Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act of 2011

Mr. Chairman, I want to at this point yield 5 minutes to the very distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

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

I want to put this bill in the perspective of what the House has been doing on the environment. The House has voted 136 times this Congress to block action to address climate change, to halt efforts to reduce air and water pollution, to undermine protections for public lands in coastal areas, and to weaken the protections of the environment in other ways as well. This is the most anti-environment Congress in history.

Last month, the House passed radical legislation to turn back 40 years of progress towards clean air. That bill will nullify pollution control requirements on power plants--the largest source of toxic mercury pollution in the country--and weaken our national clean air goals by basing them on corporate profits, not on public health.

Today, the House continues its frontal assault on public health and the environment. The bills we will consider this week are the next phase of the Republican concerted attack on our environment. The bills would gut the Clean Air Act provisions that protect American families from toxic air pollutants. If these bills are enacted, there will be more cases of cancer, birth defects, and brain damage. The ability of our children to think and learn will be impaired because of their exposure to mercury and other dangerous air pollutants.

In 1990, the Congress, on a bipartisan basis, voted to protect the public from these toxic pollutants. The law directed EPA to set standards requiring the use of a Maximum Achievable Control Technology to control emissions of mercury, arsenic, dioxin, PCBs, and other toxic emissions. This approach has worked well. Industrial emissions of carcinogens and other highly toxic chemicals have been reduced by 1.7 million tons each year.

EPA has reduced pollution from dozens of industrial sectors. More than 100 categories of sources have been required to cut their pollution, and this has delivered major public health benefits to this Nation. But a large source of categories still have not been required to control toxic air pollution due to delays and litigation.

The bill we consider today would nullify and indefinitely delay EPA's efforts to reduce toxic emissions from cement plants. Now, the chairman of the subcommittee said this is a commonsense bill. It's only for a short delay. He said that cement plants would have up to 5 years to comply with pollution control requirements. And you might think, well, a little bit more time is not going to do that much harm. But that is not a correct statement of what this bill would do.

The bill says that EPA cannot require any pollution reduction from any cement plant for at least 5 years. So it's 5 years before they can do anything at EPA. And then there's no deadline thereafter where the facilities ever have to comply. That, to me, is not a simple, commonsense approach to a very dangerous pollution.

Later this week, we are going to have consideration of a bill to indefinitely delay pollution controls on industrial boilers and waste incinerators. Both of these bills would rewrite the standard provisions of the Clean Air Act to weaken the levels of protection and set up new hurdles for EPA rules. We're told that we need to pass these bills because the threat of EPA regulation is dragging down our economy. The reality is that requiring installation of pollution controls will create jobs.

We're going to need more factory workers. We're going to need to build the pollution controls. We're going to need construction workers to install them on-site, cement plant employees to operate them. We hear this all the time, these statements that pollution controls will cost us jobs.

But these arguments have been thoroughly debunked by independent experts. For instance, the Congressional Research Service examined one and concluded ``little credence can be placed in these estimate of job losses.'' The State and local air pollution agencies concluded that one study's assumptions are grossly in error. It's my hope that this body will not be so easily misled.

It was lack of regulation at Wall Street--on the banks and the brokers and the other people who spent their time figuring out very crafty investments for which nothing backed them up--that caused this recession, not because we had environmental regulations that protect children from toxic mercury emissions.

I oppose these bills on substance, and I also have concerns about the process. But let me go into concern about the process.

We were told this is a small issue. It depends on how you look at it. These bills are bad enough to oppose simply on the basis of what they would do. But it shows how the Republican majority in this House wants to adopt rules and regulations on themselves but then not abide by them. The House didn't change the rules, but the majority leader said we have a protocol that, whenever we have a discretionary CutGo rule in the legislative protocols for the 112th Congress, we must have funding authorized to make up for the extra requirement that's going to be required of any government agencies.

And this requires a specific amount to be offset by a reduction in an existing authorization. The majority leader announced that compliance with these protocols would be necessary before legislation could be scheduled for floor consideration.

We had a similar situation where Chairman Upton said that our committee would follow this discretionary CutGo rule. He sent me a letter, which I'll make part of the record, in June to clarify this discretionary CutGo policy will apply to pending bills before our committee. ``If CBO determines,'' he said, ``that any of these bills will have a significant impact on the Federal budget, we'll offset the newly authorized spending with reductions elsewhere.''

Well, CBO has determined that both of these bills that are on the floor this week will, in fact, authorize new discretionary spending. I read one of the quotes from a Republican staff person. We don't need to worry about it because it doesn't really authorize new spending.

CBO says it does. They determine these bills will have a significant impact on the Federal budget because of the bill's requirement the EPA spend resources on proposing and finalizing new regulations. They said it's only going to cost $2 million over a 5-year period. That's not a lot of money, but it is money, and that's why the Republicans had this protocol. They said we didn't want any money being spent without it being offset.

Now, this is not a rule. We don't have to waive this rule. But what we have is not a waiver of this rule. We have the Republicans ignoring their own protocol and their own policies.

The American people need to focus on the radical agenda of the Republicans that are controlling this House of Representatives. I don't think when the Republicans were voted into office the American people voted for poisoning more children with mercury and letting more of our seniors die prematurely because of uncontrolled pollution.

I oppose this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have in front of me the bill, and it says, whatever regulations the EPA is proposing--and it's taken them a decade to finally come up with these regulations--it'll be null and void. It will have no force of action. It will be treated as though such rule had never taken effect. And then it's going to be replaced.

Now, how is it going to be replaced? Well, it says we're not going to let them replace this rule for 5 years. Well, during this period of time, people are still being exposed to these toxic pollutants. So it says, not earlier--they'll establish compliance and they'll establish new regulations, but nobody has to do anything for 5 years.

But then it doesn't say at any time about when you have to actually come into compliance, which, of course, in existing law is set in place. That's repealed.

And then it goes on to say they're going to have to meet a different standard. The standard that's in the law is going to be replaced by some other standard that basically waters it all down.

The standard in the law, by the way, is the maximum achievable control technology. That means technology that already achieves reductions. But that will be wiped out. They'll have a new standard. It can't be pursuant to the regulation; the regulation can't come out for 5 years; we don't know when it would ever be complied with; and it would be based on a different standard.

That is not simple. That is in effect saying nothing is going to be done. We repeal what is being set in law, and then we are going to insist that nothing be done. That to me is an absurdity, and it's harmful to the public that's going to be exposed to these harmful chemicals.

I would at this time yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), who is the lead appropriator on our side of the aisle when it comes to these kinds of issues.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

I yield myself 2 minutes.

I want to acknowledge that the gentleman from Oregon is pointing out a real problem for his district, but it is a unique problem in his district because the limestone that's used in the kiln has a high content of mercury. I understand that EPA is trying to work through that issue, but I do want to point out to my colleagues that this example should not serve as the basis for this bill that's before us.

