Amendment Text: H.Amdt.821 — 112th Congress (2011-2012)

There is one version of the amendment.

Shown Here:
Amendment as Offered (10/06/2011)

This Amendment appears on page H6651 in the following article from the Congressional Record.



[Pages H6644-H6656]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   EPA REGULATORY RELIEF ACT OF 2011

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. King of Iowa). 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}  1155


                     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 Mr. Simpson (Acting 
Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature 
of a substitute printed in the bill shall be considered as an original 
bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be 
considered read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 2250

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``EPA Regulatory Relief Act of 
     2011''.

     SEC. 2. LEGISLATIVE STAY.

       (a) Establishment of Standards.--In place of the rules 
     specified in subsection (b), and notwithstanding the date by 
     which such rules would otherwise be required to be 
     promulgated, the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency (in this Act referred to as the 
     ``Administrator'') shall--
       (1) propose regulations for industrial, commercial, and 
     institutional boilers and process heaters, and commercial and 
     industrial solid waste incinerator units, subject to any of 
     the rules specified in subsection (b)--
       (A) establishing maximum achievable control technology 
     standards, performance standards, and other requirements 
     under sections 112 and 129, as applicable, of the Clean Air 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 7412, 7429); and
       (B) identifying non-hazardous secondary materials that, 
     when used as fuels or ingredients in combustion units of such 
     boilers, process heaters, or incinerator units are solid 
     waste under the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et 
     seq.; commonly referred to as the ``Resource Conservation and 
     Recovery Act'') for purposes of determining the extent to 
     which such combustion units are required to meet the 
     emissions standards under section 112 of the Clean Air Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 7412) or the emission standards under section 129 
     of such Act (42 U.S.C. 7429); and
       (2) finalize the regulations on the date that is 15 months 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Stay of Earlier Rules.--The following rules are of no 
     force or effect, shall be treated as though such rules had 
     never taken effect, and shall be replaced as described in 
     subsection (a):
       (1) ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
     Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and 
     Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters'', published at 76 
     Fed. Reg. 15608 (March 21, 2011).
       (2) ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
     Pollutants for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and 
     Institutional Boilers'', published at 76 Fed. Reg. 15554 
     (March 21, 2011).
       (3) ``Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources 
     and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and 
     Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units'', published at 76 
     Fed. Reg. 15704 (March 21, 2011).
       (4) ``Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials 
     That Are Solid Waste'', published at 76 Fed. Reg. 15456 
     (March 21, 2011).
       (c) Inapplicability of Certain Provisions.--With respect to 
     any standard required by subsection (a) to be promulgated in 
     regulations under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7412), the provisions of subsections (g)(2) and (j) of such 
     section 112 shall not apply prior to the effective date of 
     the standard specified in such regulations.

     SEC. 3. COMPLIANCE DATES.

       (a) Establishment of Compliance Dates.--For each regulation 
     promulgated pursuant to section 2, the Administrator--
       (1) shall establish a date for compliance with standards 
     and requirements under such regulation that is, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, not earlier than 
     5 years after the effective date of the regulation; and
       (2) in proposing a date for such compliance, shall take 
     into consideration--
       (A) the costs of achieving emissions reductions;
       (B) any non-air quality health and environmental impact and 
     energy requirements of the standards and requirements;
       (C) the feasibility of implementing the standards and 
     requirements, including the time needed to--
       (i) obtain necessary permit approvals; and
       (ii) procure, install, and test control equipment;
       (D) the availability of equipment, suppliers, and labor, 
     given the requirements of the regulation and other proposed 
     or finalized regulations of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency; and
       (E) potential net employment impacts.
       (b) New Sources.--The date on which the Administrator 
     proposes a regulation pursuant to section 2(a)(1) 
     establishing an emission standard under section 112 or 129 of 
     the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412, 7429) shall be treated as 
     the date on which the Administrator first proposes such a 
     regulation for purposes of applying the definition of a new 
     source under section 112(a)(4) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7412(a)(4)) or the definition of a new solid waste 
     incineration unit under section 129(g)(2) of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7429(g)(2)).
       (c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed to restrict or otherwise affect the provisions of 
     paragraphs (3)(B) and (4) of section 112(i) of the Clean Air 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(i)).

     SEC. 4. ENERGY RECOVERY AND CONSERVATION.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and to ensure 
     the recovery and conservation of energy consistent with the 
     Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.; commonly 
     referred to as the ``Resource Conservation and Recovery 
     Act''), in promulgating rules under section 2(a) addressing 
     the subject matter of the rules specified in paragraphs (3) 
     and (4) of section 2(b), the Administrator--
       (1) shall adopt the definitions of the terms ``commercial 
     and industrial solid waste incineration unit'', ``commercial 
     and industrial waste'', and ``contained gaseous material'' in 
     the rule entitled ``Standards of Performance for New 
     Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing 
     Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration 
     Units'', published at 65 Fed. Reg. 75338 (December 1, 2000); 
     and
       (2) shall identify non-hazardous secondary material to be 
     solid waste only if--
       (A) the material meets such definition of commercial and 
     industrial waste; or
       (B) if the material is a gas, it meets such definition of 
     contained gaseous material.

     SEC. 5. OTHER PROVISIONS.

       (a) Establishment of Standards Achievable in Practice.--In 
     promulgating rules under section 2(a), the Administrator 
     shall ensure that emissions standards for existing and new 
     sources established under section 112 or 129 of the Clean Air 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 7412, 7429), as applicable, can be met under 
     actual operating conditions consistently and concurrently 
     with emission standards for all other air pollutants 
     regulated by the rule for the source category, taking into 
     account variability in actual source performance, source 
     design, fuels, inputs, controls, ability to measure the 
     pollutant emissions, and operating conditions.
       (b) Regulatory Alternatives.--For each regulation 
     promulgated pursuant to section 2(a), from among the range of 
     regulatory alternatives authorized under the Clean Air Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) including work practice standards 
     under section 112(h) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(h)), the 
     Administrator shall impose the least burdensome, consistent 
     with the purposes of such Act and Executive Order 13563 
     published at 76 Fed. Reg. 3821 (January 21, 2011).

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute shall be in order except those received for 
printing in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
purpose in a daily issue dated October 4, 2011, or earlier and except 
pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate. Each amendment so 
received may be offered only by the Member who caused it to be printed 
or a designee and shall be considered as read if printed.


                 Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Waxman

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:


[[Page H6645]]


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

     SEC. 6. PROTECTION FOR INFANTS AND CHILDREN.

