Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2681) to provide additional time for the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to issue achievable standards for cement manufacturing facilities, and for other purposes, and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2250) to provide additional time for the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to issue achievable standards for industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers, process heaters, and incinerators, and for other purposes.

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. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

If I might reclaim my time, I think the gentleman is absolutely right. The gentleman from Kentucky said that they had a witness that said it's irrefutably true that they're going to lose all of these jobs. That same witness urged our committee to repeal the Clean Air Act, which seems like what the Republicans would like to do, but they want to do it bit by bit.

This amendment before us by Mr. Rush addresses one of the most egregious provisions of the bill. It changes the requirement. It changes the standard. And it would set up a standard that would be litigated for many, many more years. He talked about how long they have been let off the hook. They'll wait many years after that because the courts will have to decide it.

What his proposal is and this pending amendment is to say this bill would be in addition to a standard that's already in place, and that standard is to require the use of a maximum achievable control technology to control the emissions of mercury, arsenic, dioxin, PCBs, and other toxic emissions. This is not a pie-in-the-sky technology. It's requiring technology that's already being used at the present time.

And so it would set up a floor for each toxic air pollutant that reflects the emission levels that are actually being achieved in the real world. The bill before us would strike that and replace it with a requirement that would be the least burdensome on the industry, even if it's the least effective in stopping the harm to children and others from the mercury and other toxic pollutants.

So I rise in support of the Rush amendment. I urge my colleagues to adopt it. It simply states that we're not replacing the requirement that's in the law. A requirement would be added onto it, and it would clarify that EPA should set numeric emission limits to reduce the air toxic pollution from cement kilns unless such limits are not feasible as described in the statute.

I urge my colleagues to support the Rush amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

I rise in support of the Capps amendment.

The Capps amendment doesn't change the bill. It allows the bill to go into effect, but the amendment would simply add the health benefits findings in the legislation. It doesn't change what the bill does, but it does provide crucial context for the bill's provisions.

Now, I should point out that the bill, itself, nullifies the cement kiln rules and forces EPA to start all over again. In doing so, the bill nullifies all of these health benefits such as fewer asthma attacks, avoided premature deaths, reduced exposure to toxic pollution. In its place the bill offers no guarantee that any new rules will have to achieve the same level of public health protection. So the Capps amendment ensures that we have an honest accounting of the health benefits that the Republican leadership says we should erase because they just aren't worth it.

Well, I would urge that we vote for the Capps amendment because this finding is important for Members to have so that they understand they're voting with their eyes wide open to eliminate those very health benefits.

I just want to respond to this business about China. It's like we're going to close down cement plants and bring it all into the United States from China. Well, that just doesn't make a lot of sense. That's just not credible. U.S. clinker output has dropped nearly 50 percent since 2006, but the imports have declined by more than 80 percent. How could that be?

Well, there's a lack of demand. That's the reason we have a problem. The domestic cement industry is regional in nature. According to the Portland Cement Association, the cost of shipping cement prohibits profitable distribution over long distances. As a

result, customers traditionally purchase cement from local sources. If we're not producing more cement, it's not because we're bringing it in from China. It's because the demand is not there.

Now, the findings that the Capps amendment would put into place are based on the EPA's economic analysis that has to follow criteria set by the Office of Management and Budget. So they're based on peer-reviewed studies. They're transparent. They're subject to public comment. They're reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

The industry studies meet none of these criteria. Members can get up here and say numbers of jobs that will be lost, but we don't know where those numbers have come from. We haven't seen any peer-reviewed studies.

In 40 years of experience in implementing the Clean Air Act, we've heard these predictions of disaster time after time, and yet the economy has continued to grow. Chicken Little has nothing on industry when it comes to requirements to clean up pollution.

So when we hear that we can't protect our children from toxic pollution, from brain damage, from cancers because plants will close down, I would urge my colleagues not to believe it. I don't think we have to make that stark choice. And if you're going to make that stark choice, don't oppose the findings being in the bill because you don't like those findings, you don't want to face those findings. I think we ought to have them in the bill because that's exactly what we're going to do.

So if you're going to support this bill, then support it with the understanding that those public health benefits will be lost.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Reclaiming my time, I did understand you to say that, and I just can't think of that as a credible statement because we've already had a drop of nearly 50 percent since 2006 of cement in the United States. That didn't mean we brought in more from China. In fact, our demand, our imports from anywhere else declined by more than 80 percent.

So it's not a question of we're going to have to come from China; we just don't have the demand. I think we should take the cement industry at their word, when the Portland Cement Association tells us the cost of shipping cement prohibits profitable distribution over long distances. We can continue with our own industry and still meet these health-based standards.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in support of the amendment.

Madam Chair and my colleagues, this amendment simply states the finding of the science.

It simply says that Congress finds that mercury released into the ambient air from cement kilns, addressed by these rules listed in 2(b) of this act, is a potent neurotoxin that can damage the development of infants' brains.

That's the finding. It's a scientific finding.

As I heard the argument of the gentleman from Kentucky, the chairman of the subcommittee, he said it depends on how much you've ingested and all that, but nobody's talking about that. This is just a finding of the science. He also indicated there is no finding in this bill. So what? This is an amendment to the bill.

EPA didn't put a dollar figure on the potential health benefits from reducing the emissions of mercury, carcinogens, and other toxic pollutants.

