Mercury Export Ban Act of 2007

I thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for his outstanding work on this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my legislation, H.R. 1534, the Mercury Export Ban Act. I want to thank not just Mr. Wynn but Mr. Dingell, Mr. Shimkus, and Mr. Barton, all of those who have worked so hard on this particular legislation.

It is a well-established fact that mercury is a powerful neurotoxin harmful at even low exposure levels. Mercury is harmful whether it is inhaled, ingested, or absorbed through the skin. Once exposed to water, elemental mercury is transformed to methylmercury, which is highly toxic and which has a tendency to bio-accumulate in both fish and the humans who eat the fish. Very young children with developing nervous systems are particularly at risk. In addition, pregnant mothers who are exposed to mercury pollution can transmit mercury to their unborn children, increasing the chances of miscarriage and birth defects. Mercury can also be found in high concentrations in mothers' breast milk.

My bill seeks to combat a large source of mercury pollution worldwide: namely, the export of elemental mercury from the United States to developing countries. This mercury is used largely for artesinal mining. Exposure occurs when miners handle the mercury. It enters the water when miners pan for gold, and it enters the air through the smelting process which emits mercury vapor.

According to the U.N. Environmental Programme, approximately 15 million people worldwide, including 4.5 million women and 1 million children, engage in artesinal mining with mercury, exposing them to the poisons that mercury produces. Some of this mercury is exported from the United States. That should be unacceptable to us as a Nation.

Further, the export of mercury for artesinal mining harms Americans who are exposed through the global air transport of mercury pollution or through the consumption of mercury-contaminated fish. Scientists have estimated that up to one-third of U.S. mercury air pollution has traveled to the U.S. from Asia, where mercury pollution is extensive, including from mercury exported for artesinal mining. Much of the fish that we eat, including tuna, is imported from off the coast of Asian and South American countries where the use of mercury in artesinal mining is widespread.

The Departments of Defense and Energy are the two largest holders of mercury in the United States. The EPA has urged DOE and DOD not to sell its mercury stockpiles due to the serious human health and environmental risks associated with mercury. DOD and DOE have agreed. However, that ban is not in law, which is why my bill prohibits the Federal Government from exporting mercury. In addition, private companies may still export this poisonous and hazardous material, which is why my legislation is necessary.

Together with my friend Mr. Shimkus at the full committee markup, I offered an amendment to create a long-term mercury storage repository. This amendment was the result of a stakeholder process over the last several months to develop a consensus product. Stakeholders included NRDC, the Environmental Council of the States, the American Chemistry Council, the Chlorine Institute, and the National Mining Association, all of whom have endorsed this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I will place in the Record a letter from these groups in support of this legislation.

November 8, 2007.

Re: H.R. 1534.

Dear Representative: H.R. 1534, the ``Mercury Export Ban

Act of 2007'', which bans the export of surplus elemental

mercury into global commerce, was reported out of the House

Energy & Commerce Committee on October 30, 2007, by an

overwhelmingly bi-partisan vote of 45-2. The undersigned

organizations support this negotiated version of H.R. 1534

and urge its passage under Suspension of the Rules.

Collectively, our organizations negotiated in good faith to

produce the bill as reported, which addresses our individual

concerns, advances our shared objective of reducing global

mercury pollution, and reflects good public policy.

Specifically, the Committee-reported version of H.R. 1534

establishes a practical and workable domestic framework for

sequestering the elemental mercury prohibited from export

under the legislation. To develop this framework, our

organizations worked diligently and collectively to reach

consensus, each of us agreeing not to raise related mercury

matters which may have prevented a successful outcome.

Therefore, we hope the full House of Representatives will

acknowledge the compromises made and approve H.R. 1534

without further changes.

In closing, the undersigned organizations urge your ``YES''

vote on H.R. 1534 in the coming days.

Sincerely,

Frances G. Beinecke,

President, Natural Resources Defense Council.

Jack N. Gerard,

President & CEO, American Chemistry Council.

Kraig R. Naasz,

President & CEO, National Mining Association.

R. Steven Brown,

Executive Director, Environmental Council of States.

Arthur E. Dungan,

President, The Chlorine Institute Inc.

The bill requires DOE to designate a facility to accept mercury from private sector sources, particularly the chlor-alkali industry and the mining industry, when the export ban in the underlying bill takes effect on January 1, 2010. The bill does not require that all excess mercury be transferred to DOE; rather, it gives the private sector the option of placing mercury into storage at DOE. If there is a more practical or cost-effective private sector solution, the affected industries are more than welcome to pursue that option.

