Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Union County in the First Congressional District of Kentucky on their 200th Anniversary. This momentous occasion not only celebrates the rich history of Union County, but the many thousands of residents who over the years have made it a vibrant and thriving community.

Union County was formed on January 15, 1811 and was likely named for the unanimous agreement of Henderson and Webster citizens to create a new county. Union County is rich in soil and farming is one of the industries that thrive in this part of Kentucky. Coal mining is also a large industry that continues to provide good jobs.

During World War II, Camp Breckinridge Training Center was established near Morganfield and between 1942 and 1946 more than 30,000 infantry recruits were trained there. In 1965 the Earle C. Clements Job Corps Center, which teaches vocational courses, was established on eight hundred acres of the original camp land. The Job Corps Center provided a labor pool for Union County industries and is the second largest Job Corps center in the nation.

Today, Union County attracts many tourists through U.S. 60, railroads, and a nine-foot navigation channel on the Ohio River. The county also hosts the annual Corn Festival and the Union County Fair. There are almost 16,000 people who are proud to call Union County their home.

To commemorate the county's 200th anniversary, community leaders and residents of Union County have planned over 16 different events to educate Kentuckians about the history of Union County and celebrate its residents and culture. It is my privilege to represent Union County in the U.S. House of Representatives and I hope my colleagues in Congress will join me in celebrating this community and its residents.

Madam Speaker, I claim time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Back in 2004, the D.C. Federal Court of Appeals, in a court decision, invalidated the 2004 Boiler MACT rules promulgated by EPA. In that court decision, EPA came to the court and said, We need additional time to come out with new Boiler MACT rules. So, in that court decision, EPA made the argument that they needed additional time to come forth with a more balanced approach on a Boiler MACT rule.

Our legislation, H.R. 2250, does nothing that EPA did not ask the court to do as far as extending time. Our legislation is a balanced approach. Particularly at this time of a weakened economy and when our job unemployment rate is at 9.1 percent and when our economy continues to struggle, it is imperative that we have a balanced regulation that considers jobs--yes--but that also considers health care and the benefits of the regulation and the impact that that has on health care.

We've had extensive hearings on this legislation. We've had representatives from hospitals. We've had representatives from universities, representatives from manufacturers, industrial users and others, and all of them almost universally have asked that we pass H.R. 2250 to provide a more balanced approach in these regulations.

Testimony has shown that over 230,000 jobs are at risk if EPA moves forward with these regulations. So what we're proposing in our legislation is we give EPA 15 months to come forth with a new regulation. We then say that they need at least a minimum, that the industries and hospitals and schools need a minimum of 5 years to comply with those regulations. I will never forget the University of Notre Dame came and indicated that they had spent $20 million trying to comply with the old regulations, and now they're going to have to come forth with additional funds to comply with these new regulations.

So all we're doing is we're protecting jobs. We're protecting the health care of the American people. We give the EPA 15 months to come forth with new rules, 5 years at a minimum to comply. For that reason, I think it's imperative that we adopt our legislation, and I would urge every Member to oppose this motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2250.

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

I want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee for offering this amendment. He always does a great job of articulating his position on these issues, some of which are pretty complicated.

In this amendment, he would add illness-related work absences to the considerations when EPA is setting the compliance deadline. And of course that's one of the main purposes of H.R. 2250, to allow additional time for universities, hospitals, and industries in complying with these rather complicated Boiler MACT rules. And in the legislation, we set out six or seven specific items that EPA must consider in setting the compliance deadline. They do have to set it no sooner than within 5 years, but the EPA administrator has additional time after that. And the section of the bill that I'm talking about identifies specific issues relevant to a facility's ability to comply and simply ensures that in setting these compliance dates, plant- focused considerations are taken into account.

Now, EPA already has the responsibility for considering health impacts in setting its standards. And its unclear exactly how this amendment would be implemented different from what the act already requires the EPA to do. So I'm going to respectfully oppose the amendment and ask that it be defeated. However, if we end up having a vote on this and if it is defeated, either by voice vote or by record vote, if we are successful in getting this into a conference with the Senate, I would specifically make the commitment to the gentleman from Tennessee that I would work with him sincerely in trying to address his concern. And I might say that we've had a lot of amendments, and this is, I guess, the only time we said we would really be willing to do that. I know you're trying to address an issue that's of concern to you. And while I oppose the amendment here, if we are successful in getting to conference, I'd look forward to working with the gentlemen at that time. For that reason, I would formally, at this time, oppose the amendment.

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

I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2250.

Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

The gentleman's amendment would add a new section to H.R. 2250 directing the administrator to go on and implement the current boiler sector rules if emissions at industrial facilities are causing respiratory and cardiovascular illness and death, including heart attacks, asthma attacks, and bronchitis.

I would like, first of all, to mention that over the last 15 or 20 years, we've made remarkable progress in cleaning up the air. For example, ozone has been reduced by 14 percent, particulate matter by 31 percent, lead by 78 percent, nitrogen dioxide by 35 percent, carbon monoxide by 68 percent, sulfur dioxide by 59 percent.

This amendment targets specific health issues, respiratory and cardiovascular illness and death, and our bill, I would say, does direct that the EPA protect public health, jobs, and the economy. And that's what our legislation is all about--a more balanced approach.

I find it interesting that the Boiler MACT is all about regulating hazardous air pollutants, but yet, when EPA did their analysis of the benefits of the Boiler MACT rule, they did not include any benefit from reduction of hazardous air pollutants, and mercury, in particular. They indicated that all of the health benefits would be as a result of a reduction of particulate matter.

So the whole purpose of Boiler MACT is to deal with hazardous air pollutants. EPA has decided there was no real benefit from the reduction there, but it's all from particulate matter. So we oppose this amendment because we really don't think it's necessary.

The Clean Air Act sets out very clearly the protections for health and what is required. And we specifically object to this because it's identifying particular illnesses, and we think that EPA should look at a broad range of health issues and, for that reason, would respectfully oppose the gentleman from Virginia's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not positive what the rules are here, but the gentleman from Massachusetts says that he has amendment No. 7, and in the list of amendments that we have, the sponsor of No. 7 is said to be Mr. Quigley of Illinois.

