Hearing of the Energy and Power Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee -- Mark-Up of the TRAIN Act

"Mr. Chairman, we know that since the inception of the Clean Air Act, opponents of the law have been exaggerating the costs of implementing the regulations associated with the Act, while downplaying the benefits that the new rules have brought.

"I'm afraid that today's markup on the TRAIN Act may be yet another example of this type of shoddy accounting.

"This bill would highlight the costs of implementing certain EPA rules but does not take into account all of the benefits of these regulations, including enhanced public health, increased job productivity or lives saved.

"This bill would also not take into account the positive impacts that EPA regulations have had on our economy, including spurring additional research and development of clean energy technologies, instituting higher fuel efficiency standards, and helping make the country less dependent on foreign oil.

"As written, this bill would not give an accurate cost/benefit analysis of EPA regulations.

"The Office of Management and Budget examined 10 Clean Air Act regulations finalized in 2008, 2009, and 2010, and concluded that all 10 had benefits that exceeded costs, by a ratio of 7 to 1 on average.

"During debate over the Clean Air Act there were dire warnings that environmental regulation would kill jobs and lead to outsourcing overseas.

"However, when both direct employment and indirect employment are taken into account, the environmental protection industry is estimated to have created from 3.8 million to 5 million new jobs.

"So, today, I will offer an amendment to help strengthen this bill by making sure that the panel created to study EPA regulations is objective and balanced, and that it takes into account both the benefits to the environment and public health, as well as cost to industry.

"I urge all of my colleagues to support my amendment and with that I yield back the balance of my time."

Source