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

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is intended to strike the provision that reduces the amount of funding to implement the Diesel Emissions Reduction program.

Five years ago, Congress passed the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act as a part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The program was authorized at $200 million per year for 5 years. In 2011, the Congress acted responsibly, and in light of our fiscal crisis situation, we reduced that amount by a hundred million per year.

This amendment brings into question whether it makes sense to reduce a proven successful program that is not increasing regulations, as my former colleague just mentioned, but in fact is helping companies to be able to meet those regulations in a cost-effective way.

DERA has helped fund more than 360 retrofit projects to date, which has reduced well over 1.6 million tons of emissions and provided more than $4 billion in public health benefits while employing thousands of workers who manufacture, sell, and repair diesel vehicles and their components in each of our States.

Recognizing today's budgetary challenges, industry, environmental, and public sector representatives support the return of full-year 2008 funding levels for DERA, or $50 million for 2012.

The United States relies upon diesel power to transport commuters, tourists, and students, harvest our crops, build infrastructure, and move our freight. New clean diesel technology is reaching near zero emissions but fleet turnover will take us many more years to come. Emissions from older diesel vehicles and equipment can be reduced, and we can help to make that happen.

Some of our program results have been 119 projects affecting more than 14,000 diesel-powered vehicles and equipment, new State clean diesel grant programs in over 50 States, 2,200 tons of particulate matter emissions reduced, 580 million benefits to health, and--this is a very important one--3.2 million gallons of fuel that has been saved per year by implementing this program.

This is why in the last Congress I introduced legislation that extended DERA for 5 more years. The legislation received bipartisan support on both sides of the aisle and was signed by the President.

In February during debate on H.R. 1, there was an amendment put forward by a Representative on the other side of the aisle that would have eliminated full funding for DERA. The amendment in the continuing resolution at that time was soundly defeated by both of us, both sides of the aisle, 352 Members. In fact, the chairman of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Simpson, called the cuts to DERA--and I'm talking about my colleague from the other side--the wrong choice. I'm here to present that this cut is still the wrong choice.

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

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would say, I think I've said twice now, the issue that we have before us is the question of this amendment whether DERA is the appropriate funding source that would be considered for the offset. That's the question that we have before us.

It's interesting that Mr. Whitfield himself has benefited from this program. In Kentucky, the construction ports utilized $1.16 million to retrofit 73 pieces of nonroad construction equipment. Also, the Kentucky Association General Contractors benefited from retrofitting 87 pieces of equipment. I would say to you it's irresponsible to have the American public driving on our highways and roads and going through our airports breathing this air.

What I've reached out to the other side is that it's important. We're talking about EPA regulations. Why would we reduce funding of a program that helps companies to meet the regulations? It's counterintuitive and it doesn't make sense.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for the Richardson amendment; and the Richardson amendment is intended for exactly that, to eliminate cutting this program.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source