Amendment Text: H.Amdt.830 — 112th Congress (2011-2012)

There is one version of the amendment.

Shown Here:
Amendment as Offered (10/11/2011)

This Amendment appears on page H6706 in the following article from the Congressional Record.



[Pages H6698-H6710]
                   EPA REGULATORY RELIEF ACT OF 2011

  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H.R. 2250.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 419 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 2250.

                              {time}  1532


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 2250) to provide additional time for the Administrator 
of the Environmental Protection Agency to issue achievable standards 
for industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers, process heaters, 
and incinerators, and for other purposes, with Mrs. Roby (Acting Chair) 
in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, 
October 6, 2011, amendment No. 4 printed in the Congressional Record, 
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle), had been 
disposed of.

                              {time}  1540


                 Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Waxman

  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following section:

     SEC. 6. COMPLIANCE WITH CUT-GO.

        If this Act authorizes the appropriation of funds to 
     implement this Act and does not reduce an existing 
     authorization of appropriations to offset that amount, then 
     the provisions of this Act shall cease to be effective.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair and my colleagues, I strongly oppose this 
bill on substantive grounds. It nullifies critical EPA rules to cut 
toxic air pollution from solid waste incinerators and large industrial 
boilers. It threatens EPA's ability to issue new rules that actually 
protect public health by forcing it to set emission standards based on 
an industry wish list. And on top of that, it allows polluters to avoid 
compliance with the new rules indefinitely. That is enough for me to 
vote ``no.'' I think this is a very bad bill.
  But this bill has another mark against it because it does not comply 
with the Republican leadership's policy for discretionary spending. 
Some people may think, so what? Why make an issue of this? The simple 
fact is that the Republicans established a set of rules for the House 
at the beginning of the Congress, and they aren't willing to play by 
those rules.
  When Congress organized this year, the majority leader announced that 
the House would be following what's called a discretionary CutGo rule. 
When a bill authorizes discretionary funding, that funding must be 
explicitly limited to a specific amount. And the leader's protocols 
also required that the specific amount be offset by a reduction in an 
existing authorization. This bill violates those requirements.
  First, the bill does not include a specific authorization for EPA to 
implement the bill's provisions. EPA will have to start a new 
rulemaking for boilers and incinerators and follow a whole new approach 
for setting emissions standards, and that's going to cost money. CBO--
who is the usual referee on these questions--has determined that H.R. 
2250 does in fact authorize new discretionary spending. CBO estimates 
that implementing this bill would cost the EPA $1 million over a 5-year 
period. But the bill does not offset the new spending with cuts in an 
existing authorization. That's a clear violation of the plain language 
of the Republicans' CutGo policy.
  I know what my Republican colleagues are going to say because they 
said it last time we were considering legislation. They will argue that 
this bill doesn't create a new program. They'll say that EPA can use 
existing funds to complete the work mandated by the bill. But that's 
not how appropriations law works. Anyone familiar with Federal 
appropriations law knows this and the Government Accountability Office 
or the Congressional Budget Office can confirm it.
  H.R. 2250 does not include an authorization, but that does not have 
the effect of forcing the executive branch to implement the legislation 
with existing resources. To the contrary, it has the effect of creating 
an implicit authorization of such sums as may be necessary. Now, the 
Republicans have been against setting authorizations of such sums as 
may be necessary because they wanted a specific amount, and they wanted 
an offset. My amendment would simply ensure that the discretionary 
CutGo rule is complied with. It states that if this bill authorizes the 
appropriation of funds to implement its provisions without reducing an 
existing authorization of appropriations by an offsetting amount, then 
the bill will not go into effect.
  This amendment is about fairness. If I offered a bill that 
strengthened the Clean Air Act or cut global warming pollution, the 
Republicans would require my bill to meet the CutGo requirements. But 
because Republicans are eager to attack the Clean Air Act and weaken 
public health protections, all of a sudden their own protocols don't 
matter. And if they're not complying with CutGo because CutGo, as 
they've set it up, is infeasible and unworkable, they need to 
acknowledge that reality and change the requirements.
  I urge all Members to support this amendment. Let's hold the 
Republican leadership accountable to keep their word.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. Madam Chair, H.R. 2250 will reduce 
regulatory burdens for job creators and extend the timeframe for the 
EPA to issue its rules for boilers and incinerators.
  Considering that EPA is currently pursuing an aggressive regulatory 
regime in these areas, and doing so within its existing budget, 
additional funding should not be needed to provide the regulatory 
relief provided in this bill. While the CBO's rules may require it to 
score legislation in a vacuum, in the real world there is no reason 
taxpayers should be forced to hand over more money when asking an 
agency merely to do its job.
  Any cost of commonsense regulations in this area, as our legislation 
proposes, can certainly be covered by the agency's existing budget--
that has increased greatly over the last several years. And that budget 
is funding its current regulatory efforts. No new funding is authorized 
by the legislation, so Madam Chair, I do not believe any new funding is 
necessary. Accordingly, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

[[Page H6699]]

  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


          Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Connolly of Virginia

  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following section:

     SEC. 6. PROTECTION FROM RESPIRATORY AND CARDIOVASCULAR 
                   ILLNESS AND DEATH.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the 
     Administrator shall not delay actions pursuant to the rules 
     identified in section 2(b) of this Act to reduce emissions 
     from waste incinerators or industrial boilers at chemical 
     facilities, oil refineries, or large manufacturing facilities 
     if such emissions are causing respiratory and cardiovascular 
     illnesses and deaths, including cases of heart attacks, 
     asthma attacks, and bronchitis.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Chairman, during the past 10 months, 
the Republican leadership has already tried to pass more than 125 anti-
environmental bills, amendments, and riders. We debated yet another 
anti-EPA bill just the other day, and the majority rejected every 
single amendment that would have protected public health.
  I introduced a simple amendment that would have ensured no deaths or 
increased incidence of illness would occur as a result of the cement 
factory bill we debated last week. It would seem to be a modest 
proposition that bills passed by Congress should not lead directly to 
premature death or hospitalization, yet that's exactly what these anti-
clean air bills do. Republicans claim that all these anti-EPA bills 
will create jobs, but sadly those new jobs would only be created in 
hospitals.
  The latest Republican attack on the Clean Air Act is H.R. 2250 before 
us today, which would block public health standards for industrial 
boilers. The EPA is issuing these standards in accordance with the 
Clean Air Act, which was passed in 1970 and signed into law by a 
Republican President. Since 1970, the Clean Air Act has dramatically 
reduced air pollution, despite population growth, while America's 
economy has doubled in size.
  The evidence is clear: We do not have to make the false choice 
between a healthy economy and a healthy environment. Yet that is 
precisely the false choice presented us in H.R. 2250. My colleagues 
claim we must allow more mercury pollution, more particulate pollution, 
more soot into our air in order to spur economic recovery. How easily 
some seem to forget that this recession started under the most anti-
environmental administration in history, that of George W. Bush. So if 
attacking the environment really did spur economic growth, then we 
wouldn't have had the economic collapse of 2008.
  The consequences of acting on the false premise presented by my 
Republican colleagues would be catastrophic for Americans' health. 
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, by 
following the law and implementing health standards for industrial 
boilers, EPA will prevent 2,500 to 6,500 premature deaths every single 
year. By allowing the EPA to continue implementing the Clean Air Act, 
we will prevent some 4,000 heart attacks, 4,300 emergency room visits, 
and 2.2 million lost work days every single year. By preventing all of 
these premature deaths and pollution-caused illnesses, merely 
implementing the Clean Air Act rules for industrial boilers will save, 
taking costs into account, between $20 billion and $52 billion 
annually.
  My simple amendment would allow H.R. 2250 to go into effect if it 
didn't cause these illnesses and deaths. If in fact we can loosen 
regulations without any negative health consequences and without adding 
to health care costs that are already too high for most families, then 
by all means let's do it. By passing this amendment, my Republican 
colleagues can reaffirm their support for deregulation, provided that 
it doesn't injure or kill our constituents.
  My amendment says, ``The administrator shall not delay actions to 
reduce emissions from waste incinerators or industrial boilers if such 
emissions are causing respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses and 
deaths.''

