[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 149 (Thursday, October 6, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H6644-H6656]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EPA REGULATORY RELIEF ACT OF 2011
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. King of Iowa). 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 further
consideration of the bill, H.R. 2250.
{time} 1155
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 further 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. Simpson (Acting
Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature
of a substitute printed in the bill shall be considered as an original
bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be
considered read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:
H.R. 2250
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``EPA Regulatory Relief Act of
2011''.
SEC. 2. LEGISLATIVE STAY.
(a) Establishment of Standards.--In place of the rules
specified in subsection (b), and notwithstanding the date by
which such rules would otherwise be required to be
promulgated, the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency (in this Act referred to as the
``Administrator'') shall--
(1) propose regulations for industrial, commercial, and
institutional boilers and process heaters, and commercial and
industrial solid waste incinerator units, subject to any of
the rules specified in subsection (b)--
(A) establishing maximum achievable control technology
standards, performance standards, and other requirements
under sections 112 and 129, as applicable, of the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. 7412, 7429); and
(B) identifying non-hazardous secondary materials that,
when used as fuels or ingredients in combustion units of such
boilers, process heaters, or incinerator units are solid
waste under the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et
seq.; commonly referred to as the ``Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act'') for purposes of determining the extent to
which such combustion units are required to meet the
emissions standards under section 112 of the Clean Air Act
(42 U.S.C. 7412) or the emission standards under section 129
of such Act (42 U.S.C. 7429); and
(2) finalize the regulations on the date that is 15 months
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Stay of Earlier Rules.--The following rules are of no
force or effect, shall be treated as though such rules had
never taken effect, and shall be replaced as described in
subsection (a):
(1) ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and
Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters'', published at 76
Fed. Reg. 15608 (March 21, 2011).
(2) ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and
Institutional Boilers'', published at 76 Fed. Reg. 15554
(March 21, 2011).
(3) ``Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources
and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and
Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units'', published at 76
Fed. Reg. 15704 (March 21, 2011).
(4) ``Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials
That Are Solid Waste'', published at 76 Fed. Reg. 15456
(March 21, 2011).
(c) Inapplicability of Certain Provisions.--With respect to
any standard required by subsection (a) to be promulgated in
regulations under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7412), the provisions of subsections (g)(2) and (j) of such
section 112 shall not apply prior to the effective date of
the standard specified in such regulations.
SEC. 3. COMPLIANCE DATES.
(a) Establishment of Compliance Dates.--For each regulation
promulgated pursuant to section 2, the Administrator--
(1) shall establish a date for compliance with standards
and requirements under such regulation that is,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, not earlier than
5 years after the effective date of the regulation; and
(2) in proposing a date for such compliance, shall take
into consideration--
(A) the costs of achieving emissions reductions;
(B) any non-air quality health and environmental impact and
energy requirements of the standards and requirements;
(C) the feasibility of implementing the standards and
requirements, including the time needed to--
(i) obtain necessary permit approvals; and
(ii) procure, install, and test control equipment;
(D) the availability of equipment, suppliers, and labor,
given the requirements of the regulation and other proposed
or finalized regulations of the Environmental Protection
Agency; and
(E) potential net employment impacts.
(b) New Sources.--The date on which the Administrator
proposes a regulation pursuant to section 2(a)(1)
establishing an emission standard under section 112 or 129 of
the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412, 7429) shall be treated as
the date on which the Administrator first proposes such a
regulation for purposes of applying the definition of a new
source under section 112(a)(4) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
7412(a)(4)) or the definition of a new solid waste
incineration unit under section 129(g)(2) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 7429(g)(2)).
(c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be
construed to restrict or otherwise affect the provisions of
paragraphs (3)(B) and (4) of section 112(i) of the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(i)).
SEC. 4. ENERGY RECOVERY AND CONSERVATION.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and to ensure
the recovery and conservation of energy consistent with the
Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.; commonly
referred to as the ``Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act''), in promulgating rules under section 2(a) addressing
the subject matter of the rules specified in paragraphs (3)
and (4) of section 2(b), the Administrator--
(1) shall adopt the definitions of the terms ``commercial
and industrial solid waste incineration unit'', ``commercial
and industrial waste'', and ``contained gaseous material'' in
the rule entitled ``Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing
Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration
Units'', published at 65 Fed. Reg. 75338 (December 1, 2000);
and
(2) shall identify non-hazardous secondary material to be
solid waste only if--
(A) the material meets such definition of commercial and
industrial waste; or
(B) if the material is a gas, it meets such definition of
contained gaseous material.
SEC. 5. OTHER PROVISIONS.
(a) Establishment of Standards Achievable in Practice.--In
promulgating rules under section 2(a), the Administrator
shall ensure that emissions standards for existing and new
sources established under section 112 or 129 of the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. 7412, 7429), as applicable, can be met under
actual operating conditions consistently and concurrently
with emission standards for all other air pollutants
regulated by the rule for the source category, taking into
account variability in actual source performance, source
design, fuels, inputs, controls, ability to measure the
pollutant emissions, and operating conditions.
(b) Regulatory Alternatives.--For each regulation
promulgated pursuant to section 2(a), from among the range of
regulatory alternatives authorized under the Clean Air Act
(42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) including work practice standards
under section 112(h) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(h)), the
Administrator shall impose the least burdensome, consistent
with the purposes of such Act and Executive Order 13563
published at 76 Fed. Reg. 3821 (January 21, 2011).
The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be in order except those received for
printing in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that
purpose in a daily issue dated October 4, 2011, or earlier and except
pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate. Each amendment so
received may be offered only by the Member who caused it to be printed
or a designee and shall be considered as read if printed.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Waxman
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
[[Page H6645]]
At the end of the bill, add the following section:
SEC. 6. PROTECTION FOR INFANTS AND CHILDREN.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the
Administrator shall not delay actions pursuant to the rules
identified in section 2(b) of this Act to reduce emissions
from waste incinerators or industrial boilers at chemical
facilities, oil refineries, or large manufacturing facilities
if such emissions are harming brain development or causing
learning disabilities in infants or children.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, yesterday Republicans told us they aren't
opposed to clean air, but we just can't afford it right now. And as
their bills have no deadline for ever cleaning up toxic air pollution
from these sources, it appears that they don't think we can ever afford
clean air even in the future. The truth is we can't afford to wait for
clean air any longer, and here's why.
Mercury is a potent neurotoxin. Numerous scientific studies from
around the world show that babies and children who are exposed to
mercury may suffer damage to their developing nervous systems, hurting
their ability to think, learn, and speak. EPA has estimated that about
7 percent of women of childbearing age are exposed to mercury at a
level capable of causing adverse effects in the developing fetus. That
may not sound like a big number, but that translates into thousands and
thousands of children who may never reach their full potential.
Toxic pollution can have tragic consequences. That's why Republicans
and Democrats, alike, voted in 1990 to strengthen the Clean Air Act to
require dozens of industry sectors to install modern pollution controls
on their facilities. And since then, EPA has set emission standards for
more than 100 different categories of industrial sources. The standards
simply require facilities to use pollution controls that others in
their industry are already using. They are based on maximum achievable
control technology.
EPA's approach has been successful. Emissions standards for these
industrial sources have reduced emissions of carcinogens, mercury, and
other highly toxic chemicals by 1.7 million tons each year. But a few
major industrial sources so far have escaped regulation, and the
Republicans appear to be on a mission to help them continue to evade
emissions limits on toxic air pollution.
Coal-fired power plants are one major industrial source of hazardous
air pollutants. In fact, they are the largest U.S. source of airborne
mercury pollution. But just a couple of weeks ago, the Republicans
passed the TRAIN Act to nullify EPA's rules to cut toxic air pollution
from those sources.
Yesterday, we debated whether or not cement kilns, another major
source of mercury, should have to clean up--the Republicans said
``no''--and today, we are talking about incinerators and dirty boilers
at industrial facilities across the country, including chemical plants,
refineries, and large manufacturing facilities.
H.R. 2250 nullifies EPA's rules to clean up toxic air pollution from
these sources and requires EPA to issue new rules using confusing and
unworkable criteria. These long overdue public health protections will
be delayed for years. That's unacceptable for the people who live near
a solid waste incinerator or a chemical plant using a dirty boiler.
These communities already have been waiting for more than a decade for
EPA to clean up these facilities.
My amendment is straightforward. It states that EPA can continue to
require an incinerator or a facility using a dirty boiler to clean up
its toxic air pollution if that facility is emitting mercury or other
toxic pollutants that are damaging infants' developing brains. This
amendment simply clarifies our choice: allow polluters to continue to
harm infants and children on the one hand, which is what the
Republicans would allow, or require facilities that are actually
harming our kids to reduce their pollution.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and protect our
children's future.
I know we hear a lot about jobs and we hear a lot about the economy.
