H. Griffith

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. Thank goodness, ladies and gentlemen, we don't have to check our common sense at the door and rely on the EPA to be the pinnacle of common sense and reason in this body. We are asked what sources do we have, and you heard the gentleman from Kentucky name off sources; but it only takes common sense to understand that when you represent a district like mine, where many of the communities are separated by rivers and mountains, that to comply with the current EPA rules on boilers, which would require many changes and may require new gas pipelines to go to existing job sites, that you cannot accomplish that in 3 years. And if you cannot accomplish it under the current rules in 3 years, you need a bill like H.R. 2250 to make sure that you have time to be able to get the easements necessary, perhaps even through condemnation process and lawsuits, to bring in that natural gas pipeline so that your factory can stay open. And if you can't do it in 3 years and the law says you have to do it in 3 years, with the possible extension of 1, and you're looking at the opportunity to keep jobs here or not be able to comply, face big fines or move that factory to a country that wants your jobs instead of what the EPA in this country appears to want, which is our jobs to go overseas, then common sense tells you that there's no way that these strict Boiler MACT rules with a 3-year implementation time will create 2,200 net jobs. It doesn't take geniuses to figure that out. It doesn't take huge studies to figure that out. What it takes is common sense, and thank goodness we can rely on common sense. In regard to the letter by the American Boiler Manufacturers Association, a company that makes money either way, whether they get this bill passed and they sell their products overseas or they sell their products in this country, I have to tell you, I was affronted by their language that was just repeated on the floor where they talked about congressional intrusion. Congressional intrusion? Does the EPA make the laws of this country, or does the Congress of the United States make the laws? I believe the Congress of the United States makes the laws of this country; and when we see something that is bad for America, it is our job to intervene and make the proper decisions for the United States of America, and it is not intrusion to do our job. It's not intrusion to tell the EPA: We were the ones elected by the people, not the EPA; and that we are the folks who have to bring our common sense to bear and recognize that we have an obligation not only to the environment, but to make sure that our people have the money to be able to afford to heat their homes, to be able to afford to feed their families, and to be able to afford to seek the American Dream like we had the opportunity and our parents had the opportunity.

