[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15298-15299]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   EPA REGULATORY RELIEF ACT OF 2011

  Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2250.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 419 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 2250.

                              {time}  1838


                     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. Duffy (Acting Chair) 
in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday, 
October 11, 2011, amendment No. 3 printed in the Congressional Record 
by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) had been disposed of.


                 Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Cohen

  Mr. COHEN. 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 7, line 18, strike ``and'' after the semicolon.
       Page 7, line 19, strike ``impacts.'' and insert ``impacts; 
     and''.
       Page 7, after line 19, insert the following subparagraph:
       (F) potential reductions in the number of illness-related 
     absences from work due to respiratory or other illnesses.


[[Page 15299]]


  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  My amendment is a very simple amendment. It should get unanimous 
support here. It simply requires the Environmental Protection Agency 
administrator to consider increases in illness-related absences from 
work when establishing a compliance date for the boiler rule.
  Last week, I offered similar language as an amendment to the Cement 
Sector Regulatory Relief Act, which, unfortunately, didn't pass. I 
don't think it was clearly understood by both sides of the aisle. 
However, I believe my amendment is more applicable to this legislation 
since boilers and incinerators pose an even greater health threat to 
the American people. In fact, EPA's analysis demonstrates that for 
every year this rule will be in effect, it would prevent up to 320,000 
missed work- or schooldays.
  During the debate on my amendment last week, the majority conceded, 
which I appreciated, that the amendment would do no harm because the 
majority thought that the language was already in the bill and that it 
would be duplicative and unnecessary.

                              {time}  1840

  The reality is that there's nothing in the underlying legislation 
that requires the administrator to consider illness-related absences 
from work when setting a compliance date. Now, indeed, it should have 
been in there--and I can understand why the other side thought it would 
be in there because it should have been in there--but it wasn't in 
there, and that's why I offered this amendment. But this factor is 
critical, and any establishment of a compliance date that does not 
consider the health of the American workforce is fundamentally flawed 
and inadequate.
  As the majority correctly stated last week, the EPA already knows how 
many work days will be missed as a result of delaying the boiler rule, 
so my amendment will not hinder the EPA's decisionmaking process. 
Additionally, as the majority admitted last week, at worst, my 
amendment does no harm--or, as kind of the NBA rule, no harm, no foul. 
However, at best, my amendment ensures that EPA's decision is based on 
a more complete analysis of the economic impacts of the rule. And given 
the economic consequences of 320,000 days of missed work or school a 
year, it's imperative that EPA factor this information into its 
compliance date decision.
  I ask the majority to recognize that if the United States is going to 
retain its status as the world's economic engine, then we need to have 
the world's healthiest and most productive workforce--and children. But 
that will not happen if we continue to let polluting boilers and 
incinerators undermine the health and well-being of millions of 
American workers and children.
  I encourage my colleagues to understand the importance of a healthy 
workforce and support my amendment. On behalf of the millions of 
American workers and schoolchildren who have been forced to miss work 
or school because of sickness incurred by breathing toxic pollutants 
from boilers and incinerators--mercury, no less, which interferes with 
young people's abilities to think--I ask that you support my amendment. 
It's time to put partisanship aside and work together to strengthen the 
American worker and the American school child.
  I urge passage of my 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. I want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee for 
offering this amendment. He always does a great job of articulating his 
position on these issues, some of which are pretty complicated.
  In this amendment, he would add illness-related work absences to the 
considerations when EPA is setting the compliance deadline. And of 
course that's one of the main purposes of H.R. 2250, to allow 
additional time for universities, hospitals, and industries in 
complying with these rather complicated Boiler MACT rules. And in the 
legislation, we set out six or seven specific items that EPA must 
consider in setting the compliance deadline. They do have to set it no 
sooner than within 5 years, but the EPA administrator has additional 
time after that. And the section of the bill that I'm talking about 
identifies specific issues relevant to a facility's ability to comply 
and simply ensures that in setting these compliance dates, plant-
focused considerations are taken into account.
  Now, EPA already has the responsibility for considering health 
impacts in setting its standards. And its unclear exactly how this 
amendment would be implemented different from what the act already 
requires the EPA to do. So I'm going to respectfully oppose the 
amendment and ask that it be defeated. However, if we end up having a 
vote on this and if it is defeated, either by voice vote or by record 
vote, if we are successful in getting this into a conference with the 
Senate, I would specifically make the commitment to the gentleman from 
Tennessee that I would work with him sincerely in trying to address his 
concern. And I might say that we've had a lot of amendments, and this 
is, I guess, the only time we said we would really be willing to do 
that. I know you're trying to address an issue that's of concern to 
you. And while I oppose the amendment here, if we are successful in 
getting to conference, I'd look forward to working with the gentlemen 
at that time. For that reason, I would formally, at this time, oppose 
the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. COHEN. 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 Tennessee 
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. Duffy, 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.

                          ____________________