[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 149 (Thursday, October 6, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H6631-H6638]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EPA REGULATORY RELIEF ACT OF 2011
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the
legislation and to insert extraneous materials on H.R. 2250.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 419 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2250.
{time} 0916
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2250) to provide additional time for the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency to issue achievable standards for
industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers, process heaters, and
incinerators, and for other purposes, with Mr. Denham in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Since 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency has rolled out a long
list of regulations that are really unprecedented in their cost and
complexity. The impacts on jobs, energy prices, and America's
industrial competitiveness in the world are extremely serious.
But of all these rules, the Boiler MACT rule, which we will be
discussing today, stands out in that it will apply to a very wide
variety of employers. Not only will industrial facilities be impacted,
but also colleges, universities, hospitals, government buildings, and
large commercial properties.
The impact on jobs projected is staggering, but the cost will be
borne by all of us in the form of higher tuition costs, higher hospital
bills, higher rent, as well as higher prices for manufactured goods.
Just about everyone will be adversely impacted either directly or
indirectly.
The good news is that we can reduce emissions from boilers without
causing economic harm. The EPA Regulatory Relief Act, H.R. 2250,
accomplishes this goal by taking a sensible, middle ground, balanced
approach; and I would like at this time to thank Mr. Butterfield of
North Carolina, as well as Mr. Griffith of Virginia, for their
sponsorship of this bipartisan bill.
A study conducted by IHS Global Insight, a respected research
company, found that the rules that we are talking about today would
impose total costs of over $14 billion and put at risk 230,000 jobs in
America at a time when we already have a 9.1 percent unemployment rate.
My home State of Kentucky, under the analysis, would face estimated
costs of $183 million and 2,930 potential job losses. Twenty-five other
States are hit even harder. That includes at least 10,000 jobs
estimated for North Carolina, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, and Virginia, as well as over 5,000 job losses for
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Alabama, Tennessee, Iowa, New York, Illinois,
Maine, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, and Arkansas.
{time} 0920
These boiler rules largely target coal-fired boilers and thus
discourage the use of this energy source which, by the way, today
provides about 50 percent of all of the electricity produced in
America.
I should add that the problems with EPA's boiler rules are not the
sole fault of the agency. These rules, like many today, are being
rushed out the door to comply with a court-ordered deadline. EPA asked
for additional time, but their request was refused by the courts. EPA
then published the rules by the deadline, but immediately announced
that it was reconsidering portions of them because they were so
complicated. However, this is not an adequate solution, as the
reconsideration only applies to some of the many problematic provisions
in these rules; and the reconsideration process is an uncertain one. In
reality, it is unlikely that all the issues can be addressed.
So our legislation is to help EPA deal with this problem. We create a
comprehensive solution not only for EPA but also for boiler owners, and
we provide the certainty that this solution will be implemented. It
still requires
[[Page H6632]]
additional emissions reductions from boilers, but it gives EPA the time
it needs to do it right. It gives the regulated community the time it
needs in order to comply.
This bill is supported by over 300 organizations and five national
labor unions. It will require that the standards be reasonable and take
into account cost and achievability under real-world conditions. I
believe that EPA's original rules were a departure from the
congressional intent in the Clean Air Act, and the EPA Regulatory
Relief Act that we're discussing today represents a return to
congressional intent.
Make no mistake, under this bill that we're discussing, new standards
will be imposed on boiler owners and operators. The goals of the Clean
Air Act can be accomplished without undue cost and job losses,
particularly at this time when our Nation's economy is struggling, and
the EPA Regulatory Relief Act is the way to do it.
So I would urge every Member of this body to come forth today and
help us pass this legislation--help us save over 230,000 jobs at risk
in America that we can ill-afford to lose--with this balanced approach
to the problem.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Today's debate is going to seem awfully familiar to anyone that's
been paying attention. Today's debate will remind us of the bill we
passed in April to block any requirements to control carbon pollution;
and the bill we passed in June to loosen pollution controls on oil
companies; and the bill we passed in September to gut the Clean Air Act
and block pollution controls on power plants; and the bill we debated
yesterday to ensure cement kilns don't have to clean up their toxic air
pollution.
In total, the House has voted 146 times this Congress to block action
to address climate change, to halt efforts to reduce air and water
pollution, to undermine protections for public lands and coastal areas,
and to weaken the protection of the environment in other ways. This is
the most anti-environment Congress in history.
Today, the House continues its frontal assault on public health and
the environment. The bill we consider today would nullify and
indefinitely delay EPA's efforts to reduce toxic emissions from
industrial boilers and waste incinerators.
If this bill is enacted, there will be more cases of cancer, birth
defects, and brain damage. The ability of our children to think and
learn will be impaired because of their exposure to mercury and other
dangerous air pollutants.
In 1990, Congress adopted a bipartisan approach to protect the public
from toxic substances. The law directed EPA to set standards requiring
the use of Maximum Achievable Control Technology to control emissions
of mercury, arsenic, dioxin, PCBs, and other toxic emissions. This
approach has worked well. Industrial emissions of carcinogens and other
highly toxic chemicals have been reduced by 1.7 million tons each year.
