rule and offer no redirection regarding boiler mack standards. it includes additional flexibility with respect to biocourse and the last time we bicamerally took up the issue, epa was making progress. i think we should let them continue to make that progress and deploy a rule that's effective. with that i would yield my time back. >> i yield. we have about three minutes left. i'll give it to senator cardin. >> i just want to reinforce what senator reid said and congressman brady's point. he was referring again to the original rule. we were in agreement that we wanted more time to get that rule right. well, we got the time in the consultation with the industry and the biomass issue that congressman brady said has been corrected in the revised rule. >> i think we have is a little time left. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i've gone through the original rules, i've gone through the rules from december and i know what geena mckacarthy had to sa who works at epa. the rules were poorly written and rushed through. the new december epa rules are more complex

there is 45 minutes of discussion on boiler mack and 45 minutes on bonus depreciation. we'll follow the same order as yesterday. senate democrats followed by senate republicans followed by house democrats and then house republicans. so with that, i'd like to open up the first topic. the difference between the house and senate bill on expending the tanf benefits. this is a policy i think we can come to fast agreement on. the house overwhelmingly passed legislation that would implement the important reforms with 395 house members voting yes, including all of the house conferrees on this conference. so with that, i will turn the floor to senator baucus for any comments and to begin the discussion today. >> thank you. i think you pretty much summarized it. senator hatch and i actually have been working on tanf authorization and agree with it and did someanbe made to the pr. but that's for another day. here i think it makes sense to extend tanf for another year. we do not have tanf in our bill, obviously. we made a couple minor clafrpgs which i think are acceptable. i just u

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. a

regulatory relief, also known as boiler mack, a provision in the house bill that assures unfounded federal regulations are not harming our economy and costing families their jobs, and bonus deappreciation, another jobs provision in the house bill that promotes investment and hiring. i believe there will be broad agreement on tanif. so we allotted about 30 minutes of time for discussion there. there will be 45 of discussion on boiler mact and 45 on bonus deappreciation. we'll follow the same orders yesterday. senate democrats followed by senate republicans followed by house democrats and house republicans. so with that i would like to open up our first topic, the difference on the senate and house bill on extending tanif benefits. this is a house policy i think we can come to fast agreement on. last night the house overwhelmingly passed legislation that would implement some of these reforms, with 395 house members voting yes, including all of the house conferees on this conference. so with that i will turn the floor to senator bachus for any comments, and to begin the discussion today. >> t

consensus, where we're not slofing down the priority work on focure so we just had a conversation on boiler mack rules. i don't want to get into the substance of it. clearly there was a difference of opinion. concerned that would slow the process down if we failed to meet consensus. with respect to -- i agree with senator crapo. you laid out some of the statistics from the treasury department. it makes sense. there may be some extenders where there can be consensus but i would just put forward this one caveat, which is that we've been focused here on the policy issues and there's the very important question about whether, to what extent we offset some of these things and where we do offset them, how we do it. and so while there's, you know, i think it's easy for all of us to agree that bonusin sentive is a good thing, it may hurt the economy in another place or may have negative effects in other areas. and so, you know, again since we're just focused on half the equation if this is something we should do, bonus depreciation, i say yes, let's go for it. but i would just qualify with that that aga

epa is reconsidering the boiler mack rule to give greater clarity to reduce the cost of compliance. >> but, ma'am, i am correct that epa is not backing any legislation to change the time limit in the law. isn't that correct? >> that is correct, sir. >> thank you. let me talk about another subject briefly. you have, i believe you would agree or that you would feel that the epa is doing a better job today than it did, say, in 2001? >> i don't have any feeling on the subject, sir. i believe we're doing a good job today. >> all right. because i look at the -- i have a chart here that says you have about 1,000 less employees now than you had then. and i'm wondering if there was ever a study done to show where there's a -- as there was a study done to show, as happens in many cases, a diminishing return on investments. sometimes you get too many folks and can't be efficient. has any study been done at the epa of exactly how many employees you need to be most efficient in accomplishing your tasks? >> there have been workload studies done in the past, sir. we can certainly get those to you. >

to move to five years for businesses in america because they need that and that's in the bill -- boiler mack bill. she said at that time, it was not her position to make a statement as to whether or not she was supporting the bill or not. so i ask you, because i believe it is within your prerogative, why wouldn't you adopt and accept the fact that the businesses of america can't comply with the time requirements, even if we can argue about regulations. there are numerous businesses in this country that cannot meet the three-year plus one standard currently in the code. to give greater clarity to reduce the cost of compliance. >> but, ma'am, i am correct. the epa is not backing any legislation to change the time limit in the law. isn't that correct? >> that is correct, sir. >> thank you. >> let me talk about another subject briefly. you have -- i believe that you had agreed -- or that you would feel that the epa is doing a better job today than it did, say, in 2001? >> i don't have any feeling on the subject, sir. i believe we're doing a good job today. >> all right. i look at these -- i have