittee chairmen and other relevantCommittees, I will begin vigorous oversight of the law, set the stage for its repeal, and begin theprocess for its replacement. We will also begin work on a range of other health care issues.

The first two invitations the Committee sends will be to Health and Human Services (HHS)Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)Administrator Dr. Donald Berwick to testify about the implementation of the health care law.Both have been unavailable to meet with the Committee and have ignored our requests to brief the Committee. We will also ask Jay Agnoff, the Director of the Office of Consumer Informationand Insurance Oversight (OCIIO) to appear before the Committee. Mr. Agnoff is essentially theObama Administration’s private insurance czar: he is responsible for overseeing the health carelaw’s effects on private insurers, and this often literally involves picking winners and losers, ashis office grants waivers and exemptions from parts of the law that are unworkable for someinsurers or businesses. A hearing with Mr. Agnoff will detail his office’s efforts, as well as probewhether or not anyone in the Administration is playing favorites with health care waivers.

Richard Foster, the Chief Actuary for CMS, will be asked to appear before the Committee inJanuary. Mr. Foster concluded in his analysis that ObamaCare will not rein in rising health carecosts and federal spending. In April, 22 Republican members of the Committee joined me inurging Democrats to call a hearing to get the facts. Unfortunately, the Democrats chose not to



P a g e | 12

hold a hearing. We will hold this hearing to better understand Mr. Foster’s analysis, and alsoseek information on why Mr. Foster was unable to project costs of the President’s bill until afterit was passed by the House.

The latest extension of Medicare payment rates to doctors expires on January 1, 2011. Doctors

are thus facing approximately a 26 percent cut in their payment rates. We must hold hearings toexplain the problem with the sustainable growth rate (SGR), and develop legislation to address,this continuing problem, and the Committee will hold such a hearing in the first month of mychairmanship.

Also during the first month, we plan to hold hearings into the Federal CommunicationsCommission (FCC) efforts to regulate the Internet. The FCC has announced that it will try toimpose Internet regulations under Title I of the Communications Act. The Committee willinvestigate the FCC’s decision, hold hearings probing the FCC’s plan, and consider potentiallegislative responses.

During the first month, the Committee will begin performing strong oversight of EPA,particularly as it relates to greenhouse gas and other Clean Air Act regulations, that will raiseenergy costs, hinder energy development, destroy jobs, and restrict future economic growth. Wewill hold hearings with EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to discuss these regulations. TheCommittee will hold EPA regulatory oversight hearings, at least one per month, on major EPAregulations. For the first month, we plan to examine the costs of the Ozone NAAQS rule byhaving a panel of industry participants explain how costly implementation and compliance willbe. We will also want to examine process issues with this rule with EPA Administrator Jacksonor EPA Air Chief Gina McCarthy.

We plan to review the Clean Air Act to clarify that the original intent of the 1990 amendmentsthat state that greenhouse gases are not criterion pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The firststep will be to hold hearings on the EPA’s endangerment finding and the cost of theseregulations.

February

We will continue to hold hearings on every aspect of the health care law, from the law’s effectson jobs and the economy to its disastrous implications for the fiscal health of our nation. Duringour second month in the majority, the Committee will hold a hearing on the true cost of thehealth care law. This will expose how Medicare cuts are used to both claim the program will lastlonger, while using that money to pay for a new entitlement. We will demand a fair and accurateexplanation of what the law really costs, not just the manufactured cost Democrats obtained byonly paying out a few years of benefits with a decade of taxes. After we have analyzed the law’seffect on the cost to the government, we will turn to the law’s effect on stakeholders: We plan tohold a hearing featuring doctors, patients, hospitals and drug manufacturers on how the healthcare law has affected their respective costs.

During the same period we will hold a hearing to highlight the irreparable damage the law iscreating in states. Many states have expressed grave concerns about the mandates and costs



P a g e | 13

required of the law because it simply dumps 23 million Americans onto the welfare programknown as Medicaid. This is obviously a serious concern amongst our nation’s governors, and Ilook forward to inviting many of them to share their thoughts on the health care law withMembers of Congress and the public.

While this Committee examines the cost of the law to federal and state governments, it will alsocontinue oversight of how it affects the private market. As Chairman, I will ask the heads of thelarger insurance companies to testify before this Committee on the effects the law will have onprivate insurance. Concurrently, this Committee will have a hearing on waivers granted by theOCIIO, so that the public will know what effects of the health care law on the private market arebeing hidden from view.

We will hold hearings on competitive bidding. The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003established a new Competitive Bidding Program for certain Durable Medical Equipment thatreplaced fee-schedule payments with competitively bid payment amounts. The amounts thatMedicare will pay are on average 32 percent less than the amounts paid under the current fee

schedule amount. This program provides an example of how successful market reforms inMedicare and Medicaid could lower health care costs and provide savings for taxpayers andbeneficiaries. At the same, time we will examine the definition of “local participant” under theregulations. We will need to give small- and medium-sized providers a chance to participate inthe program. In the Dallas-Fort Worth Metro Area, only one local provider was designated for anarea of about five million people. With the program set to begin on the first day of 2011, ahearing in February will be the perfect opportunity to evaluate the first month of competitivebidding, and whether it is living up to its promises.

We will also hold hearings on price transparency in the health care system, and the inability of patients to get prices for procedures from public hospitals. This is likely to be an area in whichwe will find bipartisan cooperation. Transparency will promote competition and more carefulshopping by health care consumers.

The Committee will hold EPA regulatory oversight hearings, at least one per month, on majorEPA regulations. During the second month, we plan to examine the Boiler MACT rule. We willreview the costs of this rule by having a panel of industry participants explain how costlyimplementation and compliance will be. We will also examine whether compliance is evenpossible, as even EPA has recently suggested that they may need to tamper this rule so that it ispossible to comply.

The Committee will hold a hearing and seek legislative ways to facilitate the licensing of newnuclear reactors, encourage new technological development and work to ensure development of the Yucca Mountain repository for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel.

The Committee will continue to investigate and hold hearings on the closure of Yucca Mountainnuclear waste depository. We will call the NRC Commissioners to discuss nuclear waste storageissues and to ask them that if Yucca is never to be revived, where they plan to go next.



P a g e | 14

The Committee will hold hearings and develop policies to promote development and deploymentof domestic energy resources like clean coal and cost-effective renewable energy.

The Committee will hold hearings and seek legislative ways to encourage high-tech energysolutions—such as smart grid and distributed generation—that increase efficiency and give

consumers more control over their energy use.

The Committee will seek to reform the Universal Service Fund, which should be reduced, notincreased. We will hold a hearing on the current program and its budget during the first quarterof 2011.

The Committee will conduct oversight of broadband stimulus spending. There is evidence thatsome of the $7 billion in NTIA and RUS grants are going to overbuilt areas rather than tounserved areas that are not economic for the private sector.

The Committee will continue to investigate the failure of the stimulus to authorize the NTIA to

conduct ongoing oversight of its share of the multi-year grants, worth $4.7 billion. The lack of agency oversight means that the grants are likely to be rife with fraud or inefficiencies.

There is growing, bipartisan support for “incentive auction” legislation that would authorize theFCC to share some proceeds with licensees, such as broadcasters, that voluntarily agree torelinquish spectrum for wireless broadband.

We will also hold a legislative hearing on a plan to auction the D-block for commercialbroadband that would allow some of the proceeds to help build a public-safety network.

March

No Committee will spend more time observing the first anniversary of ObamaCare. In the monthof March, not only will we invite back both Kathleen Sebelius and Dr. Berwick to testify aboutthe law, but we are going to do so at a town hall. It is time the American people were able to ask a few questions of the individuals now in charge of their health care.

During this same month, we will hold hearings analyzing the law’s effects on large and smallemployers, how the federal government and states are handling the high-risk pool program, andthe early-retiree program.

We will also use the month of March to hold hearings on what was left out of the health carelaw: medical malpractice reform, bulk purchasing power among small businesses or groups, andthe ability to purchase insurance across state lines. Highlighted these common-sense solutions toour health care system’s problems will help begin establishing with what we will replace thehealth care law.

The one-year anniversary of the law’s passage will likely be the best time to finally hold hearingson the amount of money HHS has spent publicizing ObamaCare. The oversight staff of theCommittee has already requested that GAO conduct a study of all HHS spending on this matter,



P a g e | 15

and we will be able to publicly discuss the truth about the propaganda campaign by theAdministration to sell the health care law in advance of the elections. For example, SecretarySebelius recently distributed promotional brochures at taxpayer expense which touted“improvements to Medicare Advantage,” the program that the new health care law will cut by 50percent. We also want to know why Secretary Sebelius issued a gag order to insurers when they

began to talk about the possibility of the new law forcing rate increases.

In March, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission usually releases their report on thesolvency of the program. Due to the health care law’s substantial changes to the Medicareprogram, the 2011 report will be highly anticipated, and a hearing discussing the report willlikely yield great insights on the health care law’s effects.

The Committee will hold EPA regulatory oversight hearings, at least one per month, on majorEPA regulations. In March, we plan to examine the new E15 rule and issues related to a morewidespread deployment of E15 as a transportation fuel, including safety concerns. We will ask EPA and DOE to testify and explain the testing they did before deciding that E15 was safe in

certain automobiles.

We plan to begin work on an initiative to restore FDA’s regulatory competitiveness. Because of its authority over food, drugs, devices, cosmetics and tobacco, FDA’s regulatory actions have atremendous impact on the American economy. Its recent lack of regulatory competitiveness ascompared to other countries is killing American jobs.

The Committee will consider options for FCC reform. As the recent net neutrality disputes makeclear, FCC processes could be improved. Some have suggested that the FCC should set deadlinesfor proceedings and publish actual text of proposed regulations before adoption.

Working with the Subcommittee Chairman on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, wewill hold hearings and consider legislation on internet privacy. Because there are some concernsthat current bills advantage Web companies over phone and cable companies, and largebusinesses over small, we will explore all ideas while probing technological feasibility andseeking ways to resolve disagreements over whether to have a self-regulatory, opt-out, or opt-inapproach.

The Committee will also hold multiple hearings on the implementation and costs of theConsumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008. We will seek to uncover the problems withthe law and develop legislation to reform the Consumer Protect Safety Commission in a way thatbalances consumer protection with the needs of our nation’s job- and wealth-creators.

April

In April and the months after, we will continue to hold hearings about what the health care lawmeans to states and companies throughout America and how it continues to harm the country’seconomy. Many companies have already told the Securities and Exchange Commission that thelaw’s changes to the retiree prescription drug plans will increase their costs. Other companieshave indicated that the burdens of the law will force health care premiums to increase. During



P a g e | 16

the week of April 15, the Committee should hold a hearing on the many taxes and costsassociated with the health care law, and how they affect American businesses.

The Committee will thoroughly review ways to cut government spending. A fine place to start isthrough reforming the entitlement spending that now amounts to $1.4 trillion and accounts for

more than half the federal budget. We must first build a record showing the entitlement problemwhile reviewing options to reform these programs. That is why we will call for hearings on boththe dismal fiscal future of Medicare and Medicaid, and possible solutions that will guarantee thesolvency of these programs in the future. As in January we will have held hearings on the SGR,we will have taken the right steps toward true entitlement reform. Finally, nearly $60 billion inlosses to waste and fraud a year is too much, and we will no longer stand for it. As Chairman, Ivow to make substantive progress in combating the waste, fraud and abuse rampant in theMedicare and Medicaid.

The best energy policy in the past 10 years came from the private sector. New technology hasprovided America with 300 years of domestic natural gas. In conjunction with the Chairman of

the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, we will hold a hearing to allow that success story tobe told.

We plan to do oversight of and hold hearings on the Department of Energy’s stimulus spending.We will ask DOE officials to testify about where the money is going and attempt to identifywaste, fraud or abuse. We will attempt to highlight the delays in funding going out the door andhow much of a failure the stimulus was.



P a g e | 17

Oversight

Q. 6: Priorities: What are your oversight priorities and how do they relate to jobs and

spending?

The Committee will prioritize oversight of the various agencies under its jurisdiction. Oversightwill not merely be a political messaging activity but rather will be calibrated to unearth the job-killing, overspending elements of each agency. As I mentioned in my presentation to the SteeringCommittee, I suggest a split of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee into twoSubcommittees. An Oversight Subcommittee to focus on matters concerning ObamaCare andAdministration leaders and an Investigations Subcommittee to investigate waste, fraud and abuseand issues important to Leadership and members of the Committee.

My oversight plan includes the following. Attached is a comprehensive oversight andinvestigations plan we have prepared in advance of the 112

thCongress.

Health and Human Services—The Committee will examine the impact of the health care lawon how it increases spending and negatively impacts the economy, including job losses.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):

Clean Air Act (CAA)/Endangerment Finding—The Committee will review significantrulemakings under the CAA and the potential economic and job impacts of these rulemakings onthe energy, manufacturing, construction and other critical sectors of the U.S. economy. TheCommittee’s review will include oversight of the EPA’s decisions, strategies and actions to meetCAA standards, and the current role of cost, employment and feasibility considerations in CAArulemakings. The Committee will examine the Administration’s efforts to regulate greenhousegas emissions domestically under the CAA, based on its endangerment finding.

Global Warming—The Committee will continue to monitor international negotiations on effortsto control greenhouse gas emissions in connection with concerns about global warming. TheCommittee will consider whether international agreements are achievable, effective,scientifically and technically well-grounded, and will not undermine U.S. job and economicgrowth. Additionally, we will continue to investigate the global warming grants given by thefederal government to ensure that sound science and open and transparent practices areconducted.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC)—The Committee will oversee FCCmanagement and operations, including the impact of its decisions and actions on the U.S.economy and economic growth. The Committee will examine what processes are in place tocontrol waste, fraud, and abuse of broadband stimulus funds. The Committee will also evaluatethe impact of FCC policies or rulemaking related to network neutrality requirements or otherattempts to regulate the Internet, media ownership rules, cybersecurity and privacy regulation.



P a g e | 18

Food and Drug Administration—The Committee will examine whether FDA’s uncertain andunclear regulatory approach lacks predictability and transparency, and whether FDA’s approachfor both low-risk and high-risk medical devices is having an adverse impact on innovation,patient care, health care costs and jobs.

All Agencies of Jurisdiction —The Committee will investigate federal employee compensation,focusing on the reported increase in the number of federal employees earning $150,000 or morea year. The Committee will examine special pay programs under Title 42, which have nostatutory pay cap, used at HHS and EPA, and whether the spending for these pay programs havebeen abusive, or in violation of federal laws or regulations.



P a g e | 19

Q. 7: Appropriateness: The media wants to denigrate our oversight work by describing it

as purely partisan political exercises. We play into that when our investigations look

political and partisan. One way to ensure that oversight is focused on our priorities is to

conduct oversight with uniform standards: What’s the purpose of this program? What are

the roles and responsibilities of the program? Is this the best use of taxpayers’ time and

money? How will we determine the success and failure of the program? Will you work todevelop such standards for your Committee?

Yes. High oversight standards have already been implemented and are daily practice for theCommittee staff. We have fact-based, data-driven oversight, in which we gather information,review documents (sometimes in the tens of thousands), before we go public. As Chairman, Iwould continue to insist on high standards for oversight and investigations, which would bolsterkey fiscal messaging themes as opposed to oversight that would appear merely political. I servedas Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations under Chairman Tom Bliley.During my term as Chairman of the Committee (2005-2006), I supported vigorous oversight of the Administration, including hearings on the BP pipeline in Alaska. I led an investigation into

the operation of the Food and Drug Administration under Clinton appointee David Kessler. Wedemonstrated that the agency was years behind Europe in approvals of life-saving drugs. We laidthe groundwork for a change in culture at the FDA and for federal legislation to speed upapprovals of drugs to save lives and create jobs.

I led an investigation into travel abuses by Clinton Secretary of Energy Hazel O’Leary thatdemonstrated her abuse of power and hastened her departure from the government. I led aninvestigation into the political favoritism to Clinton-Gore supporter Franklin Haney in thedecision to move the Federal Communications Commission to a development in the Portals.

During my tenure as Full Committee Ranking Member, the Committee took the lead ininstigating an investigation into child pornography prosecutions and the failure of the FederalBureau of Investigations in the Bush Administration to use all available resources to prosecutethese predators. These efforts resulted in the prosecution and convection of a predator inMichigan.



P a g e | 20

Q. 8: Member Involvement: It has not been uncommon to hear from GOP-called

Committee witnesses that Democrat Members were much more engaged in asking

questions, using questioning to make a point, and generally taking advantage of oversight

hearings. Witnesses often complained that Republican Members wouldn’t even show up

for hearings. This is even true of witnesses who appeared before our Committees when we

were in the majority. Please describe how you intend to ensure that the members of yourCommittee actively engage in the oversight hearing process in a constructive and

productive manner.

During my tenure as both Chairman and Ranking Member, I have directed my staff to keepattendance at each hearing and markup, at both the Full Committee and Subcommittee levels.We have encouraged Members with poor participation to improve it by sharing this attendancedata with them privately. One method I have identified of promoting attendance is by givingspecific tasks to Members, for which they then take ownership and responsibility. This is alsoeffective when the Committee can showcase specific Members who have district-level interestsin a particular area, demonstrating to that Member’s constituents his or her work on their behalf.

For example, in 1995, the Republican-led Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations heldhearings on allegations of FDA abuses of authority. This hearing focused on five case studies.Each Republican member was assigned a case study, and a prepared list of questions. Republicaninvestigators worked closely with the Members and their staff in preparing for the hearing. EveryMember showed up and contributed.



P a g e | 21

Q. 9: Approach: Oversight is more than just hearings. Oversight involves research and

investigations (by Members and staff), letters to agency heads, the cultivation of contacts,

coordination with outside interest groups and educating the press. Can you give us a sense

for your approach to oversight?

In the upcoming 112

th

Congress, we intend to have one cabinet head testify before theCommittee each and every week. In addition, these hearings would be followed up by oversightand investigatory letters on a timely basis. Attached hereto is a list of oversight letters sent in the111th Congress.



P a g e | 22

Q. 10: Staffing: Legislating is different than oversight and often staff who are experienced

at legislating are not experienced at conducting investigatory oversight. Please describe

your plan for ensuring that your Committee has the staff capability to conduct effective

oversight.

Under my leadership, fully one third of the professional staff positions on the Committee havebeen dedicated to Oversight and Investigations (O&I) on a full-time basis. (Currently, 11 of 27professional staff, including two detailees, do oversight on a full-time basis). In addition, wehave had four (Republican) detailees (two from the Federal Communication Commission, onefrom the Federal Trade Commission and one from Immigration and Customs Enforcement) whohave given assistance with oversight of those agencies, or in the case of the ICE detailee, foodsafety investigations falling within the Committee’s jurisdiction. In addition, in the minority, Irequired all policy staff to do oversight projects. These included interrogatories to the Centers forMedicare and Medicaid Services, the Department of Health and Human Services, EnvironmentalProtection Agency, the FCC, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Energy, theNational Telecommunications and Information Administration, and more than a dozen requests

to the General Accounting Office to do oversight reports on activities within the ExecutiveBranch, and especially compliance with and the costs of regulations required under ObamaCare.

In filling oversight positions, we have recruited and hired lawyers to be federal prosecutorswithin the Article One branch of government. Relevant requirements for staff are lawyers with 3to 5 years of experience as federal prosecutors, district attorneys or private law firm litigators. Inthe majority, staff slots dedicated to O&I will more than double and will be about 38 percent of the professional staff of the Committee. In addition, policy staff will be required to work onoversight projects when they are not working on legislation.



P a g e | 23

Legislation

Q. 11: Elimination of Omnibus Bills: The Pledge to America included a commitment to

eliminate omnibus spending bills. But it is not just the Appropriations Committee that has

produced omnibus bills. Many authorizing Committees also produce omnibusauthorization measures. Such large bills are not conducive to transparent legislating, an

open amendment process, and deliberative consideration. Will you work to avoid omnibus

bills and instead work to move—as appropriate—smaller and more targeted reform bills?

My strong preference is to move targeted bills through the Committee on Energy and Commerceusing an open, transparent process. Necessarily, the health care replacement bill would be broadand complex, but omnibus legislation often does thwart the aims of rational policymaking andeasily leads to overspending, over-governing and over-intrusion into the lives of Americans.They are not the norm in the Committee and I will see that they do not become so.



P a g e | 24

Q. 12: Standards: In addition to requiring offsets for bills that propose increased spending,

the Leadership is interested in establishing standards to ensure that legislative proposals

advance the priorities of our Conference. Such standards might include: (a) for bills that

continue current spending, a justification for why we are comfortable continuing to borrow

money to finance such spending; (b) an explanation of how the bill advances the priorities

of our Conference; (c) a sunset for the bill within seven years. Are you comfortable withsuch standards? Do you have thoughts on additional standards that will help ensure that

our limited time and resources are focused on our priorities?