EPA has reduced pollution from dozens of industrial sectors. More
than 100 categories of sources have been required to cut their
pollution, and this has delivered major public health benefits to the
Nation.
But a few large source categories still have not been required to
control toxic air pollution due to delays and litigation. Now that
pollution controls are finally being required on industrial boilers and
waste incinerators, this bill would intervene and delay pollution
controls indefinitely. It would also rewrite the standard-setting
provisions in the Clean Air Act to weaken the level of protection and
set up new hurdles for EPA rules.
We're told that this bill simply gives EPA the time they requested to
get the rules right. Well, the EPA has not requested this from
Congress, and the President has said he'll veto this bill if it gets to
his desk.
We're also told that we need to pass these bills because the threat
of EPA regulation is dragging down our economy. The reality is that
requiring installation of pollution controls will create jobs.
Fabricators and factory workers build the pollution controls,
construction workers install them on site, and industry employees
operate them.
We'll hear over and over today, as we've heard in the past, about
self-serving industry studies that claim pollution controls will cost
us jobs. These studies have been thoroughly debunked by independent
experts. For instance, the Congressional Research Service examined the
key study by the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners and concluded that
it was so flawed that ``little credence can be placed in these
estimates of job losses.''
It's my hope this body will not be so easily misled. It was the lack
of regulation of Wall Street banks that caused this recession, not
environmental regulations that protect children from toxic mercury
emissions.
I oppose these bills on the substance, but I also have concerns about
the process as well. When Congress organized at the beginning of the
year, the majority leader announced that the House would be following a
discretionary CutGo rule. Similarly, Chairman Upton on our committee
stated that he'd be following that same discretionary CutGo rule. Well,
CBO has determined that the bill we consider today authorizes new
discretionary spending and will have significant impact on the Federal
budget.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
However, this new authorization is not offset and the bill does not
comply with the Republican's discretionary CutGo policy. It is not
discretionary in the sense that they have discretion whether to follow
it or not, but discretionary spending when it is mandated in a bill
must be paid for. The American people need to focus on the radical
agenda of the Republicans that control the House of Representatives. I
don't think when the Republicans were voted into office the American
people wanted poisoning more children with mercury and letting more of
our seniors die prematurely because of uncontrolled air pollution.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta), a member of the
Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
rise today in support of H.R. 2250.
I'm a cosponsor of this legislation which was introduced in response
to yet another overreaching EPA rule proposal, this time for industrial
boilers. This rule finalized will have devastating effects on the
Nation's economy and lead to further job loss, especially in my home
State of Ohio.
The community of Orrville, Ohio, which is east of me, a small city
which has just over 8,300 residents, provides a perfect example of the
wide-ranging negative impacts of the rule.
{time} 0930
As written, the Boiler MACT rule would require Orrville Utilities, a
nonprofit electric service provider, to spend $40.2 million on
additional controls to remain in compliance. This equates to $4,843 for
every man, woman and child living in Orrville, as well as putting the
utility workers' jobs at risk.
While that cost increase alone would be devastating to the families
and job creators in the community, the unintended consequences reach
much deeper. For example, Smucker's, that company that we all know and
love which makes jellies, jams, apple butter, spreads and other food
products has been a staple of America's homes for over 110 years; and
it employs over 1,500 people at its home factories in Orrville.
Smucker's has been a customer of Orrville Utilities since the
establishment of the utility in 1917, and the company's CEO says
``Smucker's has elected to remain in the Orrville, Ohio, community for
many reasons, including the low rates, reliable service, and the
company benefits of working with a city-owned and -operated electric
utility.''
It is impossible for me to understand why anyone would support a rule
that would force a nonprofit utility like Orville to significantly
raise their rates, as the result of a rule EPA has admitted was based
on faulty information, and make it more difficult for companies that
have been providing thousands of jobs in communities like
[[Page H6633]]
Orrville for over 110 years to do business.
It is important to note that this bill does not ask the EPA not to
regulate these facilities. It only lays out a framework that allows the
EPA to regulate them in a more reasonable fashion, over a more
reasonable time frame so we can protect the environment and take
advantage of all the economic benefits that these facilities provide to
the communities and businesses they service.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this important job-
saving legislation.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, before I recognize the subcommittee
chairman, I want to indicate to the gentleman from Ohio who just spoke,
Mr. Latta, that he was giving a speech on the wrong rule, that this
bill does not pertain to the rule that he mentioned in his comments.
I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), the
distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy and the
Environment.
Mr. RUSH. I want to thank my leader, the ranking member of the full
committee, for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2250, the
Dirty Boiler Enhancement and Enabler bill.
Mr. Chairman, here we go again. This bill represents yet another
Republican unrestrained, unrestricted assault on the Clean Air Act and
on our Nation's most fundamental environmental protection laws. In
fact, since the new Republican majority has taken over, there's been a
constant assault against the Environmental Protection Agency and the
clean air policies that they enforce on behalf of a few of the most
avaricious, opportunistic, and dirtiest polluters ever known in the
history of mankind and to the detriment of the American public as a
whole.
