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

Floor Speech

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2401, the Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation Act of 2011, otherwise known as the TRAIN Act.

As House Republicans move forward with a bold agenda to grow our economy and put Americans back to work, one area that must be addressed is the issue of overregulation by the Federal Government.

I strongly believe the Obama administration is moving too fast and showing little regard for the economic consequences of their energy and environmental policies. They are trying to regulate what they don't have the votes to legislate, and it is going to cost Americans jobs.

With our Nation suffering under a crushing weight of 9 percent unemployment and the fact that the United States failed to create a single job in the month of August, the stakes could not be higher. The simple fact is that the businesses make decisions on where to invest based upon a number of factors, but regulatory certainty ranks at the top of the list.

I introduced this bipartisan legislation to protect American jobs, jobs that we are in danger of losing due to the Obama administration's environmental regulatory agenda. The TRAIN Act will force the EPA and other Federal agencies to conduct an in-depth economic analysis of several of their rules and regulations so Congress and the American people can fully understand how the EPA's regulatory train wreck will impact our economy.

In fact, EPA's rules and actions addressed in this legislation cost billions of dollars to the U.S. economy. The time to address the full economic burden of these regulations is now.

At its heart, the TRAIN Act simply asks questions that should be asked of any expensive regulation: What do these regulations mean for our ability to compete in the global marketplace? Will electricity prices climb and by how much as power producers are required to retrofit plants to meet new requirements? How would higher electricity prices and plant closures affect jobs in the U.S.?

It's really astonishing that the EPA is not doing this already. It is just common sense, good government for American workers and businesses.

Now, some of the opponents of this commonsense legislation, including President Obama, say that this legislation is an assault on the Clean Air Act. Nothing could be further from the truth. The TRAIN Act will not prevent EPA from continuing to develop regulations. The TRAIN Act will also not limit the EPA's authority to protect public health and welfare in any way. The fact is EPA has never done an analysis on the cumulative impacts of these regulations on global competitiveness, energy and fuel prices, employment, or reliability of electricity supply, which is why we need this legislation.

As we can see by EPA's actions on the utility sector alone, they are issuing multiple regulations on top of each other at an accelerated rate that makes it difficult for companies to invest and create jobs. I'm pleased that we include language to delay EPA's action on both the Utility MACT and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule until 6 months after the TRAIN Act analysis is complete.

The Utility MACT Rule alone has the potential to be EPA's most expensive rule impacting the U.S. economy. And when combined, these proposed rules could cost almost $18 billion to implement as a result and cause a net employment loss of 1,450,000 jobs by 2020. These rules are an example of EPA's regulatory train wreck in action.

In addition, one of the actions in my bill that we study is the regional haze issue, which greatly impacts my State of Oklahoma, as this is yet another example of EPA's overreaching on the States with burdensome regulations without analyzing its impact on electric reliability or cost. This EPA action alone is expected to cost $2 billion to Oklahoma businesses and electric rate payers.

If there is one thing that can help our struggling economy, it is having access to stable and reliable sources of energy.

In these tough economic times, I encourage my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense measure.

Source