microphones. it's true they're light to touch. it's also true the red light is the dimmest red light i've ever seen in my life. you have to really look at it. i appreciate the comments congressman levin, mr. chairman. i think we should look at supplemental grants. it's true seccally outside the scope of the conference. but, you know, we're probably going to need 60 votes in the senate anyway. and a house rules can do what it wants if we agree here to the provision such as this. i have a hunch that it will prevail. second, it's not a lot of money here. it's in the neighborhood of like a couple hundred, million. and it is also true as congressman levin pointed out without it some states, some kids in some states are in much worse condition than kids in other states. so i would hope that we can work our way through that and find a way to include it.

i believe now according to the program we're going to a different subject. >> in agreement. there wasn't a vote to terminate. what we did is to extend it through a certain period. that's number one. number two, in terms of scope, the tanf program is before us. the entire program is before us. and i think that it's unwise to say that we can't consider it. look. i just want to close with this. those of us who were here in the year that we continued and reformed and changed the program, changed it.

remember the debate very, very well. and i don't think we want to go back over all of the details. there were some major issues that were resolved, and some major issues that were not resolved. and there were some later changes to improve the program. and some of us who supported welfare reform were emphatic about the need to address those additional changes. for example, benefits for people who were here legally who weren't citizens. the supplemental program was an effort to look at the tanf program in a national way. to acknowledge that there were

some states that had very, very low benefit levels. there were other states like where mr. camp, the chairman and i come from, where the levels were higher, were better. and so we made a decision not to simply say that those states that had an adequate benefits, clearly inadequate, that the kids would suffer. so if you want to put it this way, taxpayers in some states, if you want to talk about it that way, were decided -- we decided that there was a national need here. and as senator baucus has said, there wasn't -- it didn't involve a huge amount of money nationally, but in terms of the needs of particular children, it was a substantial need.

and so in the effort to find some balance, there were lots of problems in the final legislation. one whether on balance we should move forward or not. there was this decision to try to have some balance for the kids of america. and so i don't think it's an issue of scope. it's an issue of need ad thank you. >> well, thank you. and before we move on to that issue, i just want to say quickly this is a provision that is not in either bill. this would require additional spending in the neighborhood of about $300 million to complete the year. i also want to point out that as part of the stimulus bill, these 17 states received almost a

billion dollars in additional funds for this, which represents about three years of spending under the program through 2010, 2011, 2012. so there was a supplemental amount already put into the stimulus bill. to i think go over again and repeat that amount here would be duplicative given the difficult financial problems that we face. but i appreciate the sincerity of the comments that have been said this morning. again, i think we have a lot of agreement on the extension of the taf program. and i would like to direct the staff to work together to resolve any sort of technical issues on that extension in order to try to resolve that. so senator baucus, unless there is more comments, i would like to move to the regulatory relief provision, which we have scheduled 45 minutes. i'm sorry, what? >> that's right. i think as we get in this, it's important to important to keep this boiler mat up.

>> i'm sorry, go ahead. >> i think it's important to keep the boiler mact in context. we're here to extend for one year the cut in the payroll tax. that's the primary reason why we're here, as well as extended ui benefits and fixing the sgr. and also frankly, deal with the so-called traditional extenders. that's the primary reason we're here, beginning with the payroll tax cut extension. and i think it's -- we've all been around here, most of us have been around here long enough to know that sometimes side issues reach an importance that is disproportionate to the issue at hand. but nevertheless, they're there. and we are 535 members of congress. each has his or her own point of view. some have those views held very, very strongly, and i respect that. but i just think it's important

to kind of keep in mind the principle reason why we're here. payroll tax, ui, sgr, and to some degree, the traditional extenders. so with that, let me turn to senator cardin. senator cardin is going to lead off on boiler mack. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i agree with senator baucus's initial comment whether this should be in this package. let me talk about boiler mack for a moment. boilers, industrial boilers consume and use conventional fuels. mact is maximum achievable control technology, which is an effort to reduce the amount of pollution going into our air from industrial boilers. it seems to me that every time there is a regulation that is proposed to deal with cleaning up the air from our polluters, there are those who say that they cannot afford it, and it will result in job loss.

