Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I seek recognition in support of the amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN. I seek recognition to speak in support of the amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN. I don't wish to strike the last word. I want to speak in favor of the amendment. Is that grounds for recognition?

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, I will seek recognition to strike the last word. I didn't know I couldn't stand up during the debate on an amendment and speak in favor of the amendment, but I will take it.

Mr. WAXMAN. Under the 5-minute rule I am recognized, and I want the opportunity to respond to the comments that were just made. My colleague from Kentucky keeps on saying that there will be no benefit from the EPA boiler rules in terms of health. Well, it's true that EPA didn't put a dollar figure on the potential health benefits from reducing emissions of mercury, carcinogens, and other toxic pollutants, but that's not because there won't be any benefits. Allow me to quote from EPA's regulatory impact analysis for the boiler rules: ``Data, resource, and methodological limitations prevented EPA from quantifying or monetizing the benefits from several important benefit categories, including benefits from reducing toxic emissions.'' Notice that this doesn't say that cutting hazardous air pollutants from boilers will have no benefits for public health. What are the benefits of cutting mercury pollution here at home? Cutting mercury pollution from boilers and incinerators will reduce localized mercury deposition. Reducing mercury deposition is critical to reducing Americans' exposure to mercury from eating contaminated fish. In 2000 EPA estimated that roughly 60 percent of the total mercury deposited in the United States comes from man-made air emission sources within the United States, such as power plants, incinerators, boilers, cement kilns, and other sources. These numbers have changed slightly since 2000, but other studies have shown that there's an importance still in reducing local sources of mercury pollution. For example, one study by the University of Michigan and EPA found that the majority of mercury deposited at a monitoring site in eastern Ohio came from local and regional sources. Mercury is a potent neurotoxin. Babies born to women exposed to mercury during pregnancy can suffer from a wide range of developmental and neurological problems, including delays in speaking and difficulties learning. Now, it's hard to translate that into dollars and cents. What is the value of allowing a child's brain to develop normally so that those children can reach their full potential? But this is just common sense. Cutting the emissions of a powerful neurotoxin will help protect children's health. I don't know how anybody can honestly argue that allowing more mercury pollution is better for public health than less. Overall, EPA estimates for the quantified benefits of the boiler rules likely underestimate the total benefits to society of requiring those industrial sources to clean up. Now, EPA looked, as well, at what the rules would do in terms of the effect of reducing emissions of fine particle pollution which can lodge deep into the lungs and cause serious effects. Breathing particle pollution has been found to cause a range of acute and chronic health problems, such as significant damage to the small airways of the lungs; aggravated asthma attacks in children; death from respiratory and cardiovascular causes, including strokes, increased numbers of heart attacks, especially among the elderly and in people with heart conditions; increased hospitalization for cardiovascular disease, including strokes and congestive heart failure; and increased emergency room visits for patients suffering from acute respiratory ailments. By cutting emissions of fine particles, EPA estimated that these rules will prevent up to 6,600 premature deaths, 4,100 nonfatal heart attacks, 42,000 cases of aggravated asthma, 320,000 days when people miss work or school each year. EPA found that these rules will provide at least $10 to $24 in health benefits for every dollar in costs. That's a tremendous return on investment and doesn't even include the benefits of the toxic air pollution, toxic mercury pollution, which is harder to quantify but is there nevertheless. So the amendment is straightforward. It states that the bill does not stop EPA from taking action to clean up air pollution from a dirty boiler or incinerator if that facility is emitting pollutants that are causing heart attacks, asthma attacks, and bronchitis or other respiratory and cardiovascular disease. The Republicans argue that this bill is not an attack on the Clean Air Act or public health. They argue this bill won't prevent EPA from requiring boilers and incinerators to cut their pollution. I disagree. So I support adding language to the bill making it perfectly clear EPA must act, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, we just heard from the chairman of the subcommittee handling this bill, and there are two statements that are just absolutely inaccurate. He said this bill does not weaken the Clean Air Act. I don't know what weakening the Clean Air Act means to him, but when we say that we're going to nullify the standards EPA set under the Clean Air Act, that weakens the Clean Air Act. When we say that we're going to eliminate the deadlines for compliance, that weakens the Clean Air Act. When we say that EPA can set regulations but that they have to use a different standard, that certainly weakens the Clean Air Act. The other statement that was just made that is absolutely erroneous is that we don't get any health benefits from reducing the toxic pollution, and that is just not true. Reducing the toxic pollutants is aimed at protecting the public health from toxic, dangerous, poisonous chemicals--mercury and carcinogens. These are toxic pollutants, and reducing them will help the public health. Again the statement was made inaccurately that EPA didn't find any health benefits. That is not true. EPA said they could not quantify the health benefits. How do you quantify a life that can be lived longer? How do you quantify a child who will not be impaired in learning and thinking? How do you quantify the damage that can be done from the toxic air pollutants? I think both of those statements are inaccurate. This amendment says, in effect, that if we're going to have an increase in cancer as a result of what is called for by the author of this bill, or from the proponents of this bill, then we're not going to let this bill go into effect. I think that's a commonsense approach. So I would urge support for the amendment being offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts. I think it's the right approach, and it underscores the wrong approach taken by the authors of this bill.