It's not that there won't be any benefits. EPA simply couldn't produce a well-supported dollar value estimate of those benefits given the time and methodological constraints. So I don't see how anybody can oppose this amendment, because it simply states a scientific fact. Let me be very concrete about it. This is a simple statement of a scientific fact. If Congress wants to go on record, as we already have in other legislation, that we don't believe in science, you can do it, but it doesn't wish the scientific finding away.

Mercury exposure in the womb, which can result from a mother's consumption of mercury-tainted fish and shellfish, can adversely affect the developing brain and nervous system.

You can't wish that away. You can't vote it down and say that it's not true.

Babies that were exposed to mercury in utero can suffer long-term problems with cognitive thinking, memory, attention, language, and fine motor and visual spatial skills.

You can't say that's not true. That's what the scientists have concluded.

In 1990, we adopted the Clean Air Act. We asked that these cement kilns and other polluters reduce those pollutants because they are toxic air pollutants. The Schakowsky amendment says there is a scientific basis for this law. She repeats the science. Republicans can amend the Clean Air Act and say we're not going to do anything about it, but they cannot amend the laws of nature. They cannot change the scientific reality.

I must also point out with this bill that, not only are Republicans urging

that we deny the scientific reality, but they want to make sure we don't do anything about that scientific reality. The Schakowsky amendment doesn't change that. It only says that we ought to face the scientific fact, as I indicated, which is the overwhelming scientific consensus. I don't know anybody who's against this scientific consensus. If we vote against her amendment, we're denying the scientific fact that mercury is a potent neurotoxin that can damage the development of an infant's brain. I don't see how anybody could vote against that.

Even if you want to postpone the rules, even if you want to give the EPA more time and make the industry have to avoid coming into compliance for 10, 16, 18, 20 years, whatever it may be, it's irrefutable. This is the reason we want these rules in place. Otherwise, the Republicans ought to say, ``We don't want the rules in place,'' because there's no reason to have these rules. If that's what they believe, then they can vote against the Schakowsky amendment, but it doesn't make any sense.

I don't know if I have any remaining time, but I would be happy to yield to the gentlelady from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) if she wants to say anything more.

I'll not even take that 30 seconds.

This is a question of voting on the scientific conclusion, so I urge my colleagues to vote for the Schakowsky amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I oppose this bill on substantive grounds because it nullifies EPA's rules to cut toxic pollution from cement kilns and threatens EPA's ability to reissue rules that are protective of public health.

And we certainly had an exhaustive discussion of why we think this is not a good bill, but this bill has another problem: It does not comply with the Republican leadership's policy for discretionary spending.

When Congress organized this year, the majority leader announced that the House would be following a discretionary CutGo rule. This requires that when a bill authorizes discretionary funding, that funding is explicitly limited to a specific amount. The protocols also require that the specific amount be offset by a reduction in an existing authorization.

This rule was embodied in a document entitled, ``Legislative Protocols for the 112th Congress.'' The majority leader announced that compliance with these protocols is necessary for legislation to be complied with before the bill would be scheduled for floor consideration.

Well, this bill fails to meet these protocols on two counts:

First, the bill does not include a specific authorization for EPA to complete the rulemaking required by the bill. After all, EPA finalized the cement rulemaking more than a year ago. EPA will have to start from scratch, according to this bill, and follow a whole new approach for setting emission standards. That's going to cost money.

Second, the bill does not offset the new spending with cuts in an existing authorization. In addition to violating the protocols of the majority leader, the bill violates the policies of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Chairman Upton said the committee would be following a discretionary CutGo rule. He sent me a letter in June to clarify this CutGo policy with regard to bills pending before our committee, which said: If CBO determines that any of these bills will have a significant impact on the Federal budget, we will offset the newly authorized spending with reductions elsewhere.

Well, CBO has determined that H.R. 2681 does, in fact, authorize new discretionary spending. CBO determined that this bill will have a significant impact on the Federal budget because it requires EPA to spend resources on proposing and finalizing new regulations. CBO estimates that implementing this bill would cost EPA $1 million over a 5-year period.

Now, my Republican colleagues claim that this bill doesn't trigger the CutGo requirement. They say that EPA can use existing funds to complete the work mandated by the bill, but that's not how the appropriations law works. Not including an authorization in H.R. 2681 does not have the effect of forcing the executive branch to implement the legislation with existing resources. To the contrary, it has the effect of creating an implicit authorization of ``such sums as may be necessary.'' Anyone familiar with Federal appropriations law knows this and the Government Accountability Office or the Congressional Budget Office can confirm it.

My amendment would simply ask a third party to settle the debate. It requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with EPA's Chief Financial Officer, the Comptroller General of GAO, and CBO, to determine whether this bill authorizes the appropriation of funds to implement its provisions and, if so, whether this bill reduces an existing authorization of appropriations by an offsetting amount.

If it is determined that this act authorizes the appropriation of funds without an offsetting reduction, the provisions in the act will be nullified. This is a truth-in-advertising amendment. With great fanfare, the Republicans announced they were so serious about addressing the Federal deficit that they would live by a new protocol on discretionary CutGo.

This amendment is an opportunity for the Republicans to live by their word. If we adopt this amendment and the legislation complies with discretionary CutGo, then the amendment will have no effect. If, on the other hand, this legislation fails to comply, as the Congressional Budget Office indicates, and has a significant impact on the Federal budget, then my amendment will ensure that the offending provisions do not go into effect.