                              {time}  1550

  This ensures that, if H.R. 2250 passes, we won't be increasing the 
rate of respiratory disease or accepting more children to hospitals 
with asthma attacks. Since members of the majority claim to be equally 
concerned about the health of our constituents, I wanted to offer them 
the opportunity to affirm their interest in statute and pass this 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman's amendment would add a new section to 
H.R. 2250 directing the administrator to go on and implement the 
current boiler sector rules if emissions at industrial facilities are 
causing respiratory and cardiovascular illness and death, including 
heart attacks, asthma attacks, and bronchitis.
  I would like, first of all, to mention that over the last 15 or 20 
years, we've made remarkable progress in cleaning up the air. For 
example, ozone has been reduced by 14 percent, particulate matter by 31 
percent, lead by 78 percent, nitrogen dioxide by 35 percent, carbon 
monoxide by 68 percent, sulfur dioxide by 59 percent.
  This amendment targets specific health issues, respiratory and 
cardiovascular illness and death, and our bill, I would say, does 
direct that the EPA protect public health, jobs, and the economy. And 
that's what our legislation is all about--a more balanced approach.
  I find it interesting that the Boiler MACT is all about regulating 
hazardous air pollutants, but yet, when EPA did their analysis of the 
benefits of the Boiler MACT rule, they did not include any benefit from 
reduction of hazardous air pollutants, and mercury, in particular. They 
indicated that all of the health benefits would be as a result of a 
reduction of particulate matter.
  So the whole purpose of Boiler MACT is to deal with hazardous air 
pollutants. EPA has decided there was no real benefit from the 
reduction there, but it's all from particulate matter. So we oppose 
this amendment because we really don't think it's necessary.
  The Clean Air Act sets out very clearly the protections for health 
and what is required. And we specifically object to this because it's 
identifying particular illnesses, and we think that EPA should look at 
a broad range of health issues and, for that reason, would respectfully 
oppose the gentleman from Virginia's amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I seek recognition in support of the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman move to strike the last word?
  Mr. WAXMAN. I seek recognition to speak in support of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman strikes the last word, and he is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I don't wish to strike the last word. I want to speak in 
favor of the amendment.
  Is that grounds for recognition?
  The Acting CHAIR. Yes. The only way to gain recognition for debate is 
to strike the last word.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Well, I will seek recognition to strike the last word. I 
didn't know I couldn't stand up during the debate on an amendment and 
speak in favor of the amendment, but I will take it.
  The Acting CHAIR. This debate is under the 5-minute rule.
  The gentleman is recognized.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Under the 5-minute rule I am recognized, and I want the 
opportunity to respond to the comments that were just made.
  My colleague from Kentucky keeps on saying that there will be no 
benefit from the EPA boiler rules in terms of health. Well, it's true 
that EPA didn't put a dollar figure on the potential

[[Page H6700]]

health benefits from reducing emissions of mercury, carcinogens, and 
other toxic pollutants, but that's not because there won't be any 
benefits.
  Allow me to quote from EPA's regulatory impact analysis for the 
boiler rules: ``Data, resource, and methodological limitations 
prevented EPA from quantifying or monetizing the benefits from several 
important benefit categories, including benefits from reducing toxic 
emissions.''
  Notice that this doesn't say that cutting hazardous air pollutants 
from boilers will have no benefits for public health.
  What are the benefits of cutting mercury pollution here at home? 
Cutting mercury pollution from boilers and incinerators will reduce 
localized mercury deposition. Reducing mercury deposition is critical 
to reducing Americans' exposure to mercury from eating contaminated 
fish.
  In 2000 EPA estimated that roughly 60 percent of the total mercury 
deposited in the United States comes from man-made air emission sources 
within the United States, such as power plants, incinerators, boilers, 
cement kilns, and other sources.
  These numbers have changed slightly since 2000, but other studies 
have shown that there's an importance still in reducing local sources 
of mercury pollution. For example, one study by the University of 
Michigan and EPA found that the majority of mercury deposited at a 
monitoring site in eastern Ohio came from local and regional sources.
  Mercury is a potent neurotoxin. Babies born to women exposed to 
mercury during pregnancy can suffer from a wide range of developmental 
and neurological problems, including delays in speaking and 
difficulties learning. Now, it's hard to translate that into dollars 
and cents. What is the value of allowing a child's brain to develop 
normally so that those children can reach their full potential?
  But this is just common sense. Cutting the emissions of a powerful 
neurotoxin will help protect children's health. I don't know how 
anybody can honestly argue that allowing more mercury pollution is 
better for public health than less.
  Overall, EPA estimates for the quantified benefits of the boiler 
rules likely underestimate the total benefits to society of requiring 
those industrial sources to clean up.
  Now, EPA looked, as well, at what the rules would do in terms of the 
effect of reducing emissions of fine particle pollution which can lodge 
deep into the lungs and cause serious effects. Breathing particle 
pollution has been found to cause a range of acute and chronic health 
problems, such as significant damage to the small airways of the lungs; 
aggravated asthma attacks in children; death from respiratory and 
cardiovascular causes, including strokes, increased numbers of heart 
attacks, especially among the elderly and in people with heart 
conditions; increased hospitalization for cardiovascular disease, 
including strokes and congestive heart failure; and increased emergency 
room visits for patients suffering from acute respiratory ailments.
  By cutting emissions of fine particles, EPA estimated that these 
rules will prevent up to 6,600 premature deaths, 4,100 nonfatal heart 
attacks, 42,000 cases of aggravated asthma, 320,000 days when people 
miss work or school each year.
  EPA found that these rules will provide at least $10 to $24 in health 
benefits for every dollar in costs. That's a tremendous return on 
investment and doesn't even include the benefits of the toxic air 
pollution, toxic mercury pollution, which is harder to quantify but is 
there nevertheless.
  So the amendment is straightforward. It states that the bill does not 
stop EPA from taking action to clean up air pollution from a dirty 
boiler or incinerator if that facility is emitting pollutants that are 
causing heart attacks, asthma attacks, and bronchitis or other 
respiratory and cardiovascular disease.
  The Republicans argue that this bill is not an attack on the Clean 
Air Act or public health. They argue this bill won't prevent EPA from 
requiring boilers and incinerators to cut their pollution.
  I disagree. So I support adding language to the bill making it 
perfectly clear EPA must act, and I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  1600


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Markey

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Womack). The Clerk will designate the 
amendment.
  Is the gentleman offering amendment No. 7?
  Mr. MARKEY. Amendment No. 7. I rise as the designee to offer 
amendment No. 7.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. WHITFIELD. I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky will state his inquiry.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I'm not positive what the rules are 
here, but the gentleman from Massachusetts says that he has amendment 
No. 7, and in the list of amendments that we have, the sponsor of No. 7 
is said to be Mr. Quigley of Illinois.
  Would the Chair be able to explain to me what the rules are in regard 
to that?
  The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts state that he 
is the designee for the gentleman from Illinois?
  Mr. MARKEY. Yes, I am offering the amendment as the designee of Mr. 
Quigley, which I think under the rules is permitted.
  The Acting CHAIR. In response to the gentleman from Kentucky's 
inquiry the rule allows for a designee to offer the amendment.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following section:

     SEC. 6. PROTECTION FROM AVOIDABLE CASES OF CANCER.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the 
     Administrator shall not delay actions pursuant to the rules 
     identified in section 2(b) of this Act to reduce emissions 
     from waste incinerators or industrial boilers at chemical 
     facilities, oil refineries, or large manufacturing facilities 
     if such emissions are increasing the risk of cancer.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. Today the Republicans continue their war on the 
environment. This time we have episode 58 of the Clean Air Act 
Repealathon.
  That's right, ladies and gentlemen who are listening. This is the 
58th time the Republicans have voted to weaken the Clean Air Act this 
year. Today's episode guest stars excessive and unwanted appearances by 
neurotoxic mercury, carcinogenic dioxin, and deadly arsenic. This bill 
blocks and indefinitely delays implementation of the rules that would 
reduce emissions of these lethal air pollutants from industrial boilers 
and does so in total disregard for the devastating impacts these 
pollutants have on public health, particularly the health of infants 
and children.
  We already know a lot about these substances. For instance, exposure 
to dioxin causes delays in motor skills and neurodevelopment in 
children, impacts hormones that regulate growth, metabolism and 
reproduction, and has been classified as a carcinogen by the World 
Health Organization and the National Toxicology Program. Chromium 6 was 
made famous by the movie ``Erin Brockovich,'' starring Julia Roberts. 
That chemical has been linked to stomach and other forms of cancer. And 
let's not forget mercury, a substance that is particularly harmful to 
children because it impairs brain development, impacting memory, 
attention and language, potentially leading to life-long disabilities. 
The mercury is released directly into the air we all breathe and finds 
its way into the food that we eat. In 2010, all 50 States issued fish 
consumption advisories warning

[[Page H6701]]