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. WAXMAN. The gentleman is absolutely correct. Make no mistake about it. H.R. 2250 has real legal effects, and those effects weaken our protections from air pollution and harm the health of all Americans, especially our children. No matter how many times Republicans may want to say that the bill won't harm health and that it doesn't weaken health standards, it just simply is not accurate. So I urge support for this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, a point of parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. WAXMAN. I just have a question about the parliamentary manner in which the debate is being handled. When I asked the other day for time to speak on the bill, I was recognized for 5 minutes. Then I asked to strike the last word so I could speak again, and it was subjected to a unanimous consent request. That wasn't the request for the gentleman from Kentucky to be given an additional 5 minutes, which I would not have objected to, but I just wonder, what are the standards in terms of having a Member speak twice in the debate?

Mr. WAXMAN. So the rule is that any Member can speak on the amendment and also strike the last word and have two 5-minute timeframes?

Mr. WAXMAN. I asked a while ago to speak in favor of an amendment. I was told that I had to strike the last word. Can the Chair explain to me why I have to strike the last word to speak in favor of an amendment, and if I spoke in favor of an amendment, would I have an opportunity to speak in striking the last word?

Mr. WAXMAN. Only?

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for that clarification.

Mr. WAXMAN. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. WAXMAN. I want to counter the statement that was just made. We have an estimate from the boiler industry association, and they say that there is going to be a loss of jobs, and that was what was cited by my friend from Kentucky. But EPA did a very careful, rigorous 251-page economic analysis and found that the boiler rules issued in February would be expected to create over 2,000 jobs, which is the finding that the author of this amendment would have us put in the legislation. Unlike the industry studies, EPA had to follow guidelines and use a transparent analysis and subject it to public comment. EPA determined that the boiler rules would create a net 2,200 jobs, not including jobs created to manufacture and install air pollution equipment. Of course the boiler rules do more than just create jobs. They prevent up to 6,600 premature deaths, 4,100 nonfatal heart attacks, 42,000 cases of aggravated asthma. So that means that we are going to have a healthier workforce and a more efficient economy. EPA also found the boiler rules will provide at least $10 to $24 in health benefits for every $1 in costs. But the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners put out this study, estimating the standards would lead to 338,000 to 800,000 lost jobs. Well, that was their analysis. But this analysis wildly overstated the impact of these rules by inflating the costs, ignoring the job growth resulting from investment in pollution control equipment, and ignoring the fact that business can innovate and adapt to pollution control standards. So the nonpartisan CRS, Congressional Research Service, examined the industry study, and they said the basis of this CIBO study, the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, was flawed; and, as a result, the Congressional Research Service said little credence can be placed in their estimate of job losses. The National Association of Clean Air Agencies also reviewed the study. These are the people who implement the standards at the State and local levels. They found the industry study assumptions about the number of sources that would need to make changes to comply were grossly in error. Now, even though the Council on Boiler Owners' study has been thoroughly debunked, this week the Republicans circulated a ``Dear Colleague'' citing this study and using it to provide numbers of potential jobs at risk. And that, of course, has been the basis for the statement that has been made during the course of today's debate. That's why this amendment is important. If the Republicans insist on referencing flawed industry studies citing job losses, then we should ensure that EPA's peer-reviewed analysis showing the potential for job growth is included in the Record as well. The amendment before us does not change the underlying bill in a substantive way. It still nullifies the boiler rules and all of the health benefits these rules would provide. But the amendment before us simply ensures that the bill's text includes a simple fact: EPA estimates that the boiler rules will create jobs, not destroy them. I would like, at this point, to ask the gentleman from Kentucky what other sources he has for his claim that there would be job losses, other than the study by the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners. He said that they had their report, but this was verified by other independent sources. What other sources can verify what the CIBO states, based on their study which has been found to be flawed? I would yield to the gentleman to cite any other information.

Mr. WAXMAN. Okay. Let me point out I have a statement by the American Boiler Manufacturers Association. These are the companies that actually design, manufacture and supply the commercial, institutional, and industrial boilers.