and i think that begs the question. we can have clean air and we can have job growth. the results of the clean air are well-known. we require a review as to the cost benefit of the regulatory structure. it's a requirement. there is peer review that gives us information as to what clean air regulations cost, and the benefit to society. last year alone, the clean air act was credited with preventing 160,000 premature mortalities. 86,000 hospital visits were avoided because of the clean air regulations. 13 million days lost by employment was avoided because of the clean air act. and the cost benefit analysis that we require to be done shows that there is a 40-1 cost benefit analysis. that is there are 40 times more savings to society than the cost

of the -- of reducing the pollution. so let me dispel some of the myths as it relates to boiler mact, if i might. first, there is this point that last year the administration requested a delay from the courts in having to come forward with the regulation. they were required to come forward with the regulation, and they did. they wanted more time to talk to the industry. so they took that time and did talk to the industry. and as a result, they modified the regulation and are now prepared to move forward with no need for additional delay. the modifications are estimated to cost the industry about one-half of what it would have cost otherwise. so they modified their original proposal. less than 1%, less than 1% of all the industrial boilers in america will have to take action on this regulation.

99% plus will either be exempt or simply need to perform routine maintenance and tune-ups. the administration changed the effective date of the regulation from 2014 to 2015 to give the industry adequate time. there are those who say the cost of compliance will be in the tens of billions of dollars. that is not the case. the review process shows that it -- the implementation of boiler mact will save in health benefits alone somewhere between 27 to $67 billion, and the cost of compliance is about $2 billion. the cost benefit ratio is consistent with the other regulatory issues concerning clean air. beginning in 2015, the peer review indicates that it will save 8100 premature deaths, 5100 heart attacks, 52,000 asthma attacks by getting the pollution out of the air. mr. chairman, let me just if i

might quote from randy ralson, who is the president and ceo of the american boilers manufacturers association. who he says when finalized these rules still hold a strong promise to create high-paying, skilled and unskilled domestic manufacturing jobs in the boiler and associated industries. so despite the attacks that are being made, getting the pollution out of the air will help our economy. it will keep us healthy. it's good for the economy, and d gi would urge us to remove this provision from the conference. >> all right.nk you, senator. v chairman.ll, nator cardin and i serve on the epw committee. we've discussed these issues in disathee.

to me the epa continues to underestimate costs and overestimate benefits. the costs are real, and they're both in dollars and in terms of jobs. i listened carefully to what he has said, and i just want to go back to the agreement. mact stands for maximum achievable control technology. they're for interrelated rules. this ought to be a part of this. ng unemployment benefits, the number of people that will lose their jobs because of this regulation, which has now been three different times evaluated with final regulations by the epa. in march of 2011, and then in december of 2011. their second final regulation, and then that was stayed. and then a third version coming out supposedly in april. and then the courts got involved. it is very, very difficult for anyone to try to comply with the

confusing regulations coming out of this environmental protection agency. the epa came up with a standard for each of the regulated emissions. they in my opinion cherry picke those emissions. but the technology doesn't exist that goes for all of the different emissions to the point that this has actually been talked about a hypothetical boiler, a frankenstein boiler, because no boiler exists that complies with all of the maximum achievable control technology for each of the admissions. the epa regulators in my opinion lacked a thorough understanding of boilers and mission control technology when they were drafting the rules. that's why they had to go through so many different iterations. so we have a private sector expected to comply with these complex and costly rules by 2014. it's an unachievable timeline by industry standards. the proper amount of time is

probably five years at the least, not two or three years as the current rules propose. to me this is an economy-wide issue. it's -- what we're talking about is schools in our communities, hospitals in our communities and municipalities, apartment buildings. over 200,000 boilers are going to have to comply with the red tape. the provisions simply provides the epa an additional 15 months. and this is not a partisan issue. the house i hing that is think 41 democrats co-sponsored. there are currently 12 democrats who are co-sponsoring in the senate. the piece of legislation that is essentially identical that susan collins is working on. and the economy can't afford the rule either. the epa says the rule is going to cost $5.4 billion. that's the epa's number. they say the epa says it's going to cost 3,000 jobs. other private analysts come up