Since the new Tea Party-led majority has taken control of this
Congress, this body has passed bill after bill that will weaken our
Nation's most basic clean air and clean water regulations. One of the
very first bills that this new radical Republican majority passed out
of the Energy and Commerce Committee, H.R. 910, was a direct frontal
attack to the EPA's ability to even regulate greenhouse gas emissions
at all, despite the warnings and evidence from those in the scientific
community that these gases directly contribute to climate change.
Last month, the radical Republican majority followed that up with
H.R. 2401, the TRAIN Wreck Act, which will repeal and block smog, soot,
mercury and air toxics standards for power plants that will potentially
save thousands of lives and avoid hundreds of thousands of asthma
attacks in this Nation.
Now, here we are today debating H.R. 2250, the Dirty Boiler
Enhancement and Enabler bill, which would vacate three Clean Air Act
rules that establish the only national limits on emissions of air
toxics, including mercury, from certain boilers and incinerators. This
bill would require EPA to propose and finalize weaker alternative rules
that will allow for more pollution than the law currently permits by
intentionally making substantial changes in how the EPA sets the
standards for the rules.
At a minimum, this Dirty Boiler Enabler and Enhancement bill would
delay EPA reductions from boilers and incinerators until at least 2018,
which is a 3-year delay. Mr. Chairman, the science tells us that these
dirty air toxics can cause a variety of serious health effects,
including cancer, respiratory and neurological impairments, as well as
reproductive problems. The research also tells us that low-income
families and minorities are disproportionately affected by toxic air
pollution, including impaired neurological development, as well as
higher rates of respiratory and cardiovascular disease because these
groups are more likely to live closer to industrial power plant
facilities.
In fact, by the EPA's own estimate, H.R. 2250 will allow up to tens
of thousands of additional premature deaths and heart attacks and
hundreds of thousands of additional asthma attacks that could have been
avoided.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, it is now time that the radical Republican
majority stop putting profits in the pockets of dirty polluters and
stop putting dirty air in the lungs of the American people. Now is the
time for the Republicans to cease their unending assault on the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to oppose this egregious and
dangerous bill.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I would like to yield 4 minutes to the primary sponsor
of the legislation, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith), a
member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
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.
{time} 0940
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
[[Page H6634]]
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.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
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. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I wish to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. I thank our leader from California.
I just want to say that these bills represent a toxic assault that
compromises public health for polluter wealth. Republicans are
continuing their war on the environment with episode 37 of the Clean
Air Act repeal-a-thon. It is a tried-and-true, three-part Republican
strategy:
First, pass legislation that repeals regulations that have already
been set. Second, indefinitely delay new regulations from ever being
set. And third, just for good measure, include a provision that
eviscerates the very underpinnings of effective Federal law and deters
any effort to protect the health and well-being of millions of
Americans.
Make no mistake, that is what we are doing here this week. These
bills block and indefinitely delay implementation of the rules that
would reduce hazardous air pollution, such as mercury, lead, and
cancer-causing substances released from cement kilns and industrial
boilers, and do so in callous disregard for adverse impacts those
pollutants have on public health, particularly on the health of infants
and children.
Republicans have decided to stage their own public event today on the
floor: Occupy Stall Street. But lest you think that Republicans always
want to delay regulations, it turns out that sometimes they want to
speed up the wheels.
Republicans voted to tell EPA to hurry up and make decisions to issue
air permits for drilling rigs off the pristine coast of Alaska.
Republicans have voted to give the Department of the Interior a mere 30
days to approve permit applications for drilling in the gulf at the
same time they block legislation to implement any drilling reform in
the wake of the BP disaster. And they've also voted to reduce the time
allowed for environmental review so that the State Department would
approve the Keystone pipeline as soon as possible.
But when it comes to regulations that would decrease the amount of
toxic pollutants in our air or water, apparently the same Federal
agencies that evaluate hazardous pollutants in the first place just
need more time to review the science, more time to understand the
technologies, more time before doing anything to make our water safer
to drink, make our air safer to breathe, and protect the health of
children around the country.
And it also turns out that Republicans don't always turn a blind eye
towards the health effects of toxic chemicals. Three months ago, as our
country stood on the edge of default due to Tea Party brinksmanship,
House Republicans chose to vigorously debate a bill to ban compact
fluorescent light bulbs. During that debate, Republicans repeatedly
told us that the mercury vapor from those light bulbs is dangerous and
that exposing our citizens to the harmful effects of the mercury
contained in CFL light bulbs is likely to pose a hazard for years to
come. Yet the bills considered today would result in nearly 16,600
pounds of extra mercury vapors being released directly into the air,
and that's just in 1 year. That is the equivalent of 2.5 billion
compact fluorescent light bulbs. And the mercury released as a result
of these bills is not the kind you can sweep off the living room floor
or throw into a trash can. This is the mercury released directly into
the air that we all breathe and finds its way into the food that we
eat.
If the regulation to remove mercury from cement plants--which is
already 13 years overdue--is delayed for even 1 year, up to 2,500
people will die prematurely, there will be 17,000 cases of aggravated
asthma, and 1,500 people will suffer heart attacks.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman.
