On the recordJuly 13, 2016
I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments. She actually raised a good argument for the amendment. I mean, we are telling the EPA that they need to do their job. No money can be spent in contravention of section 321(a). They can't go after a company, for example, if they haven't done the job analysis, and that is exactly what this amendment says. So I simply want to reiterate what I said. The law says the administrator shall conduct continuing evaluations of potential loss of shifts employment. I don't understand what the administrator does not understand about ``shall.'' So it is a commonsense amendment. It actually reins in the EPA and keeps them from destroying more jobs as they seem wont--have the habit--to do. Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber). The amendment was agreed to. Amendment No. 122 Offered by Mr. Gallego The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 122 printed in House Report 114-683.
