I oppose this bill on substantive grounds because it nullifies EPA's rules to cut toxic pollution from cement kilns and threatens EPA's ability to reissue rules that are protective of public health. And we certainly had an exhaustive discussion of why we think this is not a good bill, but this bill has another problem: It does not comply with the Republican leadership's policy for discretionary spending. When Congress organized this year, the majority leader announced that the House would be following a discretionary CutGo rule. This requires that when a bill authorizes discretionary funding, that funding is explicitly limited to a specific amount. The protocols also require that the specific amount be offset by a reduction in an existing authorization. This rule was embodied in a document entitled, ``Legislative Protocols for the 112th Congress.'' The majority leader announced that compliance with these protocols is necessary for legislation to be complied with before the bill would be scheduled for floor consideration. Well, this bill fails to meet these protocols on two counts: First, the bill does not include a specific authorization for EPA to complete the rulemaking required by the bill. After all, EPA finalized the cement rulemaking more than a year ago. EPA will have to start from scratch, according to this bill, and follow a whole new approach for setting emission standards. That's going to cost money.…
On the recordOctober 5, 2011
Source
govinfo.govShare & report
More from Henry Waxman
Mar 11, 2014
I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I know that this legislation carries important personal significance for some of our colleagues, and I respect that, but I want to express some real concerns about the bill because I…
Jun 24, 2014
This bill provides, if it is a cross boundary with Canada or Mexico, you cannot have a NEPA review, an environmental review, except right around there, right around where the boundary is. Now, if you built a pipeline in the United States…
Jun 24, 2014
This bill's supporters claim that it is just about the approval process for cross-border energy projects. They say it is not about approving the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline because that is under review now. But, in fact, that is what…