If the regulation to remove mercury, lead, and cancer-causing toxins
from incinerators and industrial boilers--which is already 11 years
overdue--is delayed for even 1 year, there will be 6,600 people who
will die prematurely and people will miss 320,000 days of work and
school.
The Republicans are presenting yet another false choice to the
American people. We do not have to choose between manufacturing and
mercury. We do not have to choose between concrete and cancer. We can
have both clean air and a healthy manufacturing sector.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this terrible Republican
cancer-causing bill out here on the floor today.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I might just note to the gentleman from Massachusetts
that our legislation does not postpone this indefinitely. EPA has 15
months after passage of the bill to come out with the regulations and 5
years to comply. And the only way they can be extended beyond 5 years
is if the EPA administrator, herself, decides to do so.
At this time I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, a member of the committee.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
H.R. 2250, the EPA Regulatory Relief Act of 2011.
{time} 0950
This important legislation will greatly reduce the onerous regulatory
burden caused by what is commonly referred to as Boiler MACT, the
Boiler MACT rule that has been proposed by the EPA.
Furthermore, I commend the sponsors of the bill and fellow members of
the Energy and Commerce Committee, Chairman Whitfield, Mr. Griffith of
Virginia, and Mr. Butterfield of North Carolina, for their leadership
on this important issue.
Unfortunately, the Boiler MACT rule has the potential to cost a broad
base of industries a total of nearly $14.4 billion in compliance costs,
and it could jeopardize upwards of 225,000 jobs. In my home State of
Georgia alone, the Boiler MACT rule would put nearly 6,400 jobs at
risk. At a time when 14 million Americans are out of work, we need to
take the necessary steps to prevent adding even more people to these
unemployment rolls.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2250 would simply delay this rule by 15 months in
order to insert much-needed common sense into this rulemaking process.
By providing this important delay, there will be ample time for the EPA
to craft rules that will take into account the economic impact of these
regulations and to provide industries with the needed time for their
implementation. This has the potential of creating more certainty in
the marketplace than currently exists and will help spur economic
growth.
Mr. Chairman, critics of this legislation will say that we are simply
ignoring the Clean Air Act and risking irresponsible harm to our
environment. Let me assure my colleagues that this argument is false.
The intent of H.R. 2250 is not to completely repeal this environmental
rule. The legislation seeks to correct the regulatory overreach by the
EPA, especially in this depressed economy, and to reconfigure this rule
so that it can be functional for industries and save much-needed jobs
in the process.
So, Mr. Chairman, in closing, I urge all my colleagues to please
support H.R. 2250.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, before I yield, I want to set the record
straight. Our distinguished colleague on the other side of the aisle
said that this bill would provide 15 months to promulgate a rule and
then 5 years to comply. There are 15 months to promulgate the rule, but
there's no requirement that there ever be compliance.
[[Page H6635]]
I want to also point out that this argument about jobs being lost is
absolutely wrong for four reasons, and four reasons you shouldn't
believe them. First, the claims are based on fundamentally flawed
studies, bought and paid for by the regulated industry.
Second, the rules are stayed. EPA is in the process of redoing them,
and not one of these studies has analyzed the actual final rule.
Third, EPA has done a rigorous 251-page economic analysis, and found
that the boiler rules issued in February would be expected to create
over 2,000 jobs.
And finally, history tells us to be very, very skeptical of industry
claims that the sky is falling. EPA is in the process of rewriting
these rules. I say to the industry, let us work together to fashion
legislation that will solve the immediate problems, a bill that can be
signed by the President, not this bill, which may never see the light
of day out of the Senate, and if it did, the President has indicated he
would veto it.
I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow), a
member of our committee.
Mr. BARROW. I thank the ranking member for the time to express
another view on the legislation.
I'm proud to be an original sponsor of the EPA Regulatory Relief Act.
This legislation was drafted in response to new EPA regulations on
emissions from industrial boilers. I believe those regulations, however
well meaning, cannot reasonably be met with today's technologies. I
believe that this bill is a more reasonable solution than that proposed
by the EPA.
The choice before us is not between the two mutually exclusive
outcomes of dirty air or more jobs. Our challenge is to promote
policies that serve both. I think this bill strikes a better balance.
It will spur industry to make investments that cut down on harmful air
emissions, while minimizing the chances of negative economic
consequences and job losses.
I'm proud to have worked in a productive, bipartisan way to get this
bill to the floor, and encourage my colleagues' support.
Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), who's chairman of the
Science Committee.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, Chairman Whitfield, of course I rise in
support of H.R. 2250.
As policymakers, it's our job to use common sense and judgment to
balance the universal priorities of a strong economy, security at home
and security abroad, and healthy communities. And this country has a
history of remarkable achievement in addressing these priorities.
However, with an unemployment rate of more than 9 percent, it's
irresponsible for the executive branch to stifle job growth and, for
that matter, to create job loss through the outrageous and inflexible
negotiations and regulations.