Yes, I am comfortable with the suggested standards. Alan Greenspan proposed that all federallaws and agencies be subject to sunset (including the Federal Reserve and Department of Defense). Sunset is a useful tool for getting rid of laws whose utility has passed but which retaina political constituency.

During my term as Chairman, we implemented both sunset provisions and limited authorizationsfor public laws we enacted. (The Democrats always resisted this, but we were successful in a

number of instances.) As examples, the first reauthorization of the National Institutes of Healthin a generation was for three years. The Ryan White Care Act, which had been beset with fraud,was limited to three years, and the U.S. SAFE WEB Act of 2006 sunsets in seven years in itsentirety.



P a g e | 25

Q. 13: Open Rules: The Speaker and the Leadership team have committed to bringing as

many bills as possible to the floor under open rules. This may require that bills be

constructed more deliberately, and with different considerations in mind. Will you operate

with the assumption that your bills are going to be on the floor subject to an open rule?

I support open rules. Preparing for an open rule is as much about how the committee process isrun as it is about the content of the bill. Throughout my tenure on the Committee on Energy andCommerce, I have advocated for and practiced regular order. As the successes of the EnergyPolicy Act of 2005 and the National Institutes of Health reauthorization bill demonstrated,involving all stakeholders regardless of party affiliation, and seeking to engender support of allCommittee members can be achieved, but not without respect for the rule of regular order. I trustin regular order and have faith that openness and transparency will produce the best ideas, thebest legislation and the best law.

This philosophy lends itself well to moving bills out of Committee that can survive intact on theHouse floor under open rule and still advance our Conference’s goals. In the Energy Policy Act

of 2005, this process was lengthy because all stakeholders provided input at myriad hearings,Subcommittee markups, and a multi-day Full Committee markup. I accommodated the concernsof my Committee Members and worked to resolve all issues until they actually were resolved. Inwhat may have been the last of its kind, I insisted on an open conference that met in public,debated amendments, and generated a pro-energy policy that received overwhelming bipartisansupport in the Senate and significant bipartisan support in the House.



P a g e | 26



P a g e | 27

Committee Operations / Expectations

Q. 14: Schedule: We expect next year’s schedule will accommodate regular dedicated time,

without interruption from floor votes, for Committees to meet. For such a schedule to

work, it is important that the Committees actually take advantage of this time. Can yougive us a sense of the anticipated weekly workload for your Committee?

I envision a bifurcation of the workweek into two segments: Subcommittee workdays and FullCommittee workdays. Every Monday and Tuesday will be occupied by Subcommittee legislativeand oversight hearings. Every Wednesday and Thursday will be used for Full Committeelegislative and oversight hearings or markups.

We will endeavor to have a hearing with one jurisdictional cabinet secretary or agencyadministrator per week to conduct general oversight of the respective department or agency.

Repealing ObamaCare is going to be the main priority of the Energy and Commerce Committee.Oversight and legislative hearings that will build a foundation for the replacement piece willhappen concurrently.

Additional oversight and legislative suggestions can be found in the answers and accompanyingdocuments to questions 5 and 6.



P a g e | 28

Q. 15: Activities: Not all Committee business has to be in the form of hearings or markups

in Washington. There is much that can be done through field hearings, Committee caucus

meetings, bipartisan lunches, forums with job creators (including via teleconference), site

visits to federal agencies, etc. Sometimes these activities are more beneficial, especially for

new Members, than formal hearings. Can you give us a sense for what field hearings and

non-traditional activities you might undertake to fill the D.C. work week, specifically?

Subject to Leadership approval, I would organize a task force for all freshmen not on ourCommittee who wish to raise issues that fall within our jurisdiction and to providerecommendations.

I would hold selective field hearings on the health care law in key media markets important toLeadership and my Committee members.

I would meet with Democrat Ranking Members and/or friendly Democrats on specific bills andissues.

One evening per month or quarter, I would organize a social event to exchange ideas on aninformal, bipartisan basis.

To set the tone for the American people, I suggest a weekend, bipartisan retreat for Leadershipand Committee members to discuss the issues our nation is facing.



P a g e | 29

Q. 16: First & Last Days of the Week: We are also asking all chairmen to better utilize first

and last days each week, so that we can have a more productive work week. Are you

available to return to Washington earlier on the first day of session and can you commit to

holding preliminary meetings with your staff, subcommittee chairmen, and/or members?

(This would enable you to begin your scheduled business by 9 am or 10 am depending on

Conference on the second day of session.) Knowing that the last day of session each weekwill not be given back and that we will schedule last votes of the week at 3:00 p.m., do you

think you’ll be able to hold Committee business on the last day of each week?

Yes, I am committed to lead a schedule that will most benefit the work of the entire Conference.I am ready to work Monday through Friday, three weeks per month. The fourth week of themonth will usually be reserved as a district work period, or regional field hearings could bescheduled during that week.

I am fully prepared to complete the process of repealing and replacing ObamaCare by August2011. I will work the maximum schedule that our Republican Leadership desires to report

priority bills and conduct priority oversight.



P a g e | 30

Q. 17: Participation: Part of the reason for a reformed House calendar is to change the

culture of Congress—deemphasize the floor and votes, allow time for more deliberation,

and create guaranteed time for constituents at home on a regular basis. By reemphasizing

Committee work, we expect Members to fully participate in their Committees. Will you

post your Committee attendance and votes online in an easily accessible manner? What

other measures do you think the Conference can take to reemphasize Committee work andMember participation? You should know that this will likely be adopted as a new rule by the

Conference and that the Steering Committee may meet regularly to discuss Member

performance in Committees.

The Committee Members and staff are well prepared to accomplish these goals.

During my term as Chairman, and in an effort to encourage maximum Member participation, theCommittee instituted the practice of routinely tabulating attendance at all hearings, markups andother formal sessions, not only for the Full Committee, but also its five Subcommittees. Rarely,private follow-up discussions with staff or Members have occurred when gentle remedial action

seemed appropriate, and these discussions have never failed to produce the intended effect.Consequently, the mechanism for gathering the information is currently in full operation, andfuture compilations could be made immediately available for public examination should theConference determine that is desirable.

Similarly, while in the minority, we have compiled, posted and distributed to the news mediaboth narratives and tables covering votes cast in Committee on important legislation. Such wasexpressly the case in the cap-and-trade markup and the health care markup, in which every voteof every member was explained, posted on the front page of the Committee Web site anddistributed via news release, usually within 10 minutes of the conclusion of voting. Attached arelists of the news releases generated by the health care and Waxman-Markey cap-and-tradedebates, including some examples of how we reported specific votes on Republicanamendments. We have posted the amendments and roll call votes for every markup since LeaderBoehner’s direction to revamp the minority Web sites to operate more like those of the majority.Our work during the cap-and-trade markup was highlighted by Leadership to other Committeesas an example of extremely effective New Media outreach.

As Chairman, I convened weekly meetings of the Committee leadership on the first day back tocoordinate schedules, messages and to share ideas. I plan to continue that practice, as well ashost a number of social events throughout the year for the Committee Members to talk in a moreinformal setting about our priorities, our work and the Committee. Furthermore, I would hope tohold Committee Activity briefings open to the entire caucus once a month or as needed. Thesediscussions can keep all Members better informed, help to emphasize the work of theCommittee, and serve to encourage Members’ participation by highlighting theiraccomplishments.

I strongly support the concept of coordinating floor and Committee activity. The consistentnecessity to interrupt hearings for lengthy blocs of time has the unhappy effect of diluting theimpact of both questions and answers. Witnesses, many of whom travel far, give up valuabletime and expend significant sums of money in order to join us, plainly leave with a poor



P a g e | 31

impression of their Congress. Members who are serious about their work in Committee aresimilarly disadvantaged, especially when they come fully prepared to do the work of advancingour knowledge by hearing from experts we have called to testify.



P a g e | 32

Q. 18: Committee Size and Rules: The Leadership intends to evaluate Committee size with

a goal of reducing overall size. Please outline your thoughts on the appropriate size for

your Committee and in addition any proposed changes you are considering in your

Committee’s rules.

The Committee currently consists of 36 Democrats and 23 Republicans. In the last year thatRepublicans were in the majority, the makeup was 31 Republicans and 26 Democrats. Irecommend a Committee size of 51 or 53 Members with a ratio reflecting that of the full House(Republicans, 56 percent), plus one. Accordingly, the breakdown of majority/minority would be31/20 or 32/21. Factoring in our 19 returning Committee members, we anticipate adding 12 or 13new members to the Committee.



P a g e | 33

New Media

Q. 19: We have made significant progress using new media to reach out to the public. But

as President Obama demonstrated in 2008 and as we have seen with America Speaking

Out and the YouCut initiatives, there is an opportunity to actually engage the public in ourinitiatives so that they become our partners, not just an audience. What are your thoughts

as to how your Committee can engage the public in an interactive manner?

The Republican communications strategy should embrace, not resist, the individualization of interactive public outreach through the New Media. The Committee on Energy and Commerce’sRepublican staff already has one person designated specifically to deal with new media, but thatis only the beginning. Every Member and every Committee and should have in their holster anactive Twitter, Facebook and YouTube account.

The Committee was among the first to fully implement Republican Leader Boehner’s vision of

upgrading Committees’ minority Web sites to mirror the functions of their respective majorityWeb sites. As a result, for example, Committee staff was posting online votes on amendments atthe conclusion of each vote during the debate on the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade markup.However, the Committee went beyond just posting amendments and roll call votes, and includeda “plain English” version of what the amendment did so that any reader would know whatRepublicans were accomplishing with amendments.

Individualization should reach into our Web pages, too, by creating opportunities for aninteractive conversation instead of one-way talk. Although the Committee pages serve specificfunctions—providing Committee hearing testimony, notices, markup votes and amendments—they can also be a forum for Americans to weigh in on what’s happening. Given the focus onCommittee work, we can envision inviting people across the nation to offer their opinions to us.In addition to the links that are vital to the normal operation of the Committee—hearings,markups, news, etc.—adding a “Your Voice” section would give Americans an opportunity toweigh in on specific actions and ideas, and tasking a staff to actually read comments will ensurethat those voices are heard. Interactive conversation might even take the form of Membersasking questions of the public via Web pages, Twitter and Facebook during the course of hearings, and hearing those responses while the proceedings are still under way. Using thesetools, we can better communicate with the Tea Party movement, with conservative bloggers, andother commentators, including by organizing online briefings or seminars with select groups toget feedback and to reiterate our message.

In both the majority and minority, the Committee has maintained a place on our Web site for atipline that invites the public to tell us directly about waste, fraud and abuse in government thatthey witness. We will keep and expand that to add a “Solutions” section to the Web site. Thisarea would highlight the issue or issues that the Committee is focused on that week or month,and ask the public for ideas about improvements to government services.



P a g e | 34



P a g e | 35

Coalitions

Q. 20: Many of the Washington-based associations will feel competing pressures from the

Democrat Senate and the Obama Administration. What are your thoughts as to how we

form new coalitions outside of Washington?

No one can ignore the earthquake that the Tea Party just sent through the foundations of government. Two years ago, no Democrat would have believed it possible, and if anyRepublicans thought we could work wholly within our personal comfort zones and thrive aspublic policymakers, we don’t anymore. The Tea Party movement fractured the Roosevelt-eracoalition that had been the Democrats’ core strength since the Great Depression. Although wehave our own basic strengths, we are about to reassume control of the House of Representativesbecause voted wanted real change, liked our ideas, voted for us and have given us a secondchance. We should use this second chance to build a conservative coalition that repealsObamaCare, replaces it with a market-driven health care policy and uses conservative values to

reform government across the board for a better future for our children and our country.

The Republicans who are prospering most today are the ones who were capable of both talkingto this new constituency and listening to what they had to tell us. I have excellent contacts withthe Tea Party both regionally and nationally, and last week I addressed several thousand TeaParty participants who have their boots on the ground all over America. We should continue toreach out and work with the Tea Party movement. We should hold regional events and policyseminars for the grass roots activists across the country. I am ready and willing to host suchevents, and to help organize and participate in others. I’ve told people that I was Tea Party beforethe Tea Party was cool. I received 53 percent of a four-way vote by Tea Party members in theirrecent national straw poll on who should be Chairman of the Committee on Energy andCommerce in the 112

thCongress.

Doing the work builds the coalition that permits us to govern. Next year, the work begins withrepealing ObamaCare, and I believe it will be possible for the House to pass a straight repeal bill,and do it in a thoughtful, fair way by August. Another proposal is to create a task force withgovernors on a bipartisan basis to hold broad public hearings on the state-federal welfareprogram known as Medicaid. As we already know from governors on both sides of the partisanaisle, the federal mandate forces states to spend money they don’t have.

A fine place to slow the runaway spending is through real entitlement reform. Entitlementspending amounts to $1.4 trillion and is now more than half the federal budget. Thanks to thenew health care law, entitlement programs are growing like crazy. They were costing eachAmerican taxpayer $7,698 a year even before the President decided that many more peopleneeded a much larger share of other people’s earnings. Wage earners need some help, too, andthat Washington can get along on a smaller share of their money. Those who believe in thesunrise also believe in the sunset, and it seems clear that the sun must set on some governmentspending.



P a g e | 36

Vigorous, focused, public oversight must be part of the mix, too. Here are some of the issues theCommittee intends to press home with the Obama Administration during the first six months of 2011:

• Determine why Richard Foster, chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid

Services, has concluded that the president’s health care law will not rein in rising costsand federal spending. Back in April, 23 Republican members of the Committee joined mein urging Democrats to call a hearing to get the facts from CMS. But Democratsevidently weren’t interested, and neither an answer nor a hearing was forthcoming. Thishearing will, however, be high on our agenda.

• Investigate why Mr. Foster was unable to project costs of the president’s bill until after itwas passed by the House.

• Determine why companies have told the Securities and Exchange Commission that losingsupport for retiree prescription drug plans will increase their costs. When they did that,the Democrats called a hearing. The Democrats then abruptly canceled the hearing whenit became clear that the “hearing” was correctly perceived by the public as an effort to

prevent the companies from telling the truth about this aspect of the president’s healthcare reforms.• Investigate why Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius distributed

promotional brochures at taxpayer expense which touted “improvements to MedicareAdvantage,” the program that the new health care law will cut by 50 percent.

• Determine why the secretary issued a gag order to insurers when they began to talk aboutthe possibility of the new health care law forcing rate increases.

• Determine why Dr. Donald Berwick, the unconfirmed appointee who runs the Centers forMedicare and Medicaid Services, has been unavailable to meet with our Committee forsix months.

• Determine why Secretary Sebelius has been unavailable to meet with the Committee fornine months.

• Invite Lisa Jackson, President Obama’s chief of the Environmental Protection Agency.Ms. Jackson proudly refuses to analyze her agency’s actions to determine either thepotential job losses it will cause or the pressure they will put on U.S. companies torelocate overseas, because as she put it, studying job losses due to EPA would have“limited utility.” The Committee will provide her with an opportunity, under oath, to justify that statement.

• Determine why the chairwoman of the Council on Environmental Quality in the WhiteHouse doesn’t appear to know what her responsibility is under the president’s State of theUnion promise that “jobs must be our number one focus.”

• Investigate why the Obama Administration’s Federal Communications Commissionbelieves the Internet needs federal government regulation for the first time.

EPA deserves our special attention, particularly on the consequences of its endangerment findingon global warming, but also on the coming regulatory wave involving everything from coal ashto water towers. The Committee will make sure that the EPA follows the law and doesn’t kill jobs. On energy, we need to figure out how to facilitate the delivery of renewable energy toactual consumers, and the Committee will take a serious look at the Boone Pickens plan fordeveloping natural gas.



P a g e | 37

Last but not least, it’s time for Congress to reform the Universal Service Fund and to halt theObama Administration’s efforts to give bureaucrats at the Federal Communications Commissionresponsibility for developing, imposing and enforcing government regulation of the Internet forthe first time.

In summary, if we listen to what our constituents are telling us, if we converse with them directlyabout what they expect both in the legislative arena and in the oversight and investigatory arenathe voters who just put us back in charge will keep us there.



Supporting Documents for Question #6

Oversight: Priorities

I. Oversight Plan for the 112th Congress [Draft]

II. Oversight and Investigations Letters During the 111th

Congress

III. List of Recent and Pending EPA Regulations Under the Clean Air Act



COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE OVERSIGHT PLAN

[DRAFT]

U.S. H

OUSE OFR

EPRESENTATIVES

112TH CONGRESS

HEALTH AND HEALTHCARE ISSUES

PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

In the 112th Congress, the Committee will examine issuesrelated to the Department of Health and Human Services

implementation of Public Law 111-148, The Patient Protection and

Affordable Care Act. This will include the numerous provisions

contained within the law that affect the private insurance market in

the United States, the creation of health insurance exchanges, the

regulations and requirements imposed on both small and large

businesses, and the law’s effects on individuals.

The Committee will also evaluate what controls are in

place to prevent bias, waste, fraud, and abuse in its managementand programs as well as in drafting regulation and selecting board

memberships. The Committee will monitor deadlines imposed on

HHS by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and

examine what procedures HHS has in place for meeting those

deadlines and/or complying with missed deadlines. The

Committee will examine what programs HHS has in place to

improve the availability of reliable, consumer-oriented information

on the cost and quality of health care goods, services, and

providers. The Committee will investigate the process by which

the Executive Branch evaluated claims that PPACA would curbrising health care costs and federal spending and whether the

Secretary of HHS used coercion and intimidation to silence entities

she regulates from speaking out against the Act. The Committee

will also examine evidence recently released by private companies

that considered dropping employer-sponsored health care plans

because of the increased costs imposed by PPACA as well as



evidence from states that are considering opting out of Medicaid.

A large focus of the Committee will be the examination of the

impact of PPACA and its implementing regulations on the

economy, consumers, and the health care industry and the process

by which those regulations are drafted.

CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES

In the 112th Congress, the Committee will review the

management, operations, and activity of the Centers for Medicare

and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the programs it administers.

The Committee will examine and review Medicare and Medicaid

management and activity as it relates to ongoing Committee efforts

to prevent bias, waste, fraud, and abuse in federal health care

programs, particularly in the implementation of PPACA. The

Committee will investigate the process by which bureaucrats in

CMS establish a formula to set prices for Medicare reimbursement

as well as the effectiveness of that formula. The Committee will

evaluate the competitive bidding process for durable medical

equipment and examine ways to use similar programs in Medicare

and Medicare Advantage plans. The Committee will examine the

process by which CMS will set Medicaid reimbursement rates afterPPACA increases Medicaid enrollment as well as how CMS will

address state concerns about budget shortfalls. The Committee

will evaluate whether block grants may be part of a solution for

state budget shortfalls and how CMS would administer such a

program. The Committee will investigate the process by which

CMS prevents bias, waste, fraud, and abuse in the award

government contracts.

AGENCY FOR HEALTHCARE RESEARCH AND QUALITY

In the 112th Congress, the Committee will examine issues

related to the work done by the Agency for Healthcare Research

and Quality. This will include, but not be limited to, oversight of

the Agency’s work in all areas, review of the procedures and

processes used by the Agency, and how the Agency’s role is



expanded by Public Law 111-148, The Patient Protection and

Affordable Care Act.

LOW-INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCEPROGRAM

In the 112th Congress, the Committee will review and

oversee action taken by the Department of Health and Human

Services (HHS) in response to June 2010 Government

Accountability Office (GAO) findings concerning the need for

greater fraud prevention controls in the Low-Income Home Energy

Assistance Program (LIHEAP). Of particular concern to the

Committee is the status of efforts by HHS to strengthen LIHEAP’s

and state recipients’ internal control frameworks, and determiningwhether HHS is satisfying the GAO recommendation that it

provide specific guidance to the states in establishing appropriate

systems and procedures to prevent fraud and improper payments.

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION AND DRUG SAFETY

In the 112th Congress, the Committee will review the

management and operations of the Food and Drug Administration

(FDA) with respect to drug safety. This review will include theFDA’s foreign inspection regime for foreign manufacturers of

drugs; protecting supply chains against economically motivated

adulteration; the FDA’s approval process; oversight of clinical

trials; and post-market surveillance.

FDA REGULATION OF MEDICAL DEVICES

The Committee will examine whether the FDA’s evolving

regulatory approach lacks predictability and transparency, andwhether the FDA’ s approach for both low-risk and high-risk

medical devices is having an adverse impact on innovation, patient

care, healthcare costs, and jobs.

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT ISSUES



NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY

During the 112th Congress, the Committee will examine

issues relating to national energy policy, including U.S. policies

that relate to production, supply, and consumption of electricity, oiland natural gas, coal, hydroelectric power, nuclear power, and

renewable energy. The Committee will examine the impact of

government policies and programs on the exploration, production,

and development of domestic energy resources. The Committee

will examine other issues relating to the nation’s current energy

infrastructure with a view towards its expansion. The Committee

will also continue to examine safety and security issues relating to

energy exploration, production and distribution.

