On the recordJuly 13, 2011
I don't agree with what the gentleman from Ohio said. I don't believe that this should be yet another unfunded mandate on the States. While the number of unregulated facilities has more than doubled in the last decade, many State enforcement budgets have been flat when adjusted for inflation. In New York, for example, the number of regulated polluters has almost doubled in the last decade, but the number of inspections have remained the same. Again, my amendment gives the State the ability to send habitual bad actors to the EPA, not for the worst punishment, not for some change in authority, not for some overreach, but simply for closer scrutiny. My amendment does not affect punishment. It simply allows the EPA to keep a close eye on the frequent violator in support of the State, as is the practice with significant noncompliance. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment to ensure that the worst violators are properly inspected in support of State regulation. I yield back the balance of my time. The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis). The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