DOE will be allowed to charge a fee to recoup the government's cost of storing this waste. As CBO has shown, enactment of this bill will have no effect on the taxpayers. All applicable and appropriate environmental laws apply with respect to this facility.

The legislation will allow the chlor-alkali industry to place into safe storage the roughly 1,500 tons of mercury still to be used at aging plants. It will also allow the mining industry to store the approximately 50 to 100 tons of

mercury it generates annually as a byproduct of air filtration systems.

The process used to develop this legislation can be a model. On a bipartisan basis, we sat down together, we worked out our differences, and brought interested and affected parties to the table to hammer out a compromise.

Again, I want to thank Chairman Wynn, Chairman Dingell, Ranking Member Barton, and Mr. Shimkus for the work they have done on this legislation. I also want to thank Dick Frandsen, Caroline Ahearn, and Ann Strickland from the majority staff, as well as Dave McCarthy and Jerry Couri from the minority staff, Jim Bradley from my staff, and Mo Zilly on Mr. Shimkus' staff for their hard work as well.

Mr. Speaker, this is good legislation, and I urge all Members to support its passage.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend, Mr. Cardoza, the gentleman from California, for the time; and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, on the opening day of this Congress, the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, came to the floor and said that the new majority would, `` . . . begin to return this Chamber to its rightful place as the home of democracy and deliberation in our great Nation.'' That pledge echoed a document by Speaker Pelosi titled A New Direction For America. That document said, ``bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate.''

Now as we approach the closing hours of the 110th Congress, I think it is appropriate for us to take a look at whether the majority has actually lived up to those promises.

Let us begin with closed rules. There really can be few, if any, parliamentary procedures that are more offensive to the essential spirit of democracy, the spirit of democracy, than a closed rule. A closed rule shuts off, blocks Members from both sides of the aisle from offering any amendments to legislation that is considered on the floor. As I said, no matter what their party affiliation, if and when Congress operates under a closed rule, all Members are shut out from the legislative process on the floor.

Even though the majority promised a more open Congress, as I referred to in the beginning of my remarks, they silenced the vote of every Member and thus all of every Member's constituents a record 63 times this Congress. Sixty-three times. No other Congress in the history of the Republic has ever brought forth so many closed rules. No other Congress in the history of the Republic has brought so many pieces of legislation to the floor under that legislative framework that prohibits every Member of this House from offering amendments to the legislation.

The consistent use of closed rules by the majority constitutes an affront to the democratic spirit as well as to their own promises. But that is not the only way that they have failed to live up to their promises. They have also systematically bypassed what is known as the conference process, effectively shutting out the minority from having a say on legislation that makes its way to the President's desk.

Madam Speaker, as you know, the conference process is the process by which the House and Senate work out differences, resolve their differences and achieve a final legislative product that is exact to be passed by the House and the Senate and sent to the President.

Now the majority has also used a technique known as ``ping-pong'' to avoid that conference process. They have used that technique in order to subvert the rights of the minority to offer motions to recommit and amendments. For comparison, in the 108th Congress and 109th Congress-- those Congresses combined--that technique known as ping-ponging was used three times during the 108th Congress and 109th Congress.

But that is not all. The majority has also considered 45 bills outside the regular order. They also blocked minority substitute amendments, allowing only 10 minority substitute amendments even though they promised a procedure that, and again I remind the majority of its own words, they promised that they would ``grant the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.''

So here we are today with a rule that a distinguished senior member of the majority on the Rules Committee said, and I quote, is `` . . . outside the normal parameters of the way that the House should conduct its business . . . it effectively curtails our rights and responsibilities as serious legislators.''

Prior to becoming Speaker, Ms. Pelosi pledged, and I quote, ``to conduct our work with civility and bipartisanship and to act in partnership, not partisanship, with the President and the Republicans in Congress.''

Obviously, the record has been another story.

Now with regard to what the majority is doing today, the majority is bringing forth 44 bills for consideration under what is known as suspension of the rules. It's a process by which usually noncontroversial bills, as my friend described them, bills that generally have bipartisan support because they require two-thirds of the House in order to pass, under the rule being brought forth today, we will be authorizing under this rule 44 bills for consideration under suspension of the rules. At least they're telling us what the 44 bills are. That's why it took some time for the Clerk to read them, because there are 44 bills to read the titles. So at least I think the majority should be commended for telling us what the 44 bills are.

