What: All Issues : Government Checks on Corporate Power : Coal Industry : (H.R. 910) On an amendment that would have allowed the Environmental Protection Agency to continue to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. This amendment also would have required the EPA—prior to issuing new regulations relating to greenhouse gases—to hold a 30 day “public comment period” in which industries affected by such regulation (such as oil and gas) could raise concerns with EPA officials.
 Who: All Members
[POW!]
 

To find out how your Members of Congress voted on this bill, use the form on the right.

(H.R. 910) On an amendment that would have allowed the Environmental Protection Agency to continue to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. This amendment also would have required the EPA—prior to issuing new regulations relating to greenhouse gases—to hold a 30 day “public comment period” in which industries affected by such regulation (such as oil and gas) could raise concerns with EPA officials.
house Roll Call 234     Apr 06, 2011
Y = Conservative
N = Progressive
Winning Side:
Conservative

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) that would have allowed the Environmental Protection Agency to continue to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The underlying bill banned the EPA from regulating such gases. This amendment would have eliminated that prohibition, and instead required the EPA to hold a 30 day “public comment period” in which industries affected by greenhouse gas regulations (such as oil and gas) could raise concerns with EPA officials. The amendment required that this public comment period be held prior to implementing new regulations relating to greenhouse gases. In addition, the amendment would have required the EPA to conduct a study on the “adverse environmental effects of delaying implementation” of such regulations.

Jackson Lee urged support for her amendment: “…This amendment requires that before finalizing emissions regulations on greenhouse gas producers, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must provide the producer with adequate notice of at least 30 days. This provision would also allow for industry input, encouraging collaboration between the EPA and energy providers during the regulation process….By mandating industry engagement during the rule making process We will ensure that the proposed regulations do not negatively impact industry jobs and domestic energy….As the Representative for Houston, the nation's energy capital, I am committed to finding a balance that will support continued growth in the energy industry while protecting the environment.”

Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) opposed the amendment: “…My colleague's amendment… doesn't change the reason why we're here. The reason why we're here is saying, EPA, stop. If it's a good enough policy, it can pass the legislative body [Congress]….why is it a good policy to let unelected bureaucrats in the Environmental Protection Agency move on a process to destroy jobs? Let's be held accountable. If we want to do that, let's cast our votes. What we're casting our votes today for is to keep the cost of power low and save jobs, create jobs and grow jobs. If you want job creation, we support the underlying bill. We do not support any amendment that puts off telling the EPA to stop and desist and do no more.”

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 157-266. Voting “yea” were 157 Democrats, including a majority of progressives. All 239 Republicans present and 27 Democrats voted “nay.” As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have allowed the Environmental Protection Agency to continue to regulate greenhouse gas emissions—and also would have required the EPA hold a 30 day “public comment period” in which industries affected by greenhouse gas regulations could raise concerns with EPA officials.

Issue Areas:

Find your Member of
Congress' votes

Select by Name