citizens to limit how often they eat fish caught in State waters 
because of mercury contamination.
  This bill seeks to permanently eliminate EPA's ability to reduce 
these toxic emissions from industrial boilers and does so despite the 
fact that the American Boiler Manufacturers Association, the 
association that represents the very companies that design, 
manufacture, and supply the industrial boilers in question, oppose the 
Republican bill.
  That's right, the companies that have stated that they stand ready 
and able to harness American ingenuity and technological might to 
design products that comply with EPA requirements in a timely and cost-
effective manner oppose the Republican bill here today. And why? 
Because they believe this bill will only kill what they expect to be a 
new high-tech engineering and domestic manufacturing job explosion.
  So the Republican bill will not only kill people, 6,600 additional 
deaths per year in the United States according to the EPA; it will also 
kill jobs.
  My amendment is very simple. It just says that the Republican 
prohibitions on EPA reducing toxic air pollution in this bill are 
waived if these emissions are found to increase the risk of cancer. 
This amendment makes the choice very clear. If we adopt this amendment, 
EPA can continue with its plans to require the dirtiest industrial 
boilers and incinerators to clean up their cancer-causing emissions and 
do so while creating American jobs. So we saved 6,600 Americans from 
dying each year from their exposure to these neurotoxins; and at the 
same time, we create jobs in our economy.
  That's what this is all about. The EPA just has to certify that the 
Republican approach will not lead to an increase in cancers. That's all 
that we ask the Members on the floor to vote on today.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Our good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, 
talks about the American Boiler Manufacturers Association being opposed 
to our bill. And that's true. But they don't speak for those who own 
and operate boilers. They speak for themselves because they manufacture 
boilers; and if this rule goes into effect, they're going to make a lot 
more money than they're making today.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts also indicated that our legislation 
will weaken the Clean Air Act. There is not anything in our bill that 
would weaken the Clean Air Act, and I think that Congress has the 
responsibility to review and to have oversight over the decisions of 
EPA on regulations that they adopt. And precisely the reason why we're 
here with this legislation is because of the economic situation that we 
find ourselves in America today--we have a very high unemployment rate, 
we have a stagnant economy, and we have people without jobs.
  We've had a lot of hearings on this Boiler MACT regulation issued by 
EPA, and people are saying that this regulation alone would put at risk 
230,000 jobs nationwide. So we're not saying walk away and not protect 
the American people. We are simply saying let's hold back for just a 
moment. Let's go back and revisit this rule. Let's take 15 months for 
EPA to promulgate a new rule and then give the affected industries, 
universities, hospitals and other groups a minimum of 5 years to 
implement these new regulations.
  And I might say that we heard testimony from the University of Notre 
Dame, because the first Boiler MACT rules went into effect in 2004, and 
in order to meet those regulations, the University of Notre Dame spent 
$20 million to meet those boiler rules and regulations. And then the 
environmental groups filed a lawsuit and said, hey, this is not 
stringent enough. We need to issue new rules, which is what EPA did.
  So the University of Notre Dame, having spent $20 million already, is 
still not in compliance. They are going to have to come forth and spend 
more money. Their witness said that may very well cause them to 
increase their tuition costs, which makes it more difficult for young 
people to go to college.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts also talked about mercury. And I 
would reiterate, once again, that when EPA did their analysis, they did 
not come up with any health benefits because of the reduction in 
mercury as a result of their Boiler MACT rule. The only health benefits 
that they pointed out were related to particulate matter, reduction of 
particulate matter, not mercury; and I'm not aware of any scientific 
causal connection that specifically says that in this instance 6,600 
more people are going to die each year because we delay the 
implementation of the Boiler MACT rule. And that's one of the reasons 
that a lot of independent third-party groups have serious questions 
about EPA's analysis.

                              {time}  1610

  How do you know for a fact, without any contradiction, that 6,600 
people are going to die each year if this is delayed, or that there are 
going to be X thousands of people who are going to have heart attacks 
who wouldn't have had them before?
  Because of all of those reasons, we simply believe that this 
legislation is a commonsense approach: protect jobs, protect health, 
revisit the issue, come out with a new rule, and give industries, 
universities, hospitals time to comply. That's all that we're asking 
for. For that reason, I would respectfully oppose the amendment of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts, which was introduced by Mr. Quigley of 
Illinois.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, we just heard from the 
chairman of the subcommittee handling this bill, and there are two 
statements that are just absolutely inaccurate.
  He said this bill does not weaken the Clean Air Act. I don't know 
what weakening the Clean Air Act means to him, but when we say that 
we're going to nullify the standards EPA set under the Clean Air Act, 
that weakens the Clean Air Act. When we say that we're going to 
eliminate the deadlines for compliance, that weakens the Clean Air Act. 
When we say that EPA can set regulations but that they have to use a 
different standard, that certainly weakens the Clean Air Act.
  The other statement that was just made that is absolutely erroneous 
is that we don't get any health benefits from reducing the toxic 
pollution, and that is just not true. Reducing the toxic pollutants is 
aimed at protecting the public health from toxic, dangerous, poisonous 
chemicals--mercury and carcinogens. These are toxic pollutants, and 
reducing them will help the public health.
  Again the statement was made inaccurately that EPA didn't find any 
health benefits. That is not true. EPA said they could not quantify the 
health benefits. How do you quantify a life that can be lived longer? 
How do you quantify a child who will not be impaired in learning and 
thinking? How do you quantify the damage that can be done from the 
toxic air pollutants?
  I think both of those statements are inaccurate.
  This amendment says, in effect, that if we're going to have an 
increase in cancer as a result of what is called for by the author of 
this bill, or from the proponents of this bill, then we're not going to 
let this bill go into effect. I think that's a commonsense approach.
  So I would urge support for the amendment being offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts. I think it's the right approach, and it 
underscores the wrong approach taken by the authors of this bill.
  Mr. MARKEY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Again, the EPA has estimated that delaying the boiler air 
pollution rules could cause upwards of 6,600 deaths per year. That's 
the estimate, but that might be lowballing the number. We all know that 
parents out there are very concerned about what their kids are 
breathing in, especially if they live near these kinds of facilities 
that are spewing this stuff up into the atmosphere. They know how kids 
can be very vulnerable to this going into their systems as they're 
growing up.

[[Page H6702]]

  So to say that there is no health effect and that it can't be 
specifically quantified--that it's 6,602 as opposed to 6,605--doesn't 
mean that they haven't come up with a number, 6,600, that approximates 
what could happen in terms of the number of deaths that are caused by 
having this bill go on the books.
  Mr. WAXMAN. The gentleman is absolutely correct.
  Make no mistake about it. H.R. 2250 has real legal effects, and those 
effects weaken our protections from air pollution and harm the health 
of all Americans, especially our children. No matter how many times 
Republicans may want to say that the bill won't harm health and that it 
doesn't weaken health standards, it just simply is not accurate.
  So I urge support for this amendment, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I just want to make one comment.
  I made the comment that the EPA did not quantify any health benefit 
from the reduction of mercury. I might also say that, in the court 
case, EPA tried to delay the Boiler MACT rule itself. In this 
legislation, because they lost that court case, we are simply saying we 
think you're right, that you do need to take a little bit more time. 
For that reason, I would respectfully oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, a point of parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California will state his 
inquiry.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I just have a question about the parliamentary manner in 
which the debate is being handled.
  When I asked the other day for time to speak on the bill, I was 
recognized for 5 minutes. Then I asked to strike the last word so I 
could speak again, and it was subjected to a unanimous consent request. 
That wasn't the request for the gentleman from Kentucky to be given an 
additional 5 minutes, which I would not have objected to, but I just 
wonder, what are the standards in terms of having a Member speak twice 
in the debate?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky claimed the 5 minutes 
of time that is allowed for opposition. He then moved to strike the 
last word, and was recognized for 5 minutes on his pro forma amendment.
  Mr. WAXMAN. So the rule is that any Member can speak on the amendment 
and also strike the last word and have two 5-minute timeframes?
  The Acting CHAIR. Only if the first 5 minutes is allocated to speak 
in opposition.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I asked a while ago to speak in favor of an amendment. I 
was told that I had to strike the last word.
  Can the Chair explain to me why I have to strike the last word to 
speak in favor of an amendment, and if I spoke in favor of an 
amendment, would I have an opportunity to speak in striking the last 
word?
  The Acting CHAIR. To be clear, the proponent is recognized for 5 
minutes, and the member who shall first obtain the floor in opposition 
is recognized for 5 minutes. Then other Members may move to strike the 
last word.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Only?
  The Acting CHAIR. Only.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for that clarification.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky will state his inquiry.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I want to thank the gentleman from California for 
raising this issue.
  So, to make sure I understand, if our respected colleagues offer an 
amendment on that side and take 5 minutes to explain their amendment, 
then someone on our side can claim time in opposition, and we would get 
5 minutes; is that correct?
  The Acting CHAIR. An opponent is entitled to 5 minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. In addition to that, if we come back later and strike 
the last word, we would get another 5 minutes if we desire to do so. Is 
that correct?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I thank the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Edwards

  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       After section 1, insert the following section (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections, and conform internal cross-
     references, accordingly):

     SEC. 2. FINDING.

       The Congress finds that, according to the Environmental 
     Protection Agency's analysis of the impacts of the final 
     rules specified in section 3(b)(1) and section (3)(b)(2) on 
     employment, based on peer-reviewed literature, such rules 
     would create 2,200 net additional jobs, not including the 
     jobs created to manufacture and install equipment to reduce 
     air pollution.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, there is a strong sense of deja vu here in 
the Chamber today.
  Last week, we gave power plants--the number one source of airborne 
mercury--free rein to spew neurotoxins and other hazardous materials 
into the air we breathe. The other day, we repealed EPA's standards for 
cement kilns--the second-largest source of mercury in our air. Now here 
we are again, proposing to preemptively block EPA from finalizing rules 
that limit pollution coming from the third-largest mercury emitters--
industrial boilers and waste incinerators.
  Mr. Chairman, House Republicans seem bent on eviscerating the Clean 
Air Act, turning back the clock on 40 years of progress in health, 
technological innovation, economic expansion, and job growth. Yes, job 
growth. Contrary to the belief of my colleagues on the other side, 
protecting our environment and our health doesn't stifle jobs; in fact, 
it saves jobs. That's because, when you develop, manufacture, and 
implement environmental technologies, it's labor intensive. That 
explains why during this same period that the Clean Air Act kept more 
than 1.7 million tons of poisonous chemicals out of our lungs that it 
also contributed to 207 percent increase--that's right, 207 percent--in 
the Nation's GDP.