Our economy will not recover if our children's minds are not allowed to
fully develop, if we don't have a population of young people that can
be born healthy, can get educated, can learn, and can produce a good
life for themselves, their families, and for our Nation's economy. So
please support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1200
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Our legislation, H.R. 2250, does not leave the
American people with the choice of having to have unregulated air,
polluted air that creates horrible health consequences. Our legislation
is a balanced approach that simply says we think that Congress has the
responsibility to review regulations where the American people have
told us in hearings that they have great difficulty in complying--in
some instances they are unable to comply--and that as a result jobs
would be lost.
Sometimes, listening to the debate, it sounds like we have the most
polluted air in the world. I would note that EPA reported that since
1990, nationwide air quality has improved significantly for the six
common air pollutants. For example, ozone pollution has been lowered by
14 percent; coarse particulate matter--dust--by 31 percent; lead by 78
percent; nitrogen dioxide by 35 percent; carbon monoxide by 68 percent;
sulfur dioxide by 59 percent. So we have a very clean air standard
today.
Our legislation is not in any way going to change any of the health
protections. We simply are asking, because of the concerns expressed by
many people around the country, many industries around the country,
that EPA should go back, within 15 months, issue, promulgate a new rule
within 5 years, give the industry that much time to comply. If the EPA
administrator thinks they need more time, then she or he may do that
but is not required to do so.
So our position is that this is a balanced approach, particularly at
this vulnerable time in our economy when our unemployment rate is high;
that we can protect jobs, we can help stimulate the economy, and we can
also protect health without endangering our young people.
So for that reason, I would oppose the amendment and ask Members to
oppose this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
amendment.
The bill before us nullifies EPA's rules to require industrial
boilers and incinerators to reduce their emissions of toxic mercury and
other toxic pollutants. The bill removes legal deadlines for pollution
controls to be installed, fundamentally weakening the Clean Air Act and
allowing years or decades of continued toxic air pollution.
Mr. Chairman, mercury is a potent neurotoxin. According to the
California Department of Toxic Substances Control, human exposure to
organic mercury can result in long-lasting health effects, especially
if it occurs during fetal development. In addition, scientists have
linked mercury poisoning to nervous system, kidney and liver damage,
and impaired childhood development. Nervous system disorders can
include impaired vision, speech, hearing, and coordination. In other
words, babies born to women exposed to mercury during pregnancy can
suffer from a range of developmental and neurological problems,
including delays in speaking and difficulties in learning. Children
suffering from the chronic effects of mercury exposure may never reach
their full potential. This clearly has a profound impact on the
affected children and their families, and it also has a long-term
societal impact.
In 1990, Congress amended the Clean Air Act on a bipartisan basis to
reduce emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants from a range of
industrial sources, including boilers and incinerators. Boilers and
incinerators are one of the largest sources of airborne mercury
pollution in the United States. For far too long, they have been
allowed to pollute without installing modern technology to reduce their
[[Page H6646]]
emissions. This is of particular concern for women who are pregnant,
may become pregnant, or who are nursing. Mercury exposure in the womb
can adversely affect the developing brain and nervous system. This can
lead to problems with a child's cognitive thinking, memory, attention,
language, and fine motor skills.
As of 2008, 50 States, one U.S. territory, and three tribes have
issued advisories for mercury. Earlier this year, EPA finalized
standards to cut emissions of mercury and other toxic air pollution
from boilers and incinerators. These rules were more than a decade
late. EPA is in the process of reconsidering those rules and plans to
finalize the revised rules by next April. Once finalized, EPA's rules
for boilers and incinerators will cut mercury pollution from these
sources.
The Republican leadership wants to nullify these rules. They have
also passed legislation to nullify rules to clean up mercury pollution
from cement plants, and they have passed legislation to nullify rules
to clean up mercury pollution from dirty coal-fired power plants, the
largest U.S. source of mercury pollution to the air. This is
unacceptable for public health. People living near these polluting
facilities have waited far too long for them to clean up their
pollution. They shouldn't have to wait any longer.
This amendment is straightforward. It states that the bill does not
stop EPA from taking action to clean up toxic air pollution from an
industrial boiler or incinerator if that facility is emitting mercury
or other toxic pollutants that are damaging babies' developing brains.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. We
should not be putting the interests of polluters before the health of
our children.
Numerous studies have demonstrated a link between increased exposure
to industrial contaminants and impaired brain development or learning
disabilities in children. For example, according to the Centers for
Disease Control, health effects linked to prenatal and childhood
methylmercury exposure include problems with language, memory,
attention, visual skills, and lower IQs. And exposure to mercury is
particularly dangerous for pregnant and breastfeeding women, as well as
children, since mercury is most harmful in the early stages of
development.
In some cases around the world, such as in Minimata, Japan in the
1950s, we have seen exposure to industrial mercury sicken an entire
generation of children. Mothers who exhibited no clinical symptoms of
mercury poison gave birth to infants suffering from blindness,
spasticity, and mental retardation.
We tend to think an environmental catastrophe like Minimata could not
happen here, but it could. Already in the United States one in six
women of childbearing age has blood mercury levels that exceed those
considered safe by the EPA for a developing baby. This amounts to
approximately 630,000 babies born every year at risk of developmental
problems because of prenatal mercury exposure.
While America's approximately 600 coal-fired power plants are the
single largest source of mercury contamination in the United States,
boilers and waste incinerators that burn mercury-containing products
and chlorine manufacturers rank close behind. And yet it is now
proposed that we delay, that we weaken the regulations protecting
infants and children and allow these incinerators and boilers to
continue spewing significant amounts of mercury pollution into the air
every year, harming the health of our children and future generations
of our children. It is unconscionable.
And mercury is just one of the dangerous contaminants putting the
development of children at risk. Exposure to lead threatens the health
of young children and unborn babies in particular, can lead to
miscarriage, preterm birth, low birth weight, and developmental delays.
{time} 1210
And that is why it was banned from gasoline and house paint by the
EPA in the 1980s. These contaminants are deadly, which is why the EPA,
the Environmental Protection Agency, put forward a rule to reduce them.
In fact, the implementation of the Boiler MACT would reduce mercury
emissions from major-source boilers and process heaters nationwide by
1.4 tons a year. It would also cut non-mercury metals, including lead,
by 2,700 tons per year, hydrogen chloride by 30,000 tons per year,
particulate matter by 47,000 tons per year, volatile organic compounds
by 7,000 tons per year, and sulfur dioxide by 440,000 tons per year.
According to the EPA, the benefits of reducing all of these dangerous
emissions would outweigh costs by at least $20 billion a year. But even
that aside, this act means 2,500 to 6,500 fewer premature deaths, 1,600
fewer cases of chronic bronchitis, 4,000 fewer heart attacks, 4,300
fewer hospital and emergency room visits, 3,700 fewer cases of acute
bronchitis, 41,000 fewer cases of aggravated asthma, 78,000 fewer cases
of respiratory systems, and 310,000 fewer missed work days. And it
means fewer cases of impaired brain development and learning
disabilities in our children.
So on one side of the equation, we have $20 billion in savings per
year, cleaner air, thousands of fewer deaths, and the healthy
development of our kids. On the other, we have polluters; we have
polluters who want to just keep harming the health and the lives of
Americans. I know what side I'm on, and I find it extraordinarily
telling that this House majority would take the side of big polluters
over the health and the welfare of America's children.
I urge my colleagues to stand up for America's children, stand
against big polluters, and support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Waxman
amendment and in opposition to this GOP bill.
Mr. Chairman, all Americans should be concerned with the GOP push to
roll back America's fundamental environmental protections and health
protections. This GOP bill strikes at the heart of American values. We
are not a smoggy, Third World country. This is the United States of
America; and over the past decades since the passage of the Clean Air
Act, businesses have flourished and the air and water has gotten
cleaner. These are not mutually exclusive.
That's why this GOP bill takes a step backward. It fundamentally
weakens the Clean Air Act and grants unnecessary breaks to toxic air
polluters.
Now, Mr. Waxman's amendment is very important because it targets one
of the most dangerous and toxic neurotoxins, that is, mercury. We know
that babies born to women exposed to mercury during pregnancy can
suffer from a range of developmental and neurological problems,
including delays in speaking and difficulties learning.
Children suffering from the chronic effects of mercury exposure may
never reach their full potential. This clearly has a profound impact on
the affected children and their families, but it also has a long-term
societal impact.
It was in 1990 when the Congress, in a bipartisan fashion, amended
the Clean Air Act and targeted the particular, the specific, polluters
coming from specific sources. These specific polluters, some of them
created jobs, acted to bring in modern technology, the scrubbers. They
took the mercury out of the air. There are many examples in my home
State of Florida of these manufacturing plants and utilities that have
taken the mercury out of the air by installing the up-to-date modern
equipment.
But there have been some businesses that have been very resistant to
this, and they need to get with the program because it has been since
1990 when the law has said it's time to clean it up.