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. I would say to the gentlelady that the bill says there's to be a 5-year period. It can be extended, but there has to be a conclusion at some point. The bill calls for that. But the administrator of the EPA, and unless we assume that the administrator of the EPA is just going to say nobody has to finish any time, can take a look on a case-by-case basis; and if it's going to take a little bit longer to get the job done, then they can make a real-world decision that has real work effects positively on jobs instead of a blanket decision that makes it impossible for businesses to be able continue to employ people that they may have employed in this country for decades and not force those people to go overseas. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I listened to the gentlelady with interest. And, of course, it's easy to sit in Washington and whatever group you may be with and say this group is wrong or that group is wrong, and everybody can trot out their experts. But, ladies and gentlemen, the CRS doesn't own and operate boilers, businesses do. Lots of them are going to be impacted by this--big businesses, small businesses, and the people who work for them. Last week I referenced a letter to the editor of the Virginian Leader sent in by Mr. and Mrs. Kinney, in which they said: ``I'm going to be very blunt with the following opinion: As a factory worker and taxpayer, I'm getting sick and tired of these Federal agencies who have nothing better to do except sit in their Washington offices and draw up rules and regulations to kill American jobs. Why don't they get off their sorry behinds and go out across the Nation and try to help industry save what jobs we have left? And who is paying these EPA people's salary? We are, the American workers. I believe in protecting the environment, but we can't shut the whole country down to achieve it.'' I referenced that letter last week, and I referenced Giles County in my comments in a Republican radio address later that week. And in response to that, Mr. and Mrs. Kinney wrote again to the Leader. And we're not talking about big businesses here, we're talking about businesses that affect employees in small counties all across this country. The Leader, for example, has 5,100 subscribers. It's not a giant newspaper. The Kinneys wrote back in: ``As I stated in the 9/21/11 letter to the editor, I'm a blue collar factory worker with limited education, and I have worked for our county's largest employer for nearly 35 years. The only reason I am speaking out on this issue is this: To get others involved. Our economic future and way of life here in Giles County could be on the line unless residents, business owners, civic organizations, and others come together and support H.R. 2250.'' You know what, ladies and gentlemen? The people of America understand that the EPA is in fact killing jobs. They understand that while we have to have a clean environment, and we all want a clean environment, as the gentleman from Kentucky said earlier today, we can do that. This is a reasonable approach. H.R. 2250 is a very reasonable approach which will do both, continue us on the regulatory path but make sure those regulations are reasonable and effective, and make sure that we protect the jobs of the United States of America while we go forward in protecting the environment as well. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would have to rise in opposition to the amendment. I agree with many of the comments that were made in regard to everybody trying to be reasonable and work some things out on this, but one of the concerns that I have and the reason that the language is as it is in the bill, which says that it's 5 years unless there's an extension by the administrator, is that in the real world sense of things, many companies find it difficult to hit the target, and I would hate to see us losing jobs because we had 5 years and 1 month. Under this amendment if they needed 5 years and 1 month or 5 years and 6 months to comply, then they would not be in compliance, and it may very well cost jobs and cause a company to make a decision that they don't think they can make it. In real world examples, everything is not perfect, and I have discussed this several times, but one of the factories in my area of the Celanese company, they have to see what the regs look like, then they have to see if they can retool for using coal. That takes time to figure out whether they can retool their facility to meet the compliance. If they can't meet the compliance, then what about natural gas or some other fuel source? Well, guess what? They don't have a natural gas line coming into the community where they're located that would have enough natural gas in it for any industrial purpose. As a result of that, they then have to try to figure out how they're going to cross rivers and mountains in order to get natural gas into that community in order to keep those jobs available. The problem with this amendment is it is a solid 5 years and you're done. What we're trying to do with the bill overall, while we want to be reasonable and we want to try to work something out, we want to also have the EPA administrator in a position that in real world circumstances, with real world jobs, not in the ivory towers of the universities necessarily or even here in the ivory towers of Washington, but out there on the hustings, the real world jobs have to be taken into account, and sometimes it takes 5 years and 1 month or 5 years and 6 months. That's why I would urge that we defeat this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. I rise today in support of H.R. 2250, the EPA Regulatory Relief Act of 2011. Excessive regulations are threatening jobs across the Nation. We all recognize the need for reasonable regulations to protect the public. There are good regulations that ensure public safety and protect our environment. But there are also unnecessary and unreasonable regulations that hurt jobs in some of our Nation's most critical industries. Recently, a representative from Celanese, a chemical company in the Ninth District of Virginia, which I'm proud to represent, testified that the EPA's Boiler MACT rules, as written, could force them to significantly scale back or change operations at a plant in Giles County that employs hundreds of people in the Ninth District. Giles County and communities throughout southwest Virginia are already facing job losses resulting from other excessive EPA regulations. The Boiler MACT rules are a very complex area of law and regulation. We are talking about hundreds of pages of rules in the Federal Register. These rules would affect boilers used by thousands of major employers and smaller employers, including hospitals, manufacturers, and even our colleges. By the EPA's own estimates, compliance with its Boiler MACT rules will impose $5.8 billion in upfront capital costs and impose new costs of $2.2 billion annually. However, the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners estimates that the capital costs alone of the final rules will exceed $14 billion and could put more than 230,000 jobs at risk, including 10,000 jobs in Virginia. The EPA Regulatory Relief Act would provide the EPA with 15 months to repropose and finalize new, achievable, and workable rules to replace those that were published earlier this year. The legislation would extend the compliance deadlines from 3 to at least 5 years to allow facilities--like Celanese and others--enough time to comply with these very complex and expensive standards and to install the necessary equipment. It also directs the EPA to ensure that new rules are in fact achievable by real-world boilers, process heaters, and incinerators, and directs the EPA to impose the least burdensome regulatory alternatives under the Clean Air Act, consistent with the act and President Obama's Executive order. Despite what opponents may say, this bill recognizes the need for reasonable boiler regulations. This is not an attempt to forego the rules entirely. Under H.R. 2250, the EPA must issue replacement rules and must set compliance dates. The bill simply provides sufficient time for the government to get the rules right and come up with a more reasonable and achievable approach that protects the public without imposing unnecessary costs on businesses that employ thousands of hardworking Americans. Protecting jobs is an issue that transcends party lines. This commonsense bill represents a compromise. Like any compromise, the language of H.R. 2250 is not what I might have done if I were acting alone. However, this bill brought together a group of legislators from both sides of the aisle with a reasonable approach and reasonable language. The EPA Regulatory Relief Act has 126 bipartisan cosponsors. America's job creators are also speaking out in support of this bill. The EPA Regulatory Relief Act has received hundreds of support letters from businesses, unions, and trade associations. Understand, the investments required by these rules are irreversible. For those businesses that decide to stop producing their product at a particular location, the job losses are also irreversible. The good news here is excessive regulations are reversible and fixable. We must fix unreasonable regulations like the Boiler MACT rules and keep the focus on protecting valuable American jobs.

