EPA Regulatory Relief Act of 2011

Floor Speech

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. Madam Chair, H.R. 2250 will reduce regulatory burdens for job creators and extend the timeframe for the EPA to issue its rules for boilers and incinerators.

Considering that EPA is currently pursuing an aggressive regulatory regime in these areas, and doing so within its existing budget, additional funding should not be needed to provide the regulatory relief provided in this bill. While the CBO's rules may require it to score legislation in a vacuum, in the real world there is no reason taxpayers should be forced to hand over more money when asking an agency merely to do its job.

Any cost of commonsense regulations in this area, as our legislation proposes, can certainly be covered by the agency's existing budget--that has increased greatly over the last several years. And that budget is funding its current regulatory efforts. No new funding is authorized by the legislation, so Madam Chair, I do not believe any new funding is necessary. Accordingly, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. Thank goodness, ladies and gentlemen, we don't have to check our common sense at the door and rely on the EPA to be the pinnacle of common sense and reason in this body.

We are asked what sources do we have, and you heard the gentleman from Kentucky name off sources; but it only takes common sense to understand that when you represent a district like mine, where many of the communities are separated by rivers and mountains, that to comply with the current EPA rules on boilers, which would require many changes and may require new gas pipelines to go to existing job sites, that you cannot accomplish that in 3 years.

And if you cannot accomplish it under the current rules in 3 years, you need a bill like H.R. 2250 to make sure that you have time to be able to get the easements necessary, perhaps even through condemnation process and lawsuits, to bring in that natural gas pipeline so that your factory can stay open.

And if you can't do it in 3 years and the law says you have to do it in 3 years, with the possible extension of 1, and you're looking at the opportunity to keep jobs here or not be able to comply, face big fines or move that factory to a country that wants your jobs instead of what the EPA in this country appears to want, which is our jobs to go overseas, then common sense tells you that there's no way that these strict Boiler MACT rules with a 3-year implementation time will create 2,200 net jobs. It doesn't take geniuses to figure that out. It doesn't take huge studies to figure that out. What it takes is common sense, and thank goodness we can rely on common sense.

In regard to the letter by the American Boiler Manufacturers Association, a company that makes money either way, whether they get this bill passed and they sell their products overseas or they sell their products in this country, I have to tell you, I was affronted by their language that was just repeated on the floor where they talked about congressional intrusion.

Congressional intrusion? Does the EPA make the laws of this country, or does the Congress of the United States make the laws? I believe the Congress of the United States makes the laws of this country; and when we see something that is bad for America, it is our job to intervene and make the proper decisions for the United States of America, and it is not intrusion to do our job.

It's not intrusion to tell the EPA: We were the ones elected by the people, not the EPA; and that we are the folks who have to bring our common sense to bear and recognize that we have an obligation not only to the environment, but to make sure that our people have the money to be able to afford to heat their homes, to be able to afford to feed their families, and to be able to afford to seek the American Dream like we had the opportunity and our parents had the opportunity.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. EDWARDS. Will the gentleman yield?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. I yield to the gentlelady from Maryland.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. EDWARDS. Just one question for the gentleman. I wonder if there is any time frame at all that would be acceptable for the implementation of standards that would save lives and create jobs?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. I would say to the gentlelady that the bill says there's to be a 5-year period. It can be extended, but there has to be a conclusion at some point. The bill calls for that.

But the administrator of the EPA, and unless we assume that the administrator of the EPA is just going to say nobody has to finish any time, can take a look on a case-by-case basis; and if it's going to take a little bit longer to get the job done, then they can make a real-world decision that has real work effects positively on jobs instead of a blanket decision that makes it impossible for businesses to be able continue to employ people that they may have employed in this country for decades and not force those people to go overseas.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Source