Would the Chair be able to explain to me what the rules are in regard to that?

Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Our good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, talks about the American Boiler Manufacturers Association being opposed to our bill. And that's true. But they don't speak for those who own and operate boilers. They speak for themselves because they manufacture boilers; and if this rule goes into effect, they're going to make a lot more money than they're making today.

The gentleman from Massachusetts also indicated that our legislation will weaken the Clean Air Act. There is not anything in our bill that would weaken the Clean Air Act, and I think that Congress has the responsibility to review and to have oversight over the decisions of EPA on regulations that they adopt. And precisely the reason why we're here with this legislation is because of the economic situation that we find ourselves in America today--we have a very high unemployment rate, we have a stagnant economy, and we have people without jobs.

We've had a lot of hearings on this Boiler MACT regulation issued by EPA, and people are saying that this regulation alone would put at risk 230,000 jobs nationwide. So we're not saying walk away and not protect the American people. We are simply saying let's hold back for just a moment. Let's go back and revisit this rule. Let's take 15 months for EPA to promulgate a new rule and then give the affected industries, universities, hospitals and other groups a minimum of 5 years to implement these new regulations.

And I might say that we heard testimony from the University of Notre Dame, because the first Boiler MACT rules went into effect in 2004, and in order to meet those regulations, the University of Notre Dame spent $20 million to meet those boiler rules and regulations. And then the environmental groups filed a lawsuit and said, hey, this is not stringent enough. We need to issue new rules, which is what EPA did.

So the University of Notre Dame, having spent $20 million already, is still not in compliance. They are going to have to come forth and spend more money. Their witness said that may very well cause them to increase their tuition costs, which makes it more difficult for young people to go to college.

The gentleman from Massachusetts also talked about mercury. And I would reiterate, once again, that when EPA did their analysis, they did not come up with any health benefits because of the reduction in mercury as a result of their Boiler MACT rule. The only health benefits that they pointed out were related to particulate matter, reduction of particulate matter, not mercury; and I'm not aware of any scientific causal connection that specifically says that in this instance 6,600 more people are going to die each year because we delay the implementation of the Boiler MACT rule. And that's one of the reasons that a lot of independent third-party groups have serious questions about EPA's analysis.

How do you know for a fact, without any contradiction, that 6,600 people are going to die each year if this is delayed, or that there are going to be X thousands of people who are going to have heart attacks who wouldn't have had them before?

Because of all of those reasons, we simply believe that this legislation is a commonsense approach: protect jobs, protect health, revisit the issue, come out with a new rule, and give industries, universities, hospitals time to comply. That's all that we're asking for. For that reason, I would respectfully oppose the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts, which was introduced by Mr. Quigley of Illinois.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

I just want to make one comment.

I made the comment that the EPA did not quantify any health benefit from the reduction of mercury. I might also say that, in the court case, EPA tried to delay the Boiler MACT rule itself. In this legislation, because they lost that court case, we are simply saying we think you're right, that you do need to take a little bit more time. For that reason, I would respectfully oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Parliamentary Inquiries

I have a parliamentary inquiry.

I want to thank the gentleman from California for raising this issue.

So, to make sure I understand, if our respected colleagues offer an amendment on that side and take 5 minutes to explain their amendment, then someone on our side can claim time in opposition, and we would get 5 minutes; is that correct?

In addition to that, if we come back later and strike the last word, we would get another 5 minutes if we desire to do so. Is that correct?

I thank the Chair.

I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

The amendment offered by the gentlelady from Maryland would require that we adopt a finding by the EPA that its boiler and incinerator rules will create 2,200 net jobs. The reason that we respectfully oppose that is because that is EPA's analysis. And from hearings and from independent groups, we do question the models that were used; we question the assumptions made; we question the lack of transparency in some of EPA's numbers.

But more important than that, we've had the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, who--you may or may not agree with their numbers, but they have concluded that these rules would put at risk over 230,000 jobs. So the EPA is saying, well, you are going to gain 2,200. They are saying that you are going to put at risk 230,000. Then we had the American Forest & Paper Association, who concluded that they are putting at risk, under these new rules, over 20,000 jobs. We may be picking up 2,200, but you are going to put at risk 230,000 plus 20,000 more.

Then the whole argument that this administration seems to be making a lot of is that, if you issue regulations and you put additional requirements in, then you create jobs. But yet I believe that many people would say, in the history of our country, we've become a strong economic power because we've had individuals willing to invest money, to be innovative, to be free marketeers, to go out with a new product, produce it, create jobs, and that creates wealth and increases our gross domestic product.

But now we seem to be having this argument that, well, if we have more regulations, we will create more jobs. And I would say to you that EPA, over this last year, has been the most aggressive in recent memory. They have had about 12 or 13 major regulations, and we still find that our unemployment rate nationwide is around 9.1 percent. So if all of these regulations are creating all of these new jobs, where are they?

So for the simple reason that this amendment would require us to put in a finding that this regulation will create 2,200 net additional jobs, when we have testimony, when we have witnesses, when we have documentation that the affected industries would put at risk many more thousands of jobs than would be gained, I would respectfully oppose the gentlelady from Maryland's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from California.

You're accurate. The Council of Industrial Boiler Owners was one. Also information we've received from the five labor unions on this issue point out some numbers. And then the other one was AF&PA, American Forest & Paper Association. And then we have a letter from Smucker's and a few other industries.

I demand a recorded vote.

I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

I certainly have great respect for the gentlelady from Illinois. Her amendment basically reads that the Congress finds that mercury released into the ambient air is a potent neurotoxin. From the hearings that we've had and the discussions that we've had and the documents that we have seen, the scientific understanding of mercury seems to be more complicated, as reflected in her amendment.

Now, why do I say that? I say that because your amendment says, mercury released into the ambient air. It's our understanding that methylmercury is the neurotoxin. That mercury released into the ambient air alone is not a neurotoxin. For that reason, we would oppose the amendment, because there's a difference in methylmercury and pure mercury.