Now what year is this? This is 2011. Now, I would offer that after 20
years, these businesses have been on notice that they can use the
American know-how and modern technology to clean up their plants, just
like a lot of their other competitors have done.
[[Page H6647]]
Now, I've heard the argument that, boy, this is bad for business. But
I'll tell you, coming from the State of Florida, clean air and clean
water are good for business. Our tourism industry relies on clean water
and clean air. And for the plants in the State of Florida that have
cleaned up, it has really improved the commercial fishing industry, the
recreational fishing industry, billion-dollar industries in my State.
If they had not--if the Congress had not acted in a bipartisan way
decades ago to say we're going to clean up the air and the water, I
don't think we'd have as many visitors coming to my beautiful State for
their vacations and fishing.
And fishing is important because we have so many that go out in the
Gulf of Mexico or the Atlantic or out in the Keys and they fish and
they bring it home to eat. Now, because mercury is not cleaned up to
the greatest extent that we can clean it up, the Florida Department of
Health has advised here, and I'm reading from the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection Advisory: ``The Florida Department of Health
has advised the public to limit their consumption of fish from hundreds
of waterbodies throughout the State due to unacceptable risk of mercury
exposure. As a result, these waterbodies have been listed as `impaired'
for mercury.'' This doesn't mean it's unsafe. But it means that you
can't go overboard.
But you know what? We have the technology to continue to clean up so
that people can eat all the great Florida seafood that is available to
them. There is no reason to take a step backward. Other businesses have
done this. They have cleaned up.
So earlier this year, after a decade of analysis and work by the EPA
and interaction with businesses and other stakeholders all across the
country, the EPA finalized standards to cut emissions of mercury and
other toxic air pollution from these particular polluters. Their goal
was to finally put these rules into effect this coming April. But,
unfortunately, we're running into opposition from the most anti-
environmental Congress in history.
People, this amendment is straightforward. It states that the bill
does not stop EPA from taking action to clean up toxic air pollution
from these particular sites. If that facility is emitting mercury or
other toxic pollutants, we're not going to proceed. I urge my
colleagues to support the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
legislation, the underlying legislation, unamended, because it's going
to protect and grow jobs, both in my region and across the country.
My district in southwest Washington is home to thousands of private
forest landowners. Whether it's a family farm or a private business,
such as Weyerhauser, which is one of our region's largest businesses
and employers, we have pulp mills, paper mills and an emerging biomass
industry. And what do all these things have in common?
They all provide tens of thousands of jobs, good family-wage jobs to
the folks in my region. And they're all part of the forest products
industry that has long been the cornerstone of southwest Washington's
economy. And if we don't pass this underlying bill unamended, they will
all shed those thousands of jobs in southwest Washington.
How many are we talking about? Well, a recent study shows that about
18 percent of those jobs would be lost. Those who produce pulp and
paper would be laid off by this onerous Boiler MACT rule as it's
written. Those are blue-collar families. Those are family-wage jobs.
They're the ones that would pay the price for this if we do not act now
to protect the environment where jobs can grow.
Now, the ripple effects in related industries in our region and
across the country would be an additional 87,000 jobs lost if we do not
act and pass this bill. In a place like Cowlitz County in my district,
where more than one out of every 10 moms and dads are out of work, the
effect of this rule, if we don't fix it and we don't fix it soon, would
further devastate an already devastated economy.
In August 89,000 jobs were created. They were added nationwide. So,
basically, if we don't move now, we're going to wipe out the entire
month of August's growth. That's going to put our economy backwards,
not forwards.
And make no mistake, Mr. Chairman, that's one thing the current
majority in the House is about is creating jobs for the men and women
at home to make sure they can provide for their families and their
kids, their kids' college education, their health care and so on and so
forth. It's the American Dream.
{time} 1220
Let's pass this bipartisan piece of legislation today without this
amendment. It won't add to the deficit, and it's going to preserve
those jobs for those folks who are struggling in my home region,
southwest Washington, and across the country.
Let's give the EPA the time it's requested to rewrite the rule in a
commonsense way. The great thing about this is our environment and our
economy don't have to be mutually exclusive, which is why we're taking
a balanced approach to changing this rule. It's why I believe and I am
assuming that's part of the reason the EPA wants more time to rewrite
it, because it had the feedback. Yes, we can innovate and create and
reduce, and I support reducing whatever type of emissions we're
producing as a Nation. We need to go there, but we need to do it in a
commonsense way that doesn't just handicap the economy at a time when
we need it to grow.
So let's give the EPA that time that they've requested so that
facilities like Longview Fibre in Longview, Washington, won't have to
lay any more people off. With this legislation, we can protect our
environment and protect American jobs.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. ESHOO. I rise in support of this amendment. I think it's a very,
very important one.
The bill nullifies the EPA's rules to require boilers and
incinerators to reduce their emissions of toxic mercury. That's really
quite a sentence: the bill would nullify rules to require boilers and
incinerators to reduce their emissions of toxic mercury. In doing so,
this bill nullifies the mercury reductions in our country that would
have been achieved; and it indefinitely delays, not just for a given
time frame, it's indefinite, indefinitely delays the implementation of
any replacement standards that EPA issues.
My friend, Mr. Whitfield, said earlier today that the bill does not
provide for an indefinite delay of any new rules. That is false. The
bill clearly states that facilities have at least 5 years to comply
without any hard deadline for compliance. That's the definition of an
indefinite delay.
Our Republican colleagues also claim that mercury pollution from
dirty boilers and incinerators does not harm public health. That is
quite a stand. I think it's terrifying myself, in a civilized society,
that this is not going to damage anyone and their health. They blame
China, even though U.S. facilities are emitting toxic mercury pollution
from smokestacks right here within our borders. I acknowledge that
there is some that does come from China. Are we going to replicate
China? I don't think that's the gold standard for our country. The
mercury released here at home is just as toxic as mercury released
anywhere. That's how toxic it is. Ours is not less toxic because it's
U.S. It's the same horrible, dangerous stuff.
And how toxic is it? There are a lot of things under attack here in
the House of Representatives, but I think one of the most serious
attacks is the attack on science. We're coming up with a lot of
political science for underlying legislation. Listen to what the
National Academy of Sciences has said. They stated unequivocally that
mercury is a powerful neurotoxin. The National Academy of Sciences has
stated that mercury is highly toxic. They state, and I quote, exposure
to mercury can result in adverse effects in several
[[Page H6648]]
organ systems throughout the life span of humans and animals. There are
extensive data on the effects of mercury on the development of the
brain in humans.
The National Academy of Sciences has also stated that exposure to
mercury can cause ``mental retardation, cerebral palsy, deafness, and
blindness'' in children exposed in utero and sensory and motor
impairment in exposed adults. This is stunningly shocking. This is not
Republican pollution or Democratic pollution. This is something that
will harm our people. Why would we not protect them?
The National Academy of Sciences said again, and I quote, chronic,
low-dose prenatal mercury exposure has been associated with impacts on
attention, fine motor function, language and verbal memory. The
National Academy of Sciences has stated that prenatal mercury exposure
has, quote, the potential to cause irreversible damage to the
developing central nervous system.
Our Republican friends say we shouldn't worry about mercury pollution
from boilers, incinerators, cement kilns and power plants. I know who I
trust, and it's not the phony baloney political science around here.
I'll put my money any day on what the National Academy of Sciences
says. They are the gold standard in our country. This is not something
to be fooled around with. This is a huge danger to our people.
This amendment is straightforward. It states that the bill does not
stop EPA from taking action to clean up toxic air pollution from an
incinerator or a chemical plant or a manufacturing plant with a dirty
boiler if that facility is emitting mercury or other toxic pollutants.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. We all understand that our economy is
struggling, that millions of Americans can't find a job, that too many
families are struggling to make ends meet, and that the American people
are very frustrated that Washington is simply not doing enough to get
our economy moving. I would argue that not only is Washington not doing
enough to get our economy moving but it is actually harming the efforts
of American innovators, of manufacturers, of small businesses, of the
job creators because of government over-regulation.
The fact is today that the Obama administration has publicly listed
almost 220 new regulations just this year alone, a 15-percent increase
in one year alone, of new regulatory actions under consideration. Each
one of them is estimated to cost at least $100 million, if you can
imagine.
Mr. Chairman, the bill that is currently under consideration would
provide relief from some of the new EPA regulations that would cost
American job creators more than $14 billion and threaten over 230,000
jobs. In my home State of Michigan, this government over-regulation
would cost nearly $800 million and put nearly 13,000 jobs at risk. In
my home State of Michigan, we are on our knees economically, and we
cannot tolerate this anymore. It has to be stopped.
At home, I have talked to so many businesspeople, from small family
businesses to major corporations, et cetera; and the message from all
of them is always the same: that government over- regulation is
absolutely killing their efforts to grow and to create jobs.
