WASHINGTON - The House Thursday passed a bill that would block the Environmental Protection Agency from imposing expensive energy-related regulations that the Energy Department secretary determines would cause significant adverse effects to the economy. It passed 232-181, with only nine Democrats voting yes. The bill was offered by Rep. Bill Cassidy, R-Baton Rouge, who argued that excessive regulation is...
WASHINGTON - The House Thursday passed a bill that would block the Environmental Protection Agency from imposing expensive energy-related regulations that the Energy Department secretary determines would cause significant adverse effects to the economy.
It passed 232-181, with only nine Democrats voting yes.
The bill was offered by Rep. Bill Cassidy, R-Baton Rouge, who argued that excessive regulation is costing badly needed blue-collar jobs in the energy sector. Opponents said it would slow environmental regulations, potentially delaying regulations designed to protect the public health. And they said bringing it up for a vote was a waste of time, given that the Democratic-controlled Senate is unlikely to consider the bill, and budget bills are stalled as the new fiscal year nears on Oct. 1.
But Cassidy said Congress can consider both budget issues and other important matters, including what he calls over-regulation. His motivation, Cassidy said, is the loss of blue-collar jobs in mining, manufacturing and construction.
"It is an energy-intensive economy that brings good jobs with good benefits to blue collar workers," Cassidy said. "I have no clue why folks on the other side of the aisle are so hostile to our blue collar workers. While we have all these millions unemployed, the EPA has been advancing an expansive regulatory assault on the production and distribution of affordable and reliable energy."
The bill has two major provisions. Before EPA can finalize a regulation costing more than $1 billion, it must submit a report to Congress detailing costs, benefits and job impacts.
It would also prohibit the agency from finalizing a rule if the secretary of energy, after consulting with other relevant agencies, determines it would cause significant adverse effects on the economy.
Cassidy said some EPA regulations have been justified by faulty research. Moreover, he said, the EPA research ignores the health effects on people who lose their ability to make a living because of government regulations.
"I'm a doc," Cassidy said, noting his background as a physician. "I know that when someone loses their job with good benefits and goes on something like Medicaid their health suffers. There is a researcher, Dr. Till von Watcher, currently an associate professor of economics at UCLA, who testified that job losses can lead to significant reductions in life expectancy of 1 to 1.5 years. This isn't just a parent, the worker; it's their children as well."
Cassidy calls his bill a transparency measure designed to require good science and cost-benefit analysis for costly regulations. Democrats said it is designed to stall needed regulations, even if the delays endanger public health.
"This bill would set a terrible precedent," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif. "If we give DOE a veto power over EPA, where do we stop? Are we next going to give the Department of Commerce a veto over the State Department or the IRS a veto over the FDA? This kind of thinking would mean that our government would be so dysfunctional that the whole government would look like the Congress of the United States."
"Even if DOE does not veto an EPA rule, the extensive analysis required under the bill could delay EPA rules for years, which means more air pollution, more asthma for our kids, and more danger to our planet," Waxman said.
Aaron Viles, deputy director of the Gulf Restoration Network said Cassidy's legislation would slow EPA's efforts to decrease global warming, which is linked to rising sea levels that directly impact Louisiana.
"It's the height of hypocrisy to work to increase the amount of money the state of Louisiana receives to protect and restore our coast while at the same time stalling efforts which would help secure those projects into the future," Viles said.
Cassidy's bill also includes amendments, added Thursday, that would bar EPA from considering the "social cost of carbon" emissions, linked to global warming, to justify regulations. The sponsor, Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Pa., said it is aimed at preventing EPA from moving forward with new carbon regulations on coal fired plants based on questionable science. Waxman said it makes EPA pretend that global warming isn't real.
The bill also includes an amendment requiring EPA to release all scientific research used for its regulatory development.
Cassidy called that provision "common sense."