Our views: ; EPA regulations are killing the economy; It's time for members of the Senate to help rein in an arrogant agency

HOUSE Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., on a visit toCharleston to help raise funds for Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., gave fresh insights into the regulatory atmosphere inWashington,

"You will never find a Republican who doesn't want clear air andclean water," McCarthy said.

The trouble is, the Environmental Protection Agency is not alwayscareful in drafting and issuing new regulations. McCarthy said theconstant flow of new regulations have placed a heavy weight on abadly weakened economy.

"When you see what has transpired - and I come from Californiawhere we are very sensitive to everything - but we have overplayedwhere you lose, where you take it to the extreme, where it goesbeyond the measurements of where science can go," McCarthy said.

"Sometimes regulation pushes ahead of science, where you can't beable to find it."

A report from the EPA's own inspector general, Arthur Elkins,said the Obama EPA deviated from its own procedures to conclude thatclimate-change pollution can endanger human health.

That conclusion is the basis for the agency's pursuit of newregulations that will be quite costly to the American economy.

Thus, we have officials at a government agency violating theagency's own rules to ram through new rules that others must follow.

The expense of EPA's agenda makes it obvious that Congress shouldbe far more involved in policy that has such economic consequences.

Earlier this year, the Republican-controlled House approved abill to limit the EPA's authority. Last week, the House passed abill requiring the EPA to consider the economic effects of certainenvironmental regulations.

Both bills would have the effect of curbing the devastatingeffects the president's policymakers are having on the economy.

Democrats, who control the Senate, are not expected to take upeither bill.

So the consequences continue.

American Electric Power has spent more than $7.2 billion since1990 to reduce emissions from its coal-fired power plants.

As a result, nitrogen oxide emissions are 80 percent lower today,and sulfur dioxide emissions are 73 percent lower than they were in1990.

But in June, the company announced that it would shut downseveral plants and cut 600 jobs to comply with new EPA rules - andspend as much as $8 billion over the next decade to comply.

Are Senate Democrats comfortable with allowing the agency toplace one such burden after another on the American economy?

If they are not, they need to take some action.