Now, unfortunately, we're informed that the Rules Committee is meeting at this time, as we speak, to pass a rule to authorize more suspensions, but not telling us what they are; in other words, a blanket authority. So, obviously everything has to be put in perspective.

Compared to what the Rules Committee is doing now for the rest of the session, this is a commendable rule because at least it is informing us and the American people what we will be considering. At least the titles have been brought forth. So that is something that, when we consider how the majority has acted procedurally in this Congress, we have to be grateful that we're being informed at least what bills are being authorized for consideration under the rule today.

Madam Speaker, as we look back at this 110th Congress that is nearing its end, I think it would be fair to say that when one considers the promises for openness and fairness and transparency made by the majority at the beginning of this Congress and in their campaign before this Congress began, when one compares that with their record of having broken all precedent in terms of the number, the number, having broken the record in terms of the number of pieces of legislation brought to this floor authorizing no amendments, in other words, closed rules, there is an extraordinary difference between the promise and the reality by our friends on the other side of the aisle.

I reserve the balance of my time.

No, I would inform my friend that we have no other speakers. So at this time I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1534) to prohibit the sale, distribution, or transfer of mercury, to prohibit the export of mercury, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1534, the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2007. The bill will place an export ban on elemental mercury beginning in the year 2010; prevent Federal agencies from selling, distributing or transferring elemental mercury, except for its transfer between Federal agencies to facilitate storage; and it will create a long-term storage option for private sources of elemental mercury at a facility to be designated by the Secretary of Energy. The location of the designated facility where the elemental mercury will be stored is within the sole discretion of the Secretary of Energy. The bill does not designate a facility location.

Let me begin by congratulating Mr. Allen of Maine, the sponsor of this bill, along with Mr. Shimkus, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Environmental and Hazardous Materials, for their hard work in developing this bipartisan legislation which has attained endorsement from the environmental community, the mining industry, the chemical industry, as well as the States.

Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that is harmful even at low exposure levels. It disrupts biological processes critical for brain development in developing fetuses and young children.

Mercury emissions can be transported over long distances and remain airborne for more than a year. These emissions deposit into water bodies where they are transformed into methylmercury that accumulates in fish and subsequently in humans who eat mercury-contaminated fish. Forty-eight States, including my own State of Maryland, have issued fish advisories warning residents to limit consumption of mercury- contaminated fish.

Currently, excess elemental mercury is exported from developed countries to developing countries where it is used in artisanal and small-scale gold mining, mainly in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. This rudimentary mining process releases most of the mercury into the environment, creating thousands of polluted sites and exposing miners and nearby residents to toxic fumes that can cause neurological damage. Data from the EPA and other research groups indicate that 60 to over 70 percent of all mercury deposited in the United States comes from global sources.

The United States has an excess supply of elemental mercury that will only increase in future years as the demand for mercury-containing products continues to decline. As of 2010, there are expected to be only four chlor-alkali plants using mercury cell technology in the United States. The decommissioning of these plants would result in an estimated surplus of 1,200 to 1,500 metric tons of elemental mercury.

The Department of Defense and the Department of Energy combined are storing close to 6,000 metric tons of elemental mercury and are not selling it on the open market because of the EPA's concerns about the impacts of mercury releases on human health and the environment.

This legislation is necessary because the elemental mercury that we export overseas returns to our country in the atmosphere as toxic pollution contaminating our air, soil and water and fish, demonstrating the fact that pollution knows no borders.

I urge my colleagues to support passage of this very important and bipartisan bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time it gives me great pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) who is the sponsor of this legislation and who has done a wonderful job in moving this bill forward and working on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I only want to indicate that we are sensitive to the concerns that have been raised, but I do want to clarify that the bill does not specify any particular location, and DOE certainly would be in a position to take into consideration any concerns with regard to where the mercury is ultimately stored.

But the point is we do need to make sure that we do not continue exporting this mercury which then comes back to our own shores.