                              {time}  1620

  So that is why I am offering an amendment today, to acknowledge that 
this bill, H.R. 2250, will block rules that would have created at least 
2,200 jobs. This number is a very conservative estimate. It doesn't 
count the good-paying jobs that would come from increased demand for 
the manufacture and installation of pollution control devices. It 
doesn't count the benefits to industry of improved worker productivity 
due to the 320,000 sick days avoided by reducing pollution under the 
rules. But even conservatively, it puts 2,200 Americans back to work.
  So I would like to ask my colleagues on the other side who are 
supporting this legislation to eviscerate the standards, at a time when 
we have 14 million Americans unemployed, Mr. Chairman, why in the world 
would you chip away at a law that has helped to stoke the American 
economy for 40 years and put millions of people back to work?
  Study after study has actually documented the connection between 
employment and environmental regulations, and the facts really speak 
for themselves. The four most heavily regulated industries--pulp and 
paper, refining, iron and steel, and plastics--have seen a net increase 
of 1.5 jobs for every $1 million they spend on complying with 
standards. These are also some of the biggest users of industrial 
boilers and incinerators that are, in fact, the subject of this bill.
  One single rule, the first phase of the Clean Air Interstate Rule, 
has brought 200,000 new jobs in the air pollution control industry just 
in the past 7 years, an average rate of 29,000 additional workers 
employed each year.

[[Page H6703]]

And keep in mind, Mr. Chairman, we have a Congress, a Republican-
controlled Congress, that actually hasn't created one job. The 
boilermaker workforce, a group that is directly affected by the air 
quality standards wiped out by this bill, actually grew 35 percent 
between 1999 and 2001 simply because more stringent pollution controls 
had to be installed to meet the EPA's regional nitrogen oxide reduction 
standards.
  The U.S. environmental technologies and services industry employed 
1.7 million workers in 2008 and exported some $44 billion worth of 
goods and services. That's a fourfold increase over 1990, when the 
Clean Air Act was amended. So here we have a thriving international 
market for these goods and services, estimated at more than $700 
billion--on par, actually, with the aerospace and pharmaceutical 
industries--and this Congress, this Republican Congress actually wants 
to destroy that. Unbelievable.
  Mr. Chairman, the U.S. is recognized as a world leader in 
technologies like pollution monitoring and control equipment, 
information systems for environmental management and analysis, 
engineering, and design. We became a leader because the Clean Air Act 
and other environmental legislation has actually challenged us to 
innovate. We answered that challenge. Americans answered the challenge, 
and, as a result, our share of the global market is actually growing. 
In fact, we had a net trade surplus of $11 billion in environmental 
technologies in 2008. This is good business, Mr. Chairman, and so it's 
ironic that the people around the world are eager to reap rewards on 
superior American ingenuity and know-how while this Chamber is bringing 
forward a bill today that would deprive the American people of the 
rewards and benefits of that ingenuity.
  Look, Congress can and has to do better. The American people are 
expecting it. In fact, we depend on it. And so here we are again, 14 
million people unemployed, millions in poverty, when we could be 
creating jobs, but, instead, we're destroying them.
  I want to urge all my colleagues to support my amendment. And, as 
Members of this Chamber, Republicans and Democrats alike, it's time for 
us to join together in putting the country first, and together we can 
get America back to work.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. The amendment offered by the gentlelady from Maryland 
would require that we adopt a finding by the EPA that its boiler and 
incinerator rules will create 2,200 net jobs. The reason that we 
respectfully oppose that is because that is EPA's analysis. And from 
hearings and from independent groups, we do question the models that 
were used; we question the assumptions made; we question the lack of 
transparency in some of EPA's numbers.
  But more important than that, we've had the Council of Industrial 
Boiler Owners, who--you may or may not agree with their numbers, but 
they have concluded that these rules would put at risk over 230,000 
jobs. So the EPA is saying, well, you are going to gain 2,200. They are 
saying that you are going to put at risk 230,000. Then we had the 
American Forest & Paper Association, who concluded that they are 
putting at risk, under these new rules, over 20,000 jobs. We may be 
picking up 2,200, but you are going to put at risk 230,000 plus 20,000 
more.
  Then the whole argument that this administration seems to be making a 
lot of is that, if you issue regulations and you put additional 
requirements in, then you create jobs. But yet I believe that many 
people would say, in the history of our country, we've become a strong 
economic power because we've had individuals willing to invest money, 
to be innovative, to be free marketeers, to go out with a new product, 
produce it, create jobs, and that creates wealth and increases our 
gross domestic product.
  But now we seem to be having this argument that, well, if we have 
more regulations, we will create more jobs. And I would say to you that 
EPA, over this last year, has been the most aggressive in recent 
memory. They have had about 12 or 13 major regulations, and we still 
find that our unemployment rate nationwide is around 9.1 percent. So if 
all of these regulations are creating all of these new jobs, where are 
they?
  So for the simple reason that this amendment would require us to put 
in a finding that this regulation will create 2,200 net additional 
jobs, when we have testimony, when we have witnesses, when we have 
documentation that the affected industries would put at risk many more 
thousands of jobs than would be gained, I would respectfully oppose the 
gentlelady from Maryland's amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I want to counter the statement that was just made.
  We have an estimate from the boiler industry association, and they 
say that there is going to be a loss of jobs, and that was what was 
cited by my friend from Kentucky. But EPA did a very careful, rigorous 
251-page economic analysis and found that the boiler rules issued in 
February would be expected to create over 2,000 jobs, which is the 
finding that the author of this amendment would have us put in the 
legislation.
  Unlike the industry studies, EPA had to follow guidelines and use a 
transparent analysis and subject it to public comment. EPA determined 
that the boiler rules would create a net 2,200 jobs, not including jobs 
created to manufacture and install air pollution equipment.
  Of course the boiler rules do more than just create jobs. They 
prevent up to 6,600 premature deaths, 4,100 nonfatal heart attacks, 
42,000 cases of aggravated asthma. So that means that we are going to 
have a healthier workforce and a more efficient economy. EPA also found 
the boiler rules will provide at least $10 to $24 in health benefits 
for every $1 in costs.
  But the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners put out this study, 
estimating the standards would lead to 338,000 to 800,000 lost jobs. 
Well, that was their analysis. But this analysis wildly overstated the 
impact of these rules by inflating the costs, ignoring the job growth 
resulting from investment in pollution control equipment, and ignoring 
the fact that business can innovate and adapt to pollution control 
standards.
  So the nonpartisan CRS, Congressional Research Service, examined the 
industry study, and they said the basis of this CIBO study, the Council 
of Industrial Boiler Owners, was flawed; and, as a result, the 
Congressional Research Service said little credence can be placed in 
their estimate of job losses.

                              {time}  1630

  The National Association of Clean Air Agencies also reviewed the 
study. These are the people who implement the standards at the State 
and local levels. They found the industry study assumptions about the 
number of sources that would need to make changes to comply were 
grossly in error. Now, even though the Council on Boiler Owners' study 
has been thoroughly debunked, this week the Republicans circulated a 
``Dear Colleague'' citing this study and using it to provide numbers of 
potential jobs at risk. And that, of course, has been the basis for the 
statement that has been made during the course of today's debate.
  That's why this amendment is important. If the Republicans insist on 
referencing flawed industry studies citing job losses, then we should 
ensure that EPA's peer-reviewed analysis showing the potential for job 
growth is included in the Record as well.
  The amendment before us does not change the underlying bill in a 
substantive way. It still nullifies the boiler rules and all of the 
health benefits these rules would provide. But the amendment before us 
simply ensures that the bill's text includes a simple fact: EPA 
estimates that the boiler rules will create jobs, not destroy them.
  I would like, at this point, to ask the gentleman from Kentucky what 
other sources he has for his claim that there would be job losses, 
other than the study by the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners. He 
said that they had their

[[Page H6704]]

report, but this was verified by other independent sources. What other 
sources can verify what the CIBO states, based on their study which has 
been found to be flawed?
  I would yield to the gentleman to cite any other information.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I thank the gentleman from California.
  You're accurate. The Council of Industrial Boiler Owners was one. 
Also information we've received from the five labor unions on this 
issue point out some numbers. And then the other one was AF, 
American Forest & Paper Association. And then we have a letter from 
Smucker's and a few other industries.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Okay. Let me point out I have a statement by the American 
Boiler Manufacturers Association. These are the companies that actually 
design, manufacture and supply the commercial, institutional, and 
industrial boilers.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Waxman was allowed to proceed for 30 
additional seconds.)
  Mr. WAXMAN. They said it is imperative that the rulemaking process--
already under way for a decade--goes forward unencumbered by 
congressional intrusion and that final regulations be promulgated as 
soon as possible to alleviate continued and further confusion and 
uncertainty in the marketplace and to begin generating what we expect 
will be the new high-tech engineering and domestic manufacturing jobs 
in the boiler and boiler-related sectors.
  I submit that this is a reason to vote for this amendment, and what 
we've had are arguments that have come from a self-interested group 
based on a study that was found to be a flawed study. So I urge support 
for the amendment.
                                                   American Boiler