I urge all Members to support this amendment. Let's hold the Republican leadership to their word.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, as the designee of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), I offer an amendment.

Madam Chair, this amendment was going to be offered by Mr. Markey, and he strongly supports it, and I want to offer it in his place.

Power plants, cement kilns, incinerators, manufacturing facilities, and other industrial sources release toxic mercury into the air. These emissions travel through the atmosphere and eventually deposit to land or water. Once deposited, the mercury can build up in fish, shellfish, and animals that eat fish. Consumption of fish and shellfish is the main route of mercury exposure to humans.

EPA and FDA have warned women who are pregnant, of childbearing age, or nursing that they should limit their consumption of certain types of fish and avoid others entirely due to mercury contamination.

EPA's cement kiln rules are designed to cut emissions of mercury as well as other hazardous air pollutants. EPA estimates that the rules will reduce mercury emissions from cement kilns by 16,400 pounds, or 92 percent, compared with projected levels.

EPA looked at how these reductions would affect the emissions that are deposited to land or water. EPA estimated that the cement rules would reduce mercury deposition by up to 30 percent in the West and up to 17 percent in the East by 2013. The agency's modeling indicates that the mercury deposition reductions would be the greatest nearest the cement kilns.

This amendment adds a simple finding to the bill, stating that EPA's cement kiln rules are expected to reduce mercury deposition in the eastern and western United States. This amendment does not change the substance of the bill. The bill still nullifies EPA's cement rules, which have been in place for a year. The amendment simply adds important context for this nullification. By nullifying the cement rules, this bill erases the reductions in mercury deposition that the rules would achieve.

This debate has shown us how we need this context. The bill's supporters have claimed that 99 percent of mercury is natural; and, thus, they imply, we don't need to worry about it. I have no idea where they get that figure. It wasn't from the EPA. But if that's why they're supporting this bill, their support isn't based on the facts.

The amendment sets the record straight. It makes it clear to all Members that the cement rules will have a real and significant impact on mercury deposition. These effects will be the largest, of course, closest to the plants that will have to clean up their pollution.

But before we vote to throw out rules that have been in the works for over a decade, before we vote to leave communities exposed to toxic air pollution for years or decades more, let's at least recognize what we are throwing away. And what we'd be throwing away is this particular finding that is so important.

I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pallone amendment.

First, this amendment simply adds a congressional finding that Federal agencies should support ongoing efforts to reduce Americans' exposure to mercury. This seems to me a no-brainer.

For the past 30 years, under both the Democrats and the Republicans, the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and other agencies at the federal, State, and local levels have worked together to set science- based, 10-year national objectives for improving the health of all Americans. This is called the Healthy People initiative.

The Healthy People initiative has set critical public health objectives for 2020. These goals are the product of an extensive stakeholder process that involved public health experts, a wide range of federal, State, and local government officials, a consortium of more than 2,000 organizations, and the public.

The Healthy People 2020 initiative set a goal for reducing mercury exposure. This goal is to reduce the level of mercury in the blood of children and women of childbearing age by 30 percent by 2020. Mercury exposure in the womb or at a young age can adversely affect the developing brain and nervous system, damaging a child's long-term cognitive thinking, memory, attention, language, and fine motor skills.

This amendment states that Congress agrees that we ought to set this goal and we ought to try to achieve this goal as a way to reduce the mercury levels in children. I hope we can all agree this is a worthwhile objective.

The amendment also puts some weight behind this finding. If the EPA administrator determines that allowing cement kilns to continue emitting toxic mercury without controls threatens to block attainment of the Healthy People standard by 2020 to reduce mercury in children, then the bill has no effect. The administrator can reach this determination only after consultation with experts at NIH and CDC.

This amendment is common sense. There's no point in engaging in an extensive process to set broadly agreed upon goals to guide agency actions to improve the health of Americans and then adopt laws that prevent agencies from meeting these goals.

Now, if Republicans want to vote against these goals, that's what they'll be doing if they vote against the Pallone amendment. Unfortunately, the bill we're considering today could hinder this initiative's goal to reduce children's mercury exposure by nullifying long overdue rules to reduce toxic mercury pollution from cement kilns.

But the Republicans have told us that their bill will not hurt public health. They've argued that mercury reductions achieved by cement and boiler rules won't have a discernable effect for public health. It won't even benefit us in how we achieve these goals. Well, if they actually believe that, then those who support this bill should consider this amendment as an opportunity to prove that the bill has

no impact on the mercury levels in children's blood.

I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment, to support these goals, and not to nullify the goals as they would like to nullify the EPA rules.

I support the Pallone amendment and urge my colleagues to vote for it.

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

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

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

There has been a lot of discussion in the 1-minutes this morning about the importance of passing the Obama jobs bill. I would like to remind everyone today that the bailouts, the stimulus packages, all have exceeded $2 trillion in the spending of taxpayer money. And despite the expenditure of all of that money, the unemployment rate in America is still well over 9 percent, even though it was suggested that with the spending of the stimulus money, unemployment would be brought down to less than 8 percent.

I would also remind everyone that within the last 3 days, the Department of Energy shoved out the door approximately $5 billion in loan guarantees for so-called green energy projects without, in my view, the necessary time to clearly evaluate the loans that were being made. And we have proof of this because, in the Solyndra case, the taxpayers are going to have to expend $538 million because that company went bankrupt. Now in the Obama jobs bill, they're asking for another approximately $500 billion to be spent to create jobs.

