EPA has never considered the cost of additional health care required because someone loses a job, and I don't understand how that is possible, why that is not a legitimate cost.
Ed Whitfield: “EPA has never considered the cost of additional health care required because someone loses a job, and I don't understand…”
Editor's note · Context
Whitfield criticizes EPA for not factoring job loss health costs into their analysis.
Share
More from Ed Whitfield
We all have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) and know that he focuses on these particular issues and is quite familiar with them. The reason that we are opposing this amendment is that his amendment would…
I want clean air. I want clean water. But I don't want an organized attack on the energy-producing sector of America because of, to use Mr. McNerney's term, a political decision to go after hydrocarbons.
During the almost 6 years that I have been chairman of this subcommittee, we've had 40 hearings that have looked at various EPA rules and proposals that affect or will affect the Nation's energy and industrial sectors.
This subcommittee has cast a critical eye on several major regulations--such as the ozone rule and the Clean Power Plan--that threaten billions of dollars in costs and thousands of jobs.