                                    Manufacturers Association,

                                     Vienna, VA, October 10, 2011.
       To Members of the United States House of Representatives: 
     The American Boiler Manufacturers Association (ABMA)--the 
     companies that actually design, manufacture and supply the 
     commercial, institutional, industrial boilers and combustion 
     equipment in question--strongly opposes H.R. 2250, the EPA 
     Regulatory Relief Act of 2011 and any legislation that would 
     further delay, by legislative fiat, the ongoing EPA 
     rulemaking process now playing itself out with respect to the 
     National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
     Major and Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and 
     Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters rules.
       It is imperative that the rulemaking process--already under 
     way for over a decade--goes forward unencumbered by 
     Congressional intrusion and that final regulations be 
     promulgated as soon as possible to alleviate continued and 
     further confusion and uncertainty in the marketplace and to 
     begin generating what we expect will be new, high-tech 
     engineering and domestic manufacturing jobs in the boiler and 
     boiler-related sectors.
       The U.S. boiler and combustion equipment industry--with 
     decades of experience and expertise in meeting tough state, 
     local, regional and national air-quality codes, standards and 
     regulations with innovative and real-world design solutions--
     stands ready and able to help those affected by these rules 
     to comply with them in a timely and cost-effective manner. 
     Further delays, over and above those already extended by EPA, 
     will not necessarily result in improved rules; they will only 
     exacerbate future compliance issues and costs; labor and 
     materials costs are currently stable and domestic boiler and 
     combustion equipment manufacturing capacity is available now 
     to service the full range of compliance options available 
     under the new rules--from simple boiler tune-ups and system 
     upgrades and optimizations to system replacement.
       The types of clean, efficient, fuel-flexible, cost-
     effective and technologically advanced products and equipment 
     that can be supplied by the U.S. boiler manufacturing 
     industry are critically important for long-term public 
     health, environmental quality and business stability. The 
     ABMA urges you to vote against H.R. 2250, to let the 
     rulemaking process within EPA go forward without 
     Congressional interference, and to cast aside any further 
     delaying tactics or excuses that only serve to retard growth, 
     defer job creation and spawn confusion.
           Sincerely,
                                                W. Randall Rawson,
                                President/Chief Executive Officer.

  Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. Thank goodness, ladies and gentlemen, we 
don't have to check our common sense at the door and rely on the EPA to 
be the pinnacle of common sense and reason in this body.
  We are asked what sources do we have, and you heard the gentleman 
from Kentucky name off sources; but it only takes common sense to 
understand that when you represent a district like mine, where many of 
the communities are separated by rivers and mountains, that to comply 
with the current EPA rules on boilers, which would require many changes 
and may require new gas pipelines to go to existing job sites, that you 
cannot accomplish that in 3 years.
  And if you cannot accomplish it under the current rules in 3 years, 
you need a bill like H.R. 2250 to make sure that you have time to be 
able to get the easements necessary, perhaps even through condemnation 
process and lawsuits, to bring in that natural gas pipeline so that 
your factory can stay open.
  And if you can't do it in 3 years and the law says you have to do it 
in 3 years, with the possible extension of 1, and you're looking at the 
opportunity to keep jobs here or not be able to comply, face big fines 
or move that factory to a country that wants your jobs instead of what 
the EPA in this country appears to want, which is our jobs to go 
overseas, then common sense tells you that there's no way that these 
strict Boiler MACT rules with a 3-year implementation time will create 
2,200 net jobs. It doesn't take geniuses to figure that out. It doesn't 
take huge studies to figure that out. What it takes is common sense, 
and thank goodness we can rely on common sense.
  In regard to the letter by the American Boiler Manufacturers 
Association, a company that makes money either way, whether they get 
this bill passed and they sell their products overseas or they sell 
their products in this country, I have to tell you, I was affronted by 
their language that was just repeated on the floor where they talked 
about congressional intrusion.
  Congressional intrusion? Does the EPA make the laws of this country, 
or does the Congress of the United States make the laws? I believe the 
Congress of the United States makes the laws of this country; and when 
we see something that is bad for America, it is our job to intervene 
and make the proper decisions for the United States of America, and it 
is not intrusion to do our job.
  It's not intrusion to tell the EPA: We were the ones elected by the 
people, not the EPA; and that we are the folks who have to bring our 
common sense to bear and recognize that we have an obligation not only 
to the environment, but to make sure that our people have the money to 
be able to afford to heat their homes, to be able to afford to feed 
their families, and to be able to afford to seek the American Dream 
like we had the opportunity and our parents had the opportunity.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. I yield to the gentlelady from Maryland.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Just one question for the gentleman. I wonder if there 
is any time frame at all that would be acceptable for the 
implementation of standards that would save lives and create jobs?
  Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. I would say to the gentlelady that the bill 
says there's to be a 5-year period. It can be extended, but there has 
to be a conclusion at some point. The bill calls for that.
  But the administrator of the EPA, and unless we assume that the 
administrator of the EPA is just going to say nobody has to finish any 
time, can take a look on a case-by-case basis; and if it's going to 
take a little bit longer to get the job done, then they can make a 
real-world decision that has real work effects positively on jobs 
instead of a blanket decision that makes it impossible for businesses 
to be able continue to employ people that they may have employed in 
this country for decades and not force those people to go overseas.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by

[[Page H6705]]

the gentlewoman from Maryland will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Schakowsky

  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       After section 1, insert the following section (and 
     redesignate the subsequent sections, and conform internal 
     cross-references, accordingly):

     SEC. 2. FINDING.

       The Congress finds that mercury released into the ambient 
     air from industrial boilers and waste incinerators addressed 
     by the rules listed in section 2(b) of this Act is a potent 
     neurotoxin that can damage the development of an infant's 
     brain.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Last week I offered an amendment that gave us the 
opportunity to demonstrate that we are aware of the impacts of our 
actions. We failed to take advantage of that opportunity, and today we 
have another chance, and I hope we will take it.
  My amendment simply includes in the findings section of the bill, 
creates a findings section, if you will, the scientific fact that 
mercury released into the ambient air from industrial boilers and waste 
incinerators is a potent neurotoxin that can damage the development of 
an infant's brain. That's what the amendment says. It inserts the 
following section into the findings, and it says the Congress finds 
that mercury released into the ambient air from industrial boilers and 
waste incinerators addressed by the rules listed in section 2(b) of 
this act is a potent neurotoxin that can damage the development of an 
infant's brain.
  Mercury is one of the most harmful toxins in our environment. Forty-
eight tons of mercury is pumped into our air each year, threatening one 
in six women nationwide with dangerous levels of mercury exposure. 
Pregnant women, infants, and young children are most vulnerable to 
mercury poisoning, which harms a developing child's ability to walk, 
talk, read, write, and comprehend.

                              {time}  1640

  Developing fetuses and children are especially at risk, as even low-
level mercury exposure can cause adverse health effects. Up to 10 
percent of U.S. women of childbearing age are estimated to have mercury 
levels high enough to put their developing children at increased risk 
for cognitive problems.
  During the debate on my mercury findings amendment last week, my 
friend Mr. Whitfield stated, ``The scientific understanding of mercury 
is certainly far more complicated than is reflected in this finding 
that asks to be included in this bill.'' I really don't know what he 
finds so complicated. The science is very straightforward.
  In 2000 the National Academy of Sciences issued a report on the toxic 
effects of mercury. Over and over, the report details the toxicity of 
mercury in very stark terms. ``Mercury is highly toxic. Exposure to 
mercury can result in adverse effects in several organ systems 
throughout the lifespan of humans and animals. There are extensive data 
on the effects of mercury on the development of the brain in humans and 
animals.'' High-dose exposures can cause ``mental retardation, cerebral 
palsy, deafness, and blindness'' in individuals exposed in utero, and 
sensory and motor impairment in exposed adults.
  ``Chronic, low-dose prenatal mercury exposure from maternal 
consumption of fish'' has been associated with impacts on attention, 
fine motor function, language, and verbal memory. Overall, data 
indicate that ``the developing nervous system is a sensitive target 
organ for low-dose mercury exposure.
  ``Prenatal exposures interfere with the growth and migration of 
neurons and have the potential to cause irreversible damage to the 
developing central nervous system.''
  What is so complicated about that?
  The EPA industrial boiler and waste incinerator standards would 
reduce this major threat without undue burden to industry. The 
legislation we consider today will block EPA's efforts. It will send 
EPA back to the drawing board with new, untested, and legally 
vulnerable guidance for setting air pollution standards. And most 
troubling, it will indefinitely delay any requirement to actually 
reduce pollution from industrial boilers and waste incinerators.
  The gentleman said there has to be an end date. This legislation says 
there doesn't have to be an end date.
  My colleagues across the aisle talk a lot about not wanting to burden 
the next generation with debt. Where is their concern with burdening 
the next generation with reduced brain capacity? But even considering 
the very serious policy differences we have today, my amendment should 
be noncontroversial. It would not alter the goals or the implementation 
of the pending legislation. It simply recognizes what scientists and 
the public health community tell us about mercury.
  We will never be able to bridge our policy differences if we can't 
even agree on basic facts of science. H.R. 2250 patently ignores the 
scientifically proven fact that mercury exposure inhibits brain 
development, especially in infants. If we are prepared to pass 
legislation that would jeopardize the health of children, we should be 
willing minimally to acknowledge the scientific fact that EPA inaction 
poses a serious health risk.
  Last week we failed to meet our obligation to recognize the 
consequences of our actions. Let's not repeat this mistake. I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment that simply puts a scientific fact 
into the legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I certainly have great respect for the gentlelady from 
Illinois. Her amendment basically reads that the Congress finds that 
mercury released into the ambient air is a potent neurotoxin. From the 
hearings that we've had and the discussions that we've had and the 
documents that we have seen, the scientific understanding of mercury 
seems to be more complicated, as reflected in her amendment.
  Now, why do I say that? I say that because your amendment says, 
mercury released into the ambient air. It's our understanding that 
methylmercury is the neurotoxin. That mercury released into the ambient 
air alone is not a neurotoxin. For that reason, we would oppose the 
amendment, because there's a difference in methylmercury and pure 
mercury.
  One other comment that I would make is that our legislation does 
provide a minimum of 5 years to comply with the new rules that EPA may 
come forth with. And it can go beyond that, but that would be at the 
total discretion of the administrator of EPA. For that reason, we 
really certainly do not have any concern that it would never be set 
with a firm deadline. In fact, in the legislation we say the compliance 
deadline shall be set a minimum of 5 years and the administrator may 
allow it to go further than that. So the argument that it would go on 
forever and ever, we genuinely believe is pretty remote. The simple 
reason, as I stated, about the scientific assumption, the scientific 
understanding of the difference in mercury and methylmercury is the 
reason we would respectfully oppose the amendment setting that in the 
finding.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WAXMAN. This amendment simply states a scientific fact: Mercury 
is a potent neurotoxin that can damage the development of an infant's 
brain. In 2000, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that the 
data linking neurodevelopment effects to mercury exposure is extensive. 
So what do we hear from the Republican side of the aisle? Science 
denial. When we talked about climate change and all the impact of the 
greenhouse gases, they said there's no problem. Science denial.
  Well, let me just say that the Republican majority in the House can 
vote to amend the Clean Air Act, but they cannot vote to amend the laws 
of nature. Babies born to women exposed to mercury during pregnancy can 
suffer from