       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 harming brain development or causing 
     learning disabilities in infants or children.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, yesterday Republicans told us they aren't 
opposed to clean air, but we just can't afford it right now. And as 
their bills have no deadline for ever cleaning up toxic air pollution 
from these sources, it appears that they don't think we can ever afford 
clean air even in the future. The truth is we can't afford to wait for 
clean air any longer, and here's why.
  Mercury is a potent neurotoxin. Numerous scientific studies from 
around the world show that babies and children who are exposed to 
mercury may suffer damage to their developing nervous systems, hurting 
their ability to think, learn, and speak. EPA has estimated that about 
7 percent of women of childbearing age are exposed to mercury at a 
level capable of causing adverse effects in the developing fetus. That 
may not sound like a big number, but that translates into thousands and 
thousands of children who may never reach their full potential.
  Toxic pollution can have tragic consequences. That's why Republicans 
and Democrats, alike, voted in 1990 to strengthen the Clean Air Act to 
require dozens of industry sectors to install modern pollution controls 
on their facilities. And since then, EPA has set emission standards for 
more than 100 different categories of industrial sources. The standards 
simply require facilities to use pollution controls that others in 
their industry are already using. They are based on maximum achievable 
control technology.
  EPA's approach has been successful. Emissions standards for these 
industrial sources have reduced emissions of carcinogens, mercury, and 
other highly toxic chemicals by 1.7 million tons each year. But a few 
major industrial sources so far have escaped regulation, and the 
Republicans appear to be on a mission to help them continue to evade 
emissions limits on toxic air pollution.
  Coal-fired power plants are one major industrial source of hazardous 
air pollutants. In fact, they are the largest U.S. source of airborne 
mercury pollution. But just a couple of weeks ago, the Republicans 
passed the TRAIN Act to nullify EPA's rules to cut toxic air pollution 
from those sources.
  Yesterday, we debated whether or not cement kilns, another major 
source of mercury, should have to clean up--the Republicans said 
``no''--and today, we are talking about incinerators and dirty boilers 
at industrial facilities across the country, including chemical plants, 
refineries, and large manufacturing facilities.
  H.R. 2250 nullifies EPA's rules to clean up toxic air pollution from 
these sources and requires EPA to issue new rules using confusing and 
unworkable criteria. These long overdue public health protections will 
be delayed for years. That's unacceptable for the people who live near 
a solid waste incinerator or a chemical plant using a dirty boiler. 
These communities already have been waiting for more than a decade for 
EPA to clean up these facilities.
  My amendment is straightforward. It states that EPA can continue to 
require an incinerator or a facility using a dirty boiler to clean up 
its toxic air pollution if that facility is emitting mercury or other 
toxic pollutants that are damaging infants' developing brains. This 
amendment simply clarifies our choice: allow polluters to continue to 
harm infants and children on the one hand, which is what the 
Republicans would allow, or require facilities that are actually 
harming our kids to reduce their pollution.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and protect our 
children's future.
  I know we hear a lot about jobs and we hear a lot about the economy. 
Our economy will not recover if our children's minds are not allowed to 
fully develop, if we don't have a population of young people that can 
be born healthy, can get educated, can learn, and can produce a good 
life for themselves, their families, and for our Nation's economy. So 
please support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Our legislation, H.R. 2250, does not leave the 
American people with the choice of having to have unregulated air, 
polluted air that creates horrible health consequences. Our legislation 
is a balanced approach that simply says we think that Congress has the 
responsibility to review regulations where the American people have 
told us in hearings that they have great difficulty in complying--in 
some instances they are unable to comply--and that as a result jobs 
would be lost.
  Sometimes, listening to the debate, it sounds like we have the most 
polluted air in the world. I would note that EPA reported that since 
1990, nationwide air quality has improved significantly for the six 
common air pollutants. For example, ozone pollution has been lowered by 
14 percent; coarse particulate matter--dust--by 31 percent; lead by 78 
percent; nitrogen dioxide by 35 percent; carbon monoxide by 68 percent; 
sulfur dioxide by 59 percent. So we have a very clean air standard 
today.
  Our legislation is not in any way going to change any of the health 
protections. We simply are asking, because of the concerns expressed by 
many people around the country, many industries around the country, 
that EPA should go back, within 15 months, issue, promulgate a new rule 
within 5 years, give the industry that much time to comply. If the EPA 
administrator thinks they need more time, then she or he may do that 
but is not required to do so.
  So our position is that this is a balanced approach, particularly at 
this vulnerable time in our economy when our unemployment rate is high; 
that we can protect jobs, we can help stimulate the economy, and we can 
also protect health without endangering our young people.
  So for that reason, I would oppose the amendment and ask Members to 
oppose this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment.
  The bill before us nullifies EPA's rules to require industrial 
boilers and incinerators to reduce their emissions of toxic mercury and 
other toxic pollutants. The bill removes legal deadlines for pollution 
controls to be installed, fundamentally weakening the Clean Air Act and 
allowing years or decades of continued toxic air pollution.
  Mr. Chairman, mercury is a potent neurotoxin. According to the 
California Department of Toxic Substances Control, human exposure to 
organic mercury can result in long-lasting health effects, especially 
if it occurs during fetal development. In addition, scientists have 
linked mercury poisoning to nervous system, kidney and liver damage, 
and impaired childhood development. Nervous system disorders can 
include impaired vision, speech, hearing, and coordination. In other 
words, babies born to women exposed to mercury during pregnancy can 
suffer from a range of developmental and neurological problems, 
including delays in speaking and difficulties in learning. Children 
suffering from the chronic effects of mercury exposure may never reach 
their full potential. This clearly has a profound impact on the 
affected children and their families, and it also has a long-term 
societal impact.
  In 1990, Congress amended the Clean Air Act on a bipartisan basis to 
reduce emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants from a range of 
industrial sources, including boilers and incinerators. Boilers and 
incinerators are one of the largest sources of airborne mercury 
pollution in the United States. For far too long, they have been 
allowed to pollute without installing modern technology to reduce their

[[Page H6646]]

emissions. This is of particular concern for women who are pregnant, 
may become pregnant, or who are nursing. Mercury exposure in the womb 
can adversely affect the developing brain and nervous system. This can 
lead to problems with a child's cognitive thinking, memory, attention, 
language, and fine motor skills.
  As of 2008, 50 States, one U.S. territory, and three tribes have 
issued advisories for mercury. Earlier this year, EPA finalized 
standards to cut emissions of mercury and other toxic air pollution 
from boilers and incinerators. These rules were more than a decade 
late. EPA is in the process of reconsidering those rules and plans to 
finalize the revised rules by next April. Once finalized, EPA's rules 
for boilers and incinerators will cut mercury pollution from these 
sources.
  The Republican leadership wants to nullify these rules. They have 
also passed legislation to nullify rules to clean up mercury pollution 
from cement plants, and they have passed legislation to nullify rules 
to clean up mercury pollution from dirty coal-fired power plants, the 
largest U.S. source of mercury pollution to the air. This is 
unacceptable for public health. People living near these polluting 
facilities have waited far too long for them to clean up their 
pollution. They shouldn't have to wait any longer.
  This amendment is straightforward. It states that the bill does not 
stop EPA from taking action to clean up toxic air pollution from an 
industrial boiler or incinerator if that facility is emitting mercury 
or other toxic pollutants that are damaging babies' developing brains.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. We 
should not be putting the interests of polluters before the health of 
our children.
  Numerous studies have demonstrated a link between increased exposure 
to industrial contaminants and impaired brain development or learning 
disabilities in children. For example, according to the Centers for 
Disease Control, health effects linked to prenatal and childhood 
methylmercury exposure include problems with language, memory, 
attention, visual skills, and lower IQs. And exposure to mercury is 
particularly dangerous for pregnant and breastfeeding women, as well as 
children, since mercury is most harmful in the early stages of 
development.
  In some cases around the world, such as in Minimata, Japan in the 
1950s, we have seen exposure to industrial mercury sicken an entire 
generation of children. Mothers who exhibited no clinical symptoms of 
mercury poison gave birth to infants suffering from blindness, 
spasticity, and mental retardation.
  We tend to think an environmental catastrophe like Minimata could not 
happen here, but it could. Already in the United States one in six 
women of childbearing age has blood mercury levels that exceed those 
considered safe by the EPA for a developing baby. This amounts to 
approximately 630,000 babies born every year at risk of developmental 
problems because of prenatal mercury exposure.
  While America's approximately 600 coal-fired power plants are the 
single largest source of mercury contamination in the United States, 
boilers and waste incinerators that burn mercury-containing products 
and chlorine manufacturers rank close behind. And yet it is now 
proposed that we delay, that we weaken the regulations protecting 
infants and children and allow these incinerators and boilers to 
continue spewing significant amounts of mercury pollution into the air 
every year, harming the health of our children and future generations 
of our children. It is unconscionable.
  And mercury is just one of the dangerous contaminants putting the 
development of children at risk. Exposure to lead threatens the health 
of young children and unborn babies in particular, can lead to 
miscarriage, preterm birth, low birth weight, and developmental delays.

                              {time}  1210

  And that is why it was banned from gasoline and house paint by the 
EPA in the 1980s. These contaminants are deadly, which is why the EPA, 
the Environmental Protection Agency, put forward a rule to reduce them. 
In fact, the implementation of the Boiler MACT would reduce mercury 
emissions from major-source boilers and process heaters nationwide by 
1.4 tons a year. It would also cut non-mercury metals, including lead, 
by 2,700 tons per year, hydrogen chloride by 30,000 tons per year, 
particulate matter by 47,000 tons per year, volatile organic compounds 
by 7,000 tons per year, and sulfur dioxide by 440,000 tons per year.
  According to the EPA, the benefits of reducing all of these dangerous 
emissions would outweigh costs by at least $20 billion a year. But even 
that aside, this act means 2,500 to 6,500 fewer premature deaths, 1,600 
fewer cases of chronic bronchitis, 4,000 fewer heart attacks, 4,300 
fewer hospital and emergency room visits, 3,700 fewer cases of acute 
bronchitis, 41,000 fewer cases of aggravated asthma, 78,000 fewer cases 
of respiratory systems, and 310,000 fewer missed work days. And it 
means fewer cases of impaired brain development and learning 
disabilities in our children.
  So on one side of the equation, we have $20 billion in savings per 
year, cleaner air, thousands of fewer deaths, and the healthy 
development of our kids. On the other, we have polluters; we have 
polluters who want to just keep harming the health and the lives of 
Americans. I know what side I'm on, and I find it extraordinarily 
telling that this House majority would take the side of big polluters 
over the health and the welfare of America's children.
  I urge my colleagues to stand up for America's children, stand 
against big polluters, and support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Waxman 
amendment and in opposition to this GOP bill.
  Mr. Chairman, all Americans should be concerned with the GOP push to 
roll back America's fundamental environmental protections and health 
protections. This GOP bill strikes at the heart of American values. We 
are not a smoggy, Third World country. This is the United States of 
America; and over the past decades since the passage of the Clean Air 
Act, businesses have flourished and the air and water has gotten 
cleaner. These are not mutually exclusive.
  That's why this GOP bill takes a step backward. It fundamentally 
weakens the Clean Air Act and grants unnecessary breaks to toxic air 
polluters.
  Now, Mr. Waxman's amendment is very important because it targets one 
of the most dangerous and toxic neurotoxins, that is, mercury. We know 
that babies born to women exposed to mercury during pregnancy can 
suffer from a range of developmental and neurological problems, 
including delays in speaking and difficulties learning.
  Children suffering from the chronic effects of mercury exposure may 
never reach their full potential. This clearly has a profound impact on 
the affected children and their families, but it also has a long-term 
societal impact.
  It was in 1990 when the Congress, in a bipartisan fashion, amended 
the Clean Air Act and targeted the particular, the specific, polluters 
coming from specific sources. These specific polluters, some of them 
created jobs, acted to bring in modern technology, the scrubbers. They 
took the mercury out of the air. There are many examples in my home 
State of Florida of these manufacturing plants and utilities that have 
taken the mercury out of the air by installing the up-to-date modern 
equipment.
  But there have been some businesses that have been very resistant to 
this, and they need to get with the program because it has been since 
1990 when the law has said it's time to clean it up.
  Now what year is this? This is 2011. Now, I would offer that after 20 
years, these businesses have been on notice that they can use the 
American know-how and modern technology to clean up their plants, just 
like a lot of their other competitors have done.