In my district alone, the Boiler MACT rules threaten more than 800
good-paying manufacturing jobs. These are not jobs that can be re-
created. Once eliminated, they're gone. Several weeks ago Assistant
Administrator Gina McCarthy stated arrogantly, I don't want to create
the impression that EPA is in the business of creating jobs.
I feel that statement's inappropriate and unfeeling toward those who
have lost their jobs and lost the ability to provide for their family's
future. H.R. 2250 is a clear statement by Congress that EPA slow down
and allow for reasoning along with some regulations.
The President said that his administration would be the most
transparent in history. Instead, we find clandestine models, cherry-
picking of data, double-counting of benefits, and a failure to follow
basic peer review guidelines. This is a recipe for losing the public's
trust. EPA needs a timeout, and this bill provides it.
I urge all my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, can you inform us as to how much time is
remaining on both sides?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 11 minutes remaining,
and the gentleman from Kentucky has 13\1/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. MARKEY. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Moran).
Mr. MORAN. I thank my very good friend for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, a rigorous peer-reviewed analysis, called ``The
Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020,'' conducted
by the Environmental Protection Agency, found that the air quality
improvements under the Clean Air Act will save $2 trillion by 2020, and
prevent at least 230,000 deaths annually--230,000 lives saved on an
annual basis. We could save four times the number of people killed each
year in automobile accidents by reducing air pollution.
Yet, just 2 weeks ago, this Chamber approved legislation to block the
EPA from implementing rules to clean up the single largest stationary
source of air pollution. That legislation gave this Nation's oldest and
dirtiest coal-fired power plants another pass to pollute and avoid
compliance with the Clean Air Act.
Today we're considering legislation, the EPA Regulatory Relief Act,
to exempt the second-largest source of hazardous air pollution:
Industrial and commercial boilers, process heaters, and commercial and
industrial solid waste incinerators.
Under this bill, these large boilers and incinerators would be given
at least a 75-month pass from regulation; a 15-month delay before any
new rules could be issued, and an additional 5 years beyond that delay
before any new emission standards could be issued; and no deadline for
industry compliance. This bill does more than just offer a pass from
regulation. It also ensures that any final regulation will be weaker
than what the law requires.
The final section of this bill deals with the Clean Air Act's most
protective legal standard for reducing toxic air pollution, the Maximum
Available Control Technology. After 20 years, we're replacing it with
the absolutely least protective of measures, called ``work practice
standards'' such as equipment tuneups that need not even reduce
emissions.
Pass this bill and you sentence hundreds of thousands to asthma
attacks and a lifetime of health complications. Pass this bill and you
saddle our economy with unnecessary costs and employers with millions
of additional sick days. Pass this bill and you trigger an additional
20,000 heart attacks. Pass this bill and you condemn tens of thousands
of Americans to a premature death.
{time} 1000
Mr. Chairman, the Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act that
unfortunately will pass today and the TRAIN Act that passed 2 weeks ago
constitute an all-out war between this Nation's dirtiest industries and
the Federal agency charged with protecting the public's health. EPA has
become the symbol, the center, of a debate over the role of government.
It's a sad commentary for this Chamber that an industry that prefers to
invest in the political process rather than in saving lives by reducing
harmful emissions is in fact winning the debate.
In fact, the coal consuming industries that have underwritten this
assault on EPA were invited early on during the first year of the Obama
administration to sit down and craft a compliance option. The
administration had hoped to craft a deal similar to the historic deal
it made with the Nation's auto industry on fuel efficiency and tailpipe
emissions. An article by Coral Davenport in the September 22 issue of
the National Journal referenced this meeting. But unlike the auto
industry, the coal consuming industries refused to negotiate.
Instead, and let me quote from the article, they ``banded together
with the Republican Party to strategize, and the 2010 midterm elections
offered the perfect battleground. The companies invested heavily in
campaigns to elect Tea Party candidates crusading against the role of
Big Government. Industry groups (like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce),
Tea Party groups with deep ties to polluters (like Americans for
Prosperity), and so-called super PACs (like Karl Rove's American
Crossroads) spent record amounts to help elect the new House Republican
majority.''
My colleagues, this is a bill peddled by an industry that refuses to
clean up
[[Page H6636]]
its act. Hundreds of thousands of people owe their lives today to the
environmental movement, leaders in Congress, and the White House who
pushed for and passed the landmark environmental laws back in the 1970s
that required polluters to clean our waters and reduce the pollution in
the air we breathe.
In the decade after the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments were signed
into law by the first President Bush, our unemployment rate declined,
our economy grew, and we reduced acid rain-forming gases by more than
30 percent.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. MARKEY. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, the cost of meeting the emission reductions
was actually 75 percent less than what EPA had originally predicted and
even farther below what opponents had claimed. In the case of the rule
for boilers and solid waste incinerators, EPA issued its proposed
standards in April of this year, 11 years after the statutory deadline.
They listened to affected businesses, they cut compliance costs by a
half and issued a modified, final rule in February.
Mr. Chairman, EPA is doing everything the law requires and that the
public health requires. This body ought to do the same and defeat this
bill.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished lady from
Washington State (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers), a member of the Energy and
Commerce Committee.