[[Page H6706]]

a range of developmental and neurological abnormalities, including 
delayed onset of walking, delayed onset of talking, cerebral palsy, and 
lower neurological test scores. The National Academy of Sciences 
estimates each year about 60,000 children may be born in the U.S. with 
neurological problems that could lead to poor school performance 
because of exposure to mercury in utero. The effects of mercury 
exposure in utero are insidious and long term.
  Now, why are we hearing that this isn't a scientific fact? Well, I 
heard a distinction of mercury and mercury when it's mixed with other 
chemicals. I think what we have here is, make up the science as you go 
along but deny the science that the scientists have worked for decades 
establishing.
  Boilers and incinerators are one of the largest sources of airborne 
mercury pollution in the U.S. For far too long they have been allowed 
to pollute unabated. And now the Republican leadership wants to nullify 
the rules that EPA finalized to cut emissions of mercury and other 
toxic air pollution from boilers and incinerators. These rules were 
more than a decade late. The Republicans say, Well, let EPA start the 
rulemaking process all over again. Let them comply with a different 
standard. We're going to amend the law to provide a different standard. 
The different standard should not be to use the maximum available 
control technology but something that is the lowest risk of harm or 
cost to the industry.
  The Republicans keep trying to justify this bill by saying that the 
public health benefits of cutting mercury pollution here at home aren't 
significant enough to justify the costs. Well, I think we're talking 
about Science 101. This is not a subject to debate. Mercury is a known 
neurotoxin. So I ask those that support this bill, Are you going to 
vote against what scientists say is a fact? Many of you voted earlier 
this year to reject the overwhelming science linking carbon pollution 
to climate change. I hope the Republicans are not going to do the same 
thing now by rejecting what every public health expert knows--mercury 
is a poison.

                              {time}  1650

  I yield to the gentlelady from Illinois.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would like to ask my friend, Mr. Whitfield, since we're now talking 
about mercury or methylmercury, if the amendment that I offered read, 
instead of the way it does, ``If Congress finds that mercury released 
into the ambient air from industrial boilers and waste incinerators 
becomes a potent neurotoxin that can damage the development of an 
infant's brain''--because that's what happens. The mercury, if you want 
to pick the semantics of it, becomes methylmercury--then we could make 
it that way.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Well, let me yield to the gentleman from Kentucky. Maybe 
he'll be satisfied with that change because you're stating it in a very 
clear, unequivocal way as a scientific finding.
  Would the gentleman from Kentucky be willing to agree to that 
statement of the issue?
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Would the gentlelady repeat what she is suggesting?
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Instead of saying that the mercury that's released is 
a potent neurotoxin, I say, ``becomes a potent neurotoxin that can 
damage the development of an infant's brain,'' because that is the 
science. That's what happens.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield further to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, let me just ask a parliamentary inquiry here. 
What is the parliamentary procedure if we were to attempt to do 
something like that?
  Mr. WAXMAN. Well, let's worry about that later.
  How about the substance of that change? Would you be willing to 
accept that change in the findings on the legislation?
  Mr. WHITFIELD. What I go back to is that, in EPA's own analysis, they 
indicated that they--
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from California has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Waxman was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. They indicated that there was no quantifiable benefit 
from the reduction of mercury.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Well, this amendment wouldn't change the bill. This 
amendment simply says that mercury has the potential to be a neurotoxin 
that could affect children.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Has the potential.
  May I ask a parliamentary inquiry?
  The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman from California yield for that 
purpose?
  Mr. WAXMAN. Well, let me ask, if we had a unanimous consent request, 
could we change the amendment? As I understand it, we could.
  The Acting CHAIR. The proponent may modify her amendment by unanimous 
consent.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman if he wishes to seek a unanimous 
consent request in that regard. Apparently, there is an objection.
  Reclaiming my time for the moment that I have left, what we are 
seeing is Republicans unwilling to say anything that has been 
scientifically established. They're willing to deny the science and do 
anything in order to serve the interests of the industry. And I think 
we ought to have the finding in the bill since it does not affect the 
functions of the bill, itself.
  I urge support for the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Ellison

  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Page 6, line 24, insert ``, except that the date for 
     compliance with standards and requirements under such 
     regulation may be earlier than 5 years after the effective 
     date of the regulation if the Administrator finds that such 
     regulation will create more than 1,000 jobs'' after 
     ``regulation''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chair, my amendment is very simple. What it says is 
that if the EPA administrator finds that the regulation creates more 
than 1,000 jobs, then the administrator can shorten the 5-year delay 
which the bill would impose.
  So, very simply, the EPA administrator can come forward and say, 
look, 1,000 jobs have been created by this, and therefore this delay of 
5 years will be shortened. That's all the amendment calls for. And in a 
time when we have such tremendous need for jobs in America, I would 
think that if the EPA can identify 1,000 jobs created in connection 
with this rule, then we should certainly be able to shorten the 5-year 
period of delay.
  So I ask for support for this amendment because I'm sure that 
everybody on both sides of the aisle agrees wholeheartedly with job 
creation.
  And there has been, I believe, a false choice offered to the American 
people. And this false choice is very simple to describe, and that is 
that we can either have rules that limit emissions from boilers or we 
can have jobs, but, according to some people in this body, we can't 
have both. We can't have both clean lungs, be free of mercury, be free 
of other neurotoxins and contaminants, and have jobs. I argue we can 
have both. And if the EPA administrator can demonstrate that there are 
jobs created here, then the 5-year period should in fact be shortened.
  I argue that what we need to do here is to stand for jobs. And 
according to EPA, what we have seen is that this underlying rule, which 
would be delayed by the bill, actually will create and has been 
estimated to create up to 2,200 jobs. So let's see if that's actually 
right. Let's see if the proposal, as set forth by the rule, would 
create jobs as the EPA administrator says it will. And if it does, we 
should say let's go forth.
  The economic impact of the boiler regulation is exceptionally 
positive.