ELECTRICITY MARKETS

In the 112th Congress, the Committee will review

electricity transmission policies of the Federal government to

promote competitive wholesale power markets, transmission, and

generation infrastructure upgrades, and compliance with relevant

statutes. It will examine the activities of the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (FERC) relating to electric industry

restructuring, protection of consumers, and the development of

efficient and vigorous wholesale markets for electricity.

MANAGEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ANDITS NATIONAL LABORATORIES

The Committee will oversee management and operations

issues at the Department of Energy (DOE), including management

and operations of the National Nuclear Security Administration

(NNSA) and the national laboratories. The Committee’s oversight

work will include a review of the implementation of new nuclear

security requirements at NNSA and DOE facilities, ongoing safety

and security matters, the Office of Environmental Management's

cleanup program, high-level waste management efforts, and DOE's

implementation of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.

THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION



The Committee will review the activities of the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC). The Committee will examine

NRC’s budget requests, conduct oversight of how the Commission

discharges its various responsibilities, including as an effective

regulator of security and safety at nuclear facilities. In addition, the

Committee will monitor closely the licensing and development of

new nuclear power facilities to replace the existing fleet and

provide for reliable, clean energy necessary to support strong

economic growth and to meet growing U.S. energy demands over

the coming decades.

CLEAN AIR ACT

In the 112th Congress, the Committee will review significantrulemakings under the Clean Air Act and the potential economic

and job impacts of those rulemakings on the energy,

manufacturing, construction and other critical sectors of the U.S.

economy. The Committee’s review will include oversight of the

Environmental Protections Agency’s (EPA) decisions, strategies

and actions to meet Clean Air Act standards, and the current role

of cost, employment and feasibility considerations in Clean Air

Act rulemakings.

GLOBAL WARMING

In the 112th Congress, the Committee will continue to

monitor international negotiations on efforts to control greenhouse

gas emissions in connection with concerns about global warming.

The Committee will consider whether international agreements are

achievable, effective, scientifically and technically well grounded,

and will not undermine U.S. job and economic growth. In

addition, the Committee will examine the administration’s efforts

to regulate greenhouse gas emissions domestically under the Clean

Air Act based on its endangerment finding. The Committee will

also review the strategies and activities in this area performed by

agencies within the Committee’s jurisdiction, including the

Department of Energy (DOE) and the Department of Health and

Human Services (HHS).



EPA MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS

During the 112th Congress, the Committee intends to

conduct its general oversight of the EPA, including review of theagency’s funding decisions, resource allocation, grants, research

activities, enforcement actions, relations with State and local

governments, and program management and implementation.

INVESTMENT IN THE GREEN ENERGY SECTOR

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, or

the stimulus) provided $84.6 billion in new spending for the greenenergy sector, as well as $21.6 billion in tax credits for energy,

transport, and climate science. During the 112th Congress, the

Committee will review how this money was spent, in particular,

what types of jobs have been created; the development of new

technologies, products, and businesses focused on green energy;

and how this spending has impacted the domestic suppliers or

manufacturers of alternative energy products.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS ISSUES

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

During the 112th Congress, the Committee will conduct

oversight of Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

management and operations, including the impact of its decisions

and actions on the U.S. economy and economic growth. The

Committee will examine what processes are in place to control

waste, fraud, and abuse of broadband stimulus funds. The

Committee will also evaluate the impact of FCC policies or

rulemaking related to network neutrality requirements or other

attempts to regulate the internet, media ownership rules,

cybersecurity, and privacy regulation.

NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN



In the 112th Congress, the Committee will examine the

National Broadband Plan developed by the FCC. The committee

will evaluate the existing availability of broadband technologies

and the deployment of broadband services and facilities. The

Committee will also evaluate the impact of the National

Broadband Plan on competition, access, prices, and incentives for

entities to make investments in broadband networks and new

technologies. As the FCC drafts regulations to implement the

National Broadband Plan, the Committee will examine whether

those regulations reflect the goals of maximizing consumer

welfare, innovation, and investment and whether processes are in

place to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of funds devoted to

implementing the Plan.

UNIVERSAL SERVICE REFORM

In the 112th Congress, the Committee will examine the FCC’suniversal service fund as well as the modern distribution of communications traffic to determine whether the tax on long-distance telephone users can be eliminated or partially or fullydiverted to different communications mediums to maximizeconsumer welfare without harming rural telephone users. TheCommittee will review whether rural long-distance telephoneservice providers are receiving subsidies in excess of what is

needed to provide long-distance telephone service in underservedareas and whether the FCC’s internal processes are appropriate tocontrol waste, fraud, and abuse of Universal Service funds.

SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT

During the 112th Congress, the Committee will conductoversight of the FCC’s management and allocation of the nation’sspectrum. An increasing portion of communications servicesutilize spectrum to provide voice, video, and data services to

consumers and a key component of the National Broadband Plancalls for using spectrum to encourage deployment of broadbandnetworks. The Committee will evaluate the FCC’s spectrum-management policies to ensure that such policies are maximizingthe use of the public airwaves for innovative communicationsservices. The Committee will also examine whether the FCC’splan for allocating spectrum maximizes capacity for broadbanddeployment and encourages investment, including an examination



of whether auction procedures are contemplated and how theywould be implemented. The Committee will examine whatprocedures the FCC puts in place to ensure transparency of spectrum allocation and use.

CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING

The Committee will examine whether federally-

appropriated funds may have been expended by National Public

Radio (NPR), a Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB)

grantee, in furtherance of an apparent editorial policy aimed at

silencing journalists expressing controversial or “politically-

incorrect” opinions, both on and off the network. The Committee

will investigate the financing of CPB and NPR, and whether it is

even necessary to continue federal funding.

COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

ISSUES

PRIVACY AND THE INTERNET

In the 112th Congress, the Committee will examine issues

related to the privacy of information and data collected by Internet

websites and service providers.

CYBER SECURITY

On May 29, 2009, President Obama issued the 60-Day

Cyberspace Policy Review. The goal of this review was to assess

U.S. policies after the issuance of the Bush Administration’s

Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative. In the 112th

Congress, the Committee will review efforts by federal agencies to

coordinate cyber strategy and policy, and whether these policies

have resulted in a secure communication and information

infrastructure. The Committee will also review how these securityinitiatives have impacted privacy interests.

E-COMMERCE AND CYBER SECURITY

In the 112th

Congress, the Committee will review issues

related to private-sector cyber security, including how fraud and

other criminal issues affect e-commerce.



TRADE AND GLOBALIZED SUPPLY CHAINS

In the 112th Congress, the Committee will review the issues

presented by the globalization of production and manufacturingnetworks, including the integrity of products and components

assembled overseas and the impact on national security, the

competitiveness of U.S. companies, and trade relationships.

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF

2008

The Committee will examine the unintended consequences

of this law, overregulation, and overreach into small businesses. In

addition, the Committee will investigate how the Consumer

Product Safety Commission is implementing this Act.

MISCELLANEOUS

EFFECTIVENESS OF STIMULUS SPENDING

In the 112th Congress, the Committee will conduct

oversight over agency programs in the Committee’s jurisdiction,

and review the implementation and spending of the American

Recovery and Reinvestment Act to evaluate the law’s effectivenessand efficiency in speeding both job creation and the growth of the

American economy.

ORGANIZED CRIME-TERRORISM NEXUS

In the 112th Congress, the Committee will examine the

nexus between organized crime and the financing of international

terrorism. Recognition, as well as a better understanding of the

link between traditional criminal activity and international

terrorism is crucial in crafting both effective legislative tools as

well as law enforcement methods capable of responding to the

emerging threat. The Committee, with its expansive jurisdiction, is

well-positioned to confront a range of domestic criminal

enterprises and trade diversion schemes directed by US-based

members and sympathizers of Designated Foreign Terrorist



Organizations for fundraising purposes, including the manufacture

and distribution of counterfeit goods and currencies, identity theft,

trafficking in contraband cigarettes, and the electronic transmittal

of funds.

FEDERAL EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION

In the 112th Congress, the Committee will address reports

that the number of federal employees earning $150,000 or more a

year has soared in the past several years. The Committee will

investigate whether, among the federal agencies and commissions

within its jurisdiction, any funding from the American Recovery

and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was used to augment already-high

federal salaries rather than to stimulate the lagging private sector or

to fund critical infrastructure projects. The Committee will

examine special pay programs under Title 42 used at HHS andEPA, and whether the administration of these pay programs have

been abusive, or in violation of federal laws or regulations.

CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

In June 2006, the Bush Administration issued a National

Infrastructure Protection Plan. This plan created a process by

which the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is to identify

critical assets and assess their vulnerabilities and risks due to loss

or natural disaster. During the 112

th

Congress, the Committee willreview the Department’s activities with respect to identifying high-

priority assets and implementing plans to protect these assets in

areas within the Committee’s jurisdiction.



Oversight and Investigations Letters During the 111th Congress

Committee on Energy and Commerce - Joe Barton, Ranking Member

Date Sent Agency Subject Executive Summary

2010-12-03 FCC

Network-neutrality:

Omissions from laudatory

quotations.

Request for an explanation for the omissions from laudatory quotations in a

FCC staff circulated document, which supports the Chairman's network-

neutrality proposal.

2010-12-03 Interior

Hydraulic Fracturing:

Possible Policy or Reulatory

Proposals.

Request for information regarding the Administration's intentions, and any

hydraulic fracturing-related policy or regulatory proposals that may be

forthcoming from interior in light of a recent hydraulic fracturing forum held

by Interior.

2010-12-03 FDA

Conflict of Interest Rules:

Decision to Restrict Farm

Ownership by FDA

Employees.

Request for information regarding a FDA memorandum instructing

employees to sell their farming interests within 60 days in order to comply

with conflict of interest rules.

2010-12-02 CMS

Health Care Reform: Effects

and Implementation.

Request for Dr. Berwick to personally brief Members on the effects and

implementation of PPACA before the end of this Congressional session.

2010-12-01 FCC

Network-neutrality: Title I

rulemaking authority.

Request for the FCC's analysis of its authority to issue net-neutrality rules

under Title I of the Communications Act.

2010-11-30 Commerce Federal Salaries

Request for information on the salaries of Commerce Department

employees.

2010-11-29 CMS

Health Care Reform: Effects

and Implementation.

Request for Dr. Berwick to personally brief Members on the effects and

implementation of PPACA before the end of this Congressional session.

2010-11-19 FCC

Network-neutrality: Potential

Order for December

Meeting.

Request for the FCC to not circulate a network-neutrality order for vote at

the December meeting.

2010-11-18 GAO

NPR's use of federal funds

for the creation of content.

Request for a review of the degree to which NPR may use federal funds in

its exercise of control over editorial content.

2010-11-12 FTC Google Street View.

Request for a briefing on the FTC's decision to end its inquiry into

allegations that Google's Street View service collected information that

resulted in a breach of consumers' privacy.

2010-11-01 DOE Medical Isotopes.

Request for a briefing on the availability of certain medical isotopes derived

from Uranium-233.

2010-10-28 SSA LIHEAP.

Request for information regarding the validation of identity information in

the administration of LIHEAP.

2010-10-28 HHS LIHEAP.

Request for information concerning actions HHS has taken in response to

GAO's June 2010 report on LIHEAP fraud.

2010-10-28 GAO Title 42 Compensation.

Request that GAO examine appointment and compensation practices

pursuant to 42 USC 209(f) and (g).

2010-10-26 FDA

The Outbreak of Salmonella

in Eggs. Follow-up questions to FDA's testimony at the Sept. 22 O&I hearing.

2010-10-22 HHS

Health Care Reform:

Implementation.

Request for information regarding whether HHS will be able to implement

ObamaCare without causing companies providing low-cost health plans to

drop health insurance coverage.

2010-10-21 GAO

BP Deepwater Horizon Oil

Spill Disaster.

Request to be added to the review of the oil spill liability trust fund (Sen.

Carper).

2010-10-14 EPA

Costs Estimates for Clean

Air Act Regulations.

Request for information regarding the costs of EPA's current rulemaking

activity under the Clean Air Act.

2010-10-13 NRC Yucca Mountain.

Request for information regarding NRC chairman Jaczko's decision to

terminate review of DOE's Yucca License application.

2010-10-13 GAO

Health Care Reform:

Comparative Effectiveness.

Request for an assessment of the policies and procedures used by the

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality in conducting research on

comparative effectiveness.




2010-10-12 HHS

Health Care Reform: Role of

the Office of Consumer

Information and Insurance

Oversight.

Request for a briefing on the role of the Office of Consumer Information and

Insurance Oversight.

2010-10-05 Alabama

Health Care Reform: Affect

on state budgets.

Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will

impact state budgets over the next several years.

2010-10-05 Alaska


on state budgets.



2010-10-05 Arizona


on state budgets.



2010-10-05 Arkansas


on state budgets.



2010-10-05 California


on state budgets.



2010-10-05 Colorado


on state budgets.



2010-10-05 Connecticut


on state budgets.



2010-10-05 Delaware


on state budgets.



2010-10-05 Florida


on state budgets.



2010-10-05 Georgia


on state budgets.



2010-10-05 Hawaii


on state budgets.



2010-10-05 Idaho


on state budgets.



2010-10-05 Illinois


on state budgets.



2010-10-05 Indiana


on state budgets.



2010-10-05 Iowa


on state budgets.



2010-10-05 Kansas


on state budgets.



2010-10-05 Kentucky


on state budgets.



2010-10-05 Louisiana


on state budgets.



2010-10-05 Maine


on state budgets.



2010-10-05 MarylandHealth Care Reform: Affecton state budgets.

Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform willimpact state budgets over the next several years.

2010-10-05 Massachusetts


on state budgets.



2010-10-05 Michigan


on state budgets.



2010-10-05 Minnesota


on state budgets.



2010-10-05 Mississippi


on state budgets.






2010-10-05 Missouri


on state budgets.



2010-10-05 Montana


on state budgets.



2010-10-05 Nebraska


on state budgets.



2010-10-05 Nevada


on state budgets.



2010-10-05

New

Hampshire


on state budgets.



2010-10-05 New Jersey


on state budgets.



2010-10-05 New Mexico


on state budgets.



2010-10-05 New York


on state budgets.



2010-10-05 North Carolina


on state budgets.



2010-10-05 North Dakota


on state budgets.



2010-10-05 Ohio


on state budgets.



2010-10-05 Oklahoma


on state budgets.



2010-10-05 Oregon


on state budgets.



2010-10-05 Pennsylvania


on state budgets.



2010-10-05 Rhode Island


on state budgets.



2010-10-05 South Carolina


on state budgets.



2010-10-05 South Dakota


on state budgets.



2010-10-05 Tennessee


on state budgets.



2010-10-05 Texas


on state budgets.



2010-10-05 Utah


on state budgets.



2010-10-05 Vermont


on state budgets.



2010-10-05 VirginiaHealth Care Reform: Affecton state budgets.

Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform willimpact state budgets over the next several years.

2010-10-05 Washington


on state budgets.



2010-10-05 West Virginia


on state budgets.



2010-10-05 Wisconsin


on state budgets.



2010-10-05 Wyoming


on state budgets.






2010-10-05

District of

Columbia


on state budgets.



2010-10-05 Treasury

Warren appointment as

Special Advisor on the

Consumer Financial

Protection Bureau.

Request for a briefing on Warren's agenda for the Consumer Financial

Protection Bureau.

2010-09-30 HHS Health Care Reform

Request for documentation proving Sebelius assertions that insurers'

announced premium increases are misinformation or unjustified.

2010-09-23 TARP-OIG

Troubled Asset Relief

Program.

Request for written updates from the OIG if the Department of the Treasury

disputes or takes action based on conclusions in the OIG reports.

2010-08-16 EPA

EPA Office of Water's

response to

recommendations made by

the Office of Inspector

General.

Request for information regarding the EPA Office of Water's

implementation of recommendations made by the Office of the Inspector

General.

2010-08-06 Interior

Suspension of permittingand drilling activity on the

OCS.

Request for documents cited in a Decision Memorandum regarding the

suspension of offshore permitting and drilling activities on the OCS.

2010-08-02 FDA Medical devices.

Request for information and documents regarding FDA's medical device

approval process.

2010-07-22 FDA Heparin.

Request for documents and information regarding ongoing concerns with

FDA's heparin investigation.

2010-07-21 NHTSA

Unintended acceleration in

vehicles manufactured by

Toyota.

Request for an update on the status of NHTSA's investigation and the EDR

data.

2010-07-08 CPSC

Review of Inspector's

General Office.

Request for information regarding the level of staffing and resources in the

Inspector's General office.

2010-07-08 Commerce


General Office.



2010-07-08 DOE


General Office.



2010-07-08 HHS


General Office.



2010-07-08 EPA


General Office.



2010-07-08 FCC


General Office.



2010-07-08 FTC


General Office.



2010-07-08 NRC


General Office.



2010-07-08 CDC Strategic National Stockpile.

Request for information regarding how CDC guarantees access to critical

materials and vaccines that may be needed in the event of a Chemical,

Biological, Radiological, Nuclear event or a naturally occurring pandemic.

2010-07-08 NIH

Title 42 Pay Authority at

HHS.

Request for information and documents regarding whether the National

Institute of Environmental Health Sciences is using the Title 42 special pay

mechanism in compliance with the HHS regulations, policies, and

guidelines.




2010-07-02 CMS

Medicare Enrollment (Part

D).

Request that CMS provide the 2010 enrollment data for Medicare, Part D.

The last time CMS provided this information was April 2010, and the open

enrollment period for the 2011 Medicare Advantage and Part D benefit

begins Nov. 15, 2010.

2010-07-01 HHS

Health Care Reform: High-

risk insurance pool program. Request for a briefing on the high-risk health insurance pool program.

2010-06-24 Interior

BP/Deepwater Horizon oil

spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Request that Salazar be prepared to answer specific questions related to the

investigation at a June 29 E&E/O&I hearing.

2010-06-24 EPA

BP/Deepwater Horizon oil

spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Request for information and documents on EPA's activities in planning and

responding to the BP/Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

2010-06-14 HHS Health Care Reform.

Request for a briefing on HHS' efforts to implement rules for group health

plans and health insurance coverage in the group and individual markets as

required by the health care reform law.

2010-06-14 HHS Health Care Reform.

Request for information regarding whether information in various CMS

Chief Actuary reports was released to Congress and the public prior to finalpassage of the bill.

2010-06-11 EPA

EPA's proposed National

Ambient Air Quality

Standards for ground level

smog.

Request for information regarding EPA's process and development of the

proposed NAAQS standards and their projected impact.

2010-06-11 OMB Stimulus Oversight.

Request for information regarding how much ARRA money has yet to be

obligated or outlayed.

2010-06-02 White House Health Care Reform.

Request for a description of the President's plan to address the threat to

employees of losing their health insurance because of the health reform law.

2010-05-28 HHS

HHS brochure mailed to

Medicare beneficiaries("Medicare and the New

Health Law--What it Means

for You").

Request for information regarding the development, cost, and review of

HHS' brochure ("Medicare and the New Health Law--What it Means for

You") to Medicare beneficiaries.

2010-05-05 GAO

Scientific integrity and

reliability of IPCC

assessments.

Request for a study on the extent to which the IPCC and State Department

are ensuring the scientific integrity and reliability of the IPCC assessments

and that US funds for the IPCC are being spent appropriately.

2010-04-30 FDA Heparin

Expressing concerns and requesting information regarding how FDA has

handled the investigation to find out who was responsible for the

contamination of Heparin.

2010-03-30 GAO

Enforcement and oversight

of safety and security atDOE facilities.

Requesting a briefing on DOE's safety and security plan and information

regarding DOE's suspension of any enforcement or oversight activity relatedto the safety and security of DOE and NNSA facilities.

2010-03-30 DOE

Enforcement and oversight

of safety and security at

DOE facilities.

Requesting an evaluation of DOE's plan to reform safety and security

activities at DOE and NNSA facilities.

2010-03-15 EPA

Review of errors in the IPCC

report.

Expressing the hope that the Administration will encourage the UN to

conduct an honest review of the mistakes in the IPCC's report.

2010-03-15 DOE

Review of errors in the IPCC

report.

Expressing the hope that the Administration will encourage the UN to

conduct an honest review of the mistakes in the IPCC's report.




2010-03-11 GM GM participation in USCAP.

Request for comment on the appropriateness of GM's continued

participation in USCAP, which lobbies the federal government to enact

climate change legislation, in light of American taxpayers' 10% ownership

share in the company.

2010-03-11 Chrysler

Chrysler participation in

USCAP.

Request for comment on the appropriateness of Chrysler's continued

participation in USCAP, which lobbies the federal government to enact

climate change legislation, in light of American taxpayers' 60% ownership

share in the company.

2010-03-10 OMB

OPM Guidance on counting

jobs saved or created

because of the Recovery Act.

Request for information on the number and classification of jobs created or

saved by the Recovery Act and OMB's updated guidance for reporting the

number of jobs created or saved by the Recovery Act

2010-03-08 CEQ

Draft NEPA Guidance on

Consideration of the Effects

of Climate Change and

Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Request for information on the Administration's analysis of the economic

and job impacts of CEQ's "Draft NEPA Guidance on Consideration of the

Effects of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions."

