On the recordOctober 11, 2011
And my colleagues, we just heard from the chairman of the subcommittee handling this bill, and there are two statements that are just absolutely inaccurate. He said this bill does not weaken the Clean Air Act. I don't know what weakening the Clean Air Act means to him, but when we say that we're going to nullify the standards EPA set under the Clean Air Act, that weakens the Clean Air Act. When we say that we're going to eliminate the deadlines for compliance, that weakens the Clean Air Act. When we say that EPA can set regulations but that they have to use a different standard, that certainly weakens the Clean Air Act. The other statement that was just made that is absolutely erroneous is that we don't get any health benefits from reducing the toxic pollution, and that is just not true. Reducing the toxic pollutants is aimed at protecting the public health from toxic, dangerous, poisonous chemicals--mercury and carcinogens. These are toxic pollutants, and reducing them will help the public health. Again the statement was made inaccurately that EPA didn't find any health benefits. That is not true. EPA said they could not quantify the health benefits. How do you quantify a life that can be lived longer? How do you quantify a child who will not be impaired in learning and thinking? How do you quantify the damage that can be done from the toxic air pollutants? I think both of those statements are inaccurate.…