We've heard over and over again from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that 99 percent of the mercury in America comes from nature, from outside other countries that the trade winds bring here to our land. Chairman Barton even said most mercury that's emitted is emitted by natural causes. In 2000, EPA estimated that roughly 60 percent--not 99 percent as Mr. Whitfield pointed out--of the total mercury deposited in the United States comes from anthropogenic air emission sources within the United States, such as from power plants, incinerators, boilers, cement kilns, and others, and that the remaining 40 percent comes from the combination of sources of natural emissions and remission into the United States from the wind.

It hasn't changed much since the year 2000. An example is one study by the University of Michigan, which found that the majority of mercury deposited at a monitoring site in eastern Ohio came from local and regional sources. EPA estimated that 80 percent of the mercury deposited in Pines Lake, New Jersey, comes from man-made U.S. sources. There was a bit of peer-reviewed scientific study that found two-thirds to three-quarters of the annual global mercury emissions are caused by human activity. So let us not minimize the problem where those who are living near these facilities are experiencing a great deal of harm.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire if the gentleman from Kentucky has more than one speaker?

May I inquire, Mr. Chairman, which side has the prerogative to close?

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the EPA has been working on this regulation since the 1990s. Under the 1990 law, they are required to put in place a regulation to protect from these toxic pollutants.

They are required to be put into place by the year 2000. They tried, thrown it out of court, they have now tried again, and they have already proposed a rule that is now going to be repealed by this legislation. So it's taken them over a decade to finally get to this point.

It's a long, overdue rule that requires cement kilns to reduce their emissions of toxic air pollutants. EPA estimates that this rule will reduce mercury emissions from cement kilns by 16,400 pounds, or 92 percent, compared with projected levels, that is, if they are allowed to remain in effect; and they also had to do a cost-benefit analysis.

They said that this rule will yield $7 to $19 in health benefits for every dollar that's spent to meet the standards and will prevent up to 2,500 premature deaths and 17,000 asthma attacks each year. So EPA has been mindful of the costs and the benefits.

The bill before us effectively vacates the cement rules, kiln rules, nullifies these health benefits, forces EPA to start all over again. They give EPA 15 months to come up with more regulation, and then they bar EPA from enforcing any final rules for at least 5 years.

During all this time--and we have no guarantee after 5 years if anything will happen--cement kilns will avoid having to clean up their toxic air pollution, maybe indefinitely. The bill threatens EPA's ability to ever reissue limits on toxic air pollution from cement kilns.

This bill that's before us would set a new and unworkable methodology. They're not looking at the methodology that Congress provided to at least use the maximum achievable control limits. They will simply be told they have to take a subjective approach that lumps all pollutants together, and then they have to decide whether emitting more mercury but less lead is better or worse for public health than the reverse. It's an impossible choice. It's going to guarantee years of litigation.

The bill prevents EPA from setting any emission limits at all. Under this legislation, it would require EPA to select regulatory alternatives that are the least burdensome. But the ``least burdensome'' to cement kilns does not mean that we will get the option that provides the best public health benefits. In effect, the bill would exempt cement kilns from ever having to achieve meaningful reductions in toxic air pollution.

So in other words, they postpone the time for regulation, then postpone for 5 more years compliance with that regulation. They change the standard from the maximum achievable under existing technology to something else. The something else is the least burdensome to the kilns. And during all that time, we will have people exposed to these toxic pollutants.

This strikes me as not a simple, fair-minded approach. It's turning our back on the purpose of the Clean Air Act. It's turning our back on the harm that's going to be done, especially to children, from the poisoning they'll get from the mercury levels from the cement kilns.

I think this is inexcusable legislation. I think we ought to stay with the work done by the EPA, not pass a law, tell them to do the job, and then wipe out their work after 11 years and say we want another decade or more to get around to doing regulations that should have already been in place long ago.

I want you to know that many organizations oppose this regulation. You would expect all of the public health groups and the environmental groups, but even sporting organizations and outdoor groups and the people who work in the field at the State level on air pollution matters tell us: Do not support this legislation.

I urge opposition to it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, chronic exposure to carcinogens, neurotoxins, and other dangerous chemicals can take a terrible toll on people's health, particularly in communities that live in the shadows of major sources of pollution. I have next to me here a diagram, a picture of cement kilns next to an elementary school.

Everyone in this Chamber probably knows someone who's been stricken by cancer or who has a child with a learning disability or birth defect. Environmental pollution does not cause all cancers or every health problem, but numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies tell us that chemicals classified as carcinogens cause cancers, and those cancers sicken and kill real people.

Chemicals classified as neurotoxins damage the nerve system. They pose a particular threat to infants and developing brains. These effects are significant, tragic, and avoidable. That's why Republicans and Democrats together voted in 1990 to strengthen the Clean Air Act to require dozens of industry sectors to step up and install modern pollution controls on their facilities.

The American people were tired of having their communities harmed by toxic air pollution. They didn't want to live in fear that the factory down the road would give their children cancer or damage their baby's brain. We made a promise to the American people that EPA would require polluters to cut their emissions of mercury, lead, dioxins, and other air pollutants linked to serious health effects.

The Clean Air Amendments of 1990 set up an effective program to reduce toxic air pollution. It would achieve cost effective pollution reductions by simply requiring facilities to use pollution controls that others in their industry were already using.

Since 1990, EPA has set these emission standards for more than 100 different categories of industrial sources. They've reduced emissions of carcinogens and other highly toxic chemicals by 1.7 million tons each year.

But today, this Chamber is seriously proposing to just let these cement kilns pollute our communities with impunity. Cement kilns are one of the largest sources of mercury pollution. For far too long, they were allowed to pollute without installing modern technology to reduce their emissions. In August of last year, EPA finally issued standards they've been working on since the late 1990s. EPA estimated these rules will reduce mercury emissions from cement kilns by 16,400 pounds, or 92 percent, compared with projected levels. The rules would also cut emissions of hydrocarbons by 83 percent and particulate matter by 92 percent.

But the bill that's before us would nullify those rules, and they would force EPA to start all over again with another rulemaking, using new and unworkable criteria. These long overdue public health protections will be delayed, at a minimum, for 6 more years and maybe forever.

And the bill doesn't just delay. By changing the approach adopted in 1990, it threatens EPA's very ability to issue replacement standards for cement kilns that will achieve any meaningful reductions in mercury pollution.

EPA testified before our committee, and they said that this legislation would create new legal ambiguities that would tie up the new rule in litigation for years. Other clean air lawyers testified this bill would eviscerate the ability of the law to control air toxics for cement kilns.

But the Republicans have charged forward in what amounts to legislative negligence. And they say reassuring things like, this is a commonsense, minor approach delaying it for a little while. Well, we cannot afford additional delays. We cannot afford to lose these protections altogether. All across America, communities are living in the shadow of these plants. And I again refer you to this picture. These are plants next door to an elementary school, and nearby these kids and their families live. And the closer you live, the more exposed you are. All of these people who live near these facilities are running a very high risk for dreaded diseases.