2010-03-05 DOT Federal Salaries

Request for information regarding the number of federal employees earning

in excess of $100,000, the employees responsible for overseeing or

managing stimulus funding, the outsourcing of duties related to stimulus

funds, and any professional service contracts in excess of $100,000.

2010-03-05 DHS Federal Salaries





2010-03-04 IPCC IPCC audit request.

Request for IPCC budget information, including funding sources, audits, and

internal controls.

2010-03-04 State IPCC audit request.

Request for information on U.S. contributions to the IPCC, State Dept.audits of the IPCC, and State Dept. implemented controls to oversee IPCC

spending.

2010-03-03 DOE Federal Salaries





2010-03-03 FCC Federal Salaries





2010-03-03 FTC Federal Salaries





2010-03-03 NRC Federal Salaries








2010-03-03 HHS Federal Salaries





2010-03-03 CPSC Federal Salaries





2010-03-03 Commerce Federal Salaries





2010-03-03 EPA Federal Salaries


in excess of $100,000, the employees responsible for overseeing ormanaging stimulus funding, the outsourcing of duties related to stimulus


2010-03-03 Treasury Federal Salaries





2010-02-17 White House Health care deals

Request for information regarding agreements and meetings between the

White House and any private entities with respect to certain healthcare bills.

2010-02-04 HRSA

Fraud and mismanagement

in the Ryan White Care Act.

Allegations of misuse and mismanagement of Ryan White funds by

subgrantees and the lack of meaningful oversight by primary grantees.

2010-02-04 EPA

Quality, rigor , and

transparency of the IPCC

assessments.

The adequacy of EPA's review of the IPCC's assessment, which was relied

on to draft the endangerment determination.

2010-01-26 SEC

SEC's interpretive release on

climate change.

Request for information on the SEC's plan to consider publishing an

interpretive release on disclosure requirements for matters related to climate

change.

2010-01-22 DOE

An addendum to the Climate

Gate Emails

Requests additional information related to DOE's data sharing policies and

procedures. In particular, the letter asked DOE 1) to describe the purpose

and results of DOE projects connected to CRU, 2) to describe funding

protocols for foreign-based research, 3) to describe protocols for ensuring

integrity of, access to, and stewardship of the data collected from foreign-based researchers, and 4) whether any data generated by CRU with DOE

funds, has been lost, manipulated, or destroyed.

2010-01-21 Emanuel

Administration's new focus

on jobs, jobs, jobs.

Asks Rahm Emanuel to communicate the Administration's new focus on

jobs to the EPA, which concluded, in response to a Nov. 19, 2009, Barton-

Walden letter, that studying job losses in connection with proposed GHG

regulations would have "limited utility."

2010-01-20 CBO

Request for broader budget

analysis of future health

reform proposals.

Request that CBO's future budget estimates of health reform bills include the

bill's projected impact on total health care expenditures in the US.




2010-01-12 GAO

Planning and preparedness

for an influenza pandemic.

Request for a review of the adequacy of the Federal pandemic planning and

preparations with particular focus on: whether the Administration has

incorporated lessons learned from the current pandemic, the allocation, use

and distribution of federal funds, and the production of vaccines (includingthe state of: Federal support for the development of vaccines and the

necessary technology; the benefits of cell-based vaccines over egg based

vaccines; and the research into developing a vaccine and getting approval for

a vaccine).

2010-01-06 NASA

Climate Gate: NASA

compliance with FOIA

Climate Gate: Because NASA scientists were mentioned in the CRU emails,

which describe efforts by authors of those emails to avoid data sharing

requirements, the letter requests records and information relating to NASA's

compliance with its FOIA and federal data sharing obligations.

2009-12-09 GAO

Challenges of increasing

biofuel use and production.

Request for information regarding the ethanol blend wall issues. In

particular, the letter asks questions related to potential federal liability and

the adequacy of equipment and infrastructure to meet the challenges of

higher ethanol fuel blends.

2009-12-04 NTIA

Oversight of the broadband

programs in stimulus bill

Raises concerns and requests information on the implementation of the

broadband programs of the stimulus bill.

2009-12-04 RUS

Oversight of the broadband

programs in stimulus bill

Raises concerns and requests information on the implementation of the

broadband programs of the stimulus bill.

2009-12-02 DOE Climate Gate Emails

Request for information and records related to 1) DOE's compliance with

FOIA and data sharing policies and 2) federal funding of the research at

issue in these emails.

2009-12-02 Commerce Climate Gate Emails

Request for information and records related to 1) NOAA's compliance with

FOIA, 2) NOAA's and researcher's compliance with data sharing policies,and 3) federal funding of the research at issue in these emails.

2009-12-01 GAO

CMS investigation of

Medicare Advantage

companies, and HHS' "State

Your Support" campaign.

Request for information regarding CMS' direction to Medicare Advantage

companies stop communications with beneficiaries and HHS' "State Your

Support" website campaign. With regard to CMS, whether the order to MA

companies 1) comports with the Constitution and federal law, 2) was the

product of improper influence, and 3) is consistent with CMS' treatment of

companies in similar situations. With regard to HHS, 1) whether the website

campaign violates federal law (PL 111-8), 2) how the website campaign was

funded, and 3) if HHS staff, contractors, or third parties were involved in the

website's creation.

2009-11-19 EPA

Impact of GHG regulationson U.S. jobs and economic

growth

Request for documents and response to questions related to the cumulativeimpact of the Administration's and EPA's proposed global warming rules on

U.S. job and manufacturing.

2009-11-18 DOE

DOE memo terminating

Yucca Mountain defense

activities in December 2009.

Request for information regarding DOE's plans regarding Yucca mountain

and the Yucca mountain application in light of a DOE memo announcing the

termination of license defense activities. The letter also requests separate

briefings with DOE's CFO and the Director of the Office of Civilian

Radioactive Waste Management.

2009-11-18 NIH

High-containment biological

laboratories.

Request for information on NIH's plans to use stimulus funding on high-

containment biological laboratories or related research.




2009-11-06 CBO

Request for information on

fraud in Medicare and

Medicaid programs

Request for information (written response or briefing) regarding how CBO

accounted for fraud in the AHCAA budget score. The letter highlights fraud

in Medicare and Medicaid programs, which news outlets report may be $60

billion, while the Administration reports "there is no fraud rate at CMS to

quantify the amount of fraudulent claims paid each year."

2009-10-29 SAMHSA

SAMHSA's oversight and

funding of suicide

prevention programs

Researchers have found a link between economic downturns and an increase

of suicides. The Committee requested information related to the operation,

funding, and calls received at the national Suicide Prevention Lifeline.

2009-10-21 FDA

Effect of FDA investigations

on employee morale

Unlike the procedure followed for other HHS employees, criminal

investigators are used to investigate non-criminal misconduct by FDA

employees. The letter requests a justification for this practice, alternative

approaches that could be taken, and the impact on FDA employee morale.

2009-10-21 GAO Information transparency Role of information transparency in a properly functioning market.

2009-10-01 HHS OIG CMS Censorship Actions

In response to Medicare Advantage organizations contacting their enrollees

regarding the impact of bills being considered in Congress, CMS wrote to

those companies, at the behest of Sen. Baucus, ordering them to "suspend

potentially misleading mailings to beneficiaries." The letter requested the IG

evaluate the Constitutionality of the actions, whether CMS' impartiality was

compromised, and whether it was consistent with other investigation in to

marketing materials to enrollees.

2009-10-01 CMS

Humana Communication

Censorship

In response to Medicare Advantage organizations contacting their enrollees

regarding the impact of bills being considered in Congress, CMS, at the

behest of Sen. Baucus, ordered those companies to "suspend potentially

misleading mailings to beneficiaries." The Committee requested information

and a briefing explaining CMS' rationale for this action.

2009-10-01 GAO

DOE efforts to discontinue

efforts to develop YUCCA

Mountain

Request for a study on DOE's decision to discontinue efforts to develop

Yucca Mtn. for nuclear waste, focusing on how the decision was made, how

much federal money has been spent on the project to date, and an analysis of

the ramifications of DOE's decision.

2009-09-30 Commerce

Secretary Locke's Position

on Carbon Tariffs

This is the second letter to Sec. Locke regarding his comments that the US

should pay for the carbon content of imported goods (see July 22). The

letter provides Sec. Locke another opportunity to explicitly state whether or

not he and the Obama Administration support the forcing American

consumer to pay for the carbon footprint of imported goods.

2009-09-24 NIH

NIH Use of Federal Grant

Money

Requests information on NIH's method of awarding grants. Given the high

demand for research dollars, some of the identified grants appear to havequestionable public health benefit (e.g., impact of dragon boat racing on

cancer survivorship).

2009-09-17 NRC

NRC at Center of Regulatory

Bottleneck

Chairman Jaczko told National Journal that he hoped to make substantial

progress on at least 1 application by 2012. However, according to NRC's

website, the safety and environmental reviews for up to 12 license

applications will be completed by 2012. This letter seeks information

related to the process and timeline for reviewing and approving license

applications.

2009-09-16 CMS Fraud Data

Request for information and data on fraud and abuse in the Medicare and

Medicaid programs.




2009-09-14 HHS

EPA's Use of HHS Special

Pay Authorities Requests information on EPA's use of HHS' special pay authority.

2009-09-14 EPA

Unauthorized Hiring

Practices Requests information on EPA's use of HHS' special pay authority.

2009-09-14 OPM EPA's Special Consultants Requests information on EPA's use of HHS' special pay authority.

2009-09-11 GAO NIH Stimulus Grants

Requests GAO investigate NIH's use of stimulus funds, with particular focus

on the process and criteria for awarding grants, how this departs from NIH's

regular procedure, and estimates on the number of jobs created or saved

through grants awarded with stimulus money.

2009-09-10 EPA

EPA's Economic Modeling

for Waxman-Markey

The letter highlights inconsistencies in EPA's modeling of carbon prices

under Waxman-Markey and the lack of an adequate explanation by EPA.

2009-07-22 Commerce

Locke: "U.S. Should pay for

carbon content of imported

goods"

Request for clarification from Sec. Locke, who told the American Chamber

of Commerce in Shanghai that the US should pay for the carbon content of

imported goods.

2009-07-16 EPA

Carbon-Gate: Request for

Additional Details

Follow-up to Mr. Barton's June 24 letter requesting information regarding

the integrity of EPA's process in promulgating the proposed endangerment

finding (particularly with respect to the possible suppression of Dr. Carlin's

support).

2009-07-14 CMS Fraud Data

Request for information on resources lost through and used to prevent waste

and fraud in Medicare/Medicaid programs.

2009-07-08 CMS

Administrative costs of

Medicare

Request for information regarding Medicare's alleged lower administrative

costs. Supporters of the public option suggest Medicare is the appropriate

model for the public option in part because administrative costs are lower.

2009-06-30 GAO

Cost of financing future

government debt and

entitlement programobligations

Request for a staff briefing to discuss the possibility of a GAO impact study

of long-term structural deficits, particularly with regard to entitlementprogram obligations.

2009-06-24 EPA Carbon-Gate

Request for information and documents related to EPA's April 2009

endangerment finding, and the possibility that internal EPA analysis casting

doubt on the proposed endangerment finding was suppressed on threat of

budget cuts.

2009-06-17 CMS

Impact of a mandated

expansion of Medicaid

eligibility

Because the health care proposals moving through Congress mandate an

expansion of the Medicaid program, this is a request for technical

information regarding current and projected Medicaid statistics.

2009-06-11 FCC DTV Transition

Request for information on the impact of moving the date and allocating

additional funds for the DTV transition.

2009-06-11 Commerce DTV Transition Request for information on the impact of moving the date and allocatingadditional funds for the DTV transition.

2009-05-21 GAO

Economic effects of stimulus

funding for the NIH

Request for a meeting with GAO to discuss designing a report on the

economic effects of stimulus funding for the NIH. Specifically, the number

of jobs created or saved, new businesses created, total wage increases

resulting from the stimulus, and NIH's grant award process.

2009-05-19 CBO

Cost Estimates of the

Updated W-M Legislation

Request for budget analysis of the Waxman-Markey AINS, including 1)

carbon price for the first 5 years, 2) the impact of distribution of the

allowances, and 3) elaboration on CBO's May 15 letter to the Committee

regarding the fiscal treatment of allowances.




2009-05-08 FERC

Clarification of comments

regarding electric energy

system

Request for clarification from Wellinghoff on his comments that there may

never be a need for additional coal or nuke plants and renewable energy,

such as wind, will meet future demand. Also requests any FERC analysis

supporting these comments.

2009-05-07 DOE

Future of Nuclear Waste and

Yucca Mountain

Request for clarification on Sec. Chu's comments at Science Committee

hearing stating that nuke power needs to be "restarted" and comments made

by Sec. Chu's press secretary that "Yucca Mt. is not an option, period."

2009-05-07 EPA

Anne Sholtz Emissions-

Trading Fraud Case

Request for information regarding the Anne Sholtz criminal case, which

involved fraudulent activity related to the RECLAIM program.

2009-05-06 FDA

FDA's Handling of the

Heparin Issue

Request for information regarding 1) Heparin test results and samples taken

from contaminated lots on FDA databases and 2) clinical adverse events

linked to the contamination.

2009-04-23 FERC

Letter to Wellinghoff on

CCS

Request for views on whether the private sector would make large

investments in CCS technology in the absence of further federal legislation.

2009-04-23 FERC Letter to Moeller on CCSRequest for views on whether the private sector would make largeinvestments in CCS technology in the absence of further federal legislation.

2009-04-23 FERC Letter to Spitzer on CCS



2009-04-23 FERC Letter to Kelly on CCS



2009-04-22 Labor Green Jobs

Request for information on the definition of green jobs, development of that

definition, sectors expected to realize green job growth, and analysis related

to green job growth.

2009-04-22 DOE Green Jobs

Request for information on the definition of green jobs, development of that

definition, sectors expected to realize green job growth, and analysis relatedto green job growth.

2009-04-20 DOE

Commercial Deployment of

CCS Technologies

Request for information regarding DOE actions, funding, and analysis

related to activities supporting commercial deployment of CCS technology,

including a carbon sequestration program and FutureGen.

2009-03-27 NNSA

Theft of Computers at Los

Alamos National Laboratory

Request for information and documents related to the disappearance of

computers at LANL, the resulting threat to cyber-security, and LANL's

subsequent remedial action.

2009-03-26 USTR

Emissions-Based Trade

Issues

Request for information to clarify the Administration's position on the use of

tariffs in response to China's position on emissions. The impetus behind this

letter was Sec. Chu's comments at a Science Committee hearing, suggesting

the US might adjust import duties on Chinese goods so as not to

disadvantage US industry.

2009-03-25 FCC

Broadband Stimulus

Funding Oversight

Request for information regarding the use of and method for distributing

stimulus funds for broadband deployment and mapping projects.

2009-03-25 NTIA

Broadband Stimulus

Funding Oversight



2009-03-25 RUS

Broadband Stimulus

Funding Oversight






2009-03-19 NIH NIH's use of Stimulus Funds

Request for information regarding NIH's oversight of extramural researchers'

conflicts of interest.

2009-03-17 GAO

Stimulus Oversight for DOE

Office of Environmental

Management

DOE's Environmental Management office is responsible for cleanup of

facilities that were involved in nuclear weapons development and

production. Contractors that participate in this effort have been identified as

High-Risk because of the risk of waste, fraud, and abuse on these projects.

The stimulus provided EM an extra $5 billion for these projects. The letter

requests information regarding the oversight of the use of stimulus in the

EM office.

2009-03-16 HHSCMS Memo RegardingCLIA

Asking HHS to reconsider its new interpretation of regulations, which willrequire CLIA certification for laboratories that perform forensic testing.

2009-03-16 DOE

DOE's audit of the

Washington Savannah River

Company

Request for information and documents related to the auditing and oversight

of contract spending at DOE's Savannah River Site, which DOE's IG

determined to contain serious accounting deficiencies and material

weaknesses.

2009-03-11 FDA

FDA Oversight in light of

the Salmonella Outbreak

Request for information regarding FDA oversight of state inspection

programs and the FDA's reportable food registry.

2009-02-25 FDA FDA Debarments

Request for an update on FDA action regarding debarment authority one

year after the Republican report on the matter was released.

2009-02-18 FCC DTV Coupon Priorities

Urging regulators to focus the coupon program on minority households that

are not prepared for the DTV conversion during the President's requested

delay and other recommendations.

2009-02-18 NTIA DTV Coupon Priorities

Urging regulators to focus the coupon program on minority households that

are not prepared for the DTV conversion during the President's requested

delay and other recommendations.

2009-02-10 GAO

Update of Greenhouse Gas

Inventory

Requesting GAO update the 2003 review on greenhouse gas inventories,

with particular attention to 1) quality and comparability of inventories (for

developed and developing countries), 2) limits to auditing and validation of

inventories, 3) barriers to closing information gaps, and 4) implications for

reaching an international agreement.

2009-02-06 DOE

DOE's Foreign Visits and

Assignments Program

Request for information on steps DOE has taken in response to an IG report,

which outlined security weaknesses in DOE's Foreign Visits and

Assignments Program.

2009-02-04 DOE - IG

Strategic Petroleum Reserve

Security

Requesting an update of the DOE IG's report on security measures at SPRfacilities, and whether DOE has adequately addressed previously identified

shortcomings.



LIST OF RECENT AND PENDING EPA REGULATIONSUNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT

This chart lists Clean Air Act (CAA) rulemakings initiated or finalized by the Obama Administration, as well as pendi

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as currently under development. The chart is based on EPA’s rulemaking rulemakings in order of compliance costs based on EPA’s own estimates. For rulemakings for which EPA has not y

estimates or has concluded cost estimates were not required, the rulemakings are listed in chronological order of th

Regulation Status EPA CostEstimates

Description P

1 Reconsideration of the2008 Ozone NationalAmbient Air QualityStandards (Proposed)

Final ruleprojectedNovember 2010

$19-$90 billionper year in 2020($2006). (RIA page S1-4, S2-3andEPA fact

sheet).

Proposes to lower National AmbientAir Quality (NAAQS) standards for ground-level ozone (from 1997 level0.08 ppm/2008 level of 0.075 ppm)to between 0.070 and 0.060ppm,

and to set a separate secondarystandard to protect vegetation andecosystems. Also proposes toaccelerate the schedule for states todesignate areas that do not meetthe new standards.

EPcurwomil96%

a 0reqto bstaimpcomconemnitrcomcon

formindconproindinc

Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff October 14, 2010

http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480a7f618





http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/byRIN/2060-AP98?opendocument



http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/s1-supplemental_analysis_full.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/groundlevelozone/pdfs/fs20100106ria.pdf




http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/s1-supplemental_analysis_full.pdf










2 Light-duty vehiclesgreenhouse gas emissionsStandardsand CorporateAverage Fuel EconomyStandards

(Final)

Final rulepublished May7, 2010

EPA and DOTestimatecompliancecosts between$51.5 billion

and $51.8billion for all MY2012-2016vehicles over fulllifetime of vehiclesprojected to besold duringmodel years2012-2016($2007).

Sets greenhouse gas emissions(GHG) and fuel efficiency standardsfor new passenger cars and trucksfor MY 2012-2016vehicles.President Obamahas directed

agencies to develop more stringentstandards for MY 2017-2025vehicles.

RumapasReinc

maimpcomaveto itruc201

3 National EmissionStandards for HazardousAir Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial,Commercial & InstitutionalBoilers and ProcessHeaters (Proposed)

Final ruleprojectedDecember 2010

$9.5 billion incapitalexpenditures;$3.2 billion inannual costs (reduced to$2.9 billion dueto fuel savings). (75 Fed. Reg.32037,Regulatory

Impact Analysis)

Proposes to set emissionsstandards for hazardous air pollutants (e.g., particulate matter,hydrogen chloride, mercury) for boilers and process heaters locatedat major sources. Standards for major sources will be based on themaximum achievable controltechnology (MACT).

Ruopeor iheaPoentpetMaprorubpro

accpetblasanedu


http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480ae8a38



http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-regarding-fuel-efficiency-standards


http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480afbb49








http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=09000064800c0c3e

















4 National EmissionStandards for HazardousAir Pollutants for AreaSources: Industrial,Commercial, and

Institutional Boilers (Proposed)

Projected datefor final rulepublicationDecember 2010

Total capitalcosts of approximately$2.5 billion and$1 billion in

total annualizedcosts (75 Fed.Reg. 31914).EPA Fact Sheet

Proposes to set emission limits for coal-fired, biomass-fired and oil-firedtypes of boilers located at areasources in order to reduceemissions of a number of toxic air

pollutants including mercury, metals,and organic air toxics. Thestandards for area sources must betechnology-based on either generally available controltechnology or maximum achievablecontrol technology. Exempts naturalgas-fired area source boilers.

