[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 149 (Thursday, October 6, 2011)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1796]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                IN OPPOSITION TO H.R. 2681 AND H.R. 2250

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. CAROLYN B. MALONEY

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 6, 2011

  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, every week the Majority makes a new 
attempt to roll back environmental rules that protect the health of our 
citizens and the health of our environment in favor of big polluters. 
This week the Majority has brought to the floor two bills that 
according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would 
collectively mean 32,500 more premature deaths, 19,500 additional heart 
attacks, and 208,000 asthma attacks that otherwise would have been 
avoided. This is unacceptable.
  Instead of working on legislation to increase employment and create 
new jobs or legislation that would support critical infrastructure 
needs of public schools and roads, the Majority is bringing to the 
Floor two pieces of legislation that would delay the implementation of 
long overdue air pollution standards. Even though such standards are 
required by the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, these bills would put 
off the cleanup of mercury and other toxic pollutants from cement 
kilns, incinerators, and industrial boilers, as well as make permanent 
changes to the Clean Air Act that weaken health and science-based 
standards. The facilities targeted by this legislation are some of the 
largest sources of U.S. mercury pollution, a powerful neurotoxin known 
to be dangerous to pregnant women and to impair children's ability to 
think and learn.
  The EPA rules are scientific and data driven. These bills would defy 
science in favor of the regulatory option that is most beneficial to 
industry, even if another option is feasible, cost-effective, and 
offers better public health protections. For example, H.R. 2250 would 
nullify rules that require industrial boilers and incinerators to 
reduce their emissions, and yet, estimates for the emission reductions 
required by the rules would yield $10 to $24 in health benefits for 
every dollar spent to meet the standards. The savings from lower health 
care costs and higher worker productivity mean tens of billions of 
dollars more in net benefits and will result in lower rates of illness 
and death.
  At the start of the 112th Congress, the Majority put in place rules 
requiring that all legislation be offset by new authorizations but that 
rule is disregarded in these bills. In other words, these bills are not 
paid for. H.R. 2250 and H.R. 2681 would nullify existing EPA rules and 
require EPA to start the rulemaking process over again--a process the 
Congressional Budget Office estimates would result in $1 million in 
discretionary spending by EPA.
  I oppose these bills that would increase toxic air pollution, cost 
lives, drive up health care costs, and fundamentally weaken future 
standards under the Clean Air Act. We must protect our communities from 
toxic polluters.
  Had I been present October 5, 2011, I would have voted ``aye'' on 
Amendments #1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, and 21, to H.R. 
2681.

                          ____________________