Mercury is a potent neurotoxin. Reams of scientific studies 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. Children will never reach their full potential.

That is why I ask that we support this amendment that says, in effect, let's not wait any longer when it comes to something that deals with poisoning our kids from mercury.

Mr. Chairman, I do want to respond to the gentleman who just spoke about how they're going to shut down these plants. Why do they have to shut down the plants? If they have to put in a control technology that's already being used somewhere else in the country to reduce that mercury pollution, that other cancer-causing pollution, they put the equipment in. They pay for it.

Now, cement kilns are having financial problems, not because of these regulations, but because of the low demand for cement. The industry admits this on their Web site, and they have a problem. But we are telling them that when the economy starts picking up, they'll get a greater demand. But we also want to make sure that they put in the control technology. They don't have to close just simply to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, colleague, and fellow Floridian for yielding the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in opposition to the rule for H.R. 2250. In my considered opinion, both these bills are yet another effort by the Republican leadership to demonize the Environmental Protection Agency while doing nothing to create jobs for the millions of Americans who are unemployed.

My colleague Mr. Nugent, my friend, cited the letter, the authors of same being Walter Minnick, Robert Aderholt, G.K. Butterfield, and John Shimkus. I signed that letter. I was not the author of same. I do not deny any of its particulars, specifically the fact that there should be flexible approaches to address the diversity of boiler operation, sectors and fuels that could prevent severe job loss.

I would remind my friend that the measure that we were speaking of is under a stay and, therefore, the implementation of the provision will continue, I believe, to allow for the needed flexibility.

And I think you referred, and I refer again, to the portion of the joint bipartisan letter:

``As EPA turns to developing a final Boiler MACT rule''--mind you, they had not, and this was as of August of last year--``we hope you will carefully consider sustainable approaches that protect the environment and public health while fostering economic recovery and jobs within the bounds of the law.''

That is precisely what I signed on to and stand by, and I don't believe that it is inconsistent with anything that my friend pointed out nor did he suggest that it would be inconsistent.

But I did also hear my friend talk about Washington doublespeak, and I distinctly heard him refer to what has now kind of perpetuated itself inside this beltway, and that is the statement that was made earlier by the distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives that ``at this moment the executive branch has 219 rules in the works that will cost our economy at least $100 million. That means under the current Washington agenda, our economy is poised to take a hit from government of at least $100 million.''

I would ask my colleague to not follow on that pattern; otherwise, you get caught in the Washington Beltway doublespeak. The better proof allows an analysis that was done by The Washington Post, and I'm not a follower necessarily of The Washington Post Fact Checker, but so far I've not heard anyone reference them.

They do give people Pinocchios for when something is not the truth. It's either one Pinocchio, two or three. As it turns out, what the Washington Post said following the Speaker's comments that you have used here today, my dear friend, is that Mr. Boehner left the distinct impression that 219 new regulations were hanging like a sword of Damocles over the U.S. economy; but it turns out the number of potential regulations is inflated as well as the potential impact. Overall, his statement contains significant factual errors, and they give it three Pinocchios. I would urge that you not try to earn these Pinocchios that they're talking about, and let's try to get the facts straight.

Just last week, we were having this very same discussion about a bill that made it easier for power plants to emit

harmful mercury and other toxic pollutants into the air. Today, we're talking about letting industrial boilers and cement kilns do the same thing. Last week, I asked, Why is it that certain ones can follow the standards and that others can't? I still am puzzled by that. I also asked last night how it is if we don't know what the rules are going to look like that we would be smiting down, if there is such a word, the rule.

Mr. Speaker, we are judged by what we do and not by what we say. What my friends on the other side of the aisle continue to do is to call up bills that are shortsighted and undermine our ability to maintain the public health and cleanliness of our air and water. Bills like these that destroy regulations protecting the air we breathe and the water we drink have the same consequences regardless of intent. Republicans cannot close their eyes to these effects and plead good intentions.

I assure you these effects are severe. Mercury is a powerful neurotoxin that does, in fact, hinder brain development in infants and children. Other toxic metals getting a pass under these bills are arsenic, chromium and lead, which are known to cause cancer and birth defects.

Despite these facts, my friends on the other side cling to their anti-regulatory dogma with fanatical fervor. I had a friend last night say to me that some people have a conscience and brain and that others just think about dollar signs. I feel that my colleagues who have brains--I believe they have consciences--seem to place the dollar signs ahead of many of the practical matters that would benefit society.

This anti-government rhetoric has gone so far as to lead my colleagues on the other side astray of the protocols laid out by Majority Leader Cantor. In the third protocol laid out in his Legislative Protocols for the 112th Congress, Leader Cantor writes:

``Any bill or joint resolution authorizing discretionary appropriations shall specify the actual amount of funds being authorized. Authorizations shall not utilize terms such as `such sums as may be necessary' or similar language that fails to specify the actual amount of funding being authorized.''

Yet neither of these bills specifies how much money is authorized for the implementation of the bill, leaving the cost a mystery. Furthermore, ambiguous language in these bills will create legal uncertainty and ensure litigation. Since these bills don't specify how much they cost, neither bill contains an offset for the cost. These bills also defy Leader Cantor's fourth protocol that we know around here as CutGo. There will be a real cost for the EPA to take on another lengthy rule creation process, but my friends on the other side have chosen to ignore this contradiction.

Mr. Speaker, these bills are not just bureaucratic infighting. They will have real and measurable effects. According to EPA's analysis, H.R. 2250 would result in a significant number of premature deaths, in a significant number of additional heart attacks, and in considerable numbers--more than 100,000--of additional asthma attacks that otherwise could have been avoided.

Likewise, H.R. 2681 would cause tens of thousands of adverse health effects, including the premature deaths that are suspected and the heart attacks and additional asthma attacks that otherwise could have been avoided.

The reason I didn't use EPA's numbers is I don't think EPA or anybody else has the prerogative to make a decision about how many people are going to die at a certain time. That said, it does not mean, however, that one person is not going to die, and it does not mean that one person is not going to have asthma. My position is one death that could be avoided is too many, and one asthma attack, if you've been around children who have them, is too many if they could be avoided.

In light of these estimates, these bills appear to be nothing more than another attempt to purge any government intervention related to keeping our air clean and environment safe.

Consider that these regulations the Republicans say are destroying jobs have not even gone into effect. The Boiler MACT rules dealing with industrial boilers, as I, along with my colleagues, wrote to EPA, are currently in an administrative state while the EPA reviews industry- provided data. That's why we sent the letter during that period of time--to ask them to please consider the diversity, as I continue to do, of boilermakers in this country.

We don't even know what those rules are going to look like; yet the Republican gut reaction is to oppose them. Or consider that the cement rules have been finalized for a year already. Most cement plants are already in compliance, and those plants that aren't are working with the EPA to get in compliance.