Well, the reason that we're here today is that if you talk to any businesspeople today, large or small, they will tell you that the reason jobs are not being created in America is because of uncertainty, the uncertainty about health care regulations, not knowing what they're going to be. Already, 8,700 pages of new regulations have been written.

The uncertainty created by the new financial regulations that increase the capital requirements for loans to be made changes the appraisal process. That has created great uncertainty; but, most important, the uncertainty created by this aggressive Environmental Protection Agency. This administrator has been the most aggressive in issuing new regulations in the history of the EPA.

We all are committed to clean air that allows for healthful living in America, but we also want to use common sense, particularly at this time when our economy is struggling. And so when you issue new regulations that create additional obstacles for job creation, that is a major problem.

I noticed today, for example, in The Hill magazine: ``Senate Democrats Buck Obama on Jobs Plan.''

So they have the same concerns that we do.

So, today, we're bringing to the floor H.R. 2681, referred to as the Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act, which basically says to EPA about their recently issued cement regulatory items, we want you to go back and revisit this bill because evidence shows that 20,000 jobs are at jeopardy and 18 percent of cement plants in America may very well be closed because of this regulation. So we're simply asking EPA in this legislation to go back, revisit this rule, issue a final rule within 15

months after the passage of this legislation and give the affected industry up to 5 years to comply with the new regulations. Because in doing so, we're going to reduce the loss of jobs, which is critical at this time of our Nation's history.

Now, I would also like to say that this legislation introduced by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan) has bipartisan support. If you look at the sponsors and cosponsors, you will see a lot of Democratic cosponsors of his legislation. I would also say to you that there are over 29 national associations and construction groups that support this legislation led by the American Road & Transportation Builders Association; the Associated General Contractors of America; the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers; the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers; the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America; Laborers' International Union of North America; and the International Union of Operating Engineers. So you have businesses and labor unions all supporting this commonsense legislation simply directing EPA to do a more careful analysis before they fully implement this hard-hitting regulation that would close 18 percent of the cement plants in America.

We believe that this can be done and still clearly protect the health of the American people as well as the clean air that we now have in this great country.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I know that we're going to be hearing a lot about mercury today. I would like to point out that it's been indicated that 98 percent of the mercury present in America today, air, land, and so forth, comes from natural causes and from sources outside of the United States. And the EPA, in its analysis of the cement regulation that they just issued, did not assign any dollar value that would come from the reduction of mercury emissions.

So I think that this is a red herring that our friends are bringing up on the other side.

At this point in time, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan), the author of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I might say to the distinguished ranking member that we do not authorize any additional funding in this bill and that EPA does have a $2 billion budget that allows them to deal with regulatory issues.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman emeritus of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I now yield 4 minutes to the chairman of the Telecom Subcommittee of Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Olson.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Harper).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on each side?

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).

Mr. Chairman, I have one more speaker and he will be closing. Other than that, I have no further requests for time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains?

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment for the simple reason that in 1999, EPA issued a rule for cement plants in which it regulated emissions from cement plants. All of us are very much aware of the health hazards of certain emissions. And that's why we support the ruling of the EPA in 1999.

Now, in 2006, EPA came back with a new cement rule. But the environmental groups challenged that in court. And so as a result of that challenge, EPA went back, and they came out with the new Cement MACT rules that are the subject of our legislation today. And as we said during the general debate, the economy is unusually weak today, our unemployment is high today, and we think we need a more balanced approach than what EPA came out with in its most recent cement rule, which is in effect, but compliance is not expected until 2013.

So we simply are staying that rule with this legislation asking EPA to come out with a new Cement MACT within 15 months after passage of our legislation and then give industry 5 years to comply, and longer, if the EPA administrator decides to do that. Now, looking at the history of this administrator, I can't conceive that she would be willing to give them any more than that 5 years, but that would be her choice.

So I would urge the Members to oppose this amendment because we already have some basic protections in there. We have the 1999 rule that is in effect if we are successful in passing this legislation that would negate the most recent Cement MACT rule. And as I said before, we hear today from businesses all over the country who are talking about the uncertainty--particularly because of the excess of regulations coming out from EPA--not knowing what standards are required, and in many instances not even having technology that's available to meet the standards.

So I think our H.R. 2681 is a reasonable approach: Ask EPA to step back, propose a new rule, do it within 15 months and give the industry 5 years. And for that reason, I would reiterate all of us have the same concerns that the gentleman from California has. I do not believe that his amendment is necessary, and I would urge all of our Members to oppose his amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I rise in opposition to the amendment by my friend, the gentleman from Illinois.

As I sit here and listen to the other side, they seem to be making the argument that if you pass regulations, then you are going to create jobs. It reminds me of what you hear in China and Russia, with more government intervention, more government regulations. Our friends on the other side of the aisle say that's creating new jobs. Yet on this regulation, we have had hearing after hearing after hearing in which people in the business come to Congress and say we don't know that we can meet these standards in the timeframe necessary.

We heard today, one cement kiln in Oregon has already spent $20 million and still cannot meet the requirements of this regulation, and they have said they are going to have to close down. We have heard testimony that of 100 cement plants in America, 18 percent of them are going to have to shut down. So how do you create jobs by issuing regulations that make people close plants and lose jobs?

