Ed Whitfield: “Back in 2004, the D.C. Federal Court of Appeals, in a court decision, invalidated the 2004 Boiler MACT rules promulgated…”

“Back in 2004, the D.C. Federal Court of Appeals, in a court decision, invalidated the 2004 Boiler MACT rules promulgated by EPA. In that court decision, EPA came to the court and said, We need additional time to come out with new Boiler MACT rules. So, in that court decision, EPA made the argument that they needed additional time to come forth with a more balanced approach on a Boiler MACT rule. Our legislation, H.R. 2250, does nothing that EPA did not ask the court to do as far as extending time. Our legislation is a balanced approach. Particularly at this time of a weakened economy and when our job unemployment rate is at 9.1 percent and when our economy continues to struggle, it is imperative that we have a balanced regulation that considers jobs--yes--but that also considers health care and the benefits of the regulation and the impact that that has on health care. {time} 1930 We've had extensive hearings on this legislation. We've had representatives from hospitals. We've had representatives from universities, representatives from manufacturers, industrial users and others, and all of them almost universally have asked that we pass H.R. 2250 to provide a more balanced approach in these regulations. Testimony has shown that over 230,000 jobs are at risk if EPA moves forward with these regulations. So what we're proposing in our legislation is we give EPA 15 months to come forth with a new regulation.…”