[[Page H6647]]

  Now, I've heard the argument that, boy, this is bad for business. But 
I'll tell you, coming from the State of Florida, clean air and clean 
water are good for business. Our tourism industry relies on clean water 
and clean air. And for the plants in the State of Florida that have 
cleaned up, it has really improved the commercial fishing industry, the 
recreational fishing industry, billion-dollar industries in my State. 
If they had not--if the Congress had not acted in a bipartisan way 
decades ago to say we're going to clean up the air and the water, I 
don't think we'd have as many visitors coming to my beautiful State for 
their vacations and fishing.
  And fishing is important because we have so many that go out in the 
Gulf of Mexico or the Atlantic or out in the Keys and they fish and 
they bring it home to eat. Now, because mercury is not cleaned up to 
the greatest extent that we can clean it up, the Florida Department of 
Health has advised here, and I'm reading from the Florida Department of 
Environmental Protection Advisory: ``The Florida Department of Health 
has advised the public to limit their consumption of fish from hundreds 
of waterbodies throughout the State due to unacceptable risk of mercury 
exposure. As a result, these waterbodies have been listed as `impaired' 
for mercury.'' This doesn't mean it's unsafe. But it means that you 
can't go overboard.
  But you know what? We have the technology to continue to clean up so 
that people can eat all the great Florida seafood that is available to 
them. There is no reason to take a step backward. Other businesses have 
done this. They have cleaned up.
  So earlier this year, after a decade of analysis and work by the EPA 
and interaction with businesses and other stakeholders all across the 
country, the EPA finalized standards to cut emissions of mercury and 
other toxic air pollution from these particular polluters. Their goal 
was to finally put these rules into effect this coming April. But, 
unfortunately, we're running into opposition from the most anti-
environmental Congress in history.
  People, this amendment is straightforward. It states that the bill 
does not stop EPA from taking action to clean up toxic air pollution 
from these particular sites. If that facility is emitting mercury or 
other toxic pollutants, we're not going to proceed. I urge my 
colleagues to support the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
legislation, the underlying legislation, unamended, because it's going 
to protect and grow jobs, both in my region and across the country.
  My district in southwest Washington is home to thousands of private 
forest landowners. Whether it's a family farm or a private business, 
such as Weyerhauser, which is one of our region's largest businesses 
and employers, we have pulp mills, paper mills and an emerging biomass 
industry. And what do all these things have in common?
  They all provide tens of thousands of jobs, good family-wage jobs to 
the folks in my region. And they're all part of the forest products 
industry that has long been the cornerstone of southwest Washington's 
economy. And if we don't pass this underlying bill unamended, they will 
all shed those thousands of jobs in southwest Washington.
  How many are we talking about? Well, a recent study shows that about 
18 percent of those jobs would be lost. Those who produce pulp and 
paper would be laid off by this onerous Boiler MACT rule as it's 
written. Those are blue-collar families. Those are family-wage jobs. 
They're the ones that would pay the price for this if we do not act now 
to protect the environment where jobs can grow.
  Now, the ripple effects in related industries in our region and 
across the country would be an additional 87,000 jobs lost if we do not 
act and pass this bill. In a place like Cowlitz County in my district, 
where more than one out of every 10 moms and dads are out of work, the 
effect of this rule, if we don't fix it and we don't fix it soon, would 
further devastate an already devastated economy.
  In August 89,000 jobs were created. They were added nationwide. So, 
basically, if we don't move now, we're going to wipe out the entire 
month of August's growth. That's going to put our economy backwards, 
not forwards.
  And make no mistake, Mr. Chairman, that's one thing the current 
majority in the House is about is creating jobs for the men and women 
at home to make sure they can provide for their families and their 
kids, their kids' college education, their health care and so on and so 
forth. It's the American Dream.

                              {time}  1220

  Let's pass this bipartisan piece of legislation today without this 
amendment. It won't add to the deficit, and it's going to preserve 
those jobs for those folks who are struggling in my home region, 
southwest Washington, and across the country.
  Let's give the EPA the time it's requested to rewrite the rule in a 
commonsense way. The great thing about this is our environment and our 
economy don't have to be mutually exclusive, which is why we're taking 
a balanced approach to changing this rule. It's why I believe and I am 
assuming that's part of the reason the EPA wants more time to rewrite 
it, because it had the feedback. Yes, we can innovate and create and 
reduce, and I support reducing whatever type of emissions we're 
producing as a Nation. We need to go there, but we need to do it in a 
commonsense way that doesn't just handicap the economy at a time when 
we need it to grow.
  So let's give the EPA that time that they've requested so that 
facilities like Longview Fibre in Longview, Washington, won't have to 
lay any more people off. With this legislation, we can protect our 
environment and protect American jobs.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. ESHOO. I rise in support of this amendment. I think it's a very, 
very important one.
  The bill nullifies the EPA's rules to require boilers and 
incinerators to reduce their emissions of toxic mercury. That's really 
quite a sentence: the bill would nullify rules to require boilers and 
incinerators to reduce their emissions of toxic mercury. In doing so, 
this bill nullifies the mercury reductions in our country that would 
have been achieved; and it indefinitely delays, not just for a given 
time frame, it's indefinite, indefinitely delays the implementation of 
any replacement standards that EPA issues.
  My friend, Mr. Whitfield, said earlier today that the bill does not 
provide for an indefinite delay of any new rules. That is false. The 
bill clearly states that facilities have at least 5 years to comply 
without any hard deadline for compliance. That's the definition of an 
indefinite delay.
  Our Republican colleagues also claim that mercury pollution from 
dirty boilers and incinerators does not harm public health. That is 
quite a stand. I think it's terrifying myself, in a civilized society, 
that this is not going to damage anyone and their health. They blame 
China, even though U.S. facilities are emitting toxic mercury pollution 
from smokestacks right here within our borders. I acknowledge that 
there is some that does come from China. Are we going to replicate 
China? I don't think that's the gold standard for our country. The 
mercury released here at home is just as toxic as mercury released 
anywhere. That's how toxic it is. Ours is not less toxic because it's 
U.S. It's the same horrible, dangerous stuff.
  And how toxic is it? There are a lot of things under attack here in 
the House of Representatives, but I think one of the most serious 
attacks is the attack on science. We're coming up with a lot of 
political science for underlying legislation. Listen to what the 
National Academy of Sciences has said. They stated unequivocally that 
mercury is a powerful neurotoxin. The National Academy of Sciences has 
stated that mercury is highly toxic. They state, and I quote, exposure 
to mercury can result in adverse effects in several

[[Page H6648]]

organ systems throughout the life span of humans and animals. There are 
extensive data on the effects of mercury on the development of the 
brain in humans.
  The National Academy of Sciences has also stated that exposure to 
mercury can cause ``mental retardation, cerebral palsy, deafness, and 
blindness'' in children exposed in utero and sensory and motor 
impairment in exposed adults. This is stunningly shocking. This is not 
Republican pollution or Democratic pollution. This is something that 
will harm our people. Why would we not protect them?
  The National Academy of Sciences said again, and I quote, chronic, 
low-dose prenatal mercury exposure has been associated with impacts on 
attention, fine motor function, language and verbal memory. The 
National Academy of Sciences has stated that prenatal mercury exposure 
has, quote, the potential to cause irreversible damage to the 
developing central nervous system.
  Our Republican friends say we shouldn't worry about mercury pollution 
from boilers, incinerators, cement kilns and power plants. I know who I 
trust, and it's not the phony baloney political science around here. 
I'll put my money any day on what the National Academy of Sciences 
says. They are the gold standard in our country. This is not something 
to be fooled around with. This is a huge danger to our people.
  This amendment is straightforward. It states that the bill does not 
stop EPA from taking action to clean up toxic air pollution from an 
incinerator or a chemical plant or a manufacturing plant with a dirty 
boiler if that facility is emitting mercury or other toxic pollutants.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. We all understand that our economy is 
struggling, that millions of Americans can't find a job, that too many 
families are struggling to make ends meet, and that the American people 
are very frustrated that Washington is simply not doing enough to get 
our economy moving. I would argue that not only is Washington not doing 
enough to get our economy moving but it is actually harming the efforts 
of American innovators, of manufacturers, of small businesses, of the 
job creators because of government over-regulation.
  The fact is today that the Obama administration has publicly listed 
almost 220 new regulations just this year alone, a 15-percent increase 
in one year alone, of new regulatory actions under consideration. Each 
one of them is estimated to cost at least $100 million, if you can 
imagine.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill that is currently under consideration would 
provide relief from some of the new EPA regulations that would cost 
American job creators more than $14 billion and threaten over 230,000 
jobs. In my home State of Michigan, this government over-regulation 
would cost nearly $800 million and put nearly 13,000 jobs at risk. In 
my home State of Michigan, we are on our knees economically, and we 
cannot tolerate this anymore. It has to be stopped.
  At home, I have talked to so many businesspeople, from small family 
businesses to major corporations, et cetera; and the message from all 
of them is always the same: that government over- regulation is 
absolutely killing their efforts to grow and to create jobs.
  I'll give you one example. There's a company in Port Huron, Michigan, 
in my congressional district, called Domtar. Port Huron has been hit 
particularly hard. Current estimates are that the unemployment rate is 
approaching 20 percent, if you can imagine that. It's unbelievable how 
bad it is there at this time. Domtar is a paper company. It currently 
employs 245 people. It generates between $8 million and $12 million in 
revenue annually.
  I talked to them about this regulation under consideration today, and 
they estimate that this regulation today would cost them $9 million to 
scrub the coal that they use to operate their boilers or would cost $3 
million to $4 million to convert to natural gas and have an additional 
annual cost of $3 million to $4 million a year just to stay compliant. 
They estimate that these costs would likely force the company to shut 
down two of their four paper machines and, of course, force a reduction 
in jobs, Mr. Chairman. This company, this community, this Nation cannot 
handle that kind of loss in additional jobs that this regulation would 
force.
  It seems today that the three most feared letters to American job 
creators, where it used to be IRS, today those letters are EPA. It's no 
longer the IRS. It's the EPA. And why is that?