Now, I understand that we have a balance that we are trying to reach here, and that's the purpose of this legislation. We want to protect health. And, by the way, EPA in 1999 issued a cement regulation. And between 1999 and 2005, mercury emissions decreased by 58 percent during that time period. In 2006 they came out with a new regulation, and certain environmental groups didn't like it; so they filed a lawsuit. So as a result of that lawsuit, EPA had to come out with another regulation.

So our legislation today is simply staying the most recent regulation. As I said, they issued the regulation in 2006, environmentalists filed lawsuits, and EPA had to come back and issue a new regulation. Our legislation, because of testimony that is indisputable, that plants are going to close and jobs will be lost, simply asks EPA to go back and, within 15 months after the legislation is passed, come out with a new regulation and give the industry 5 years to comply. And if the administrator of the EPA wants to give them longer than that to comply, she may. Of course we don't expect that she would do that.

But we have heard about mercury today, for example. EPA in its own estimates said that the Cement MACT

that they've issued would reduce mercury emissions by less than one- fourth of 1 percent of global emissions. In fact, it is so small that they did not even give a dollar value of benefits to the reduction of mercury emission by their regulation.

So mercury, we know, is emitted naturally. It's also emitted globally. In fact, the Department of Energy said that 11 million pounds of mercury was emitted globally in 2005 from both natural and human resources. So this regulation that we are trying to delay is not going to have any impact on reducing mercury emissions by any significant amount.

Now, we have heard a lot about why don't you pass the Obama jobs bill. That's how you create jobs, instead of fighting EPA over regulations. The United States Congress has an obligation and a responsibility to question regulations that we believe are harming the economy, and I notice in today's The Hill it said Senate Democrats bucked Obama on his jobs plan.

So we are all committed to jobs, but I do not believe that issuing more regulations creates jobs when we have business owners large and small testify repeatedly that these regulations are going to lose jobs, that they are going to have to shut down plants at a time when the President wants to put more money into infrastructure needs in America, which is fine. You need cement to do that. Our plants are going to be closed, so we are going to be importing more cement from China, India, and elsewhere.

So I would respectfully, though I have much admiration for my friend from Illinois, oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman from California's amendment. In doing so, I would be the first to recognize that she has been one of the real leaders in the Congress of looking after the health of all of our constituents in the U.S. The reason that I'm opposed to this particular amendment, however, is that she asks us to adopt EPA's findings about health and cost benefits. She wants that to be adopted as a finding in the legislation. In our legislation, we don't have any findings that we're adopting at all. And one of the reasons, among many, that we are opposed to putting the health and cost benefits as a finding in the legislation is that we have not had the ability to undertake any full analysis of EPA's methodology in assessing those health benefits and costs. And we furthermore do not have any idea what assumptions they used.

And another reason that I personally am opposed to their health and cost benefits is that we know for a fact that they do not include as a cost the health benefits lost by family members of those people who lose jobs as a result of the regulation adopted by EPA.

So if you're going to look at the cost of health benefits that people incur for the emissions that may be affected by the regulation, you most certainly should examine and analyze the cost of the health benefits to those people who lose jobs, lose their health insurance, because there has been shown to be a direct correlation between economic livelihood and health. So because of that, I would be very much opposed to adopting this as a finding. We already know that EPA has set out their cost benefits and analysis. That's available to the public, so we're not really accomplishing any purpose by putting it in this legislation.

I would also just like to make one additional comment going back to my friend from Illinois about delay, delay, delay. And I would reiterate what the gentleman from Texas said. EPA adopted the first cement regulation in 1999. They came back in 2006 and adopted another one. That would be in effect today except that the environmental groups filed a lawsuit against it. And as we know, the pattern seems to be environmental groups file the lawsuit, EPA enters a consent decree agreeing, and then they pay the legal fees of the environmental groups. So these regulations would have been in effect a long time ago if that lawsuit had not been filed.

So all we're saying is the industry and EPA and others had agreed to those second regulations, but once the lawsuit was filed, the regulations became so stringent that the testimony has shown that many of these plants simply cannot meet those standards.

So with that, I yield back the balance of my time and ask Members to oppose the Capps amendment.

I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

The gentlelady from Illinois is certainly a valuable member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and is an effective advocate for her positions, but her amendment would require a finding that mercury emitted from the cement kiln is a neurotoxin.

I would first point out that EPA, itself, in its reports, has indicated that the regulation of domestic mercury, because of the Clean Air Act, has already decreased by 58 percent. It has also estimated that the Cement MACT that it issued, which is at issue in this legislation, would reduce global emissions of mercury by less than one- fourth of 1 percent. It also said that the Department of Energy estimated that the global emissions of mercury amount to about 11 million pounds.

So the amount of mercury that we're talking about in this cement regulation is so minute that the EPA, itself, did not even assign a dollar value to the benefit because it was so, in its opinion, inconsequential.

Obviously, Congress is not a scientific body. We know that mercury is dangerous, but when mercury comes out of a cement kiln, it comes out as elemental mercury. It then must fall into water, where organisms convert it to methylmercury. A fish has to take in the methylmercury, and that fish has to be cooked. Then someone has to eat it for it to be damaging to that person.