[[Page H6707]]

The EPA's data shows that by reducing the particulate matter pollution 
from industrial boilers we will generate net economic benefits of $22 
billion to $56 billion every year. So why wouldn't we want to take full 
advantage of that economic activity, as all of us are concerned about 
jobs.
  The over 40 years of success of the Clean Air Act have demonstrated 
that strong environmental protections and strong economic growth go 
hand in hand. They are not one versus the other. They go together. 
Since 1970, the Clean Air Act has reduced key pollutants by more than 
70 percent while, at the same time, the economy has grown by over 200 
percent. So much for the claim that regulation kills jobs. That's not 
true. It's not right. It's inaccurate. And I say, by supporting my 
amendment, we can see who's right.
  I see no reason why the Republican majority wouldn't support my 
amendment if they believe, as they claim, environmental regulations 
hurt jobs. We have a chance to see. And I want to see if people really 
believe what they claim, and they can demonstrate their commitment to 
what they argue by supporting my amendment.
  The benefits outweigh the projected costs of compliance by as much as 
13 to 1 in this case.
  The misleading report from the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners 
claims that over 300,000 jobs are at risk. This is wrong. The National 
Association of Clean Air Agencies found that the industry commission 
report is based on exaggerations and omissions. The report from the 
industry substantially overestimates the cost of compliance with 
regulation. And the boiler owners have ignored many benefits of the 
rule--thousands of new jobs to install and operate and maintain 
pollution control equipment.
  The public health benefit, that is nearly $40 billion a year. 
Creating green economy jobs to make our air cleaner would create jobs 
throughout the supply chain--for example, installing and operating 
scrubbers.
  So it's important that we make jobs the focus of our work here in 
Congress. The Republican majority has seen fit not to introduce any 
jobs bills during its time as the majority. Here's an opportunity to 
say, if you really believe that regulations kill jobs, vote for my 
amendment and we will be able to see, because the administrator, if 
1,000 jobs can be generated, will be able to delay this rule.
  Now, if you really don't believe it and you just want to do what the 
boiler owners want, then of course you will vote ``no.'' But if you 
really believe what you say, you will vote ``yes.''
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I respectfully oppose this amendment and ask that it 
be defeated.
  Once again, we're hearing the argument that if you have enough 
regulations, you're going to create jobs. And the gentleman referred to 
EPA's estimate that there may be a net gain of 2,200 jobs as a result 
of this regulation. But when you look at the Council of Industrial 
Boilers, when you read the documentation from labor unions, from the 
forest paper products, from the universities, they say there are at 
risk, as a direct result of this regulation, in excess of 280,000 jobs.

                              {time}  1700

  So for us to be doing these minor changes, if the EPA administrator 
finds they will create more than 1,000 jobs--the real reason, though, 
that we're opposed to this amendment is that, under the Clean Air Act, 
boilers already have 3 years to comply, and incinerators have 5 years 
to comply. We want boilers and incinerators to have a minimum of 5 
years to comply. We think that that provides certainty. It certainly 
reflects the testimony and our concern from witnesses who testified at 
all of the hearings that they, in many instances, need 5 years. The EPA 
administrator may allow it to go longer than that if he or she chooses 
to do so.
  But I don't believe that regulation creates jobs. And I think most of 
the testimony would indicate that there are more jobs at risk as a 
direct result of these regulations. For that reason, I would oppose 
this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ELLISON. I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Welch

  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       After section 1, insert the following section (and 
     redesignate the subsequent sections, and conform internal 
     cross-references, accordingly):

     SEC. 2. FINDING.

       The Congress finds that the American people are exposed to 
     mercury from industrial sources addressed by the rules listed 
     in section 2(b) of this Act through the consumption of fish 
     containing mercury and every State in the Nation has issued 
     at least one mercury advisory for fish consumption.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Vermont is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, we have an ongoing debate in this Congress 
about regulation. My friends on the Republican side believe we have too 
much. Those of us on the Democratic side think we need careful 
regulation. We shouldn't have too much, but we shouldn't abolish it all 
together.
  An appropriate regulation levels the playing field for our businesses 
and industries, but it also gives a fair shot to the health, safety, 
and concerns of our people who have no control over the production 
processes and how those may affect their health.
  The issue presented in my amendment is not about a regulation, but 
it's related to the effort to roll back regulations at any cost and at 
any price and whatever the consequences. My amendment would include in 
the bill a finding that the American people who are exposed to mercury 
from industrial sources, addressed by the rules listed in section 2(d), 
through the consumption of fish containing mercury face a health 
hazard. There really is no dispute about that, scientifically or 
medically.
  So the question may be, why do we need the finding? The reason we 
need the finding is because we have to acknowledge when industrial 
processes actually create health risk in order that we can accept our 
responsibility to address the risk that's created in the production 
process.
  And the cement in boilers does produce mercury. Now, it's so self-
evident that it produces mercury that this map here shows every single 
State in our Union has issued a mercury advisory. The reason those 
States, locally, not from Washington, have issued those mercury 
advisories is to give a heads-up to their citizens to be careful about 
eating fish that may be contaminated; and that is the responsibility of 
government, to let people know when there is a health risk and to help 
them avert it and to stop it.
  My amendment, Mr. Chairman, simply incorporates what the scientific 
and medical community know, and that is that mercury is a toxin. And if 
we ingest it, particularly if it's a child, an infant, that it does 
enormous health damage long term.
  So why don't we acknowledge what we know, namely, that mercury is a 
toxin, that we include this in the findings so that, in so doing, we 
accept the responsibility that this country has, that all of us have, 
to do everything we can to avoid unnecessary health care risk.
  This amendment simply does that. It's not additional regulation, but 
it's a finding of what we know and 50 States have found, that mercury 
is a threat to the public health of its own citizens.
  I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. There really is nothing in H.R. 2250 that would in any 
way prohibit or discourage States from continuing to give these 
advisory opinions about mercury and the dangers of

[[Page H6708]]

mercury. So our legislation would not prevent the States in any way 
from continuing to do that.
  The gentleman's amendment would place particular attention on 
industrial sources; and as we had stated in the debate last week, the 
Department of Energy itself has said that over 11 million pounds of 
mercury were emitted globally from both natural and human sources, and 
the vast majority of the human sources in the U.S. come from outside 
the U.S.
  So coupled with that fact, and the fact that EPA said the benefits of 
mercury reduction from the Boiler MACT rules have not been quantified, 
this really seems to be a duplicative effort because the States are 
going to continue to issue their rulings, their warnings, as they 
should do so. But it's important that the American people also know 
that there is a lot of mercury coming from natural sources and also 
from outside of the U.S. And our legislation, I do not believe, would 
put at further risk the American people and their health.
  With that, I would respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont will 
be postponed.


          Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Page 6, lines 23 and 24, strike ``not earlier than 5 years 
     after the effective date of the regulation'' and insert ``not 
     later than 3 years after the regulation is promulgated as 
     final''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as I listened today, I 
listened to some enormously bipartisan commentary about jobs. As Mr. 
Waxman knows, our ranking member, we have been working on creating jobs 
for a very long time. Democrats are hoping for a vote in the other body 
on the President's American Jobs Act.
  In the last Congress, although we documented 3 million jobs, I can 
assure you that our stimulus package created millions of jobs 
unrecorded because it was emergency funding that did not require that 
recording.
  My amendment speaks to clarity, and it is not conflicting with jobs. 
For those of you who are listening to this debate, it's about the 
industrial boiler industry. They do have jobs. And I, frankly, believe 
that the regulations that they have lived with do not impair their 
ability to promote jobs.
  What most people don't know is there is an indefinite language, or 
allows an indefinite time frame for noncompliance. There's no time line 
for the industry to comply with clean air rules impacting our children, 
just like this little one being seen by a nurse, suffering from any 
number of respiratory illnesses.
  So the bill, in its current form, also gives the EPA discretion to go 
beyond 5 years. You know how long that is? That may be job-killing 
time, because when businesses look to move to areas, even if they're 
older industry, they want to know that there is an effort made to 
create a better quality of life.
  This amendment will help the industry. It indicates that the time for 
compliance is 3 years. And, yes, there may be discretion to expand, but 
3 years. I believe this is a fair approach because, in actuality, the 
rule that the EPA has passed has resulted in 1.7 million tons of 
reduction in air pollution per year.