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. I thank the chairman for yielding, and I
appreciate his leadership on this important issue.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2250, the EPA
Regulatory Relief Act of 2011. At a time when our Nation's economy
continues to struggle and unemployment remains far too high, Congress
should focus on legislation that will keep and create jobs in America,
not suffocate them or send them overseas. As an original cosponsor of
this legislation, I know it will do just that.
Last week, I was home in eastern Washington on an energy and jobs
tour where I met with citizens, small businesses, and job creators.
Whether I was up in Colville or in Spokane, the message was clear: The
Federal Government is making it harder to manufacture, harder to
produce, and harder to innovate anything in America. The anxiety and
the uncertainty caused by the Federal Government's record regulatory
overreach is destroying any chance of economic recovery.
Like the ozone standard, the simple truth is the new, stricter Boiler
MACT regulations will have a disastrous effect on our economy. The EPA,
itself, says that these rules will cost thousands of jobs. Independent
studies say up to 224,000 jobs could be lost. One example is in eastern
Washington, where the Ponderay Newsprint Company will be forced to
spend $8 million on mandatory upgrades. That's $8 million that cannot
be spent on retaining or creating jobs.
The EPA Regulatory Relief Act requires the EPA to set realistic,
achievable, fact-based standards that will not destroy jobs while still
protecting the environment. I urge my colleagues to support this
pragmatic, commonsense solution.
I again thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. MARKEY. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Ellison).
Mr. ELLISON. Let me thank the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. Chairman, a number of very passionate and well-informed speakers
have come before this body today to urge a ``no'' vote based on facts
and based on research. All this is extremely important, and I'm so glad
they did it, but for the people watching this debate today, they need
to know one thing, and that is that this legislation is bought and paid
for by industry so that people could try to save money at the expense
of people's health and their lives, and this is exactly what's going on
here today.
What's going on here today is that industry interests backed
candidates who come here today to offer legislation that would allow
the cement industry, the coal-fired power industry and the boiler
industry users to just dump mercury and other junk into the air that
makes you sick.
And as we're talking about jobs, what about a jobs bill that could
put Americans to work, as opposed to saying, we're just going to get
rid of all the regulations in America? What if we just got rid of all
the regulations in America? We would be sicker, we would die sooner,
and we would be much less of a country. What if we just said that we're
going to put the health of Americans up front, that we're going to
actually introduce a jobs bill like the American Jobs Act? What if we
did those things? America would be back on track. But maybe some of
these big industrial polluters would be a little sadder.
I say today, Mr. Chairman, that this Congress should reject the
attack on Americans' health. In the last 3 weeks, we have seen industry
polluters from the industry that uses these boilers, the cement
industry and coal-fired power plant industry, be able to just run amok
on the people's health, and we have yet to see a single jobs bill in
the course of the 250-plus days that this majority has been in the
hands of the Republicans.
This is a national disgrace. The American people said they wanted
jobs. They haven't gotten them. The American people say they want to be
well and healthy. They are seeing assaults on that. This is something
that the American people need to bring their attention to, Mr.
Chairman; and I hope that people are paying attention to this debate
today because it is crystal clear whose side the majority is so on:
industry polluters, not the American people.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I may say to the gentleman from
Minnesota, I don't know exactly what he's talking about when he says
``bought and paid for by industry.'' I might say that this legislation
is being offered because hospitals, schools, industry, a wide range of
interests, have come to us and asked for help, and the insinuation that
we were bought and paid for by industry is a little bit of an affront
to this institution.
At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Olson), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. OLSON. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, President Obama's regulatory agenda, being led by the
EPA, is going to kill the American pulp and paper industry. My father
spent his entire career in the pulp and paper industry, so I know
firsthand that if the misguided Boiler MACT rules are allowed to be
implemented, 36 mills across this country will close and more than
80,000 jobs will be lost. These jobs will be lost because of the EPA's
failure to understand the basics of how this industry works.
{time} 1010
The industry does not--does not--impose reasonable regulations. They
are just asking to have regulations based on sound science, which can
be achieved with technology that is currently available here in the
real world.
Mr. Chairman, we need to stop exporting American manufacturing jobs.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2250, the EPA Regulatory
Relief Act of 2011, to create an immediate positive impact on American
jobs and the recovery of our economy.
Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself 1 minute.
What we have here today is just one more episode in what is a 1-year
Republican control of the Congress, which has seen a litany of
industries that no longer want to make the air cleaner, that no longer
want to make the water safer to drink.
We come out here on the House floor with Republican leadership in
order to repeal the laws, to water down the laws to protect children
from mercury, to protect children from contracting asthma. That's what
this is all about. The EPA used to stand for the Environmental
Protection Agency. Now it stands for ``every polluter's ally'' out
here. They all come out here, and they want to ensure that the laws are
watered down.
That's what we're fighting. That's what Democrats are fighting here.
We're fighting to ensure that the water stays clean, that the air stays
safe to breathe. The boiler industry is saying, no, there's not enough
mercury that gets sent up into the air; there's not
[[Page H6637]]
enough mercury that goes into the lives of children in our country.