One other comment that I would make is that our legislation does provide a minimum of 5 years to comply with the new rules that EPA may come forth with. And it can go beyond that, but that would be at the total discretion of the administrator of EPA. For that reason, we really certainly do not have any concern that it would never be set with a firm deadline. In fact, in the legislation we say the compliance deadline shall be set a minimum of 5 years and the administrator may allow it to go further than that. So the argument that it would go on forever and ever, we genuinely believe is pretty remote. The simple reason, as I stated, about the scientific assumption, the scientific understanding of the difference in mercury and methylmercury is the reason we would respectfully oppose the amendment setting that in the finding.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Would the gentlelady repeat what she is suggesting?

Well, let me just ask a parliamentary inquiry here. What is the parliamentary procedure if we were to attempt to do something like that?

What I go back to is that, in EPA's own analysis, they indicated that they--

They indicated that there was no quantifiable benefit from the reduction of mercury.

Has the potential.

May I ask a parliamentary inquiry?

I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

I respectfully oppose this amendment and ask that it be defeated.

Once again, we're hearing the argument that if you have enough regulations, you're going to create jobs. And the gentleman referred to EPA's estimate that there may be a net gain of 2,200 jobs as a result of this regulation. But when you look at the Council of Industrial Boilers, when you read the documentation from labor unions, from the forest paper products, from the universities, they say there are at risk, as a direct result of this regulation, in excess of 280,000 jobs.

So for us to be doing these minor changes, if the EPA administrator finds they will create more than 1,000 jobs--the real reason, though, that we're opposed to this amendment is that, under the Clean Air Act, boilers already have 3 years to comply, and incinerators have 5 years to comply. We want boilers and incinerators to have a minimum of 5 years to comply. We think that that provides certainty. It certainly reflects the testimony and our concern from witnesses who testified at all of the hearings that they, in many instances, need 5 years. The EPA administrator may allow it to go longer than that if he or she chooses to do so.

But I don't believe that regulation creates jobs. And I think most of the testimony would indicate that there are more jobs at risk as a direct result of these regulations. For that reason, I would oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

There really is nothing in H.R. 2250 that would in any way prohibit or discourage States from continuing to give these advisory opinions about mercury and the dangers of

mercury. So our legislation would not prevent the States in any way from continuing to do that.

The gentleman's amendment would place particular attention on industrial sources; and as we had stated in the debate last week, the Department of Energy itself has said that over 11 million pounds of mercury were emitted globally from both natural and human sources, and the vast majority of the human sources in the U.S. come from outside the U.S.

So coupled with that fact, and the fact that EPA said the benefits of mercury reduction from the Boiler MACT rules have not been quantified, this really seems to be a duplicative effort because the States are going to continue to issue their rulings, their warnings, as they should do so. But it's important that the American people also know that there is a lot of mercury coming from natural sources and also from outside of the U.S. And our legislation, I do not believe, would put at further risk the American people and their health.

With that, I would respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

I would say to the gentlelady from Texas, first of all, that under the regulations of the EPA, today incinerators are given 5 years to comply with section 129 standards, and boilers are only given 3 years to comply with section 112 standards. That's one of the reasons that we introduced this bill, because businesses, manufacturers, institutions, and universities all came to Washington, and in their testimony they asked that we have some uniformity on times to comply.

That's why we decided to extend the compliance deadline for the boiler industry up to 5 years, which is the exact same that incinerators have today under section 129. They asked that we do that because, one, they said it would provide certainty and that, two, in many instances, they do not have the time, the technical knowledge, and it's not economically justifiable to do it within that shorter time period. So your legislation would basically roll back even the time for incinerators. So for that reason, we would respectfully oppose this amendment.

And then I would just make one other comment about the argument that regulations create jobs. I genuinely do not believe that in the history of our country jobs have been created by regulation. Jobs have been created in America because of entrepreneurs spending money and spending capital to develop a product which creates jobs, which helps our gross domestic product, which increases our tax revenues, which allows us to do more in the government sector.

So, as you've indicated, EPA said they think there will be a net job gain of maybe 2,200 jobs, but all of the affected industries, the universities, the labor unions and others, say that they're putting at risk an excess of 230,000 jobs.

I would be happy to yield.

I understand. As you know, the EPA went to court to ask for additional time on these Boiler MACT rules. They were denied that, and our legislation is designed to give them a little bit more time and give the industry more time to comply. And because of that, I would respectfully oppose the gentlelady's amendment and ask that it be defeated.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move that the Committee do now rise.

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 materials on H.R. 2250.

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

Since 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency has rolled out a long list of regulations that are really unprecedented in their cost and complexity. The impacts on jobs, energy prices, and America's industrial competitiveness in the world are extremely serious.

But of all these rules, the Boiler MACT rule, which we will be discussing today, stands out in that it will apply to a very wide variety of employers. Not only will industrial facilities be impacted, but also colleges, universities, hospitals, government buildings, and large commercial properties.

The impact on jobs projected is staggering, but the cost will be borne by all of us in the form of higher tuition costs, higher hospital bills, higher rent, as well as higher prices for manufactured goods. Just about everyone will be adversely impacted either directly or indirectly.

The good news is that we can reduce emissions from boilers without causing economic harm. The EPA Regulatory Relief Act, H.R. 2250, accomplishes this goal by taking a sensible, middle ground, balanced approach; and I would like at this time to thank Mr. Butterfield of North Carolina, as well as Mr. Griffith of Virginia, for their sponsorship of this bipartisan bill.

A study conducted by IHS Global Insight, a respected research company, found that the rules that we are talking about today would impose total costs of over $14 billion and put at risk 230,000 jobs in America at a time when we already have a 9.1 percent unemployment rate. My home State of Kentucky, under the analysis, would face estimated costs of $183 million and 2,930 potential job losses. Twenty-five other States are hit even harder. That includes at least 10,000 jobs estimated for North Carolina, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Virginia, as well as over 5,000 job losses for Minnesota, Wisconsin, Alabama, Tennessee, Iowa, New York, Illinois, Maine, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, and Arkansas.

These boiler rules largely target coal-fired boilers and thus discourage the use of this energy source which, by the way, today provides about 50 percent of all of the electricity produced in America.