So these are very scientific assumptions. As I said, Congress is not a scientific body. The scientific understanding of mercury is certainly far more complicated than is reflected in this finding that asks to be included in the bill. This statement simply assigns the responsibility for specific health impacts to specific sources when there are multiple sources of mercury in the environment, including natural resources. There is some mercury in the air as a result of cement kilns, but there is an awful lot in there which is natural, and then there is an awful lot that comes from sources outside the U.S.

We do not believe that the EPA can quantify any health benefit from reducing emissions of mercury from these sources, because they've said that themselves. Because of that, I would oppose putting into a finding this particular statement. I might also say to the gentlelady from Illinois that we don't have any findings in this legislation at all, so I would respectfully request that the Members oppose this particular amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

All of us are very much concerned about excessive spending by the Federal Government. We know we have a serious debt, we have a serious deficit, and all of us are determined to bring that in line and to solve that problem.

Now, the gentleman from California's amendment is trying to use the so-called CutGo rule as a means to invalidate this legislation. In our legislation, we do not authorize the appropriation of any additional funds. We do not create any new programs in this legislation.

And I might say that each year EPA receives an appropriation for its activities, and we know that more than any other agency in the Federal Government, EPA is sued more than almost any other agency. At any one time, they have 400 or 500 lawsuits going. As a result of many of those lawsuits, they have to go back and they have to re-look at rules and so forth; and there's never any additional money appropriated to them for that purpose. So what we're doing in this legislation is no different than what they deal with at EPA every year.

Now, CBO did come forth and say that over a 5-year period, because they would have to re-look at these rules and issue new rules and so forth, there would be maybe a million dollars in additional cost. But that's not any different than what EPA goes through every year, as I said, because of lawsuits that are filed.

Our position is we do not authorize additional money in this legislation. We do not create a new program in this legislation; and, therefore, the CutGo rules are not applicable. And it is the decision of the House leadership to determine if that is the case or not, and they've determined that is not the case. So for those reasons, I would oppose the gentleman's amendment and would urge all Members to oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Under the existing Clean Air Act, cement plants have 3 years to comply with section 112 standards; incinerators have 5 years to comply with section 129 standards. Because of the testimony that we heard over a series of hearings, the affected industry has indicated that they need some conformity in complying with these new regulations.

As you know, there were regulations adopted in 2005 or 2006 that were invalidated by the courts. EPA came back with new regulations that were a little bit more complicated, more strenuous; and as a result of that, we've discovered that these cement industries have had difficulty complying with the 112 and 129 within the time period. So our legislation simply directs the EPA to go back, relook at the regulations, and within 15 months come back with a new regulation and then give the industry 5 years to comply on the cement side and the incinerator side. So we provide some conformity in our legislation.

The gentlewoman from Texas is basically changing that back to 3 years. And the whole purpose of our legislation, because of the hearings, because of the technology required, it was quite evident that more time was needed. So we set a time period, a minimum time of 5 years to comply. The administrator of the EPA may grant additional time, if necessary, but we doubt that that would happen.

So for that reason, for a pragmatic reason, I would oppose the gentlewoman's amendment so that we can have some conformity in these regulations.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Well, thank you very much.

Reclaiming my time, like I said, the purpose of our legislation is to extend it to 5 years because of the complications involved. And for that reason, I would respectfully oppose the gentlelady's amendment and ask Members to vote against the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

This amendment directs the administrator of the EPA to implement current cement plants rules if emissions at cement kilns are increasing the risk of cancer. This amendment would, in effect, defeat the entire purpose of our legislation.

Our bill directs EPA to protect public health, also consider jobs and the effect of that on the economy, and all the aspects of American well-being, health benefits, not just one. So we think it's important that EPA consider all public health risks, not just cancer.

All of the testimony has indicated that there needs to be a more balanced approach in this cement rule issued by EPA. As you know, EPA first adopted a cement rule in 1999. They did another one in 2005. It was challenged in court. They came back with another one in 2006. That one is so vigorous that it's very difficult for the industry to meet those standards.

So for the fact that this amendment is focusing only on one public health risk, and I believe that it would defeat the entire purpose of our bill, which is to protect public health, but also to strengthen the economy by preventing a loss of jobs, and to look at the entire public health benefits, for that reason I would respectfully urge the defeat of this amendment.

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

I rise in opposition to this amendment offered by the distinguished gentleman from Virginia.

I might also add that the last significant change to the Clean Air Act was back in 1990, and I don't think anyone would ever suggest that Congress does not have a right to go back and look at legislation that was passed 21 years ago and that there may be problems with some of that legislation.

There is no question that we've benefited from the Clean Air Act, but there is also no question that this administration, this EPA, has been the most aggressive in recent memory. They've been passing some of the most expensive regulations ever adopted by EPA, and it's having an impact on the economy because jobs are being lost as a direct result of many of these regulations.

Our bill has directed EPA to protect public health, to balance the economic needs, the jobs needs, all of this, as a part of an overall balanced view of EPA regulations.

I would be happy to yield.

Let me just say to you that the last 40 years, we've had a lot of economic expansion. Right now we've just come out of a recession. We have a 9.1 percent unemployment rate. Everyone's talking about jobs, and all of the testimony that we've received about these regulations indicates that jobs will be lost. So what's the difference then, if you lose a job, you lose a job? That makes unemployment rates go up.

I'm not debating with you that over the last 40 years, generally speaking, we've had economic expansion and job creation, but we're in a very unique time right now, and we think that this is a time in which we need a more balanced approach to some of these regulations.