                              {time}  1230

  On April 30 of 2010, the EPA issued a statement on a study of the 
impact of one of their proposed regulations. This is what they said:
  ``The regulatory impact assessment does not include either a 
qualitative or quantitative estimation of the potential effects of the 
proposed rule on economic productivity, economic growth, employment, 
job creation or international economic competitiveness.''
  In other words, they don't care what their regulations have to do 
with job creation, much less with stifling and killing job creation in 
this country. This is what our own government is doing to our job 
creators, and this is from an administration that claims that job 
creation is its number one priority.
  Are you kidding? You've got to be kidding.
  We have to stop all of this government overregulation that is killing 
jobs. Certainly, House Republicans have been trying to lift the boot of 
Big Government off the necks--off the throats--of job creators and of 
workers who are looking for a job.
  We've heard repeatedly from this President about the need to invest 
in transportation and infrastructure. At the same time, this President 
and this administration are talking about how infrastructure is such an 
economic lifeblood for our economy, which I agree with and which, I 
think, House Republicans agree with. But at the same time the President 
is saying we've got to invest in infrastructure--in fixing roads--his 
administration is moving forward on this regulation that we are talking 
about today that would put large segments of the American cement plants 
in this country out of business.
  I would tell the President that it's very hard to have infrastructure 
investment to build roads if you don't have any concrete, if you don't 
have any cement.
  I would say, Mr. Chairman, I speak against this amendment, but I 
speak in favor of the underlying bill. I would call on my colleagues to 
pass this bill now.
  Pass this bill. Let's get America moving again.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. TSONGAS. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Ms. TSONGAS. I rise in support of the Waxman amendment.
  Today, we are taking up yet another bill that continues the GOP 
majority's ongoing attack on public health. This bill seeks to gut EPA 
rules requiring reductions in emissions of toxic air pollutants, 
including mercury, from industrial boilers and incinerators. Industrial 
boilers and incinerators are among the largest sources of mercury 
pollution in the country, a potent brain poison that can cause severe 
developmental problems in children and toddlers.
  According to the National Academy of Sciences, even in low doses, 
mercury can tragically affect a child's development, delaying walking 
and talking, and causing learning disabilities. Children suffering from 
the chronic effects of mercury exposure may never reach their full 
potential. This is simply unacceptable, especially when we have the 
technology to address it.
  The Waxman amendment is straightforward. It says that the bill cannot 
stop the EPA from taking action to clean up toxic air pollution from an 
industrial boiler or incinerator if that facility is emitting mercury 
or other toxic pollutants that are damaging to children's developing 
brains.
  I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment and to 
stand up for the health of our children and grandchildren.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H6649]]

  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, as a physician, a mother, and as a 
person of a racial minority, which often bears the disproportionate 
impact of pollution, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2250 as well as H.R. 
2681, which was just passed, and I rise in strong support of the Waxman 
amendment, which I urge every colleague to support.
  Both bills, H.R. 2681 and H.R. 2250, essentially wipe out EPA's 
regulations, first of cement kilns, now of industrial boilers and 
incinerators. It would have serious public health impacts because it 
would allow for the high emissions of dangerous pollutants, which would 
cause more asthma, heart attacks, birth defects, impaired brain 
development, which I'll come back to, and other illnesses at a time 
when we're working to improve the health of all Americans, to reduce 
health care costs, and when we are already struggling to remain 
competitive.
  All EPA is asking these entities to do is to meet the best existing 
standards in the industry--existing standards--standards that they've 
had years to meet.
  Mr. Chairman and colleagues, allowing these regulations to go forward 
is critical because these entities emit lead, arsenic, particulate 
matter, and other toxic substances, especially mercury. If the 
Republican majority proponents of this bill have their way, we will see 
more than 15,000 more cases of aggravated asthma, over 1,500 more heart 
attacks, over 600 more cases of chronic bronchitis every year, and we 
will also have over 100,000 additional missed working days, which means 
lost productivity--all at a time when we're trying to improve the 
health of all Americans, as I said, and improve American 
competitiveness.
  But most importantly, the large boilers and incinerators are the 
second-largest source of mercury, which, as you've heard, is a grave 
risk to our children both before and after birth, especially on their 
brain development, which makes these bills especially dangerous to the 
public health and can damage the learning and, thus, the social and 
economic potential of our children, as mercury stays in the environment 
for a long time.
  As an African American, I have to be particularly concerned. With 
more than 60 percent of polluting industries located in or near 
minority communities, it is clear that the learning and other 
neurological deficiencies caused by mercury would primarily impact our 
communities. This not only ought to concern African Americans, for the 
children of Latinos, Asians, and American Indians would also be more 
likely to be impaired. It should be of concern to all of us.
  All the time spent on this bill and the other bill that was just 
passed that the House majority leadership knows are going nowhere is a 
pure waste of time and a waste of money. I guess it's not important, 
because it's being used to try to kill programs they've never liked. 
They probably think it could hurt President Obama if it doesn't pass. 
It also protects the big corporations. Beyond that, it creates no jobs. 
It just creates the potential to cause more sickness and premature 
deaths, to damage the potential of our children and, therefore, to 
damage our country's potential as well.
  The claims of lost jobs, I believe, are highly exaggerated. Bringing 
forth and pushing these extremely misguided and dangerous bills says 
that the proponents are willing to put our country and the future of 
their and our constituents--of their and our children--at risk.
  I ask my colleagues to vote for this amendment, this amendment that 
protects the public health and that will save our children from a life 
that would not be what we would want for them, one in which they might 
not be able to enjoy all of the benefits of this country or fully 
realize their potential or the American Dream.
  Support this amendment. Reject the underlying bill and all of the 
bills that attempt to weaken the EPA. Vote, instead, for our children, 
our grandchildren and this country.
  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. A number of speakers on the other side have indicated 
that, if our legislation passes, new regulations relating to Boiler 
MACT would be put off indefinitely. I would like to clarify and point 
out that, in section 3 on page 6 of this bill, it says:
  For each regulation promulgated pursuant to this legislation, the 
administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall--not 
``may''--shall establish a date for compliance.
  So this is not being put off indefinitely. It explicitly says 
``shall.''
  Now, during the hearings that we've had, extensive hearings on this 
Boiler MACT that was adopted by the EPA in 2004, which was invalidated 
by the courts because of lawsuits filed by environmental groups, the 
typical testimony was this:
  EPA final rules impose unrealistic and very costly requirements that 
EPA has not justified by corresponding environmental and health 
protection from reductions of hazardous air pollutants.
  Just as a practical example of what I'm talking about, many 
universities, in order to comply with that 2004 rule, spent large sums 
of money. The University of Notre Dame spent $20 million to comply with 
that rule, which has now been invalidated, and EPA has come out with an 
even more stringent rule that's going to cause a lot more money to be 
spent.

                              {time}  1240

  So we genuinely believe that EPA has the health standards in effect 
that will protect our children. There's nothing in this bill that's 
going to change any of that.
  But we know that if these universities continue to spend that kind of 
money on regulations that are invalidated and then have to come back 
and spend more money, tuition costs are going to go up, which makes it 
more difficult for some children to go to college. So this simply is a 
commonsense approach, a balanced approach, saying: EPA go back, revisit 
this issue. In 15 months, come out with a new regulation. And the EPA 
administrator shall set a compliance date not sooner than 5 years after 
the final rule.
  But we have also heard a lot of discussion today about mercury, and, 
yes, we're all concerned about mercury. But EPA, itself, in developing 
the benefits of their regulation that we're trying to postpone, did not 
assign one dollar, one dime, or one penny of benefit for the reduction 
of mercury emissions. And the reason they didn't: because there was not 
enough reduction, because we've already cleaned up the air a great deal 
relating to mercury.
  All of the benefits that they calculated from their rule came from 
reduction of particulate matter. In fact, they said, the mercury 
reductions would be less than three-hundredths of 1 percent of global 
emissions. We've heard all sorts of testimony about mercury, that 90 
percent or so of mercury comes from nature or from sources outside of 
the U.S.
  So I don't think we need to be alarmist about this. This is simply an 
approach that, hey, our economy is pretty weak right now. We're losing 
a lot of jobs. We're having difficulty creating jobs. So, look, let's 
just go back, look at this, in 15 months come back with a new 
regulation, set a date for compliance, and let's move forward.
  I don't think anyone can make a credible, verifiable argument that 
we're out to destroy every young person in America, every child in 
America. As a matter of fact, we have a lot of Democrats on this bill. 
There's been a similar bill introduced to this on the Senate side with 
Democratic support.
  I urge all the Members to defeat the Waxman amendment and support our 
underlying legislation, H.R. 2250.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I was going to speak about mercury, and I 
will get to that, but I really have to clarify for the Record and the 
public record.
  We keep hearing, and we've heard once again on this floor from our 
Republican colleagues, that the bill won't harm public health or weaken 
health

