On the recordOctober 11, 2011
I respectfully oppose this amendment and ask that it be defeated. Once again, we're hearing the argument that if you have enough regulations, you're going to create jobs. And the gentleman referred to EPA's estimate that there may be a net gain of 2,200 jobs as a result of this regulation. But when you look at the Council of Industrial Boilers, when you read the documentation from labor unions, from the forest paper products, from the universities, they say there are at risk, as a direct result of this regulation, in excess of 280,000 jobs. {time} 1700 So for us to be doing these minor changes, if the EPA administrator finds they will create more than 1,000 jobs--the real reason, though, that we're opposed to this amendment is that, under the Clean Air Act, boilers already have 3 years to comply, and incinerators have 5 years to comply. We want boilers and incinerators to have a minimum of 5 years to comply. We think that that provides certainty. It certainly reflects the testimony and our concern from witnesses who testified at all of the hearings that they, in many instances, need 5 years. The EPA administrator may allow it to go longer than that if he or she chooses to do so. But I don't believe that regulation creates jobs. And I think most of the testimony would indicate that there are more jobs at risk as a direct result of these regulations. For that reason, I would oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR.…