with a number of over 230,000 jobs. i don't know what the right number, but the epa and this administration says it's 3,000, yet there is reports that the commerce department says it's between 40,000 and 60,000 jobs. and if we're going to be talking about unemployment insurance and extending that, we have to be talking about something that is going to put 40 to 60,000 by the administration's own numbers on to the unemployment roles. thing is a critical part of this. so there are things that we need to be doing today. and then i would say as a doctor, and the issue came up with asthma and what the impacts are. the air is cleaner today than it was 30 years ago. we have a couple of doctors on this panel. the air is cleaner today than it was 30 years ago. and yet the incidents of asthma has actually doubled in that time. we care about people. i care about my patients, those that i have taken care of. i will tell you that the impact of long-term unemployment has huge health costs as well in terms of high blood pressure, heart disease, depression,

spousal abuse. you can go through all of the different impacts of when someone sought of work, and out of work for a long period of time. i think we want to get people back to work, we have to include this boiler mact proposal that the house has that there is bipartisan support ofm. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. levin? >> mr. waxman is going to lead off for us. >> mr. chairman, today we're considering an extraneous provision. it is not part of the major concerns before this group. and what it would do is allow our children to continue to be harmed by toxic mercury pollution. now mercury pollution is more serious than asthma, although asthma is related to this as well. this provision is known as the boiler mact rule.

and i don't think it has any place in this bill. i want to review for the conferees one of the untold stories of this congress. over the past year, the house of representatives has relentlessly pursued the most anti-environmental agenda in history. we in the house have voted 191 times to weaken environmental protections, more than one in five of all recorded votes in the house in 2011 undermined the nation's environmental protections. these votes attacked the laws that american families depend on to provide clean air and clean water, protect our public lands and coastal waters. and the house even voted to deny the climate change is occurring, as if congress has the power to change the laws of nature. the house voted to exempt industrial mining operations and their emissions of asbestos and other toxic particles from regulation under the clean air act, and the list goes on and

on. this provision, the boiler mact provision is one of the worst of the anti-environmental measures, and it has no place in this conference. in 1990, congress directed the epa to control toxic air pollution. now we already had a clean air act in effect to deal with the pollutants that cause asthma and other smog-related issues. but this one, this was an effort to deal with toxic air pollution. those pollutants that cause birth defects and cancer and neurological problems. said that solid waste incinerators and industrial boilers should reduce their mercury, lead, and arsenic. that was what we adopted in 1990. and epa is finally takes steps to address this life-threatening air pollution. epa's public health standards will prevent up to 8100

premature deaths, 5100 heart attacks every year. the pollution reductions required by the rules will yield up to $30 in health benefits for every dollar spent to meet the standards. that's a pretty good deal. by reducing emissions of the potent neurotoxin mercury, the epa standards will protect our children from prenatal exposure that damages their ability to think and to learn. the provision that is in the house bill that is before u and delay these critically important public health protections. now we've been told, and i suppose we'll continue to be told that there is a job-killing regulation. but installing pollution controls creates jobs. it creates manufacturing jobs at the american factories that make the pollution controls. it creates jobs across the country, installing and

operating these controls. it means fewer people have to miss work because they have gotten sick from breathing polluted air. and you don't need to take my word for this. the american boiler manufacturers association stated last week that new epa rules will be a, quote, clearly job generators for those businesses across the country that install, repair, and tune up boilers and boiler systems. we don't have to choose between economic growth and environmental protection. 40 years of experience under the clean air act has proven that we can have both a strong economy and clean air to breathe. considering this provision in this conference puts our primary tasks in jeopardy. it distracts us from the job the american people expect us to do. allowing incinerators and factories to emit more mercury pollution has nothing to do with extending payroll tax relief to american families.

it has nothing to do with extending unemployment insurance to millions of people who are out of work. and they're out of work now, and these rules are not even in effect. and we think they're going to create jobs rather than decrease jobs. it has nothing to do, of course, with assuring seniorse ctors they can afford. i hope we can put this provision aside and get on with the task that is before us. but i just want to clarify one thing. and that is really telling. because epa senator barrasso said has put off this rule a number of times. they've done it because they're talking to the industry. they continue to talk to the industry. and they're taking those considerations of the industry into their judgments. but this rule does not require anyone to install pollution

control for at least three or four years. the thing i wanted to point out was the -- what this provision in the house bill does. it nullifies all the epa rules that address air pollution from solid waste incinerators, industrial boilers, and in fact the provision state, and this is a quote, these rules are of no force or effect small be treated as though such rules had never taken effect. that's the first thing the house bill does. and second, the provision says that compliance with any of the new rules cannot be required earlier than five years after the effective date of such rules. and they don't even specify that there is ever a deadline for compliance. so this is like beating these rules to death and making sure you never have anything to control the toxic pollution that affects our kids and can do such