Ruopeandarecat

marefiTheboilauand“insboihosedu(e.g

chu(e.g5 Transport Rule (CAIR

Replacement Rule);Federal ImplementationPlans to Reduce InterstateTransport of FineParticulate Matter andOzone (Proposed)

NPRMcomment periodcloses October 2010

$3.7 billion in2012 and $2.8billi on in 2014(preferredremedy option;$2006). (75Fed. Reg.45348, 45352).Costs for the

agency’salternativeproposedapproach wouldbe $4.2 billion in2012 and $2.7

Proposes to limit interstate transportof emissions of nitrogen oxides andsulfur dioxide within 32 states in theeastern United States that affect theability of downwind states complywith the 1997 and 2006 fineparticulate matter NAAQS and 1997ozone NAAQS. An initial phase of emissions reductions would be

required by 2012. A second phaseof reductions would be required by2014. Sunsets CAIR; sets forthEPA's preferred replacementapproach and seeks comment ontwo alternative approaches. Each

Rufacutilsys








http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/byRIN/2060-AM44?opendocument





http://www.epa.gov/airquality/combustion/docs/fsboilersarea20100429.pdf


http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480b25be1







http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/contentStreamer?objectId=0900006480b25be1&disposition=attachment&contentType=html

http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/contentStreamer?objectId=0900006480b25be1&disposition=attachment&contentType=html





















billion in 2014. approach would set a pollution limit(or budget) for each state and obtainreductions from power plants. EPA'spreferred approach would allowintrastate trading and some

interstate trading among power plants. 6 Emissions Controls for

new Marine Dieselengines at or Above 30Liters per Cylinder (Final)

Final rulepublished June2010

$1.85 billi on in2020, increasing to$3.11 billion in2030 (2006 $). (75 Fed. Reg.22939, ProgramCosts FactSheet)

Places emissions standards onCategory 3 engines in order toreduce their emissions of PM2.5,SOX, and NOX that contribute tononattainment of the NAAQS for PM2.5 and ground-level ozone.Standards apply in two stages—near-term standards for newly builtengines will apply beginning in

2011; long-term standards requiringan 80 percent reduction in NOXemissions will begin in 2016. Alsofinalizes change to diesel fuelprogram that will allow for production and sale of 1,000 ppmsulfur fuel for use in Category 3marine Vessels; generally forbidsthe production and sale of other fuels above 1,000 ppm sulfur for usein most U.S. waters, unless

alternative devices, procedures, or compliance methods are used toachieve equivalent emissionsreductions. Makes technicalamendments to motor vehicle andnonroad engine regulations in

RumaUncomperaboflagStama

regthaowvesthaengfueselof nmama

bulwhLakTra






http://www.epa.gov/nonroad/marine/ci/420f09029.htm#4














recently finalized rule for newnonroad spark-ignition engines.

7 Primary National AmbientAir Quality Standard for

Sulfur Dioxide(Final)

Final rulepublished June

22, 2010

$1.5 billi on($2006) in 2020

for fullattainment.Because thisanalysis onlyconsiderscounties thatcurrently havean SO2 monitor,EPA advisesthat, as the newmonitoring

network isinstalled, theremay be morepotentialnonattainmentareas than havebeen analyzed inthe RIA. (RIAES-1 and 9:RegulatoryImpact Analysis)

Lowers the primary NationalAmbient Air Quality Standard

(NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide (SO2) bysetting new short term (one-hour)SO2 standard at 75 parts per billion(ppb), and revoking the prior 24-hour and annual SO2 healthstandards. Also establishes newmonitoring requirements for SO2.

Ruimp

howstadire

8 NESHAP MACTReconsideration for Portland Cement (Final)

Final RulepublishedSeptember 9,2010

EPA estimates$926 – $950 million annually in 2013(combined withrule below). (See

Sets the limits on mercury air emissions from existing cementkilns, strengthens the limits for newkilns, and sets emission limits thatwill reduce acid gases. Also limitsparticle pollution from new and

Ruma


http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/so2/fr/20100622.pdf



http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/fso2rial100602exec.pdf



http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html


http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/contentStreamer?objectId=0900006480978b9f&disposition=attachment&contentType=html



http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/ef62ba1cb3c8079b8525777a005af9a5!OpenDocument














8/9/2010 pressrelease) (alsociting another EPA analysisestimating lower

costs of $350million annually).EPA estimatesthat the averageprice for Portlandcement could be5.4% higher withthe NESHAPand NSPS (seebelow), and thatdomestic

production mayfall by 11%, andoperating profitsmay fall by $241million (page276).

existing kilns, and sets new-kilnlimits for particle and smog-formingnitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide.

9 Review of New SourcePerformance Standards --Portland Cement (Final)

Final rulereleasedAugust 8, 2010

See costestimateimmediatelyabove.

Sets New Source PerformanceStandards (NSPS) regulate criteriapollutants, such as particulatematter, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogenoxides from new stationary sources.

Ruma

10 Reciprocating InternalCombustion Engines:Final National EmissionsStandards for HazardousAir Pollutants - SparkIgnition Engines

Final rulepublishedAugust 20,2010

Total capital costfor existingstationaryinternalcombustionsengines

Sets national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for existingstationary spark ignitionreciprocating internal combustionengines that either are located atarea sources of hazardous air

RustaengcatEletran





http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/fr_notices/portland_cement_fr_080910.pdf






http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480b362cf





















(Final) estimated to be$383 million,with a totalnational annualcost of $253

million ($2009)in year 2013 (thefirst year this ruleis implemented).(75 Fed. Reg.51582:RegulatoryImpact Analysis)

pollutant emissions or that have asite rating of less than or equal to500 brake horsepower and arelocated at major sources of hazardous air pollutant emissions.

andtrannatliqu

11 Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases(Final)

Final rulepublishedOctober 30,

2009

Nationalannualized costfor first year

estimated to be$132 million,and total nationalannualized costfor subsequentyears to be $89million ($2006)(75 Fed. Reg.56362)

Requires reporting of greenhousegas emissions from all sectors of theeconomy. Sets data collection and

reporting requirements. EPAestimates during the first year therule will affect approximately 30,000facilities that will need to determinewhether they are subject to the rule,and that ultimately approximately10,152 facilities will be required toreport.

Ruandgre

maoffrPoentboiinccomcruPuof lche

plaandanhPochlocal


http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nsps/sinsps/sinsps_neshap121907.pdf


http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/contentStreamer?objectId=0900006480a4e5fa&disposition=attachment&contentType=html















dolethethcarabr

phoindaircdiesmignandfurnpolEleedu

firePrimfacmilblaprosmPeandnatPrim

dusSotreafeeprofarm




facMeliqugas

12 Petroleum and Natural

Gas Systems GreenhouseGas Reporting Rule(Proposed)

Final rule

projectedOctober 2010

$56-59 million

in the firs t year andsubsequentannualizedcosts of $21-25.3 mill ion ($2006).75 Fed. Reg.18628:EconomicImpact Analysis)

Proposes to supplement mandatory

greenhouse gas reporting rule byrequiring reporting of greenhousegas emissions from the petroleumand natural gas industry.

Ru

natregincnatfacpetgas

13 National EmissionStandards for Halogenated SolventCleaning – Remand

NPRMextensionclosed February2009. No datefor next stepnoted.

Total capitalcosts between$15.65 - 49.89million; totalannual cos tsbetween $1.38 –2.839 million (73 Fed. Reg.62402).

Proposes to sets emission limits for certain halogenated solventcleaning machines sources.

Ruhalprimprimmaprotranfurn

14 National Emission

Standards for HazardousAir Pollutants FromPetroleumRefineries (Final)

Final rule

publishedOctober 28,2009

Total capital

investment costestimated to be $16 million, andtotal annualizedcost of controlsestimated to be

This action amends the national

emission standards for petroleumrefineries to add maximumachievable control technologystandards for heat exchangesystems.

Ru

locsubCCsm


http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/contentStreamer?objectId=0900006480ad5aa6&disposition=attachment&contentType=html



http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480a8361a



http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=09000064807688c6











http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480a4d219




























$3 million,which includes$2.2 millioncredit for recovery of lost

product and theannualized costof capital. (Page55680,EconomicImpact Analysis)

15 Standards of Performancefor New StationarySources and EmissionsGuidelines for ExistingSources:

Hospital/Medical/InfectiousWaste Incinerators (Final)

Final rulepublishedOctober 6, 2009

Total costswould be $15.5million in eachof the first 3years for 57

existing HMIWIto comply withMACTcomplianceoption. For alternativedisposal option,total costs wouldbe approximately$10.6 million per year. (74 Fed.

Reg. 51397-8,EconomicImpacts of RevisedStandards)

Sets revised emission limits for hospital/medical/infectious wasteincinerators (HMIWI).

RuHMtribcarwa

priv.


http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=090000648027a06d


http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/contentStreamer?objectId=0900006480a3ceb7&disposition=attachment&contentType=html








http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480a206b8




















16 National EmissionStandards for HazardousAir Pollutants: AreaSource Standards for Paints and Allied Products

Manufacturing (Final)

Final rulepublishedDecember 3,2009

Total capitalcosts for installingparticulatecontrol devices

is$8.1 million and annual costis estimated tobe $3.1 milli onper year.(74 Fed. Reg.63523,EconomicImpact Analysis)

Sets emission standards for controlof hazardous air pollutants (HAP) for the Paints and Allied ProductsManufacturing area sourcecategory. EPA estimates 21% of

facilities, or 460 area sources, willbe required to install particulatecontrol equipment. 110 facilities willbe required to install lids or coverson their process, mixing, andstorage vessels. The other affectedfacilities will incur costs only for submitting the notifications and for completing the annual compliancecertification.

Ruopepaimasou

(HAuseconbencomleapotaremixbincoa

lacwaandsoumacauinkIndink

17 Standards of Performancefor Coal Preparation and

Processing Plants (Final)

Final rulepublished

October 8, 2009

Total $7.9million in each

of firs t 5 yearsof compliance.Potentialadditional costsfor new thermaldryers estimated

Sets revised new sourceperformance standards for coal

preparation and processing plants.

Careg

inclignEle(exMaand


http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480a62026







http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=09000064808e9b53



http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480a3e371

















to range from$133,000 to$1.54 million per year. (74 Fed.Reg. 51975:

EconomicImpact Analysis)

Fosgen

18 Greenhouse GasReporting Rule for Additional Sources of Fluorinated GHGs (Proposed)

Final ruleprojectedOctober 2010

$6.1 - $7.8million in totalannualizedcosts in thefirst year; $3.9 -$5.6 million insubsequentyears ($2006).(75 Fed. Reg.

18690,EconomicImpact Analysis)

Proposes to supplementgreenhouse gas mandatoryreporting rule published in theFederal Register Oct. 30, 2009 byadding greenhouse gas reportingrequirements for five sourcecategories: 1) ElectronicsManufacturing, 2) Fluorinated GasProduction, 3) Use of Electrical

Transmission and DistributionEquipment, 4) Manufacture or Refurbishment of ElectricalEquipment, and 5) Importers of Pre-charged Equipment and Closed-CellFoams.

RuopeReincmicdevgasconmo

prodistranequmeappbre


http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=09000064805229dd


http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480ad5a87





http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/97d1174bb3a83e3e852576a100666576/bb2fc78889cf323a8525770b006208d9!OpenDocument





http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480ac4d48
















19 Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases FromMagnesium Production,Underground Coal Mines,Industrial Wastewater

Treatment, and IndustrialWaste Landfills(Proposed)

Final rulepublished July12, 2010

Totalannualizedcosts of $7million in thefirst year and

$5.5 million insubsequentyears ($2006)(75 Fed. Reg.page 39753)

Proposes to supplementgreenhouse gas mandatoryreporting rule published in theFederal Register Oct. 30, 2009 byadding greenhouse gas reporting

requirements for four sourcecategories: magnesium production,underground coal mines, industrialwastewater treatment, and industrialwaste landfills.

Rupromintrealan

entnonmeproantminlanpapfacvegFru

facfacfac

20 Review of New Sourcesand Modifications in IndianCountry (a.k.a. NSR inIndian Country) (Proposed)

NPRMcomment periodclosedNovember 20,2006; final rulesent to OMB for reviewSeptember 2010 andprojected to bepublished as

Totalannualizedcosts of complianceestimated to be$6 million per year (EconomicImpact AnalysisES-1)

EPA is developing federal

regulations to govern

preconstruction permitting of minor

stationary sources throughout Indian

country and major stationary

sources of air pollution innonattainment areas in Indian

country.

Po

ent

sto

ma

furn

wafert

pla

min

qua


http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-16488.pdf








http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=090000648024964a





http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/a04cd269f2737522852576a100666799/0c34f386e5d0f1358525770b006207f4!OpenDocument












http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480193ff9


































soon asDecember 2010

gra

fire

fire

pip

mo

ope

ope

mix

aci

sur

bat

oil s

gas

refi

21 National EmissionStandards for HazardousAir Pollutants: Gold MineOre Processing andProduction Area SourceCategory and Addition toSource Category List for Standards (Proposed)

Proposed rulepublished April28, 2010;comment periodextended

Capital costs of of $5 million for emissioncontrols;annualized costof $2.3 milli on.The capital costsfor monitoring,reporting, andrecordkeepingare estimated as$1.0 to $1.3million with atotal annualizedcost of $0.8 to$1.5 million per

Proposes to add the gold mine oreprocessing and production areasource category to the list of sourcecategories subject to regulationunder the hazardous air pollutantsection of the Clean Air Act (CAA)due to their mercury emissions.EPA is also proposing nationalmercury emission standards for thiscategory based on the emissionslevel of the best performing facilitieswhich are well controlled for mercury.

Rupotestdevandoreconenggolcomare




http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480ae2960





















year, dependingon monitoringoption that ischosen. (75 Fed.Reg. 22486,

Estimates for Costs of theProposed Rule)

22 Primary National AmbientAir Quality Standards for Nitrogen Dioxide (Final)

Final rulepublishedFebruary 9,2010

$3.6 million in2020 ($2006).Because thisanalysisconsiders onlycounties thatcurrently haveNO2 monitors,

EPA advises thatthe possibilityexists that, asthe newmonitoringnetwork isinstalled, theremay be morepotentialnonattainmentareas than

analyzed in theRIA. (FinalRegulatoryImpact Analysis ES-1, ES-6)

Supplements national standards for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) byestablishing a new short-term (1-hour) daily maximum standard of 100 parts per billion (ppb), andestablishes new monitoringrequirements.

Rudetwithstatheto idpolam

likeconof nfromtheof Nmogenmo344


http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480ae313a



http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/nox/fr/20100209.pdf



http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/FinalNO2RIAfulldocument.pdf




http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/nox/fr/20090715proposal.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/nox/fr/20090715proposal.pdf












23 National EmissionStandards for HazardousAir Pollutants for ChemicalManufacturing AreaSources

(Final)

Final rulepublishedOctober 29,2009

Total capitalcost of $2.8million; totalannualizedcost, including

the annualizedcost of capitalequipment i sestimated to be$3.2 million per year (74 Fed.Reg. 56039).

Sets emission standards for thecontrol of hazardous air pollutantsfor nine area source categories inthe chemical manufacturing sector:Agricultural Chemicals and

Pesticides Manufacturing, CyclicCrude and Intermediate Production,Industrial Inorganic ChemicalManufacturing, Industrial OrganicChemical Manufacturing, InorganicPigments Manufacturing,Miscellaneous Organic ChemicalManufacturing, Plastic Materials andResins Manufacturing,Pharmaceutical Production, andSynthetic Rubber Manufacturing.

Themaregincare

genas to tPro325proothin Nopephowh

chetheregradradcomura

24 Revisions to Motor VehicleFuel Economy Label (Proposed)

Proposed rulepublishedSeptember 23,2010; comment

period closesNovember 2010

$649,000—$2.8million per year (75 Fed. Reg.58084)

Proposes to amend the way inwhich fuel economy estimates arecalculated and/or displayed (but willnot impact the Corporate Average

Fuel Economy requirements).

Rumavehme

as regautnontrucCA


http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480a4dd06









http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480b5acd9














25 National EmissionStandards for HazardousAir Pollutants: AreaSource Standards for Prepared Feeds

Manufacturing (Final)

Final rulepublishedJanuary 5, 2010

Nationwidecapital costsestimated to bearound $2.5million. Annual

costs estimatedto be just over $3 million/year .(75 Fed. Reg.544, EconomicImpact Analysis)

Sets emission standards for controlof hazardous air pollutants (HAP) for the Prepared Feeds Manufacturingarea source category.

Rumafee

26 Greenhouse GasReporting Rule reCorporate Parent andNAICS Code (Final)

Final rulepublishedSeptember 22,2010

The totalnational costis approximately$944,000 in thefirst year and

about$470,000 insubsequentyears ($2006)(page 57682)

Proposes to further revisegreenhouse gas mandatoryreporting rule published in theFederal Register Oct. 30, 2009 byrequiring reporters to provide

additional data on U.S. U.S. parentcompany, NAIC codes and anindication of whether reportedemissions are from a co-generationunit.

Rugre25,equpet

indandtheannentboiinccomcruPuof l

chemismoaccCegla









http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=09000064809f2fba


http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480b555b0





















hyddicoxidcaldol

SteEleanogasedufirePrimfacmilblapro

smwafaccatHoproProandgas

27 GHG Reporting Rule for Carbon Dioxide Injection

and GeologicSequestration (Proposed)

Final Ruleprojected

October 2010

Annual costs of $714,000

($2008) onimpacted CO2injectionfacilities;$344,000 for public sector

Proposes to supplementgreenhouse gas mandatory

reporting rule published in theFederal Register Oct. 30, 2009 byadding greenhouse gas reportingrequirements for facilities thatconduct geologic sequestration or that inject CO2 underground to

Rugas

geoincfac




















burden.However, “thismayunderestimatethe total public

sector burden.”($2008) (75 Fed.Reg. 18596,EconomicImpact Analysis)

report greenhouse data to EPAannually.

28 Standards of Performancefor StationaryCompression Ignition andSpark Ignition InternalCombustion Engines(Proposed)

Proposed rulepublished June8, 2010;comment periodextendedSeptember 8,

2010

Total nationalcapital costestimated to be$236,000 in theyear 2018, withtotal annual cost

of $142,000 inthe year 2018. The year 2018 isthe first year theemissionstandards wouldbe fullyimplemented for stationary CIengines between10 and 30 l/cyl.

Total nationalcapital cost for proposed rule inyear 2030 is$235,000, withtotal national

Proposes revised standards of performance for new stationarycompression ignition internalcombustion engines under section111(b) of the Clean Air Act. Theproposed rule would implement

more stringent standards for stationary compression ignitionengines with displacement greater than or equal to 10 liters per cylinder and less than 30 liters per cylinder.

Ruprostaengrulecat

EletranandMagenwe


http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480ab9133





http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480afe2c6















annual cost of $711,000 (75Fed. Reg.32620).

29 National Emission

Standards for HazardousAir Pollutants for AreaSources: ChemicalPreparations Industry (Final)

Final rule

publishedDecember 30,2009

Annual cost of

monitoring isestimated to be$6,800 per facility per year after the firstyear. Theadditional cost of one-timeactivities duringthe first year of compliance is

estimated to beapproximately$2,400 per facility. (74 Fed.Reg. 69206,EconomicImpact Analysis)

Sets national emissions standards

for control of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from the chemicalpreparations area source category.

Ru

prefinatota40%Poentfacprecommama

inkCharetreaprecondril

Rules for which EPA provided no specific compliance cost estimate in rulemlisted by date of most recent action

Regulation Status EPA CostEstimates

Description P

30 Predictive EmissionMonitory System inStationary Sources:

Final rulepublishedMarch 2009

No cost estimateprovided.

Promulgates PerformanceSpecification (PS) 16 for predictiveemissions monitoring systems

Rupotent







http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=09000064809f42b1


http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=090000648092dd31















Performance Specification16 (Final)

(PEMS), to predict nitrogen oxidesemissions from small industrial,commercial, and institutional steamgenerating units. PerformanceSpecification 16 provides testing

requirements for assessing theacceptability of PEMS when theyare initially installed.

SteCeMaIncAp

GraCoSuPreSuMaPlafor PrinLeapro

Ov

31 NESHAP: Brick andStructural Clay Productsand Clay Products (Proposed)

Pre-proposalinitiated June11, 2009

TBD The rulemaking will establishemission limits for hazardous air pollutants (HF, HCl and metals)emitted from brick and clayceramics kilns and glazingoperations at clay ceramicsproduction facilities.