Mr. Speaker, based on what I've seen by the Republican-led Congress, it is clear to me that they have no intention of using their power to create jobs. I heard my colleague, my friend, say that the President's administration is not about the business with the so-called, he said, American Jobs Act. I don't know whether it would create a single job or not. We wouldn't know it until it passed, and it isn't going to be passed here in the House of Representatives because the agenda that you've laid out is an agenda that's going to attack the EPA as if they are some horror show here in this country and not an agenda, as you heard in the one minutes this morning and as you've heard from the Democratic leadership repeatedly, to bring up the Jobs Act, to put it on the floor, to let it be debated under an open rule, and to do what's necessary for us to create jobs.

The history of the Clean Air Act shows that its benefits--longer lives, healthier kids, greater workforce productivity, and ecosystem protections--outweigh the costs by more than 30 to 1. I continue to remind my friends that the Clean Air Act was implemented under the Richard Nixon administration, and it has been in existence for 40 years. This country has experienced ups and downs during that period of time insofar as its economy is concerned, and said regulations haven't caused all of the economy to collapse.

Otherwise, during the period when Speaker Gingrich and President Clinton and those of us who were here balanced the budget, we wouldn't have been able to do it if the Clean Air Act were all that bad as you all are pointing out in your continuous attack against the EPA. In the time since the act was passed, air pollution has been reduced by more than 60 percent while the gross domestic product of the United States grew by more than 200 percent.

Furthermore, an EPA economic analysis found no indication that any cement plant would close due to the cement rules. At most, the analysis at this point indicated that 10 underutilized plants would go idle temporarily while waiting for economic conditions to improve.

However, if we can get the economy back on track and restore the demand for cement, then those plants will not have to go idle. We need to focus on creating customers and restoring demand. I heard that from my colleague saying that's what he hears from businesspersons, I hear that same thing, that they need demand and that they need customers. We need to make it easier for them to do that and not easier for the suppliers to pollute.

You know what's a great way to create more demand for concrete? Invest in infrastructure projects that use concrete for roads and bridges, the very same proposals called for in the President's Jobs Act.

If Republicans are so concerned with the concrete plants shutting down, you should work toward helping these businesses sell more concrete. Making it easier for them to pollute does not provide underutilized plants with new customers.

In the midst of an economy still suffering the effects of the greatest recession in a generation, the only answer my friends on the other side seem to have is to dismantle any government regulation intended to protect our Nation's public health and environment. This, Mr. Speaker, is economic extremism.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I guess it's my prerogative to assist in correcting a couple of measures. I kind of wish my good friend--and he is and he's going to be a real asset to our institution as an institutionalist, and I'm referring to my friend, Mr. Woodall from Georgia. He and I enjoy quite a tete-a-tete in the Rules Committee. It's just that when he puts forward his proposition, I wish he had that same fervor with all of the closed rules we have had in the House up to this time. One-half of all of the rules we've promulgated until today have been under closed rules. This one is a modified open rule. And, yes, you're correct, Members can come down and they can go forward if yesterday they knew today that they had to meet by the close of business the amendment process.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

Absolutely.

Reclaiming my time, I can't agree that this one is done right, but it's a modified open rule. It's not an open rule, and you know that as well as do I.

But more important, I want to refer to my good friend from Florida as well when he said that CutGo is not applicable in this particular situation. I disagree. And I think what needs to be understood by my colleague, Mr. Nugent, is we don't make these rules here in the House. The protocols have been established early on, and we don't say what CBO needs to do. I think all of us are in agreement that CBO is a nonpartisan requirement, a group that estimates for us what would be the net cost of legislation.

In this particular measure that we are considering, H.R. 2681, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 2681 would have a net cost of a million dollars over the next 5 years. The cost of this legislation falls within budget function 300, natural resources and environment.

Now then, I repeat the protocols enunciated and promulgated by the majority leader, Mr. Cantor: any bill or joint resolution which authorizes the appropriation of funds for any new agency, office, program activity, or benefit shall also include language offsetting the full value of such authorization through a reduction in the authorization of current ongoing spending.

Now, that just is not happening here. And CutGo, although applicable, is being waived, I guess.

At this time, I'm very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon, my good friend and classmate, Mr. Blumenauer.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I would just remind my friend that when plants like he referenced are closed, it doesn't mean that the demand is not still there. And what happens is it means that new plants are being built. And guess what happens when you build new plants? You use steel, you use cement, and you have jobs. So I'm not certain that analogy that he put forward holds in that case.

I would tell my friend from Florida to know that I have no further speakers at this time and I am prepared to close.

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

Mr. Nugent and I are from Florida. The largest supplier of energy-- electricity, specifically--in Florida is a company known to him and me as Florida Power and Light. Mr. Nugent probably does not remember that I ran for the Public Service Commission in the State of Florida to deal with regulatory matters and to address the ongoing concerns. And much of what we talked about at that time, in addition to two lawsuits that I had filed in my community, was about coal-fired electric generating plants.

Florida Power and Light, being an extremely responsible energy producer, has taken upon itself to eliminate much of their coal-fired activity. And in spite of all these regulations and their alleged uncertainty and everything having to do with it, they now are using gas-fired facilities and working on trying to reduce emissions, period, and have no problems. The largest electricity producer in this country is Exelon, which has no power. They come from Mr. Shimkus', the gentleman that just spoke, territory in Illinois. That's where they're based, and they have no concerns with complying with these regulatory matters.

Now, one thing I heard about cement being imported, the reason for that is the low demand. And if my Governor and some of these other Governors would get off the dime and go about the business, and if this Congress was to go about the business of implementing the infrastructure provisions that are offered in the Jobs Act of the President, then we would use more cement, and we wouldn't have to get any from anywhere as we have not in the past when the economy has that kind of demand.

For people who believe in the Republican anti-government, ``the EPA is the evildoer of the world'' doctrine found in many of these bills-- and I might add we will see more of this according to the majority leader--we are going to demonize EPA, those 17,000 employees. I found it ironic that someone commented a minute ago that they have enough staff in order to be able to do it, while at the same time every time we look to cut some agency, we are cutting EPA, and many people in the Republican Party have used as their mantra the elimination of the EPA.

So I don't know that they could offer any kind of regulation on the Clean Air Act or anything else. But I offer to them these suggestions: If you don't like regulation, don't drive on roads; don't fly; don't go to national parks; don't worry about listeria in cantaloupe and lettuce; don't worry about mercury, chrome, cadmium, and other toxins that pollute the air and cause our children to have asthma. Just don't do that. Don't have any regulations. Just go about your business. And we would then find ourselves in mass confusion with people with premature deaths that are unnecessary.

We can do this. We can have a conscience and a brain and we can make money in this country. We've done it in the past; we will do it in the future.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and on the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

This week is Dirty Air Week in the House of Representatives. Yesterday, in the Energy and Commerce Committee, we considered legislation that will increase emissions of mercury and other dangerous chemicals from industrial sources. Today the full House considers legislation to cut the heart out of the Clean Air Act.

Mr. Speaker, this is the most anti-environmental House of Representatives in history. Since February of this year, the House has voted again and again to block action to address climate change, to halt efforts to reduce air and water pollution, to undermine protections for public lands in coastal areas, and to weaken the protection of the environment in other ways.

