Ed Whitfield

Mr. WHITFIELD

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.

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

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

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. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Mr. WHITFIELD. May I ask how much time remains, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and to insert extraneous materials on H.R. 2250.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).

Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. WHITFIELD. In closing, I would urge every Member of this body to support H.R. 2250. We believe that it is genuinely a balanced approach. EPA even was trying to convince the court that their rule was a good rule, the old rule. To just give you a very concrete example of this, of the practical impacts of what's going on here, EPA went to the court last December when it asked for time to fix the Boiler MACT rules, which the court denied it, and pointed out that the investments required by industry are irreversible. An example of that, representatives of Notre Dame University came to our hearing. And in order to comply with the Boiler MACT rules issued in 2004, which were invalidated by the court, the University of Notre Dame spent $20 million, and now they're not in compliance with the new rule, so they're going to have to come forth with additional millions of dollars. So that's happening not only at the University of Notre Dame, that's happening at just about every university around the country, hospitals around the country, small businesses around the country, small utilities around the country. So if we don't take some action, there are going to be a lot less, many fewer jobs in the economy than there are today, because testimony after testimony after testimony has indicated that entities cannot meet these new rules, are going to have to close down and lose jobs. So one way that we can help the administration create jobs is to prevent the loss of jobs. If this administration would assert more common sense in their rules, we could remove some of the uncertainty to help us create more jobs in America. I would urge every Member to support 2250. It's a balanced approach. It protects health, protects industry, and provides a more commonsense approach to this significant problem. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I would like to yield 4 minutes to the primary sponsor of the legislation, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Since 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency has rolled out a long list of regulations that are really unprecedented in their cost and complexity. The impacts on jobs, energy prices, and America's industrial competitiveness in the world are extremely serious. But of all these rules, the Boiler MACT rule, which we will be discussing today, stands out in that it will apply to a very wide variety of employers. Not only will industrial facilities be impacted, but also colleges, universities, hospitals, government buildings, and large commercial properties. The impact on jobs projected is staggering, but the cost will be borne by all of us in the form of higher tuition costs, higher hospital bills, higher rent, as well as higher prices for manufactured goods. Just about everyone will be adversely impacted either directly or indirectly. The good news is that we can reduce emissions from boilers without causing economic harm. The EPA Regulatory Relief Act, H.R. 2250, accomplishes this goal by taking a sensible, middle ground, balanced approach; and I would like at this time to thank Mr. Butterfield of North Carolina, as well as Mr. Griffith of Virginia, for their sponsorship of this bipartisan bill. A study conducted by IHS Global Insight, a respected research company, found that the rules that we are talking about today would impose total costs of over $14 billion and put at risk 230,000 jobs in America at a time when we already have a 9.1 percent unemployment rate. My home State of Kentucky, under the analysis, would face estimated costs of $183 million and 2,930 potential job losses. Twenty-five other States are hit even harder. That includes at least 10,000 jobs estimated for North Carolina, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Virginia, as well as over 5,000 job losses for Minnesota, Wisconsin, Alabama, Tennessee, Iowa, New York, Illinois, Maine, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, and Arkansas. These boiler rules largely target coal-fired boilers and thus discourage the use of this energy source which, by the way, today provides about 50 percent of all of the electricity produced in America. I should add that the problems with EPA's boiler rules are not the sole fault of the agency. These rules, like many today, are being rushed out the door to comply with a court-ordered deadline. EPA asked for additional time, but their request was refused by the courts. EPA then published the rules by the deadline, but immediately announced that it was reconsidering portions of them because they were so complicated. However, this is not an adequate solution, as the reconsideration only applies to some of the many problematic provisions in these rules; and the reconsideration process is an uncertain one. In reality, it is unlikely that all the issues can be addressed. So our legislation is to help EPA deal with this problem. We create a comprehensive solution not only for EPA but also for boiler owners, and we provide the certainty that this solution will be implemented. It still requires additional emissions reductions from boilers, but it gives EPA the time it needs to do it right. It gives the regulated community the time it needs in order to comply. This bill is supported by over 300 organizations and five national labor unions. It will require that the standards be reasonable and take into account cost and achievability under real-world conditions. I believe that EPA's original rules were a departure from the congressional intent in the Clean Air Act, and the EPA Regulatory Relief Act that we're discussing today represents a return to congressional intent. Make no mistake, under this bill that we're discussing, new standards will be imposed on boiler owners and operators. The goals of the Clean Air Act can be accomplished without undue cost and job losses, particularly at this time when our Nation's economy is struggling, and the EPA Regulatory Relief Act is the way to do it. So I would urge every Member of this body to come forth today and help us pass this legislation--help us save over 230,000 jobs at risk in America that we can ill-afford to lose--with this balanced approach to the problem. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Roe.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I would like to remind the gentleman from Massachusetts that there is a large number of Democrats on this legislation. At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I may say to the gentleman from Minnesota, I don't know exactly what he's talking about when he says ``bought and paid for by industry.'' I might say that this legislation is being offered because hospitals, schools, industry, a wide range of interests, have come to us and asked for help, and the insinuation that we were bought and paid for by industry is a little bit of an affront to this institution. At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

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

Mr. WHITFIELD

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

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. The amendment offered by the gentleman would set a 3- year compliance date and allow case-by-case extensions for up to 2 years if the administrator of EPA determines that there is a compelling need to do so. The purpose, of course, of this legislation is to protect health, provide feasibility and regulatory certainty, protect jobs, and minimize plant shutdowns. Under the Clean Air Act, sources already have 3 years to comply with section 112 standards for cement kilns, with a potential 1-year extension by the EPA administrator or a State- permitting authority. This amendment would allow for a second possible 1-year extension, so a source might be able to get 5 years for compliance. The amendment would impose additional regulatory burdens on both the EPA and those facilities trying to comply. It would require a facility to compile evidence to justify the need for an additional year, and would require the administrator to make a case-by-case determination about whether that justification is compelling. All of the testimony in the hearings on this indicated that the current 3-year compliance timeframe is simply not workable and a definitive period of at least 5 years is needed. And so for that reason, with all due respect, we would urge the defeat of the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I certainly want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee for offering this amendment and particularly pointing out that it relates to animals as well as people, and I would say that from our analysis, certainly EPA considers work-related illnesses and absences when they issue these regulations, and the specific section of the bill, H.R. 2681, which the gentleman from Tennessee is amending relates to the provisions that the administrator must consider relating to the industry in trying to comply with the regulation. This amendment would add to that illness-related work absences would have to be considered as well, and we think that that would really be duplicative of what they already considered. And because of that, despite the great respect we have for the gentleman from Tennessee, I would urge that this amendment not be adopted and urge other Members to vote ``no'' on the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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