Ed Whitfield

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. All of us are very much concerned about excessive spending by the Federal Government. We know we have a serious debt, we have a serious deficit, and all of us are determined to bring that in line and to solve that problem. Now, the gentleman from California's amendment is trying to use the so-called CutGo rule as a means to invalidate this legislation. In our legislation, we do not authorize the appropriation of any additional funds. We do not create any new programs in this legislation. And I might say that each year EPA receives an appropriation for its activities, and we know that more than any other agency in the Federal Government, EPA is sued more than almost any other agency. At any one time, they have 400 or 500 lawsuits going. As a result of many of those lawsuits, they have to go back and they have to re-look at rules and so forth; and there's never any additional money appropriated to them for that purpose. So what we're doing in this legislation is no different than what they deal with at EPA every year. Now, CBO did come forth and say that over a 5-year period, because they would have to re-look at these rules and issue new rules and so forth, there would be maybe a million dollars in additional cost. But that's not any different than what EPA goes through every year, as I said, because of lawsuits that are filed. Our position is we do not authorize additional money in this legislation. We do not create a new program in this legislation; and, therefore, the CutGo rules are not applicable. And it is the decision of the House leadership to determine if that is the case or not, and they've determined that is not the case. So for those reasons, I would oppose the gentleman's amendment and would urge all Members to oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentlelady from Illinois is certainly a valuable member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and is an effective advocate for her positions, but her amendment would require a finding that mercury emitted from the cement kiln is a neurotoxin. I would first point out that EPA, itself, in its reports, has indicated that the regulation of domestic mercury, because of the Clean Air Act, has already decreased by 58 percent. It has also estimated that the Cement MACT that it issued, which is at issue in this legislation, would reduce global emissions of mercury by less than one- fourth of 1 percent. It also said that the Department of Energy estimated that the global emissions of mercury amount to about 11 million pounds. So the amount of mercury that we're talking about in this cement regulation is so minute that the EPA, itself, did not even assign a dollar value to the benefit because it was so, in its opinion, inconsequential. Obviously, Congress is not a scientific body. We know that mercury is dangerous, but when mercury comes out of a cement kiln, it comes out as elemental mercury. It then must fall into water, where organisms convert it to methylmercury. A fish has to take in the methylmercury, and that fish has to be cooked. Then someone has to eat it for it to be damaging to that person. So these are very scientific assumptions. As I said, Congress is not a scientific body. The scientific understanding of mercury is certainly far more complicated than is reflected in this finding that asks to be included in the bill. This statement simply assigns the responsibility for specific health impacts to specific sources when there are multiple sources of mercury in the environment, including natural resources. There is some mercury in the air as a result of cement kilns, but there is an awful lot in there which is natural, and then there is an awful lot that comes from sources outside the U.S. We do not believe that the EPA can quantify any health benefit from reducing emissions of mercury from these sources, because they've said that themselves. Because of that, I would oppose putting into a finding this particular statement. I might also say to the gentlelady from Illinois that we don't have any findings in this legislation at all, so I would respectfully request that the Members oppose this particular amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman from California's amendment. In doing so, I would be the first to recognize that she has been one of the real leaders in the Congress of looking after the health of all of our constituents in the U.S. The reason that I'm opposed to this particular amendment, however, is that she asks us to adopt EPA's findings about health and cost benefits. She wants that to be adopted as a finding in the legislation. In our legislation, we don't have any findings that we're adopting at all. And one of the reasons, among many, that we are opposed to putting the health and cost benefits as a finding in the legislation is that we have not had the ability to undertake any full analysis of EPA's methodology in assessing those health benefits and costs. And we furthermore do not have any idea what assumptions they used. And another reason that I personally am opposed to their health and cost benefits is that we know for a fact that they do not include as a cost the health benefits lost by family members of those people who lose jobs as a result of the regulation adopted by EPA. So if you're going to look at the cost of health benefits that people incur for the emissions that may be affected by the regulation, you most certainly should examine and analyze the cost of the health benefits to those people who lose