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 is
to 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’s
Advertising 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 entitlement
programs, 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 this

practice 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 focusing
efforts to make Medicaid sustainable and reviewing the economic impact of Food
and Drug Administration regulations that constrain competitiveness. The Energy
and 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 Communications
Commission 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 permitting
requirements scheduled to start on January 2, 2011. We will develop legislation to
 reform the Consumer Protect Safety Commission and modify the Consumer
Product 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-quarter

priorities will include reviewing all federal agencies under our jurisdiction for
general management and budget issues, for submission to the Budget Committee
and 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 Administration
leaders 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 Committee
and 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 before
the 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 have

been 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 Federal
Communication 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 safety
investigations 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 which
retain 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 full
committee 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 all
freshmen 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 to
Leadership 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 other
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, 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 the
news media both narratives and tables covering votes cast in Committee on
important 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 the

last 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 a
ratio 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, the
individualization 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 conservative
coalition 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.
 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 in
your 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 examples
of savings to be found within that law:

The Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight: This agency was created by
the 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 the
agency that decides who will or will not obtain a waiver from the law’s requirements, and yet it
contains absolutely no authorizing language within the text of the law. Through the work of our
oversight team and Subcommittee Ranking Member Burgess, our Committee obtained one of the
first briefings by the office’s director and obtained a guarantee by the director to provide a
complete accounting of its staff, their duties, and the amount of money that this office will obtain
annually, as well as a complete listing of the waivers granted, denied, and the reasons why. This
investigation is ongoing. Without this agency in place and fully functioning, the Obama
Administration 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 Agency
for Health Care Research and Quality (AHRQ) directs and funds research into determining what
it deems to be the “best” course of treatment for a variety of diseases or conditions. ObamaCare
drastically extends the powers of this agency. The AHRQ will play a large role in asserting
government control of health care. The oversight team of the Committee is now identifying
AHRQ’s new funding, powers, and duties, and is working with the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to provide a full accounting of the agency that will help us pick and choose
precisely the functions and authority that should be removed from this agency.

Medicare’s Advertising Budget: In the two months before the election, the Obama
Administration spent $3 million on television advertisements featuring actor Andy Griffith. The
sole purpose of these ads appeared to be to drive support for ObamaCare among seniors in the
weeks leading up to the election. Some might not think $3 million is much money in the contest
of 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 accounting
of HHS’ spending efforts—via print, radio, television, etc.—to “educate” the public about the
alleged benefits of the president’s signature program during a time when such efforts seemed so
plainly aimed at producing votes for Democrats.

Page |1
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 to
actually eliminate anything, instead opting to simply raise taxes and cut more than $500 billion
out of Medicare. The Committee is in the initial stages of launching a strenuous program in 2011
to 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, while
developing a comprehensive policy that will make Medicare and Medicaid fraud a thing of the
past. Analysts have estimated that the amount of money lost to waste, fraud and abuse in the
government health care system can be as high as $60 billion a year, yet this past May HHS
proudly called it a major success when it managed to track down just 3.3 percent of the total
losses. Even with resources that are microscopic relative to the vast capacities of the
Administration, this Committee will do much better.

ObamaCare’s Early Retiree Program: Despite our persistent inquiries, HHS refuses to
provide the Congress with basic information about how the $5 billion for the law’s “early
retiree” 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 and
bring its public relations machinery to bear to minimize potentially negative stories about its
actions and inaction. In January, we will begin a formal quest to follow the money when HHS
can no longer resist our efforts.

The High-Risk Pools: ObamaCare gave each state an option to either set up high-risk pools or
step aside and let the federal government do so on the state’s behalf. In the new year, this
Committee 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 overnight
and virtually guaranteed that many states would be forced to cede this responsibility to the
federal government. The result? News reports indicate that enrollment in these pools is far lower
than expected, that resources are being wasted, and that a full-scale reevaluation of this spending
is required.

The Dodd Hospital Provision: While the Senate was busy spending the early days of the last
Christmas 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’s
sole public academic medical and dental school.” As you know, the eligible hospital was located
in Connecticut. Representatives from other states are already complaining that their efforts to
compete for this money are being ignored by HHS. This Committee will restore honesty to
health policy and end the use of HHS to deliver political patronage, including monument-to-me
grants 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 care
law, which would save $15 billion.
• Repealing the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation created under Section 3021
of the new health care law, which would save $10 billion.
• Eliminating duplicative prescription drug-monitoring programs.

Page |2
 • Consolidating the numerous Offices of Women’s Health that are in almost every HHS
agency 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 the
office 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 we
cut 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 are
scrimping and saving and wondering how they’re going to pay for their retirement and their
children’s education. This isn’t even counting the $7.12 billion which the EPA received in the
stimulus 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 what
amounts 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 sector
efforts, vulnerable to fraud, poorly managed and ineffective.
• The Green Power Partnership is an EPA program to help people and businesses buy
green electricity. The businesses which sell green electricity are capable of marketing it
themselves.
• The EPA’s SmartWay Transport helps encourage more fuel-efficient transportation,
including personal vehicles and fleet trucks. Surely individuals and trucking companies
have sufficient incentive to save fuel without a federal program telling them they should
do so.
• The EPA’s SunWise Program teaches children and their caregivers how to protect
themselves from overexposure to the sun. We are actually funding a program to teach
people 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 for
a sustainable gardening program in Alameda County, California. Although these may be
excellent programs, they seem like luxuries, not necessities.
• Do we really need eight science and advisory councils at the EPA? The duplication in
scientific 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 Analysis
o Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee

Page |3
 o Environmental Technology Council
o National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology
o Office of Science Policy
o Science Advisor
o Science Advisory Board
o 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 changes
in the global environment; its research contributes to the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change.
• And here are several greenhouse gas (GHG) budget-related requests identified in the EPA
proposed 2011 budget that also deserve attention:
o GHG Reporting Rules Implementation: $20.8 Million
o Clean Air Act GHG Permitting (i.e., for new GHG preconstruction and operating
permitting): $30 Million
o GHG New Source Performance Standards: $7.5 Million
o 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 cost
Universal Service Fund, which should be significantly reduced and focused on present priorities.

The Stimulus: This Committee will consider legislation to rescind all unspent stimulus money
within 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 been
unwilling to provide basic information on its efforts to control General Motors and Chrysler. In
the 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 finding
areas to cut.

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

Page |4
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 new
authorizations could be used as a means of effectively reforming our entitlement programs. For
example, 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 fix
would cost hundreds of billions, but doing so with a rule to require offsetting reductions could
encourage Medicare reform and produce savings in other Medicare areas.

Page |5
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 as
Chairman, and objected bluntly, repeatedly and consistently to any authorization of “such sums
as necessary” during the chairmanships of John Dingell and Henry Waxman.

Page |6
 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 proposed
and 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 it
will be a three-part strategy: (1) we will pass a bill to repeal the bill; (2) we will try to end the
uncertainty the American people face about how the law affects them; and (3) we will replace the
law with market-based reforms to reduce health care costs, provide for greater price transparency
and consumer choice, and ease government control and regulation, which will encourage job and
wealth creation.

An example is the uncertainty created in the health care law is the employer mandate. The
employer mandate will encourage employers to refrain from hiring, either to stay under the
mandate threshold or to avoid having to pay an extra $2,000 for each additional employee. By
repealing the employer mandate along with the rest of the law, we will free those employers
from 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 mandate
will affect their businesses and they don’t have the money to hire high-priced lawyers and
accountants to figure it out. By holding hearings on the employer mandate and asking the
Administration and experts to explain how the mandate applies to our country’s small
businesses, 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 by

handcuffing state governments. I am committed to reforming the welfare program known as
Medicaid to make it sustainable and bring it back to its core mission of caring for the truly
needy. We must eliminate many of the mandated benefit requirements to allow states to tailor
benefit packages to specific populations and allow states to charge and collect co-payments when
beneficiaries go to the emergency room for non-emergency care. These will be first steps to
reforming Medicaid and making the program sustainable and help states create favorable
conditions 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. We
will 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 on
the American economy, ands its recent lack of regulatory competitiveness as compared to other
countries is killing American jobs. Recent studies have shown America falling behind other
countries in new therapy approvals. The FDA is delaying approval of new therapies to the point
where the same products are approved more quickly in Europe. This not only causes American

Page |7
patients to wait longer for new treatments but puts American companies at a competitive
disadvantage. Unless the United States reclaims its position as the incubator of medical
innovation, we will see medical technology development—and well-paying jobs—move to other
countries. The Energy and Commerce Committee will hold hearings to identify the current
regulatory 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 the
United States jobs and should this inaction continue, will permanently send high-paying drug and
device industry jobs overseas. We need to shed light on how foreign countries and their
regulators are proactively taking advantage of FDA’s inaction to attract jobs. Early next
Congress, the Committee will hold hearings on American competitiveness in the drug/device
world. In the next few months, we will have new studies showing how FDA’s lack of regulatory
certainty/transparency (drug- and device-approval processes) are responsible for sending high-
paying jobs overseas. By shedding light on the FDA problems in 2011 through Committee
hearings/reports and then pushing to solve these problems in the PDUFA/MDUFA
reauthorizations 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, and
tobacco industries as well. Through effective oversight, we can force FDA to abide by the law
and engage in conversations with stakeholders, instead of ignoring them like FDA does now. Our
effective oversight will free these industries from FDA’s regulatory uncertainty so they can
create jobs.

Communications, Technology, and the Internet

Broadband is becoming the heart of modern advanced economies, and access to radio spectrum
is an absolute necessity for rolling out advanced networks. Auctioning spectrum for commercial
use 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 the
Federal Communications Commission and in Congress have a similar view of the issue: there is
a coming “spectrum crunch.” The Energy and Commerce Committee and the full Congress must
act to prevent it.

Expanding wireless broadband across the country—and particularly in rural areas—is one of the
most effective ways to bring the economic benefits of the Internet to all Americans, and rebuild
our economy. We should work to get free spectrum in the marketplace as quickly and efficiently
as 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 incentivize
investment, 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, I
championed 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 wireless
broadband services.

Page |8
The Committee will take the next step logical step. For huge swaths of radio spectrum, licensees
are not free to put their spectrum to new, higher-valued uses. The Committee will push to
facilitate 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 to
streamline 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 used
sporadically, incompletely, and inefficiently. Government agencies do not have the same
economic incentives as private companies to make the best use of these resources. Identifying
inefficiencies, getting the government out of the way, and allowing the private sector to do what
they do best—all while raising revenue to lessen the deficit—will be a priority of technology
policy for the Committee.

The best way to hinder this innovation and to deter investment is to impose government
regulations 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 Coleman
Bazelon of The Brattle Group, if the FCC goes forward with regulation, revenue growth in the
broadband sector could slow by about one-sixth over the next decade, broadband sector jobs lost
could be expected to total more than 14,000 in 2011, and grow to more than 340,000 jobs by
2020. Economy-wide, 65,000 jobs could be put in jeopardy in the coming year, with the total
economy-wide impact growing to almost 1.5 million jobs affected by 2020, due to reduced
revenue growth in the broadband sector.

The 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 FCC to ensure job- and investment-killing regulation of the Internet is prevented
or 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, it
would have an immediate positive impact on employment, particularly for the construction
sector, because it would remove the impending construction moratorium that will be caused by
EPA’s new GHG preconstruction and operating permitting requirements scheduled to start on
January 2, 2011.

The Pledge to America’s proposed requirement that Congress approve regulations that have an
economic 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 potentially
severe impacts for jobs and the economy, including ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQs), the boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) rules, the
anticipated utility MACT rule (expected to be proposed next year), and the cooling water intake
structures rule (also expected to be proposed next year). We would explore moving resolutions
of disapproval on all job-killing regulations, and hold hearings on their economic effects and the

Page |9
science and procedures EPA is using to attempt to justify them. We have attached an extensive
list of these regulations.

Restoring budget and license application process for constructing a nuclear waste repository at
Yucca 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 application
support 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 in
2020, and (d) help revitalize the nuclear industry.

DOE has already awarded most of the stimulus funds, though outlays lag. For example, the
weatherization program has awarded almost all of its allotted $16.6 billion, yet only $4.5 billion
has been distributed. We will work to end those contracts/awards and give the remaining $12
billion 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 negatively
impact our efforts to increase energy security and to provide for a reliable and affordable energy
supply. We have repeatedly heard testimony before our Committee that access to reliable and
affordable energy is essential for our nation’s economic growth and competitiveness. This
regulation 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 this
industry.

In conjunction with the Committee on Natural Resources, which has primary jurisdiction over
offshore drilling, the Committee on Energy and Commerce will continue to investigate the
Administration’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 the
Consumer Product 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.

P a g e | 10
 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 the
Leadership 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 priorities
will include reviewing all federal agencies under our jurisdiction for general management and
budget 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 with
new reforms by August 2011. The Committee will begin the work the public has demanded
immediately: we will hold a markup on a bill to repeal this law in the first month. This and future
actions will be accompanied by simultaneous oversight hearings probing the effects of the law
and how the Administration is implementing it. Starting the first week of session, under my
leadership and coordinated with Leadership, Subcommittee chairmen and other relevant
Committees, I will begin vigorous oversight of the law, set the stage for its repeal, and begin the
process 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 Information
and Insurance Oversight (OCIIO) to appear before the Committee. Mr. Agnoff is essentially the
Obama Administration’s private insurance czar: he is responsible for overseeing the health care
law’s effects on private insurers, and this often literally involves picking winners and losers, as
his office grants waivers and exemptions from parts of the law that are unworkable for some
insurers or businesses. A hearing with Mr. Agnoff will detail his office’s efforts, as well as probe
whether 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 in
January. Mr. Foster concluded in his analysis that ObamaCare will not rein in rising health care
costs and federal spending. In April, 22 Republican members of the Committee joined me in
urging Democrats to call a hearing to get the facts. Unfortunately, the Democrats chose not to

P a g e | 11
hold a hearing. We will hold this hearing to better understand Mr. Foster’s analysis, and also
seek information on why Mr. Foster was unable to project costs of the President’s bill until after
it 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 to
explain 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 my
chairmanship.

Also during the first month, we plan to hold hearings into the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) efforts to regulate the Internet. The FCC has announced that it will try to
impose Internet regulations under Title I of the Communications Act. The Committee will
investigate the FCC’s decision, hold hearings probing the FCC’s plan, and consider potential
legislative 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 raise
energy costs, hinder energy development, destroy jobs, and restrict future economic growth. We
will hold hearings with EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to discuss these regulations. The
Committee will hold EPA regulatory oversight hearings, at least one per month, on major EPA
regulations. For the first month, we plan to examine the costs of the Ozone NAAQS rule by
having a panel of industry participants explain how costly implementation and compliance will
be. We will also want to examine process issues with this rule with EPA Administrator Jackson
or EPA Air Chief Gina McCarthy.

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

February

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

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

P a g e | 12
required of the law because it simply dumps 23 million Americans onto the welfare program
known as Medicaid. This is obviously a serious concern amongst our nation’s governors, and I
look forward to inviting many of them to share their thoughts on the health care law with
Members of Congress and the public.

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

We will hold hearings on competitive bidding. The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003
established a new Competitive Bidding Program for certain Durable Medical Equipment that
replaced fee-schedule payments with competitively bid payment amounts. The amounts that
Medicare 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 in
Medicare and Medicaid could lower health care costs and provide savings for taxpayers and
beneficiaries. At the same, time we will examine the definition of “local participant” under the
regulations. We will need to give small- and medium-sized providers a chance to participate in
the program. In the Dallas-Fort Worth Metro Area, only one local provider was designated for an
area of about five million people. With the program set to begin on the first day of 2011, a
hearing in February will be the perfect opportunity to evaluate the first month of competitive
bidding, 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 which
we will find bipartisan cooperation. Transparency will promote competition and more careful
shopping by health care consumers.

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

The Committee will hold a hearing and seek legislative ways to facilitate the licensing of new
nuclear 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 Mountain
nuclear waste depository. We will call the NRC Commissioners to discuss nuclear waste storage
issues and to ask them that if Yucca is never to be revived, where they plan to go next.

P a g e | 13
The Committee will hold hearings and develop policies to promote development and deployment
of domestic energy resources like clean coal and cost-effective renewable energy.

The Committee will hold hearings and seek legislative ways to encourage high-tech energy
solutions—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, not
increased. We will hold a hearing on the current program and its budget during the first quarter
of 2011.

The Committee will conduct oversight of broadband stimulus spending. There is evidence that
some of the $7 billion in NTIA and RUS grants are going to overbuilt areas rather than to
unserved 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 the
FCC to share some proceeds with licensees, such as broadcasters, that voluntarily agree to
relinquish spectrum for wireless broadband.

We will also hold a legislative hearing on a plan to auction the D-block for commercial
broadband 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 month
of March, not only will we invite back both Kathleen Sebelius and Dr. Berwick to testify about
the 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 small
employers, how the federal government and states are handling the high-risk pool program, and
the early-retiree program.