I should add that the problems with EPA's boiler rules are not the sole fault of the agency. These rules, like many today, are being rushed out the door to comply with a court-ordered deadline. EPA asked for additional time, but their request was refused by the courts. EPA then published the rules by the deadline, but immediately announced that it was reconsidering portions of them because they were so complicated. However, this is not an adequate solution, as the reconsideration only applies to some of the many problematic provisions in these rules; and the reconsideration process is an uncertain one. In reality, it is unlikely that all the issues can be addressed.

So our legislation is to help EPA deal with this problem. We create a comprehensive solution not only for EPA but also for boiler owners, and we provide the certainty that this solution will be implemented. It still requires

additional emissions reductions from boilers, but it gives EPA the time it needs to do it right. It gives the regulated community the time it needs in order to comply.

This bill is supported by over 300 organizations and five national labor unions. It will require that the standards be reasonable and take into account cost and achievability under real-world conditions. I believe that EPA's original rules were a departure from the congressional intent in the Clean Air Act, and the EPA Regulatory Relief Act that we're discussing today represents a return to congressional intent.

Make no mistake, under this bill that we're discussing, new standards will be imposed on boiler owners and operators. The goals of the Clean Air Act can be accomplished without undue cost and job losses, particularly at this time when our Nation's economy is struggling, and the EPA Regulatory Relief Act is the way to do it.

So I would urge every Member of this body to come forth today and help us pass this legislation--help us save over 230,000 jobs at risk in America that we can ill-afford to lose--with this balanced approach to the problem.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I would like to yield 4 minutes to the primary sponsor of the legislation, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I might just note to the gentleman from Massachusetts that our legislation does not postpone this indefinitely. EPA has 15 months after passage of the bill to come out with the regulations and 5 years to comply. And the only way they can be extended beyond 5 years is if the EPA administrator, herself, decides to do so.

At this time I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, a member of the committee.

At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), who's chairman of the Science Committee.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished lady from Washington State (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I may say to the gentleman from Minnesota, I don't know exactly what he's talking about when he says ``bought and paid for by industry.'' I might say that this legislation is being offered because hospitals, schools, industry, a wide range of interests, have come to us and asked for help, and the insinuation that we were bought and paid for by industry is a little bit of an affront to this institution.

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

I would like to remind the gentleman from Massachusetts that there is a large number of Democrats on this legislation.

At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

At this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Roe.

At this time I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

May I ask how much time remains, Mr. Chairman?

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).

In closing, I would urge every Member of this body to support H.R. 2250. We believe that it is genuinely a balanced approach. EPA even was trying to convince the court that their rule was a good rule, the old rule.

To just give you a very concrete example of this, of the practical impacts of what's going on here, EPA went to the court last December when it asked for time to fix the Boiler MACT rules, which the court denied it, and pointed out that the investments required by industry are irreversible.

An example of that, representatives of Notre Dame University came to our hearing. And in order to comply with the Boiler MACT rules issued in 2004, which were invalidated by the court, the University of Notre Dame spent $20 million, and now they're not in compliance with the new rule, so they're going to have to come forth with additional millions of dollars.

So that's happening not only at the University of Notre Dame, that's happening at just about every university around the country, hospitals around the country, small businesses around the country, small utilities around the country. So if we don't take some action, there are going to be a lot less, many fewer jobs in the economy than there are today, because testimony after testimony after testimony has indicated that entities cannot meet these new rules, are going to have to close down and lose jobs.

So one way that we can help the administration create jobs is to prevent the loss of jobs. If this administration would assert more common sense in their rules, we could remove some of the uncertainty to help us create more jobs in America.

I would urge every Member to support 2250. It's a balanced approach. It protects health, protects industry, and provides a more commonsense approach to this significant problem.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion.

At this time I would like to yield to my colleague from California.

I thank the gentleman.

Our legislation, H.R. 2681, provides a balanced approach to a significant problem. These new regulations put out by EPA relating to cement company regulations are unbalanced. We've had testimony after testimony from representatives of the industry that 20 percent of the U.S. cement manufacturing industry will probably close down within 2 years if these regulations remain in effect.

Our legislation is very simple. It simply says to EPA, go back and within 15 months come back with a new regulation, more balanced, and give the industry 5 years to comply. If the administrator wants to give them more, he or she may do so. But this is about protecting jobs as well as about protecting health. As you know, our economy is struggling right now. The testimony shows quite clearly that if we allow these regulations to remain in effect, we're going to lose a lot more jobs.

The good news is that once EPA goes back and revisits this issue, they most certainly are going to consider health benefits. They're going to do an analysis about health benefits.

I might also say we've heard a lot about mercury. EPA has made it very clear that in the regulation that we're trying to postpone that they do not even consider the dollar benefit from the reduction in mercury emissions. So from their perspective, the benefits from mercury emissions were insignificant. All of the benefits come from particulate matter reductions.

I would urge every Member of this body to vote ``no'' on this motion to recommit and ``yes'' on our legislation, H.R. 2681, if we want to save jobs in America and if we want a more balanced approach to environmental regulation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Our legislation, H.R. 2250, does not leave the American people with the choice of having to have unregulated air, polluted air that creates horrible health consequences. Our legislation is a balanced approach that simply says we think that Congress has the responsibility to review regulations where the American people have told us in hearings that they have great difficulty in complying--in some instances they are unable to comply--and that as a result jobs would be lost.

Sometimes, listening to the debate, it sounds like we have the most polluted air in the world. I would note that EPA reported that since 1990, nationwide air quality has improved significantly for the six common air pollutants. For example, ozone pollution has been lowered by 14 percent; coarse particulate matter--dust--by 31 percent; lead by 78 percent; nitrogen dioxide by 35 percent; carbon monoxide by 68 percent; sulfur dioxide by 59 percent. So we have a very clean air standard today.

Our legislation is not in any way going to change any of the health protections. We simply are asking, because of the concerns expressed by many people around the country, many industries around the country, that EPA should go back, within 15 months, issue, promulgate a new rule within 5 years, give the industry that much time to comply. If the EPA administrator thinks they need more time, then she or he may do that but is not required to do so.

