Ed Whitfield

Mr. WHITFIELD

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

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

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the gentleman's motion to appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. WHITFIELD

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

Mr. WHITFIELD

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. A number of speakers on the other side have indicated that, if our legislation passes, new regulations relating to Boiler MACT would be put off indefinitely. I would like to clarify and point out that, in section 3 on page 6 of this bill, it says: For each regulation promulgated pursuant to this legislation, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall--not ``may''--shall establish a date for compliance. So this is not being put off indefinitely. It explicitly says ``shall.'' Now, during the hearings that we've had, extensive hearings on this Boiler MACT that was adopted by the EPA in 2004, which was invalidated by the courts because of lawsuits filed by environmental groups, the typical testimony was this: EPA final rules impose unrealistic and very costly requirements that EPA has not justified by corresponding environmental and health protection from reductions of hazardous air pollutants. Just as a practical example of what I'm talking about, many universities, in order to comply with that 2004 rule, spent large sums of money. The University of Notre Dame spent $20 million to comply with that rule, which has now been invalidated, and EPA has come out with an even more stringent rule that's going to cause a lot more money to be spent. So we genuinely believe that EPA has the health standards in effect that will protect our children. There's nothing in this bill that's going to change any of that. But we know that if these universities continue to spend that kind of money on regulations that are invalidated and then have to come back and spend more money, tuition costs are going to go up, which makes it more difficult for some children to go to college. So this simply is a commonsense approach, a balanced approach, saying: EPA go back, revisit this issue. In 15 months, come out with a new regulation. And the EPA administrator shall set a compliance date not sooner than 5 years after the final rule. But we have also heard a lot of discussion today about mercury, and, yes, we're all concerned about mercury. But EPA, itself, in developing the benefits of their regulation that we're trying to postpone, did not assign one dollar, one dime, or one penny of benefit for the reduction of mercury emissions. And the reason they didn't: because there was not enough reduction, because we've already cleaned up the air a great deal relating to mercury. All of the benefits that they calculated from their rule came from reduction of particulate matter. In fact, they said, the mercury reductions would be less than three-hundredths of 1 percent of global emissions. We've heard all sorts of testimony about mercury, that 90 percent or so of mercury comes from nature or from sources outside of the U.S. So I don't think we need to be alarmist about this. This is simply an approach that, hey, our economy is pretty weak right now. We're losing a lot of jobs. We're having difficulty creating jobs. So, look, let's just go back, look at this, in 15 months come back with a new regulation, set a date for compliance, and let's move forward. I don't think anyone can make a credible, verifiable argument that we're out to destroy every young person in America, every child in America. As a matter of fact, we have a lot of Democrats on this bill. There's been a similar bill introduced to this on the Senate side with Democratic support. I urge all the Members to defeat the Waxman amendment and support our underlying legislation, H.R. 2250. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, we all have great respect for the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and you could make some very good arguments for his amendment. Basically, he said the amendment would set a 3-year compliance date and allow a case-by-case extension for up to 2 years if the administrator of the EPA determined that there was a compelling need, and that's reasonable. But one of the problems that we continue to run into on these Boiler MACT rules, and all the hearings have pointed this out: the fact that lawsuits are always being filed and litigation is continually going on at EPA and consent decrees are being entered into, and it's an ever- changing situation over there on the exact rule. The one argument that we hear continually from the affected groups is that they need certainty, and even on a case-to-case basis, if the administrator determines a compelling need, we don't have that 100 percent certainty that we really want. And so our legislation does say that within 15 months, they have to come back with the promulgation of a new rule, and it does say that the administrator shall establish a date for compliance no earlier than 5 years after the effective date of the regulation, and it does say that the EPA administrator may provide additional time if he or she chooses to do so. Just looking at the track record of EPA, I don't suspect that they would be doing that a lot, but they might. But they do have to set a compliance date. We say you must set a compliance date not earlier than 5 years.

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. I would be happy to yield.

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

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 thank the gentleman for his comment. Those are very good thoughts and very good ideas. As you know, a similar bill has been introduced in the Senate. We don't know if it's going to pass or not. If it does pass, we want to be able to go into conference with as much flexibility as possible. That's why we chose a 5-year period instead of a 3-year period, recognizing that there is some uncertainty in both the 3-year and the 5-year. Under your situation if there's a compelling need, on a case-by-case basis, they could extend it. In ours, the administrator under certain circumstances could extend it. We do have some Democratic support. We would love to have your support. If we get into conference, that is one of the parts of this bill that we hope that we can negotiate with the other side and come up with something that's satisfactory for both. I really appreciate your bringing it to our attention and offering your amendment. As I have said, with as much reluctance as I have, I still will have to oppose it and hopefully we can work it out in conference with the other body.

Mr. WHITFIELD

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

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

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), who's chairman of the Science Committee.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished lady from Washington State (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I might just note to the gentleman from Massachusetts that our legislation does not postpone this indefinitely. EPA has 15 months after passage of the bill to come out with the regulations and 5 years to comply. And the only way they can be extended beyond 5 years is if the EPA administrator, herself, decides to do so. At this time I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, a member of the 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 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.