End of The Fiscal Year; EPA Admin: Costly New Regs Are 'Environmental Justice'

Today in Washington, D.C. - Sept 20, 2015:
The House reconvened at 10 AM today. Today the Senate is considering:
S. 2082 — "To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend certain expiring provisions of law administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes."
Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment for H.R. 719 - "To require the Transportation Security Administration to conform to existing Federal law and regulations regarding criminal investigator positions, and for other purposes."

Yesterday primarily along party lines, the House passed (236-193) H.R. 3495 — "To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to allow for greater State flexibility with respect to excluding providers who are involved in abortions."
Nine Republicans joined Democrats in voting against the bill while two democrats joined the Republicans in voting for the bill. Three Republicans and two democrats did not vote on this bill.

The Senate reconvened at 9:30 AM today and resumed post-cloture consideration of the House message to accompany H.R. 719, which is the vehicle for the continuing resolution (CR).

At 10:30, the Senate voted 78-20 to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 719, with a further amendment containing the CR. The amended bill now returns to the House for consideration there.

Following the vote, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell filed cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 2029, the Fiscal Year 2016 Military Construction-Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. Democrats have lamented the use of a CR to fund the government, but it was necessitated by their blockade of appropriations bills. Senate Democrats will now have the opportunity to vote to fund veterans programs and actually work through the appropriations process. Will they continue to filibuster appropriations bills?

Phil Kerpen, ARRA News Service Contributing Author and President for American Commitment visited Capitol Hill this morning. He expressed his frustration over the contunual filibuster ALL of the bills funding government. Why The Democrats are doing this? He explined, The Democrats want to break the spending caps they agreed to a few years ago. The caps that are working, bringing government spending as a percent of GDP down from 24.4 percent in 2009 to a more historically normal – but still too high – 20.3 percent in 2014.

"Last week, Senate Democrats actually filibustered funding for our troops to hold them hostage to their demands for higher nondefense spending. This week, they are filibustering funding for our veterans. A vote to break the filibuster on funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs could happen as soon as tomorrow.

"President Obama and the Democrats are showing the country that nothing is more important to them than unrestrained, wasteful domestic spending. That’s right - $37 BILLION MORE TAX DOLLARS to the EPA, the FCC, the IRS, and all the rest. And if they don’t get it they will take it out on vets. . . . The Democrats using our soldiers and veterans as leverage for higher nondefense spending is flat-out disrespectful."

Rick Manning, President of Americans for Limited Government, expressed his frustration over today's being the last day of the fiscal year and still no appropriations bills passed by Congress.  The house passed bills but the Senate democrats blocked them,

Manning notes, "If Congress does not act by midnight the government will be partially shut down. But not over any fight to defund the health care law, executive amnesty for illegal immigrants, or Planned Parenthood.< "The question of funding is being settled at the last possible moment with a Senate continuing resolution

"... until the filibuster [in the Senate] is eliminated, at least on appropriations bills, and entitlement programs require periodic reauthorization, the Congress’ power of the purse will remain tenuous at best, leading to the very sort of crisis management we see today. . . . The framers of the Constitution never envisioned a system where Congress has so little power to set the nation’s fiscal policies."

News on EPA's so-called "environmental Justice" Regs
The New York Times writes today, “In August 2011, as President Obama prepared to unveil a major new environmental regulation on smog, his political advisers issued a warning: The rule would affect power plants and factories throughout the Midwest, slowing the economy in states like Ohio that would be crucial to the president’s re-election.

“In a move that enraged environmentalists, Mr. Obama ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to delay what industry groups were calling the most expensive regulation in history. Four years later, Mr. Obama has no more re-election worries. . .”

Of course, The Times notes, “[T]he regulation remains as divisive as ever. . . . ‘The costs of doing this are not going to be absorbed by a magic sponge,’ said Jay Timmons, the chief executive of the [National Association of Manufacturers], which has been joined by dozens of mayors and governors, including many Democrats. ‘The impact is going to be largest on manufacturing. The tighter the standard, the more localities are impacted.’ . . . [M]anufacturers say the high cost of installing ozone control equipment could kneecap American manufacturing and threaten jobs across the country. . . .

“Ross Eisenberg, a vice president at the manufacturers association, said that even a change of two parts per billion in the standard could make a difference. ‘At a standard of 68, there are 40 percent more counties in America that would be in noncompliance than there are with a standard of 70,’ he said. ‘A lot of counties would be dealing with this for the first time.’ A standard of 65 parts per billion, Mr. Eisenberg said, could require the use of pollution control technology that does not exist yet. ‘That’s when you have to start shutting things down,’ he said.”

But the Obama administration hasn’t been particularly interested in taking costs to families and businesses in to account when it devises new EPA regulations.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court ruled against the Obama EPA for its failure to consider costs as it wrote a new regulation on mercury. Reuters wrote in June, “In a 5-4 ruling, the court ruled that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency must consider costs before deciding whether regulation is ‘appropriate and necessary.’ . . . The question was whether the EPA should have considered the cost of compliance when deciding to regulate pollutants. Industry groups and some states challenged the regulation to limit emissions of mercury and other hazardous pollutants, claiming costs of up to $9.6 billion. The regulation could help prompt utility companies to shut down some coal-fired plants due to the costs of compliance. . . . In issuing the regulation, the EPA said it was not required to consider costs.”

What is the Obama administration thinking about as it writes these rules? The AP gives a hint today as it reports that EPA Administrator Gina “McCarthy called the [ozone] rules a demonstration of the Obama administration's commitment to ‘environmental justice’.”

Republican senators pushed back, explaining the costs. “Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, countered that a new ozone limit likely would have negligible environmental benefits and comes with huge economic costs. Instead of creating a job-killing mandate, the EPA should focus on helping counties across the nation that have not yet met the current standards, he said. ‘A new standard at this time is not only irresponsible, but also impractical and economically destructive,’ Inhofe said. . . .

“Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., said the EPA's plan could be disastrous for his state. ‘We've got a regulation coming at states and consumers that is going to absolutely explode the price of power in our state,’

---

Tags: EPA, Administration, costly new Regulations, House, Senate, funding To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!