On the recordNovember 20, 2014
This amendment basically would eliminate section 3(b), or make it applicable in a different way of the legislation, which really would defeat the whole purpose of this bill. As I said in the beginning, this is very simple. We are not telling EPA what the regulations should be. We are not telling EPA not to use science. We are simply telling EPA, when you come out with a new regulation, you must provide the guidance for the States and for the entities that are trying to build new plants to create jobs in America. So this amendment would simply change that process. All of us understand and recognize the great contribution that has been made by the Clean Air Act, but yet anytime we try to come up and we try to amend the Clean Air Act, it is almost like we are touching the Holy Grail. Things change over time. As I said, the EPA has been so aggressive with so many regulations, they are not providing the guidance for clarity so that entities can invest dollars to create jobs. Obviously we want to balance a good, clean environment, but we also want a healthy economy. That is what this legislation is designed to do. And with as much admiration and respect that I have for the gentlemen from California, Mr. Waxman and Mr. McNerney, I do oppose this amendment and ask that the Members not adopt it. I yield back the balance of my time. The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).…