Your amendment specifically looks at respiratory, cardiovascular illnesses, and death, including heart attacks, asthma attacks, and bronchitis. We know that EPA looks at all of this in its health benefits and costs, and we do not think it's necessary to specifically spell this out in our legislation. For that reason, I would respectfully oppose the amendment and ask Members to vote against the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2681, a bill designed to prevent the collapse of a strategic domestic industry, the United States cement industry.

About a year ago, I became active on this issue and made it a priority of mine to help save the American cement industry and the hardworking Americans at work in those industries. Some have questioned my motives, and they are welcome to do that. But for me it's as simple as this: The new regulations on the cement industry is the wrong rule at the wrong time. It asks too much too soon. NESHAP is a rule based on questionable science and promises to export American jobs and, ultimately, result in the import of pollution from other countries.

The U.S. cement industry is suffering through the greatest decline since the 1930s, with current employment down to a mere 15,000 jobs and less than $6.5 billion in 2010 annual revenues. This represents a 25 percent reduction in employment and over a 35 percent reduction in revenues from prerecession levels. The cement and concrete product manufacturing sectors combined have shed more than 62,000 jobs between 2005 and 2009.

At this critical time when the cement industry can least afford significant investments from new mandates, analysts estimate this single EPA rule would cost $3.4 billion in compliance costs, representing approximately half of the cement industry's annual revenues. This is very onerous. Let us repeat, Mr. Chairman, the NESHAP rule will cost $3.4 billion compliance costs out of a $6.5 billion annual revenue. That's over 50 percent of the industry's revenues.

Now, if you own a cement plant, where is the money for compliance costs going to come from? Probably from closing down a plant, stalling plans for the construction of new plants, and laying off American workers in high-paying jobs. The average low job in this industry is around $60,000 a year, and they go up from there.

Common sense is the missing ingredient in NESHAP. In fact, at the same time that the EPA finalized the NESHAP emission standards last fall, we just saw a chart that the European Union had just issued their own compliance standards, and the EPA standards are five times more stringent than the famous model of the European Union. So what's wrong with this picture?

Speaking of common sense, if you want to remember that map that we just looked at, the map that shows you all the colors, the red part of that map represents between 80 and 100 percent of the estimated mercury deposits, and they're all from foreign sources.

So, Mr. Chairman, this is the wrong rule at the wrong time, and what we are doing here fixes this problem and gives us time to study.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

I listened to Mr. Waxman's argument, and I looked at his amendment. And this amendment targets a specific health issue: brain development and learning disabilities in infant children. We believe the EPA should consider all public health risks.

Mr. Waxman raised the issue of accusing the Republicans of, as he said, ``legislative negligence.'' I'm sure it was not legislative negligence on the part of Mr. Waxman when he failed to include cancer in this bill even though in his argument to this august body he certainly argued that this amendment would help with cancer.

The truth is this amendment addresses one public health issue, the disability of children, and it addresses it as it relates to mercury. And we've heard arguments in this Chamber about mercury, but we've also seen the air studies that have been done by the electric industry in which they tell us that, at least west of the Mississippi, somewhere between 80 percent and 100 percent of all the mercury pollution in that area comes from outside the United States.

Where outside the United States is fairly obvious, China and India, which have the largest amount of Portland cement manufacturing in the world, also the least amount of protection of the air quality. They are polluting somewhere between 80 and 100 percent of mercury, which is what, according to the argument from the other side, is the issue here. It is not cancer, and this does not address cancer. It is harming the brain development of infant children--mercury.

So if almost 100 percent of it is west of the Mississippi, then more than half the country is polluted from outside this country. And yet we would shut down factories and force them to move to places like China and India--where there is no protection for the health of anybody on this globe--so that they can stay in business because we have adopted a 1 percent standard rather than the 5 percent standard from our so- called ``model'' of the future, the European Union. Now, I think that we need to question this amendment.

I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, there's a pretty heated argument going on here, and there are a couple of things I would like to point out here. First off, the EPA is conducting a reconsideration of certain aspects of the recent cement rules. However, EPA is only reconsidering a certain aspect of these rules. EPA has stayed the effective date on only one of the three rules proposed. They have stayed it only for a short period of time, and environmentalists have sued the EPA for staying the rule. None of the compliance dates for any of the three recent cement sector rules have been changed, and it is not clear that they will be. Only a legislative stay will provide regulatory certainty for these rules.

President Obama has publicly stated to us that he learned that ``shovel-ready'' doesn't always mean ``shovel-ready,'' and that we are still waiting for some of the projects from the original stimulus bill to be created because ``shovel-ready'' doesn't mean ``shovel-ready.'' And, in fact, we have a few of these in my district.

But let me say this: What we're talking about here is something that we've heard from the administration since the Obama administration has been in charge, and that is it is a success if you have prevented the loss of jobs. So you take credit for saying we didn't lose certain jobs because of this action. Well, we have evidence here that says we are going to lose certain jobs because of this action. In fact, we are told that we could have the close-down of 20 percent of the cement factories currently in existence within the next 2 years. That means shut down and either moved overseas or just shut down and no longer in business as a result of the regulations that are imposed by EPA. And that's actually not only the industry, but even EPA acknowledges that that is a possibility.

