Newsletter: Questions to the EPA

Statement

Last week Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson testified before the Subcommittee on Energy and Power about the President's Fiscal Year 2013 budget request for EPA funding. The hearing was eye-opening.

House Republicans have fought for months to provide American businesses with regulatory relief. One specific focus of mine has been rules on industrial boilers, commonly called Boiler MACT. The House passed my legislation (H.R. 2250) with bipartisan support in October 2011 to give boiler owners more flexibility and time to comply with burdensome EPA rules. For example, while businesses now have only three years -- and in special cases, an extra year if the EPA Administrator allows it -- to comply with these costly regulations, my bill would give businesses at least five years to make mandatory upgrades. The EPA doesn't support this bill. In fact, when asked if the EPA supported any legislation to give businesses more flexibility to comply with EPA regulations, Jackson admitted to me that the EPA does not.

Businesses have told me over and over that a five year minimum timeline is critical for them to comply. If it weren't so sad, it would be almost comedic that, while EPA is unwilling to grant businesses more time, it takes the EPA an awful long time to complete the projects it has committed its money to. In some instances, EPA has money committed for five years and longer before the project is complete. Is this like a parent telling a child to "do as I say, not as I do?' Why is it that the EPA can sit on taxpayer money for five years, but is unwilling to modify regulatory time constraints on American businesses?

On top of this double standard, another hypocrisy highlighted by the hearing is the so-called "tailoring rule.' In an exchange with me, Jackson admitted that EPA provides itself with flexibility when regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. She stated, "if the result is absurd or increases an administrative burden, where it really can't be practically implemented,' then the EPA will provide itself with relief. Does EPA give businesses this type of flexibility? The answer is no.

The bottom line is that the EPA isn't prepared to hold itself to the same standards they demand of businesses. The people of the Ninth District and across the nation want and need job creation. Sadly, burdensome regulations are standing in the way. If the EPA is going to "tailor' the rules for their own benefit, they should do the same for the rest of us. The EPA needs to change course and lead by example. Losing thousands of American jobs because of inflexible regulation is not an option that we can afford.

Source