TheprofacclaanddimshaThesou

thacerdinand

32 Revisions to Test Methodfor Determining Stack Gas

Proposed rulepublished

EPA expects theproposed

Proposes revising the voluntary testmethod for determining stack gas

Ruele





http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/byRIN/2060-AP69





















Velocity Taking IntoAccount Velocity DecayNear the Stack Walls (Proposed)

August 25,2009

revised methodwill only be usedby small entitiesif the use of therevised method

results in overallcost savings dueto the voluntarynature of themethod (74 Fed.Reg. 42822).

velocity taking into account thevelocity decay near the stack or ductwalls.

owSta

33 Action To Ensure AuthorityTo Issue Permits Under the Prevention of Significant DeteriorationProgram to Sources of

Greenhouse Gas Emissions: FederalImplementationPlan(Proposed)

Proposed rulepublishedSeptember 2,2010

Projected finalrule December 1, 2010


One of two separate rulemakings (see below for companionrulemaking) EPA is proposing toaddress permitting in states that donot have approved PSD programs

that apply to greenhouse gasemitting sources. In this rule, EPAis proposing a Federalimplementation plan (FIP) to applyin any State that is unable to submit,by its deadline, a corrective Stateimplementation plan (SIP) revisionto ensure that the State hasauthority to issue permits under theClean Air Act’s New Source ReviewPrevention of Significant

Deterioration (PSD) program for sources of greenhouse gases(GHGs).

PoincautAnper

struGHregpotinareq110potruleregNS

eacomina






http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-09-02/pdf/2010-21706.pdf#page=1











http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/708bd315d348b5568525777d0060c5da!OpenDocument


















34 Action To Ensure AuthorityTo Issue Permits Under the Prevention of Significant DeteriorationProgram to Sources of

Greenhouse GasEmissions: Finding of Substantial Inadequacyand SIP Call(Proposed)

Proposed rulepublishedSeptember 2,2010

Projected finalrule December 1, 2010


One of two separate rulemakings (see above for companionrulemaking) EPA is proposing toaddress permitting in states that donot have approved Prevention of

Significant Deterioration (PSD)programs that apply to greenhousegas emitting sources. In this rule,EPA is proposing to find that 13States with EPA-approved Stateimplementation plan (SIP) NewSource Review PSD programs aresubstantially inadequate to meetClean Air Act requirements becausethey do not appear to apply PSDrequirements to GHG-emitting

sources. For each of these States,EPA proposes to require the State(through a ‘‘SIP Call’’) to revise itsSIP as necessary to correct suchinadequacies. EPA proposes anexpedited schedule for States tosubmit their corrective SIP revision,in light of the fact that as of January2, 2011, certain GHG-emittingsources will become subject to thePSD requirements and may not beable to obtain a PSD permit in order to construct or modify. As for therest of the States with approved SIPPSD programs, EPA solicitscomment on whether their PSDprograms do or do not apply to

Alaof SCoCoSa

CoKaandNeTex





























GHG-emitting sources. If,on the basis of information EPAreceives, EPA concludes that theSIP for such a State does not applythe PSD program to GHG-emitting

sources, then EPA will proceed toalso issue a finding of substantialinadequacy and a SIP Call for thatState.

35 Emissions FactorsProgram Improvements

ANPRMpublishedOctober 14,2009


The purpose of this AdvancedNotice of Proposed Rulemaking is toconvey issues raised bystakeholders about EPA’s emissionsfactors program, inform the public of our initial ideas on how to address

these issues, and solicit commentson our current thinking to resolvethese issues. EPA’s goal is todevelop a self-sustaining emissionsfactors program that produces highquality, timely emissions factors,better indicates the precision andaccuracy of emissions factors,encourages the appropriate use of emissions factors, and ultimatelyimproves emissions quantification.

Although initially developed for emissions inventory purposes only,use of emissions factors has beenexpanded to a variety of air pollutioncontrol activities includingpermitting, enforcement, modeling,

Ruopeusethoreq(i.e

StaEmAir MaTecoth


http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480a417c0






control strategy development, andrisk analysis. This ANPRMdiscusses the appropriateness of using emissions factors for theseactivities.

36 NESHAP Residual Riskand Technology Reviewfor Ferroalloys

InitiatedDecember 2009; notimeline listed(No Pre-Proposal textcurrentlyavailable)

TBD Under the "technology review"provision of CAA section 112, EPAmust review maximum achievablecontrol technology (MACT)standards and revise them "asnecessary (taking into accountdevelopments in practices,processes and controltechnologies)" no less frequentlythan every 8 years. Under the

"residual risk" provision of the CAAsection 112, EPA must evaluate theMACT standards within 8 years after promulgation and promulgatestandards if required to provide anample margin of safety to protectpublic health or prevent an adverseenvironmental effect. EPA hascombined the two review activitiesinto the "risk and technology" (RTR)reviews for the Ferroalloys

Production source category.

TB

37 Endangerment and Causeor Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of theClean Air Act (a/k/a

Final rulepublishedDecember 15,2009

No cost estimateprovided for greenhouse gasregulations thatwill result from

EPA Administrator Jackson foundthat (1) the current and projectedconcentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases — carbondioxide (CO2), methane (CH4),

EPimpind


http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/byRIN/2060-AQ11



http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480a6afdd















Endangerment Finding) (Final)

the findings. (74Fed. Reg.66515-66516,66545).

nitrous oxide (N2O),hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) — in theatmosphere threaten the public

health and welfare of current andfuture generations; and (2) findsthat the combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gasesfrom new motor vehicles and newmotor vehicle engines contribute tothe greenhouse gas pollution whichthreatens public health andwelfare. This action was aprerequisite to finalizing the EPA'sproposed greenhouse gas emission

standards for light-duty vehicles,which EPA proposed in a jointproposal including the Departmentof Transportation's proposed CAFEstandards on September 15, 2009(see above). This action is also aprerequisite to issuing other EPAgreenhouse gas regulations for stationary sources.

38 Requirements for ControlTechnology

Determinations for Major Sources in AccordanceWith Clean Air ActSections, Sections 112(g)and 112(j) (Proposed)

Proposed rulepublished

March 30, 2010;comment periodextendedthrough the endof May 2010

EPA concludesthe rule does not

impose any newcosts. (75 Fed.Reg. 15660).

Proposes amending the rulegoverning case-by-case emission

limits for major sources of hazardous air pollutants under section 112(j) of the Clean Air Act.Specifically, EPA is proposingrevisions to the section 112(j) rule toclarify and streamline the process

Rureg

Facchlopolprowafixtu




http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/regulations.htm


http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480acc241




















for establishing case-by-caseemission limits in the case of thecomplete vacatur of a section 112(d)rule applicable to a major sourcecategory initially listed pursuant to

section 112(c)(1). In addition, EPAis also proposing revisions thatwould eliminate provisions of thesection 112(j) rule that have becomeobsolete or are redundant.

womisproparpap

SteEleanogasedusoureg112hazcomAp

39 Prevention of SignificantDeterioration (PSD):Reconsideration of Interpretation of Regulations thatDetermine PollutantsCovered by the FederalPSD Permit Program(a.k.a. Johnson MemoReconsideration) (Final)

Final Action onReconsiderationof Interpret-ation publishedApril 2, 2010

N/A EPA determination that it willcontinue to apply the Agency’sdetermination, set forth in aDecember 18, 2008 Administrator memorandum, that Prevention of Significant Determination (PSD)permitting requirements would notapply to a newly regulated pollutantuntil a regulatory requirement tocontrol emissions of that pollutant“takes effect.”

Rusoureqgas

40 Revisions to the GeneralConformity Regulations(Final)

Final rulepublished April5, 2010

No cost estimateprovided. Revises regulations requiring thatFederal actions conform to theappropriate State, tribal or Federalimplementation plan for attainingclean air (“General Conformity”).Prevents air quality impacts of

RupubrecFedand


http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480acecfc











http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480ad0505
















http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480a2a67d

http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480a2a67d

http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/contentStreamer?objectId=0900006480afaaf3&disposition=attachment&contentType=html





http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480b0ea53





http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480aea336





http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/byRIN/2060-AO81




PSD permitting requirements wouldbe triggered for almost 41,000entities and title V permittingrequirements for approximately 6million entities. The rule also

commits to take certain actions onfuture steps addressing smaller sources, but excludes certainsmaller sources from PSD and titleV permitting for GHG emissions untilat least April 30, 2016.

remnurfacserhou

(Co

43 Lead Emissions FromPiston-Engine AircraftUsing Leaded AviationGasoline

ANPRM closedon August 27,2010; notimeline for proposal posted

TBD ANPR and extension of commentperiod for EPA’s announcement of aproposed rulemaking on leademissions from piston enginepowered aircraft using leaded

aviation gasoline. Describesinformation available andinformation being collected that willbe used by the Administrator toissue a subsequent proposalregarding whether, in theAdministrator's judgment, aircraftlead emissions from aircraft usingleaded aviation gasoline cause or contribute to air pollution which mayreasonably be anticipated to

endanger public health or welfare.

TB

44 Mercury Cell Chlor-AlkaliNESHAP MACT

NPRM closedAugust 11,2008;SupplementalNPRM sent to

TBD for supplementalNPRM.(2008 NPRM didnot provide

This action is a supplementalproposal for amendment of thenational emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP)for mercury emissions from mercury

TB


http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480b093f2





http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=090000648061e497



http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/byRIN/2060-AN99


















http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/byRIN/2060-AO91?opendocument



http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480743aaa
















http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/rulegate.nsf/byRIN/2060-AO24?opendocument



http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=090000648029651b

















Regeneration Plants(subparts N, U, Y, KK,CCC, GGG)

currently regulated under thesestandards. It also proposes for all 6NESHAP to address provisionsrelated to emissions during periodsof startup, shutdown, and

malfunction. Finally, this actionproposes changes to 2 of the 6NESHAP to correct editorial errors,make clarifications, or addressissues with implementation or determining compliance.

MaWoPro

47 Regulation to Prevent theMisfueling of Vehicles andEngines with GasolineContaining Greater thanTen Volume Percent

Ethanol and Modificationsto the Reformulated andConventional GasolinePrograms

NPRMprojectedNovember 2010

TBD Proposes to control and regulatedistribution of fuels and fueladditives that may pose harm to theenvironment or public health.

TB

48 Control of GreenhouseGas Emissions fromHeavy-Duty Vehicles

ANPRMpublished;proposed ruleprojectedOctober 2010

TBD Proposes to sets national emissionstandards to control greenhousegas emissions from heavy dutytrucks and buses.

TB

49 Review of New SourcePerformance Standards

for Nitric Acid Plants -Subpart G

NPRMprojected

November 2010

TBD The law mandates EPA review andif appropriate revise existing New

Source Performance Standards(NSPS) at least every 8 years. ThisNSPS was initially promulgated in1971. This NSPS was reviewed in1979 and 1984. On January 2010,consent decree was entered into US

TB






































































District Court between EPA andseveral environmental groups. Thedecree requires proposed revisionsto be made by November 2010 andfinal revisions to be made by

November 2011.50 Review of the NationalAmbient Air QualityStandards for CarbonMonoxide


TBD The law mandates EPA review and,if appropriate, revise air qualitycriteria for primary (health-based)and secondary (welfare-based)national ambient air qualitystandards (NAAQS) every 5 years.The last CO NAAQS reviewoccurred in 1994 with a decision bythe Administrator not to revise theexisting standards. The current

review, which was initiated inSeptember 2007, includes thepreparation of an Integrated ScienceAssessment, Risk/ExposureAssessment, and a PolicyAssessment Document by EPA,with opportunities for review byEPA's Clean Air Scientific AdvisoryCommittee and the public. Thesedocuments inform theAdministrator's decision as to

whether to retain or revise thestandards.

TB

51 Risk and TechnologyReview NESHAP for

NPRMprojected

TBD This action would conduct residualrisk and technology reviews for two

TB


http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/byRIN/2060-AI43


























Shipbuilding and ShipRepair (Surface Coating)and Wood FurnitureManufacturing

November 2010 industrial source categoriesregulated by two National EmissionStandards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP): Shipbuildingand Ship Repair (Surface Coating),

and Wood Furniture Manufacturing.The underlying national emissionstandards that are under review inthis action limit and controlhazardous air pollutants. Section112(f)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA)directs EPA to assess the riskremaining (residual risk) after theapplication of the NESHAP andpromulgate additional standards if warranted to provide an ample

margin of safety to protect publichealth or prevent an adverseenvironmental effect. Also, section112(d)(6) of the CAA requires EPAto review and revise the NESHAPas necessary at least every 8 years,taking into account developments inpractices, processes, and controltechnologies. This action wouldconduct those reviews for the twosource categories cited above.

52 Revision to Definition of Volatile OrganicCompounds - Exclusion of Methyl Iodide (a.k.a.Methyl Iodide Exemption


TBD EPA lists for regulation certainvolatile organic compounds (VOCs)as precursors to ozone formationunder section 302(s) of the CleanAir Act (CAA) and 40 CFR

TB































from Definition of VOCs) 51.100(s). While all VOCs have theability to react in the atmosphere toform ozone, some VOCs react atsuch a slow rate their contribution toground-level ozone is negligible.

Through regulation, the Agency canexempt negligibly reactivecompounds from the definition of VOCs. VOCs that are exemptedfrom the CAA definition are nolonger necessary to control in stateimplementation plans for attainingthe national ambient air qualitystandard for ozone. This rule wouldaddress whether EPA shouldexempt methyl iodide based on its

reactivity. This compound is used asa pesticide.

53 Malfunction Amendmentsto Part 63 Standards

Pre-proposal;target date for NPRMDecember 2010

TBD Proposes to amend regulations inthe General Provisions of regulations promulgated under theClean Air Act (subpart A of Part 63)that provide for or are related to anexemption from the requirement tocomply with Clean Air Act section

112 emission standards duringstartup, shutdown, and malfunction(SSM) events.

Geanyincspe

54 Residual Risk andTechnology Review:Primary Lead Smelting

Pre-proposal;NPRMexpected

TBD This action is the Risk andTechnology Review (RTR) for Primary Lead Smelters. It will

TB





http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/rulegate.nsf/byRIN/2060-AP96

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/byRIN/2060-AQ43?opendocument












February 2011 address both EPA's obligation under Clean Air Act (CAA) section112(f)(2) and 112(d)(6) to conduct aresidual risk review and to conduct atechnology review. Under the

"technology review" provision of CAA section 112, EPA is required toreview maximum achievable controltechnology (MACT) standards andto revise them "as necessary (takinginto account developments inpractices, processes and controltechnologies)" no less frequentlythan every 8 years.

55 Oil and Natural GasSector -- New Source

Performance Standards,National EmissionStandards for HazardousAir Pollutants, and ControlTechniques Guidelines

Pre-proposalstage; NPRM

projectedFebruary 2011

TBD New Source PerformanceStandards (NSPS) regulate criteria

pollutants from new stationarysources. Two NSPS (subparts KKKand LLL) for the oil and natural gasindustry were promulgated in 1985.Section 111 of the Clean Air Act(CAA) requires that NSPS bereviewed every 8 years and revisedas appropriate. This action willinclude the required reviews under sections 111 and 112. Thedevelopment of control techniques

guidelines (CTG) for criteriapollutants will also be done under this action. Because the existingregulations are narrow in scope, thereviews will include consideration of broadening the scope of operations

TB



















and emission points covered by theNSPS, MACT, and the companionCTG.

56 National EmissionStandards for Hazardous

Air Pollutants for Coal-and Oil-fired Electric UtilitySteam Generating Units

Pre-proposalstage

NPRMprojected March2011

TBD Responds to 2008 vacatur of 2005rule requiring mercury emissions

reductions from Electric UtilitySteam Generating Units byimposing new reduction scheme.

TB

57 Industrial-Commercial-Institutional SteamGenerating Units(a.k.a. NSPS for ElectricUtilities and ICI Boilers)

Pre-proposalstage

NPRMprojected March2011

TBD This action will amend the NOx,SO2, and PM standards in the utilityNSPS and assure proper monitoring. Conformingamendments to the industrial boiler NSPS will also be proposed toassure consistent monitoring for the

various boiler rules. In addition theaction will make multiple correctionsto the boiler NSPS. It will alsorespond to the Utility Air RegulatoryGroup's (UARG) request for reconsideration of the January 2009final amendments to the boiler NSPS. Issues specific to UARG'srequest include: 1) appropriatemonitoring provisions for owners/operators of affected

facilities subject to an opacitystandard, but exempt from therequirement to install a continuousopacity monitoring system, and 2)the relevance of an opacity standardfor owners/operators of affected

TB














































facilities using a continuousemissions monitoring system.

58 Review of the National

Ambient Air QualityStandards for ParticulateMatter

NPRM

projected March2011

TBD EPA is required to review and, if

appropriate, revise the air qualitycriteria for the primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) national ambient air qualitystandards (NAAQS) every 5 years.On October 17, 2006, EPApublished a final rule to revise theprimary and secondary NAAQS for particulate matter to provideincreased protection of public healthand welfare. EPA initiated the

current review in 2007 with aworkshop to discuss key policy-relevant issues around which EPAwould structure the review. Thisreview includes the preparation of an Integrated Science Assessment(ISA), Risk/Exposure Assessment(REA), and a Policy Assessment(PA) by EPA, with opportunities for review by EPA's Clean Air ScientificAdvisory Committee and the public.

These documents inform theAdministrator's decision as towhether to retain or revise thestandards. The ISA was completedin December 2009, the final REAsfor health risk assessment and

TB




















visiblity assessment were finalizedin June and July 2010, respectively.The first draft PA was reviewed byCASAC on April 8-9, 2010. Thesecond draft Policy Assessment

was reviewed by CASAC on July26-27, 2010.59 Revision of New Source

Performance Standardsfor New Residential WoodHeaters (a.k.a. NSPSRevisions for ResidentialWood Heaters)

NPRMprojected June2011

TBD Proposes revising the New SourcePerformance Standards (NSPS) for residential wood heaters under theClean Air Act Section 111(b)(1)(B).This rule is expected to requiremanufacturers to redesign woodheaters to be cleaner and lower emitting. The revisions are alsoexpected to retain the requirement

for manufacturers to contract for testing of model lines by third-partyindependent laboratories, report theresults to EPA, and label the modelsaccordingly. This action does notapply to existing residentialwoodstoves, pellet stoves and other residential biomass heating units.

TB

60 Review of the Secondary

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Oxides of Nitrogen andOxides of Sulfur

NPRM

projected July2011

TBD Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is

required to review and, if appropriate, revise the air qualitycriteria for the primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) national ambient air qualitystandards (NAAQS) every 5 years.

TB





































On October 11, 1995, EPApublished a final rule not to reviseeither the primary or secondaryNAAQS for nitrogen dioxide (NO2).On May 22, 1996, EPA published a

final decision that revisions of theprimary and secondary NAAQS for sulfur dioxide (SO2) were notappropriate at that time, aside fromseveral minor technical changes. OnDecember 9, 2005, EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD)initiated the current periodic reviewof NO2 air quality criteria with a callfor information in the FederalRegister (FR). On May 3, 2006,

ORD initiated the current periodicreview of SO2 air quality criteria witha call for information in the FR. Thisreview includes the preparation of an Integrated Science Assessment,Risk/Exposure Assessment, and aPolicy Assessment Document byEPA, with opportunities for reviewby EPA's Clean Air ScientificAdvisory Committee and the public.These documents inform the

Administrator's proposed decisionas to whether to retain or revise thestandards. This review will be limitedto only the secondary standards; theprimary standards for SO2 and NO2are being reviewed separately.




61 NESHAP Risk andTechnology Review for Pulp and Paper Industryand Chemical RecoveryCombustion Sources, and

NSPS review for KraftPulp Mills

Pre-proposal;NPRMprojected June2011

TBD The 2004 National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) reportrecommended that EPA beginconducting integrated assessmentsthat consider multiple pollutants

(criteria and hazardous air pollutants, and other chemicals thatmay be of concern) and multipleeffects (health, ecosystem, visibility)to set standards and developplanning and control strategies. Inresponse to this recommendation,EPA's Office of Air Quality Planningand Standards (OAQPS) intends toconduct an integrated review andassessment that addresses

regulatory obligations under boththe National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants and theNew Source PerformanceStandards programs (NSPS).Section 112(f)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) directs EPA to conductrisk assessments on each sourcecategory subject to maximumachievable control technology(MACT) standards, and to

determine if additional standards areneeded to reduce residual risks, tobe completed 8 years after promulgation. Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires EPA to review andrevise the MACT standards as

TB



















necessary, taking into accountdevelopments in practices,processes and control technologies,to be done at least every 8 years.The NESHAP for Chemical

Recovery Combustion Sources atKraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills(Subpart MM) was promulgated in2001 and has not been reviewed.Similarly, the NESHAP for the Pulpand Paper Industry (Subpart S) waspromulgated in 1998 and also hasnot been reviewed. Section111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA mandatesthat EPA review and, if appropriate,

revise existing New SourcePerformance Standards (NSPS) atleast every 8 years. The Kraft PulpMill NSPS was promulgated in 1978and is in need of review. This NSPScomponent of this action will includereviewing existing emission limits for particulate matter, total reducedsulfur, and opacity and evaluatingthe appropriateness of developingemission limits for other pollutants

such as sulfur oxides, nitrogenoxide, and carbon dioxide.62 NESHAP Subpart W:

Standards for RadonEmissions From OperatingUranium Mill Tailings:

Pre-proposalinitiated June13, 2008Projected date

TBD NESHAP Subpart W protectshuman health and the environmentby setting radon emission standardsand work practices for operating

TB




















Review(a.k.a. NESHAPAmendments for Operating Uranium MillTailings (Subpart W))

to publishNPRM August2011

uranium mill tailings impoundments.EPA is in the process of reviewingthis standard. If necessary, we willrevise the NESHAP requirementsfor radon emissions from operating

uranium mill tailings.