So our position is that this is a balanced approach, particularly at this vulnerable time in our economy when our unemployment rate is high; that we can protect jobs, we can help stimulate the economy, and we can also protect health without endangering our young people.

So for that reason, I would oppose the amendment and ask Members to oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

A number of speakers on the other side have indicated that, if our legislation passes, new regulations relating to Boiler MACT would be put off indefinitely. I would like to clarify and point out that, in section 3 on page 6 of this bill, it says:

For each regulation promulgated pursuant to this legislation, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall--not ``may''--shall establish a date for compliance.

So this is not being put off indefinitely. It explicitly says ``shall.''

Now, during the hearings that we've had, extensive hearings on this Boiler MACT that was adopted by the EPA in 2004, which was invalidated by the courts because of lawsuits filed by environmental groups, the typical testimony was this:

EPA final rules impose unrealistic and very costly requirements that EPA has not justified by corresponding environmental and health protection from reductions of hazardous air pollutants.

Just as a practical example of what I'm talking about, many universities, in order to comply with that 2004 rule, spent large sums of money. The University of Notre Dame spent $20 million to comply with that rule, which has now been invalidated, and EPA has come out with an even more stringent rule that's going to cause a lot more money to be spent.

So we genuinely believe that EPA has the health standards in effect that will protect our children. There's nothing in this bill that's going to change any of that.

But we know that if these universities continue to spend that kind of money on regulations that are invalidated and then have to come back and spend more money, tuition costs are going to go up, which makes it more difficult for some children to go to college. So this simply is a commonsense approach, a balanced approach, saying: EPA go back, revisit this issue. In 15 months, come out with a new regulation. And the EPA administrator shall set a compliance date not sooner than 5 years after the final rule.

But we have also heard a lot of discussion today about mercury, and, yes, we're all concerned about mercury. But EPA, itself, in developing the benefits of their regulation that we're trying to postpone, did not assign one dollar, one dime, or one penny of benefit for the reduction of mercury emissions. And the reason they didn't: because there was not enough reduction, because we've already cleaned up the air a great deal relating to mercury.

All of the benefits that they calculated from their rule came from reduction of particulate matter. In fact, they said, the mercury reductions would be less than three-hundredths of 1 percent of global emissions. We've heard all sorts of testimony about mercury, that 90 percent or so of mercury comes from nature or from sources outside of the U.S.

So I don't think we need to be alarmist about this. This is simply an approach that, hey, our economy is pretty weak right now. We're losing a lot of jobs. We're having difficulty creating jobs. So, look, let's just go back, look at this, in 15 months come back with a new regulation, set a date for compliance, and let's move forward.

I don't think anyone can make a credible, verifiable argument that we're out to destroy every young person in America, every child in America. As a matter of fact, we have a lot of Democrats on this bill. There's been a similar bill introduced to this on the Senate side with Democratic support.

I urge all the Members to defeat the Waxman amendment and support our underlying legislation, H.R. 2250.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

The gentleman's amendment would simply add an additional paragraph at the end of section 5 of our bill, and basically it would say that section 5 in our bill would not be construed to supersede any requirement, limitation or other provision of sections 112 and 129 of the Clean Air Act. And because his amendment would say ``it does not supersede'' is the reason that we want to oppose the amendment.

Now section 5 says this, and this is what we want to supersede section 112 and 129 of the Clean Air Act, in promulgating rules, the administrator shall ensure that emission standards for existing and new sources established under section 112 or 129 can be met under actual operating conditions consistently and concurrently with emissions standards for all other air pollutants regulated by the rule for the source category taking into account variability and actual source performance, source design, fuels, input, controls, ability to measure pollutants' emissions and operating conditions.

In other words, we want to be sure that can be met under actual operating conditions.

And then the second part of our section 5 that we want to be sure supersedes, which this amendment would not allow, is that we put in section 5 the President's own executive order in which he says that the administrator shall impose the least burdensome regulation consistent with the purposes of the act.

So all we're doing in section 5 is saying we want to make sure that it's the least burdensome pursuant to the President's own executive order and that we want to be sure that it can be met in actual operating conditions.

So for that reason, we would respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment.

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

The gentlelady from California may view this argument about jobs as a false choice, but we do have letters from over 300 organizations concerned about the impact on jobs that these EPA regulations will have, including letters of support from five of the largest labor unions in the country.

The gentlelady's amendment would basically say that, in the 10 metropolitan areas chosen by the American Lung Association, the current boiler rules would be retained regardless of what our legislation may do.

So we are opposed to her amendment for two reasons. One, we don't want the legislation to be changed because we think it's necessary to have the balanced approach throughout the country and not to exclude 10 metropolitan areas. But the second reason we would be opposed to it is that to allow one private entity--even if it's the American Lung Association, an organization we all have respect for. But we don't think that they should be determining what should be in this legislation.

So for that reason, I would respectfully oppose the amendment and ask that the amendment be defeated.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

The gentlelady made a comment that she genuinely questions whether jobs are at risk, and I would simply say that, as I said earlier, we received over 300 letters. We received phone calls. We received emails. We have five major labor unions, national labor unions, supporting this legislation. And the people involved in these businesses are telling us that they are going to have to cut off people from work. They're going to have to terminate people's employment in some instances.

And as I said, the University of Notre Dame said they spent $20 million trying to comply with the old rule that was invalidated, and now they're going to have to spend another X millions of dollars to meet these new rules.

I would oppose the amendment because, basically, the gentlelady from California is asking us to put into the findings of the Environmental Protection Agency's calculation that for every dollar in cost, the rule will provide at least $10 to $24 in health benefits. Now, that alone is kind of interesting. From $10 to $24, that's over a 100 percent variance there, flexible zone there. It's not very precise.

And then she says that it's going to avoid either 2,600--up to 6,600 premature deaths a year, so many nonfatal heart attacks, so many hospital emergency room visits, so many cases of aggravated asthma, so many cases of missed work and school.