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

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

P a g e | 14
and we will be able to publicly discuss the truth about the propaganda campaign by the
Administration to sell the health care law in advance of the elections. For example, Secretary
Sebelius recently distributed promotional brochures at taxpayer expense which touted
“improvements to Medicare Advantage,” the program that the new health care law will cut by 50
percent. 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 the
solvency of the program. Due to the health care law’s substantial changes to the Medicare
program, the 2011 report will be highly anticipated, and a hearing discussing the report will
likely yield great insights on the health care law’s effects.

The Committee will hold EPA regulatory oversight hearings, at least one per month, on major
EPA regulations. In March, we plan to examine the new E15 rule and issues related to a more
widespread 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 a
tremendous impact on the American economy. Its recent lack of regulatory competitiveness as
compared to other countries is killing American jobs.

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

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

The Committee will also hold multiple hearings on the implementation and costs of the
Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008. We will seek to uncover the problems with
the law and develop legislation to reform the Consumer Protect Safety Commission in a way that
balances 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 law
means to states and companies throughout America and how it continues to harm the country’s
economy. Many companies have already told the Securities and Exchange Commission that the
law’s changes to the retiree prescription drug plans will increase their costs. Other companies
have indicated that the burdens of the law will force health care premiums to increase. During

P a g e | 15
the week of April 15, the Committee should hold a hearing on the many taxes and costs
associated 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 is
through 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 problem
while reviewing options to reform these programs. That is why we will call for hearings on both
the dismal fiscal future of Medicare and Medicaid, and possible solutions that will guarantee the
solvency 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 in
losses to waste and fraud a year is too much, and we will no longer stand for it. As Chairman, I
vow to make substantive progress in combating the waste, fraud and abuse rampant in the
Medicare and Medicaid.

The best energy policy in the past 10 years came from the private sector. New technology has
provided 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 to
be 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 identify
waste, fraud or abuse. We will attempt to highlight the delays in funding going out the door and
how much of a failure the stimulus was.

P a g e | 16
 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. Oversight
will 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 Steering
Committee, I suggest a split of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee into two
Subcommittees. An Oversight Subcommittee to focus on matters concerning ObamaCare and
Administration leaders and an Investigations Subcommittee to investigate waste, fraud and abuse
and issues important to Leadership and members of the Committee.

My oversight plan includes the following. Attached is a comprehensive oversight and

investigations plan we have prepared in advance of the 112th Congress.

Health and Human Services—The Committee will examine the impact of the health care law
on 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 significant

rulemakings under the CAA and the potential economic and job impacts of these rulemakings on
the energy, manufacturing, construction and other critical sectors of the U.S. economy. The
Committee’s review will include oversight of the EPA’s decisions, strategies and actions to meet
CAA standards, and the current role of cost, employment and feasibility considerations in CAA
rulemakings. The Committee will examine the Administration’s efforts to regulate greenhouse
gas emissions domestically under the CAA, based on its endangerment finding.

Global Warming—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. Additionally, we will continue to investigate the global warming grants given by the
federal government to ensure that sound science and open and transparent practices are
conducted.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC)—The Committee will oversee 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.

P a g e | 17
Food and Drug Administration—The Committee will examine whether FDA’s uncertain and
unclear regulatory approach lacks predictability and transparency, and whether FDA’s approach
for 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 more
a year. The Committee will examine special pay programs under Title 42, which have no
statutory pay cap, used at HHS and EPA, and whether the spending for these pay programs have
been abusive, or in violation of federal laws or regulations.

P a g e | 18
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 to
develop such standards for your Committee?

Yes. 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,
review documents (sometimes in the tens of thousands), before we go public. As Chairman, I
would continue to insist on high standards for oversight and investigations, which would bolster
key fiscal messaging themes as opposed to oversight that would appear merely political. I served
as 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. We
demonstrated that the agency was years behind Europe in approvals of life-saving drugs. We laid
the groundwork for a change in culture at the FDA and for federal legislation to speed up
approvals of drugs to save lives and create jobs.

I led an investigation into travel abuses by Clinton Secretary of Energy Hazel O’Leary that
demonstrated her abuse of power and hastened her departure from the government. I led an
investigation into the political favoritism to Clinton-Gore supporter Franklin Haney in the
decision 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 in
instigating an investigation into child pornography prosecutions and the failure of the Federal
Bureau of Investigations in the Bush Administration to use all available resources to prosecute
these predators. These efforts resulted in the prosecution and convection of a predator in
Michigan.

P a g e | 19
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 your
Committee 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 keep
attendance 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 attendance
data with them privately. One method I have identified of promoting attendance is by giving
specific tasks to Members, for which they then take ownership and responsibility. This is also
effective when the Committee can showcase specific Members who have district-level interests
in 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 held
hearings 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. Republican
investigators worked closely with the Members and their staff in preparing for the hearing. Every
Member showed up and contributed.

P a g e | 20
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 112th Congress, we intend to have one cabinet head testify before the
Committee each and every week. In addition, these hearings would be followed up by oversight
and investigatory letters on a timely basis. Attached hereto is a list of oversight letters sent in the
111th Congress.

P a g e | 21
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 have
been dedicated to Oversight and Investigations (O&I) 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 Federal Communication Commission, one
from the Federal Trade Commission and one from Immigration and Customs Enforcement) who
have given assistance with oversight of those agencies, or in the case of the ICE detailee, food
safety investigations falling within the Committee’s jurisdiction. In addition, in the minority, I
required all policy staff to do oversight projects. These included interrogatories to the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Department of Health and Human Services, Environmental
Protection Agency, the FCC, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Energy, the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, and more than a dozen requests
to the General Accounting Office to do oversight reports on activities within the Executive
Branch, 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 prosecutors
within the Article One branch of government. Relevant requirements for staff are lawyers with 3
to 5 years of experience as federal prosecutors, district attorneys or private law firm litigators. In
the 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 on
oversight projects when they are not working on legislation.

P a g e | 22
 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 omnibus
authorization 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 Commerce
using an open, transparent process. Necessarily, the health care replacement bill would be broad
and complex, but omnibus legislation often does thwart the aims of rational policymaking and
easily 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 | 23
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 with
such 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 federal
laws 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 retain
a political constituency.

During my term as Chairman, we implemented both sunset provisions and limited authorizations
for 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 Health
in 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 its
entirety.

P a g e | 24
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 is
run as it is about the content of the bill. Throughout my tenure on the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, I have advocated for and practiced regular order. As the successes of the Energy
Policy 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 all
Committee members can be achieved, but not without respect for the rule of regular order. I trust
in regular order and have faith that openness and transparency will produce the best ideas, the
best legislation and the best law.

This philosophy lends itself well to moving bills out of Committee that can survive intact on the
House 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 concerns
of my Committee Members and worked to resolve all issues until they actually were resolved. In
what 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 bipartisan
support in the Senate and significant bipartisan support in the House.

P a g e | 25
P a g e | 26
 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 you
give us a sense of the anticipated weekly workload for your Committee?

I envision a bifurcation of the workweek into two segments: Subcommittee workdays and Full
Committee 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.

We will endeavor to have a hearing with one jurisdictional cabinet secretary or agency
administrator 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 will
happen concurrently.

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

P a g e | 27
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 our
Committee who wish to raise issues that fall within our jurisdiction and to provide
recommendations.

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

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

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

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

P a g e | 28
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 week
will 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 the
month will usually be reserved as a district work period, or regional field hearings could be
scheduled during that week.

I am fully prepared to complete the process of repealing and replacing ObamaCare by August
2011. I will work the maximum schedule that our Republican Leadership desires to report
priority bills and conduct priority oversight.

P a g e | 29
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 and
Member 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, the
Committee instituted the practice of routinely tabulating attendance at all hearings, markups and
other 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, 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 the news media
both narratives and tables covering votes cast in Committee on important 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. Attached are
lists of the news releases generated by the health care and Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade
debates, including some examples of how we reported specific votes on Republican
amendments. We have posted the amendments and roll call votes for every markup since Leader
Boehner’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 Committees
as an example of extremely effective New Media outreach.

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

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

P a g e | 30
impression of their Congress. Members who are serious about their work in Committee are
similarly disadvantaged, especially when they come fully prepared to do the work of advancing
our knowledge by hearing from experts we have called to testify.

P a g e | 31
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 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 a ratio reflecting that of the full House
(Republicans, 56 percent), plus one. Accordingly, the breakdown of majority/minority would be
31/20 or 32/21. Factoring in our 19 returning Committee members, we anticipate adding 12 or 13
new members to the Committee.

P a g e | 32
 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 our
initiatives 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’s
Republican staff already has one person designated specifically to deal with new media, but that
is only the beginning. Every Member and every Committee and should have in their holster an
active 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 majority
Web sites. As a result, for example, Committee staff was posting online votes on amendments at
the 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 included
a “plain English” version of what the amendment did so that any reader would know what
Republicans were accomplishing with amendments.

Individualization should reach into our Web pages, too, by creating opportunities for an
interactive conversation instead of one-way talk. Although the Committee pages serve specific
functions—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 on
Committee 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 to
weigh in on specific actions and ideas, and tasking a staff to actually read comments will ensure
that those voices are heard. Interactive conversation might even take the form of Members
asking 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 these
tools, we can better communicate with the Tea Party movement, with conservative bloggers, and
other commentators, including by organizing online briefings or seminars with select groups to
get feedback and to reiterate our message.

In both the majority and minority, the Committee has maintained a place on our Web site for a
tipline that invites the public to tell us directly about waste, fraud and abuse in government that
they witness. We will keep and expand that to add a “Solutions” section to the Web site. This
area 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 | 33
P a g e | 34
 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 any
Republicans thought we could work wholly within our personal comfort zones and thrive as
public policymakers, we don’t anymore. The Tea Party movement fractured the Roosevelt-era
coalition that had been the Democrats’ core strength since the Great Depression. Although we
have our own basic strengths, we are about to reassume control of the House of Representatives
because voted 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 conservative coalition 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.

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

Doing the work builds the coalition that permits us to govern. Next year, the work begins with
repealing 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 with
governors on a bipartisan basis to hold broad public hearings on the state-federal welfare
program known as Medicaid. As we already know from governors on both sides of the partisan
aisle, 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. Entitlement
spending amounts to $1.4 trillion and is now more than half the federal budget. Thanks to the
new health care law, entitlement programs are growing like crazy. They were costing each
American taxpayer $7,698 a year even before the President decided that many more people
needed a much larger share of other people’s earnings. Wage earners need some help, too, and
that Washington can get along on a smaller share of their money. Those who believe in the
sunrise also believe in the sunset, and it seems clear that the sun must set on some government
spending.

P a g e | 35
Vigorous, focused, public oversight must be part of the mix, too. Here are some of the issues the
Committee 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 costs
and federal spending. Back in April, 23 Republican members of the Committee joined me
in urging Democrats to call a hearing to get the facts from CMS. But Democrats
evidently weren’t interested, and neither an answer nor a hearing was forthcoming. This
hearing will, however, be high on our agenda.
• Investigate why Mr. Foster was unable to project costs of the president’s bill until after it
was passed by the House.
• Determine why companies have told the Securities and Exchange Commission that losing
support 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 when
it 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 health
care reforms.
• Investigate why Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius distributed
promotional brochures at taxpayer expense which touted “improvements to Medicare
Advantage,” 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 about
the possibility of the new health care law forcing rate increases.
• Determine why Dr. Donald Berwick, the unconfirmed appointee who runs the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services, has been unavailable to meet with our Committee for
six months.
• Determine why Secretary Sebelius has been unavailable to meet with the Committee for
nine 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 the
potential job losses it will cause or the pressure they will put on U.S. companies to
relocate 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 White
House doesn’t appear to know what her responsibility is under the president’s State of the
Union promise that “jobs must be our number one focus.”
• Investigate why the Obama Administration’s Federal Communications Commission
believes the Internet needs federal government regulation for the first time.

EPA deserves our special attention, particularly on the consequences of its endangerment finding
on global warming, but also on the coming regulatory wave involving everything from coal ash
to 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 to
actual consumers, and the Committee will take a serious look at the Boone Pickens plan for
developing natural gas.

P a g e | 36
Last but not least, it’s time for Congress to reform the Universal Service Fund and to halt the
Obama Administration’s efforts to give bureaucrats at the Federal Communications Commission
responsibility for developing, imposing and enforcing government regulation of the Internet for
the first time.

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

P a g e | 37
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. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

112TH CONGRESS

HEALTH AND HEALTHCARE ISSUES

PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

In the 112th Congress, the Committee will examine issues

related 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 management
and 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 curb
rising 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 after
PPACA 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 ASSISTANCE

PROGRAM

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 determining
whether 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 the
FDA’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, and
whether 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, oil
and 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 AND

ITS 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 significant

rulemakings 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 the
agency’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 green
energy 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’s

universal 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 fully
diverted to different communications mediums to maximize
consumer welfare without harming rural telephone users. The
Committee will review whether rural long-distance telephone
service providers are receiving subsidies in excess of what is
needed to provide long-distance telephone service in underserved
areas and whether the FCC’s internal processes are appropriate to
control waste, fraud, and abuse of Universal Service funds.

SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT

During the 112th Congress, the Committee will conduct

oversight of the FCC’s management and allocation of the nation’s
spectrum. An increasing portion of communications services
utilize spectrum to provide voice, video, and data services to
consumers and a key component of the National Broadband Plan
calls for using spectrum to encourage deployment of broadband
networks. The Committee will evaluate the FCC’s spectrum-
management policies to ensure that such policies are maximizing
the use of the public airwaves for innovative communications
services. The Committee will also examine whether the FCC’s
plan for allocating spectrum maximizes capacity for broadband
deployment and encourages investment, including an examination
of whether auction procedures are contemplated and how they
would be implemented. The Committee will examine what
procedures 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 security
initiatives 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 manufacturing
networks, 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 effectiveness
and 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 and
EPA, 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 112th Congress, the Committee will
review 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
Network-neutrality: Request for an explanation for the omissions from laudatory quotations in a
Omissions from laudatory FCC staff circulated document, which supports the Chairman's network-
2010-12-03 FCC quotations. neutrality proposal.
Request for information regarding the Administration's intentions, and any
Hydraulic Fracturing: hydraulic fracturing-related policy or regulatory proposals that may be
Possible Policy or Reulatory forthcoming from interior in light of a recent hydraulic fracturing forum held
2010-12-03 Interior Proposals. by Interior.
Conflict of Interest Rules:
Decision to Restrict Farm Request for information regarding a FDA memorandum instructing
Ownership by FDA employees to sell their farming interests within 60 days in order to comply
2010-12-03 FDA Employees. with conflict of interest rules.

Health Care Reform: Effects
2010-12-02 CMS and Implementation.
Network-neutrality: Title I
2010-12-01 FCC rulemaking authority.
2010-11-30 Commerce Federal Salaries
Request for Dr. Berwick to personally brief Members on the effects and
implementation of PPACA before the end of this Congressional session.
Request for the FCC's analysis of its authority to issue net-neutrality rules
under Title I of the Communications Act.
Request for information on the salaries of Commerce Department
employees.

Health Care Reform: Effects Request for Dr. Berwick to personally brief Members on the effects and
2010-11-29 CMS and Implementation. implementation of PPACA before the end of this Congressional session.
Network-neutrality: Potential
Order for December Request for the FCC to not circulate a network-neutrality order for vote at
2010-11-19 FCC Meeting. the December meeting.

