On the recordOctober 11, 2011
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. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch). The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.