Well, all of us have sat in a lot of these hearings. We've looked at a lot of numbers, and I tell you what. There's no agreement on any of these numbers. There are questions about the assumptions. There are questions about the modeling. There's questions about the lack of transparency, and different groups come up with different numbers.

I would be happy to yield to the gentlewoman from California.

No. I agree that it's been peer reviewed, and I can also give you a long list of scientists who also have peer reviews that do not agree with these numbers. I can also give you a list of names of people at OMB who question these numbers. I can also give you a list of academics at universities that question these numbers.

Yes, they went through the process. And our analysis went through the process too. But they come up with different numbers. Therefore, because of that, we don't think it's right to put these particular numbers in there when there's so much disagreement on the numbers.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, we all have great respect for the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and you could make some very good arguments for his amendment. Basically, he said the amendment would set a 3-year compliance date and allow a case-by-case extension for up to 2 years if the administrator of the EPA determined that there was a compelling need, and that's reasonable.

But one of the problems that we continue to run into on these Boiler MACT rules, and all the hearings have pointed this out: the fact that lawsuits are always being filed and litigation is continually going on at EPA and consent decrees are being entered into, and it's an ever- changing situation over there on the exact rule.

The one argument that we hear continually from the affected groups is that they need certainty, and even on a case-to-case basis, if the administrator determines a compelling need, we don't have that 100 percent certainty that we really want. And so our legislation does say that within 15 months, they have to come back with the promulgation of a new rule, and it does say that the administrator shall establish a date for compliance no earlier than 5 years after the effective date of the regulation, and it does say that the EPA administrator may provide additional time if he or she chooses to do so. Just looking at the track record of EPA, I don't suspect that they would be doing that a lot, but they might. But they do have to set a compliance date. We say you must set a compliance date not earlier than 5 years.

I would be happy to yield.

I thank the gentleman for his comment. Those are very good thoughts and very good ideas. As you know, a similar bill has been introduced in the Senate. We don't know if it's going to pass or not. If it does pass, we want to be able to go into conference with as much flexibility as possible. That's why we chose a 5-year period instead of a 3-year period, recognizing that there is some uncertainty in both the 3-year and the 5-year. Under your situation if there's a compelling need, on a case-by-case basis, they could extend it. In ours, the administrator under certain circumstances could extend it. We do have some Democratic support. We would love to have your support. If we get into conference, that is one of the parts of this bill that we hope that we can negotiate with the other side and come up with something that's satisfactory for both.

I really appreciate your bringing it to our attention and offering your amendment. As I have said, with as much reluctance as I have, I still will have to oppose it and hopefully we can work it out in conference with the other body.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I move to table the gentleman's motion to appeal the ruling of the Chair.

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

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.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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 move to strike the last word.

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.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I rise in opposition to this amendment for a couple of reasons. Number one, because EPA has already comprehensively and exhaustively examined the health benefits cost and every other analysis relating to their regulations. We have voluminous information about those benefits.

I would also say that we've heard testimony after testimony from experts who say that you cannot in any way with certainty say how many lives are going to be saved, how many people are not going to be put in the hospital, how many cases of asthma are going to be not contracted because of passing a regulation or not passing a regulation. They have models. They come up with estimates, and there's not anything in this amendment that would provide any more certainty. And for that reason, I oppose the amendment and ask that it be defeated.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I certainly want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee for offering this amendment and particularly pointing out that it relates to animals as well as people, and I would say that from our analysis, certainly EPA considers work-related illnesses and absences when they issue these regulations, and the specific section of the bill, H.R. 2681, which the gentleman from Tennessee is amending relates to the provisions that the administrator must consider relating to the industry in trying to comply with the regulation.

This amendment would add to that illness-related work absences would have to be considered as well, and we think that that would really be duplicative of what they already considered. And because of that, despite the great respect we have for the gentleman from Tennessee, I would urge that this amendment not be adopted and urge other Members to vote ``no'' on the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

The amendment offered by the gentleman would set a 3- year compliance date and allow case-by-case extensions for up to 2 years if the administrator of EPA determines that there is a compelling need to do so.

The purpose, of course, of this legislation is to protect health, provide feasibility and regulatory certainty, protect jobs, and minimize plant shutdowns. Under the Clean Air Act, sources already have 3 years to comply with section 112 standards for cement kilns, with a potential 1-year extension by the EPA administrator or a State- permitting authority. This amendment would allow for a second possible 1-year extension, so a source might be able to get 5 years for compliance. The amendment would impose additional regulatory burdens on both the EPA and those facilities trying to comply. It would require a facility to compile evidence to justify the need for an additional year, and would require the administrator to make a case-by-case determination about whether that justification is compelling.

All of the testimony in the hearings on this indicated that the current 3-year compliance timeframe is simply not workable and a definitive period of at least 5 years is needed. And so for that reason, with all due respect, we would urge the defeat of the gentleman's amendment.

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

I move to strike the last word.

The last time that the Clean Air Act was amended in any significant way was 1990, over 21 years ago. And Congress certainly has the responsibility, from time to time, to look at the Clean Air Act to make changes when we believe changes should be made. And with the current situation in our economy, and the high unemployment and the number of concerns expressed by industries around the country, as well as individuals about the lack of jobs, we made a decision that we would start questioning some of the regulations coming out of the EPA.

The gentlelady from Maryland, who is a very effective Member of this body, is suggesting that, in our legislation, that we adopt as a finding the health benefits and costs as computed by EPA.

Now, we have difficulty just adopting their health benefits and costs and putting it in our legislation as a finding for a number of reasons. Number one, we don't really know the assumptions that they're using. Number two, many universities and others have questioned the models being used by EPA in computing costs and benefits. And many people have found that there is a lack of transparency in the methodology used at EPA in making many of these calculations.

I might also say that, because of that, for example, EPA determined that the cost of these rules would be between $926 million to $950 million; and yet other independent analyses have indicated that the cost would be anywhere up to $3.4 billion. So we genuinely believe that for Congress to simply take those calculations and put them in as a finding of this legislation would be irresponsible.

