On the recordOctober 12, 2011
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment is a very simple amendment. It should get unanimous support here. It simply requires the Environmental Protection Agency administrator to consider increases in illness-related absences from work when establishing a compliance date for the boiler rule. Last week, I offered similar language as an amendment to the Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act, which, unfortunately, didn't pass. I don't think it was clearly understood by both sides of the aisle. However, I believe my amendment is more applicable to this legislation since boilers and incinerators pose an even greater health threat to the American people. In fact, EPA's analysis demonstrates that for every year this rule will be in effect, it would prevent up to 320,000 missed work- or schooldays. During the debate on my amendment last week, the majority conceded, which I appreciated, that the amendment would do no harm because the majority thought that the language was already in the bill and that it would be duplicative and unnecessary. {time} 1840 The reality is that there's nothing in the underlying legislation that requires the administrator to consider illness-related absences from work when setting a compliance date. Now, indeed, it should have been in there--and I can understand why the other side thought it would be in there because it should have been in there--but it wasn't in there, and that's why I offered this amendment.…