NPR's use of federal funds Request for a review of the degree to which NPR may use federal funds in
2010-11-18 GAO for the creation of content. its exercise of control over editorial content.
Request for a briefing on the FTC's decision to end its inquiry into
allegations that Google's Street View service collected information that
2010-11-12 FTC Google Street View. resulted in a breach of consumers' privacy.
Request for a briefing on the availability of certain medical isotopes derived
2010-11-01 DOE Medical Isotopes. from Uranium-233.
Request for information regarding the validation of identity information in
2010-10-28 SSA LIHEAP. the administration of LIHEAP.
Request for information concerning actions HHS has taken in response to
2010-10-28 HHS LIHEAP. GAO's June 2010 report on LIHEAP fraud.
Request that GAO examine appointment and compensation practices
2010-10-28 GAO Title 42 Compensation. pursuant to 42 USC 209(f) and (g).
The Outbreak of Salmonella
2010-10-26 FDA in Eggs. Follow-up questions to FDA's testimony at the Sept. 22 O&I hearing.
Request for information regarding whether HHS will be able to implement
Health Care Reform: ObamaCare without causing companies providing low-cost health plans to
2010-10-22 HHS Implementation. drop health insurance coverage.
BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Request to be added to the review of the oil spill liability trust fund (Sen.
2010-10-21 GAO Spill Disaster. Carper).
Costs Estimates for Clean Request for information regarding the costs of EPA's current rulemaking
2010-10-14 EPA Air Act Regulations. activity under the Clean Air Act.
Request for information regarding NRC chairman Jaczko's decision to
2010-10-13 NRC Yucca Mountain. terminate review of DOE's Yucca License application.
Request for an assessment of the policies and procedures used by the
Health Care Reform: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality in conducting research on
2010-10-13 GAO Comparative Effectiveness. comparative effectiveness.
 Date Sent Agency Subject
Health Care Reform: Role of
the Office of Consumer
Information and Insurance
2010-10-12 HHS Oversight.
Health Care Reform: Affect
2010-10-05 Alabama on state budgets.
Health Care Reform: Affect
2010-10-05 Alaska on state budgets.
Health Care Reform: Affect
2010-10-05 Arizona on state budgets.
Health Care Reform: Affect
2010-10-05 Arkansas on state budgets.
Health Care Reform: Affect
2010-10-05 California on state budgets.
Health Care Reform: Affect
2010-10-05 Colorado on state budgets.
Health Care Reform: Affect
2010-10-05 Connecticut on state budgets.
Health Care Reform: Affect
2010-10-05 Delaware on state budgets.
Health Care Reform: Affect
2010-10-05 Florida on state budgets.
Health Care Reform: Affect
2010-10-05 Georgia on state budgets.
Health Care Reform: Affect
2010-10-05 Hawaii on state budgets.
Health Care Reform: Affect
2010-10-05 Idaho on state budgets.
Health Care Reform: Affect
2010-10-05 Illinois on state budgets.
Health Care Reform: Affect
2010-10-05 Indiana on state budgets.
Health Care Reform: Affect
2010-10-05 Iowa on state budgets.
Health Care Reform: Affect
2010-10-05 Kansas on state budgets.
Health Care Reform: Affect
2010-10-05 Kentucky on state budgets.
Health Care Reform: Affect
2010-10-05 Louisiana on state budgets.
Health Care Reform: Affect
2010-10-05 Maine on state budgets.
Health Care Reform: Affect
2010-10-05 Maryland on state budgets.
Health Care Reform: Affect
2010-10-05 Massachusetts on state budgets.
Health Care Reform: Affect
2010-10-05 Michigan on state budgets.
Health Care Reform: Affect
2010-10-05 Minnesota on state budgets.
Health Care Reform: Affect
2010-10-05 Mississippi on state budgets.
Executive Summary
Request for a briefing on the role of the Office of Consumer Information and
Insurance Oversight.
Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
impact state budgets over the next several years.
Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
impact state budgets over the next several years.
Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
impact state budgets over the next several years.
Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
impact state budgets over the next several years.
Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
impact state budgets over the next several years.
Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
impact state budgets over the next several years.
Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
impact state budgets over the next several years.
Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
impact state budgets over the next several years.
Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
impact state budgets over the next several years.
Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
impact state budgets over the next several years.
Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
impact state budgets over the next several years.
Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
impact state budgets over the next several years.
Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
impact state budgets over the next several years.
Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
impact state budgets over the next several years.
Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
impact state budgets over the next several years.
Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
impact state budgets over the next several years.
Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
impact state budgets over the next several years.
Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
impact state budgets over the next several years.
Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
impact state budgets over the next several years.
Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
impact state budgets over the next several years.
Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
impact state budgets over the next several years.
Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
impact state budgets over the next several years.
Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
impact state budgets over the next several years.
Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
impact state budgets over the next several years.
 Date Sent Agency Subject Executive Summary
Health Care Reform: Affect Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
2010-10-05 Missouri on state budgets. impact state budgets over the next several years.
Health Care Reform: Affect Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
2010-10-05 Montana on state budgets. impact state budgets over the next several years.
Health Care Reform: Affect Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
2010-10-05 Nebraska on state budgets. impact state budgets over the next several years.
Health Care Reform: Affect Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
2010-10-05 Nevada on state budgets. impact state budgets over the next several years.
New Health Care Reform: Affect Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
2010-10-05 Hampshire on state budgets. impact state budgets over the next several years.
Health Care Reform: Affect Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
2010-10-05 New Jersey on state budgets. impact state budgets over the next several years.
Health Care Reform: Affect Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
2010-10-05 New Mexico on state budgets. impact state budgets over the next several years.
Health Care Reform: Affect Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
2010-10-05 New York on state budgets. impact state budgets over the next several years.
Health Care Reform: Affect Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
2010-10-05 North Carolina on state budgets. impact state budgets over the next several years.
Health Care Reform: Affect Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
2010-10-05 North Dakota on state budgets. impact state budgets over the next several years.
Health Care Reform: Affect Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
2010-10-05 Ohio on state budgets. impact state budgets over the next several years.
Health Care Reform: Affect Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
2010-10-05 Oklahoma on state budgets. impact state budgets over the next several years.
Health Care Reform: Affect Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
2010-10-05 Oregon on state budgets. impact state budgets over the next several years.
Health Care Reform: Affect Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
2010-10-05 Pennsylvania on state budgets. impact state budgets over the next several years.
Health Care Reform: Affect Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
2010-10-05 Rhode Island on state budgets. impact state budgets over the next several years.
Health Care Reform: Affect Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
2010-10-05 South Carolina on state budgets. impact state budgets over the next several years.
Health Care Reform: Affect Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
2010-10-05 South Dakota on state budgets. impact state budgets over the next several years.
Health Care Reform: Affect Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
2010-10-05 Tennessee on state budgets. impact state budgets over the next several years.
Health Care Reform: Affect Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
2010-10-05 Texas on state budgets. impact state budgets over the next several years.
Health Care Reform: Affect Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
2010-10-05 Utah on state budgets. impact state budgets over the next several years.
Health Care Reform: Affect Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
2010-10-05 Vermont on state budgets. impact state budgets over the next several years.
Health Care Reform: Affect Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
2010-10-05 Virginia on state budgets. impact state budgets over the next several years.
Health Care Reform: Affect Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
2010-10-05 Washington on state budgets. impact state budgets over the next several years.
Health Care Reform: Affect Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
2010-10-05 West Virginia on state budgets. impact state budgets over the next several years.
Health Care Reform: Affect Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
2010-10-05 Wisconsin on state budgets. impact state budgets over the next several years.
Health Care Reform: Affect Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
2010-10-05 Wyoming on state budgets. impact state budgets over the next several years.
 Date Sent Agency Subject Executive Summary
District of Health Care Reform: Affect Request for information from states regarding how Health Care Reform will
2010-10-05 Columbia on state budgets. impact state budgets over the next several years.
Warren appointment as
Special Advisor on the
Consumer Financial Request for a briefing on Warren's agenda for the Consumer Financial
2010-10-05 Treasury Protection Bureau. Protection Bureau.
Request for documentation proving Sebelius assertions that insurers'
2010-09-30 HHS Health Care Reform announced premium increases are misinformation or unjustified.

Troubled Asset Relief Request for written updates from the OIG if the Department of the Treasury
2010-09-23 TARP-OIG Program. disputes or takes action based on conclusions in the OIG reports.
EPA Office of Water's
response to
recommendations made by Request for information regarding the EPA Office of Water's
the Office of Inspector implementation of recommendations made by the Office of the Inspector
2010-08-16 EPA General. General.
Suspension of permitting
and drilling activity on the Request for documents cited in a Decision Memorandum regarding the
2010-08-06 Interior OCS. suspension of offshore permitting and drilling activities on the OCS.
Request for information and documents regarding FDA's medical device
2010-08-02 FDA Medical devices. approval process.
Request for documents and information regarding ongoing concerns with
2010-07-22 FDA Heparin. FDA's heparin investigation.
Unintended acceleration in
vehicles manufactured by Request for an update on the status of NHTSA's investigation and the EDR
2010-07-21 NHTSA Toyota. data.
Review of Inspector's Request for information regarding the level of staffing and resources in the
2010-07-08 CPSC General Office. Inspector's General office.
Review of Inspector's Request for information regarding the level of staffing and resources in the
2010-07-08 Commerce General Office. Inspector's General office.
Review of Inspector's Request for information regarding the level of staffing and resources in the
2010-07-08 DOE General Office. Inspector's General office.
Review of Inspector's Request for information regarding the level of staffing and resources in the
2010-07-08 HHS General Office. Inspector's General office.
Review of Inspector's Request for information regarding the level of staffing and resources in the
2010-07-08 EPA General Office. Inspector's General office.
Review of Inspector's Request for information regarding the level of staffing and resources in the
2010-07-08 FCC General Office. Inspector's General office.
Review of Inspector's Request for information regarding the level of staffing and resources in the
2010-07-08 FTC General Office. Inspector's General office.
Review of Inspector's Request for information regarding the level of staffing and resources in the
2010-07-08 NRC General Office. Inspector's General office.

Request for information regarding how CDC guarantees access to critical

materials and vaccines that may be needed in the event of a Chemical,
2010-07-08 CDC Strategic National Stockpile. Biological, Radiological, Nuclear event or a naturally occurring pandemic.
Request for information and documents regarding whether the National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences is using the Title 42 special pay
Title 42 Pay Authority at mechanism in compliance with the HHS regulations, policies, and
2010-07-08 NIH HHS. guidelines.
 Date Sent Agency Subject
Medicare Enrollment (Part
2010-07-02 CMS D).
Health Care Reform: High-
2010-07-01 HHS risk insurance pool program. Request for a briefing on the high-risk health insurance pool program.
BP/Deepwater Horizon oil
2010-06-24 Interior spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
BP/Deepwater Horizon oil
2010-06-24 EPA spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
2010-06-14 HHS Health Care Reform.
2010-06-14 HHS Health Care Reform.
EPA's proposed National
Ambient Air Quality
Standards for ground level
2010-06-11 EPA smog.
2010-06-11 OMB Stimulus Oversight.
2010-06-02 White House Health Care Reform.
HHS brochure mailed to
Medicare beneficiaries
("Medicare and the New Request for information regarding the development, cost, and review of
Health Law--What it Means HHS' brochure ("Medicare and the New Health Law--What it Means for
2010-05-28 HHS for You"). You") to Medicare beneficiaries.
Scientific integrity and
reliability of IPCC
2010-05-05 GAO assessments.
2010-04-30 FDA Heparin
Enforcement and oversight
of safety and security at
2010-03-30 GAO DOE facilities.
Enforcement and oversight
of safety and security at
2010-03-30 DOE DOE facilities.
Review of errors in the IPCC
2010-03-15 EPA report.
Review of errors in the IPCC
2010-03-15 DOE report.
Executive Summary
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.
Request that Salazar be prepared to answer specific questions related to the
investigation at a June 29 E&E/O&I hearing.
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.
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.
Request for information regarding whether information in various CMS
Chief Actuary reports was released to Congress and the public prior to final
passage of the bill.
Request for information regarding EPA's process and development of the
proposed NAAQS standards and their projected impact.
Request for information regarding how much ARRA money has yet to be
obligated or outlayed.
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.
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.
Expressing concerns and requesting information regarding how FDA has
handled the investigation to find out who was responsible for the
contamination of Heparin.
Requesting a briefing on DOE's safety and security plan and information
regarding DOE's suspension of any enforcement or oversight activity related
to the safety and security of DOE and NNSA facilities.
Requesting an evaluation of DOE's plan to reform safety and security
activities at DOE and NNSA facilities.
Expressing the hope that the Administration will encourage the UN to
conduct an honest review of the mistakes in the IPCC's report.
Expressing the hope that the Administration will encourage the UN to
conduct an honest review of the mistakes in the IPCC's report.
 Date Sent Agency Subject Executive Summary
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
2010-03-11 GM GM participation in USCAP. share in the company.
Request for comment on the appropriateness of Chrysler's continued
participation in USCAP, which lobbies the federal government to enact
Chrysler participation in climate change legislation, in light of American taxpayers' 60% ownership
2010-03-11 Chrysler USCAP. share in the company.

OPM Guidance on counting Request for information on the number and classification of jobs created or
jobs saved or created saved by the Recovery Act and OMB's updated guidance for reporting the
2010-03-10 OMB because of the Recovery Act. number of jobs created or saved by the Recovery Act

Draft NEPA Guidance on

Consideration of the Effects Request for information on the Administration's analysis of the economic
of Climate Change and and job impacts of CEQ's "Draft NEPA Guidance on Consideration of the
2010-03-08 CEQ Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Effects of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions."

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
2010-03-05 DOT Federal Salaries funds, and any professional service contracts in excess of $100,000.

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
2010-03-05 DHS Federal Salaries funds, and any professional service contracts in excess of $100,000.
Request for IPCC budget information, including funding sources, audits, and
2010-03-04 IPCC IPCC audit request. internal controls.
Request for information on U.S. contributions to the IPCC, State Dept.
audits of the IPCC, and State Dept. implemented controls to oversee IPCC
2010-03-04 State IPCC audit request. spending.

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
2010-03-03 DOE Federal Salaries funds, and any professional service contracts in excess of $100,000.

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
2010-03-03 FCC Federal Salaries funds, and any professional service contracts in excess of $100,000.

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
2010-03-03 FTC Federal Salaries funds, and any professional service contracts in excess of $100,000.

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
2010-03-03 NRC Federal Salaries funds, and any professional service contracts in excess of $100,000.
 Date Sent Agency Subject Executive Summary

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
2010-03-03 HHS Federal Salaries funds, and any professional service contracts in excess of $100,000.

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
2010-03-03 CPSC Federal Salaries funds, and any professional service contracts in excess of $100,000.

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
2010-03-03 Commerce Federal Salaries funds, and any professional service contracts in excess of $100,000.

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
2010-03-03 EPA Federal Salaries funds, and any professional service contracts in excess of $100,000.

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
2010-03-03 Treasury Federal Salaries funds, and any professional service contracts in excess of $100,000.

Request for information regarding agreements and meetings between the

2010-02-17 White House Health care deals White House and any private entities with respect to certain healthcare bills.

Fraud and mismanagement Allegations of misuse and mismanagement of Ryan White funds by
2010-02-04 HRSA in the Ryan White Care Act. subgrantees and the lack of meaningful oversight by primary grantees.
Quality, rigor , and
transparency of the IPCC The adequacy of EPA's review of the IPCC's assessment, which was relied
2010-02-04 EPA assessments. on to draft the endangerment determination.
Request for information on the SEC's plan to consider publishing an
SEC's interpretive release on interpretive release on disclosure requirements for matters related to climate
2010-01-26 SEC climate change. change.

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-
An addendum to the Climate based researchers, and 4) whether any data generated by CRU with DOE
2010-01-22 DOE Gate Emails funds, has been lost, manipulated, or destroyed.
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-
Administration's new focus Walden letter, that studying job losses in connection with proposed GHG
2010-01-21 Emanuel on jobs, jobs, jobs. regulations would have "limited utility."
Request for broader budget
analysis of future health Request that CBO's future budget estimates of health reform bills include the
2010-01-20 CBO reform proposals. bill's projected impact on total health care expenditures in the US.
 Date Sent Agency Subject Executive Summary

Planning and preparedness
2010-01-12 GAO 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 (including
the 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).

Climate Gate: NASA
2010-01-06 NASA compliance with FOIA
Challenges of increasing
2009-12-09 GAO biofuel use and production.
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.
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.

Oversight of the broadband Raises concerns and requests information on the implementation of the
2009-12-04 NTIA programs in stimulus bill broadband programs of the stimulus bill.

Oversight of the broadband
2009-12-04 RUS programs in stimulus bill
2009-12-02 DOE Climate Gate Emails
Raises concerns and requests information on the implementation of the
broadband programs of the stimulus bill.
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.

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

FOIA, 2) NOAA's and researcher's compliance with data sharing policies,
2009-12-02 Commerce Climate Gate Emails and 3) federal funding of the research at issue in these emails.

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
CMS investigation of companies in similar situations. With regard to HHS, 1) whether the website
Medicare Advantage campaign violates federal law (PL 111-8), 2) how the website campaign was
companies, and HHS' "State funded, and 3) if HHS staff, contractors, or third parties were involved in the
2009-12-01 GAO Your Support" campaign. website's creation.
Impact of GHG regulations Request for documents and response to questions related to the cumulative
on U.S. jobs and economic impact of the Administration's and EPA's proposed global warming rules on
2009-11-19 EPA growth U.S. job and manufacturing.
Request for information regarding DOE's plans regarding Yucca mountain
and the Yucca mountain application in light of a DOE memo announcing the
DOE memo terminating termination of license defense activities. The letter also requests separate
Yucca Mountain defense briefings with DOE's CFO and the Director of the Office of Civilian
2009-11-18 DOE activities in December 2009. Radioactive Waste Management.
High-containment biological Request for information on NIH's plans to use stimulus funding on high-
2009-11-18 NIH laboratories. containment biological laboratories or related research.
 Date Sent Agency Subject Executive Summary

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

accounted for fraud in the AHCAA budget score. The letter highlights fraud
Request for information on in Medicare and Medicaid programs, which news outlets report may be $60
fraud in Medicare and billion, while the Administration reports "there is no fraud rate at CMS to
2009-11-06 CBO Medicaid programs quantify the amount of fraudulent claims paid each year."

SAMHSA's oversight and Researchers have found a link between economic downturns and an increase
funding of suicide of suicides. The Committee requested information related to the operation,
2009-10-29 SAMHSA prevention programs funding, and calls received at the national Suicide Prevention Lifeline.

Unlike the procedure followed for other HHS employees, criminal

investigators are used to investigate non-criminal misconduct by FDA
Effect of FDA investigations employees. The letter requests a justification for this practice, alternative
2009-10-21 FDA on employee morale 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.

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
2009-10-01 HHS OIG CMS Censorship Actions marketing materials to enrollees.

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
Humana Communication misleading mailings to beneficiaries." The Committee requested information
2009-10-01 CMS Censorship and a briefing explaining CMS' rationale for this action.
Request for a study on DOE's decision to discontinue efforts to develop
DOE efforts to discontinue Yucca Mtn. for nuclear waste, focusing on how the decision was made, how
efforts to develop YUCCA much federal money has been spent on the project to date, and an analysis of
2009-10-01 GAO Mountain the ramifications of DOE's decision.