jobs, lose their health insurance, because there has been shown to be a direct correlation between economic livelihood and health. So because of that, I would be very much opposed to adopting this as a finding. We already know that EPA has set out their cost benefits and analysis. That's available to the public, so we're not really accomplishing any purpose by putting it in this legislation. I would also just like to make one additional comment going back to my friend from Illinois about delay, delay, delay. And I would reiterate what the gentleman from Texas said. EPA adopted the first cement regulation in 1999. They came back in 2006 and adopted another one. That would be in effect today except that the environmental groups filed a lawsuit against it. And as we know, the pattern seems to be environmental groups file the lawsuit, EPA enters a consent decree agreeing, and then they pay the legal fees of the environmental groups. So these regulations would have been in effect a long time ago if that lawsuit had not been filed. So all we're saying is the industry and EPA and others had agreed to those second regulations, but once the lawsuit was filed, the regulations became so stringent that the testimony has shown that many of these plants simply cannot meet those standards. So with that, I yield back the balance of my time and ask Members to oppose the Capps amendment.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment for the simple reason that in 1999, EPA issued a rule for cement plants in which it regulated emissions from cement plants. All of us are very much aware of the health hazards of certain emissions. And that's why we support the ruling of the EPA in 1999. Now, in 2006, EPA came back with a new cement rule. But the environmental groups challenged that in court. And so as a result of that challenge, EPA went back, and they came out with the new Cement MACT rules that are the subject of our legislation today. And as we said during the general debate, the economy is unusually weak today, our unemployment is high today, and we think we need a more balanced approach than what EPA came out with in its most recent cement rule, which is in effect, but compliance is not expected until 2013. So we simply are staying that rule with this legislation asking EPA to come out with a new Cement MACT within 15 months after passage of our legislation and then give industry 5 years to comply, and longer, if the EPA administrator decides to do that. Now, looking at the history of this administrator, I can't conceive that she would be willing to give them any more than that 5 years, but that would be her choice. So I would urge the Members to oppose this amendment because we already have some basic protections in there. We have the 1999 rule that is in effect if we are successful in passing this legislation that would negate the most recent Cement MACT rule. And as I said before, we hear today from businesses all over the country who are talking about the uncertainty--particularly because of the excess of regulations coming out from EPA--not knowing what standards are required, and in many instances not even having technology that's available to meet the standards. So I think our H.R. 2681 is a reasonable approach: Ask EPA to step back, propose a new rule, do it within 15 months and give the industry 5 years. And for that reason, I would reiterate all of us have the same concerns that the gentleman from California has. I do not believe that his amendment is necessary, and I would urge all of our Members to oppose his amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains?

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I have one more speaker and he will be closing. Other than that, I have no further requests for time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. WHITFIELD. The last time that the Clean Air Act was amended in any significant way was 1990, over 21 years ago. And Congress certainly has the responsibility, from time to time, to look at the Clean Air Act to make changes when we believe changes should be made. And with the current situation in our economy, and the high unemployment and the number of concerns expressed by industries around the country, as well as individuals about the lack of jobs, we made a decision that we would start questioning some of the regulations coming out of the EPA. The gentlelady from Maryland, who is a very effective Member of this body, is suggesting that, in our legislation, that we adopt as a finding the health benefits and costs as computed by EPA. Now, we have difficulty just adopting their health benefits and costs and putting it in our legislation as a finding for a number of reasons. Number one, we don't really know the assumptions that they're using. Number two, many universities and others have questioned the models being used by EPA in computing costs and benefits. And many people have found that there is a lack of transparency in the methodology used at EPA in making many of these calculations. I might also say that, because of that, for example, EPA determined that the cost of these rules would be between $926 million to $950 million; and yet other independent analyses have indicated that the cost would be anywhere up to $3.4 billion. So we genuinely believe that for Congress to simply take those calculations and put them in as a finding of this legislation would be irresponsible. I might also add that, with respect to the benefits, EPA itself has acknowledged that it has not even quantified the benefits from the reductions of hazardous air pollutants, which are the very pollutants that these rules, these cement rules, were intended to target. Rather, EPA's estimates of benefits are all related to incidental health benefits by the reduction of particulate matter, which are already regulated by other parts of the Clean Air Act. So for all of those reasons, I would respectfully urge Members to oppose the gentlelady's amendment and request that they vote in opposition to it. