On the recordJune 20, 2012
I have great respect for my colleague from Texas. We've worked on a couple of pieces of legislation together over the year and a half that I have been on the committee. I have the honor of serving with him on the Energy and Commerce Committee. But I also must rise again to oppose the amendment from our colleague from Texas. Once again, under this bill, nothing in the gasoline regulations act stops the EPA from developing rules on their current schedule. Nothing in this prevents the EPA from protecting the public health and the environment, as the law requires them to do. But as we talked in the previous amendment, consideration of the cost and the feasibility of these major rules is elsewhere throughout the law. And it is warranted because, in this case, a failure to consider those costs could hurt jobs and the economy. We need to know. In fact, costs are required in other parts of the Clean Air Act. And EPA must consider costs in the context of setting New Source Performance Standards, automobile emission standards, aircraft emission standards, fuel additives, and reformulated gasoline standards. And it's also a matter that you have to consider costs when setting future drinking water standards in the Safe Drinking Water Act.…
