On the recordOctober 5, 2011
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman from California's amendment. In doing so, I would be the first to recognize that she has been one of the real leaders in the Congress of looking after the health of all of our constituents in the U.S. The reason that I'm opposed to this particular amendment, however, is that she asks us to adopt EPA's findings about health and cost benefits. She wants that to be adopted as a finding in the legislation. In our legislation, we don't have any findings that we're adopting at all. And one of the reasons, among many, that we are opposed to putting the health and cost benefits as a finding in the legislation is that we have not had the ability to undertake any full analysis of EPA's methodology in assessing those health benefits and costs. And we furthermore do not have any idea what assumptions they used. And another reason that I personally am opposed to their health and cost benefits is that we know for a fact that they do not include as a cost the health benefits lost by family members of those people who lose jobs as a result of the regulation adopted by EPA. So if you're going to look at the cost of health benefits that people incur for the emissions that may be affected by the regulation, you most certainly should examine and analyze the cost of the health benefits to those people who lose jobs, lose their health insurance, because there has been shown to be a direct correlation between economic livelihood and health.…





