Ed Whitfield

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Our good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, talks about the American Boiler Manufacturers Association being opposed to our bill. And that's true. But they don't speak for those who own and operate boilers. They speak for themselves because they manufacture boilers; and if this rule goes into effect, they're going to make a lot more money than they're making today. The gentleman from Massachusetts also indicated that our legislation will weaken the Clean Air Act. There is not anything in our bill that would weaken the Clean Air Act, and I think that Congress has the responsibility to review and to have oversight over the decisions of EPA on regulations that they adopt. And precisely the reason why we're here with this legislation is because of the economic situation that we find ourselves in America today--we have a very high unemployment rate, we have a stagnant economy, and we have people without jobs. We've had a lot of hearings on this Boiler MACT regulation issued by EPA, and people are saying that this regulation alone would put at risk 230,000 jobs nationwide. So we're not saying walk away and not protect the American people. We are simply saying let's hold back for just a moment. Let's go back and revisit this rule. Let's take 15 months for EPA to promulgate a new rule and then give the affected industries, universities, hospitals and other groups a minimum of 5 years to implement these new regulations. And I might say that we heard testimony from the University of Notre Dame, because the first Boiler MACT rules went into effect in 2004, and in order to meet those regulations, the University of Notre Dame spent $20 million to meet those boiler rules and regulations. And then the environmental groups filed a lawsuit and said, hey, this is not stringent enough. We need to issue new rules, which is what EPA did. So the University of Notre Dame, having spent $20 million already, is still not in compliance. They are going to have to come forth and spend more money. Their witness said that may very well cause them to increase their tuition costs, which makes it more difficult for young people to go to college. The gentleman from Massachusetts also talked about mercury. And I would reiterate, once again, that when EPA did their analysis, they did not come up with any health benefits because of the reduction in mercury as a result of their Boiler MACT rule. The only health benefits that they pointed out were related to particulate matter, reduction of particulate matter, not mercury; and I'm not aware of any scientific causal connection that specifically says that in this instance 6,600 more people are going to die each year because we delay the implementation of the Boiler MACT rule. And that's one of the reasons that a lot of independent third-party groups have serious questions about EPA's analysis. How do you know for a fact, without any contradiction, that 6,600 people are going to die each year if this is delayed, or that there are going to be X thousands of people who are going to have heart attacks who wouldn't have had them before? Because of all of those reasons, we simply believe that this legislation is a commonsense approach: protect jobs, protect health, revisit the issue, come out with a new rule, and give industries, universities, hospitals time to comply. That's all that we're asking for. For that reason, I would respectfully oppose the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts, which was introduced by Mr. Quigley of Illinois. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I'm not positive what the rules are here, but the gentleman from Massachusetts says that he has amendment No. 7, and in the list of amendments that we have, the sponsor of No. 7 is said to be Mr. Quigley of Illinois. Would the Chair be able to explain to me what the rules are in regard to that?

Mr. WHITFIELD. Has the potential. May I ask a parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. WHITFIELD. I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. WHITFIELD. They indicated that there was no quantifiable benefit from the reduction of mercury.

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. WHITFIELD. There really is nothing in H.R. 2250 that would in any way prohibit or discourage States from continuing to give these advisory opinions about mercury and the dangers of mercury. So our legislation would not prevent the States in any way from continuing to do that. The gentleman's amendment would place particular attention on industrial sources; and as we had stated in the debate last week, the Department of Energy itself has said that over 11 million pounds of mercury were emitted globally from both natural and human sources, and the vast majority of the human sources in the U.S. come from outside the U.S. So coupled with that fact, and the fact that EPA said the benefits of mercury reduction from the Boiler MACT rules have not been quantified, this really seems to be a duplicative effort because the States are going to continue to issue their rulings, their warnings, as they should do so. But it's important that the American people also know that there is a lot of mercury coming from natural sources and also from outside of the U.S. And our legislation, I do not believe, would put at further risk the American people and their health. With that, I would respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I would say to the gentlelady from Texas, first of all, that under the regulations of the EPA, today incinerators are given 5 years to comply with section 129 standards, and boilers are only given 3 years to comply with section 112 standards. That's one of the reasons that we introduced this bill, because businesses, manufacturers, institutions, and universities all came to Washington, and in their testimony they asked that we have some uniformity on times to comply. That's why we decided to extend the compliance deadline for the boiler industry up to 5 years, which is the exact same that incinerators have today under section 129. They asked that we do that because, one, they said it would provide certainty and that, two, in many instances, they do not have the time, the technical knowledge, and it's not economically justifiable to do it within that shorter time period. So your legislation would basically roll back even the time for incinerators. So for that reason, we would respectfully oppose this amendment. And then I would just make one other comment about the argument that regulations create jobs. I genuinely do not believe that in the history of our country jobs have been created by regulation. Jobs have been created in America because of entrepreneurs spending money and spending capital to develop a product which creates jobs, which helps our gross domestic product, which increases our tax revenues, which allows us to do more in the government sector. So, as you've indicated, EPA said they think there will be a net job gain of maybe 2,200 jobs, but all of the affected industries, the universities, the labor unions and others, say that they're putting at risk an excess of 230,000 jobs.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I respectfully oppose this amendment and ask that it be defeated. Once again, we're hearing the argument that if you have enough regulations, you're going to create jobs. And the gentleman referred to EPA's estimate that there may be a net gain of 2,200 jobs as a result of this regulation. But when you look at the Council of Industrial Boilers, when you read the documentation from labor unions, from the forest paper products, from the universities, they say there are at risk, as a direct result of this regulation, in excess of 280,000 jobs. So for us to be doing these minor changes, if the EPA administrator finds they will create more than 1,000 jobs--the real reason, though, that we're opposed to this amendment is that, under the Clean Air Act, boilers already have 3 years to comply, and incinerators have 5 years to comply. We want boilers and incinerators to have a minimum of 5 years to comply. We think that that provides certainty. It certainly reflects the testimony and our concern from witnesses who testified at all of the hearings that they, in many instances, need 5 years. The EPA administrator may allow it to go longer than that if he or she chooses to do so. But I don't believe that regulation creates jobs. And I think most of the testimony would indicate that there are more jobs at risk as a direct result of these regulations. For that reason, I would oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Would the gentlelady repeat what she is suggesting?