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
Secretary Locke's Position not he and the Obama Administration support the forcing American
2009-09-30 Commerce on Carbon Tariffs consumer to pay for the carbon footprint of imported goods.
Requests information on NIH's method of awarding grants. Given the high
demand for research dollars, some of the identified grants appear to have
NIH Use of Federal Grant questionable public health benefit (e.g., impact of dragon boat racing on
2009-09-24 NIH Money cancer survivorship).
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
NRC at Center of Regulatory related to the process and timeline for reviewing and approving license
2009-09-17 NRC Bottleneck applications.
Request for information and data on fraud and abuse in the Medicare and
2009-09-16 CMS Fraud Data Medicaid programs.
 Date Sent Agency Subject Executive Summary
EPA's Use of HHS Special
2009-09-14 HHS Pay Authorities Requests information on EPA's use of HHS' special pay authority.
Unauthorized Hiring
2009-09-14 EPA 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.

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
2009-09-11 GAO NIH Stimulus Grants through grants awarded with stimulus money.

EPA's Economic Modeling The letter highlights inconsistencies in EPA's modeling of carbon prices
2009-09-10 EPA for Waxman-Markey under Waxman-Markey and the lack of an adequate explanation by EPA.
Locke: "U.S. Should pay for Request for clarification from Sec. Locke, who told the American Chamber
carbon content of imported of Commerce in Shanghai that the US should pay for the carbon content of
2009-07-22 Commerce goods" imported goods.
Follow-up to Mr. Barton's June 24 letter requesting information regarding
the integrity of EPA's process in promulgating the proposed endangerment
Carbon-Gate: Request for finding (particularly with respect to the possible suppression of Dr. Carlin's
2009-07-16 EPA Additional Details support).
Request for information on resources lost through and used to prevent waste
2009-07-14 CMS Fraud Data and fraud in Medicare/Medicaid programs.

Request for information regarding Medicare's alleged lower administrative

Administrative costs of costs. Supporters of the public option suggest Medicare is the appropriate
2009-07-08 CMS Medicare model for the public option in part because administrative costs are lower.
Cost of financing future
government debt and Request for a staff briefing to discuss the possibility of a GAO impact study
entitlement program of long-term structural deficits, particularly with regard to entitlement
2009-06-30 GAO obligations program obligations.
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
2009-06-24 EPA Carbon-Gate budget cuts.

Impact of a mandated Because the health care proposals moving through Congress mandate an
expansion of Medicaid expansion of the Medicaid program, this is a request for technical
2009-06-17 CMS eligibility information regarding current and projected Medicaid statistics.
Request for information on the impact of moving the date and allocating
2009-06-11 FCC DTV Transition additional funds for the DTV transition.
Request for information on the impact of moving the date and allocating
2009-06-11 Commerce DTV Transition additional funds for the DTV transition.
Request for a meeting with GAO to discuss designing a report on the
economic effects of stimulus funding for the NIH. Specifically, the number
Economic effects of stimulus of jobs created or saved, new businesses created, total wage increases
2009-05-21 GAO funding for the NIH resulting from the stimulus, and NIH's grant award process.
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
Cost Estimates of the allowances, and 3) elaboration on CBO's May 15 letter to the Committee
2009-05-19 CBO Updated W-M Legislation regarding the fiscal treatment of allowances.
 Date Sent Agency Subject Executive Summary
Request for clarification from Wellinghoff on his comments that there may
Clarification of comments never be a need for additional coal or nuke plants and renewable energy,
regarding electric energy such as wind, will meet future demand. Also requests any FERC analysis
2009-05-08 FERC system supporting these comments.

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

Future of Nuclear Waste and hearing stating that nuke power needs to be "restarted" and comments made
2009-05-07 DOE Yucca Mountain by Sec. Chu's press secretary that "Yucca Mt. is not an option, period."
Anne Sholtz Emissions- Request for information regarding the Anne Sholtz criminal case, which
2009-05-07 EPA Trading Fraud Case involved fraudulent activity related to the RECLAIM program.
Request for information regarding 1) Heparin test results and samples taken
FDA's Handling of the from contaminated lots on FDA databases and 2) clinical adverse events
2009-05-06 FDA Heparin Issue linked to the contamination.

Letter to Wellinghoff on Request for views on whether the private sector would make large
2009-04-23 FERC CCS investments in CCS technology in the absence of further federal legislation.

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

Request for views on whether the private sector would make large
2009-04-23 FERC Letter to Spitzer on CCS investments in CCS technology in the absence of further federal legislation.

Request for views on whether the private sector would make large
2009-04-23 FERC Letter to Kelly on CCS investments in CCS technology in the absence of further federal legislation.
Request for information on the definition of green jobs, development of that
definition, sectors expected to realize green job growth, and analysis related
2009-04-22 Labor Green Jobs to green job growth.
Request for information on the definition of green jobs, development of that
definition, sectors expected to realize green job growth, and analysis related
2009-04-22 DOE Green Jobs to green job growth.

Request for information regarding DOE actions, funding, and analysis

Commercial Deployment of related to activities supporting commercial deployment of CCS technology,
2009-04-20 DOE CCS Technologies including a carbon sequestration program and FutureGen.
Request for information and documents related to the disappearance of
Theft of Computers at Los computers at LANL, the resulting threat to cyber-security, and LANL's
2009-03-27 NNSA Alamos National Laboratory subsequent remedial action.
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
Emissions-Based Trade the US might adjust import duties on Chinese goods so as not to
2009-03-26 USTR Issues disadvantage US industry.

Broadband Stimulus Request for information regarding the use of and method for distributing
2009-03-25 FCC Funding Oversight stimulus funds for broadband deployment and mapping projects.

Broadband Stimulus Request for information regarding the use of and method for distributing
2009-03-25 NTIA Funding Oversight stimulus funds for broadband deployment and mapping projects.

Broadband Stimulus Request for information regarding the use of and method for distributing
2009-03-25 RUS Funding Oversight stimulus funds for broadband deployment and mapping projects.
 Date Sent Agency Subject Executive Summary
Request for information regarding NIH's oversight of extramural researchers'
2009-03-19 NIH NIH's use of Stimulus Funds conflicts of interest.
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.
Stimulus Oversight for DOE The stimulus provided EM an extra $5 billion for these projects. The letter
Office of Environmental requests information regarding the oversight of the use of stimulus in the
2009-03-17 GAO Management EM office.

CMS Memo Regarding Asking HHS to reconsider its new interpretation of regulations, which will
2009-03-16 HHS CLIA require CLIA certification for laboratories that perform forensic testing.
Request for information and documents related to the auditing and oversight
DOE's audit of the of contract spending at DOE's Savannah River Site, which DOE's IG
Washington Savannah River determined to contain serious accounting deficiencies and material
2009-03-16 DOE Company weaknesses.
FDA Oversight in light of Request for information regarding FDA oversight of state inspection
2009-03-11 FDA the Salmonella Outbreak programs and the FDA's reportable food registry.
Request for an update on FDA action regarding debarment authority one
2009-02-25 FDA FDA Debarments year after the Republican report on the matter was released.
Urging regulators to focus the coupon program on minority households that
are not prepared for the DTV conversion during the President's requested
2009-02-18 FCC DTV Coupon Priorities delay and other recommendations.
Urging regulators to focus the coupon program on minority households that
are not prepared for the DTV conversion during the President's requested
2009-02-18 NTIA DTV Coupon Priorities delay and other recommendations.

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
Update of Greenhouse Gas inventories, 3) barriers to closing information gaps, and 4) implications for
2009-02-10 GAO Inventory reaching an international agreement.
Request for information on steps DOE has taken in response to an IG report,
DOE's Foreign Visits and which outlined security weaknesses in DOE's Foreign Visits and
2009-02-06 DOE Assignments Program Assignments Program.
Requesting an update of the DOE IG's report on security measures at SPR
Strategic Petroleum Reserve facilities, and whether DOE has adequately addressed previously identified
2009-02-04 DOE - IG Security shortcomings.
 LIST OF RECENT AND PENDING EPA REGULATIONS
UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT

This chart lists Clean Air Act (CAA) rulemakings initiated or finalized by the Obama Administration, as well as pending rulemakings identified by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as currently under development. The chart is based on EPA’s rulemaking documents and seeks to list the
rulemakings in order of compliance costs based on EPA’s own estimates. For rulemakings for which EPA has not yet provided specific cost
estimates or has concluded cost estimates were not required, the rulemakings are listed in chronological order of the regulatory action.

Regulation Status EPA Cost Description Potentially Regulated Entities

Estimates
1 Reconsideration of the Final rule $19-$90 billion Proposes to lower National Ambient EPA projects 77% of counties that
2008 Ozone National projected per year in 2020 Air Quality (NAAQS) standards for currently have ozone monitors
Ambient Air Quality November 2010 ($2006). (RIA ground-level ozone (from 1997 level would violate a 0.070 parts per
Standards page S1-4, S2-3 0.08 ppm/2008 level of 0.075 ppm) million (ppm) standard in 2020, and
(Proposed) and EPA fact to between 0.070 and 0.060ppm, 96% of those counties would violate
sheet). and to set a separate secondary a 0.060 ppm standard. Rule will
standard to protect vegetation and require states with areas determined
ecosystems. Also proposes to to be in non-attainment with the new
accelerate the schedule for states to standards to prepare state
designate areas that do not meet implementation plans to come into
the new standards. compliance through emissions
control programs. The majority of
emissions sources of man-made
nitrogen oxides and volatile organic
compounds emissions, which
contribute to ground-level ozone
formation, are mobile sources,
industrial processes (which include
consumer and commercial
products), and the electric power
industry. Other emissions sources
include agricultural sources.
1
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010
2 Light-duty vehicles Final rule EPA and DOT Sets greenhouse gas emissions Rule affects companies that
greenhouse gas emissions published May estimate (GHG) and fuel efficiency standards manufacture or sell new light-duty
Standards and Corporate 7, 2010 compliance for new passenger cars and trucks passenger cars and trucks.
Average Fuel Economy costs between for MY 2012-2016 vehicles. Regulated categories and entities
Standards $51.5 billion President Obama has directed include: Motor vehicle
(Final) and $51.8 agencies to develop more stringent manufacturers; and commercial
billion for all MY standards for MY 2017-2025 importers of vehicles and vehicle
2012-2016 vehicles. components. EPA estimates
vehicles over full average cost increases per vehicle
lifetime of to increase from $331 per car or
vehicles truck in 2012 to $948 per vehicle in
projected to be 2016.
sold during
model years
2012-2016
($2007).
3 National Emission Final rule $9.5 billion in Proposes to set emissions Rule will affect owners and
Standards for Hazardous projected capital standards for hazardous air operators of industrial, commercial
Air Pollutants for Major December 2010 expenditures; pollutants (e.g., particulate matter, or institutional boilers and process
Sources: Industrial, $3.2 billion in hydrogen chloride, mercury) for heaters at a major source.
Commercial & Institutional annual costs boilers and process heaters located Potentially regulated categories and
Boilers and Process (reduced to at major sources. Standards for entities include: Extractors of crude
Heaters $2.9 billion due major sources will be based on the petroleum and natural gas;
(Proposed) to fuel savings). maximum achievable control Manufacturers of lumber and wood
(75 Fed. Reg. technology (MACT). products, chemicals, coal products,
32037, rubber and miscellaneous plastic
Regulatory products, motor vehicle parts and
Impact Analysis) accessories; pulp and paper mills;
petroleum refineries; steel works,
blast furnaces; electric, gas, and
sanitary services; health and
educational services.

2
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010
4 National Emission Projected date Total capital Proposes to set emission limits for Rule will affect owners and
Standards for Hazardous for final rule costs of coal-fired, biomass-fired and oil-fired operators of industrial, commercial
Air Pollutants for Area publication approximately types of boilers located at area and institutional boilers located at
Sources: Industrial, December 2010 $2.5 billion and sources in order to reduce area sources. The “industrial”
Commercial, and $1 billion in emissions of a number of toxic air category includes boilers used in
Institutional Boilers total annualized pollutants including mercury, metals, manufacturing, processing, mining,
(Proposed) costs (75 Fed. and organic air toxics. The refining, and any other industry.
Reg. 31914). standards for area sources must be The “commercial” category include
EPA Fact Sheet technology-based on either boilers used in stores/malls,
generally available control laundries, apartments, restaurants,
technology or maximum achievable and hotels/motels. The
control technology. Exempts natural “institutional” category includes
gas-fired area source boilers. boilers used in medical centers (e.g.
hospitals, clinics, nursing homes),
educational and religious facilities
(e.g. schools, universities,
churches), and municipal buildings
(e.g. courthouses, prisons).
5 Transport Rule (CAIR NPRM $3.7 billion in Proposes to limit interstate transport Rule will affect electric generating
Replacement Rule); comment period 2012 and $2.8 of emissions of nitrogen oxides and facilities (power sector), including
Federal Implementation closes October billion in 2014 sulfur dioxide within 32 states in the utilities (electric, natural gas, other
Plans to Reduce Interstate 2010 (preferred eastern United States that affect the systems).
Transport of Fine remedy option; ability of downwind states comply
Particulate Matter and $2006). (75 with the 1997 and 2006 fine
Ozone Fed. Reg. particulate matter NAAQS and 1997
(Proposed) 45348, 45352). ozone NAAQS. An initial phase of
Costs for the emissions reductions would be
agency’s required by 2012. A second phase
alternative of reductions would be required by
proposed 2014. Sunsets CAIR; sets forth
approach would EPA's preferred replacement
be $4.2 billion in approach and seeks comment on
2012 and $2.7 two alternative approaches. Each
3
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010
 billion in 2014. approach would set a pollution limit
(or budget) for each state and obtain
reductions from power plants. EPA's
preferred approach would allow
intrastate trading and some
interstate trading among power
plants.
6 Emissions Controls for Final rule $1.85 billion in Places emissions standards on
new Marine Diesel published June 2020, Category 3 engines in order to
engines at or Above 30 2010 increasing to reduce their emissions of PM2.5,
Liters per Cylinder $3.11 billion in SOX, and NOX that contribute to
(Final) 2030 (2006 $). nonattainment of the NAAQS for
(75 Fed. Reg. PM2.5 and ground-level ozone.
22939, Program Standards apply in two stages—
Costs Fact near-term standards for newly built
Sheet) engines will apply beginning in
2011; long-term standards requiring
an 80 percent reduction in NOX
emissions will begin in 2016. Also
finalizes change to diesel fuel
program that will allow for
production and sale of 1,000 ppm
sulfur fuel for use in Category 3
marine Vessels; generally forbids
the production and sale of other
fuels above 1,000 ppm sulfur for use
in most U.S. waters, unless
alternative devices, procedures, or
compliance methods are used to
achieve equivalent emissions
reductions. Makes technical
amendments to motor vehicle and
nonroad engine regulations in
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010
Rule affects companies that
manufacture, sell, or import into the
United States new marine
compression ignition engines with
per cylinder displacement at or
above 30 liters for use on vessels
flagged or registered in the United
States; companies and persons that
make vessels that will be flagged or
registered in the United States and
that use such engines; and the
owners or operators of such U.S.
vessels; companies and persons
that rebuild or maintain these
engines; Category 3 marine vessels
fuel makers, importers, distributors,
sellers, dispensers. Manufacturers
of new marine diesel engines and
marine vessels. Engine repair and
maintenance. Petroleum refineries,
bulk stations and terminals,
wholesalers. Coastal and Great
Lakes Freight and Passenger
Transportation.
4
 recently finalized rule for new
nonroad spark-ignition engines.