[[Page H6650]]

standards, and this is just not accurate. It's really important, Mr. 
Chairman, for the public to understand that. In fact, section 2 of the 
bill lists four final clean air rules and says they shall have ``no 
force or effect.'' Section 3 of the bill eliminates the 3-year 
compliance deadline in the Clean Air Act and doesn't set any new 
deadline. And, for the record, section 5 of the bill directs the EPA to 
set weaker standards than the clean air requirements.
  So make no mistake. H.R. 2250, contrary to what the other side is 
saying, has real legal effect and consequence, and those effects weaken 
our protection from air pollution and harm the health of Americans, 
especially our children.
  Now, I recognize that there is a zeal for deregulation, but for clean 
air standards, for clean water standards, this really makes no sense. 
In fact, the bill throws out EPA's rules to require boilers and 
incinerators to reduce their emissions of toxic mercury. And unlike the 
statements that have been made on this floor, this comes in the wake of 
a bill to nullify EPA's rules to clean up cement kilns, and yet another 
bill to nullify EPA's rules to clean up power plants.
  When does it stop? When does the public health and the consequences 
of these actions become important to the American people instead of 
just this move to deregulation? Just this last month, the Republicans 
have pushed legislation to let the Nation's largest source of toxic 
mercury pollution off the hook for cleaning up their emissions, 
jeopardizing public health. And for what?
  Now, I've heard that we shouldn't have so much concern about mercury, 
but somebody in this House, somebody in this Congress has to be 
concerned about the public health consequences to our children of toxic 
mercury emissions.
  They also cite studies from the American Forest & Paper Association, 
from the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, and these are nothing 
more than industry studies that seek to absolve the industry from 
cleaning up its own mess. They've been refuted by actual scientists. 
And I suggested on this floor we actually pay attention to science and 
facts and not just a move to deregulate because we're interested in 
doing industry a favor at the expense of public health.
  And we know that, contrary to what's been said, the public health 
consequences of mercury are clear; they're stated; they're facts; 
they're science. So let's not undercut that. Mercury is a powerful 
neurotoxin. It harms developing brains of infants. It leads to learning 
disabilities. It causes attention deficits and behavioral problems and 
a whole range of other problems.
  So the Republicans cannot be allowed, Mr. Chairman, to pick and 
choose their facts and their science. The facts and the science are as 
they are, and we should not be nullifying EPA's rules that protect the 
public health.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
  By the way, I believe we should be alarmist; and I am an alarmist, 
and maybe that's because I'm a mother, maybe that's because I'm a 
grandmother, and maybe that's because I represent Los Angeles, which 
has some of the worst air in their country.
  Just last year, in California, we had 2,400 deaths because of cargo-
related pollution. We're paying for the costs of people all over this 
country getting goods on time in their local stores. Because of cargo-
related pollution, there is about 350,000 days of lost school.
  That is a real problem for this country. Pollution does impact our 
children. Pollution does impact their lives. We know even there is a 
million days of lost work, lost productivity in this country because of 
pollution-related illnesses in the workplace.
  I'm for this amendment because the underlying bill nullifies EPA's 
rules to require boilers and incinerators to reduce their emissions of 
toxic mercury. And this comes in the wake of a bill to nullify EPA's 
rules to clean up cement kilns and another bill to nullify EPA's rules 
to clean up power plants.
  Just within the last month, my colleagues on the other side have 
pushed legislation to let the Nation's largest sources of toxic mercury 
pollution off the hook for cleaning up their emissions. And they defend 
this policy by pointing to these industry studies about the costs of 
complying with these rules.
  One study that gets cited over and over is a study by the Council of 
Industrial Boiler Owners, or CIBO. This study, by the way, has been 
completely discredited. For example, the nonpartisan Congressional 
Research Service examined this study and concluded: ``the base of 
CIBO's analysis is flawed. As a result, little credence can be placed 
in CIBO's estimate of job losses.''
  They also cite a study by the American Forest & Paper Association 
concluding that the boiler rules will cost jobs.

                              {time}  1250

  Mr. Chairman, Dr. Charles Kolstad, chair of the department of 
economics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, reviewed this 
analysis and said: ``If I were grading this, I would give it an F. The 
economics is all wrong.''
  Dr. Kolstad described the methods as ``fundamentally flawed.'' And he 
said that, as a result, the jobs estimates were ``completely invalid.''
  We know that the National Academy of Sciences and independent public 
health experts around the world have proven time and again that mercury 
is a powerful neurotoxin that harms the developing brains of infants, 
leading to learning disabilities, attention deficits, behavioral 
problems, and a range of other problems.
  This amendment is straightforward. It states that the bill does not 
stop EPA from taking action to clean up toxic air pollution from an 
industrial boiler or incinerator if that facility is emitting mercury 
or other toxic pollutants that are damaging babies' developing brains. 
Who can vote against this?
  You know, you talk about jobs. My colleague, Mrs. Miller, earlier 
talked about jobs and the economy and the cost of the regulations. But 
at what price do we have to pay for the next generation's health and 
quality of life? And by the way, the last I checked, adding more 
pollution into the air is not a jobs plan.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  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. Mr. Chairman, I listened to the gentlelady 
with interest. And, of course, it's easy to sit in Washington and 
whatever group you may be with and say this group is wrong or that 
group is wrong, and everybody can trot out their experts. But, ladies 
and gentlemen, the CRS doesn't own and operate boilers, businesses do. 
Lots of them are going to be impacted by this--big businesses, small 
businesses, and the people who work for them.
  Last week I referenced a letter to the editor of the Virginian Leader 
sent in by Mr. and Mrs. Kinney, in which they said: ``I'm going to be 
very blunt with the following opinion: As a factory worker and 
taxpayer, I'm getting sick and tired of these Federal agencies who have 
nothing better to do except sit in their Washington offices and draw up 
rules and regulations to kill American jobs. Why don't they get off 
their sorry behinds and go out across the Nation and try to help 
industry save what jobs we have left? And who is paying these EPA 
people's salary? We are, the American workers. I believe in protecting 
the environment, but we can't shut the whole country down to achieve 
it.''
  I referenced that letter last week, and I referenced Giles County in 
my comments in a Republican radio address later that week. And in 
response to that, Mr. and Mrs. Kinney wrote again to the Leader. And 
we're not talking about big businesses here, we're talking about 
businesses that affect employees in small counties all across this 
country. The Leader, for example, has 5,100 subscribers. It's not a 
giant newspaper.
  The Kinneys wrote back in: ``As I stated in the 9/21/11 letter to the 
editor, I'm a blue collar factory worker with

[[Page H6651]]

limited education, and I have worked for our county's largest employer 
for nearly 35 years. The only reason I am speaking out on this issue is 
this: To get others involved. Our economic future and way of life here 
in Giles County could be on the line unless residents, business owners, 
civic organizations, and others come together and support H.R. 2250.''
  You know what, ladies and gentlemen? The people of America understand 
that the EPA is in fact killing jobs. They understand that while we 
have to have a clean environment, and we all want a clean environment, 
as the gentleman from Kentucky said earlier today, we can do that. This 
is a reasonable approach. H.R. 2250 is a very reasonable approach which 
will do both, continue us on the regulatory path but make sure those 
regulations are reasonable and effective, and make sure that we protect 
the jobs of the United States of America while we go forward in 
protecting the environment as well.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I just want to point out to my colleagues that what the 
bill does is repeals the previous rule, regulation, and then prohibits 
EPA from adopting another regulation for 15 months. And when they adopt 
another regulation, it can't be enforced for another 5 years. And then 
there's no deadline. But meanwhile, they lower the standard for EPA in 
setting that regulation.
  EPA is in the process now of negotiating with the industry to work 
out the information and the problems that have been brought to their 
attention. We ought to give EPA the chance to do that and get the full 
input from the industry. If legislation is needed, we ought to consider 
what legislation is needed. The approach of this bill is to set us back 
enormously. When you don't have anything in place but the weakest 
possible criteria, and then nothing can happen for 5 years, and maybe 
even longer because it takes 15 months to get the regulation, no 
enforcement for 5 years after that--and maybe never--that's not a 
reasonable approach.
  If the industry wants a law, the industry ought to work on telling us 
what they need, and not going on this escapade with the Republicans who 
would like to repeal the whole Clean Air Act and repeal the ability of 
the EPA to protect the public from toxic pollution. And, of course, the 
amendment that's before us is that insofar as this bill becomes law, 
when we're talking about poisoning children's brains, we're not going 
to stop EPA from getting their regulations in place and getting them 
enforced. It's obscene to think, the idea that we would wait another 
6\1/2\ years, and maybe longer, before we can do anything to start down 
the road to reduce the pollution that's going to poison these kids.
  I ask for an ``aye'' vote on the amendment, and I hope that people 
realize this is a bill that will pass the House, but in my view, given 
the President's statement of a veto, it's not going to become law.
  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).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WAXMAN. 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 California 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Rush

  Mr. RUSH. 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:

       At the end of section 5, add the following:
       (c) Rule of Construction.--This section is intended to 
     supplement the provisions of, and shall not be construed to 
     supersede any requirement, limitation, or other provision of, 
     sections 112 and 129 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412, 
     7429).