My staff prepared a database last month on every anti-environmental vote in this Congress. The tally was 125--125 votes to weaken clean air, clean water, safeguards to make our drinking water less safe, to weaken environmental standards in dozens of different ways. This is an appalling and dangerous environmental record. The full database is online at democrats.energycommerce.house.gov.

Today the assault continues on the Clean Air Act. The bill we consider today, the TRAIN Act, will block and indefinitely delay two EPA rules that reduce pollution from power plants: the Mercury and Air Toxics Rule and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. These rules are critical to protecting the public health. Each year these rules will prevent tens of thousands of premature deaths, tens of thousands of heart attacks, and hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks. They will also prevent over 2 million lost workdays. If this legislation is enacted, these public health benefits will be lost, and more babies will be born with birth defects and learning disabilities.

And this is not all. Today we will consider amendments offered by Chairman Whitfield and Representative Latta that will make this bill even worse. The Whitfield amendment will eviscerate the law's ability to require power plants to install modern pollution controls.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told us this morning that if the Whitfield amendment is enacted, EPA will never be able to issue a rule to prevent emissions from power plants in one State from polluting the air in a downwind State. She also said that the amendment could destroy the agency's ability to ever reduce toxic mercury emissions from power plants.

The Latta amendment is even worse. It will reverse 40 years of clean air policy, repealing the health-based standards that are at the heart of the Clean Air Act. The Latta amendment would allow our national goals for clean air to be determined by corporate profits, not public health.

These radical amendments were never examined in hearings or debated in the Energy and Commerce Committee or in any other committee. Members are being asked to vote on major changes to the Clean Air Act without any idea of their terrible impact on air quality and public health.

My Republican colleagues will argue that we need to gut the Clean Air Act because it is a job-killing law. That is categorically false. The last 40 years proved we could have both economic growth and a clean environment. We do not have to choose between jobs and toxic mercury emissions that endanger our children's health and poison our lakes.

The rules that are being overturned are job creators. If these rules are allowed to go forward, the utilities that operate our oldest and dirtiest power plants will have to install new pollution controls. This will create 1.5 million jobs by 2015. This bill puts these jobs on the chopping block.

I urge all Members to oppose this legislation and protect the Clean Air Act.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased at this time to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Energy Subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased and honored to yield 5 minutes to one of the strongest environmental champions in the House of Representatives, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my fellow Californian, an important member of the Health Subcommittee, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Chairman, before I yield, I want to indicate that Mr. Whitfield just argued that this bill will not harm public health because although it blocks two critical rules to clean up old power plants, it doesn't repeal the Clean Air Interstate Rule, or the CAIR rule. Well, leaving an inadequate rule in place does not achieve the health benefits lost by blocking the Mercury Air Toxics Rule and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. The CAIR rule was blocked by the courts. They found it didn't comply with the Clean Air Act because it did not effectively address pollution that crosses State lines. That means that States suffering from up-wind pollution have to look for additional, more costly, pollution reductions from smaller local sources; and it does not require power plants to clean up mercury and other toxic air pollution. His statement was absolutely incorrect.

At this time I want to yield 3 minutes to a very important member of our committee, Ms. Schakowsky from the State of Illinois.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady from the State of Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Mr. Chairman, my colleague, Mr. Whitfield, just said that the EPA found that the mercury reduction benefits were so insignificant by EPA. Well, what they found was they couldn't put a pricetag on the avoided birth defects and brain damage to babies. If that's insignificant, I just think people ought to put this whole effort to deregulate the efforts to protect the environment in perspective. I think the Republicans think it's insignificant because we can't put a dollar figure on birth defects and brain damage to an infant--and so many Republicans call themselves pro-life.

I want to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee who has fought so hard to protect environmental regulations, especially those that protect the public health, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Chairman, I want to set the record straight because I think we're getting a lot of false information. We are told that this bill doesn't weaken any existing law. That's not correct. The Cross- State Rule has already been finalized, which means if you are living in an area where pollution's coming from another State, and there's nothing you can do about it, the State that's causing the pollution has to reduce that pollution in order not to affect you. And that's going to be repealed by this legislation that's before us.

We're told all that's going to happen is we're going to delay some of these rules. Well, yes. We're going to delay the rules. And then Mr. Whitfield is going to offer an amendment to make sure that EPA can never adopt any of those rules.

And the thing that just galls me is the statement that the benefits from reducing mercury are insignificant. Well, EPA was unable to quantify or monetize all the health and environmental benefits associated with the proposed toxic rule, but EPA believes these unquantified benefits are substantial. We are talking about impaired cognitive development, problems with language, abnormal and social development, potential for fatal and nonfatal heart attacks, association with genetic defects, possible auto-immunity effects in antibodies. This is not insignificant. And I think that it's not accurate to tell us that this bill simply provides some transparency. I think the authors of the bill ought to provide us a little bit more transparency.

I at this point want to yield 6 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, the Republican spinmeisters like to come up with slogans. So they've come up with the slogan ``job-killing regulation.'' Well, let me tell you what we're talking about: children- killing pollution.

And I just think that when we hear the statements that they're not going to weaken or delay any rules that protect public health and the environment, we shouldn't take their word for it.

I have a letter here from the National Association of Clean Air Agencies. They represent the State and local air pollution control people who are on the ground every day working to improve the Nation's air quality. What they say is that if this bill is adopted it ``will create regulatory delays that could lead to thousands of premature deaths, remove important regulatory tools upon which States and localities depend, impose additional costs on government as well as small businesses, create regulatory uncertainty, cause job losses, and defund an important and cost-effective air pollution control program.''

Mr. Chairman, at this time I want to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

I want to correct some of the statements that have been made. The gentleman from Oklahoma talked about the clean air in his area. That's fine. They have attained the standards for protecting public health. But there are a lot of other areas where they don't have that attainment of health-based standards.

Market forces alone will not correct problems that hurt our public health and the environment. Why should any business spend money to install pollution control devices if they don't think their competitors are going to do the same thing? So government must establish some standards so that everybody knows what the rules are going to be and the investments will be made.

Approximately two-thirds of the coal-burning power plants in this country have the up-to-date controls in those power plants. What we're talking about for the most part are those third we were told were going to be retired. But they're not being retired. They're still being used, and they're still polluting. And those power plants ought to come up to compliance with the reductions in their emissions.

One of the other speakers on the other side of the aisle said we don't have a real economic analysis of all of these regulations. That's not true. There are thousands of pages of economic analysis before these regulations have been promoted.

Another person on the other side said a lot of these rules are so onerous that they should be blocked because we're going to be threatening the reliability of the Nation's electric grid by causing these old, inefficient power plants to put modern pollution controls on them. Well, that's not the testimony that we received on September 14, 2011, in the Energy and Commerce Committee where Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Jon Wellinghoff took a different position, as did FERC

Commissioner John Norris, and former DOE Assistant Secretary for Policy Susan Tierney. A stack of independent analyses confirmed that these protections that will require controls on these power plants will not threaten the reliability of our grid.