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting the EPA Regulatory Relief Act of 2011. I appreciate this opportunity to carry this important legislation, which will protect jobs not only in the Ninth District of Virginia, but across these United States.

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, I knew that I was going to speak on this important legislation, and I tried to find the words that I would use this evening. And while I was attempting to do that, I came across a letter to the editor in the Virginian Leader in Giles County, Virginia, that was published yesterday, September 21, 2011, and sent in by John and Eleanor Kinney. They are described in their letter as an American blue collar worker. Neither Republican nor Democrat do they support. In that letter, I will quote parts of it, they say: ``I'm going to be very blunt with the following opinion: As a factory worker and taxpayer, I'm getting sick and tired of these Federal agencies who have nothing better to do except sit in their Washington offices and draw up rules and regulations to kill American jobs. Why don't they get off their sorry behinds and go out across this Nation and try to help industry save what jobs we have left? And who is paying these EPA people's salary? We are, the American workers. I believe in protecting the environment, but we can't shut the whole country down to achieve it.'' Mr. and Mrs. Kinney of Narrows, Virginia, go on: ``I hope that anyone who agrees will write, email, or call all of our elected officials in Washington, D.C. Tell them the EPA is not living in the real world, and that it's time to put some `regulations' on them and how they can dictate rules to what industry we are still hanging on to in this Nation. In a time of recession and Americans out of work, they should be helping industry, not trying to close what manufacturing base we have left with these idiotic rules and regulations.'' Hear, hear, Mr. and Mrs. Kinney. Hear, hear. This bill that we are debating tonight does exactly what you asked us to do. We are doing your bidding, and the millions of Americans out there who feel the same way you do, that it's high time we put some regulations and some constraints on the regulators in Washington who don't know what it's like to have to work for a living, who don't know what it's like not knowing whether or not the particular business in your community is going to stay open. These folks are particularly concerned in their discussion about a plant there in Giles County, one of the largest employers there that is in danger if we don't change some of the rules proposed by the EPA. They are concerned about announced layoffs in Giles County, Virginia, as a result of EPA regulations that will cause the power plant there at Glen Lyn to close down. So, ladies and gentlemen, don't be fooled by the folks who say we are doing the bidding of Big Oil and Big Coal. We are doing the bidding of people like Mr. and Mrs. John and Eleanor Kinney. I don't know the Kinneys, but I sure do look forward to getting to meet them, because that's the kind of people who made America great. And with a bill like this, we can continue to keep America great.

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, due to family matters, I was unable to vote on consideration of H.R. 1315, the Consumer Financial Protection Safety and Soundness Improvement Act of 2011 on Thursday, July 21, 2011. I was also unable to vote on consideration of H.R. 2551, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2012 on Friday, July 22 2011. Had I been present, I would have voted to support H.R. 1315. For the Amendments to H.R. 1315, I would have voted to support the Rigell Amendment. I would have voted to oppose the Jackson Lee Amendment #1, the Miller Amendment, the Jackson Lee Amendment #2, the Maloney Amendment, and the Motion to Recommit. Had I been present, I would have voted to support H.R. 2551. For the amendments to H.R. 2551, I would have voted to support the Hayworth Amendment, the Broun Amendment, and the Stutzman Amendment. I would have voted to oppose the Watt Amendment, the Thompson Amendment, the Holt Amendment, and the Moran Amendment.