                              {time}  1710

  That's a good thing for job creation. And so this amendment is a 
simple approach to indicating that outdoor air pollution is damaging. 
Small particles and ground level ozone come from car exhaust, smoke, 
road dust, and factory emissions. Why wouldn't we want to improve the 
quality of life? I can only say to you that out of those polluting 
elements come chest pain, coughing, digestive problems, dizziness, 
fever, sneezing, shortness of breath, and a number of other ailments.
  So my amendment is a good thing, to be able to talk about jobs, 
clarity, knowing when you must comply, and preventing premature deaths 
and protecting our children. But let me say what else this bill does. 
This bill causes an extra $1 million in new discretionary spending by 
the EPA to comply. We're supposed to be in a budget-tight atmosphere. 
We're supposed to be budget cutting. But, my friends, that is not what 
we're doing here.
  So I would simply say that even though my good friend indicates that 
200,000 jobs would be saved with this particular bill, I don't know 
where the documentation is, but I will assure you that areas where the 
boiler industry is that have a defined clarity on what the timeframe is 
for making sure that you're in compliance, I can assure you that that 
creates jobs, and that creates a clean atmosphere, quality of life, and 
clean air for more industry to come into your States for you to 
diversify.
  So I ask my colleagues to support a simple amendment that ensures 
that the compliance is for 3 years, clarifying that to the industry, 
giving them a time certain to comply, and also giving discretion to the 
EPA to help America grow jobs. I hope we all will join in growing jobs 
in voting for the American Jobs Act, and right now I hope that we'll 
vote for the Jackson Lee amendment that gives clarity in timeframe for 
compliance, and again, saves lives, like this little one's, that we all 
want to protect.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I ask my 
colleagues to vote for the amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 2250, the 
``EPA Regulatory Relief Act.'' My amendment requires the industrial 
boiler industry to comply with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
rules no later than 3 years after the rules have been finalized.
  Currently, the bill requires the industrial boiler industry to comply 
with EPA rules no earlier than five years after the rules have been 
finalized. The bill also allows indefinite noncompliance; there is no 
deadline set for industry compliance. The bill, in its current form, 
also gives the EPA the discretion to extend the 5 year deadline for 
compliance. The EPA would have the authority to extend a three year 
deadline as well; the three year deadline I proposed can be extended by 
the EPA, while setting a goal that shows our firm commitment to saving 
lives.
  I have offered this amendment to ensure that the EPA has the ability 
to reduce toxic emissions from numerous industrial sources, including 
the industrial boiler industry, as they are required to do under the 
Clean Air Act. The EPA has issued clean air rules targeting 170 
different types of facilities which have resulted in a 1.7 million ton 
reduction in air pollution per year. EPA rules are now being finalized 
for both the industrial boiler industry and cement kiln industry and 
these bills are intended to indefinitely delay compliance with EPA's 
Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards, prior to their 
promulgation.
  As the Representative for Houston, the country's energy capital, I am 
committed to creating an environment in which the energy industry and 
regulating agencies can work together.
  For more than 40 years the EPA has been charged with protecting our 
environment. There has been a consistent theme of chipping away at the 
ability of the EPA to protect our air. We have to consider the long 
term costs to public health if we fail to establish reasonable measures 
for clean air.
  Outdoor air pollution is caused by small particles and ground level 
ozone that comes from car exhaust, smoke, road dust and factory 
emissions. Outdoor air quality is also affected by pollen from plants, 
crops and weeds. Particle pollution can be high any time of year and 
are higher near busy roads and where people burn wood.
  When we inhale outdoor pollutants and pollen this can aggravate our 
lungs, and can lead us to developing the following conditions; chest 
pain, coughing, digestive problems, dizziness, fever, lethargy, 
sneezing, shortness of breath, throat irritation and watery eyes. 
Outdoor air pollution and pollen may also worsen chronic respiratory 
diseases, such as asthma. There are serious costs to our long term 
health. The EPA has promulgated rules and the public should be allowed 
to weigh in to determine if these rules are effective.
  The purpose of having so many checks and balances within the EPA is 
to ensure that the

[[Page H6709]]

needs of industries and the needs of our communities are addressed. 
Providing a time for individuals to support or oppose any regulations 
is a meaningful first step. This bill is a step in the wrong direction.
  The EPA has spent years reviewing these standards before attempting 
to issue regulations. The proposed regulations to the industrial boiler 
industry will significantly reduce mercury and toxic air pollution from 
power plants and electric utilities. The EPA estimates that for every 
year this rule is not implemented, mercury and toxic air pollution will 
have a serious impact on public health. Think for a moment about the 
lives that can be saved. We are talking about thousands of health 
complications and deaths. What more do we need to know. According to 
the Natural Resources Defense Council, this rule would prevent the 
following:
  9,000 premature deaths
  5,500 heart attacks
  58,000 asthma attacks
  6,000 hospital and emergency room visits
  6,000 cases of bronchitis
  440,000 missed work days
  This legislation not only presents a threat to public health, it also 
blatantly violates the Cut-Go spending provision. The EPA Regulatory 
Relief Act requires the EPA to select a regulatory option that is least 
burdensome to the industrial boiler industry, regardless of alternate 
options that may be more feasible or cost effective. The Congressional 
Budget Office (CBO) estimates that this bill will result in $1 million 
dollars in new discretionary spending by the EPA, and the bill does not 
offset the authorization.
  I understand the economic impacts of regulation, but we must also act 
responsibly. We cannot ignore the public health risks of breathing 
polluted air, nor can we pretend that these emissions do not exacerbate 
global warming. Alternatively, we certainly do not want to hinder job 
creation and economic growth. Congress passed the Clean Air Act to 
allow the EPA to ensure that all Americans had access to clean air, and 
we must not strip the agency of that right.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle will tell you that this Act 
is going to save more than 200,000 American jobs, but what about the 
lives we will lose? We do not want to hinder economic prosperity and 
robust job creation, but let us strive toward an economic climate where 
jobs can be created by implementing technology to reduce dangerous 
toxic emissions and protect the American people. It does not have to be 
one way or the other; in a country of vast innovation surely we can 
forge a path forward in which we do not have to choose between creating 
jobs and saving lives.
  Lest we forget, since 1999, Houston has exchanged titles with Los 
Angeles for the poorest air quality in the Nation. The poor air quality 
is attributed to the amount of aerosols, particles of carbon and 
sulfates in the air. The carcinogens found in the air have been known 
to cause cancer, particularly in children. The EPA is the very agency 
charged with issuing regulations that would address this serious 
problem. This bill may very well jeopardize the air that we breathe, 
the water that we drink, our public lands, and our public health by 
deep funding cuts in priority initiatives.
  Mr. Chair, there are times in which we are 50 individual states, and 
there are times when we exist as a single Nation with national need. 
One state did not defend the Nation after the attacks on Pearl Harbor. 
One state, on its own, did not end segregation and establish civil 
rights. Every so often, there comes an issue so vital we must unite 
beyond our districts, and beyond our states, and act as a Nation, and 
protecting the quality of our air is one of those times.
  I encourage my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment in 
order to uphold the EPA's authority to enforce the Clean Air Act. By 
ensuring the industrial boiler industry must comply with finalized EPA 
regulations, we are protecting the quality of the air that all of our 
constituents breathe. Surely preventing illness and premature death by 
ensuring every American has access to clean air is not controversial. 
Again, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I would say to the gentlelady from Texas, first of 
all, that under the regulations of the EPA, today incinerators are 
given 5 years to comply with section 129 standards, and boilers are 
only given 3 years to comply with section 112 standards. That's one of 
the reasons that we introduced this bill, because businesses, 
manufacturers, institutions, and universities all came to Washington, 
and in their testimony they asked that we have some uniformity on times 
to comply.
  That's why we decided to extend the compliance deadline for the 
boiler industry up to 5 years, which is the exact same that 
incinerators have today under section 129. They asked that we do that 
because, one, they said it would provide certainty and that, two, in 
many instances, they do not have the time, the technical knowledge, and 
it's not economically justifiable to do it within that shorter time 
period. So your legislation would basically roll back even the time for 
incinerators. So for that reason, we would respectfully oppose this 
amendment.
  And then I would just make one other comment about the argument that 
regulations create jobs. I genuinely do not believe that in the history 
of our country jobs have been created by regulation. Jobs have been 
created in America because of entrepreneurs spending money and spending 
capital to develop a product which creates jobs, which helps our gross 
domestic product, which increases our tax revenues, which allows us to 
do more in the government sector.
  So, as you've indicated, EPA said they think there will be a net job 
gain of maybe 2,200 jobs, but all of the affected industries, the 
universities, the labor unions and others, say that they're putting at 
risk an excess of 230,000 jobs.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I would be happy to yield.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. For a clarification, I did not argue that 
regulation creates jobs. I do believe that you can produce the kind of 
regulatory climate that will. But my point was that clean air and a 
better quality of life encourages businesses to move into areas and 
grow jobs.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I understand. As you know, the EPA went to court to 
ask for additional time on these Boiler MACT rules. They were denied 
that, and our legislation is designed to give them a little bit more 
time and give the industry more time to comply. And because of that, I 
would respectfully oppose the gentlelady's amendment and ask that it be 
defeated.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I support the amendment. It returns the bill if it became 
law to what are the times specified in the Clean Air Act. And I think 
those times are reasonable. But let me just say that EPA is working on 
these regulations, these rules. This is not a finished product. I 
believe they're taking into consideration concerns raised by the boiler 
industry, especially the paper and pulp industry. There have been very 
important and legitimate concerns that they have raised. They want to 
know if they can continue to use the same traditional fuels that they 
had been using. They don't want to be considered incinerators, because 
they're not. They want to know what the rules are, they want some 
certainty, and they want some time to comply with them.
  These things are under discussion at the EPA, and industry is 
weighing in and letting its feelings be known. Should the Environmental 
Protection Agency need legislation, which they may or may not, we ought 
to stand ready to be of assistance. I do not think the industry really 
wants to throw out the Clean Air Act and to allow mercury to be 
considered nothing, no problem, which is what you would expect when you 
hear the debate on the Republican side of the aisle. I don't think they 
would like all of this issue of public health to be so minimized as we 
hear in the Republican debate.
  This is not a practical solution. This is a blunt instrument that the 
Republicans are putting forward that will not become law. So let 
reasonable people talk about the issue and try to resolve it. If we're 
needed to pass legislation, then let's pass reasonable legislation and 
get something done, not just show that the Republican Party is being 
macho about jobs when they take a report that's not even based on what 
EPA's rules are going to be and claim that it costs all these jobs, 
which has already been debunked when they put forward this report when 
it was based on the original EPA rule.

[[Page H6710]]

  So I urge support for this amendment. And we ought to get on with the 
job of working on what can become law and not just fighting this fight 
of science denial and minimizing health risk which we hear from the 
Republican side of the aisle.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will 
be postponed.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Griffith of Virginia) having assumed the chair, Mr. Womack, Acting 
Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 2250) to provide additional time for the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency to issue achievable standards for 
industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers, process heaters, and 
incinerators, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution 
thereon.



                          ____________________