7 Primary National Ambient Final rule $1.5 billion Lowers the primary National Rule will require states to prepare
Air Quality Standard for published June ($2006) in 2020 Ambient Air Quality Standard implementation plans addressing
Sulfur Dioxide 22, 2010 for full (NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide (SO2) by how they will meet the new
(Final) attainment. setting new short term (one-hour) standards through control programs
Because this SO2 standard at 75 parts per billion directed to emission sources.
analysis only (ppb), and revoking the prior 24-
considers hour and annual SO2 health
counties that standards. Also establishes new
currently have monitoring requirements for SO2.
an SO2 monitor,
EPA advises
that, as the new
monitoring
network is
installed, there
may be more
potential
nonattainment
areas than have
been analyzed in
the RIA. (RIA
ES-1 and 9:
Regulatory
Impact Analysis)
8 NESHAP MACT Final Rule EPA estimates Sets the limits on mercury air Rule affects Portland cement
Reconsideration for published $926 – $950 emissions from existing cement manufacturing plants.
Portland Cement September 9, million annually kilns, strengthens the limits for new
(Final) 2010 in 2013 kilns, and sets emission limits that
(combined with will reduce acid gases. Also limits
rule below). (See particle pollution from new and
5
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010

9 Review of New Source
Performance Standards --
Portland Cement
(Final)
10 Reciprocating Internal
Combustion Engines:
Final National Emissions
Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants - Spark
Ignition Engines
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010
8/9/2010 press existing kilns, and sets new-kiln
release) (also limits for particle and smog-forming
citing another nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide.
EPA analysis
estimating lower
costs of $350
million annually).
EPA estimates
that the average
price for Portland
cement could be
5.4% higher with
the NESHAP
and NSPS (see
below), and that
domestic
production may
fall by 11%, and
operating profits
may fall by $241
million (page
276).
Final rule See cost Sets New Source Performance Rule affects Portland cement
released estimate Standards (NSPS) regulate criteria manufacturing plants.
August 8, 2010 immediately pollutants, such as particulate
above. matter, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen
oxides from new stationary sources.
Final rule Total capital cost Sets national emission standards for Rule affects industries using
published for existing hazardous air pollutants for existing stationary internal combustion
August 20, stationary stationary spark ignition engines. Potentially regulated
2010 internal reciprocating internal combustion categories and entities include:
combustions engines that either are located at Electric power generation,
engines area sources of hazardous air transmission, or distribution; Medical
6
 (Final)
11 Mandatory Reporting of
Greenhouse Gases
(Final)
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010
estimated to be pollutant emissions or that have a and surgical hospitals; Natural gas
$383 million, site rating of less than or equal to transmission; Crude petroleum and
with a total 500 brake horsepower and are natural gas production; Natural gas
national annual located at major sources of liquids producers.
cost of $253 hazardous air pollutant emissions.
million ($2009)
in year 2013 (the
first year this rule
is implemented).
(75 Fed. Reg.
51582:
Regulatory
Impact Analysis)
Final rule National Requires reporting of greenhouse Rule applies to fossil fuel suppliers
published annualized cost gas emissions from all sectors of the and industrial gas suppliers, direct
October 30, for first year economy. Sets data collection and greenhouse gas emitters and
2009 estimated to be reporting requirements. EPA manufacturers of heavy-duty and
$132 million, estimates during the first year the offroad vehicles and engines.
and total national rule will affect approximately 30,000 Potentially regulated categories and
annualized cost facilities that will need to determine entities include: Facilities operating
for subsequent whether they are subject to the rule, boilers, process heaters,
years to be $89 and that ultimately approximately incinerators, turbines, and internal
million ($2006) 10,152 facilities will be required to combustion engines. Extractors of
(75 Fed. Reg. report. crude petroleum and natural gas.
56362) Pulp and paper mills. Manufacturers
of lumber and wood products and
chemical, rubber and miscellaneous
plastic products, motor vehicle parts
and accessories, adipic acid,
anhydrous and aqueous ammonia,
Portland Cement, ferroalloys, glass,
chlorodifluoromethane, hydrogen,
calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide,
7
 dolomitic hydrates, nitric acid,
ethylene dichloride, acrylonitrile,
ethylene oxide, methanol, ethylene,
carbon black, silicon carbide
abrasives, alkalies and chlorine,
phosphoric acid, titanium dioxide,
industrial gas, heavy-duty, non-road,
aircraft, locomotive, and marine
diesel engine, heavy-duty vehicle,
small non-road, and marine spark-
ignition engine, personal watercraft
and motorcycle. Steel works, blast
furnaces. Electroplating, plating,
polishing, anodizing, and coloring.
Electric, gas, sanitary, health and
educational services. Fossil-fuel
fired electric generating units.
Primary Aluminum production
facilities. Integrated iron and steel
mills, steel companies, sinter plants,
blast furnaces, basic oxygen
process furnace shops. Lead
smelting and refining facilities.
Petroleum refineries. Pulp, paper
and paperboard mills. Soda ash,
natural, mining and/or beneficiation.
Primary zinc refining facilities. Zinc
dust reclaiming facilities.
Solid waste landfills. Sewage
treatment facilities. Beef cattle
feedlots. Dairy cattle and milk
production facilities. Hog and pig
farms. Chicken egg production

8
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010

12 Petroleum and Natural
Gas Systems Greenhouse
Gas Reporting Rule
(Proposed)
13 National Emission
Standards for
Halogenated Solvent
Cleaning – Remand
14 National Emission
Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants From
Petroleum
Refineries
(Final)
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010
facilities. Turkey, Broilers and Other
Meat type Chicken Production. Coal
liquefaction at mine sites. Natural
gas liquid extraction facilities.
Final rule $56-59 million Proposes to supplement mandatory Rule will affect petroleum and
projected in the first year greenhouse gas reporting rule by natural gas systems. Potentially
October 2010 and requiring reporting of greenhouse regulated categories and entities
subsequent gas emissions from the petroleum include: Pipeline transportation of
annualized and natural gas industry. natural gas; Natural gas distribution
costs of $21- facilities; Extractors of crude
25.3 million petroleum and natural gas; Natural
($2006). gas liquid extraction facilities.
75 Fed. Reg.
18628:
Economic
Impact Analysis)
NPRM Total capital Proposes to sets emission limits for Rule would affect industries using
extension costs between certain halogenated solvent halogenated solvent cleaning
closed February $15.65 - 49.89 cleaning machines sources. primarily including: Manufacturing of
2009. No date million; total primary metals, fabricated metals,
for next step annual costs machinery, computer and electronic
noted. between $1.38 – products, electrical equipment,
2.839 million transportation equipment, and
(73 Fed. Reg. furniture.
62402).
Final rule Total capital This action amends the national Rule will affect petroleum refineries
published investment cost emission standards for petroleum located at a major source that are
October 28, estimated to be refineries to add maximum subject to 40 CFR part 63,subpart
2009 $16 million, and achievable control technology CC, including those categorized as
total annualized standards for heat exchange small businesses.
cost of controls systems.
estimated to be
9
 $3 million,
which includes
$2.2 million
credit for
recovery of lost
product and the
annualized cost
of capital. (Page
55680,
Economic
Impact Analysis)
15 Standards of Performance Final rule Total costs Sets revised emission limits for Rule will affect those who operate
for New Stationary published would be $15.5 hospital/medical/infectious waste HMIWI, including Federal, state,
Sources and Emissions October 6, 2009 million in each incinerators (HMIWI). tribal, and private hospitals, health
Guidelines for Existing of the first 3 care facilities, research facilities,
Sources: years for 57 waste disposal companies and
Hospital/Medical/Infectious existing HMIWI private universities.
Waste Incinerators to comply with .
(Final) MACT
compliance
option. For
alternative
disposal option,
total costs would
be approximately
$10.6 million per
year. (74 Fed.
Reg. 51397-8,
Economic
Impacts of
Revised
Standards)

10
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010
16 National Emission
Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants: Area
Source Standards for
Paints and Allied Products
Manufacturing
(Final)
17 Standards of Performance
for Coal Preparation and
Processing Plants
(Final)
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010
Final rule Total capital Sets emission standards for control Rule applies to owners and
published costs for of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) for operators of facilities performing
December 3, installing the Paints and Allied Products paints and allied products
2009 particulate Manufacturing area source manufacturing that is an area
control devices category. EPA estimates 21% of source of hazardous air pollutant
is $8.1 million facilities, or 460 area sources, will (HAP) emissions and processes,
and annual cost be required to install particulate uses, or generates materials
is estimated to control equipment. 110 facilities will containing the following HAP:
be $3.1 million be required to install lids or covers benzene, methylene chloride, and
per year. on their process, mixing, and compounds of cadmium, chromium,
(74 Fed. Reg. storage vessels. The other affected lead, and nickel. Examples of
63523, facilities will incur costs only for potentially regulated entities include
Economic submitting the notifications and for area source facilities engaged in
Impact Analysis) completing the annual compliance mixing pigments, solvents, and
certification. binders into paint and other
coatings, such as stains, varnishes,
lacquers, enamels, shellacs, and
water repellant coatings for concrete
and masonry, as well as area
source facilities primarily engaged in
manufacturing adhesives, glues,
caulking compounds, printing inkjet
inks and cartridges; indelible ink,
India ink writing; ink, and stamp pad
ink.
Final rule Total $7.9 Sets revised new source Categories and entities potentially
published million in each performance standards for coal regulated by the revised standards
October 8, 2009 of first 5 years preparation and processing plants. include: Mining of bituminous coal,
of compliance. lignite, anthracite. Fossil Fuel
Potential Electric Power Generation; Paper
additional costs (except Newsprint) Mills;
for new thermal Manufacturing of petrochemicals
dryers estimated and cement. Iron and steel mills;
11

18 Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Rule for
Additional Sources of
Fluorinated GHGs
(Proposed)
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010
to range from Fossil fuel-fired electric utility steam
$133,000 to generating units.
$1.54 million per
year. (74 Fed.
Reg. 51975:
Economic
Impact Analysis)
Final rule $6.1 - $7.8 Proposes to supplement Rule will affect owners and
projected million in total greenhouse gas mandatory operators of the referenced facilities.
October 2010 annualized reporting rule published in the Regulated categories and entities
costs in the Federal Register Oct. 30, 2009 by include: Manufacturing of
first year; $3.9 - adding greenhouse gas reporting microcomputers, semiconductor
$5.6 million in requirements for five source devices, LCD unit screens, industrial
subsequent categories: 1) Electronics gases, electrical equipment, air-
years ($2006). Manufacturing, 2) Fluorinated Gas conditioning equipment (except
(75 Fed. Reg. Production, 3) Use of Electrical motor vehicle), polyurethane foam
18690, Transmission and Distribution products; Power transmission and
Economic Equipment, 4) Manufacture or distribution switchgear and specialty
Impact Analysis) Refurbishment of Electrical transformers; Air-conditioning
Equipment, and 5) Importers of Pre- equipment (except room units)
charged Equipment and Closed-Cell merchant wholesalers; Household
Foams. appliance stores; and Circuit
breakers merchant wholesalers.
12
19 Mandatory Reporting of
Greenhouse Gases From
Magnesium Production,
Underground Coal Mines,
Industrial Wastewater
Treatment, and Industrial
Waste Landfills
(Proposed)
20 Review of New Sources
and Modifications in Indian
Country (a.k.a. NSR in
Indian Country)
(Proposed)
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010
Final rule Total Proposes to supplement Rule will affect magnesium
published July annualized greenhouse gas mandatory production, underground coal
12, 2010 costs of $7 reporting rule published in the mines, industrial wastewater
million in the Federal Register Oct. 30, 2009 by treatment, and industrial waste
first year and adding greenhouse gas reporting landfills. Potentially regulated
$5.5 million in requirements for four source entities include: Primary refiners of
subsequent categories: magnesium production, nonferrous metals by electrolytic
years ($2006) underground coal mines, industrial methods; Secondary magnesium
(75 Fed. Reg. wastewater treatment, and industrial processing plants; Underground
page 39753) waste landfills. anthracite and bituminous coal
mining operations; Solid waste
landfills; Pulp, paper, newsprint and
paperboard mills; Meat processing
facilities; Frozen fruit, juice, and
vegetable manufacturing facilities;
Fruit and vegetable canning
facilities; Sewage treatment
facilities; Ethanol manufacturing
facilities.
NPRM Total EPA is developing federal Potentially regulated categories and
comment period annualized regulations to govern entities include: gasoline station
closed costs of preconstruction permitting of minor storage tanks and refueling; lumber
November 20, compliance
stationary sources throughout Indian manufacturer support; coal mining;
2006; final rule estimated to be
sent to OMB for $6 million per country and major stationary furniture manufacture; medical
review year (Economic sources of air pollution in waste incinerator; repellent and
September Impact Analysis nonattainment areas in Indian fertilizer applications; natural gas
2010 and ES-1) country. plant; oil and gas production; copper
projected to be mining and processing; stone
published as quarrying and processing; sand and
13

21 National Emission
Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants: Gold Mine
Ore Processing and
Production Area Source
Category and Addition to
Source Category List for
Standards
(Proposed)
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010
soon as gravel production; power plant-coal-
December 2010 fired, biomass fueled, landfill gas
fired; natural gas collection and
pipeline; sawmill; window and door
molding manufacturer; printing
operations; surface coating
operations; plants of asphalt hot
mix, elemental phosphorus, sulfuric
acid; cobalt and tungsten recycling;
surface coating operations; concrete
batching plant; grain elevator; crude
oil storage and distribution; natural
gas compressor station; automobile
refinishing shop; dry cleaners.
Proposed rule Capital costs of Proposes to add the gold mine ore Rule affects gold ore mining and
published April of $5 million for processing and production area potentially regulated entities include:
28, 2010; emission source category to the list of source establishments primarily engaged in
comment period controls; categories subject to regulation developing the mine site, mining,
extended annualized cost under the hazardous air pollutant and/or beneficiating (i.e., preparing)
of $2.3 million. section of the Clean Air Act (CAA) ores valued chiefly for their gold
The capital costs due to their mercury emissions. content; establishments primarily
for monitoring, EPA is also proposing national engaged in transformation of the
reporting, and mercury emission standards for this gold into bullion or dore bar in
recordkeeping category based on the emissions combination with mining activities
are estimated as level of the best performing facilities are included in this industry.
$1.0 to $1.3 which are well controlled for
million with a mercury.
total annualized
cost of $0.8 to
$1.5 million per
14

22 Primary National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for
Nitrogen Dioxide
(Final)
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010
year, depending
on monitoring
option that is
chosen. (75 Fed.
Reg. 22486,
Estimates for
Costs of the
Proposed Rule)
Final rule $3.6 million in Supplements national standards for Rule will require states with areas
published 2020 ($2006). nitrogen dioxide (NO2) by determined to be in non-attainment
February 9, Because this establishing a new short-term (1- with the new standard to prepare
2010 analysis hour) daily maximum standard of state implementation plans to meet
considers only 100 parts per billion (ppb), and the new standards. States will need
counties that establishes new monitoring to identify and implement air
currently have requirements. pollution control measures to reduce
NO2 monitors, ambient NO2 concentrations, most
EPA advises that likely by requiring air pollution
the possibility controls on sources that emit oxides
exists that, as of nitrogen. While NOx is emitted
the new from a wide variety of source types,
monitoring the top three categories of sources
network is of NOx emissions are on-road
installed, there mobile sources, electricity
may be more generating units, and non-road
potential mobile sources (75 Fed. Reg.
nonattainment 34406).
areas than
analyzed in the
RIA. (Final
Regulatory
Impact Analysis
ES-1, ES-6)
15
23 National Emission Final rule Total capital Sets emission standards for the The rule affects the chemical
Standards for Hazardous published cost of $2.8 control of hazardous air pollutants manufacturing industry. Potentially
Air Pollutants for Chemical October 29, million; total for nine area source categories in regulated categories and entities
Manufacturing Area 2009 annualized the chemical manufacturing sector: include: Chemical manufacturing
Sources cost, including Agricultural Chemicals and area sources that use as feedstock,
(Final) the annualized Pesticides Manufacturing, Cyclic generate as byproduct, or produce
cost of capital Crude and Intermediate Production, as product, any of the HAP subject
equipment is Industrial Inorganic Chemical to this subpart except for: (1)
estimated to be Manufacturing, Industrial Organic Processes classified in NAICS Code
$3.2 million per Chemical Manufacturing, Inorganic 325222, 325314, or 325413; (2)
year (74 Fed. Pigments Manufacturing, processes subject to standards for
Reg. 56039). Miscellaneous Organic Chemical other listed area source categories 2
Manufacturing, Plastic Materials and in NAICS 325; (3) certain fabricating
Resins Manufacturing, operations; (4) manufacture of
Pharmaceutical Production, and photographic film, paper, and plate
Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing. where material is coated or contains
chemicals (but the manufacture of
the photographic chemicals is
regulated); and (5) manufacture of
radioactive elements or isotopes,
radium chloride, radium luminous
compounds, strontium, and
uranium.
24 Revisions to Motor Vehicle Proposed rule $649,000—$2.8 Proposes to amend the way in Rule will affect companies that
Fuel Economy Label published million per year which fuel economy estimates are manufacture or sell new light-duty
(Proposed) September 23, (75 Fed. Reg. calculated and/or displayed (but will vehicles, light-duty trucks, and
2010; comment 58084) not impact the Corporate Average medium-duty passenger vehicles,
period closes Fuel Economy requirements). as defined under EPA’s CAA
November 2010 regulations, and passenger
automobiles (passenger cars) and
nonpassenger automobiles (light
trucks) as defined under NHTSA’s
CAFE regulations.
16
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010
25 National Emission
Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants: Area
Source Standards for
Prepared Feeds
Manufacturing
(Final)
26 Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Rule re
Corporate Parent and
NAICS Code
(Final)
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010
Final rule Nationwide Sets emission standards for control Rule affects animal foods
published capital costs of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) for manufacturing and prepared animal
January 5, 2010 estimated to be the Prepared Feeds Manufacturing feeds (except dog and cat).
around $2.5 area source category.
million. Annual
costs estimated
to be just over
$3 million/year.
(75 Fed. Reg.
544, Economic
Impact Analysis)
Final rule The total Proposes to further revise Rule will affect facilities with direct
published national cost greenhouse gas mandatory greenhouse gas emissions over
September 22, is approximately reporting rule published in the 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide
2010 $944,000 in the Federal Register Oct. 30, 2009 by equivalent (CO2e), suppliers of
first year and requiring reporters to provide petroleum, natural gas, and
about additional data on U.S. U.S. parent industrial gases as well as vehicle
$470,000 in company, NAIC codes and an and engine manufacturers outside
subsequent indication of whether reported the light duty sector to report to EPA
years ($2006) emissions are from a co-generation annually. Examples of regulated
(page 57682) unit. entities include: Facilities operating
boilers, process heaters,
incinerators, turbines, and internal
combustion engines. Extractors of
crude petroleum and natural gas.
Pulp and paper mills. Manufacturers
of lumber and wood products,
chemicals, rubber and
miscellaneous plastic products,
motor vehicle parts and
accessories, ammonia, Portland
Cement, ferroalloys, coal products,
glass, chlorodifluoromethane,
17
 hydrogen, nitric acid, ethylene
dichloride, acrylonitrile, ethylene
oxide, methanol, carbon black,
calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide,
dolomitic hydrates, phosphoric acid.
Steel works, blast furnaces.
Electroplating, plating, polishing,
anodizing, and coloring. Electric,
gas, sanitary, health and
educational services. Fossil-fuel
fired electric generating units.
Primary Aluminum production
facilities. Integrated iron and steel
mills, steel companies, sinter plants,
blast furnaces, basic oxygen
process furnace shops. Lead
smelting and refining facilities. Solid
waste landfills. Sewage treatment
facilities. Beef cattle feedlots. Dairy
cattle and milk production facilities.
Hog and pig farms. Chicken egg
production facilities. Turkey
Production. Natural gas distribution
and extraction facilities. Industrial
gas manufacturing facilities.
27 GHG Reporting Rule for Final Rule Annual costs of Proposes to supplement Rule will affect enhanced oil and
Carbon Dioxide Injection projected $714,000 greenhouse gas mandatory gas recovery projects and carbon
and Geologic October 2010 ($2008) on reporting rule published in the geological sequestration projects,
Sequestration impacted CO2 Federal Register Oct. 30, 2009 by including all (80) CO2 injection
(Proposed) injection adding greenhouse gas reporting facilities.
facilities; requirements for facilities that
$344,000 for conduct geologic sequestration or
public sector that inject CO2 underground to
18
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010

