[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 113 (Thursday, August 1, 2013)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1183]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  ENERGY CONSUMERS RELIEF ACT OF 2013

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. GENE GREEN

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 31, 2013

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1582) to 
     protect consumers by prohibiting the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating as final 
     certain energy-related rules that are estimated to cost more 
     than $1 billion and will cause significant adverse effects to 
     the economy, with Ms. Ros-Lehtinen in the chair.

  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, I rise today in opposition to 
H.R. 1582.
  This bill would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from 
finalizing any ``energy-related rule'' that is estimated to cost more 
than $1 billion if the Secretary of Energy determines that the rule 
will cause ``significant adverse effects to the economy.'' The term 
``significant adverse effects to the economy'' is not defined. In 
addition, the term ``energy-related rule'' is broadly defined to 
include any rule that ``regulates any aspect of the production, supply, 
distribution, or use of energy or provides for such regulation by 
States or other governmental entities.''
  Many of the rules that this bill aims to stop are rules that would 
directly affect my constituent companies--rules that I too have serious 
concerns about how they were developed.
  I could support a bill that would require the Department of Energy to 
have an official consulting role similar to the Office of Management 
and Budget in the drafting of EPA rules where appropriate. For example, 
I was very frustrated to hear that DOE's concerns about grid 
reliability were not heeded by EPA during the Utility MACT rulemaking.
  I am shocked though that my colleagues are okay setting a precedent 
where one Department has veto power over another Department or Agency's 
actions. What's next? Are we going to give the Department of Treasury 
veto power over the Securities and Exchange Commission or give the 
Department of Defense veto power over the Department of Homeland 
Security just because we have concerns about their rulemaking 
processes?
  The Environmental Protection Agency is already required to conduct 
two Regulatory Impact Analyses, once when the rule is proposed and 
another when the rule is final, and then this analysis is reviewed by 
the OMB for accuracy.
  This Congress should be able to address the core concerns we have 
about how these rules are developed without completely gutting an 
agency's statutory responsibilities and independence.
  I encourage my colleagues to oppose this bill. This legislation is 
unprecedented and duplicative.

                          ____________________