I would conclude by saying that I would like to thank Mr. Allen again for his leadership and thank our committee chairman, Mr. Dingell, as well as our ranking member, Mr. Barton. I would like to thank Mr. Upton for his kind words in support of this bipartisan legislation. I would like to recognize the contribution of Mr. Shimkus in working with us and also the role of the stakeholders in bringing together a bipartisan bill that works across the spectrum, both the environmental community and the business community, to give us a bill that I think we can all be proud of.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1491 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1491.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, H. Res. 1491 authorizes the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules at any time on the legislative day of Thursday, September 25, 2008, on 44 separate measures. This rule is necessary because under clause 1(a) of rule XV, the Speaker may entertain motions to suspend the rules only on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday of each week. In order for suspensions to be considered on other days, the Rules Committee must authorize consideration of these motions.

This is not unusual. In fact, in the 109th Congress, my friends on the other side of the aisle reported at least six rules that provided for additional suspension days. This bill limits the suspension of rules only to those measures listed in the rule itself so Members on both sides of the aisle are aware of exactly what bills may be considered under this suspension of the rules.

This is standard procedure at the end of the legislative session and includes both House bills that we will send to the Senate for consideration and Senate-passed bills that are ready to become law once they pass the House.

I would remind my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that bills considered under suspension of the rules must receive strong bipartisan support in order to pass the House.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule which will simply help us move important, noncontroversial legislation before we adjourn that is important to our constituents and

that will receive overwhelmingly bipartisan support and that will hopefully become law.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Florida if he has any additional speakers. I am the last speaker on my side.

Madam Speaker, my friend from Florida has raised several issues with regard to the procedures of the House for the last 2 years. The gentleman is correct that there have been a number of closed rules this year. But I would like to just say, in response to that, that we have had to try and manage this House with a very obstinate Republican minority in the Senate.

There has been a record number of filibusters that have been put forward this year to try and stop everything that we have tried to accomplish in this body. In fact, there has been an absolute stonewalling on the number of conference committees, breaking down the bipartisan process, breaking down the comity that engages both Houses, so that we can get something done for the American people. By refusing to go to conference, this has gummed up the arteries of this body, and it, frankly, is the Republican minority in the other body that has really made this a very difficult House and institution to manage.

Madam Speaker, I would also say that the gentleman mentioned that this is--well, first of all, he acknowledged that we are telling everyone today the 44 bills that we are, in fact, bringing forward in this rule. Six times the gentleman's party, in the last Congress, did not tell us what they were bringing forward in a rule. And I can cite the dates. We have the information.

The reality is that this is not an uncommon practice at the end of the session. We would like to, as we are doing in this rule, do it every time, but sometimes it's possible at the end of the session we're simply running out of time.

So, Madam Speaker, as I said, this is a standard procedure at the end of the legislative session that will simply

help us move important, noncontroversial legislation before we adjourn that will receive overwhelming bipartisan support.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question, Madam Speaker.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for giving me a few moments to speak on this bill.

I want to congratulate the sponsor of this bill, as well as the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials on coming to agreement on this legislation. Their consensus work is the culmination of 6 weeks of talks among majority and minority Members and staff as well as affected private stakeholders. Significant improvements have been made that make this legislation workable from a realistic and practical standpoint. I support these changes and urge my colleagues to do so as well.

A hearing before the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials made clear the serious domestic health concerns that elemental mercury pollution presents when it is mishandled in other, less developed countries. Specifically, this form of mercury converts into neuro-toxic, methyl-mercury that comes back to the United States in the form of tainted fish and polluted air.

This legislation attempts to break this global transport cycle by banning the export of elemental mercury in 2010. It does not cover coal exports and is not intended to cover fly ash exports from coal combustion, or elemental mercury in manufactured consumer products.

This bill also, importantly, assures that domestic stocks of elemental mercury--which currently are a valuable commodity--have some place to safely go. Under the consensus language we are considering, the Department of Energy--which has experience storing elemental mercury--is directed to set up a domestic storage option that will open when the ban commences. Further, the legislation does not preclude private storage solutions. I am glad that this bill allows enterprising folks to facilitate good environmental policy.

In addition, I am pleased this bill recognizes that we should not punish people who do the right thing. Under the legislation we are considering today, private entities wishing to take advantage of the DOE-sponsored storage option must pay DOE for the privilege, but in return are indemnified against any environmental damage that is caused once DOE takes possession of the elemental mercury. This is common sense policy and a key feature of ensuring that the proper handling and safe long-term storage of elemental mercury occur.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Energy and Commerce Committee has produced another example of compromise, bipartisan legislation. It represents serious give and take by all parties. I hope that efforts like this will continue to be more the norm than the exception throughout this Congress.

I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 1534.