And over and over again we've heard unless we adopt this TRAIN Act, we are going to lose jobs. Well, the TRAIN Act blocks and indefinitely delays two of the most important clean air regulations of the past few decades: the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, which are, again, directed at those power plants that emit toxic air pollutants, including mercury and carcinogens; and then the other rule is the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule to reduce power plant emissions that cause pollution problems in downwind States.

I don't believe they're telling us the facts when they say we're going to lose jobs. The truth of the matter is, according to the Economic Policy Institute, they reported in June that the Air Toxics rule would have a positive net impact on overall employment, creating up to 158,000 jobs between now and 2015.

The Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts released a report showing that the utility investments driven by the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and the Air Toxics rule would create nearly 1.5 million jobs by 2015.

Moving toward a cleaner, more efficient power sector will create capital investments such as installing pollution controls and constructing new capacity. These new investments create a wide array of skilled, high-paying jobs.

And I must say to my Republican friends, if we want to create jobs, let's pass the President's jobs bill. I'd like the Republicans not to block every effort by this administration to create new jobs in this country.

There are numerous groups that are on record in opposition to the TRAIN Act. Obviously, the public health groups are opposing the bill: the American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, the American Thoracic Society, and the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America. The American Public Health Association called this ill- conceived legislation that would prevent EPA from protecting the public's health from dangerous and deadly air pollution. The National Association of Clean Air Agencies, the ones that are doing the job of protecting our environment, groups that represent millions of Americans, particularly all of the environmental groups, oppose this.

Scientists have told us--and I know a lot of Republicans deny science--but scientists, I think, are to be respected. And they say sacrificing tens of thousands of Americans' lives will not create more jobs. Poisoning the air our children and our families breathe will not stimulate the economy.

Three hundred sportsmen organizations representing our Nation's hunters, anglers, and the businesses that depend on our wildlife and natural resources support EPA efforts to cut mercury pollution and strongly oppose any efforts to weaken the Clean Air Act.

The Evangelical Environmental Network opposes these efforts to block the Mercury and Air Toxics rule because they point out that in the developing brains of fetuses and children, this will cause learning disabilities and neurological problems, and is not something that people who claim to be pro-life ought to support.

The Obama administration opposes this TRAIN Act. They threaten to veto this legislation if it reaches the President's desk. Americans don't support weakening the Clean Air Act or blocking EPA's efforts to reduce dangerous air pollution from power plants.

I think, my colleagues, that this TRAIN Act and some of the amendments that are going to be added to it are reason enough to oppose this legislation, and I urge opposition to it.

I am going to reserve the balance of my time if the gentleman, the chairman of the subcommittee, is not ready to close on the legislation.

The EPA did an economic analysis looking at the cost and benefits. And on the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, they said that the costs would be less than a billion, but the benefits would be up to $280 billion per year, 150 to 350 times its cost.

I want the chairman of the subcommittee to answer a question when he closes. I believe the Republicans have misrepresented this bill during the debate, but false information was put on their Web site tonight. They claimed hundreds of groups support the TRAIN Act, and immediately two groups came forward, and maybe others will as well, saying that they would never support the TRAIN Act--Clean Water Action Committee and the Clean Air Watch.

I'd like to know if the information that is on the Web site is being checked for accuracy, because I know that a lot of things that have been said in this debate from the other side of the aisle have not been accurate.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2401.

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

The last time the Clean Air Act was significantly changed was in 1990, nearly 21 years ago, and since that time, a lot of changes have occurred in America. First of all, we find ourselves today with a situation where over 14 million Americans are unable to find work and millions more have given up trying. It appears that the only place where the job situation is good is at Federal regulatory agencies. Employment at Federal regulatory agencies has climbed 13 percent since President Obama took office, while private sector jobs shrank by 5.6 percent. I believe these two divergent trends are related because the breaking pace at which the Environmental Protection Agency is cranking out new regulations is creating obstacles to job creation in America, and also to stimulating the economy.

I don't care if you speak to small business people today or large business people today, they will tell you that one of the reasons that they are not investing is because of uncertainty--uncertainty about the health care bill that was passed last year, uncertainty about the financial regulations that are raising capital requirements and making loans more difficult to obtain, but primarily they talk about the excessive regulations coming out of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Now, these regulations normally are not scrutinized very much, but I believe that the legislative branch has the responsibility, particularly when this many regulations are coming down the road, at a time when it's having impact on our ability to grow the economy, that the legislative branch needs to look at it, and that's precisely what we're doing with the TRAIN Act.

Under the TRAIN Act, we are establishing a government body that will look at the cumulative impact of about 12 regulations that have come down from the EPA in the last year or so. For example, there are a number of costly new rules impacting coal-fired electric power plants. These include utility MACT, Cross-State Air Pollution Rules, greenhouse gas rules, coal combustion residuals, and others.

Each of these rules, alone, will force some existing power plants to shut down, while also blocking new ones from being built. This is bad enough, not just for jobs, but also because it will raise electricity prices. But the combined effect of all these rules is far worse. In fact, it could even reduce generating capacity enough that it would jeopardize the reliability of the Nation's electric grid system. And we need to know all of the information that we can obtain about these regulations so that we can move forward in a legitimate and conscientious way.

If America is going to remain competitive in the global marketplace, it is going to have to have reasonable electricity prices, and that's going to be essential if we're ever going to stimulate this economy and create jobs in America.

The cumulative burden of regulations really has not been much of a burden in the past because it's seldom that EPA has ever come forth with this many regulations. But the Obama administration's attempt to squeeze at least a decade's worth of major Clean Air Act regulations into less than 3 years, and do so in the midst of a weak economy, creates serious problems for America.

The TRAIN Act, which really is very simple, will require an analysis of the cumulative impacts of the listed rules on energy prices and reliability, on jobs, and the effect on American competitiveness.

Two upcoming rules that pose a particularly serious threat and are a major component of EPA's agenda are the utility MACT and the Cross- State Air Pollution Rule. For these two rules, we will be offering an amendment that would put them on hold, pending completion of the cumulative impact study, as well as make substantive changes to make sure that they are achievable in real life.

I might point out that the utility MACT is not in effect yet. The final rule is expected in November of this year. But the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule is in effect, and they'll start implementing it the first of the year.

We're going to ask that that implementation be delayed until the final rule of our committee that's established under the TRAIN Act makes its final report on August 1, 2012.

Some people are saying, well, if you delay this, then what are we going to do about our air transport rule? Well, the reality is that we have an air transport rule in effect today. I might add that EPA, when they implemented this bill, the CAIR Act, which was invalidated by a Federal court, showed that the SO2 emissions, the NOX emissions would be reduced significantly. And just about every environmental group in America supported the implementation of

I might just say first of all that I would tell Mrs. Jackson that we are not preventing her from implementing new air transport rules. We're going to keep in place what we have today that EPA said was a splendid program and even defended it in the court system. If my amendment is adopted, 3 years after the final report is made, they're totally free to go in and implement a new rule.