I'll give you one example. There's a company in Port Huron, Michigan,
in my congressional district, called Domtar. Port Huron has been hit
particularly hard. Current estimates are that the unemployment rate is
approaching 20 percent, if you can imagine that. It's unbelievable how
bad it is there at this time. Domtar is a paper company. It currently
employs 245 people. It generates between $8 million and $12 million in
revenue annually.
I talked to them about this regulation under consideration today, and
they estimate that this regulation today would cost them $9 million to
scrub the coal that they use to operate their boilers or would cost $3
million to $4 million to convert to natural gas and have an additional
annual cost of $3 million to $4 million a year just to stay compliant.
They estimate that these costs would likely force the company to shut
down two of their four paper machines and, of course, force a reduction
in jobs, Mr. Chairman. This company, this community, this Nation cannot
handle that kind of loss in additional jobs that this regulation would
force.
It seems today that the three most feared letters to American job
creators, where it used to be IRS, today those letters are EPA. It's no
longer the IRS. It's the EPA. And why is that?
{time} 1230
On April 30 of 2010, the EPA issued a statement on a study of the
impact of one of their proposed regulations. This is what they said:
``The regulatory impact assessment does not include either a
qualitative or quantitative estimation of the potential effects of the
proposed rule on economic productivity, economic growth, employment,
job creation or international economic competitiveness.''
In other words, they don't care what their regulations have to do
with job creation, much less with stifling and killing job creation in
this country. This is what our own government is doing to our job
creators, and this is from an administration that claims that job
creation is its number one priority.
Are you kidding? You've got to be kidding.
We have to stop all of this government overregulation that is killing
jobs. Certainly, House Republicans have been trying to lift the boot of
Big Government off the necks--off the throats--of job creators and of
workers who are looking for a job.
We've heard repeatedly from this President about the need to invest
in transportation and infrastructure. At the same time, this President
and this administration are talking about how infrastructure is such an
economic lifeblood for our economy, which I agree with and which, I
think, House Republicans agree with. But at the same time the President
is saying we've got to invest in infrastructure--in fixing roads--his
administration is moving forward on this regulation that we are talking
about today that would put large segments of the American cement plants
in this country out of business.
I would tell the President that it's very hard to have infrastructure
investment to build roads if you don't have any concrete, if you don't
have any cement.
I would say, Mr. Chairman, I speak against this amendment, but I
speak in favor of the underlying bill. I would call on my colleagues to
pass this bill now.
Pass this bill. Let's get America moving again.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. TSONGAS. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Massachusetts is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Ms. TSONGAS. I rise in support of the Waxman amendment.
Today, we are taking up yet another bill that continues the GOP
majority's ongoing attack on public health. This bill seeks to gut EPA
rules requiring reductions in emissions of toxic air pollutants,
including mercury, from industrial boilers and incinerators. Industrial
boilers and incinerators are among the largest sources of mercury
pollution in the country, a potent brain poison that can cause severe
developmental problems in children and toddlers.
According to the National Academy of Sciences, even in low doses,
mercury can tragically affect a child's development, delaying walking
and talking, and causing learning disabilities. Children suffering from
the chronic effects of mercury exposure may never reach their full
potential. This is simply unacceptable, especially when we have the
technology to address it.
The Waxman amendment is straightforward. It says that the bill cannot
stop the EPA from taking action to clean up toxic air pollution from an
industrial boiler or incinerator if that facility is emitting mercury
or other toxic pollutants that are damaging to children's developing
brains.
I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment and to
stand up for the health of our children and grandchildren.
I yield back the balance of my time.
[[Page H6649]]
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, as a physician, a mother, and as a
person of a racial minority, which often bears the disproportionate
impact of pollution, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2250 as well as H.R.
2681, which was just passed, and I rise in strong support of the Waxman
amendment, which I urge every colleague to support.
Both bills, H.R. 2681 and H.R. 2250, essentially wipe out EPA's
regulations, first of cement kilns, now of industrial boilers and
incinerators. It would have serious public health impacts because it
would allow for the high emissions of dangerous pollutants, which would
cause more asthma, heart attacks, birth defects, impaired brain
development, which I'll come back to, and other illnesses at a time
when we're working to improve the health of all Americans, to reduce
health care costs, and when we are already struggling to remain
competitive.
All EPA is asking these entities to do is to meet the best existing
standards in the industry--existing standards--standards that they've
had years to meet.
Mr. Chairman and colleagues, allowing these regulations to go forward
is critical because these entities emit lead, arsenic, particulate
matter, and other toxic substances, especially mercury. If the
Republican majority proponents of this bill have their way, we will see
more than 15,000 more cases of aggravated asthma, over 1,500 more heart
attacks, over 600 more cases of chronic bronchitis every year, and we
will also have over 100,000 additional missed working days, which means
lost productivity--all at a time when we're trying to improve the
health of all Americans, as I said, and improve American
competitiveness.
But most importantly, the large boilers and incinerators are the
second-largest source of mercury, which, as you've heard, is a grave
risk to our children both before and after birth, especially on their
brain development, which makes these bills especially dangerous to the
public health and can damage the learning and, thus, the social and
economic potential of our children, as mercury stays in the environment
for a long time.
As an African American, I have to be particularly concerned. With
more than 60 percent of polluting industries located in or near
minority communities, it is clear that the learning and other
neurological deficiencies caused by mercury would primarily impact our
communities. This not only ought to concern African Americans, for the
children of Latinos, Asians, and American Indians would also be more
likely to be impaired. It should be of concern to all of us.
All the time spent on this bill and the other bill that was just
passed that the House majority leadership knows are going nowhere is a
pure waste of time and a waste of money. I guess it's not important,
because it's being used to try to kill programs they've never liked.
They probably think it could hurt President Obama if it doesn't pass.
It also protects the big corporations. Beyond that, it creates no jobs.
It just creates the potential to cause more sickness and premature
deaths, to damage the potential of our children and, therefore, to
damage our country's potential as well.
The claims of lost jobs, I believe, are highly exaggerated. Bringing
forth and pushing these extremely misguided and dangerous bills says
that the proponents are willing to put our country and the future of
their and our constituents--of their and our children--at risk.
I ask my colleagues to vote for this amendment, this amendment that
protects the public health and that will save our children from a life
that would not be what we would want for them, one in which they might
not be able to enjoy all of the benefits of this country or fully
realize their potential or the American Dream.
Support this amendment. Reject the underlying bill and all of the
bills that attempt to weaken the EPA. Vote, instead, for our children,
our grandchildren and this country.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. A number of speakers on the other side have indicated
that, if our legislation passes, new regulations relating to Boiler
MACT would be put off indefinitely. I would like to clarify and point
out that, in section 3 on page 6 of this bill, it says:
For each regulation promulgated pursuant to this legislation, the
administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall--not
``may''--shall establish a date for compliance.
So this is not being put off indefinitely. It explicitly says
``shall.''
Now, during the hearings that we've had, extensive hearings on this
Boiler MACT that was adopted by the EPA in 2004, which was invalidated
by the courts because of lawsuits filed by environmental groups, the
typical testimony was this:
EPA final rules impose unrealistic and very costly requirements that
EPA has not justified by corresponding environmental and health
protection from reductions of hazardous air pollutants.
Just as a practical example of what I'm talking about, many
universities, in order to comply with that 2004 rule, spent large sums
of money. The University of Notre Dame spent $20 million to comply with
that rule, which has now been invalidated, and EPA has come out with an
even more stringent rule that's going to cause a lot more money to be
spent.
{time} 1240
So we genuinely believe that EPA has the health standards in effect
that will protect our children. There's nothing in this bill that's
going to change any of that.
But we know that if these universities continue to spend that kind of
money on regulations that are invalidated and then have to come back
and spend more money, tuition costs are going to go up, which makes it
more difficult for some children to go to college. So this simply is a
commonsense approach, a balanced approach, saying: EPA go back, revisit
this issue. In 15 months, come out with a new regulation. And the EPA
administrator shall set a compliance date not sooner than 5 years after
the final rule.
But we have also heard a lot of discussion today about mercury, and,
yes, we're all concerned about mercury. But EPA, itself, in developing
the benefits of their regulation that we're trying to postpone, did not
assign one dollar, one dime, or one penny of benefit for the reduction
of mercury emissions. And the reason they didn't: because there was not
enough reduction, because we've already cleaned up the air a great deal
relating to mercury.
All of the benefits that they calculated from their rule came from
reduction of particulate matter. In fact, they said, the mercury
reductions would be less than three-hundredths of 1 percent of global
emissions. We've heard all sorts of testimony about mercury, that 90
percent or so of mercury comes from nature or from sources outside of
the U.S.
So I don't think we need to be alarmist about this. This is simply an
approach that, hey, our economy is pretty weak right now. We're losing
a lot of jobs. We're having difficulty creating jobs. So, look, let's
just go back, look at this, in 15 months come back with a new
regulation, set a date for compliance, and let's move forward.
I don't think anyone can make a credible, verifiable argument that
we're out to destroy every young person in America, every child in
America. As a matter of fact, we have a lot of Democrats on this bill.