harm. i think it's inappropriate to adopt this rule at all, but certainly in the context of this conference, it would cause us a great deal of problems. and i don't think we ought to add to our burdens. i urge that we reject it. >> chairman upton? >> i don't know. it's working. i appreciate participating here. and i would like to just add a couple of new things that haven't been said. it is important in the house. i'll remind our senate colleagues that we move this legislation through regular order hearing, subcommittee, full committee mark, house floor debate and vote, lots of amendments and it passed 275-142 in october. now there was mention about a bipartisan bill in the senate. there is. i want to list just the democratic sponsors, co-sponsors of the bill, which is virtually the same as the house-passed bill. begich, cole, landrieu,

mccaskill, mikulski, both nelsons, pryor, webb, and former energy and commerce member ron wyden from oregon have all co-sponsored legislation with a number of republicans. so we believe actually that this vote, if it's allowed to occur in the senate, could pass along similar lines maybe two-to-one in the senate as it has in the house. yesterday i received a letter that is literally signed by 360 different organizations from -- i got to imagine every member's home state that asks us to include this epa regulatory effect relief act of 2011 as part of the conference agreement. they cite about jeopardizing critically needed jobs and how it could cost literally billions of dollars without a delay that again epa asked for themselves. it talks about serious legal uncertainty, particularly with

the january 9th, 2012 court decision overturning epa's stay of the march 2011 rules as yet another example of the continuing marchias of uncertainty regarding the rules. inadequate time for epa to finalize the rules, let alone even read the thousands of comments that are coming in. this is about jobs. billions of dollars certainly in terms of the impact on lots of industries. we even heard from notre dame university who came to testify in terms of their expense in the millions of dollars and yet under these rules and regs they would be probably out of compliance and they were wondering how they're going to find the mother for their campus buildings in northern indiana.

so our belief is that this ought to be included as part of this bill. again we shall did regular order in the house and it's something that has strong bipartisan support. yield back. >> senator baucus. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield to the senator from maryland. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me just point out a couple of things first to congressman upton. the legislate you were referring to was filed prior to the station' request where they were asked to meet with the industry and make modifications. since they were filed they did meet with the industry, they did make modifications and weep are prepared to move forward. i'm going to point out university boilers are no longer in the regulations. so we need to update to where we are today rather than going back to where we were a year ago. let me point out to senator

grasso, the number -- again, you're referring to some of the revisions that were in the original regulation that had been modified. the numbers are nowhere near 200,000. the number is about 1,700 that are estimated will need to make modifications in order to comply with the regulation. and i think the major point i would just argue -- we're all entitled to our own views and i understand that. i think we should base our decisions on best science. and we asked the epa to do a 40-year look back. it was something that we all wanted to see. the scientific advisory committee is the one who did that. scientists not us who have maybe philosophical views. and that's where the numbers come on the premature deaths that had been avoided, asthma attacks that had been avoided. i understand your numbers but when a mom has to leave work to pick up their child because of an asthma attack, that has a major impact on our economy.

and that's what the scientific advisory committee based their cost analysis, on what we are saving in hospitalizations, premature deaths, loss of workdays. their number has consistently been a look back. this is not looking forward. i remember the debate on acid rain as to how many jobs it's going to cost. it didn't. it didn't. it kept people healthy. 40-to-1, i'd like to have is a lot of programs that give us a 40-to-1 return, $40 in benefit for every dollar we spend. that's what the scientific community, the experts are telling us. so i don't think we have to get into much more of the substance here. it shouldn't be in this legislation and i hope it never -- that we don't pass legislation that blocks this from occurring. >> mr. chairman, i think the

honest point is they do create rules and they take away jobs. it's both. certainly it's a very tough rule. it's going to create a lot of new jobs, lots of new technologies. it's going to also hurt a lot of companies. there's just no question about it. it's really up to us to think through all this and see what's really going on. my judgment of the new rules the epa has promulgated make a lot more sense than the first rules the new rules are not nearly as burdensome. the rules were promulgated 2011 would cost on an annual basis $2.9 billion, whereas the other rules, the subsequent rules 2012 at the agency is considering about half of that. it's about