On the recordOctober 11, 2011
I certainly have great respect for the gentlelady from Illinois. Her amendment basically reads that the Congress finds that mercury released into the ambient air is a potent neurotoxin. From the hearings that we've had and the discussions that we've had and the documents that we have seen, the scientific understanding of mercury seems to be more complicated, as reflected in her amendment. Now, why do I say that? I say that because your amendment says, mercury released into the ambient air. It's our understanding that methylmercury is the neurotoxin. That mercury released into the ambient air alone is not a neurotoxin. For that reason, we would oppose the amendment, because there's a difference in methylmercury and pure mercury. One other comment that I would make is that our legislation does provide a minimum of 5 years to comply with the new rules that EPA may come forth with. And it can go beyond that, but that would be at the total discretion of the administrator of EPA. For that reason, we really certainly do not have any concern that it would never be set with a firm deadline. In fact, in the legislation we say the compliance deadline shall be set a minimum of 5 years and the administrator may allow it to go further than that. So the argument that it would go on forever and ever, we genuinely believe is pretty remote.…