28 Standards of Performance
for Stationary
Compression Ignition and
Spark Ignition Internal
Combustion Engines
(Proposed)
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010
burden. report greenhouse data to EPA
However, “this annually.
may
underestimate
the total public
sector burden.”
($2008) (75 Fed.
Reg. 18596,
Economic
Impact Analysis)
Proposed rule Total national Proposes revised standards of Rule affects manufacturers that
published June capital cost performance for new stationary produce or any industry using a
8, 2010; estimated to be compression ignition internal stationary internal combustion
comment period $236,000 in the combustion engines under section engine as defined in the proposed
extended year 2018, with 111(b) of the Clean Air Act. The rule. Potentially regulated
September 8, total annual cost proposed rule would implement categories and entities include:
2010 of $142,000 in more stringent standards for Electric power generation,
the year 2018. stationary compression ignition transmission, or distribution; Medical
The year 2018 is engines with displacement greater and surgical hospitals;
the first year the than or equal to 10 liters per cylinder Manufacturing: motor and
emission and less than 30 liters per cylinder. generator, pump and compressor,
standards would welding and soldering equipment.
be fully
implemented for
stationary CI
engines between
10 and 30 l/cyl.
Total national
capital cost for
proposed rule in
year 2030 is
$235,000, with
total national
19

29 National Emission
Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants for Area
Sources: Chemical
Preparations Industry
(Final)
Rules for which EPA provided no specific compliance cost estimate in rulemaking documents –
Regulation
30 Predictive Emission
Monitory System in
Stationary Sources:
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010
annual cost of
$711,000 (75
Fed. Reg.
32620).
Final rule Annual cost of Sets national emissions standards Rule affects chemical product and
published monitoring is for control of hazardous air preparation manufacturing. The
December 30, estimated to be pollutants (HAP) from the chemical final rule is estimated to impact a
2009 $6,800 per preparations area source category. total of 26 area source facilities with
facility per year 40% qualifying as small businesses.
after the first Potentially regulated categories and
year. The entities include: Area source
additional cost of facilities that manufacture chemical
one-time preparations containing metal
activities during compounds of chromium, lead,
the first year of manganese, or nickel, except for
compliance is manufacturers of indelible ink, India
estimated to be ink, writing ink, and stamp pad ink.
approximately Chemical preparations include, but
$2,400 per are not limited to, fluxes, water
facility. (74 Fed. treatment chemicals, rust
Reg. 69206, preventatives and plating chemicals,
Economic concrete additives, gelatin, and
Impact Analysis) drilling fluids.
listed by date of most recent action
Status EPA Cost Description Potentially Regulated Entities
Estimates
Final rule No cost estimate Promulgates Performance Rule may affect the following
published provided. Specification (PS) 16 for predictive potentially regulated categories and
March 2009 emissions monitoring systems entities: Stationary Gas Turbines.
20
 Performance Specification
16
(Final)
31 NESHAP: Brick and
Structural Clay Products
and Clay Products
(Proposed)
32 Revisions to Test Method
for Determining Stack Gas
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010
(PEMS), to predict nitrogen oxides
emissions from small industrial,
commercial, and institutional steam
generating units. Performance
Specification 16 provides testing
requirements for assessing the
acceptability of PEMS when they
are initially installed.
Pre-proposal TBD The rulemaking will establish
initiated June emission limits for hazardous air
11, 2009 pollutants (HF, HCl and metals)
emitted from brick and clay
ceramics kilns and glazing
operations at clay ceramics
production facilities.
Proposed rule EPA expects the Proposes revising the voluntary test
published proposed method for determining stack gas
Steam Generating Units. Portland
Cement and Rubber Tire
Manufacturing. Hazardous Waste
Incinerators. Coating: Large
Appliances, Metal Furniture,
Graphic Arts, Magnetic Tape, Metal
Coil Surface, Beverage Can
Surface. Industrial Surface,
Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label
Surface, Boat and Ship
Manufacturing and Repair Surface,
Plastic Parts Surface, Plastic Parts
for Business Machines. Fabric
Printing, Coating, and Dyeing.
Leather Finishing. Wood Building
products and furniture. Coke
Ovens.
The brick and structural clay
products industry primarily includes
facilities that manufacture brick,
clay, pipe, roof tile, extruded floor
and wall tile, and other extruded
dimensional clay products from clay,
shale, or a combination of the two.
The clay ceramics manufacturing
source category includes facilities
that manufacture traditional
ceramics, which include ceramic tile,
dinnerware, sanitaryware, pottery,
and porcelain.
Rule will affect Fossil fuel-fired
electric utility steam generating units
21
 Velocity Taking Into
Account Velocity Decay
Near the Stack Walls
(Proposed)
33 Action To Ensure Authority
To Issue Permits Under
the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration
Program to Sources of
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: Federal
Implementation
Plan
(Proposed)
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010
August 25, revised method velocity taking into account the owned by industry, Federal,
2009 will only be used velocity decay near the stack or duct State/local and Tribal governments.
by small entities walls.
if the use of the
revised method
results in overall
cost savings due
to the voluntary
nature of the
method (74 Fed.
Reg. 42822).
Proposed rule No cost estimate One of two separate rulemakings Potentially affected Entities
published provided. (see below for companion include States, local permitting
September 2, rulemaking) EPA is proposing to authorities, and tribal authorities.
2010 address permitting in states that do Any SIP-approved PSD air
not have approved PSD programs permitting regulation that is not
Projected final that apply to greenhouse gas structured such that it includes
rule December emitting sources. In this rule, EPA GHGs among pollutants subject to
1, 2010 is proposing a Federal regulation under the Act will
implementation plan (FIP) to apply potentially be found substantially
in any State that is unable to submit, inadequate to meet CAA
by its deadline, a corrective State requirements, under CAA section
implementation plan (SIP) revision 110(k)(5), and the State will
to ensure that the State has potentially be affected by this
authority to issue permits under the rule. For example, if a State’s PSD
Clean Air Act’s New Source Review regulation identifies its regulated
Prevention of Significant NSR pollutants by specifically listing
Deterioration (PSD) program for each individual pollutant and the list
sources of greenhouse gases omits GHGs, then the regulation is
(GHGs). inadequate (page 53884).
22
34 Action To Ensure Authority
To Issue Permits Under
the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration
Program to Sources of
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: Finding of
Substantial Inadequacy
and SIP Call
(Proposed)
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010
Proposed rule No cost estimate One of two separate rulemakings Alaska; Arizona: Pinal County; Rest
published provided. (see above for companion of State (Excludes Maricopa
September 2, rulemaking) EPA is proposing to County, Pima County, and Indian
2010 address permitting in states that do Country); Arkansas; California:
not have approved Prevention of Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD,
Projected final Significant Deterioration (PSD) Connecticut; Florida; Idaho;
rule December programs that apply to greenhouse Kansas; Kentucky: Jefferson County
1, 2010 gas emitting sources. In this rule, and Rest of State; Nebraska;
EPA is proposing to find that 13 Nevada: Clark County; Oregon;
States with EPA-approved State Texas; possibly other states.
implementation plan (SIP) New
Source Review PSD programs are
substantially inadequate to meet
Clean Air Act requirements because
they do not appear to apply PSD
requirements to GHG-emitting
sources. For each of these States,
EPA proposes to require the State
(through a ‘‘SIP Call’’) to revise its
SIP as necessary to correct such
inadequacies. EPA proposes an
expedited schedule for States to
submit their corrective SIP revision,
in light of the fact that as of January
2, 2011, certain GHG-emitting
sources will become subject to the
PSD requirements and may not be
able to obtain a PSD permit in order
to construct or modify. As for the
rest of the States with approved SIP
PSD programs, EPA solicits
comment on whether their PSD
programs do or do not apply to
23

35 Emissions Factors
Program Improvements
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010
GHG-emitting sources. If,
on the basis of information EPA
receives, EPA concludes that the
SIP for such a State does not apply
the PSD program to GHG-emitting
sources, then EPA will proceed to
also issue a finding of substantial
inadequacy and a SIP Call for that
State.
ANPRM No cost estimate The purpose of this Advanced Rule may affect owners and
published provided. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is to operators of stationary sources who
October 14, convey issues raised by use emissions factors and, including
2009 stakeholders about EPA’s emissions those subject to source testing
factors program, inform the public of requirements under EPA air rules
our initial ideas on how to address (i.e., New Source Performance
these issues, and solicit comments Standards (NSPS), National
on our current thinking to resolve Emissions Standards for Hazardous
these issues. EPA’s goal is to Air Pollutants (NESHAP), and
develop a self-sustaining emissions Maximum Achievable Control
factors program that produces high Technology (MACT) standards) and
quality, timely emissions factors, other industry sectors.
better indicates the precision and
accuracy of emissions factors,
encourages the appropriate use of
emissions factors, and ultimately
improves emissions quantification.
Although initially developed for
emissions inventory purposes only,
use of emissions factors has been
expanded to a variety of air pollution
control activities including
permitting, enforcement, modeling,
24

36 NESHAP Residual Risk
and Technology Review
for Ferroalloys
37 Endangerment and Cause
or Contribute Findings for
Greenhouse Gases under
Section 202(a) of the
Clean Air Act (a/k/a
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010
control strategy development, and
risk analysis. This ANPRM
discusses the appropriateness of
using emissions factors for these
activities.
Initiated TBD Under the "technology review" TBA
December provision of CAA section 112, EPA
2009; no must review maximum achievable
timeline listed control technology (MACT)
(No Pre- standards and revise them "as
Proposal text necessary (taking into account
currently developments in practices,
available) processes and control
technologies)" no less frequently
than every 8 years. Under the
"residual risk" provision of the CAA
section 112, EPA must evaluate the
MACT standards within 8 years after
promulgation and promulgate
standards if required to provide an
ample margin of safety to protect
public health or prevent an adverse
environmental effect. EPA has
combined the two review activities
into the "risk and technology" (RTR)
reviews for the Ferroalloys
Production source category.
Final rule No cost estimate EPA Administrator Jackson found EPA states this action does not itself
published provided for that (1) the current and projected impose any requirements on
December 15, greenhouse gas concentrations of the six key well- industry or other entities.
2009 regulations that mixed greenhouse gases — carbon
will result from dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4),
25
 Endangerment Finding)
(Final)
38 Requirements for Control
Technology
Determinations for Major
Sources in Accordance
With Clean Air Act
Sections, Sections 112(g)
and 112(j)
(Proposed)
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010
the findings. (74 nitrous oxide (N2O),
Fed. Reg. hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),
66515-66516, perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur
66545). hexafluoride (SF6) — in the
atmosphere threaten the public
health and welfare of current and
future generations; and (2) finds
that the combined emissions of
these well-mixed greenhouse gases
from new motor vehicles and new
motor vehicle engines contribute to
the greenhouse gas pollution which
threatens public health and
welfare. This action was a
prerequisite to finalizing the EPA's
proposed greenhouse gas emission
standards for light-duty vehicles,
which EPA proposed in a joint
proposal including the Department
of Transportation's proposed CAFE
standards on September 15, 2009
(see above). This action is also a
prerequisite to issuing other EPA
greenhouse gas regulations for
stationary sources.
Proposed rule EPA concludes Proposes amending the rule Rule may affect the following
published the rule does not governing case-by-case emission regulated categories and entities:
March 30, 2010; impose any new limits for major sources of Facilities that polymerize vinyl
comment period costs. (75 Fed. hazardous air pollutants under chloride monomer to produce
extended Reg. 15660). section 112(j) of the Clean Air Act. polyvinyl chloride and/or copolymer
through the end Specifically, EPA is proposing products. Manufacturing of ceramic
of May 2010 revisions to the section 112(j) rule to wall and floor tile, vitreous plumbing
clarify and streamline the process fixtures (sanitaryware), lumber and
26

39 Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD):
Reconsideration of
Interpretation of
Regulations that
Determine Pollutants
Covered by the Federal
PSD Permit Program
(a.k.a. Johnson Memo
Reconsideration)
(Final)
40 Revisions to the General
Conformity Regulations
(Final)
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010
for establishing case-by-case
emission limits in the case of the
complete vacatur of a section 112(d)
rule applicable to a major source
category initially listed pursuant to
section 112(c)(1). In addition, EPA
is also proposing revisions that
would eliminate provisions of the
section 112(j) rule that have become
obsolete or are redundant.
Final Action on N/A EPA determination that it will
Reconsideration continue to apply the Agency’s
of Interpret- determination, set forth in a
ation published December 18, 2008 Administrator
April 2, 2010 memorandum, that Prevention of
Significant Determination (PSD)
permitting requirements would not
apply to a newly regulated pollutant
until a regulatory requirement to
control emissions of that pollutant
“takes effect.”
Final rule No cost estimate Revises regulations requiring that
published April provided. Federal actions conform to the
5, 2010 appropriate State, tribal or Federal
implementation plan for attaining
clean air (“General Conformity”).
Prevents air quality impacts of
wood products, rubber and
miscellaneous plastic products, coal
products, chemicals, motor vehicle
parts and accessories. Pulp and
paper mills. Petroleum refiners.
Steel works, blast furnaces.
Electroplating, plating, polishing,
anodizing, and coloring. Electric,
gas, sanitary, health and
educational services. Sources in a
source category ‘‘initially listed’’ and
regulated under any other section
112(d) emission standard for
hazardous air pollutants that is
completely vacated by the Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Rule affects Stationary emissions
sources, including PSD permitting
requirements relating to greenhouse
gas emissions.
Rule affects Federal agencies and
public and private entities that
receive approvals or funding from
Federal agencies such as airports
and seaports.
27

41 Renewable Fuels
Standard Program:
Regulation of Fuels and
Fuel Additives:
Modifications to
Renewable Fuel Standard
Program; Final Rule; and
Regulation of Fuels and
Fuel Additives:
Modifications to
Renewable Fuel Standard
Program
(Final)
42 Prevention of Significant
Deterioration and Title V
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring
Rule
(Final)
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010
federal agency actions from causing
or contributing to a violation of a
NAAQS standard.
Final rules No cost estimate Amends Renewable Fuel Standard Rule affects those involved with the
published May provided. EPA program regulations published production, distribution and sale of
10, 2010 and concludes the March 26, 2010 to make technical transportation fuels. Examples of
June 30, 2010 action will not and other changes. potentially regulated entities include:
have a Petroleum refiners, importers. Ethyl
significant alcohol manufacturers. Other basic
impact on a organic chemical manufacturers.
substantial Chemical and allied products
number of small merchant wholesalers. Petroleum
entities. bulk stations and terminals.
Petroleum and petroleum products
merchant wholesalers.
Fuel dealers.
Final rule EPA concludes Sets thresholds pursuant to which Rule may affect the following
published June that the rule EPA seeks to phase in regulation of potentially regulated entities and
3, 2010 provides GHG emissions from industrial and categories: Agriculture, fishing, and
regulatory relief large stationary sources under: 1) hunting. Mining Utilities (electric,
rather than the Prevention of Significant natural gas, other systems).
regulatory Deterioration (PSD) program which Manufacturing: food, beverages,
requirements. is a preconstruction review and tobacco, textiles, leather, wood
(75 Fed. Reg. permitting program that requires product, paper, petroleum, coal,
31598: installation of “Best Available chemical, rubber product, chemical
Regulatory Control Technology” (BACT) products, nonmetallic mineral
Impact Analysis) pollution control equipment; and 2) products, primary and fabricated
the title V program, which is an metal, machinery, computer and
operating permit program electronic products, electrical
administered by state authorities. equipment, appliance, and
Absent the rule, EPA’s view is that components, transportation
under the endangerment finding and equipment, furniture and related
subsequent light-duty vehicle rule, products. Waste management and
28