There's been a similar bill introduced to this on the Senate side with
Democratic support.
I urge all the Members to defeat the Waxman amendment and support our
underlying legislation, H.R. 2250.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maryland is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I was going to speak about mercury, and I
will get to that, but I really have to clarify for the Record and the
public record.
We keep hearing, and we've heard once again on this floor from our
Republican colleagues, that the bill won't harm public health or weaken
health
[[Page H6650]]
standards, and this is just not accurate. It's really important, Mr.
Chairman, for the public to understand that. In fact, section 2 of the
bill lists four final clean air rules and says they shall have ``no
force or effect.'' Section 3 of the bill eliminates the 3-year
compliance deadline in the Clean Air Act and doesn't set any new
deadline. And, for the record, section 5 of the bill directs the EPA to
set weaker standards than the clean air requirements.
So make no mistake. H.R. 2250, contrary to what the other side is
saying, has real legal effect and consequence, and those effects weaken
our protection from air pollution and harm the health of Americans,
especially our children.
Now, I recognize that there is a zeal for deregulation, but for clean
air standards, for clean water standards, this really makes no sense.
In fact, the bill throws out EPA's rules to require boilers and
incinerators to reduce their emissions of toxic mercury. And unlike the
statements that have been made on this floor, this comes in the wake of
a bill to nullify EPA's rules to clean up cement kilns, and yet another
bill to nullify EPA's rules to clean up power plants.
When does it stop? When does the public health and the consequences
of these actions become important to the American people instead of
just this move to deregulation? Just this last month, the Republicans
have pushed legislation to let the Nation's largest source of toxic
mercury pollution off the hook for cleaning up their emissions,
jeopardizing public health. And for what?
Now, I've heard that we shouldn't have so much concern about mercury,
but somebody in this House, somebody in this Congress has to be
concerned about the public health consequences to our children of toxic
mercury emissions.
They also cite studies from the American Forest & Paper Association,
from the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, and these are nothing
more than industry studies that seek to absolve the industry from
cleaning up its own mess. They've been refuted by actual scientists.
And I suggested on this floor we actually pay attention to science and
facts and not just a move to deregulate because we're interested in
doing industry a favor at the expense of public health.
And we know that, contrary to what's been said, the public health
consequences of mercury are clear; they're stated; they're facts;
they're science. So let's not undercut that. Mercury is a powerful
neurotoxin. It harms developing brains of infants. It leads to learning
disabilities. It causes attention deficits and behavioral problems and
a whole range of other problems.
So the Republicans cannot be allowed, Mr. Chairman, to pick and
choose their facts and their science. The facts and the science are as
they are, and we should not be nullifying EPA's rules that protect the
public health.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
By the way, I believe we should be alarmist; and I am an alarmist,
and maybe that's because I'm a mother, maybe that's because I'm a
grandmother, and maybe that's because I represent Los Angeles, which
has some of the worst air in their country.
Just last year, in California, we had 2,400 deaths because of cargo-
related pollution. We're paying for the costs of people all over this
country getting goods on time in their local stores. Because of cargo-
related pollution, there is about 350,000 days of lost school.
That is a real problem for this country. Pollution does impact our
children. Pollution does impact their lives. We know even there is a
million days of lost work, lost productivity in this country because of
pollution-related illnesses in the workplace.
I'm for this amendment because the underlying bill nullifies EPA's
rules to require boilers and incinerators to reduce their emissions of
toxic mercury. And this comes in the wake of a bill to nullify EPA's
rules to clean up cement kilns and another bill to nullify EPA's rules
to clean up power plants.
Just within the last month, my colleagues on the other side have
pushed legislation to let the Nation's largest sources of toxic mercury
pollution off the hook for cleaning up their emissions. And they defend
this policy by pointing to these industry studies about the costs of
complying with these rules.
One study that gets cited over and over is a study by the Council of
Industrial Boiler Owners, or CIBO. This study, by the way, has been
completely discredited. For example, the nonpartisan Congressional
Research Service examined this study and concluded: ``the base of
CIBO's analysis is flawed. As a result, little credence can be placed
in CIBO's estimate of job losses.''
They also cite a study by the American Forest & Paper Association
concluding that the boiler rules will cost jobs.
{time} 1250
Mr. Chairman, Dr. Charles Kolstad, chair of the department of
economics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, reviewed this
analysis and said: ``If I were grading this, I would give it an F. The
economics is all wrong.''
Dr. Kolstad described the methods as ``fundamentally flawed.'' And he
said that, as a result, the jobs estimates were ``completely invalid.''
We know that the National Academy of Sciences and independent public
health experts around the world have proven time and again that mercury
is a powerful neurotoxin that harms the developing brains of infants,
leading to learning disabilities, attention deficits, behavioral
problems, and a range of other problems.
This amendment is straightforward. It states that the bill does not
stop EPA from taking action to clean up toxic air pollution from an
industrial boiler or incinerator if that facility is emitting mercury
or other toxic pollutants that are damaging babies' developing brains.
Who can vote against this?
You know, you talk about jobs. My colleague, Mrs. Miller, earlier
talked about jobs and the economy and the cost of the regulations. But
at what price do we have to pay for the next generation's health and
quality of life? And by the way, the last I checked, adding more
pollution into the air is not a jobs plan.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I listened to the gentlelady
with interest. And, of course, it's easy to sit in Washington and
whatever group you may be with and say this group is wrong or that
group is wrong, and everybody can trot out their experts. But, ladies
and gentlemen, the CRS doesn't own and operate boilers, businesses do.
Lots of them are going to be impacted by this--big businesses, small
businesses, and the people who work for them.
Last week I referenced a letter to the editor of the Virginian Leader
sent in by Mr. and Mrs. Kinney, in which they said: ``I'm going to be
very blunt with the following opinion: As a factory worker and
taxpayer, I'm getting sick and tired of these Federal agencies who have
nothing better to do except sit in their Washington offices and draw up
rules and regulations to kill American jobs. Why don't they get off
their sorry behinds and go out across the Nation and try to help
industry save what jobs we have left? And who is paying these EPA
people's salary? We are, the American workers. I believe in protecting
the environment, but we can't shut the whole country down to achieve
it.''
I referenced that letter last week, and I referenced Giles County in
my comments in a Republican radio address later that week. And in
response to that, Mr. and Mrs. Kinney wrote again to the Leader. And
we're not talking about big businesses here, we're talking about
businesses that affect employees in small counties all across this
country. The Leader, for example, has 5,100 subscribers. It's not a
giant newspaper.
The Kinneys wrote back in: ``As I stated in the 9/21/11 letter to the
editor, I'm a blue collar factory worker with
[[Page H6651]]
limited education, and I have worked for our county's largest employer
for nearly 35 years. The only reason I am speaking out on this issue is
this: To get others involved. Our economic future and way of life here
in Giles County could be on the line unless residents, business owners,
civic organizations, and others come together and support H.R. 2250.''
You know what, ladies and gentlemen? The people of America understand
that the EPA is in fact killing jobs. They understand that while we
have to have a clean environment, and we all want a clean environment,
as the gentleman from Kentucky said earlier today, we can do that. This
is a reasonable approach. H.R. 2250 is a very reasonable approach which
will do both, continue us on the regulatory path but make sure those
regulations are reasonable and effective, and make sure that we protect
the jobs of the United States of America while we go forward in
protecting the environment as well.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from California is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. WAXMAN. I just want to point out to my colleagues that what the
bill does is repeals the previous rule, regulation, and then prohibits
EPA from adopting another regulation for 15 months. And when they adopt
another regulation, it can't be enforced for another 5 years. And then
there's no deadline. But meanwhile, they lower the standard for EPA in
setting that regulation.
EPA is in the process now of negotiating with the industry to work
out the information and the problems that have been brought to their
attention. We ought to give EPA the chance to do that and get the full
input from the industry. If legislation is needed, we ought to consider
what legislation is needed. The approach of this bill is to set us back
enormously. When you don't have anything in place but the weakest
possible criteria, and then nothing can happen for 5 years, and maybe
even longer because it takes 15 months to get the regulation, no
enforcement for 5 years after that--and maybe never--that's not a
reasonable approach.
If the industry wants a law, the industry ought to work on telling us
what they need, and not going on this escapade with the Republicans who
would like to repeal the whole Clean Air Act and repeal the ability of
the EPA to protect the public from toxic pollution. And, of course, the
amendment that's before us is that insofar as this bill becomes law,
when we're talking about poisoning children's brains, we're not going
to stop EPA from getting their regulations in place and getting them
enforced. It's obscene to think, the idea that we would wait another
6\1/2\ years, and maybe longer, before we can do anything to start down
the road to reduce the pollution that's going to poison these kids.