At this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the vice chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson), who is a cosponsor of this legislation.

I might say to the gentleman from Massachusetts, there is nothing in the TRAIN Act that would delay for 1 day the greenhouse gas regulations that EPA adopted last January. There is nothing in this bill relating to the Cement MACT as well.

At this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith).

I might say to the gentlelady from California, the air transport rule we have in effect today, when it was implemented, EPA said it would reduce SOX and NOX by 73 and 57 percent by the year 2015. So it's not like we don't have something already in place.

At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Member from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

I certainly have great respect for the gentlelady from Colorado, whom I've had the opportunity to work with on a lot of issues, but I would say to her and to others the only regulation that we're delaying relating to mercury is the Utility MACT. And I might say that EPA said that the health benefits from the reduction of mercury because of the Utility MACT was so insignificant that they did not even include it as a benefit.

At this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

I would say to my friend from Virginia that EPA is not always as transparent as they may seem. When they issued the greenhouse gas regulation in January of this year, they did not give the public any information about cost or benefits, and the reason they didn't is they didn't conduct one.

At this time, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished former chairman and chairman emeritus of the Energy and Commerce Committee, a real leader in our committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman another minute.

I might say to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon that it is correct that the court invalidated the current Air Transport Rule that we have in effect in America today, but I would also like to read from that decision because one of the reasons they invalidated this law was because EPA was looking at a regional basis rather than within individual States.

The court said: ``It is possible that CAIR would achieve air transport goals. EPA's modeling shows that sources contributing to North Carolina's non-containment areas will reduce their emissions even after opting into CAIR's trading programs.''

My point in saying that is this still is a particularly effective Air Transport Rule.

At this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).

May I ask how much time we have remaining?

At this time, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Harper), who is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

(Mr. HARPER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold).

(Mr. FARENTHOLD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 4 minutes to the gentlelady from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).

May I inquire how much time is remaining, Mr. Chairman?

At this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).

I was prepared to close, but we do have one other speaker, and then I will close. He just came in, and we were not totally aware.

At this time, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), who is a valuable member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and a chairman of one of our subcommittees.

(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I want to thank the gentleman for the debate today. I was not aware that we had sent out a letter of supporters of this legislation, and evidently in that letter there was a letter in opposition that should not have been in there. If that created any hardship for anyone or problems, we certainly do apologize for that.

We should remind ourselves that by every public health measure, from infant mortality to life expectancy, we are healthier today and are exposed to fewer hazards than ever before. Our present day air is much cleaner now than years ago thanks to EPA, and our air quality is among the best in the world. And we recognize the importance of EPA. However, when EPA becomes so aggressive, as this EPA has become, and in a very short period of time they've come forward with 14 regulations--and we know that when you look at cost-benefit analyses, different entities come up with different figures on the cost and the benefits.

We, for example, have come up with an analysis on the Utility MACT and the air transport rule alone saying that the annualized cost of that will be $17 billion, that industry will have to spend that kind of money to get new equipment, that the total cost between 2011 and 2030 would be $184 billion. But one of the figures that really scares you in this is that they say there will be a net loss of 1.4 million jobs. Now, we know that some jobs will be created in trying to build this equipment that these regulations are going to require, but most of the analyses that we've seen indicate that there is going to be more of a job loss.

All the TRAIN Act is doing is saying let's have an independent government agency, including EPA, do an analysis of cost/benefit of all of these rules. We would also like them to look at what impact does it have on America's ability to be competitive in the global marketplace. We'd also like for them to look at what will be the job loss, net job loss. We would also like for them to look on what impact it's going to have on electricity prices as well as the reliability of electricity.

And on 12 of those regulations, we do not stop them in any way; but on two of them, the ones that are most costly--Utility MACT, and what I refer to as the ``air transport rule''--we do, in this legislation, delay the effective date of those, the implementation of those until 6 months after the report is due that this legislation requires.

Now, in my view, that's not being unreasonable. Some people think it is because it is the first time that Congress has ever come to the floor to question some of the EPA regulations, and I really think that that's our responsibility. They issue the regulations; but if they reach a point where we think they're being unreasonable, then we have an obligation to come and let's examine these, let's look at them before we move totally forward with it.

Now, Lisa Jackson, when she has come before us and testified, she has always made the comment that ``I'm creating jobs with these new regulations.'' And as I said earlier, she does create new jobs, but the net effect is there is a loss of jobs. Now, some of these rules may be great in areas like California and New York and the Northeast and elsewhere; but in the areas of the country where coal--and, by the way, coal still provides 50 percent of all the electricity in America. Our electricity demand is going to increase significantly in the next 30 years, so we're going to have to rely on coal. But a lot of these regulations are going to put coal miners out of business because they're going to close some of these coal mines. It's going to put some coal-fired utilities out of business because they're going to close these utility plants because the cost is not going to be worth what they have to do to meet these air quality regulations.

Now, on the air quality regulations, the question becomes, if you're 98 percent pure already, is it worth this much money to go 2 percent more? So that's the question we come down to, and that's why we ask for this analysis; and I would urge everyone to support this TRAIN Act legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 419 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

I rise today in support of House Resolution 419. The rule provides for consideration of two separate but related bills: H.R. 2250, the EPA Regulatory Relief Act of 2011; and H.R. 2681, the Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act of 2011.

I'm proud to sponsor this rule, which provides for a modified open amendment process with a preprinting requirement. This modified open rule means that any Member, Republican or Democrat, with any germane amendment that complies with the other rules of the House will have the opportunity to debate that issue. It's another example of the Republican majority's continued commitment to openness and transparency.

Mr. Speaker, since coming to this body back in January, my priority has been to create an environment where American workers can prosper. In my home district, unemployment hovers around 13 percent. I don't doubt this sad statistic is part of the reason why Vice President Biden is in my district today, talking up the President's so-called American Jobs Act. Unfortunately for thousands of people looking for work in Florida's Fifth Congressional District, they can't afford for the President and Vice President to just keep talking about it. They need action, not promises. They need to actually break down the barriers that are preventing job creators and employers from creating new jobs.

Every week when I go home, I meet with small business owners to get their input on what they need to start hiring again. They always tell me the same three things: We need demand from customers; loans aren't as easy to come by as they were prior to the recession; and they have no idea what to expect from Washington, as it relates to regulation and taxes. Washington can't directly control the first two things but can absolutely take care of the third.

When we had a balanced budget amendment rally in Dade City, one of the small business owners stood up and said, what we need is certainty from the Federal Government. We need certainty what our taxes are going to be and what regulations are going to be. He talked about the fact that regulations change on a moment's notice based upon whims of the government. He used to plan 3 to 5 years out in regards to what their business plan was going to do, what their hiring process was going to be. Today, they're lucky if they can plan 90 days based upon the uncertainty. And so long as two-thirds of Americans in this country think that we're on the wrong track, they're going to stay hunkered down, waiting for signs that things are improving.

