Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation Act of 2011

Floor Speech

Mr. TERRY. I believe that the gentlelady from California's amendment is heartfelt and sincere to the DERA program but irresponsible as it's produced here today. There are costs associated with the EPA going forward with the studies that we are requesting of them.

Under our rules of the House, there's PAYGO rules. We must offset those costs. This is one of those tough decisions made to offset the costs. So the first line of irresponsibility would be it will add to the deficit but for this offset.

The second line of irresponsibility would be, well, it may feel responsible. And this really is a poison pill because if the offset is eliminated, they get to kill the whole bill because of that. So it's not as innocent an amendment as it is portrayed on the surface. The real issue of this bill in entirety must stand.

As previous speakers have said, Mr. Chairman, and rightfully so, the EPA is a rogue agency. They are producing rules in a fast and furious manner that greatly affects this Nation's ability to generate electricity. This bill just wraps three of them together and says, take a step back and do a cost analysis, as the President has asked of agencies. This agency, though, as headed by Ms. Jackson, has said to us in our committee that she will not be beholding or follow the President's own executive order to look at the cost benefit analysis. They say, as we have heard here today, their modeling says that they can reduce asthma so, therefore, no cost benefit analysis.

But there are real effects that I'm concerned with here, and the reason why I do believe this needs to be studied before implemented is we need to slow down the EPA and Lisa Jackson and their attempts to do a cap program without Congress' involvement or approval. They couldn't get it done legislatively, so she's doing it by rule and edict from the EPA.

This rule will add significant costs to the ability of small generators to generate electricity, which will force them to shut down without any path forward to replace that. In fact, they haven't even done a study on reliability to determine if electricity can be wheeled into the areas that the plants will have to shut down.

In fact, there are two plants near my district in Nebraska: Grand Island and Fremont. Grand Island is saying that these rules of the EPA are fast and furious and without any cost benefit analysis will force the Grand Island plant to close. How will they get their electricity? They will have to find a creative way to do it; yet there's been no study on reliability. Secondly, in Fremont, Nebraska, they say what they'll do is just lower their plant level, just do a minimum amount of electricity. Where are they going to make that up?

This is a directive. This is part of the radical environmentalist agenda being placed on America by one agency and one person, Lisa Jackson. We need to slow this down and take a hard look at it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I find it interesting that the gentleman would say that this might be irresponsible. What I heard of the comments was I didn't talk about the legislation within itself. We're talking about the amendment of how this is going to be paid for. And so the question before the House is going to be, is it appropriate to take additional funds to use DERA as the whipping boy time and time again for a program that is helping what my colleague from the other side is saying?

I would actually say that DERA is responsible. What's irresponsible is continuing to put the health of Americans in jeopardy. I will repeat the quote for my colleagues from the chairman of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies, Mr. Simpson. He called the cuts to DERA ``the wrong choice.'' We have already been responsible, and DERA has already paid its fair share, and it's being cut as other programs have been cut. The question is, is it right to continue to deplete this program?

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I think it's interesting that she didn't refute the point that if the PAYGO is eliminated, hers passes, they raise a point of order and kill the bill, which is the real impetus behind this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. RICHARDSON. Will the gentleman yield?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. TERRY. No.

I think it's also interesting--you have the right to close--that the President's budget, for which there was no pushback by this other side of the aisle, zeroed it out. Ours didn't. We're just cutting it by $4 million, and it's a tough choice. We agree.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Source