63 Prevention of SignificantDeterioration (PSD) andNonattainment NewSource Review (NSR):Inclusion of Fugitive

Emissions; Final Rule;Stay

Stay effectivethrough October 2011

Administrationconcludes thisaction not asignificantregulatory action

under the termsof ExecutiveOrder 12866.

Provides for an 18 month stay of a2008 final rule revising requirementsof the major NSR programsregarding the treatment of fugitiveemissions, which required these

emissions to be included indetermining whether a physical or operational change results in amajor modification only for sourcesin industries that have beendesignated through rulemakingunder section 302(j) of the CAA.The final rule amended all portionsof the major NSR programregulations: permit requirements,the PSD program, and the emission

offset interpretive ruling. EPA hasstayed the rule pending areconsideration proceeding.

RuTheaffefolloEle

ReOrgLiqAuPhAg

64 Residual Risk andTechnology ReviewAmendments to the

NPRMprojectedDecember 2011

TBD A secondary aluminum productionfacility means any establishmentusing clean charge, aluminum

TB







http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480acd20e


































Secondary AluminumProduction NESHAP (a.k.a. NESHAP RTR for Secondary AluminumProduction (subpart RRR))

scrap, or dross from aluminumproduction, as the raw material for processing. The existing 40 CFRPart 63, Subpart RRR NationalEmission Standards for Hazardous

Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Secondary Aluminum Productionfacilities was promulgated in 2000.This rule regulates Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP) from facilities thatare major sources of HAP thatoperate aluminum scrap shredders,thermal chip dryers, scrapdryers/delacquering kilns/decoatingkilns, group 2 furnaces, sweatfurnaces, dross only furnaces, rotary

dross coolers, and secondaryaluminum processing units(SAPUs). SAPUs include group 1furnaces and in-line fluxers. Areasources of HAP are regulated onlywith respect to emissions of dioxins/furans (D/F) from thermalchip dryers, scrapdryers/delacquering kilns/decoatingkilns, sweat furnaces, and SAPUs.Facilities subject to these rules wererequired to be in compliance byMarch 2003. Section 112(f)(2) of theClean Air Act (CAA) directs EPA toconduct risk assessments on eachsource category subject tomaximum achievable control








technology (MACT) standards anddetermine if additional standards areneeded to reduce residual risks. Thesection 112(f)(2) residual risk reviewis to be done within 8 years after

promulgation. Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires EPA to review andrevise the MACT standards, asnecessary, taking into accountdevelopments in practices,processes, and controltechnologies. The section 112(d)(6)technology review is to be done atleast every 8 years. These risk andtechnology reviews for secondaryaluminum production facilities will be

conducted in this rulemaking, whichwill address possible residual risks,technology advancements, andtechnical deficiencies in the existingrule.

65 Implementing periodicmonitoring in federal andstate operating permitprograms(a.k.a. CAM -Compliance AssuranceMonitoring Rule (Part 64))

Initiated August2002

Proposed ruletarget dateDecember 2011

TBD Revises the existing ComplianceAssurance Monitoring rule (40 CFRpart 64) to be implemented throughthe operating permits rules (40 CFRParts 70 and 71). The revised CAMrule would define when periodic

monitoring must be created for sources to use in determiningcompliance status relative toapplicable requirements (e.g.,emissions limits).

TB























66 National EmissionStandards for HazardousAir Pollutants for Stationary CombustionTurbines- Petition to Delist

(a.k.a. CAM - ComplianceAssurance MonitoringRule (Part 64))

NPRMcomment periodclosed April2004. (Stayeffective August

2004)

Final rulepublicationprojectedNovember 2012

TBA In August 2002, the Agencyreceived a petition to remove certaintypes of stationary gas-firedcombustion turbines from the list of hazardous air pollutant sources

under Section 112(c) of the CleanAir Act. Rule proposes a partialgranting of the petition by proposingto delist 4 subcategories of stationary gas-fired turbines in April2004. Simultaneously, the Agencyproposed a stay of the effectivenessof the combustion turbine maximumachievable control technology(MACT) for new sources in thosesubcategories of turbines, delaying

the imposition of controlrequirements for the proposeddelisted new turbines until a finalaction is taken regarding thedelisting. The Agency is waiting untilthe completion of the final IntegratedRisk Information System (IRIS)assessment for formaldehydebefore taking final action on thepetition. The final IRIS action onformaldehyde is expected to occur in Fall 2011.

TB

67 Residual Risk andTechnology ReviewAmendments to thePhosphoric Acid and

Pre-proposal

NPRManticipated

TBD Phosphate rock is the primary rawmaterial for phosphoric acid, whichin turn is the raw material for phosphate fertilizer. These 2 rules

TB


http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=09000064800bf5b6















































Phosphate Fertilizer Production NESHAPs (a.k.a. NESHAP RTR for Phosphoric Acid andPhosphate Fertilizer)

January 2013 are grouped together because their production processes are usuallylocated at the same facility. Part 63NESHAPs for phosphoric acid andphosphate fertilizer (subparts AA

and BB, respectively) werepromulgated in June 1999. Facilitiessubject to these rules were requiredto be in compliance by June 2002.The Clean Air Act requires EPA toaddress the risk remaining to thepublic (ie. a 'risk review') within 8years after promulgation of theMACT standards. EPA must alsoconduct a technology review of thesource categories within 8 years to

determine whether new technologyexists to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP)below the levels established by theMACT standards. For purposes of expediency, these 2 reviews arecombined together and called a riskand technology review. Theamendments will address both riskreduction and technologyadvancement for the phosphoric

acid and phosphate fertilizer sourcecategories. There are no knownsmall businesses in this sourcecategory.

68 Review of the NationalAmbient Air Quality

NPRMprojected May

TBD EPA is required to review and, if appropriate, revise the air quality

TB



















Standards for Ozone (a.k.a. Ozone NAAQSReview)

2013 criteria for the primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) national ambient air qualitystandards (NAAQS) every 5 years.On March 23, 2008, the EPA

published a final rule to revise theprimary and secondary NAAQS for ozone to provide increasedprotection of public health andwelfare. EPA initiated the currentreview in October 2008 with aworkshop to discuss key policy-relevant issues around which EPAwould structure the review. Thisreview includes the preparation of an Integrated Science Assessment,

Risk/Exposure Assessment, and aPolicy Assessment Document byEPA, with opportunities for reviewby EPA's Clean Air ScientificAdvisory Committee and the public.These documents inform theAdministrator's proposed decisionas to whether to retain or revise thestandards.

69 Review of the NationalAmbient Air Quality

Standards for Lead (a.k.a.Lead NAAQS Review)

Pre-proposalinitiated June

2010

NPRMprojectedDecember 2013

TBD EPA is required to review and if appropriate revise the air quality

criteria for the primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) national ambient air qualitystandards (NAAQS) every 5 years.On November 12, 2008, EPApublished a final rule to revise the

TB





























primary and secondary NAAQS for lead to provide increased protectionfor public health and welfare. Thereview began in May 2010 with aworkshop to discuss key policy-

relevant issues around which EPAwould structure the review. Thisreview includes the preparation of an Integrated Science Assessment,and, if warranted, a Risk/ExposureAssessment, and also a PolicyAssessment Document by EPA,with opportunities for review byEPA's Clean Air Scientific AdvisoryCommittee and the public. Thesedocuments inform the

Administrator's proposed decisionas to whether to retain or revise thestandards.



Supporting Documents for Question #17

Committee Operations and Expectations: Member Participation

I. List of Press Releases from the 111th Congress

II. Selected Examples of Press Releases from the 111th

Congress

(Including Posted Votes)



Health Care Press Releases

11/29/2010 Barton Presses Berwick to Explain Health Law to Committee Republicans 11/18/2010 Energy and Commerce Members United Against Jurisdiction Grab 11/8/2010 Human Events Op-ed: Health Care after the Fall

10/29/2010 In Case You Missed It: Barton on Energy, FCC 10/27/2010 Barton Washington Times Op-ed: Ten ways to start cleaning up the mess 10/27/2010 CQ: Top House Energy and Commerce Committee Republican Outlines

Post-Election Legislative Plans 10/22/2010 Lawmakers Ask Administration for Details on Low-Cost Insurance

Waivers 10/14/2010 Barton on Decision to Allow ObamaCare Challenge to Continue 10/13/2010 GAO Says CMS’ Halt on All Medicare Advantage Mailings ‘Unusual’ 10/8/2010 Republicans Ask Waxman for Hearing on Child-Only Insurance Policies 10/5/2010 Lawmakers Ask Governors to Provide Data on ObamaCare

Implementation

9/30/2010 Lawmakers Demand Docs Behind Administration's Letter to Insurers 9/23/2010 Barton on 6-Month Anniversary of ObamaCare 8/5/2010 Barton on Social Security and Medicare Trustees’ Report 7/30/2010 E&C Republicans Ask for Update from HHS Secretary on Health Law 7/22/2010 Republicans Ask for Hearing With Obama’s Medicare/Medicaid Chief 7/14/2010 ObamaCare Program Will Fund Abortions with Taxpayer Dollars in

Pennsylvania 7/7/2010 Barton: Berwick Appointment Allows Democrats to Keep Hiding from

ObamaCare 7/2/2010 Republicans Ask Administration for Delayed Medicare Enrollment

Numbers 7/2/2010 Barton Statement on Medicare Competitive Bidding Program 7/1/2010 Barton, Shimkus, Burgess Ask Administration for Details On High-Risk

Insurance Program 6/23/2010 3 Months In, ObamaCare Already Crippling Our Health Care, Barton Says 6/14/2010 Were ObamaCare Cost Revelations Stalled On Purpose, Barton and

Burgess Ask 6/14/2010 Republicans Press for Details on Administration’s Rules to Eliminate

Employee Health Insurance 6/9/2010 Barton Presses Dems for Hearings on Missed Deadlines, Mounting Costs

in ObamaCare 6/8/2010 PR Blitz on ObamaCare: Same Song, Different Verse 6/2/2010 Lawmakers Ask President for Plan to Keep Employees from Losing

Health Coverage 5/28/2010 E&C Republicans to Sebelius: Medicare Brochure ‘Akin to Political

Propaganda’ 5/14/2010 Barton Welcomes NFIB to the Health Care Fight 5/6/2010 Health Transparency Bill Would Put Consumers in Driver’s Seat, Barton

Says



5/6/2010 ICYMI: Documents reveal AT&T, Verizon, others, thought aboutdropping employer-sponsored benefits

5/5/2010 Myth/Fact: If You Like Your Insurance, You Can Keep It 4/28/2010 Committee Republicans Ask for Hearing with Medicare/Medicaid Actuary 4/27/2010 Documents Show Companies See Incentive in Dropping Health Coverage

4/23/2010 Barton on CMS Actuary’s Report 4/21/2010 Barton Releases ObamaCare Implementation Timeline 4/14/2010 Investigating for Facts or Punishment? 3/30/2010 Department of ‘Surprise, Surprise, Surprise’ 3/25/2010 Barton to Dems: Slow Down and Listen to the People; Dump Cornhusker

Kickbacks & Mandatory Welfare 3/21/2010 Barton: ‘This Vote Wasn’t the End of the Health Care Debate – It Was

Really the Beginning’ 3/21/2010 What’s Next? 3/21/2010 Health Bill a House Built on Sand 3/21/2010 What to Do When a Tax ‘Hurts the Middle Class?’ Wait ’Til They’re Not

Looking 3/21/2010 ObamaCare Means Middle Class Relief…Just Don’t Expect to BrushYour Teeth

3/21/2010 ObamaCare in States Without Cornhusker Kickbacks, Gator Aid &Louisiana Purchases

3/20/2010 Health Reform by the Numbers 3/20/2010 How a Bill Becomes Law, by the Numbers 3/20/2010 Deeming ObamaCare Cheap Until the Bill Comes 3/20/2010 Barton: ‘This Process Corrupts’ 3/20/2010 List of Republican Amendments to ObamaCare Bill 3/20/2010 First the Deeming, Then the Alibi 3/19/2010 ObamaCare: Saving Money Like Bernie Madoff 3/19/2010 Fact Sheet on ObamaCare 3/19/2010 What the People Don't Need to Know 3/19/2010 How to Talk Clear, Man, Because, Like, You Know, I Mean, Death Panels 3/19/2010 Health Insurance For Me, Welfare for Thee 3/18/2010 Barton: Enough Spending to Make America Broke & Sick 3/18/2010 Brave House Will Take Public Stand on World Social Work Day; Health

Care? Not So Much 3/18/2010 Outraged Democrats Punish 56% Rate Hike with Tax Break for Greedy

Insurance Co. 3/17/2010 Dem Health Care Post-Clinton: It Depends on How You Define ‘Vote’ 3/16/2010 How a Bill Becomes Law, Revised 3/15/2010 Q. Whew! Obama Got Rid of 'Deals for Democrats.' Right? A. Wrong 3/12/2010 How to Buy One Vote By Spending Only 50 Times More 3/10/2010 Bipartisan Team Introduces Patients’ Right to Know Act 3/4/2010 Barton on Nathan Deal’s Decision to Postpone His Resignation 3/3/2010 Barton: President Plunges Ahead on Health Care, Despite Americans

Saying, ‘Stop’ 2/25/2010 Barton: Start Over, Agree Where We Can, Reach a Deal



2/25/2010 Democratic Budget Gimmicks 2/25/2010 Democrats Not Interested in Medical Liability Reform 2/25/2010 Adding Millions to Medicaid Is Not Reform 2/25/2010 Buying Health Insurance Across State Lines Will Reduce Premium Costs 1/29/2010 Health Care Fact of the Day

1/27/2010 Barton: White House Health Documents Will Crack the Door onBackroom Deals 1/21/2010 Tuesday's Victory Calls for Fresh Start on Health Care 1/20/2010 Barton: The More Energy We Produce in America, the Better Off We’ll

Be; (And BTW, ‘Thanks, Massachusetts!’) 1/19/2010 Miracle in Massachusetts; Now Go Back and Start Over with Health Care 1/19/2010 Don't Get Between Doctor and Patient 1/12/2010 FTC: ‘Pay-for-Delay’ Drug Deals Cost Consumers Billions 1/6/2010 No, These Aren’t Health Care Reform Fairy Tales

Cap-and-Trade Press Releases

10/29/2010 In Case You Missed It: Barton on Energy, FCC 10/14/2010 Barton, Burgess Ask EPA to Explain Costs of Multiple Billion-Dollar

Regulations 9/16/2010 Barton, Burgess and Blackburn Introduce Bill to Repeal Light Bulb Ban 7/29/2010 Barton on EPA's Denial to Petitioners on CO2 Endangerment Finding 6/15/2010 Barton to BP: 'Cross Your Fingers' Can't Be a Contingency Plan 5/12/2010 Kerry-Lieberman Would ‘Crash Dive’ Economy Back to the 1870s 5/5/2010 Barton, Burgess Ask GAO to Review Quality Control at UN Global

Warming Panel 4/28/2010 Barton to EPA: 'It's my opinion that the endangerment finding is itself a

threat to the economic vitality of this country' 4/14/2010 Investigating for Facts or Punishment? 3/15/2010 Why Won’t UN’s Review Panel Look at Errors in IPCC Report, Barton

Asks Administration 3/11/2010 Barton Asks Bailout Recipients GM, Chrysler to Explain Role in USCAP 3/8/2010 Barton, Burgess Ask Administration to Detail Costs of NEPA Rule to

Jobs, Economy 3/4/2010 Barton Asks Clinton, Pachauri to Detail Taxpayer Funding of Climate

Panel 3/2/2010 Boehner, Barton Introduce Proposal to Halt EPA Ruling on CO2 3/1/2010 Murphy: Legislation Helps Create New Jobs in Energy Sector 2/23/2010 SEC’s new climate guidelines make no sense 2/4/2010 Barton, Walden Ask EPA to Explain Reliance On Dubious Reports in

Endangerment Finding 1/29/2010 WSJ Editorial: Insecurity and Change Commission 1/26/2010 SEC: Never Mind Madoff; What Are We Doing about Global Warming? 1/22/2010 Barton, Walden Ask DOE to Detail Funding for East Anglia Climatic

Research Unit



1/21/2010 Barton Asks Administration if Focus on Jobs Applies to EPAEndangerment Finding

1/15/2010 EPA Response Confirms Greenhouse Gas Rules Will Add Costly Burdento American Economy

12/18/2009 Copenhagen Fact of the Day

12/17/2009 Republicans to Introduce Disapproval Resolution On EPA EndangermentFinding 12/16/2009 Go to Copenhagen, but Don't Kill the Economy 12/14/2009 Senior Republicans Ask Waxman for Hearing on Climate E-mail Scandal 12/7/2009 Barton: EPA Says Full Speed Ahead As E-mails Say ‘Wait a Minute’ 12/2/2009 Barton, Walden Press Obama Administration to Unearth & Report Links

with Climatologists 11/24/2009 Barton, Walden Ask Court to Unseal Secret File in Cap-and-Trade Fraud

Case 11/19/2009 Administration Asked to Detail Cost to Jobs, Economy under EPA

Decisions

9/29/2009 Capping jobs, trading in misery — wrong answers to global warming 7/22/2009 Republicans Ask Locke to Explain Administration Position on AmericansMaking Amends to World for Global Warming

7/22/2009 How Congress’s drive to stop global warming is fueling China’s drive toout-compete the U.S.

7/16/2009 Republicans Demand EPA Administrator Jackson Give Full Response onSuppression of Dissent

7/8/2009 We’re Investigating Bottles of Water Instead of EPA? 7/3/2009 Have You Heard? WSJ: The EPA Silences a Climate Skeptic 7/1/2009 Have You Heard? WSJ: The Climate Change Climate Change 6/26/2009 Barton: Global Warming Bill Will Send U.S. Back to 1875 6/26/2009 Draft of Report Suppressed at EPA Shows Why Agency’s Career Staff

Challenged CO2 Endangerment Ruling 6/25/2009 Barton, Walden Ask Committee Democrats to Investigate on EPA’s

Suppression of CO2 Report 6/25/2009 Suppressed EPA Staff Work on EPA Endangerment Finding? Let’s Get

the Facts Out! 6/24/2009 Barton Confronts EPA Politicals Over Suppression of Economist’s

Critical Report on CO2 Endangerment 6/23/2009 Republicans: EPA’s Bias Skewed Endangerment Finding 6/22/2009 Barton: Planet-Saving Ideas Hurt Incomes 6/12/2009 Intimidation Has No Place in Government, Republicans Tell Waxman,

Markey 6/12/2009 U.S. Needs to Modernize Transmission Grid, Barton Says 6/9/2009 Global Warming Bill’s Allocation System Fundamentally Flawed, Barton

Says 6/3/2009 DOE Says Carbon Capture Programs Could Take 10+ Years to Complete 5/22/2009 Dems to People Who Can’t Pay Their Global Warming Bills: Tough Luck 5/21/2009 Lost Jobs, Soaring Energy Costs Can’t Deter Democrats from Advancing

Radical Global Warming Plan



5/21/2009 Republicans Offer Broad Clean Energy Program Based on Clean Air Act;Dems Say No

5/21/2009 Dems Dump Protections for Coal Miners 5/21/2009 Doubled Electric Bills Not Pricey Enough To Spook Democrats 5/21/2009 Democrats Block Offramp for Struggling Autoworkers

5/21/2009 Dems Turn Down Emissions-Free Energy, Including Hydro 5/20/2009 Calif. fraud, secrecy should give us pause about cap-and-trade 5/20/2009 Will EPA or Congress Call the Shots on CO2? Democrats Vote to Trust

Enviro-Bureaucrats 5/20/2009 Carbon Credit Derivatives Aren't The New Credit Default Swaps. No,

Really. 5/20/2009 Democrats Create Best Practices for Your Hot Tub 5/20/2009 The sounds of silence 5/20/2009 Recession Not Doing the Job? Home Still Worth Too Much? Democrats

Vote to Help 5/20/2009 Future Home-Building in Trouble: Dems Keep Implausible Building Code

Mandates 5/20/2009 The Democratic Amendment in Which We Learn How States and ElectricCompanies Are Victims of Gouging and Need Federal ConsumerProtection, Poor Dears

5/20/2009 Dems on Emission-Free Nuclear Power – Yes and No 5/19/2009 Will Global Warming Bill Costs Be Disclosed On Utility Bills? Upset