I ask for an ``aye'' vote on the amendment, and I hope that people
realize this is a bill that will pass the House, but in my view, given
the President's statement of a veto, it's not going to become law.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Rush
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of section 5, add the following:
(c) Rule of Construction.--This section is intended to
supplement the provisions of, and shall not be construed to
supersede any requirement, limitation, or other provision of,
sections 112 and 129 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412,
7429).
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, let us not be distracted by this confused,
backward, and short-term thinking on the part of our Republican
colleagues. This bill represents just another attack on the Nation's
long-standing environmental protection laws in general and the EPA in
particular.
On behalf of a select few polluting industries that operate under the
assumption that the timing is right to permanently alter, gut, and
obliterate the Clean Air Act, the law that the chairman of the
subcommittee and many others have said is working on behalf of the
American people.
While most businesses have been planning and preparing for these
rules, which have already been delayed for years and in some cases have
been delayed over a decade, some of the more opportunistic dirty
industries see this radical Republican majority and their radical
agenda targeting the EPA and all of our clean air laws as the perfect
time to try and permanently alter the Clean Air Act.
Section 5 of H.R. 2250 disregards the clean air standards that will
help reduce toxic air pollution, like mercury and soot from some of our
Nation's biggest polluters--cement plants, industrial boilers, and
incinerators.
Instead, this section would make fundamental and damaging changes to
the Clean Air Act and would ensure that future standards do not
meaningfully reduce emissions into the air.
{time} 1300
So, Mr. Chairman, I must offer an amendment that will clarify that
section 5 of H.R. 2250 is intended to supplement the provisions of and
shall not be construed to supersede any requirement, limitation or
other provision of sections 112 and 129 of the Clean Air Act.
This single provision in section 5 will have the effect of exempting
incinerators, exempting industrial boilers, and exempting cement plants
from maximum reductions in toxic air pollution emissions, in contrast
to every other major industrial source of toxic air pollution in this
Nation.
The majority, even after being asked repeatedly over and over and
over again, has yet to explain why Congress should carve out exemptions
for the Nation's dirtiest polluters, in total disregard for the public
health of the American people and at the expense of those very
companies that have already invested in the technology to meet the
minimum requirements of this law.
Mr. Chairman, if it is truly the majority's intent to clarify the
rules and to provide certainty for business, then this amendment will
accomplish that purpose; but I don't believe that that is their intent,
and I don't believe that that is what their goal and objectives are.
They have a singular purpose in all of these bills that we have been
debating on this floor as it relates to the Clean Air Act, and that is
to completely nullify and gut the Clean Air Act so that polluters in
this Nation can keep on polluting the very air that we breathe.
So, Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support my
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Yoder). The time of the gentleman from Illinois
has expired.
(On request of Mr. Waxman, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Rush was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. RUSH. I yield to the ranking member.
Mr. WAXMAN. I thank you for yielding to me. I want to join you in
urging support for this amendment.
Whatever the motivation is of your legislation--and I can understand
your reason for being very skeptical. I share it. But what the industry
should want is regulatory certainty. And this bill adds more confusion
to what is already a long overdue effort to reduce toxic air pollution
from boilers and incinerators. With no timeline for implementation of
new emissions standards, the bill creates significant questions about
how EPA would set limits for toxic air pollution. If they think it's
regulatory certainty that they don't have to do anything for years,
they'd better not count on it. And if they want regulatory certainty,
they'd better come forward and work something out.
In the meantime, your clarification provides the certainty, and I
urge Members to support it.
[[Page H6652]]
Mr. RUSH. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman's amendment would simply add an
additional paragraph at the end of section 5 of our bill, and basically
it would say that section 5 in our bill would not be construed to
supersede any requirement, limitation or other provision of sections
112 and 129 of the Clean Air Act. And because his amendment would say
``it does not supersede'' is the reason that we want to oppose the
amendment.
Now section 5 says this, and this is what we want to supersede
section 112 and 129 of the Clean Air Act, in promulgating rules, the
administrator shall ensure that emission standards for existing and new
sources established under section 112 or 129 can be met under actual
operating conditions consistently and concurrently with emissions
standards for all other air pollutants regulated by the rule for the
source category taking into account variability and actual source
performance, source design, fuels, input, controls, ability to measure
pollutants' emissions and operating conditions.
In other words, we want to be sure that can be met under actual
operating conditions.
And then the second part of our section 5 that we want to be sure
supersedes, which this amendment would not allow, is that we put in
section 5 the President's own executive order in which he says that the
administrator shall impose the least burdensome regulation consistent
with the purposes of the act.
So all we're doing in section 5 is saying we want to make sure that
it's the least burdensome pursuant to the President's own executive
order and that we want to be sure that it can be met in actual
operating conditions.
So for that reason, we would respectfully oppose the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 15 Offered by Ms. Hahn
Ms. HAHN. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of section 2, add the following:
(d) Ten Metropolitan Areas of the United States With the
Worst Air Quality.--
(1) Stay of earlier rules inapplicable.--Insofar as the
rules listed in subsection (b) apply to sources of air
pollution in any of the 10 metropolitan areas of the United
States with the worst air quality, such rules shall,
notwithstanding subsection (b), continue to be effective.
(2) New standards inapplicable if less protective of public
health and the environment.--With respect to sources of air
pollution in any of the 10 metropolitan areas of the United
States with the worst air quality, the provisions of the
regulations promulgated under subsection (a)--
(A) shall apply to such sources, and shall replace the
rules listed in subsection (b), to the extent such provisions
are equally or more protective of public health and the
environment than the corresponding provisions of the rules
listed in subsection (b); and
(B) shall not apply to such sources, and shall not replace
the rules listed in subsection (b), to the extent such
provisions are less protective of public health and the
environment than the corresponding provisions of the rules
listed in subsection (b).
(3) Definitions.--In this subsection:
(A) The term ``metropolitan area''--
(i) for purposes of subparagraph (B)(i), means the
metropolitan statistical area or consolidated metropolitan
statistical area (as established by the Bureau of the Census)
most closely corresponding to the city or group of cities
ranked among the cities with the worst year-round particle
pollution in the ``State of the Air 2011'' report of the
American Lung Association; and
(ii) for purposes of subparagraph (B)(ii), means a
metropolitan statistical area or consolidated metropolitan
statistical area (as established by the Bureau of the
Census).
(B) The term ``10 metropolitan areas of the United States
with the worst air quality'' means--
(i) during the 5-year period beginning on the date of the
enactment of this Act, the 10 metropolitan areas listed in
the ``State of the Air 2011'' report of the American Lung
Association as having the worst year-round particle
pollution; and
(ii) during each successive 5-year period, the 10
metropolitan areas determined by the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency to have the highest year-
round levels of particulate matter in the air.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, today I'm offering an amendment that will
preserve the critical air pollution protections for the places that
they are needed most. For the people in my district, air pollution is a
major health problem. The Los Angeles region always is near the top of
the Nation's worst air quality rankings. Unfortunately, the people of
my district don't need to read the statistics from the American Lung
Association to know that there's a pollution problem in our
communities.
They see it in the dark soot that seeps into the homes of families
living near the port in Wilmington. They see it in the labored
breathing of a little girl in Lomita staying home from school because
of asthma. They see it in the tears of loved ones in San Pedro burying
someone lost before their time to cancer or lung disease.
But the statistics are there too. In Los Angeles, 6 to 7 percent of
all children have asthma--higher than the national average, and
disproportionately impacting minority children. When our kids can't run
around outside to exercise, when they're missing school with asthma,
we're creating all sorts of other health and educational deficits.
Los Angeles has recognized its air quality problems. Since the Clean
Air Act amendments of 1990, we've made dramatic air quality
improvements. In the last decade, we've managed to reduce particulate
pollution levels in Los Angeles by 40 percent. We cannot afford to go
backwards. That's why I'm offering this amendment today.
My amendment would ensure that the Environmental Protection Agency
will keep their higher standards of clean air protections for the 10
metropolitan areas with the worst air quality. The American Lung
Society lists the 10 worst regions with year-round particulate matter.
They are Bakersfield-Delano in California; Los Angeles-Long Beach-
Riverside in California; Visalia-Porterville in California; Phoenix-
Mesa-Glendale in Arizona; Hanford-Corcoran in California; Fresno-Madera
in California; Pittsburgh-New Castle in Pennsylvania; Birmingham-
Hoover-Cullman in Alabama; Cincinnati-Middletown-Wilmington in Ohio,
Kentucky, and Indiana; Modesto in California; and Louisville-Jefferson
County-Elizabethtown-Scottsburg in Kentucky and Indiana.
{time} 1310
I believe that the underlying bill is a giant step backwards for
those communities and for the air quality and environment of people
living in this country. My amendment solely focuses on trying to
continue to protect people in communities with the worst air quality
standards. These communities cannot afford to have lower standards that
will result in more asthma, more cancer.
By protecting our public health, we will not lose jobs. It's a false
premise that to create jobs we need to hurt our Nation's environment
and health. For example, the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach were
able to improve air quality and create jobs and industry. These ports
are the economic engine of this country. I call them ``America's
ports.'' About 44 percent of all the cargo in this country comes
through those ports.