We're going to fight that.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I would like to remind the gentleman from
Massachusetts that there is a large number of Democrats on this
legislation.
At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Herger).
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2250, which will
protect American jobs from the EPA's unnecessary and economically
destructive Boiler MACT regulations. At this time of high unemployment
and economic hardship, the EPA wants to require the costly retrofitting
of boilers at small businesses, energy plants, schools, and churches in
the northern California congressional district I represent and across
the Nation.
This regulation is another example of the Obama administration
standing in the way of job growth. The Department of Commerce estimates
that the 276 pages of Federal regulations could eliminate as many as
60,000 U.S. jobs nationwide. The EPA's own fact sheet says that
implementing these rules will cost more than $5 billion.
In August of 2010, the Small Business Administration explicitly
warned the EPA that these regulations were too extreme and would harm
small businesses. Unfortunately, the EPA did not heed this warning. In
addition, the boiler regulation will impose substantial and unnecessary
costs for Americans to use biomass energy--an essential part of job
growth in the northern California district I represent. Biomass is a
clean and renewable energy source that could help increase our energy
supplies and manage our overgrown and fire-prone forests while creating
much needed jobs.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, which will protect
jobs and ensure that this costly regulation does not go into effect.
Mr. MARKEY. I would ask the Chair if we could review again how much
time is remaining.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 1\3/4\ minutes
remaining.
The gentleman from Kentucky has 9 minutes remaining.
Mr. MARKEY. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee, Dr. Roe.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. I thank the chairman for yielding.
I rise today in support of this legislation. We cannot afford to
enforce the proposed MACT regulations, especially when unemployment
exceeds 9 percent. These new burdensome regulations would result in the
loss of over 200,000 jobs, over 8,400 of which are in Tennessee.
When will this administration learn that further burdening the job
creators does not create jobs?
This is just another example of failed leadership, and it is our duty
to the American people to ensure that the EPA does not continue down
the same path that will only lead to job loss.
The new rules affect approximately 200,000 boilers. These boilers
burn natural gas, fuel oil, coal, biomass, refinery gas, or other gas
to produce steam, which is used to generate electricity or to provide
heat for factories and other industrial or institutional facilities or
schools.
This will especially affect the economic outlook in the agriculture
community. Agriculture accounts for more than 950,000 jobs both on and
off the farm--a large portion of the American economy. In Tennessee,
13.8 percent of the workforce is employed in agriculture, and these are
jobs we cannot afford to lose to government overreach. If forced to
replace current coal-fired boilers with natural gas-fired boilers at
this time, there is no doubt that the cornerstone of our economy would
suffer.
Or consider Eastman Chemical, a manufacturing company headquartered
in my district. Eastman generates $6.9 billion in revenue and employs
over 11,000 Tennesseans. There is no doubt these new regulations would
negatively impact their business, the effects of which they estimate
for their company alone would be in the tens of millions of dollars. In
fact, the Boiler MACT regulations could cost the manufacturing sector
over $14 billion in capital, plus billions more in annual operating
costs; and complying with the incinerator standards could cost even
billions more.
As the EPA has acknowledged, the rules were finalized with serious
flaws because the EPA was forced to meet a strict court-ordered
deadline. This commonsense legislation does not repeal these rules; it
simply allows time to come up with a plan to support clean air efforts
without more burdensome regulations on job creators.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
Mr. MARKEY. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I yield 2 minutes to a member of the
Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Scalise).
Mr. SCALISE. I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky for
yielding. I really want to thank him for bringing this jobs bill to the
House floor.
This legislation, this EPA regulatory reform bill, is critical to
saving tens of thousands of jobs--over 100,000 jobs--in America that
are at risk if the EPA is able to get away with yet another radical
regulation they're trying to implement.
When I go throughout southeast Louisiana and talk to job creators,
our small business owners--the people who are struggling in this tough
economy but who still want to try to create jobs--and when I ask them,
What are the things that are holding you back from creating jobs, from
having your business grow so that more people can have great
opportunities to live the American Dream?, there is a consistent theme
that they all say, that it's the regulations coming out of Washington,
D.C., coming out of the Obama administration. That is the prime reason
that is holding them back from creating good jobs in this country.
Of course, we've seen it in southeast Louisiana--we've got tough
times--but if you go all throughout the country, you'll see the same
thing. Just look at the numbers from outside groups that have actually
tried to figure out just how devastating the impact would be of just
this boiler regulation if it were to go into effect by the EPA. Over
1,500 boilers across this country are at risk, and you're talking about
over 230,000 jobs. Just look at some of the States--I mean, the State
of North Carolina, the State of Indiana, the States of Ohio, Michigan,
Pennsylvania. Each of those States will lose over 10,000 jobs if this
radical EPA regulation goes into effect.
The President is running around the country, saying, Pass this bill.
He was saying pass this bill before he even filed the bill. Here is an
actual bill on the floor of the House of Representatives that will save
over 230,000 jobs that will be lost; yet the President wants to ram
through this radical regulation anyway in spite of the fact that all
those jobs will be lost.