The American people need to believe that we're putting this economy back on track, back towards growth and prosperity, and you do that through leadership. There are currently 219 regulations under consideration. Each of those regulations separately will cost us $100 million. That's $21.9 billion in increased regulations on businesses today that are already crushed because they can't compete. What's more, there are 4,226 new regulations in the hopper. With that many regulations costing that much money hanging over their heads, how on Earth can we expect small businesses to actually create jobs?

Today in the House, we have the ability to address some of these executive rules, all promulgated by the EPA. Those rules, collectively known as Boiler MACT and Cement MACT, put thousands of jobs in my district in jeopardy. For the life of me, I can't understand how the Vice President can stand up in front of the citizens of Land O' Lakes, Florida, talking about job creation with a straight face when the Obama administration is actively pursuing regulations like Boiler MACT and Cement MACT.

In my district alone, the Cement MACT rule could cost up to 200 cement manufacturing jobs, not adding into the total of jobs that are going to be lost on the associated industries that move it, sell it, and use it. Additionally, numerous groups and industries have made it clear that Boiler MACT regulations will cost them hundreds of millions of dollars and will put many of their employees in the unemployment line. And yet our President ignores these regulations and keeps talking about doubling down with a second stimulus, following the failed first stimulus package. Well, here we are today, doing something to actually save jobs, not just talking about it.

One of the very first actions I took as a Member of Congress was to invite the EPA to come to my office and explain to me their finalized rules in respect to the Portland cement manufacturing that goes on in my district. They said to me, We understand it's not without challenge to the industry. I may not have been here long, but I know Washington doublespeak when I hear, Well, it's not without additional challenges to that industry.

It's not just the Cement MACT rule that's ``not without challenge,'' Mr. Speaker. My colleague, Mr. Hastings, wrote a letter to the EPA about 2 months ago, and I commend him for this letter. In it, he says, ``The Boiler MACT rule alone could impose tens of billions of dollars in capital costs at thousands of facilities across the country.'' My colleague from Florida asked the EPA to consider a more flexible approach that ``could prevent severe job losses and billions of dollars in unnecessary regulatory costs.''

In Florida alone, Boiler MACT will affect at least 43 boilers, requiring $530 million in retrofits. I just heard from the Florida sugar industry, who estimates Boiler MACT for their compliance alone will cost $350 million and cost untold jobs. I've heard from the pulp and paper workers, who may need to lay off 87,000 workers if the Boiler MACT regulations go into place. I've heard from timber producers in my district that have recently been hurt because U.S. plywood producers have had to close because of lack of demand, and now they're fearful they may have to deal with the double whammy that Boiler MACT is going to do in regards to putting businesses out of work and close them down. It could crush one of the last outlets for their timber products.

Representative Hastings, in his letter to the EPA, said this: ``I believe that regulations can be crafted in a balanced way that sustains both the environment and jobs.'' I believe these bills, H.R. 2250 and H.R. 2681, meet that balance and makes that balancing possible.

These bills don't completely eliminate clean air emissions regulations for boilers, incinerators, or cement kilns, but what they do is require the agency to create regulations that actually take achievable science into account. They give the affected industry time to comply. In sum, they make the EPA think about the American workforce, Mr. Speaker; and in an environment where job creation is key, I don't see how we can't support that.

With that, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I love listening to my friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

We talk about what the EPA and what this rule and underlying legislation will do. What they fail to point out is that any Member, Democrat or Republican, as it relates to any issue that this rule and the underlying legislation will address, has the ability, has

the ability to submit an amendment, an amendment process that allows us, if the bill is flawed, in our estimation, to submit an amendment, bring it up for the House, have a debate on it, and let's talk about it.

There are ways to fix legislation, not just kill it. There are ways that we can do things as it relates to, you know, business. When we talk about the ability for these companies, I will tell you that I got a different flavor on it. Not from the EPA--of course they have their own take on what's going to work and isn't going to work--but I have heard from, actually, manufacturers that it will cost jobs. It will be to their advantage, if they want, to actually load up their stuff, put it on a truck and take it to Mexico where there are no air quality standards at all, none, and we'll breathe that air forever.

My good friend brought up about CutGo, and I really need to talk about that. First of all, H.R. 2681 and 2250 fully comply with the rules of the House, including CutGo.

The CBO cost estimates clearly state that neither of these bills affect direct spending. While it may actually force the EPA to revisit the rule, they have the staff to do it. It's not like it's a new mandate to them. It's not a new program. It meets within the majority leader's legislative protocols, including discretionary CutGo.

These bills do not authorize any new appropriations, which is one of the tests for discretionary CutGo. These bills do not create any new program or office. That's an additional test on discretionary CutGo. And rulemaking is a basic, basic function of federal agencies and particularly the EPA; so they certainly have the staff available to do it without additional costs. That's part of what their job is.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind my colleagues that this does not violate CutGo. Clearly on its face, as he said, making my point, this does not authorize any new spending, not a penny.

With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

I thank my friend from Florida for that.

Mr. Speaker, the last Member that spoke talked about closing coal- fired electric plants. It is amazing that the President just last month put in abeyance an EPA rule as it related to just that issue. He put in abeyance that rule because he said that it was going to cost jobs at a time when we could least afford closing plants and cutting jobs. The President gets it, and I applaud him for doing just that.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, once again I want to thank my colleague from Florida for his eloquent words.

It is about America getting back on track. It is about America worrying about regulations that are going to kill jobs. As I mentioned earlier, the President is even concerned that overregulation by the EPA would do just that, kill jobs when we can least afford it.

If you look at this act, what we're talking about doing is not eliminating anything. It's about saying 15 months to get it together at the EPA, to look at it, and let's not kill jobs in America. It gives 5 years, then, for those businesses that I've met with that are more than willing to do their fair share to keep the air that we breathe and the water that we drink clean and pure.

I live in Florida. Mr. Hastings lives in Florida. We depend upon clean air and water in Florida just like many other States. So, Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and encourage my colleagues to support it as well.

Despite what President Obama and Vice President Biden would have you think--giving a bus tour and the Vice President's being in Land O' Lakes, Florida--speeches don't create jobs. For the President, it may be a joke to say shovel-ready jobs, you know, weren't as shovel ready as we thought with the first stimulus package, but the American people footed that bill, and it's no joke to them.

Mr. President and Mr. Vice President need to recognize the reality that H.R. 2250 and H.R. 2681 recognize that jobs are not created in a vacuum, that government creates an environment in which job creators operate. Regulations like Boiler MACT and Cement MACT do nothing to encourage industry to invest in America. Instead, they force employers to shut their doors, move jobs overseas or just across the border to Mexico. They force us to lose our manufacturing base and import cement from countries like China.

I'm proud to play a part in rolling back this type of regulation. I encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort by supporting H. Res. 419 and the underlying bills, H.R. 2250 and H.R. 2681.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.