EPA Regulatory Relief Act of 2011

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, it's my hope that we can all simply agree to this amendment. It would simply add a finding to the bill illustrating the health benefits of EPA's mercury and air toxic cleanup standards for industrial boilers and incinerators.

Opponents of these cleanup standards argue that they cost too much and will lead to job losses. I don't agree with that assessment.

Over the past 40 years, the Clean Air Act has fueled American innovation and has created jobs, and it has made the United States a leader in the multibillion-dollar environmental technology sector.

Mr. Chairman, the health benefits of EPA safeguards are not in dispute, and that's why those facts should be included as part of this bill.

For decades, industrial boilers and incinerators have been some of the largest pollution emitters in the United States. They're responsible for some of the most dangerous air pollutants we have in this Nation, including mercury, lead, and cancer-causing dioxins. That's why EPA took action last year to require that industrial boilers and incinerators cut their emissions and simply follow the Clean Air Act.

But instead of supporting EPA's action, the bill before us would delay their standards by at least 3 1/2 to 4 years. It would eliminate any deadline by which industrial boilers and incinerators must comply with EPA safeguards. It could mean thousands and thousands of additional pounds of mercury and other toxic pollution released into our air each year.

Now, proponents of this legislation are quick to say EPA safeguards to cut this pollution would--and now comes the drumroll--cause economic ruin and job losses, and they point to industry-paid-for studies to provide evidence. But indefinitely delaying EPA safeguards will not lead to the economic ruin and job losses. What it will do is put the lives and the health of millions of Americans at risk.

Failing to implement the EPA's air pollution standards for boilers and incinerators would result, just in 1 year, in as many as 6,600 premature deaths, 4,100 nonfatal heart attacks, 4,400 hospital and emergency room visits, 42,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and over 320,000 days of missed work and school. For every additional year of delay that H.R. 2250 allows, these numbers only continue to grow.

And we know this because EPA's analysis must follow the criteria set out by the Office of Management and Budget. Their analysis is based on peer-reviewed studies. The analysis is transparent, it is subject to public comment, and it has to be reviewed again by the Office of Management and Budget. The industry studies meet none of these criteria.

Mr. Chairman, it is true that EPA already announced it is reexamining aspects of these safeguards. They set out a time line providing industry more than enough time and opportunity to weigh in before refinalizing the rules by next April.

EPA has said that it does not need nor want additional time for Congress. Delays only hurt America's health.

Again, it's worth repeating. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are not at risk from these safeguards, like some of my colleagues say. EPA's analysis, reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget economists, project that these standards will have a net positive impact on EPA--that's EPA's analysis, reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget--and they will achieve enormous public health benefits that allow Americans to work and go to school and lead healthy lives.

For every dollar industry spends to clean up even one industrial boiler or incinerator, Americans get up to $24 back in health benefits. What other investment results in this astonishing return for the American people? And that's why I'm offering this simple amendment today. It would remind us all of the tremendous health benefits that EPA's mercury and air toxic cleanup standards will achieve, and they should be included in this bill.

So I urge my colleagues to support this straightforward amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. CAPPS. I just wanted to ask if you are aware that these numbers have to be peer reviewed, so scientists and organizations have evaluated them, and they've come in. And they also have to be screened by the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, and then they're sent back to EPA. So they've gone through quite a wide variety of verifications.

Would you disagree with that fact?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source