On the recordDecember 8, 2011
The EPA goes through an incredible analysis now, the costs and the benefits and all the other considerations. It's appropriate. To add another review of regulations at EPA is to require paralysis by analysis, and perhaps that's the objective of the amendment. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schock) has said he can't imagine anything more expensive than what this regulation might do to farmers. Well, I'll tell you something that's more expensive: Tax breaks for zillionaires, billionaires, and millionaires is a lot more expensive than requiring EPA to do even more. Let's not burden the agency with reviews only for one sector that add nothing to the analysis that they already achieved before they adopt any regulation. And these regulations that are already in effect now are not costing jobs. This whole bill is supposed to prevent regulations that had not even been adopted. And we're not losing jobs because of that. We're losing jobs because our economy is not functioning, because we don't have a willingness by the Republicans to stimulate this economy, get people back to work and get jobs for those who need them. I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time. The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schock). The amendment was agreed to. Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Al Green of Texas The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed in House Report 112-317.