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, let us not be distracted by this confused, 
backward, and short-term thinking on the part of our Republican 
colleagues. This bill represents just another attack on the Nation's 
long-standing environmental protection laws in general and the EPA in 
particular.
  On behalf of a select few polluting industries that operate under the 
assumption that the timing is right to permanently alter, gut, and 
obliterate the Clean Air Act, the law that the chairman of the 
subcommittee and many others have said is working on behalf of the 
American people.
  While most businesses have been planning and preparing for these 
rules, which have already been delayed for years and in some cases have 
been delayed over a decade, some of the more opportunistic dirty 
industries see this radical Republican majority and their radical 
agenda targeting the EPA and all of our clean air laws as the perfect 
time to try and permanently alter the Clean Air Act.
  Section 5 of H.R. 2250 disregards the clean air standards that will 
help reduce toxic air pollution, like mercury and soot from some of our 
Nation's biggest polluters--cement plants, industrial boilers, and 
incinerators.
  Instead, this section would make fundamental and damaging changes to 
the Clean Air Act and would ensure that future standards do not 
meaningfully reduce emissions into the air.

                              {time}  1300

  So, Mr. Chairman, I must offer an amendment that will clarify that 
section 5 of H.R. 2250 is intended to supplement the provisions of and 
shall not be construed to supersede any requirement, limitation or 
other provision of sections 112 and 129 of the Clean Air Act.
  This single provision in section 5 will have the effect of exempting 
incinerators, exempting industrial boilers, and exempting cement plants 
from maximum reductions in toxic air pollution emissions, in contrast 
to every other major industrial source of toxic air pollution in this 
Nation.
  The majority, even after being asked repeatedly over and over and 
over again, has yet to explain why Congress should carve out exemptions 
for the Nation's dirtiest polluters, in total disregard for the public 
health of the American people and at the expense of those very 
companies that have already invested in the technology to meet the 
minimum requirements of this law.
  Mr. Chairman, if it is truly the majority's intent to clarify the 
rules and to provide certainty for business, then this amendment will 
accomplish that purpose; but I don't believe that that is their intent, 
and I don't believe that that is what their goal and objectives are. 
They have a singular purpose in all of these bills that we have been 
debating on this floor as it relates to the Clean Air Act, and that is 
to completely nullify and gut the Clean Air Act so that polluters in 
this Nation can keep on polluting the very air that we breathe.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support my 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Yoder). The time of the gentleman from Illinois 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Waxman, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Rush was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. RUSH. I yield to the ranking member.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I thank you for yielding to me. I want to join you in 
urging support for this amendment.
  Whatever the motivation is of your legislation--and I can understand 
your reason for being very skeptical. I share it. But what the industry 
should want is regulatory certainty. And this bill adds more confusion 
to what is already a long overdue effort to reduce toxic air pollution 
from boilers and incinerators. With no timeline for implementation of 
new emissions standards, the bill creates significant questions about 
how EPA would set limits for toxic air pollution. If they think it's 
regulatory certainty that they don't have to do anything for years, 
they'd better not count on it. And if they want regulatory certainty, 
they'd better come forward and work something out.
  In the meantime, your clarification provides the certainty, and I 
urge Members to support it.

[[Page H6652]]

  Mr. RUSH. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman's amendment would simply add an 
additional paragraph at the end of section 5 of our bill, and basically 
it would say that section 5 in our bill would not be construed to 
supersede any requirement, limitation or other provision of sections 
112 and 129 of the Clean Air Act. And because his amendment would say 
``it does not supersede'' is the reason that we want to oppose the 
amendment.
  Now section 5 says this, and this is what we want to supersede 
section 112 and 129 of the Clean Air Act, in promulgating rules, the 
administrator shall ensure that emission standards for existing and new 
sources established under section 112 or 129 can be met under actual 
operating conditions consistently and concurrently with emissions 
standards for all other air pollutants regulated by the rule for the 
source category taking into account variability and actual source 
performance, source design, fuels, input, controls, ability to measure 
pollutants' emissions and operating conditions.
  In other words, we want to be sure that can be met under actual 
operating conditions.
  And then the second part of our section 5 that we want to be sure 
supersedes, which this amendment would not allow, is that we put in 
section 5 the President's own executive order in which he says that the 
administrator shall impose the least burdensome regulation consistent 
with the purposes of the act.
  So all we're doing in section 5 is saying we want to make sure that 
it's the least burdensome pursuant to the President's own executive 
order and that we want to be sure that it can be met in actual 
operating conditions.
  So for that reason, we would respectfully oppose the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. RUSH. 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 Illinois 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 15 Offered by Ms. Hahn

  Ms. HAHN. 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 section 2, add the following:
       (d) Ten Metropolitan Areas of the United States With the 
     Worst Air Quality.--
       (1) Stay of earlier rules inapplicable.--Insofar as the 
     rules listed in subsection (b) apply to sources of air 
     pollution in any of the 10 metropolitan areas of the United 
     States with the worst air quality, such rules shall, 
     notwithstanding subsection (b), continue to be effective.
       (2) New standards inapplicable if less protective of public 
     health and the environment.--With respect to sources of air 
     pollution in any of the 10 metropolitan areas of the United 
     States with the worst air quality, the provisions of the 
     regulations promulgated under subsection (a)--
       (A) shall apply to such sources, and shall replace the 
     rules listed in subsection (b), to the extent such provisions 
     are equally or more protective of public health and the 
     environment than the corresponding provisions of the rules 
     listed in subsection (b); and
       (B) shall not apply to such sources, and shall not replace 
     the rules listed in subsection (b), to the extent such 
     provisions are less protective of public health and the 
     environment than the corresponding provisions of the rules 
     listed in subsection (b).
       (3) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       (A) The term ``metropolitan area''--
       (i) for purposes of subparagraph (B)(i), means the 
     metropolitan statistical area or consolidated metropolitan 
     statistical area (as established by the Bureau of the Census) 
     most closely corresponding to the city or group of cities 
     ranked among the cities with the worst year-round particle 
     pollution in the ``State of the Air 2011'' report of the 
     American Lung Association; and
       (ii) for purposes of subparagraph (B)(ii), means a 
     metropolitan statistical area or consolidated metropolitan 
     statistical area (as established by the Bureau of the 
     Census).
       (B) The term ``10 metropolitan areas of the United States 
     with the worst air quality'' means--
       (i) during the 5-year period beginning on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the 10 metropolitan areas listed in 
     the ``State of the Air 2011'' report of the American Lung 
     Association as having the worst year-round particle 
     pollution; and
       (ii) during each successive 5-year period, the 10 
     metropolitan areas determined by the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency to have the highest year-
     round levels of particulate matter in the air.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, today I'm offering an amendment that will 
preserve the critical air pollution protections for the places that 
they are needed most. For the people in my district, air pollution is a 
major health problem. The Los Angeles region always is near the top of 
the Nation's worst air quality rankings. Unfortunately, the people of 
my district don't need to read the statistics from the American Lung 
Association to know that there's a pollution problem in our 
communities.
  They see it in the dark soot that seeps into the homes of families 
living near the port in Wilmington. They see it in the labored 
breathing of a little girl in Lomita staying home from school because 
of asthma. They see it in the tears of loved ones in San Pedro burying 
someone lost before their time to cancer or lung disease.
  But the statistics are there too. In Los Angeles, 6 to 7 percent of 
all children have asthma--higher than the national average, and 
disproportionately impacting minority children. When our kids can't run 
around outside to exercise, when they're missing school with asthma, 
we're creating all sorts of other health and educational deficits.
  Los Angeles has recognized its air quality problems. Since the Clean 
Air Act amendments of 1990, we've made dramatic air quality 
improvements. In the last decade, we've managed to reduce particulate 
pollution levels in Los Angeles by 40 percent. We cannot afford to go 
backwards. That's why I'm offering this amendment today.
  My amendment would ensure that the Environmental Protection Agency 
will keep their higher standards of clean air protections for the 10 
metropolitan areas with the worst air quality. The American Lung 
Society lists the 10 worst regions with year-round particulate matter.
  They are Bakersfield-Delano in California; Los Angeles-Long Beach-
Riverside in California; Visalia-Porterville in California; Phoenix-
Mesa-Glendale in Arizona; Hanford-Corcoran in California; Fresno-Madera 
in California; Pittsburgh-New Castle in Pennsylvania; Birmingham-
Hoover-Cullman in Alabama; Cincinnati-Middletown-Wilmington in Ohio, 
Kentucky, and Indiana; Modesto in California; and Louisville-Jefferson 
County-Elizabethtown-Scottsburg in Kentucky and Indiana.