A lot of people said you can't have clean air and good jobs, but let
me tell you what really happened. We cut port pollution by 70 percent
since 2005 without losing a single job. I'll say that again: a 70
percent reduction in pollution at the cost of zero jobs. In fact, the
green industry jobs were spawned, creating more jobs.
Our more vigorous environmental standards in California aren't
stopping the facilities in my district from thriving. That's why I find
it so upsetting that, under the banner of protecting jobs, our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle are moving to delay or
destroy the protections that ensure our children can grow up breathing
clean air.
[[Page H6653]]
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim making our air
dirtier is a way to stimulate the economy, but a peer-reviewed Cal
State, Fullerton study found that dirty air in the costs residents $22
billion a year in health costs, premature deaths, lost days of work,
lost days of school--$22 billion a year wasted because of dirty air.
I reject the false choice between good jobs and clean air. We've
already proven that they can go hand in hand with the Clean Air Action
Plan at the Port of Los Angeles.
I also want to add that environmental regulations are not topping the
list of problems that small businesses in my community are facing. Last
week, I met with over 50 small businesses, and they said they need more
access to capital, not less regulation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentlelady from California may view this argument
about jobs as a false choice, but we do have letters from over 300
organizations concerned about the impact on jobs that these EPA
regulations will have, including letters of support from five of the
largest labor unions in the country.
The gentlelady's amendment would basically say that, in the 10
metropolitan areas chosen by the American Lung Association, the current
boiler rules would be retained regardless of what our legislation may
do.
So we are opposed to her amendment for two reasons. One, we don't
want the legislation to be changed because we think it's necessary to
have the balanced approach throughout the country and not to exclude 10
metropolitan areas. But the second reason we would be opposed to it is
that to allow one private entity--even if it's the American Lung
Association, an organization we all have respect for. But we don't
think that they should be determining what should be in this
legislation.
So for that reason, I would respectfully oppose the amendment and ask
that the amendment be defeated.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WAXMAN. I support this amendment, and I want to congratulate the
gentlelady from California for offering this amendment. Her
constituents should be rightfully proud of the fact that she is
fighting for them and for the good health of the American people.
Her amendment recognizes the fact that we've made great progress on
air pollution in this country because we've had a strong Clean Air Act
and because we've let EPA do its job under both Democratic and
Republican administrations. But let's not pretend that the job is done.
In the 10 worst polluted areas--these are the worst polluted,
nonattainment areas in the country--every day, people are breathing
unhealthy levels of air pollution, and they're going to emergency rooms
because the air outside is making them sick. And every day, some are
dying before their time. In the summer, cities and towns across the
country have red alerts, and moms are afraid to let their kids play
outside. There's something fundamentally wrong with that.
Despite the progress we've made, we need to make sure that we cut
these air pollutants that are very, very harmful. We've been talking a
lot today about mercury, but the EPA boiler rules would reduce the
emissions of fine particle pollution, which can lodge deep in the lungs
and cause serious health effects.
Living in the United States should not be a health risk, and I hope
that we will not vote to nullify these EPA boiler rules and also
nullify the health benefits in these various polluted areas.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Hahn).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Hahn) will be postponed.
Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mrs. Capps
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
After section 1, insert the following section (and
redesignate the subsequent sections, and conform the internal
cross-references, accordingly):
SEC. 2. FINDING.
The Congress finds that, according to the Environmental
Protection Agency, if the rules specified in section 3(b) are
in effect, then for every dollar in costs, the rules will
provide at least $10 to $24 in health benefits, due to the
avoidance each year of--
(1) 2,600 to 6,600 premature deaths;
(2) 4,100 nonfatal heart attacks;
(3) 4,400 hospital and emergency room visits;
(4) 42,000 cases of aggravated asthma; and
(5) 320,000 days of missed work or school.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, it's my hope that we can all simply agree
to this amendment. It would simply add a finding to the bill
illustrating the health benefits of EPA's mercury and air toxic cleanup
standards for industrial boilers and incinerators.
Opponents of these cleanup standards argue that they cost too much
and will lead to job losses. I don't agree with that assessment.
Over the past 40 years, the Clean Air Act has fueled American
innovation and has created jobs, and it has made the United States a
leader in the multibillion-dollar environmental technology sector.
Mr. Chairman, the health benefits of EPA safeguards are not in
dispute, and that's why those facts should be included as part of this
bill.
For decades, industrial boilers and incinerators have been some of
the largest pollution emitters in the United States. They're
responsible for some of the most dangerous air pollutants we have in
this Nation, including mercury, lead, and cancer-causing dioxins.
That's why EPA took action last year to require that industrial boilers
and incinerators cut their emissions and simply follow the Clean Air
Act.
But instead of supporting EPA's action, the bill before us would
delay their standards by at least 3\1/2\ to 4 years. It would eliminate
any deadline by which industrial boilers and incinerators must comply
with EPA safeguards. It could mean thousands and thousands of
additional pounds of mercury and other toxic pollution released into
our air each year.
Now, proponents of this legislation are quick to say EPA safeguards
to cut this pollution would--and now comes the drumroll--cause economic
ruin and job losses, and they point to industry-paid-for studies to
provide evidence. But indefinitely delaying EPA safeguards will not
lead to the economic ruin and job losses. What it will do is put the
lives and the health of millions of Americans at risk.
Failing to implement the EPA's air pollution standards for boilers
and incinerators would result, just in 1 year, in as many as 6,600
premature deaths, 4,100 nonfatal heart attacks, 4,400 hospital and
emergency room visits, 42,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and over
320,000 days of missed work and school. For every additional year of
delay that H.R. 2250 allows, these numbers only continue to grow.
And we know this because EPA's analysis must follow the criteria set
out by the Office of Management and Budget. Their analysis is based on
peer-reviewed studies. The analysis is transparent, it is subject to
public comment, and it has to be reviewed again by the Office of
Management and Budget. The industry studies meet none of these
criteria.
Mr. Chairman, it is true that EPA already announced it is reexamining
aspects of these safeguards. They set out a time line providing
industry more than enough time and opportunity to weigh in before
refinalizing the rules by next April.
{time} 1320
EPA has said that it does not need nor want additional time for
Congress. Delays only hurt America's health.
[[Page H6654]]
Again, it's worth repeating. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are not at
risk from these safeguards, like some of my colleagues say. EPA's
analysis, reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget economists,
project that these standards will have a net positive impact on EPA--
that's EPA's analysis, reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget--and they will achieve enormous public health benefits that
allow Americans to work and go to school and lead healthy lives.
For every dollar industry spends to clean up even one industrial
boiler or incinerator, Americans get up to $24 back in health benefits.
What other investment results in this astonishing return for the
American people? And that's why I'm offering this simple amendment
today. It would remind us all of the tremendous health benefits that
EPA's mercury and air toxic cleanup standards will achieve, and they
should be included in this bill.
So I urge my colleagues to support this straightforward amendment,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentlelady made a comment that she genuinely
questions whether jobs are at risk, and I would simply say that, as I
said earlier, we received over 300 letters. We received phone calls. We
received emails. We have five major labor unions, national labor
unions, supporting this legislation. And the people involved in these
businesses are telling us that they are going to have to cut off people
from work. They're going to have to terminate people's employment in
some instances.
And as I said, the University of Notre Dame said they spent $20
million trying to comply with the old rule that was invalidated, and
now they're going to have to spend another X millions of dollars to
meet these new rules.
I would oppose the amendment because, basically, the gentlelady from
California is asking us to put into the findings of the Environmental
Protection Agency's calculation that for every dollar in cost, the rule
will provide at least $10 to $24 in health benefits. Now, that alone is
kind of interesting. From $10 to $24, that's over a 100 percent
variance there, flexible zone there. It's not very precise.
And then she says that it's going to avoid either 2,600--up to 6,600
premature deaths a year, so many nonfatal heart attacks, so many
hospital emergency room visits, so many cases of aggravated asthma, so
many cases of missed work and school.
Well, all of us have sat in a lot of these hearings. We've looked at
a lot of numbers, and I tell you what. There's no agreement on any of
these numbers. There are questions about the assumptions. There are
questions about the modeling. There's questions about the lack of
transparency, and different groups come up with different numbers.
Mrs. CAPPS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITFIELD. I would be happy to yield to the gentlewoman from
California.
Mrs. CAPPS. I just wanted to ask if you are aware that these numbers
have to be peer reviewed, so scientists and organizations have
evaluated them, and they've come in. And they also have to be screened
by the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, and then they're sent back
to EPA. So they've gone through quite a wide variety of verifications.
Would you disagree with that fact?
Mr. WHITFIELD. No. I agree that it's been peer reviewed, and I can
also give you a long list of scientists who also have peer reviews that
do not agree with these numbers. I can also give you a list of names of
people at OMB who question these numbers. I can also give you a list of
academics at universities that question these numbers.