{time} 1020
I think the American people understand what's going on. They're
saying sanity needs to be reinvoked in Washington in this
administration.
Stop running jobs out of the country. Let's put commonsense reforms
in place. This bipartisan legislation does that.
Mr. MARKEY. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Moran).
Mr. MORAN. I thank the gentleman for his leadership.
I would like to quote Bruce Bartlett, who was the economics adviser
to both President Ronald Reagan and President George H. W. Bush. He
said this in an article in The New York Times this week.
``Republicans have a problem. People are increasingly concerned about
unemployment, but Republicans have nothing to offer them. The GOP
opposes additional government spending for jobs programs and, in fact,
favors big cuts in spending that would be likely to lead to further
layoffs at all levels of government. Republicans favor tax cuts for the
wealthy and corporations, but these had no stimulative effect during
the George W. Bush administration and there is no reason to believe
that more of them will have any today. And the Republicans' oft-stated
concern for the deficit makes tax cuts a hard sell. On August 29, the
House majority leader, Eric Cantor of Virginia, sent a memorandum to
members
[[Page H6638]]
of the House Republican Conference, telling them to make the repeal of
job-destroying regulations the key point in the Republican jobs agenda.
Evidence supporting Mr. Cantor's contention that deregulation would
increase unemployment is very weak. As one can see, the number of
layoffs nationwide caused by government regulation is minuscule and
shows no evidence of getting worse during the Obama administration.''
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WHITFIELD. May I ask how much time remains, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 4 minutes remaining, and
the gentleman from Massachusetts has 1\1/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).
Mr. DUFFY. I appreciate the gentleman from Kentucky for yielding.
I come from central and northern Wisconsin where we have a large
forest products industry. We make a lot of paper in Wisconsin. And if
you look at these rules, they are going to have a significant impact on
Wisconsin paper, real jobs that support our families. Domtar
Industries, 1,400 jobs; Flambeau River Paper, 300 jobs; New Page, 3,200
jobs; Wausau Paper, 1,600 jobs.
So we look at these regulations that are going to increase the
standard on our boilers. And if you increase those standards, causing
our companies to spend millions of more dollars to meet those
standards, what's going to happen? You are going to ship Wisconsin
paper to China and Brazil. And what happens there? They don't have the
same standards that we have. And, in the end, what's going to happen is
we're going to outsource Wisconsin jobs and our paper is going to be
made with reduced standards.
I think in the end, those who care about our environment, who care
about standards to make sure we have clean water and clean air, if you
look over to China, they don't have those same standards. But, in the
end, we breathe the same air and drink the same water.
So let's make sure we have efficient standards that can keep American
industry and Wisconsin paper in business and doesn't shift these jobs
overseas.
Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The Republicans have yet to bring a job creation bill out here on the
House floor in the 10 months they have controlled the Congress.
Instead, what they're doing is responding to industries who do not
want to make the air cleaner, who do not want to make the water safer
for the children of our country to drink and to breathe. And, instead,
they make the case that making the environment cleaner kills jobs when
we know that all evidence says it creates more jobs, because it spurs
innovation in new technologies that create jobs that make our economy
stronger. Instead, they argue that what the country needs is more
mercury, more arsenic, more cadmium, more asthmas, more mercury
poisoning, more carcinogens that harm the health of our country.
So not only do they not help the health of our economy by bringing
out a jobs bill, instead they bring out bills that hurt the health of
the American people where they live and their families. That's what
their agenda has been all about since the day they took over in
January, and that's the agenda that we are voting on here today.
Vote ``no'' on this Republican health-killing bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. In closing, I would urge every Member of this body to
support H.R. 2250. We believe that it is genuinely a balanced approach.
EPA even was trying to convince the court that their rule was a good
rule, the old rule.
To just give you a very concrete example of this, of the practical
impacts of what's going on here, EPA went to the court last December
when it asked for time to fix the Boiler MACT rules, which the court
denied it, and pointed out that the investments required by industry
are irreversible.
An example of that, representatives of Notre Dame University came to
our hearing. And in order to comply with the Boiler MACT rules issued
in 2004, which were invalidated by the court, the University of Notre
Dame spent $20 million, and now they're not in compliance with the new
rule, so they're going to have to come forth with additional millions
of dollars.
So that's happening not only at the University of Notre Dame, that's
happening at just about every university around the country, hospitals
around the country, small businesses around the country, small
utilities around the country. So if we don't take some action, there
are going to be a lot less, many fewer jobs in the economy than there
are today, because testimony after testimony after testimony has
indicated that entities cannot meet these new rules, are going to have
to close down and lose jobs.
So one way that we can help the administration create jobs is to
prevent the loss of jobs. If this administration would assert more
common sense in their rules, we could remove some of the uncertainty to
help us create more jobs in America.
I would urge every Member to support 2250. It's a balanced approach.
It protects health, protects industry, and provides a more commonsense
approach to this significant problem.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Griffith of Virginia) having assumed the chair, Mr. Denham, Chair of
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
2250) to provide additional time for the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency to issue achievable standards for
industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers, process heaters, and
incinerators, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution
thereon.
____________________