                              {time}  1310

  I believe that the underlying bill is a giant step backwards for 
those communities and for the air quality and environment of people 
living in this country. My amendment solely focuses on trying to 
continue to protect people in communities with the worst air quality 
standards. These communities cannot afford to have lower standards that 
will result in more asthma, more cancer.
  By protecting our public health, we will not lose jobs. It's a false 
premise that to create jobs we need to hurt our Nation's environment 
and health. For example, the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach were 
able to improve air quality and create jobs and industry. These ports 
are the economic engine of this country. I call them ``America's 
ports.'' About 44 percent of all the cargo in this country comes 
through those ports.
  A lot of people said you can't have clean air and good jobs, but let 
me tell you what really happened. We cut port pollution by 70 percent 
since 2005 without losing a single job. I'll say that again: a 70 
percent reduction in pollution at the cost of zero jobs. In fact, the 
green industry jobs were spawned, creating more jobs.
  Our more vigorous environmental standards in California aren't 
stopping the facilities in my district from thriving. That's why I find 
it so upsetting that, under the banner of protecting jobs, our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle are moving to delay or 
destroy the protections that ensure our children can grow up breathing 
clean air.

[[Page H6653]]

  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim making our air 
dirtier is a way to stimulate the economy, but a peer-reviewed Cal 
State, Fullerton study found that dirty air in the costs residents $22 
billion a year in health costs, premature deaths, lost days of work, 
lost days of school--$22 billion a year wasted because of dirty air.
  I reject the false choice between good jobs and clean air. We've 
already proven that they can go hand in hand with the Clean Air Action 
Plan at the Port of Los Angeles.
  I also want to add that environmental regulations are not topping the 
list of problems that small businesses in my community are facing. Last 
week, I met with over 50 small businesses, and they said they need more 
access to capital, not less regulation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentlelady from California may view this argument 
about jobs as a false choice, but we do have letters from over 300 
organizations concerned about the impact on jobs that these EPA 
regulations will have, including letters of support from five of the 
largest labor unions in the country.
  The gentlelady's amendment would basically say that, in the 10 
metropolitan areas chosen by the American Lung Association, the current 
boiler rules would be retained regardless of what our legislation may 
do.
  So we are opposed to her amendment for two reasons. One, we don't 
want the legislation to be changed because we think it's necessary to 
have the balanced approach throughout the country and not to exclude 10 
metropolitan areas. But the second reason we would be opposed to it is 
that to allow one private entity--even if it's the American Lung 
Association, an organization we all have respect for. But we don't 
think that they should be determining what should be in this 
legislation.
  So for that reason, I would respectfully oppose the amendment and ask 
that the amendment be defeated.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I support this amendment, and I want to congratulate the 
gentlelady from California for offering this amendment. Her 
constituents should be rightfully proud of the fact that she is 
fighting for them and for the good health of the American people.
  Her amendment recognizes the fact that we've made great progress on 
air pollution in this country because we've had a strong Clean Air Act 
and because we've let EPA do its job under both Democratic and 
Republican administrations. But let's not pretend that the job is done.
  In the 10 worst polluted areas--these are the worst polluted, 
nonattainment areas in the country--every day, people are breathing 
unhealthy levels of air pollution, and they're going to emergency rooms 
because the air outside is making them sick. And every day, some are 
dying before their time. In the summer, cities and towns across the 
country have red alerts, and moms are afraid to let their kids play 
outside. There's something fundamentally wrong with that.
  Despite the progress we've made, we need to make sure that we cut 
these air pollutants that are very, very harmful. We've been talking a 
lot today about mercury, but the EPA boiler rules would reduce the 
emissions of fine particle pollution, which can lodge deep in the lungs 
and cause serious health effects.
  Living in the United States should not be a health risk, and I hope 
that we will not vote to nullify these EPA boiler rules and also 
nullify the health benefits in these various polluted areas.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Hahn).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. HAHN. 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 gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Hahn) will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mrs. Capps

  Mrs. CAPPS. 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 the internal 
     cross-references, accordingly):

     SEC. 2. FINDING.

       The Congress finds that, according to the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, if the rules specified in section 3(b) are 
     in effect, then for every dollar in costs, the rules will 
     provide at least $10 to $24 in health benefits, due to the 
     avoidance each year of--
       (1) 2,600 to 6,600 premature deaths;
       (2) 4,100 nonfatal heart attacks;
       (3) 4,400 hospital and emergency room visits;
       (4) 42,000 cases of aggravated asthma; and
       (5) 320,000 days of missed work or school.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, it's my hope that we can all simply agree 
to this amendment. It would simply add a finding to the bill 
illustrating the health benefits of EPA's mercury and air toxic cleanup 
standards for industrial boilers and incinerators.
  Opponents of these cleanup standards argue that they cost too much 
and will lead to job losses. I don't agree with that assessment.
  Over the past 40 years, the Clean Air Act has fueled American 
innovation and has created jobs, and it has made the United States a 
leader in the multibillion-dollar environmental technology sector.
  Mr. Chairman, the health benefits of EPA safeguards are not in 
dispute, and that's why those facts should be included as part of this 
bill.
  For decades, industrial boilers and incinerators have been some of 
the largest pollution emitters in the United States. They're 
responsible for some of the most dangerous air pollutants we have in 
this Nation, including mercury, lead, and cancer-causing dioxins. 
That's why EPA took action last year to require that industrial boilers 
and incinerators cut their emissions and simply follow the Clean Air 
Act.
  But instead of supporting EPA's action, the bill before us would 
delay their standards by at least 3\1/2\ to 4 years. It would eliminate 
any deadline by which industrial boilers and incinerators must comply 
with EPA safeguards. It could mean thousands and thousands of 
additional pounds of mercury and other toxic pollution released into 
our air each year.
  Now, proponents of this legislation are quick to say EPA safeguards 
to cut this pollution would--and now comes the drumroll--cause economic 
ruin and job losses, and they point to industry-paid-for studies to 
provide evidence. But indefinitely delaying EPA safeguards will not 
lead to the economic ruin and job losses. What it will do is put the 
lives and the health of millions of Americans at risk.
  Failing to implement the EPA's air pollution standards for boilers 
and incinerators would result, just in 1 year, in as many as 6,600 
premature deaths, 4,100 nonfatal heart attacks, 4,400 hospital and 
emergency room visits, 42,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and over 
320,000 days of missed work and school. For every additional year of 
delay that H.R. 2250 allows, these numbers only continue to grow.
  And we know this because EPA's analysis must follow the criteria set 
out by the Office of Management and Budget. Their analysis is based on 
peer-reviewed studies. The analysis is transparent, it is subject to 
public comment, and it has to be reviewed again by the Office of 
Management and Budget. The industry studies meet none of these 
criteria.
  Mr. Chairman, it is true that EPA already announced it is reexamining 
aspects of these safeguards. They set out a time line providing 
industry more than enough time and opportunity to weigh in before 
refinalizing the rules by next April.

                              {time}  1320

  EPA has said that it does not need nor want additional time for 
Congress. Delays only hurt America's health.

[[Page H6654]]

  Again, it's worth repeating. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are not at 
risk from these safeguards, like some of my colleagues say. EPA's 
analysis, reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget economists, 
project that these standards will have a net positive impact on EPA--
that's EPA's analysis, reviewed by the Office of Management and 
Budget--and they will achieve enormous public health benefits that 
allow Americans to work and go to school and lead healthy lives.
  For every dollar industry spends to clean up even one industrial 
boiler or incinerator, Americans get up to $24 back in health benefits. 
What other investment results in this astonishing return for the 
American people? And that's why I'm offering this simple amendment 
today. It would remind us all of the tremendous health benefits that 
EPA's mercury and air toxic cleanup standards will achieve, and they 
should be included in this bill.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this straightforward amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentlelady made a comment that she genuinely 
questions whether jobs are at risk, and I would simply say that, as I 
said earlier, we received over 300 letters. We received phone calls. We 
received emails. We have five major labor unions, national labor 
unions, supporting this legislation. And the people involved in these 
businesses are telling us that they are going to have to cut off people 
from work. They're going to have to terminate people's employment in 
some instances.
  And as I said, the University of Notre Dame said they spent $20 
million trying to comply with the old rule that was invalidated, and 
now they're going to have to spend another X millions of dollars to 
meet these new rules.
  I would oppose the amendment because, basically, the gentlelady from 
California is asking us to put into the findings of the Environmental 
Protection Agency's calculation that for every dollar in cost, the rule 
will provide at least $10 to $24 in health benefits. Now, that alone is 
kind of interesting. From $10 to $24, that's over a 100 percent 
variance there, flexible zone there. It's not very precise.
  And then she says that it's going to avoid either 2,600--up to 6,600 
premature deaths a year, so many nonfatal heart attacks, so many 
hospital emergency room visits, so many cases of aggravated asthma, so 
many cases of missed work and school.
  Well, all of us have sat in a lot of these hearings. We've looked at 
a lot of numbers, and I tell you what. There's no agreement on any of 
these numbers. There are questions about the assumptions. There are 
questions about the modeling. There's questions about the lack of 
transparency, and different groups come up with different numbers.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I would be happy to yield to the gentlewoman from 
California.
  Mrs. CAPPS. I just wanted to ask if you are aware that these numbers 
have to be peer reviewed, so scientists and organizations have 
evaluated them, and they've come in. And they also have to be screened 
by the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, and then they're sent back 
to EPA. So they've gone through quite a wide variety of verifications.
  Would you disagree with that fact?
  Mr. WHITFIELD. No. I agree that it's been peer reviewed, and I can 
also give you a long list of scientists who also have peer reviews that 
do not agree with these numbers. I can also give you a list of names of 
people at OMB who question these numbers. I can also give you a list of 
academics at universities that question these numbers.
  Mrs. CAPPS. But they did go through the process.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes, they went through the process. And our analysis 
went through the process too. But they come up with different numbers. 
Therefore, because of that, we don't think it's right to put these 
particular numbers in there when there's so much disagreement on the 
numbers.
  So with that, I would respectfully ask Members to oppose 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 California (Mrs. Capps).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. CAPPS. 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 gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Doyle