Mrs. CAPPS. But they did go through the process.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes, they went through the process. And our analysis
went through the process too. But they come up with different numbers.
Therefore, because of that, we don't think it's right to put these
particular numbers in there when there's so much disagreement on the
numbers.
So with that, I would respectfully ask Members to oppose the
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Doyle
Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 6, beginning on line 20, strike paragraph (1) and
insert the following paragraphs (and redesignate the
subsequent paragraph accordingly):
(1) shall establish a date for compliance with standards
and requirements under such regulation in accordance with
section 112(i)(3) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7412(i)(3));
(2) may, if the Administrator determines there is a
compelling reason to extend the date for such compliance,
provide an extension, in addition to any extension under
section 112(i)(3)(B) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(i)(3)(B)),
extending the date for such compliance up to one year, but in
no case beyond the date that is 5 years after the effective
date of such regulation; and
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, we've been debating this bill, H.R. 2250,
for several months now in the Energy and Commerce Committee. And as
we've heard from the bill's supporters, the bill is intended to address
the Boiler MACT rule that was proposed by EPA in April of 2010 and
finalized in February of 2011.
Many of us here know that when the Boiler MACT regulation was
finalized, EPA asked for 15 months to issue a reproposal. The courts
rejected that request and, thus, EPA was forced to issue the rule on
time in February of 2011. However, EPA immediately instituted an
administrative stay on several major rules within the regulation,
saying that they would begin reconsideration with new information that
had been made available.
In the last few months, I've met with many industries and companies
that expressed concern with the provisions in this final rule. I've
listened and even helped foster ongoing conversations between those
industries and EPA as they worked toward a reproposal of the Boiler
MACT rule.
Then we were offered this bill, the EPA Regulatory Relief Act. We
were told that this bill would simply give EPA the time that they had
already asked for to work on the rule and repropose a new final rule.
After the conversations I had had with companies in my district, I
thought this would be a good solution.
The problem is, when you dig a little deeper, I've said for a long
time, this EPA Boiler MACT rule is far from perfect. But the trouble is
the bill we have before us today is even further from perfect because
it doesn't just give EPA time to reconsider the rule; it tells EPA they
can't issue a new rule for at least 15 months. But there's no deadline
for final action. Further, it practically rewrites sections 112 and 129
of the Clean Air Act by eliminating the need for numeric emission
limits for MACT standards.
But perhaps the most egregious to me was section 3 of the bill. It
once again rewrites the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act provides for 3
years for compliance with MACT standards with the possibility of a 4th.
Section 3 of this bill tells us to throw that out. It tells us that for
the Boiler MACT rule, compliance cannot be required for at least 5
years. However, it then says to the EPA administrator, it gives the
administrator the ability to establish compliance dates. So depending
on who the administrator is at the time these rules are finalized,
compliance could be required in 5 years, in 10 years, in 50 years, in
105 years. That's just unacceptable, and that's why I'm offering this
amendment today.
[[Page H6655]]
I support many of the things in this bill and I recognize the need
for a reproposal of this rule, but I don't support 5 years to infinity
for compliance. And so this amendment will simply require that we go
back to the established compliance time lines in the Clean Air Act. It
even gives the possibility for an additional year of compliance if a
compelling reason is found.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and make this a bill
that we can all support when it comes for final passage.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, we all have great respect for the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, and you could make some very good
arguments for his amendment. Basically, he said the amendment would set
a 3-year compliance date and allow a case-by-case extension for up to 2
years if the administrator of the EPA determined that there was a
compelling need, and that's reasonable.
But one of the problems that we continue to run into on these Boiler
MACT rules, and all the hearings have pointed this out: the fact that
lawsuits are always being filed and litigation is continually going on
at EPA and consent decrees are being entered into, and it's an ever-
changing situation over there on the exact rule.
{time} 1330
The one argument that we hear continually from the affected groups is
that they need certainty, and even on a case-to-case basis, if the
administrator determines a compelling need, we don't have that 100
percent certainty that we really want. And so our legislation does say
that within 15 months, they have to come back with the promulgation of
a new rule, and it does say that the administrator shall establish a
date for compliance no earlier than 5 years after the effective date of
the regulation, and it does say that the EPA administrator may provide
additional time if he or she chooses to do so. Just looking at the
track record of EPA, I don't suspect that they would be doing that a
lot, but they might. But they do have to set a compliance date. We say
you must set a compliance date not earlier than 5 years.
Mr. DOYLE. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITFIELD. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. DOYLE. I would say to my friend--and this is my good friend--I'm
with you all the way right till the very end. The one concern that we
have is you say that the compliance date can't be any less than 5
years. If you would have just said that compliance shall be at 5 years,
that there's a date certain, the problem with your legislation is
there's no date certain. It sort of says to the administrator, it can't
be sooner than 5 years, but it could be as long as you determine that
you want it to be. It could theoretically be a hundred years. I'm not
saying it would be a hundred years, but theoretically speaking.
We realize that the proposed rule has flaws and it needs to be
reworked. I'm with you on the 15-month rewrite, and we're working with
industries right in Pittsburgh with EPA on this as we speak. What
concerns many of us is that there's no time line, there's no end line,
for compliance in your legislation. You say no less than 5 years, but
you never say when is the final deadline. All this amendment asks for
is to go back to the Clean Air Act where there's some definition. It's
3 years with the possibility of additional time if the case calls for
it. I think if we could get some sort of a finalized deadline on
compliance, that you could get a lot of support on this side of the
aisle and possibly even pass this bill. As it's written today, it makes
it impossible for those of us that are sympathetic to a lot of what is
in this bill to be able to support it, and I think it makes it
difficult for the President to sign it and for it to pass the Senate.
I would just ask my friend, as we consider this legislation, that we
at least give some certainty to the folks who want their air clean that
at some point there's going to be a line that says, this is the end
date, this is when you comply, not some date in the future that's not
defined in the bill.
I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I thank the gentleman for his comment. Those are very
good thoughts and very good ideas. As you know, a similar bill has been
introduced in the Senate. We don't know if it's going to pass or not.
If it does pass, we want to be able to go into conference with as much
flexibility as possible. That's why we chose a 5-year period instead of
a 3-year period, recognizing that there is some uncertainty in both the
3-year and the 5-year. Under your situation if there's a compelling
need, on a case-by-case basis, they could extend it. In ours, the
administrator under certain circumstances could extend it. We do have
some Democratic support. We would love to have your support. If we get
into conference, that is one of the parts of this bill that we hope
that we can negotiate with the other side and come up with something
that's satisfactory for both.
I really appreciate your bringing it to our attention and offering
your amendment. As I have said, with as much reluctance as I have, I
still will have to oppose it and hopefully we can work it out in
conference with the other body.
Mr. DOYLE. If my friend could yield one more second, I would just say
to you, if your bill simply had a 5-year compliance deadline and the
Clean Air Act said 3 years with the possibility of an extension, I
think you would have something that many of us would consider because
you would have a 5-year deadline. You don't have a deadline. That's my
problem. You have a no-sooner-than, but you don't have a deadline.
I thank my friend.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would have to rise in
opposition to the amendment. I agree with many of the comments that
were made in regard to everybody trying to be reasonable and work some
things out on this, but one of the concerns that I have and the reason
that the language is as it is in the bill, which says that it's 5 years
unless there's an extension by the administrator, is that in the real
world sense of things, many companies find it difficult to hit the
target, and I would hate to see us losing jobs because we had 5 years
and 1 month. Under this amendment if they needed 5 years and 1 month or
5 years and 6 months to comply, then they would not be in compliance,
and it may very well cost jobs and cause a company to make a decision
that they don't think they can make it.
In real world examples, everything is not perfect, and I have
discussed this several times, but one of the factories in my area of
the Celanese company, they have to see what the regs look like, then
they have to see if they can retool for using coal. That takes time to
figure out whether they can retool their facility to meet the
compliance. If they can't meet the compliance, then what about natural
gas or some other fuel source? Well, guess what? They don't have a
natural gas line coming into the community where they're located that
would have enough natural gas in it for any industrial purpose. As a
result of that, they then have to try to figure out how they're going
to cross rivers and mountains in order to get natural gas into that
community in order to keep those jobs available.
The problem with this amendment is it is a solid 5 years and you're
done. What we're trying to do with the bill overall, while we want to
be reasonable and we want to try to work something out, we want to also
have the EPA administrator in a position that in real world
circumstances, with real world jobs, not in the ivory towers of the
universities necessarily or even here in the ivory towers of
Washington, but out there on the hustings, the real world jobs have to
be taken into account, and sometimes it takes 5 years and 1 month or 5
years and 6 months. That's why I would urge that we defeat this
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle).
[[Page H6656]]
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania
will be postponed.
Mr. WHITFIELD. 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. Yoder, Acting 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.
____________________