I might also add that, with respect to the benefits, EPA itself has acknowledged that it has not even quantified the benefits from the reductions of hazardous air pollutants, which are the very pollutants that these rules, these cement rules, were intended to target. Rather, EPA's estimates of benefits are all related to incidental health benefits by the reduction of particulate matter, which are already regulated by other parts of the Clean Air Act.

So for all of those reasons, I would respectfully urge Members to oppose the gentlelady's amendment and request that they vote in opposition to it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Thank you very much.

Over the last year particularly, great attention has been paid in this country to the state of our economy; and despite all of the efforts of the bailouts, the stimulus spending and other efforts, our unemployment rate is still above 9 percent nationally.

We were told that when we adopted the bailouts, when we made money available for the stimulus plans, that unemployment would be reduced in the U.S. to a maximum of 8 percent. Well, that has not come to pass. And as you talk to business leaders large and small around the country, they will tell you that one of the primary reasons that our economy has not been stimulated is because of the uncertainty that has been caused by this administration.

Now, the uncertainties that I'm talking about are, number one, all of those uncertainties that are related to the health care legislation that passed in the last Congress. We know that that health care bill will not be fully implemented until the year after the year 2014. We've been told that CMS and HHS and others have already written 8,700 pages of additional regulations. It's quite clear from discussions with physicians, hospital administrators, and other health care providers that they do not know what to do. Businesses do not know what to do because they are not able to determine what the cost of health care is going to be because they still do not even know what is in the health care bill.

So with the uncertainty caused by the health care legislation, the uncertainty caused by the financial regulatory regime, the raising of the capital requirements, the changing in the methods used for conducting appraisals, all of that has generated a lot of uncertainty, and it's more difficult particularly for community banks to make loans.

A third area of uncertainty is related to regulations implemented by this Environmental Protection Agency. Under the administrator, Lisa Jackson, this has been the most aggressive EPA in the history of the agency. Trying to keep up with all of the regulations coming out has been very difficult to do. Lawsuits have been filed, consent decrees have been entered, court decisions have been rendered, environmental groups have been reimbursed for their legal costs, the regulations are changing; and so businesspeople are saying, we're not going to invest one dollar, much less millions of dollars, until we have some certainty about these regulations.

So the uncertainty related to health care, the uncertainty related to financial regulation, and the uncertainty related to EPA regulations have been a tremendous obstacle for investment to be made and for additional jobs to be created.

I think it's essential that if we're going to get this economy back on track that we have to have certainty in a lot of these areas, and that's precisely what the leadership in this House of Representatives is attempting to do. We're calling upon the leadership in the Democratic-controlled Senate to do the same thing; and the sooner that we can do that, the more likely it is that we're going to stimulate this economy. It's not going to be stimulated by additional regulation, it's not going to be stimulated by additional government expenditures, which is basically what the President's jobs plan is all about, and I might refer to today's article in The Hill and the headline that says Senate Democrats Buck Obama on Jobs Plan.

So let's get back to providing certainty; and when we do that, we're going to encourage investment in our economy to create more jobs.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

I rise in opposition to this amendment for a number of reasons. First of all, the TRAIN Act, the underlying bill that we're talking about here, applies to 14 regulations of EPA. It does not delay in any way any of those regulations, except for two, and that's referred to as the Utility MACT and the Cross-State Air Transport Rule. And even on those two acts, it only delays the Cross-State Transport Rule by 3 years, and it delays the Utility MACT by 1 year.

The whole purpose of the TRAIN Act is simply to look more closely at the cumulative impact on jobs, on electricity prices, on American competitiveness in the global marketplace. EPA has done a very thorough job on most of these regulations in calculating benefits, but they had not looked closely in all of them on cost. Under the TRAIN Act, we're simply asking this independent government agency to look at all costs and all benefits.

Another reason that I would speak in opposition to this amendment, one of the things that it requires this independent body to do is to examine the effect on green energy companies. Now, there's nothing in the TRAIN Act that's selecting one industry to give some favorable treatment to, and that's particularly what this amendment does.

I might add, on green energy, the green energy industry has received increases of 153 percent of subsidies. Subsidies have increased 153 percent for green energy. So I don't think that they should be receiving some special benefit from this Rush amendment; and that's why I would oppose it, and I would ask all Members to oppose it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I ask how much time I have remaining?

Well, I would say first to the distinguished gentleman that while we're delaying this Cross-State Air Transport Rule, we have in effect today the CAIR Act, which has been in effect since 2005. The EPA itself has said that this act that is currently controlling the cross-wind interstate movements will reduce sulfur dioxide and NOX emissions by 57 and 63 percent respectively. That regulation is still going to be in effect.

I would also remind everyone that EPA, when they implemented the CAIR Act, pointed out that it would have $100 billion in health benefits each year, preventing 17,000 premature deaths, 22,000 nonfatal heart attacks, 12,300 hospital admissions, 1.7 million lost workdays, 500,000 lost school days, and it goes on to all of the benefits.

Simply because a court invalidated the CAIR Act because EPA was looking at a regional program rather than at a State-by-State program does not mean that this is not an effective regulation that's in existence today. Even many environmental groups actually supported EPA in opposing the effort to invalidate the CAIR Act. EPA made strong arguments that the CAIR Act was adequate.

So all we're doing is trying to delay this cross-State rule. As I said, even respected independent analyses have indicated that these two rules--the Utility MACT and the Cross-State Air Transport Rule--will have a net effect of a loss of 1.4 million jobs and will increase electric utility bills by 23 percent.

Now, at a time when our economy is so weak and when we're trying to create jobs, we simply wanted to look at it more closely and give EPA a little bit more time. That's all that we're trying to do with our act, and that's why we're very much opposed to the Rush amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

While I have great respect for the gentleman from California, I would remind everyone that, in his 2008 convention speech, Barack Obama promised to create 5 million green energy jobs, and those jobs have not been created.

I would also point out that renewable energy subsidies increased by 186 percent over the last 3 years: from $5.1 billion to $14.7 billion. The wind industry, for example, received a tenfold increase: from $476 million to $4.986 billion. Solar subsidies increased by more than a factor of 6: from $179 million to $1.134 billion.