  Mr. DOYLE. 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, beginning on line 20, strike paragraph (1) and 
     insert the following paragraphs (and redesignate the 
     subsequent paragraph accordingly):
       (1) shall establish a date for compliance with standards 
     and requirements under such regulation in accordance with 
     section 112(i)(3) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7412(i)(3));
       (2) may, if the Administrator determines there is a 
     compelling reason to extend the date for such compliance, 
     provide an extension, in addition to any extension under 
     section 112(i)(3)(B) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(i)(3)(B)), 
     extending the date for such compliance up to one year, but in 
     no case beyond the date that is 5 years after the effective 
     date of such regulation; and

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, we've been debating this bill, H.R. 2250, 
for several months now in the Energy and Commerce Committee. And as 
we've heard from the bill's supporters, the bill is intended to address 
the Boiler MACT rule that was proposed by EPA in April of 2010 and 
finalized in February of 2011.
  Many of us here know that when the Boiler MACT regulation was 
finalized, EPA asked for 15 months to issue a reproposal. The courts 
rejected that request and, thus, EPA was forced to issue the rule on 
time in February of 2011. However, EPA immediately instituted an 
administrative stay on several major rules within the regulation, 
saying that they would begin reconsideration with new information that 
had been made available.
  In the last few months, I've met with many industries and companies 
that expressed concern with the provisions in this final rule. I've 
listened and even helped foster ongoing conversations between those 
industries and EPA as they worked toward a reproposal of the Boiler 
MACT rule.
  Then we were offered this bill, the EPA Regulatory Relief Act. We 
were told that this bill would simply give EPA the time that they had 
already asked for to work on the rule and repropose a new final rule. 
After the conversations I had had with companies in my district, I 
thought this would be a good solution.
  The problem is, when you dig a little deeper, I've said for a long 
time, this EPA Boiler MACT rule is far from perfect. But the trouble is 
the bill we have before us today is even further from perfect because 
it doesn't just give EPA time to reconsider the rule; it tells EPA they 
can't issue a new rule for at least 15 months. But there's no deadline 
for final action. Further, it practically rewrites sections 112 and 129 
of the Clean Air Act by eliminating the need for numeric emission 
limits for MACT standards.
  But perhaps the most egregious to me was section 3 of the bill. It 
once again rewrites the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act provides for 3 
years for compliance with MACT standards with the possibility of a 4th. 
Section 3 of this bill tells us to throw that out. It tells us that for 
the Boiler MACT rule, compliance cannot be required for at least 5 
years. However, it then says to the EPA administrator, it gives the 
administrator the ability to establish compliance dates. So depending 
on who the administrator is at the time these rules are finalized, 
compliance could be required in 5 years, in 10 years, in 50 years, in 
105 years. That's just unacceptable, and that's why I'm offering this 
amendment today.

[[Page H6655]]

  I support many of the things in this bill and I recognize the need 
for a reproposal of this rule, but I don't support 5 years to infinity 
for compliance. And so this amendment will simply require that we go 
back to the established compliance time lines in the Clean Air Act. It 
even gives the possibility for an additional year of compliance if a 
compelling reason is found.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and make this a bill 
that we can all support when it comes for final passage.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, we all have great respect for the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, and you could make some very good 
arguments for his amendment. Basically, he said the amendment would set 
a 3-year compliance date and allow a case-by-case extension for up to 2 
years if the administrator of the EPA determined that there was a 
compelling need, and that's reasonable.
  But one of the problems that we continue to run into on these Boiler 
MACT rules, and all the hearings have pointed this out: the fact that 
lawsuits are always being filed and litigation is continually going on 
at EPA and consent decrees are being entered into, and it's an ever-
changing situation over there on the exact rule.

                              {time}  1330

  The one argument that we hear continually from the affected groups is 
that they need certainty, and even on a case-to-case basis, if the 
administrator determines a compelling need, we don't have that 100 
percent certainty that we really want. And so our legislation does say 
that within 15 months, they have to come back with the promulgation of 
a new rule, and it does say that the administrator shall establish a 
date for compliance no earlier than 5 years after the effective date of 
the regulation, and it does say that the EPA administrator may provide 
additional time if he or she chooses to do so. Just looking at the 
track record of EPA, I don't suspect that they would be doing that a 
lot, but they might. But they do have to set a compliance date. We say 
you must set a compliance date not earlier than 5 years.
  Mr. DOYLE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. DOYLE. I would say to my friend--and this is my good friend--I'm 
with you all the way right till the very end. The one concern that we 
have is you say that the compliance date can't be any less than 5 
years. If you would have just said that compliance shall be at 5 years, 
that there's a date certain, the problem with your legislation is 
there's no date certain. It sort of says to the administrator, it can't 
be sooner than 5 years, but it could be as long as you determine that 
you want it to be. It could theoretically be a hundred years. I'm not 
saying it would be a hundred years, but theoretically speaking.
  We realize that the proposed rule has flaws and it needs to be 
reworked. I'm with you on the 15-month rewrite, and we're working with 
industries right in Pittsburgh with EPA on this as we speak. What 
concerns many of us is that there's no time line, there's no end line, 
for compliance in your legislation. You say no less than 5 years, but 
you never say when is the final deadline. All this amendment asks for 
is to go back to the Clean Air Act where there's some definition. It's 
3 years with the possibility of additional time if the case calls for 
it. I think if we could get some sort of a finalized deadline on 
compliance, that you could get a lot of support on this side of the 
aisle and possibly even pass this bill. As it's written today, it makes 
it impossible for those of us that are sympathetic to a lot of what is 
in this bill to be able to support it, and I think it makes it 
difficult for the President to sign it and for it to pass the Senate.
  I would just ask my friend, as we consider this legislation, that we 
at least give some certainty to the folks who want their air clean that 
at some point there's going to be a line that says, this is the end 
date, this is when you comply, not some date in the future that's not 
defined in the bill.
  I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I thank the gentleman for his comment. Those are very 
good thoughts and very good ideas. As you know, a similar bill has been 
introduced in the Senate. We don't know if it's going to pass or not. 
If it does pass, we want to be able to go into conference with as much 
flexibility as possible. That's why we chose a 5-year period instead of 
a 3-year period, recognizing that there is some uncertainty in both the 
3-year and the 5-year. Under your situation if there's a compelling 
need, on a case-by-case basis, they could extend it. In ours, the 
administrator under certain circumstances could extend it. We do have 
some Democratic support. We would love to have your support. If we get 
into conference, that is one of the parts of this bill that we hope 
that we can negotiate with the other side and come up with something 
that's satisfactory for both.
  I really appreciate your bringing it to our attention and offering 
your amendment. As I have said, with as much reluctance as I have, I 
still will have to oppose it and hopefully we can work it out in 
conference with the other body.
  Mr. DOYLE. If my friend could yield one more second, I would just say 
to you, if your bill simply had a 5-year compliance deadline and the 
Clean Air Act said 3 years with the possibility of an extension, I 
think you would have something that many of us would consider because 
you would have a 5-year deadline. You don't have a deadline. That's my 
problem. You have a no-sooner-than, but you don't have a deadline.
  I thank my friend.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield back the balance of my time.
  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. Mr. Chairman, I would have to rise in 
opposition to the amendment. I agree with many of the comments that 
were made in regard to everybody trying to be reasonable and work some 
things out on this, but one of the concerns that I have and the reason 
that the language is as it is in the bill, which says that it's 5 years 
unless there's an extension by the administrator, is that in the real 
world sense of things, many companies find it difficult to hit the 
target, and I would hate to see us losing jobs because we had 5 years 
and 1 month. Under this amendment if they needed 5 years and 1 month or 
5 years and 6 months to comply, then they would not be in compliance, 
and it may very well cost jobs and cause a company to make a decision 
that they don't think they can make it.
  In real world examples, everything is not perfect, and I have 
discussed this several times, but one of the factories in my area of 
the Celanese company, they have to see what the regs look like, then 
they have to see if they can retool for using coal. That takes time to 
figure out whether they can retool their facility to meet the 
compliance. If they can't meet the compliance, then what about natural 
gas or some other fuel source? Well, guess what? They don't have a 
natural gas line coming into the community where they're located that 
would have enough natural gas in it for any industrial purpose. As a 
result of that, they then have to try to figure out how they're going 
to cross rivers and mountains in order to get natural gas into that 
community in order to keep those jobs available.
  The problem with this amendment is it is a solid 5 years and you're 
done. What we're trying to do with the bill overall, while we want to 
be reasonable and we want to try to work something out, we want to also 
have the EPA administrator in a position that in real world 
circumstances, with real world jobs, not in the ivory towers of the 
universities necessarily or even here in the ivory towers of 
Washington, but out there on the hustings, the real world jobs have to 
be taken into account, and sometimes it takes 5 years and 1 month or 5 
years and 6 months. That's why I would urge that we defeat this 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle).

[[Page H6656]]

  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WAXMAN. 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 Pennsylvania 
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. Yoder, 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.

                          ____________________