406 Dirksen EPW Hearing Room
James M. Inhofe
Senator
Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss legislation to address mercury air emissions and instituting a ban on mercury exports. This is the first time the EPW full committee has focused on mercury reduction legislation since the Democrats gained the majority in the Senate. This is an issue that is very important to the state of
I believe the need to reduce mercury levels is an issue that we all can agree on. How we go about reducing these levels is where the debate occurs. Numerous industries that used to emit high levels of mercury, such as the municipal waste incinerators, have been controlled. The power sector industry is merely the latest industry to be regulated and it is the subject of the first bill under consideration, S. 2643. If the Courts ultimately find that EPA can’t pursue a flexible cap-and-trade program for mercury, then the Clean Air Act has a process under Section 112 and those rules are appropriate and adequate for protection of health and the environment. I further note that the MACT process is not “technology forcing” but addresses the best existing achievable technology. Using the findings contained in S. 2643 to legally bind or back up the 90% MACT standard instead of the complex administrative process contained in the Clean Air Act is not the right approach.
The Export Ban bills may be well-intentioned but they are flawed. A piecemeal approach, as taken in both bills, is not the way to address this issue. This is the wrong approach to take and will have disastrous and unintended consequences. Most importantly, it will cost the taxpayers millions and quite possibly increase mercury levels.
The recent European Union export ban, if coupled with a potential
To further illustrate my point, I want to share with you an example of an unintended impact that Congress is encouraging. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 290 million Energy Star-qualified, Compact Fluorescent Light bulbs, or CFLs, were sold in 2007. That is nearly double the number sold in 2006 and represents almost 20% of the
Mr. Chairman, we all agree that reducing pollution levels in this country is important and that more can and should be done. I am proud that the authors of today’s legislation are thinking globally. However, I believe we owe it to the American taxpayer to also be legislating locally.
Thank you.
###