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. I would like to thank the gentleman for bringing this amendment. Madam Chair, the EPA has passed this so-called ``Tailoring Rule'' without there being any authority in the Clean Air Act to do so. The proper place for this type of debate, as the underlying bill makes clear, is in the Halls of Congress, not in the halls of the EPA. There is a button that was very popular in my district--and still is--which reads, ``Who elected the EPA?'' The answer is no one; but we know who elects us. The people of the United States elect us, and they elect us to make the laws. This amendment makes it clear that this is where it belongs; thus, we should pass the bill. The amendment should be defeated. The bill should be passed. It also makes clear that the EPA is overreaching and that they had to come up with a Tailoring Rule because, as they say, without it, it creates an absurd result, but those absurd results flow from the EPA's determination to reach these greenhouse gases as if they were harmful pollutants. Now, ladies and gentlemen, this amendment, contrary to its patron's assertions, does not shield small businesses or farms, because it does not block the avalanche of additional greenhouse gas rules that come under various clean air programs. The EPA's greenhouse gas regulations will drive up the prices of gasoline, electricity, food, goods and services; and the cost of these regulations will be passed on to everyone, including to small businesses. That's why the National Federation of Independent Business supports H.R. 910. A vote in favor of H.R. 910 will be scored as a major vote for the NFIB. The NFIB has said that using the Clean Air Act as a framework will trigger an avalanche of regulatory requirements that will burden hundreds of thousands of previously unregulated sources, including many small entities. I ask that you reject the amendment.

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the Ninth Congressional District of Virginia and the law enforcement community suffered a terrible loss yesterday. I was deeply saddened to learn that two deputies of the Buchanan County Sheriff's Department were killed and two others were seriously injured in the line of duty in Vansant, Virginia. My condolences go out to the families of Deputy William Ezra Stiltner and Deputy Cameron Neil Justus, who lost their lives yesterday. A 10- year veteran of the Buchanan County Sheriff's Department, Deputy Justus is survived by his wife, daughter, and stepson. A 7-year veteran, Deputy Stiltner is survived by his wife and his two children. My prayers are with their families. Also, my continued thoughts and prayers are with Deputy Eric Dwayne Rasnake and Deputy Shane Earl Charles, as they recover from this horrific shooting, as well as the Buchanan County Sheriff's Department and the entire community. This act of violence is a reminder of the dangers our law enforcement officials face daily. As our community grieves, we will not forget these officers' service, their selflessness, and their sacrifice.

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, amendment 109 is a timeout on the EPA. The EPA and its guidelines for the water quality coming out of mines issued on April 1, 2010, came up with a conductivity test, a test which did not go through the Administrative Procedures Act, a test which is relying on science which is not yet fully accounted for or reliable. In fact, in the document, in 31 pages, they use words like ``expect'' and ``anticipate'' what the science will be on 27 of those 31 pages. Mr. Chairman, President Johnson had a war on poverty. There are some in my district and in Appalachia who believe that President Obama and his EPA have a war for poverty in the Appalachian region. That conductivity test is so severe that the distilled water would pass, the Deer Park would pass, the Fiji is just barely going to make it outside of the zone of question, but Evian water that you purchase to drink would not pass. Perrier water that you purchase to drink would not pass. It's not good enough. And Pellegrino is not good enough either. There is a bumper sticker that is very popular now in my district. It says if you think coal is ugly, wait until you see poverty. There are some who believe--and I think that there are some in Washington who think--that southwest Virginia and other parts of Appalachia should just be a giant park for rich folks to visit, and that those of us who live there, the folks in Washington think, ought to be happy to have the jobs changing the sheets for the rich folks. Ladies and gentlemen, that is not good enough and this amendment should pass, and we should put a stop to this regulation.

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, again, this, if not passed, will bring us unemployment, not a good economy. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will not bring jobs. It will take our $60,000-a-year-plus jobs and give us either unemployment or part-time jobs at minimum wage, and what's interesting is, the data that we do have shows that there's a greater biodiversity after mountaintop mining than there was before. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. Thank you. I reserve the remainder of my time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I believe the minimum essential coverage provision penalty is unconstitutional. I took an oath to uphold the Constitution. This time last year, as a member of the Virginia House of Delegates defending that Constitution, I was proud to cast my vote for House Bill 10, which mandated no Virginian shall be required to buy health insurance. Our attorney general has joined the fray and filed suit in court and is winning. As Virginians, we did not accept the change of George III, nor will we accept the change of ObamaCare.

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. ``The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.''