BREAK TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeLauro. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. We should not be putting the interests of polluters before the health of our children.
Numerous studies have demonstrated a link between increased exposure to industrial contaminants and impaired brain development or learning disabilities in children. For example, according to the Centers for Disease Control, health effects linked to prenatal and childhood methylmercury exposure include problems with language, memory, attention, visual skills, and lower IQs. And exposure to mercury is particularly dangerous for pregnant and breastfeeding women, as well as children, since mercury is most harmful in the early stages of development.
In some cases around the world, such as in Minimata, Japan in the 1950s, we have seen exposure to industrial mercury sicken an entire generation of children. Mothers who exhibited no clinical symptoms of mercury poison gave birth to infants suffering from blindness, spasticity, and mental retardation.
We tend to think an environmental catastrophe like Minimata could not happen here, but it could. Already in the United States one in six women of childbearing age has blood mercury levels that exceed those considered safe by the EPA for a developing baby. This amounts to approximately 630,000 babies born every year at risk of developmental problems because of prenatal mercury exposure.
While America's approximately 600 coal-fired power plants are the single largest source of mercury contamination in the United States, boilers and waste incinerators that burn mercury-containing products and chlorine manufacturers rank close behind. And yet it is now proposed that we delay, that we weaken the regulations protecting infants and children and allow these incinerators and boilers to continue spewing significant amounts of mercury pollution into the air every year, harming the health of our children and future generations of our children. It is unconscionable.
And mercury is just one of the dangerous contaminants putting the development of children at risk. Exposure to lead threatens the health of young children and unborn babies in particular, can lead to miscarriage, preterm birth, low birth weight, and developmental delays.
And that is why it was banned from gasoline and house paint by the EPA in the 1980s. These contaminants are deadly, which is why the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, put forward a rule to reduce them. In fact, the implementation of the Boiler MACT would reduce mercury emissions from major-source boilers and process heaters nationwide by 1.4 tons a year. It would also cut non-mercury metals, including lead, by 2,700 tons per year, hydrogen chloride by 30,000 tons per year, particulate matter by 47,000 tons per year, volatile organic compounds by 7,000 tons per year, and sulfur dioxide by 440,000 tons per year.
According to the EPA, the benefits of reducing all of these dangerous emissions would outweigh costs by at least $20 billion a year. But even that aside, this act means 2,500 to 6,500 fewer premature deaths, 1,600 fewer cases of chronic bronchitis, 4,000 fewer heart attacks, 4,300 fewer hospital and emergency room visits, 3,700 fewer cases of acute bronchitis, 41,000 fewer cases of aggravated asthma, 78,000 fewer cases of respiratory systems, and 310,000 fewer missed work days. And it means fewer cases of impaired brain development and learning disabilities in our children.
So on one side of the equation, we have $20 billion in savings per year, cleaner air, thousands of fewer deaths, and the healthy development of our kids. On the other, we have polluters; we have polluters who want to just keep harming the health and the lives of Americans. I know what side I'm on, and I find it extraordinarily telling that this House majority would take the side of big polluters over the health and the welfare of America's children.
I urge my colleagues to stand up for America's children, stand against big polluters, and support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.