As prepared for delivery. Chairman Stearns,…
As prepared for delivery.
Chairman Stearns, Ranking Member DeGette and Members of the
Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to
testify on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA)
regulatory process.
It is a priority of the EPA and of this Administration, to ensure
that our regulatory system is guided by science and that it
protects human health and the environment in a pragmatic and cost
effective manner.
One means by which this Administration has made this priority
clear is through Executive Order 13563, which includes a directive
for federal agencies to develop a regulatory retrospective plan for
periodic review of existing significant regulations. Under that
directive, EPA has developed a plan which includes 35 priority
regulatory reviews. Recent reforms, already finalized or formally
proposed, are estimated to save up to $1.5 billion over the next 5
years.
But let me be clear: the core mission of the EPA is protection of
public health and the environment. That mission was established in
recognition of a fundamental fact of American life –
regulations can and do improve the lives of people. We need these
rules to hold polluters accountable and keep us safe. For more than
40 years, the Agency has carried out its mission and established a
proven track record that a healthy environment and economic growth
are not mutually exclusive.
The Clean Air Act is one of the most successful environmental laws
in American history and provides an illustrative example of this
point.
For 40 years, the nation’s Clean Air Act has made steady
progress in reducing the threats posed by pollution and allowing us
to breathe easier. In the last year alone, programs implemented
pursuant to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 are estimated to
have saved over 160,000 lives; spared Americans more than 100,000
hospital visits; and prevented millions of cases of respiratory
problems, including bronchitis and asthma.
Few of the regulations that gave us these huge gains in public
health were uncontroversial at the time they were developed. Most
major rules have been adopted amidst claims that they would be bad
for the economy and bad for employment.
In contrast to doomsday predictions, history has shown, again and
again, that we can clean up pollution, create jobs, and grow our
economy all at the same time. Over the same 40 years since the
Clean Air Act was passed, the Gross Domestic Product of the United
States grew by more than 200 percent.
Some would have us believe that “job killing” describes
EPA’s regulations. It is misleading to say that enforcement
of our nation’s environmental laws is bad for the economy and
employment. It isn’t.
Families should never have to choose between a
job and a healthy environment. They are entitled to both.
We must regulate sensibly - in a manner that does not create undue
burdens and that carefully considers both the benefits and the
costs. However, in doing so, we must not lose sight of the reasons
for implementation of environmental regulations: These regulations
are necessary to ensure that Americans have clean air to breathe
and clean water to drink. Americans are no less entitled to a safe,
clean environment during difficult economic times than they are in
a more prosperous economy.
As President Obama recently stated in his Joint Address to
Congress, “…what we can’t do…is let this
economic crisis be used as an excuse to wipe out the basic
protections that Americans have counted on for decades…We
shouldn’t be in a race to the bottom where we try to offer
the…worst pollution standards.”
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to your
questions.