Mr. WAXMAN. They said it is imperative that the rulemaking process-- already under way for a decade--goes forward unencumbered by congressional intrusion and that final regulations be promulgated as soon as possible to alleviate continued and further confusion and uncertainty in the marketplace and to begin generating what we expect will be the new high-tech engineering and domestic manufacturing jobs in the boiler and boiler-related sectors. I submit that this is a reason to vote for this amendment, and what we've had are arguments that have come from a self-interested group based on a study that was found to be a flawed study. So I urge support for the amendment. American Boiler Manufacturers Association, Vienna, VA, October 10, 2011. To Members of the United States House of Representatives: The American Boiler Manufacturers Association (ABMA)--the companies that actually design, manufacture and supply the commercial, institutional, industrial boilers and combustion equipment in question--strongly opposes H.R. 2250, the EPA Regulatory Relief Act of 2011 and any legislation that would further delay, by legislative fiat, the ongoing EPA rulemaking process now playing itself out with respect to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major and Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters rules. It is imperative that the rulemaking process--already under way for over a decade--goes forward unencumbered by Congressional intrusion and that final regulations be promulgated as soon as possible to alleviate continued and further confusion and uncertainty in the marketplace and to begin generating what we expect will be new, high-tech engineering and domestic manufacturing jobs in the boiler and boiler-related sectors. The U.S. boiler and combustion equipment industry--with decades of experience and expertise in meeting tough state, local, regional and national air-quality codes, standards and regulations with innovative and real-world design solutions-- stands ready and able to help those affected by these rules to comply with them in a timely and cost-effective manner. Further delays, over and above those already extended by EPA, will not necessarily result in improved rules; they will only exacerbate future compliance issues and costs; labor and materials costs are currently stable and domestic boiler and combustion equipment manufacturing capacity is available now to service the full range of compliance options available under the new rules--from simple boiler tune-ups and system upgrades and optimizations to system replacement. The types of clean, efficient, fuel-flexible, cost- effective and technologically advanced products and equipment that can be supplied by the U.S. boiler manufacturing industry are critically important for long-term public health, environmental quality and business stability. The ABMA urges you to vote against H.R. 2250, to let the rulemaking process within EPA go forward without Congressional interference, and to cast aside any further delaying tactics or excuses that only serve to retard growth, defer job creation and spawn confusion. Sincerely, W. Randall Rawson, President/Chief Executive Officer.

Mr. WAXMAN. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. WAXMAN. This amendment simply states a scientific fact: Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that can damage the development of an infant's brain. In 2000, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that the data linking neurodevelopment effects to mercury exposure is extensive. So what do we hear from the Republican side of the aisle? Science denial. When we talked about climate change and all the impact of the greenhouse gases, they said there's no problem. Science denial. Well, let me just say that the Republican majority in the House can vote to amend the Clean Air Act, but they cannot vote to amend the laws of nature. Babies born to women exposed to mercury during pregnancy can suffer from a range of developmental and neurological abnormalities, including delayed onset of walking, delayed onset of talking, cerebral palsy, and lower neurological test scores. The National Academy of Sciences estimates each year about 60,000 children may be born in the U.S. with neurological problems that could lead to poor school performance because of exposure to mercury in utero. The effects of mercury exposure in utero are insidious and long term. Now, why are we hearing that this isn't a scientific fact? Well, I heard a distinction of mercury and mercury when it's mixed with other chemicals. I think what we have here is, make up the science as you go along but deny the science that the scientists have worked for decades establishing. Boilers and incinerators are one of the largest sources of airborne mercury pollution in the U.S. For far too long they have been allowed to pollute unabated. And now the Republican leadership wants to nullify the rules that EPA finalized to cut emissions of mercury and other toxic air pollution from boilers and incinerators. These rules were more than a decade late. The Republicans say, Well, let EPA start the rulemaking process all over again. Let them comply with a different standard. We're going to amend the law to provide a different standard. The different standard should not be to use the maximum available control technology but something that is the lowest risk of harm or cost to the industry. The Republicans keep trying to justify this bill by saying that the public health benefits of cutting mercury pollution here at home aren't significant enough to justify the costs. Well, I think we're talking about Science 101. This is not a subject to debate. Mercury is a known neurotoxin. So I ask those that support this bill, Are you going to vote against what scientists say is a fact? Many of you voted earlier this year to reject the overwhelming science linking carbon pollution to climate change. I hope the Republicans are not going to do the same thing now by rejecting what every public health expert knows--mercury is a poison. I yield to the gentlelady from Illinois.

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, let me yield to the gentleman from Kentucky. Maybe he'll be satisfied with that change because you're stating it in a very clear, unequivocal way as a scientific finding. Would the gentleman from Kentucky be willing to agree to that statement of the issue?

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield further to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, let's worry about that later. How about the substance of that change? Would you be willing to accept that change in the findings on the legislation?

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman if he wishes to seek a unanimous consent request in that regard. Apparently, there is an objection. Reclaiming my time for the moment that I have left, what we are seeing is Republicans unwilling to say anything that has been scientifically established. They're willing to deny the science and do anything in order to serve the interests of the industry. And I think we ought to have the finding in the bill since it does not affect the functions of the bill, itself. I urge support for the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.