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, let me just ask a parliamentary inquiry here. What is the parliamentary procedure if we were to attempt to do something like that?

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman's amendment would add a new section to H.R. 2250 directing the administrator to go on and implement the current boiler sector rules if emissions at industrial facilities are causing respiratory and cardiovascular illness and death, including heart attacks, asthma attacks, and bronchitis. I would like, first of all, to mention that over the last 15 or 20 years, we've made remarkable progress in cleaning up the air. For example, ozone has been reduced by 14 percent, particulate matter by 31 percent, lead by 78 percent, nitrogen dioxide by 35 percent, carbon monoxide by 68 percent, sulfur dioxide by 59 percent. This amendment targets specific health issues, respiratory and cardiovascular illness and death, and our bill, I would say, does direct that the EPA protect public health, jobs, and the economy. And that's what our legislation is all about--a more balanced approach. I find it interesting that the Boiler MACT is all about regulating hazardous air pollutants, but yet, when EPA did their analysis of the benefits of the Boiler MACT rule, they did not include any benefit from reduction of hazardous air pollutants, and mercury, in particular. They indicated that all of the health benefits would be as a result of a reduction of particulate matter. So the whole purpose of Boiler MACT is to deal with hazardous air pollutants. EPA has decided there was no real benefit from the reduction there, but it's all from particulate matter. So we oppose this amendment because we really don't think it's necessary. The Clean Air Act sets out very clearly the protections for health and what is required. And we specifically object to this because it's identifying particular illnesses, and we think that EPA should look at a broad range of health issues and, for that reason, would respectfully oppose the gentleman from Virginia's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I certainly have great respect for the gentlelady from Illinois. Her amendment basically reads that the Congress finds that mercury released into the ambient air is a potent neurotoxin. From the hearings that we've had and the discussions that we've had and the documents that we have seen, the scientific understanding of mercury seems to be more complicated, as reflected in her amendment. Now, why do I say that? I say that because your amendment says, mercury released into the ambient air. It's our understanding that methylmercury is the neurotoxin. That mercury released into the ambient air alone is not a neurotoxin. For that reason, we would oppose the amendment, because there's a difference in methylmercury and pure mercury. One other comment that I would make is that our legislation does provide a minimum of 5 years to comply with the new rules that EPA may come forth with. And it can go beyond that, but that would be at the total discretion of the administrator of EPA. For that reason, we really certainly do not have any concern that it would never be set with a firm deadline. In fact, in the legislation we say the compliance deadline shall be set a minimum of 5 years and the administrator may allow it to go further than that. So the argument that it would go on forever and ever, we genuinely believe is pretty remote. The simple reason, as I stated, about the scientific assumption, the scientific understanding of the difference in mercury and methylmercury is the reason we would respectfully oppose the amendment setting that in the finding. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. What I go back to is that, in EPA's own analysis, they indicated that they--

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. 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.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I have a parliamentary inquiry.

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

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. I understand. As you know, the EPA went to court to ask for additional time on these Boiler MACT rules. They were denied that, and our legislation is designed to give them a little bit more time and give the industry more time to comply. And because of that, I would respectfully oppose the gentlelady's amendment and ask that it be defeated. I yield back the balance of my time.