Our own State of Ohio will gain as many as 76,240 jobs to build the capacity to implement the new regulations in the first 5 years.
I want to thank the gentlelady for her indulgence. I am going to have to leave as soon as I am through with the questions.
You have no knowledge whatsoever of any kind of discussion draft that relates to a bill by that name?
I am going to submit questions in writing so that Ms. Henry can become familiar with the questions that we are concerned about.
This bill proposes to wait another 6 years before we limit toxic mercury from some power plants as well as delaying limits on a host of othe...
You may not, but my guess is small business owners, my guess is manufacturers probably do.
Let me be clear. You say there is going to be an increase in cost for energy.
As I have said many times before in this subcommittee, one reason explaining the stagnant jobs numbers is the administration's stubborn dete...
These regulations have been collectively referred to as EPA's train wreck.
If you are not spending those dollars to retrofit and retool your facility, you are probably using them some other way.
We have 9.2 percent unemployment now.
So the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency admits that the rule changes will result in higher electricity costs.
I think simplification and streamlining, dealing with some of these definitional problems, are really important.
I just think it is a question to be asked.
Ohio alone will lose 53,000 jobs, and electricity prices could certainly spur and hurt the middle and lower class Americans.
This administration proposes to sacrifice these 33,000 primary and secondary jobs that we create, and that is as simple as it gets.
I would agree with her analysis of how that would affect the power-producing facilities.
I don't think there is any doubt that we are seeing in the coal fields of not just Ohio, but I think West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Illinois, ...