So what this amendment that is proposed here does is it says--and the argument we heard was we ought to be ashamed of ourselves for the position we're taking and that for 18 years we've done nothing. Well, for 18 years, we've not exactly done nothing. In 1999, regulations were imposed by the EPA which were submitted to the cement industry; and they, by their own statement of EPA, they put those in place, and then the regulations changed in '06 and they were in process; and many, as we heard from our friend from Oregon, have put those regulations in place to reduce emissions. In fact, we have reduced mercury emissions by 56 percent by the regulations that have been put in place and the implementation that the industry has done.

So it seems to be maybe another case of legislative negligence here to make the accusation that we have done nothing for the 13 years that have gone forward. Of course, that is just not true. They have done something.

But now we've got the example of the plant that is in Oregon which has met the '99 and met the '06 regulations, and now they're looking at these regulations and the standard we have to meet, which is a 1 percent versus a 5 percent standard, .01 versus a .05 percent standard, that the folks in the European Union have set as a clean air standard. They are five times dirtier than what we are proposing, and they've taken a look at it and said, we can't meet this standard within the time frame that EPA has set forth for us.

So what we, by the underlying bill in this case, have said is EPA is supposed to be a real-world operation that this is supposed to meet. It is clearly--at least the industry feels in the timeframe set we can't meet that real-world standard. Therefore, how about taking another look for the next 15 months at these standards; and then when you come up with something that can be met in the real world, give us 5 years to implement, which is pretty reasonable if you look at the distance between '99 and '06, between the time the regulations changed the last time. It is right within the same time frame. But all of a sudden, we have accelerated the implementation of these rules, and we've set standards that we pretty well agree, everyone agrees, are not meetable.

I oppose this amendment and I support the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Capps amendment.

First let me say that the underlying concept behind the Capps amendment is fine. We are all concerned about the health of people.

Everybody's using examples of asthma. I have asthma, okay; that's why I sound like this. All right. So I understand asthma. But I want to point out some things about this that concern me.

First and foremost, we have scientific information. And what the chairman of the subcommittee said is that we don't know exactly upon what methodology the EPA bases its analysis of the health care incidents that occurred from this industry.

There probably are health care incidents. The question is, what's the analysis? And I would start with scientific evidence that has appeared here today that somewhere between 100 and 85 percent of the mercury pollution that's found from the Pacific Ocean to the Mississippi River comes from foreign sources.

My first question would be, in their analysis, did they analyze that relative to the mercury--infant child brain damage relative to the somewhere between 100 and 85 percent of the mercury--that comes from foreign sources, which we have no control over? And we could shut all our concrete plants down, which we may do, and the result would be, I don't know, somewhere between 15 percent better and no better, at least west of the Mississippi. So did they analyze it that way accordingly?

And then, therefore, if they said that they did it that way, is the number they're talking about relative to the 15 percent or the 0 percent that these plants are creating?

I don't know the answer to that question. But that's the reason I think it would be an irregular thing for this Congress to do to adopt the findings of the EPA or other health organizations without us knowing what actual facts they used in their analysis of doing this. And I would think that would require a pretty hard and tough inquiry, not that I'm saying there's not health care issues with anything that goes in the air. Certainly, there's got to be.

Then another question we hear today is, why don't you guys quit talking--you're not talking about creating any jobs. No, we're talking about the same argument that the administration's been using for the entire length of the administration. We're talking about saving American jobs, because there's no evidence to the contrary that if you close down a plant and it employs 15 to 30 workers, you lose 15 to 30 jobs, not 15 to 30 corporations, 15 to 30 American worker jobs.

If you close 20 percent of the plants, and there's approximately 100 in the country, then you're going to have 20 times somewhere between 15 and 20 jobs, whatever the number is. And these are $65,000 to $85,000- a-year jobs by labor. But we're going to lose those jobs. And this bill that this amendment is seeking to be attached too, its purpose is to save those people's jobs, those American laborers' jobs. I think it's something we should think about.

The American Jobs Act, if it can get the support in the Senate--to my knowledge, it has not yet been dropped in the House, but I'm sure it will be sometime; someone will step up and do it.

And then the question becomes, what about the President's public statement that shovel-ready doesn't mean shovel-ready?

Well, if you're going to have to bring in a part, a major part of fixing highways and schools, which is concrete, if you're going to have to bring in the element of concrete, because Portland cement, as my colleague has corrected my Texas language, is an integral portion of that, if that has to be brought in from China, don't you think that also is going to slow down again the President's complaint that shovel- ready doesn't always mean shovel-ready? I think it is.

And, in fact, do we have any quality assurance that when we build that bridge across the Mississippi River, like we did in Minnesota, that the cement that we put into that bridge is of an adequate quality that we feel safe driving over? I don't know, but that's going to be our option if our cement industry goes overseas.

So at some point in time we have to ask ourselves, we're losing jobs when they close plants. If it's so onerous that they have to move, then why not take time to study and come up with something that actually works in the real world, as this EPA rule is supposed to work?

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just want to correct--maybe you said it wrong; maybe I said it wrong. If I did, I apologize. I'm not saying Chinese industry will move to the United States. I'm saying that if they close down plants in the United States, which the industry has given us a percentage of at least 20 percent of the plants will close--and we know the construction of a new plant in Alabama will stop until the stay--then I'm saying that then we would have to supplement that by overseas shipments from the largest producer of cement in the world, China.

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.