[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 143 (Friday, September 23, 2011)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1700-E1701]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  TRANSPARENCY IN REGULATORY ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS ON THE NATION ACT OF 
                                  2011

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. JOHN D. DINGELL

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, September 22, 2011

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2401) to 
     require analyses of the cumulative and incremental impacts of 
     certain rules and actions of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency, and for other purposes:

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chair, today's debate is deja vu from the debate 
within the House Energy and Commerce committee. Once again my 
colleagues and I on the Energy and Commerce Committee had the 
opportunity to address and protect human health and environment, while 
also promote and encourage innovation and job creation. These are 
serious issues facing our country and the EPA, issues that require 
serious solutions. Sadly, this bill does nothing to actually address 
those issues.
  In addition to the lack of a well thought-out strategy, the proposed 
amendments to this bill would make serious changes to the Clean Air Act 
without any congressional hearing or testimony. None of these proposals 
have had serious examination by the Energy and Commerce Committee, 
which has jurisdiction over this matter. This is not the open and 
transparent legislative process that my colleagues have committed to. 
We cannot responsibly govern in this matter and ignore our 
Constitutional obligation to hold hearings, hear testimony, and give 
these matters the in-depth consideration major policy initiatives 
deserve.
  As I said, there are legitimate problems with some of the proposed 
rules coming out of EPA, and they need to be dealt with. However, this 
Polish lawyer from Detroit happens to believe we would get further with 
a more surgical approach to dealing with these matters.
  I am particularly concerned with the Utility MACT, which in its 
current form, could have a devastating effect on the economy of 
Midwestern manufacturing States, including my home State of Michigan. I 
am convinced that a balanced, bipartisan solution to this issue was 
available to us. In fact, I offered to work with all of my colleagues, 
both Democrats and Republicans on this matter. Sadly, my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle would rather play political games rather 
than work on a reasonable solution to a legitimate problem.
  I would note to my colleagues that we spent only one day on the 
failed Continuing Resolution, but will spend two days on this bill. 
This, I believe, demonstrates the true intention of the GOP. That is 
not to actually deal with a legitimate and disconcerting problem, but 
to spend time on their favorite whipping boy, EPA. Now, I have had my 
share of issues with that particular agency, but I have always sought a 
solution--not played games to gain political points.
  As such, it is my intent to vote against the TRAIN Act and the 
amendments proposed by the other side of the aisle. The President 
already indicated his strong opposition and as such, the bill before us 
is nothing more than veto bait. I would call on my colleagues on

[[Page E1701]]

both sides of the aisle to work with me on these matters in a 
reasonable way.

                          ____________________