43 Lead Emissions From
Piston-Engine Aircraft
Using Leaded Aviation
Gasoline
44 Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali
NESHAP MACT
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010
PSD permitting requirements would remediation. Hospitals/
be triggered for almost 41,000 nursing and residential care
entities and title V permitting facilities. Personal and laundry
requirements for approximately 6 services. Residential/private
million entities. The rule also households. Non-Residential
commits to take certain actions on (Commercial).
future steps addressing smaller
sources, but excludes certain
smaller sources from PSD and title
V permitting for GHG emissions until
at least April 30, 2016.
ANPRM closed TBD ANPR and extension of comment TBA
on August 27, period for EPA’s announcement of a
2010; no proposed rulemaking on lead
timeline for emissions from piston engine
proposal posted powered aircraft using leaded
aviation gasoline. Describes
information available and
information being collected that will
be used by the Administrator to
issue a subsequent proposal
regarding whether, in the
Administrator's judgment, aircraft
lead emissions from aircraft using
leaded aviation gasoline cause or
contribute to air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare.
NPRM closed TBD for This action is a supplemental TBA
August 11, supplemental proposal for amendment of the
2008; NPRM. national emission standards for
Supplemental (2008 NPRM did hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP)
NPRM sent to not provide for mercury emissions from mercury
29

45 Prevention of Significant
Deterioration for PM2.5 -
Increments, Significant
Impact Levels and
Significant Monitoring
Concentrations
a.k.a. PSD for PM2.5 -
Increments, Significant
Impact Levels and
Significant Monitoring;
Concentrations
46 National Emission
Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutant Emissions:
Hard and Decorative
Chromium Electroplating
and Chromium Anodizing
Tanks; Group I Polymers
and Resins; Marine Tank
Vessel Loading
Operations;
Pharmaceuticals
Production; the Printing
and Publishing Industry;
and Steel Pickling--HCl
Process Facilities and
Hydrochloric Acid
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010
OMB July 2010 estimates) cell chlor-alkali plants that was
and projected to promulgated in 2003. The 2003
be published in NESHAP limited mercury air
October 2010 emissions from existing plants and
prohibited the use of mercury in new
plants.
Final Rule No cost estimate Proposes to facilitate
projected provided. implementation of PM2.5 Prevention
October 2010 of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
program by establishing new
increments, significant impact levels
(SILs) and a significant monitoring
concentration (SMC) for fine
particulate matter (particles with an
aerometric diameter less than or
equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers,
"PM2.5").
NPRM Cost Analysis This action proposes 1) how EPA
projected dependent on will address the residual risk and
November 2010 industry (73 Fed. technology reviews conducted for 2
Reg. 60451- national emission standards for
60455). hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP),
and 2) provides supplemental notice
of proposed rulemaking for residual
risk and technology reviews for 4
additional NESHAP previously
proposed in October 2008. The 6
NESHAP include 16 source
categories. This action proposes to
modify the existing emissions
standards for 8 source categories in
3 of the 6 NESHAP to address
certain emission sources not
Rule will affect owners and
operators of emissions sources in
the following industry, Federal and
state, local and tribal groups.
Electric services. Petroleum refining.
Industrial inorganic and organic
chemicals. Natural gas liquids and
transport. Pulp and paper mills.
Automobile manufacturing.
Pharmaceuticals.
.
Potentially regulated categories and
industries included: Epichlorohydrin;
Elastomers Production; Hypalon TM
Production; chromium electroplating
facilities, polymers and resins
production facilities, and other
various industries, such as the
chemical industry, that load and
unload liquid commodities in bulk
onto and from marine vessels.
Examples of potentially regulated
categories and entities include:
Nitrile Butadiene; Rubber
Production; Polybutadiene Rubber
Production; Styrene Butadiene;
Rubber and Latex Production;
30
 Regeneration Plants
(subparts N, U, Y, KK,
CCC, GGG)
47 Regulation to Prevent the
Misfueling of Vehicles and
Engines with Gasoline
Containing Greater than
Ten Volume Percent
Ethanol and Modifications
to the Reformulated and
Conventional Gasoline
Programs
48 Control of Greenhouse
Gas Emissions from
Heavy-Duty Vehicles
49 Review of New Source
Performance Standards
for Nitric Acid Plants -
Subpart G
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010
currently regulated under these Marine Vessel Loading; Mineral
standards. It also proposes for all 6 Wool Production; Pharmaceuticals
NESHAP to address provisions Production; Printing and Publishing
related to emissions during periods
of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction. Finally, this action
proposes changes to 2 of the 6
NESHAP to correct editorial errors,
make clarifications, or address
issues with implementation or
determining compliance.
NPRM TBD Proposes to control and regulate TBA
projected distribution of fuels and fuel
November 2010 additives that may pose harm to the
environment or public health.
ANPRM TBD Proposes to sets national emission TBA
published; standards to control greenhouse
proposed rule gas emissions from heavy duty
projected trucks and buses.
October 2010
NPRM TBD The law mandates EPA review and TBA
projected if appropriate revise existing New
November 2010 Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) at least every 8 years. This
NSPS was initially promulgated in
1971. This NSPS was reviewed in
1979 and 1984. On January 2010,
consent decree was entered into US
31

50 Review of the National
Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Carbon
Monoxide
51 Risk and Technology
Review NESHAP for
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010
District Court between EPA and
several environmental groups. The
decree requires proposed revisions
to be made by November 2010 and
final revisions to be made by
November 2011.
NPRM TBD The law mandates EPA review and, TBA
projected if appropriate, revise air quality
November 2010 criteria for primary (health-based)
and secondary (welfare-based)
national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) every 5 years.
The last CO NAAQS review
occurred in 1994 with a decision by
the Administrator not to revise the
existing standards. The current
review, which was initiated in
September 2007, includes the
preparation of an Integrated Science
Assessment, Risk/Exposure
Assessment, and a Policy
Assessment Document by EPA,
with opportunities for review by
EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee and the public. These
documents inform the
Administrator's decision as to
whether to retain or revise the
standards.
NPRM TBD This action would conduct residual TBA
projected risk and technology reviews for two
32
 Shipbuilding and Ship
Repair (Surface Coating)
and Wood Furniture
Manufacturing
52 Revision to Definition of
Volatile Organic
Compounds - Exclusion of
Methyl Iodide (a.k.a.
Methyl Iodide Exemption
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010
November 2010 industrial source categories
regulated by two National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP): Shipbuilding
and Ship Repair (Surface Coating),
and Wood Furniture Manufacturing.
The underlying national emission
standards that are under review in
this action limit and control
hazardous air pollutants. Section
112(f)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
directs EPA to assess the risk
remaining (residual risk) after the
application of the NESHAP and
promulgate additional standards if
warranted to provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public
health or prevent an adverse
environmental effect. Also, section
112(d)(6) of the CAA requires EPA
to review and revise the NESHAP
as necessary at least every 8 years,
taking into account developments in
practices, processes, and control
technologies. This action would
conduct those reviews for the two
source categories cited above.
NPRM TBD EPA lists for regulation certain TBA
projected volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
November 2010 as precursors to ozone formation
under section 302(s) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA) and 40 CFR
33
 from Definition of VOCs)
53 Malfunction Amendments
to Part 63 Standards
54 Residual Risk and
Technology Review:
Primary Lead Smelting
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010
51.100(s). While all VOCs have the
ability to react in the atmosphere to
form ozone, some VOCs react at
such a slow rate their contribution to
ground-level ozone is negligible.
Through regulation, the Agency can
exempt negligibly reactive
compounds from the definition of
VOCs. VOCs that are exempted
from the CAA definition are no
longer necessary to control in state
implementation plans for attaining
the national ambient air quality
standard for ozone. This rule would
address whether EPA should
exempt methyl iodide based on its
reactivity. This compound is used as
a pesticide.
Pre-proposal; TBD Proposes to amend regulations in General provisions not specific to
target date for the General Provisions of any source category; apply when
NPRM regulations promulgated under the incorporated into source category-
December 2010 Clean Air Act (subpart A of Part 63) specific standards
that provide for or are related to an
exemption from the requirement to
comply with Clean Air Act section
112 emission standards during
startup, shutdown, and malfunction
(SSM) events.
Pre-proposal; TBD This action is the Risk and TBA
NPRM Technology Review (RTR) for
expected Primary Lead Smelters. It will
34

55 Oil and Natural Gas
Sector -- New Source
Performance Standards,
National Emission
Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants, and Control
Techniques Guidelines
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010
February 2011 address both EPA's obligation under
Clean Air Act (CAA) section
112(f)(2) and 112(d)(6) to conduct a
residual risk review and to conduct a
technology review. Under the
"technology review" provision of
CAA section 112, EPA is required to
review maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) standards and
to revise them "as necessary (taking
into account developments in
practices, processes and control
technologies)" no less frequently
than every 8 years.
Pre-proposal TBD New Source Performance TBA
stage; NPRM Standards (NSPS) regulate criteria
projected pollutants from new stationary
February 2011 sources. Two NSPS (subparts KKK
and LLL) for the oil and natural gas
industry were promulgated in 1985.
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) requires that NSPS be
reviewed every 8 years and revised
as appropriate. This action will
include the required reviews under
sections 111 and 112. The
development of control techniques
guidelines (CTG) for criteria
pollutants will also be done under
this action. Because the existing
regulations are narrow in scope, the
reviews will include consideration of
broadening the scope of operations
35

56 National Emission
Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants for Coal-
and Oil-fired Electric Utility
Steam Generating Units
57 Industrial-Commercial-
Institutional Steam
Generating Units
(a.k.a. NSPS for Electric
Utilities and ICI Boilers)
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010
and emission points covered by the
NSPS, MACT, and the companion
CTG.
Pre-proposal TBD Responds to 2008 vacatur of 2005 TBA
stage rule requiring mercury emissions
reductions from Electric Utility
NPRM Steam Generating Units by
projected March imposing new reduction scheme.
2011
Pre-proposal TBD This action will amend the NOx, TBA
stage SO2, and PM standards in the utility
NSPS and assure proper
NPRM monitoring. Conforming
projected March amendments to the industrial boiler
2011 NSPS will also be proposed to
assure consistent monitoring for the
various boiler rules. In addition the
action will make multiple corrections
to the boiler NSPS. It will also
respond to the Utility Air Regulatory
Group's (UARG) request for
reconsideration of the January 2009
final amendments to the boiler
NSPS. Issues specific to UARG's
request include: 1) appropriate
monitoring provisions for
owners/operators of affected
facilities subject to an opacity
standard, but exempt from the
requirement to install a continuous
opacity monitoring system, and 2)
the relevance of an opacity standard
for owners/operators of affected
36

58 Review of the National
Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Particulate
Matter
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010
facilities using a continuous
emissions monitoring system.
NPRM TBD EPA is required to review and, if TBA
projected March appropriate, revise the air quality
2011 criteria for the primary (health-
based) and secondary (welfare-
based) national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) every 5 years.
On October 17, 2006, EPA
published a final rule to revise the
primary and secondary NAAQS for
particulate matter to provide
increased protection of public health
and welfare. EPA initiated the
current review in 2007 with a
workshop to discuss key policy-
relevant issues around which EPA
would structure the review. This
review 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 Scientific
Advisory Committee and the public.
These documents inform the
Administrator's decision as to
whether to retain or revise the
standards. The ISA was completed
in December 2009, the final REAs
for health risk assessment and
37

59 Revision of New Source
Performance Standards
for New Residential Wood
Heaters (a.k.a. NSPS
Revisions for Residential
Wood Heaters)
60 Review of the Secondary
National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for
Oxides of Nitrogen and
Oxides of Sulfur
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010
visiblity assessment were finalized
in June and July 2010, respectively.
The first draft PA was reviewed by
CASAC on April 8-9, 2010. The
second draft Policy Assessment
was reviewed by CASAC on July
26-27, 2010.
NPRM TBD Proposes revising the New Source TBA
projected June Performance Standards (NSPS) for
2011 residential wood heaters under the
Clean Air Act Section 111(b)(1)(B).
This rule is expected to require
manufacturers to redesign wood
heaters to be cleaner and lower
emitting. The revisions are also
expected to retain the requirement
for manufacturers to contract for
testing of model lines by third-party
independent laboratories, report the
results to EPA, and label the models
accordingly. This action does not
apply to existing residential
woodstoves, pellet stoves and other
residential biomass heating units.
NPRM TBD Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is TBA
projected July required to review and, if
2011 appropriate, revise the air quality
criteria for the primary (health-
based) and secondary (welfare-
based) national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) every 5 years.
38
 On October 11, 1995, EPA
published a final rule not to revise
either the primary or secondary
NAAQS for nitrogen dioxide (NO2).
On May 22, 1996, EPA published a
final decision that revisions of the
primary and secondary NAAQS for
sulfur dioxide (SO2) were not
appropriate at that time, aside from
several minor technical changes. On
December 9, 2005, EPA's Office of
Research and Development (ORD)
initiated the current periodic review
of NO2 air quality criteria with a call
for information in the Federal
Register (FR). On May 3, 2006,
ORD initiated the current periodic
review of SO2 air quality criteria with
a call for information in the FR. This
review includes the preparation of
an Integrated Science Assessment,
Risk/Exposure Assessment, and a
Policy Assessment Document by
EPA, with opportunities for review
by EPA's Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee and the public.
These documents inform the
Administrator's proposed decision
as to whether to retain or revise the
standards. This review will be limited
to only the secondary standards; the
primary standards for SO2 and NO2
are being reviewed separately.

39
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010
61 NESHAP Risk and
Technology Review for
Pulp and Paper Industry
and Chemical Recovery
Combustion Sources, and
NSPS review for Kraft
Pulp Mills
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010
Pre-proposal; TBD The 2004 National Academy of TBA
NPRM Sciences' (NAS) report
projected June recommended that EPA begin
2011 conducting integrated assessments
that consider multiple pollutants
(criteria and hazardous air
pollutants, and other chemicals that
may be of concern) and multiple
effects (health, ecosystem, visibility)
to set standards and develop
planning and control strategies. In
response to this recommendation,
EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards (OAQPS) intends to
conduct an integrated review and
assessment that addresses
regulatory obligations under both
the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants and the
New Source Performance
Standards programs (NSPS).
Section 112(f)(2) of the Clean Air
Act (CAA) directs EPA to conduct
risk assessments on each source
category subject to maximum
achievable control technology
(MACT) standards, and to
determine if additional standards are
needed to reduce residual risks, to
be completed 8 years after
promulgation. Section 112(d)(6) of
the CAA requires EPA to review and
revise the MACT standards as
40

62 NESHAP Subpart W:
Standards for Radon
Emissions From Operating
Uranium Mill Tailings:
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010
necessary, taking into account
developments in practices,
processes and control technologies,
to be done at least every 8 years.
The NESHAP for Chemical
Recovery Combustion Sources at
Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-
Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills
(Subpart MM) was promulgated in
2001 and has not been reviewed.
Similarly, the NESHAP for the Pulp
and Paper Industry (Subpart S) was
promulgated in 1998 and also has
not been reviewed. Section
111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA mandates
that EPA review and, if appropriate,
revise existing New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) at
least every 8 years. The Kraft Pulp
Mill NSPS was promulgated in 1978
and is in need of review. This NSPS
component of this action will include
reviewing existing emission limits for
particulate matter, total reduced
sulfur, and opacity and evaluating
the appropriateness of developing
emission limits for other pollutants
such as sulfur oxides, nitrogen
oxide, and carbon dioxide.
Pre-proposal TBD NESHAP Subpart W protects TBA
initiated June human health and the environment
13, 2008 by setting radon emission standards
Projected date and work practices for operating
41
 Review (a.k.a. NESHAP
Amendments for
Operating Uranium Mill
Tailings (Subpart W))
63 Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) and
Nonattainment New
Source Review (NSR):
Inclusion of Fugitive
Emissions; Final Rule;
Stay
64 Residual Risk and
Technology Review
Amendments to the
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010
to publish uranium mill tailings impoundments.
NPRM August EPA is in the process of reviewing
2011 this standard. If necessary, we will
revise the NESHAP requirements
for radon emissions from operating
uranium mill tailings.
Stay effective Administration Provides for an 18 month stay of a Rule affects all industry groups.
through October concludes this 2008 final rule revising requirements The majority of sources potentially
2011 action not a of the major NSR programs affected are expected to be in the
significant regarding the treatment of fugitive following industry groups:
regulatory action emissions, which required these Electric Services; Petroleum
under the terms emissions to be included in Refining; Industrial Inorganic and
of Executive determining whether a physical or Organic Chemicals; Natural Gas
Order 12866. operational change results in a Liquids; Pulp and Paper Mills;
major modification only for sources Automobile Manufacturing;
in industries that have been Pharmaceuticals; Mining;
designated through rulemaking Agriculture, Fishing and Hunting
under section 302(j) of the CAA.
The final rule amended all portions
of the major NSR program
regulations: permit requirements,
the PSD program, and the emission
offset interpretive ruling. EPA has
stayed the rule pending a
reconsideration proceeding.
NPRM TBD A secondary aluminum production TBA
projected facility means any establishment
December 2011 using clean charge, aluminum
42
 Secondary Aluminum scrap, or dross from aluminum
Production NESHAP production, as the raw material for
(a.k.a. NESHAP RTR for processing. The existing 40 CFR
Secondary Aluminum Part 63, Subpart RRR National
Production (subpart RRR)) Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for
Secondary Aluminum Production
facilities was promulgated in 2000.
This rule regulates Hazardous Air
Pollutants (HAP) from facilities that
are major sources of HAP that
operate aluminum scrap shredders,
thermal chip dryers, scrap
dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating
kilns, group 2 furnaces, sweat
furnaces, dross only furnaces, rotary
dross coolers, and secondary
aluminum processing units
(SAPUs). SAPUs include group 1
furnaces and in-line fluxers. Area
sources of HAP are regulated only
with respect to emissions of
dioxins/furans (D/F) from thermal
chip dryers, scrap
dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating
kilns, sweat furnaces, and SAPUs.
Facilities subject to these rules were
required to be in compliance by
March 2003. Section 112(f)(2) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) directs EPA to
conduct risk assessments on each
source category subject to
maximum achievable control