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. I have great admiration for the gentleman from Florida, who is always eloquent in his remarks. He started off his support of his amendment by saying that we are trying to dismantle any regulation. I would like to remind everyone, once again, that this bill applies to 14 EPA regulations and we do not delay in any way 12 of them. And on the other two, we delay one of them, both of them, 6 months after the final report is due. Now, he had mentioned that Exelon supported the new EPA regulations. Exelon is a company that we all admire and respect, but it's a nuclear energy company, so there's nothing in these regulations that has any impact on them, as far as I know. But all of these regulations are trying to drive the coal industry out of business, that still provides 50 percent of all the electricity in America. Now, in the TRAIN Act, we simply ask this independent government agency, composed of Obama administration appointees, to examine the cumulative impact of all of these rules, because EPA has never been quite this aggressive. And I might add that the two rules that we asked to delay for further analysis, an independent research group said that the annualized cost would be almost $18 billion that utilities would have to spend to buy equipment that may not be able to even then achieve the standards because the technology is not available. The issue is not about mercury. The utilities do a great job of cleaning up mercury. EPA itself said that its Utility MACT would only benefit--the benefit of the Utility MACT would be only .004 percent attributable to mercury because 99 percent of mercury in America comes from nature and from outside other countries that the trade winds bring in to our country. So utilities don't object to the mercury part of this. But they're now adding hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen chloride, of which there is no technology available to achieve the standard that EPA is setting. So because of the cost, because of the unique vulnerability of our economy today, 12 of these regulations we don't delay at all. We just say, let's study the cumulative impact, which the President asked for in his Executive order that he issued recently. He said we need to look at the cumulative impact. That's what we're trying to do. This amendment would basically say, you don't look at the cumulative impact, you just take the existing studies that have been made. I would also say that EPA didn't even do any study on the greenhouse gas, which we're only trying to analyze the full cost of that. For those reasons, I would respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. I would remind everyone just once again that we're talking about 14 regulations. We're not delaying 12 of them in any way. We're asking for further analysis of two of them. For that reason, I would oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I don't have any other speakers, so I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Does the gentlelady from California have any time left?

Mr. WHITFIELD. All of us certainly are concerned about impacts on children. One of the problems that we have with this amendment is that when you try to determine specifically what causes a birth defect, for example, there are lots of different reasons. Folic acid is a B vitamin. Taking folic acid supplements before getting pregnant and in early pregnancy lowers the risk of having a baby with serious birth defects. Drinking alcohol increases the likelihood of serious birth defects. Smoking. Women who are obese when they get pregnant are at higher risk of having a baby with serious birth defects. Poor control of diabetes in pregnant women increases the chance of having a birth defect. So there's lots of different reasons, and it's difficult to set out a causal reason. I would say to the gentlelady from California who we know is genuinely concerned about these health issues and has distinguished her career by raising them frequently, the EPA did extensive analysis of the health benefits of all of these rules with the exception of greenhouse gas. They didn't do any study on anything there. So we have a lot of information about the health benefits. As far as the mercury issue, I would say to the gentlelady that the Utility MACT, EPA itself said that this would reduce mercury by such a small amount that it would represent only 0.004 percent of the total claimed benefits of the rule, and the remaining 99.996 percent would be due to particulate matter reduction. And I would also remind the gentlelady that the Department of Energy and other groups have indicated that 99 percent of mercury deposits in the U.S. do not come from utility companies, but they originate from nature and foreign industrial sources in which the wind brings them to the U.S. We believe that there's adequate information on health benefits. Furthermore, the TRAIN Act does ask the independent body to look at benefits--it can be health, whatever--and cost. For that reason, we would oppose the gentlelady's amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.