Dems Say No 5/19/2009 Democrats Reject Cap on Job Losses 5/19/2009 Democrats Vote to Allow $5 Gasoline 5/19/2009 Biomass Energy Abandoned as Dems Ban Renewables from U.S. Lands 5/19/2009 United Democrats Defeat U.S. Jobs Amendment 5/19/2009 Democrats Decline to Shield Homeowners From Electricity Price Spikes 5/19/2009 Q. How Much Will This Bill Cost My People Back Home? A. That's

Between Them and the Electric Company 5/19/2009 Walden Brings Box Full of Amendments to Committee to Improve

National Energy Tax 5/19/2009 Q. It’ll Cost How Much? A. Sorry, That’s Unknowable 5/18/2009 The Hallmarks of Waxman-Markey: Unseen Deals, Untold Economic

Damage 5/18/2009 Barton, Upton Ask Waxman For Allocation Hearing 5/14/2009 GOP Alternative to Waxman-Markey Will Add American Energy, Reduce

Emissions 5/14/2009 Quick, Pass Cap-and-Trade! 5/10/2009 Sending us back to 1875 5/8/2009 FERC Chairman Pressed to Explain Why ‘No New Nuclear or Coal

Plants’ Needed 5/7/2009 Have You Heard: Dow Jones -- Fraud Case Underscores Cap-And-Trade

Risks 5/7/2009 Barton, Walden Seek Answers from EPA on Cap-and-Trade Fraud Case in

California



4/28/2009 Republicans’ Hearing on Waxman-Markey to Examine EmissionsAllocations

4/27/2009 Have You Heard? Washington Post: Selling The Green Economy 4/27/2009 Scenes from an Earth Day Hearing, Part 3 4/24/2009 Barton Exposes Cap and Trade as a Job-Killing Tax on Energy

4/24/2009 Republicans Assert House Rules, Ask for More Witnesses on GlobalWarming 4/23/2009 Scenes from An Earth Day Hearing, Part II 4/22/2009 Scenes from An Earth Day Hearing 4/22/2009 Barton, Walden Ask Chu, Solis to Define, Estimate Number of New

Green Jobs 4/22/2009 An Earth Day for Working People 4/21/2009 Barton: Regressive Energy Tax No Way to Jumpstart Our Economy 4/21/2009 Committee Republicans Ask Waxman for More Hearings on Global

Warming Bill 4/21/2009 Barton, Walden Query Chu on NEPA, ESA Reviews of Carbon Capture

Programs 3/31/2009 Cap & Trade: Rescuing the Planet from the People 3/26/2009 Trade Rep Kirk Asked to Outline, Explain Plans to Punish CO2 Emitters

with Tariffs 3/25/2009 Mankind Always Adapts to Climate, Barton Says 3/24/2009 Globe Cooling, Not Warming British Lord Will Tell House 3/23/2009 Dude, Don’t Green My Job 3/18/2009 Barton Warns Cap and Trade Will Sap Jobs 3/13/2009 Barton: Under Obama Cap-and-Trade Plan, Taxpayers Will Face $522

Tax Hike 3/12/2009 Cap-and-Trade’s Fools Rush In 3/5/2009 GAO Report Raises Serious Doubts about Effectiveness of Carbon Offsets

– Barton 2/26/2009 The Cap-and-Trade Budget: Higher Electric Bills, Fewer Jobs, More

Global Warming 2/12/2009 Select Global Warming Solutions That Won’t Launch a Depression –

Barton 2/10/2009 Barton, Walden Ask for GAO Report on International Greenhouse Gas

Inventories 1/15/2009 Is it getting hot in here? (Hint: yes) 1/15/2009 Barton: Let’s Start Climate Discussions with Solutions That Work



PRESS RELEASE

It Depends on How You Define ‘Vote’

March 17, 2010

MYTH: “‘We’re playing it straight,’ (Majority Leader Steny) Hoyersaid. ‘We will vote on it in one form or another.’” – AP, 3/16/10

FACT: (1) “HOUSE MAY TRY TO PASS SENATE HEALTH-CARE BILL WITHOUT VOTING ON IT After laying thegroundwork for a decisive vote this week on the Senate's health-care bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested Monday that

she might attempt to pass the measure without having membersvote on it.” – Washington Post , 3/16/10. (2) “‘Nobody wanted tovote for the Senate bill,’ Pelosi, D-Calif., said.” – AP, 3/16/10

PRESS RELEASE

ObamaCare: Saving Money LikeBernie Madoff

March 19, 2010

MYTH: “This health insurance reform legislation will save $138billion in the first 10 years.” – Speaker Pelosi

FACT: According to the Congressional Budget Office’s preliminarycost estimate, the on-budget savings of the Senate bill and theReconciliation bill are $85 billion for 2010-2019, with $70.2 billionfrom the CLASS program, a program that CBO concluded “wouldadd to budget deficits in future decades” and that the Democraticchairman of the Senate Budget Committee famously described as“a Ponzi scheme of the first order, the kind of thing that BernieMadoff would have been proud of.” As Washington Post editorialwriter Ruth Marcus noted on March 19, “To crow, as did HouseSpeaker Nancy Pelosi, that the package is ‘a triumph for the



American people in terms of deficit reduction’ is premature atbest, delusional at worst.”

PRESS RELEASE

What the People Don't Need to Know

March 19, 2010

SUSPICIONS…: "In the critical remaining hours of the debate, wemust drive the narrative of 'health reform is deficit reduction.'" …"Do not allow yourself (or your boss) to get into a discussion of

the details...." – Excerpts from allegedly counterfeit yet widelycirculated "Memo to Democratic Health and CommunicationsStaff," March 18

…CONFIRMED: "I love numbers," Speaker Nancy Pelosi said,opening the event. "And today the number from theCongressional Budget Office is that this health insurancelegislation will save $138 billion in the first 10 years." – The New York Times , March 19



EXCERPTS FROM PRESS RELEASE

Dems Reject GOP Caps onUnemployment, Home Electric Bills &Gasoline PricesLost Jobs, Soaring Energy Costs Can’t Deter Democrats from Advancing Radical

Global Warming Plan

May 21, 2009

WASHINGTON – House Democrats used political muscle and party loyalty on Thursday to ram

through an anti-global warming bill that opponents caution could cost a family of four $2,937.38

a year.

The action came after a marathon committee session that spent 37 hours over four days

methodically rejecting 56 separate Republican efforts to learn the full cost of the bill, to prevent

scams in its trading system and even get the feds out of hot tubs. The massive, 946-page

Waxman-Markey global warming bill was named for its authors, House Energy and Commerce

Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and U.S. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass. It passed

the Waxman committee on a vote of 33-25.

…Determining who actually designed much of the legislation also intrigued the committee. On

Wednesday, U.S. Rep. Lee Terry, R-Neb., asked U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., “Mr.Weiner, how much of this bill was written by the National Resources Defense Council? And who

was in the room?” In response, the famously loquacious Rep. Weiner stood uncharacteristically

silent until Terry concluded that he would get no answer.

…Democrats resisted dogged persistence by U.S. Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., who asked them

to name a single small business or home that would be able to use the new consumer protection

office at FERC. “Can you give me an example of a consumer – a small business or a residence –

that would be able to take advantage of this language?” he asked the Democratic staff counsel.

“Certainly that would be up to this office to determine what they perceive to be the consumer in

any particular proceeding, and to the extent that they identified that interest, represent it,” came

the answer.



PRESS RELEASEDoubled Electric Bills Not PriceyEnough To Spook Democrats

Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich.: ‘These are just message amendments’

Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas: ‘Yes, they send a message to the American people’

May 21, 2009

WASHINGTON – An amendment offered by Rep. George Radanovich, R-Calif., would

suspend the cap-and-trade provisions of the act if it is determined that they havecaused the average residential electricity bill to double with respect to 2009 residentialelectricity bills. This would provide a crucial release valve to the American people fromhigher energy prices. For the text of this amendment, click here.

Recorded Vote: 30 Nay, 19 Yea

Representative Vote Representative Vote

Mr. Waxman NAY Mr. Barton YEA

Mr. Dingell Mr. Hall YEA Mr. Markey NAY Mr. Upton YEA

Mr. Boucher NAY Mr. Stearns YEA

Mr. Pallone NAY Mr. Deal

Mr. Gordon NAY Mr. Whitfield YEA

Mr. Rush NAY Mr. Shimkus YEA

Ms. Eshoo NAY Mr. Shadegg YEA

Mr. Stupak NAY Mr. Blunt YEA

Mr. Engel NAY Mr. Buyer YEA

Mr. Green NAY Mr. Radanovich YEA

Ms. DeGette NAY Mr. Pitts YEA



Ms. Capps NAY Ms. Bono Mack YEA

Mr. Doyle Mr. Walden YEA

Ms. Harman NAY Mr. Terry YEA

Ms. Schakowsky NAY Mr. Rogers YEA

Mr. Gonzalez NAY Ms. Myrick

Mr. Inslee NAY Mr. Sullivan

Ms. Baldwin NAY Mr. Murphy (PA)

Mr. Ross Mr. Burgess YEA

Mr. Weiner NAY Ms. Blackburn YEA

Mr. Matheson Mr. Gingrey YEA

Mr. Butterfield NAY Mr. Scalise YEA

Mr. Melancon

Mr. Barrow NAY

Mr. Hill

Ms. Matsui NAY

Ms. Christensen NAY

Ms. Castor NAY

Mr. Sarbanes NAY

Mr. Murphy (CT) NAY

Mr. Space NAY

Mr. McNerney NAY

Ms. Sutton NAY

Mr. Braley NAY

Mr. Welch NAY



PRESS RELEASE Dems Turn Down Emissions-FreeEnergy, Including Hydro

May 21, 2009

WASHINGTON – An amendment by Greg Walden, R-Ore., would add language to thebill allowing nuclear energy, biomass, new hydroelectric power, as well as any othercomparable low-emission source of energy to qualify for the same provisions providedunder this act’s renewable energy standard. If America is to reduce CO2 emissions andincrease energy independence, we should encourage all sources of clean, domesticenergy. For the text of this amendment, click here.




Mr. Dingell NAY Mr. Hall YEA

Mr. Markey NAY Mr. Upton YEA


Mr. Pallone NAY Mr. Deal YEA

Mr. Gordon Mr. Whitfield YEA




Mr. Engel Mr. Buyer YEA




Mr. Doyle NAY Mr. Walden YEA



Mr. Gonzalez NAY Ms. Myrick YEA


Ms. Baldwin NAY Mr. Murphy (PA) YEA

Mr. Ross YEA Mr. Burgess YEA




Mr. Matheson NAY Mr. Gingrey YEA


Mr. Melancon NAY

Mr. Barrow YEA

Mr. Hill YEA

Ms. Matsui NAY

Ms. Christensen NAY

Ms. Castor NAY

Mr. Sarbanes NAY

Mr. Murphy (CT) NAY

Mr. Space YEA

Mr. McNerney NAY

Ms. Sutton NAY

Mr. Braley NAY

Mr. Welch NAY



PRESS RELEASE

Democrats Create Best Practices forYour Hot Tub

May 20, 2009

WASHINGTON – Three amendments offered en bloc by Rep. George Radanovich R-Calif., would prevent the federal

government from imposing regulations on portable electric spas, hot food cabinets and water dispensers. Restricting

the production of these goods will damage more than just these industries. These regulations will hinder consumer

choice, raise prices and expand federal government regulation into more aspects of daily life. For text of these

amendment, click here.








Mr. Gordon Mr. Whitfield YEA











Mr. Gonzalez NAY Ms. Myrick

Mr. Inslee NAY Mr. Sullivan YEA


Mr. Ross NAY Mr. Burgess YEA






Mr. Melancon NAY

Mr. Barrow NAY

Mr. Hill NAY

Ms. Matsui NAY

Ms. Christensen NAY

Ms. Castor NAY

Mr. Sarbanes NAY

Mr. Murphy (CT) NAY

Mr. Space NAY

Mr. McNerney NAY

Ms. Sutton NAY

Mr. Braley

Mr. Welch NAY



PRESS RELEASE

Democrats Vote to Allow $5 Gasoline

Barton: ‘If we can put a cap on carbon, we darn sure ought to be ableto put a cap on gasoline price increases from this bill.’ May 19, 2009

WASHINGTON – An amendment offered by Rep. Lee Terry, R-Neb., would requireannual EPA certification of the average retail price of gasoline. If the price exceeds $5per gallon, as a result of the act, the act would cease to be effective. This would ensureconsumers will not be subjected to exorbitant gasoline prices. For the text of thisamendment, click here.











Mr. Stupak NAY Mr. Blunt

Mr. Engel Mr. Buyer YEA

Mr. Green NAY Mr. Radanovich











Mr. Ross YEA Mr. Burgess YEA




Mr. Melancon YEA

Mr. Barrow YEA

Mr. Hill NAY

Ms. Matsui NAY

Ms. Christensen NAY

Ms. Castor NAY

Mr. Sarbanes NAY

Mr. Murphy (CT) NAY

Mr. Space YEA

Mr. McNerney NAY

Ms. Sutton NAY

Mr. Braley NAY

Mr. Welch NAY



PRESS RELEASE

Q. It’ll Cost How Much?

A. Sorry, That’s UnknowableScenes from a markup May 19, 2009

On the proposal to spend “such sums” of taxpayers’ money “asmay be necessary” to finance the exploration of currentlyunknowable forms of energy:

U.S. Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn.: The appropriators sometimesappropriate more money than is authorized. So I don’t think wehave to be that concerned about this as a check and balance.

U.S. Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Florida: Just as a question, how muchmoney do you think this is going to take? Based upon yourargument that the appropriators can appropriate more money ifnecessary, is there anybody in this room who knows how much

we’re talking about here?

Gordon: I don’t think anybody can answer that until you get furtherdown the road.

Stearns: Well, can you ballpark it? Are we talking about half abillion? I would think somebody in this room with this amendmentcould at least give us an idea of what we’re talking about.

Gordon: There are going to be transformational types of energythat we can’t think of now.



PRESS RELEASE

Q. How Much Will This Bill Cost My PeopleBack Home?

A. That's Between Them and the ElectricCompany

Scenes from a markup May 19, 2009

U.S. Rep. Mike Burgess, R-Texas: Can you tell me what thedirect effect on a ratepayer in Texas would be?

Democratic Staff Counsel: No, I can’t tell you what the directeffect on ratepayers in Texas would be. It would be up to the localdistribution company…



PRESS RELEASE

United Democrats Defeat U.S. JobsAmendment

May 19, 2009

WASHINGTON – Energy and Commerce Committee Democrats today defeated anamendment offered by U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., that would require annualcertification by the administrator, in consultation with the Department of State and theUnited States Trade Representative that China and India have adopted a mandatorygreenhouse gas reduction program at least as stringent as that would be imposed underthe Act. If those countries failed to implement such a program, the act would besuspended. This will ensure that China and India do not obtain competitive advantageover the United States. For a copy of this amendment, click here.

Republican amendments to the bill will be posted to the Energy and CommerceCommittee Republican Web site at the conclusion of each vote. To follow theproceedings, click here.






















Mr. Inslee NAY Mr. Sullivan YEA


Mr. Ross NAY Mr. Burgess YEA




Mr. Melancon NAY

Mr. Barrow NAY

Mr. Hill NAY

Ms. Matsui NAY

Ms. Christensen NAY

Ms. Castor NAY

Mr. Sarbanes NAY

Mr. Murphy (CT) NAY

Mr. Space NAY

Mr. McNerney NAY

Ms. Sutton NAY



EXCERPTS FROM A PRESS RELEASE

Scenes from An Earth Day Hearing

House Energy & Commerce Committee, April 22 April 22, 2009

What’s in the bill you’re testifying about?

Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore.: “Have you read the bill?”

Sec. LaHood: “I haven’t had time to read all 600 pages.”

Walden: “Six-hundred and forty-eight…”

Sec. LaHood: “I’ve not had time to read all 648.”

Sec. Chu: “Neither have I.”

Administrator Jackson: “Nor have I. My staff has certainly read through it.”




Scenes from an Earth Day Hearing,

Part IIHouse Energy & Commerce Committee, April 21-23

April 23, 2009

Green jobs go missing

REP. ED WHITFIELD, R-Ky.: I wanted to ask you all, you Mr. Chu particularly and Ms.Jackson, if you had read Gabriel Alvarez’ study – he’s at King Juan Carlos’s University in

Madrid. And he used empirical data based on the government subsidizing renewable energy inSpain. And he came up with the conclusion exactly how much every job cost. And I know thatPresident Obama in this renewable energy package is modeling using Spain as a model, one of the models. But for every job created in the renewable energy sector, so-called green job, thatthey lost 2.2 jobs. And this is a 50-page empirical study that he conducted. And I was just, haveeither one of you seen his study?

MS. JACKSON: No. I’m not familiar with his study….

EPA: ‘EPA has not done any kind of modeling on jobs creation’

REP. STEVE SCALISE, R-La.: Administrator Jackson, in your opening statement you talked

about the jobs that would be created – green jobs that would be created under a cap-and-trade

bill. Can you quantify how many jobs you estimate would be created under this legislation?

MS. JACKSON: I believe what I said, sir, is that this is a jobs bill and that the discussion draft

bill in its entirety is aimed to jumpstart our move into the green economy.

REP. SCALISE: And I think you quoted President Obama saying that it was his opinion that he

would – that this bill would create millions of jobs. I think you used the term “millions.” Is there

anything that you can base your determination on how many jobs will be created?

MS. JACKSON: EPA has not done a model or any kind of modeling on jobs creation numbers.

Doomsday comes early to Ohio

REP. SCALISE: And, I mean, while you might not be a jobs expert, you’re obviously talking

about, you know, and touting this bill as a jobs bill. If you would claim that it would create jobs,

are you making an assumption that it won’t lose any jobs, that no jobs will be lost? Or if you



don’t make that claim, how many jobs would you expect to be lost? Because groups have made

very large claims. I mean, the National Association of Manufacturers claims our country would

lose 3 to 4 million jobs as a result of a cap and trade energy tax.

So I just wanted to know if you or any members of the panel want to answer that question.

MS. JACKSON: I’ll go first and –

(Cross talk.)

REP. SCALISE: – if you would.

MS. JACKSON: I know that lobbyists keep playing large doomsday scenarios – quiet deaths for

businesses across the country. That’s what lobbyists said about the Clean Air Act in 1990 and it

didn’t happen. In fact, the U.S. economy grew 64 percent…

…REP. JOHN SHIMKUS, R-Illinois: Let me ask Administrator Jackson. Do you know how

many jobs – coal miner jobs were lost in Ohio because of the Clean Air Act amendments which

you were addressing earlier?

MS. JACKSON: No, sir.

REP. SHIMKUS: Thirty-five-thousand.

EPA: I know what the policy is because I saw it on the TV

EPA ADMINISTRATOR. JACKSON: The administration has no goal that is nefarious for coal.

The president, on TV, in ads I see him talking about clean coal and how clean coal is crucial not

only for the environment but to create jobs…




Scenes from an Earth Day Hearing,Part 3

House Energy & Commerce Committee, April 22-24 April 27, 2009

Q. But, would you talk about the cost?

A. No

REP. STEVE SCALISE, R-La.: …The president’s budget director today – he was the head of

CBO last year when he testified on your bill, he said it would have cost consumers about $1,300

a year more in their average utility bills, in addition to everything else they buy that’s related to

electricity, gasoline, food, anything else. …Vice President Gore?

MR. GORE: Congressman, you began by denying that there is a consensus on the science. There

is a consensus on the science.

REP. SCALISE: Well, you must not have been listening to our testimony that we’ve had for the

last few days, with dozens of experts that have come in, who have given completely different

views.

MR. GORE: …There are people who still believe that the moon landing was staged on a movielot in Arizona. But –

REP. SCALISE: And neither of us are one of those. And I know you like giving those cute

anecdotes. This is not a cutesy issue. …We’re talking about a serious consequence that there

would be on this country, and the carbon leakage that would occur, where the carbon would be

emitted but it would be emitted in China and India, and the jobs would go to China and India.

And that’s been testified before this committee in the last few days as well.

MR. GORE: Man –

REP. SCALISE: So testify about the actual costs. Do you want to…

MR. GORE: Man…

REP. SCALISE: …talk about the costs?



MR. GORE: …man-made global warming pollution causes global warming. That’s not a cutesy

issue. It’s not an open issue …

REP. SCALISE: But, would you talk to the cost?

MR. GORE: …more importantly, more importantly, Congressman, that opinion is the opinion of

the scientific studies conducted by the largest corporate carbon polluters 14 years ago, who have

lied to you and who have lied to the American people for 14 years…

Is it getting hot in here?

REP. JAY INSLEE, D-Wash.: …By the way, the only Jacuzzis this will regulate will have toproduce 2,500 megawatts of energy, OK, to be covered. So you don’t have to worry aboutJacuzzis…

MR. GINGRICH: Let me just ask for a second, because maybe I misunderstood. So maybe youcan help me, Congressman. On page 233, line 5, “portable electric spas.” Now, I don’t knowwhat a portable electric spa is. I was told it was a Jacuzzi. But that’s in this bill. Page 233, andthat’s why I said when I got to that point, I quit reading the bill.