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

Floor Speech

Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support my amendment to H.R. 2401. This amendment should be one of the most noncontroversial EPA-related votes this House has faced in quite awhile because it doesn't repeal any EPA rules or regulations and it doesn't block the EPA from doing anything. It simply requires the EPA administrator to consider the implementation costs and feasibility of compliance when setting National Ambient Air Quality Standards. We all want clean air.

The Clean Air Act required the EPA to review these standards in 5-year intervals and make revisions or set new standards if appropriate. Under current law, the EPA administrator is forbidden from taking the economic consequences of these rules under consideration when setting these standards, which means every 5 years the EPA is required to create new regulations, but does not have the legal authority to consider how they will affect the economy.

This approach to regulation is a contributing factor to why unemployment numbers refuse to budge in many parts of our country and we have millions of Americans still looking for jobs. Last year the EPA decided to voluntarily review the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone despite being a full 3 years away from review of the Clean Air Act's requirements in 2013.

The standards they discussed would have had a devastating effect on my home State of Ohio, putting every one of the 33 counties monitored into a state of nonattainment status, as well as over 85 percent of the other counties monitored nationwide. States and localities not in attainment are required to meet expensive and complex regulatory requirements, more stringent permitting requirements, and comply with a number of other antigrowth measures.

Fortunately, President Obama realized the urgency of this situation and asked the EPA not to propose a more stringent standard. Perhaps if the EPA administrator had considered the cost and feasibility of the tighter standard, we would have avoided the situation entirely. Now with this amendment we have the opportunity to make sure it doesn't happen in the future.

I sent the President a letter commending his decision and requesting his support of the amendment in helping to get it passed both here in the House and in the Senate. Now I'm requesting your support.

This is not a Republican idea or a Democrat idea. Considering the economy and the well-being of the unemployed Americans who are looking for jobs, it is the right thing to do.

I urge support of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Source