43
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010

65 Implementing periodic
monitoring in federal and
state operating permit
programs (a.k.a. CAM -
Compliance Assurance
Monitoring Rule (Part 64))
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010
technology (MACT) standards and
determine if additional standards are
needed to reduce residual risks. The
section 112(f)(2) residual risk review
is to be done within 8 years after
promulgation. Section 112(d)(6) of
the CAA requires EPA to review and
revise the MACT standards, as
necessary, taking into account
developments in practices,
processes, and control
technologies. The section 112(d)(6)
technology review is to be done at
least every 8 years. These risk and
technology reviews for secondary
aluminum production facilities will be
conducted in this rulemaking, which
will address possible residual risks,
technology advancements, and
technical deficiencies in the existing
rule.
Initiated August TBD Revises the existing Compliance TBA
2002 Assurance Monitoring rule (40 CFR
part 64) to be implemented through
Proposed rule the operating permits rules (40 CFR
target date Parts 70 and 71). The revised CAM
December 2011 rule would define when periodic
monitoring must be created for
sources to use in determining
compliance status relative to
applicable requirements (e.g.,
emissions limits).
44
66 National Emission
Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants for
Stationary Combustion
Turbines- Petition to Delist
(a.k.a. CAM - Compliance
Assurance Monitoring
Rule (Part 64))
67 Residual Risk and
Technology Review
Amendments to the
Phosphoric Acid and
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010
NPRM TBA In August 2002, the Agency TBA
comment period received a petition to remove certain
closed April types of stationary gas-fired
2004. (Stay combustion turbines from the list of
effective August hazardous air pollutant sources
2004) under Section 112(c) of the Clean
Air Act. Rule proposes a partial
Final rule granting of the petition by proposing
publication to delist 4 subcategories of
projected stationary gas-fired turbines in April
November 2012 2004. Simultaneously, the Agency
proposed a stay of the effectiveness
of the combustion turbine maximum
achievable control technology
(MACT) for new sources in those
subcategories of turbines, delaying
the imposition of control
requirements for the proposed
delisted new turbines until a final
action is taken regarding the
delisting. The Agency is waiting until
the completion of the final Integrated
Risk Information System (IRIS)
assessment for formaldehyde
before taking final action on the
petition. The final IRIS action on
formaldehyde is expected to occur
in Fall 2011.
Pre-proposal TBD Phosphate rock is the primary raw TBA
material for phosphoric acid, which
NPRM in turn is the raw material for
anticipated phosphate fertilizer. These 2 rules
45
 Phosphate Fertilizer
Production NESHAPs
(a.k.a. NESHAP RTR for
Phosphoric Acid and
Phosphate Fertilizer)
68 Review of the National NPRM
Ambient Air Quality projected May
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010
January 2013 are grouped together because their
production processes are usually
located at the same facility. Part 63
NESHAPs for phosphoric acid and
phosphate fertilizer (subparts AA
and BB, respectively) were
promulgated in June 1999. Facilities
subject to these rules were required
to be in compliance by June 2002.
The Clean Air Act requires EPA to
address the risk remaining to the
public (ie. a 'risk review') within 8
years after promulgation of the
MACT standards. EPA must also
conduct a technology review of the
source categories within 8 years to
determine whether new technology
exists to reduce emissions of
hazardous air pollutants (HAP)
below the levels established by the
MACT standards. For purposes of
expediency, these 2 reviews are
combined together and called a risk
and technology review. The
amendments will address both risk
reduction and technology
advancement for the phosphoric
acid and phosphate fertilizer source
categories. There are no known
small businesses in this source
category.
TBD EPA is required to review and, if TBA
appropriate, revise the air quality
46
 Standards for Ozone
(a.k.a. Ozone NAAQS
Review)
69 Review of the National
Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Lead (a.k.a.
Lead NAAQS Review)
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010
2013 criteria for the primary (health-
based) and secondary (welfare-
based) national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) every 5 years.
On March 23, 2008, the EPA
published a final rule to revise the
primary and secondary NAAQS for
ozone to provide increased
protection of public health and
welfare. EPA initiated the current
review in October 2008 with a
workshop to discuss key policy-
relevant issues around which EPA
would structure the review. This
review includes the preparation of
an Integrated Science Assessment,
Risk/Exposure Assessment, and a
Policy Assessment Document by
EPA, with opportunities for review
by EPA's Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee and the public.
These documents inform the
Administrator's proposed decision
as to whether to retain or revise the
standards.
Pre-proposal TBD EPA is required to review and if TBA
initiated June appropriate revise the air quality
2010 criteria for the primary (health-
based) and secondary (welfare-
NPRM based) national ambient air quality
projected standards (NAAQS) every 5 years.
December 2013 On November 12, 2008, EPA
published a final rule to revise the
47
 primary and secondary NAAQS for
lead to provide increased protection
for public health and welfare. The
review began in May 2010 with a
workshop to discuss key policy-
relevant issues around which EPA
would structure the review. This
review includes the preparation of
an Integrated Science Assessment,
and, if warranted, a Risk/Exposure
Assessment, and also a Policy
Assessment Document by EPA,
with opportunities for review by
EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee and the public. These
documents inform the
Administrator's proposed decision
as to whether to retain or revise the
standards.

48
Compiled by Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Staff
October 14, 2010
 Supporting Documents for Question #17
Committee Operations and Expectations: Member Participation
th
I. List of Press Releases from the 111 Congress
th
II. Selected Examples of Press Releases from the 111 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 about
dropping 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 Brush
Your 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 on
Backroom 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 EPA
Endangerment Finding
1/15/2010 EPA Response Confirms Greenhouse Gas Rules Will Add Costly Burden
to American Economy
12/18/2009 Copenhagen Fact of the Day
12/17/2009 Republicans to Introduce Disapproval Resolution On EPA Endangerment
Finding
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 Americans
Making Amends to World for Global Warming
7/22/2009 How Congress’s drive to stop global warming is fueling China’s drive to
out-compete the U.S.
7/16/2009 Republicans Demand EPA Administrator Jackson Give Full Response on
Suppression 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 Electric
Companies Are Victims of Gouging and Need Federal Consumer
Protection, 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 Emissions
Allocations
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 Global
Warming
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) Hoyer

said. ‘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 the
groundwork 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 members
vote on it.” – Washington Post, 3/16/10. (2) “‘Nobody wanted to
vote for the Senate bill,’ Pelosi, D-Calif., said.” – AP, 3/16/10
PRESS RELEASE
ObamaCare: Saving Money Like
Bernie Madoff
March 19, 2010

MYTH: “This health insurance reform legislation will save $138

billion in the first 10 years.” – Speaker Pelosi

FACT: According to the Congressional Budget Office’s preliminary

cost estimate, the on-budget savings of the Senate bill and the
Reconciliation bill are $85 billion for 2010-2019, with $70.2 billion
from the CLASS program, a program that CBO concluded “would
add to budget deficits in future decades” and that the Democratic
chairman of the Senate Budget Committee famously described as
“a Ponzi scheme of the first order, the kind of thing that Bernie
Madoff would have been proud of.” As Washington Post editorial
writer Ruth Marcus noted on March 19, “To crow, as did House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, that the package is ‘a triumph for the
American people in terms of deficit reduction’ is premature at
best, 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, we

must 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 widely
circulated "Memo to Democratic Health and Communications
Staff," March 18

…CONFIRMED: "I love numbers," Speaker Nancy Pelosi said,

opening the event. "And today the number from the
Congressional Budget Office is that this health insurance
legislation will save $138 billion in the first 10 years." – The New
York Times, March 19
EXCERPTS FROM PRESS RELEASE
Dems Reject GOP Caps on
Unemployment, Home Electric Bills &
Gasoline Prices
Lost 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 RELEASE
Doubled Electric Bills Not Pricey
Enough 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 have
caused the average residential electricity bill to double with respect to 2009 residential
electricity bills. This would provide a crucial release valve to the American people from
higher 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-Free
Energy, Including Hydro
May 21, 2009

WASHINGTON – An amendment by Greg Walden, R-Ore., would add language to the

bill allowing nuclear energy, biomass, new hydroelectric power, as well as any other
comparable low-emission source of energy to qualify for the same provisions provided
under this act’s renewable energy standard. If America is to reduce CO2 emissions and
increase energy independence, we should encourage all sources of clean, domestic
energy. For the text of this amendment, click here.

Recorded Vote: 29 Nay, 26 Yea

Representative Vote Representative Vote
Mr. Waxman NAY Mr. Barton YEA
Mr. Dingell NAY Mr. Hall YEA
Mr. Markey NAY Mr. Upton YEA
Mr. Boucher NAY Mr. Stearns YEA
Mr. Pallone NAY Mr. Deal YEA
Mr. Gordon Mr. Whitfield YEA
Mr. Rush NAY Mr. Shimkus YEA
Ms. Eshoo NAY Mr. Shadegg YEA
Mr. Stupak NAY Mr. Blunt YEA
Mr. Engel Mr. Buyer YEA
Mr. Green NAY Mr. Radanovich YEA
Ms. DeGette NAY Mr. Pitts YEA
Ms. Capps NAY Ms. Bono Mack YEA
Mr. Doyle NAY Mr. Walden YEA
Ms. Harman NAY Mr. Terry YEA
Ms. Schakowsky NAY Mr. Rogers YEA
Mr. Gonzalez NAY Ms. Myrick YEA
Mr. Inslee NAY Mr. Sullivan
Ms. Baldwin NAY Mr. Murphy (PA) YEA
Mr. Ross YEA Mr. Burgess YEA
Mr. Weiner NAY Ms. Blackburn YEA
Mr. Matheson NAY Mr. Gingrey YEA
Mr. Butterfield NAY Mr. Scalise 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 for
Your 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.

Recorded Vote: 34 Nay, 22 Yea

Representative Vote Representative Vote
Mr. Waxman NAY Mr. Barton YEA
Mr. Dingell NAY Mr. Hall YEA
Mr. Markey NAY Mr. Upton YEA
Mr. Boucher NAY Mr. Stearns YEA
Mr. Pallone NAY Mr. Deal YEA
Mr. Gordon 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 NAY 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 YEA
Ms. Baldwin NAY Mr. Murphy (PA) YEA
Mr. Ross NAY Mr. Burgess YEA
Mr. Weiner NAY Ms. Blackburn YEA
Mr. Matheson NAY Mr. Gingrey YEA
Mr. Butterfield NAY Mr. Scalise 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 able
to put a cap on gasoline price increases from this bill.’
May 19, 2009

WASHINGTON – An amendment offered by Rep. Lee Terry, R-Neb., would require

annual EPA certification of the average retail price of gasoline. If the price exceeds $5
per gallon, as a result of the act, the act would cease to be effective. This would ensure
consumers will not be subjected to exorbitant gasoline prices. For the text of this
amendment, click here.

Recorded Vote: 31 Nay, 24 Yea

Representative Vote Representative Vote

Mr. Waxman NAY Mr. Barton YEA

Mr. Dingell NAY Mr. Hall YEA

Mr. Markey NAY Mr. Upton YEA

Mr. Boucher NAY Mr. Stearns YEA

Mr. Pallone NAY Mr. Deal YEA

Mr. Gordon NAY Mr. Whitfield YEA

Mr. Rush NAY Mr. Shimkus YEA

Ms. Eshoo NAY Mr. Shadegg YEA

Mr. Stupak NAY Mr. Blunt

Mr. Engel Mr. Buyer YEA

Mr. Green NAY Mr. Radanovich

Ms. DeGette NAY Mr. Pitts YEA

Ms. Capps NAY Ms. Bono Mack YEA

Mr. Doyle NAY Mr. Walden YEA

Ms. Harman NAY Mr. Terry YEA

Ms. Schakowsky NAY Mr. Rogers YEA

Mr. Gonzalez NAY Ms. Myrick YEA

Mr. Inslee NAY Mr. Sullivan

Ms. Baldwin NAY Mr. Murphy (PA) YEA

Mr. Ross YEA Mr. Burgess YEA

Mr. Weiner NAY Ms. Blackburn YEA

Mr. Matheson NAY Mr. Gingrey YEA

Mr. Butterfield NAY Mr. Scalise 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 Unknowable
Scenes from a markup
May 19, 2009

On the proposal to spend “such sums” of taxpayers’ money “as

may be necessary” to finance the exploration of currently
unknowable forms of energy:

U.S. Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn.: The appropriators sometimes

appropriate more money than is authorized. So I don’t think we
have to be that concerned about this as a check and balance.

U.S. Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Florida: Just as a question, how much

money do you think this is going to take? Based upon your
argument that the appropriators can appropriate more money if
necessary, 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 further
down the road.

Stearns: Well, can you ballpark it? Are we talking about half a
billion? I would think somebody in this room with this amendment
could at least give us an idea of what we’re talking about.

Gordon: There are going to be transformational types of energy

that we can’t think of now.
PRESS RELEASE
Q. How Much Will This Bill Cost My People
Back Home?
A. That's Between Them and the Electric
Company
Scenes from a markup
May 19, 2009

U.S. Rep. Mike Burgess, R-Texas: Can you tell me what the
direct effect on a ratepayer in Texas would be?

Democratic Staff Counsel: No, I can’t tell you what the direct
effect on ratepayers in Texas would be. It would be up to the local
distribution company…
PRESS RELEASE
United Democrats Defeat U.S. Jobs
Amendment
May 19, 2009

WASHINGTON – Energy and Commerce Committee Democrats today defeated an

amendment offered by U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., that would require annual
certification by the administrator, in consultation with the Department of State and the
United States Trade Representative that China and India have adopted a mandatory
greenhouse gas reduction program at least as stringent as that would be imposed under
the Act. If those countries failed to implement such a program, the act would be
suspended. This will ensure that China and India do not obtain competitive advantage
over the United States. For a copy of this amendment, click here.

Republican amendments to the bill will be posted to the Energy and Commerce
Committee Republican Web site at the conclusion of each vote. To follow the
proceedings, click here.

Recorded Vote: 36 Nay, 23 Yea

Representative Vote Representative Vote
Mr. Waxman NAY Mr. Barton YEA
Mr. Dingell NAY Mr. Hall YEA
Mr. Markey NAY Mr. Upton YEA
Mr. Boucher NAY Mr. Stearns YEA
Mr. Pallone NAY Mr. Deal YEA
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 NAY Mr. Walden YEA
Ms. Harman NAY Mr. Terry YEA
Ms. Schakowsky NAY Mr. Rogers YEA
Mr. Gonzalez NAY Ms. Myrick YEA
Mr. Inslee NAY Mr. Sullivan YEA
Ms. Baldwin NAY Mr. Murphy (PA) YEA
Mr. Ross NAY Mr. Burgess YEA
Mr. Weiner NAY Ms. Blackburn YEA
Mr. Matheson NAY Mr. Gingrey YEA
Mr. Butterfield NAY Mr. Scalise 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.”
EXCERPTS FROM PRESS RELEASE
Scenes from an Earth Day Hearing,
Part II
House 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 in
Spain. And he came up with the conclusion exactly how much every job cost. And I know that
President 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, that
they lost 2.2 jobs. And this is a 50-page empirical study that he conducted. And I was just, have
either 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…
EXCERPTS FROM PRESS RELEASE
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 movie
lot 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 to
produce 2,500 megawatts of energy, OK, to be covered. So you don’t have to worry about
Jacuzzis…

MR. GINGRICH: Let me just ask for a second, because maybe I misunderstood. So maybe you
can help me, Congressman. On page 233, line 5, “portable electric spas.” Now, I don’t know
what a portable electric spa is. I was told it was a Jacuzzi. But that’s in this bill. Page 233, and
that’s why I said when I got to that point, I quit reading the bill.