Then we noted that, over at the Department of Energy, there are loan guarantee programs. As this article in The New York Times stated, they gave an example of one company that had received $300 million to create green technology jobs. They ended up creating 150 jobs at a cost of $2 million per job. Now, coal, nuclear, and natural gas still provide about 95, 96 percent of the electricity produced in America; but the reason we oppose this amendment is that it also gives special treatment to green energy. As illustrated by the increase in renewable subsidies available to them, I think it's quite obvious that government programs favor green energy right now.

Our position is, with the three basics--coal, nuclear, and natural gas--providing the base load to create the industrial growth of this country by providing low-cost electricity, we do not need this amendment to instruct this independent body to look at specifically the impact on green energy exporting companies. So, for that reason, I would oppose the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Does the gentleman from California have the right to close?

Does the gentleman from California have anything else to say on the amendment?

I would say to the gentleman, we all recognize the importance of green energy, but there isn't one of these regulations that we are looking to for an analysis that has any negative impact on green energy. In fact, every one of these regulations will help green energy.

And, as I said, the government's philosophy right now is to do everything possible for green energy, more subsidies, a study going on all of the time on the impact on the jobs. For that reason, we do not feel that this amendment is necessary and would ask the Members to oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

I would like to remind everyone once again that the TRAIN Act is applied to 14 regulations coming out of EPA, and it's seldom that Congress intervenes in these regulations. But there are so many of these, and the cost of jobs and the cost of buying the equipment and the lack of achievability of many of them to meet the criteria is the reason we want to do this study. I would remind everyone we do not delay in any way any of these regulations except two of them.

I would say to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin that I agree with her. Many of the communities that would most suffer high energy prices and unemployment as a result of the EPA regulations are those communities that rely on affordable, reliable, coal-fired energy to light their homes and run their businesses. These communities are the least able to afford increased unemployment, increased energy prices, and the illness that results from unemployment and being unable to afford fuel.

And I might say that when EPA does their analysis, they never look at the effect of the health of the children of the people working in the coal mines and the utility plants who lose their jobs, and there is an impact on it.

But I think this is a good amendment that would help the analysis, and I would like to tell the lady from Wisconsin we would be happy to accept this amendment.

Yes, ma'am.

I would just like to remind the gentlelady that the CAIR Act is still in effect. As I read earlier, all the benefits are there that the EPA said would be there, and it's significantly reduced NOX emissions, SOX emissions. We're not doing anything to change that existing law.

Thank you for making the amendment. As I said, we feel like it will really help on this study.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

All of us certainly are concerned about impacts on children. One of the problems that we have with this amendment is that when you try to determine specifically what causes a birth defect, for example, there are lots of different reasons. Folic acid is a B vitamin. Taking folic acid supplements before getting pregnant and in early pregnancy lowers the risk of having a baby with serious birth defects. Drinking alcohol increases the likelihood of serious birth defects. Smoking. Women who are obese when they get pregnant are at higher risk of having a baby with serious birth defects. Poor control of diabetes in pregnant women increases the chance of having a birth defect. So there's lots of different reasons, and it's difficult to set out a causal reason.

I would say to the gentlelady from California who we know is genuinely concerned about these health issues and has distinguished her career by raising them frequently, the EPA did extensive analysis of the health benefits of all of these rules with the exception of greenhouse gas. They didn't do any study on anything there. So we have a lot of information about the health benefits.

As far as the mercury issue, I would say to the gentlelady that the Utility MACT, EPA itself said that this would reduce mercury by such a small amount that it would represent only 0.004 percent of the total claimed benefits of the rule, and the remaining 99.996 percent would be due to particulate matter reduction.

And I would also remind the gentlelady that the Department of Energy and other groups have indicated that 99 percent of mercury deposits in the U.S. do not come from utility companies, but they originate from nature and foreign industrial sources in which the wind brings them to the U.S.

We believe that there's adequate information on health benefits. Furthermore, the TRAIN Act does ask the independent body to look at benefits--it can be health, whatever--and cost. For that reason, we would oppose the gentlelady's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Does the gentlelady from California have any time left?

I don't have any other speakers, so I reserve the balance of my time to close.

I would remind everyone just once again that we're talking about 14 regulations. We're not delaying 12 of them in any way. We're asking for further analysis of two of them. For that reason, I would oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I have great admiration for the gentleman from Florida, who is always eloquent in his remarks.

He started off his support of his amendment by saying that we are trying to dismantle any regulation. I would like to remind everyone, once again, that this bill applies to 14 EPA regulations and we do not delay in any way 12 of them. And on the other two, we delay one of them, both of them, 6 months after the final report is due.

Now, he had mentioned that Exelon supported the new EPA regulations. Exelon is a company that we all admire and respect, but it's a nuclear energy company, so there's nothing in these regulations that has any impact on them, as far as I know. But all of these regulations are trying to drive the coal industry out of business, that still provides 50 percent of all the electricity in America.

Now, in the TRAIN Act, we simply ask this independent government agency, composed of Obama administration appointees, to examine the cumulative impact of all of these rules, because EPA has never been quite this aggressive. And I might add that the two rules that we asked to delay for further analysis, an independent research group said that the annualized cost would be almost $18 billion that utilities would have to spend to buy equipment that may not be able to even then achieve the standards because the technology is not available.

The issue is not about mercury. The utilities do a great job of cleaning up mercury. EPA itself said that its Utility MACT would only benefit--the benefit of the Utility MACT would be only .004 percent attributable to mercury because 99 percent of mercury in America comes from nature and from outside other countries that the trade winds bring in to our country. So utilities don't object to the mercury part of this.

But they're now adding hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen chloride, of which there is no technology available to achieve the standard that EPA is setting.

So because of the cost, because of the unique vulnerability of our economy today, 12 of these regulations we don't delay at all. We just say, let's study the cumulative impact, which the President asked for in his Executive order that he issued recently. He said we need to look at the cumulative impact. That's what we're trying to do.

This amendment would basically say, you don't look at the cumulative impact, you just take the existing studies that have been made. I would also say that EPA didn't even do any study on the greenhouse gas, which we're only trying to analyze the full cost of that.

For those reasons, I would respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

While I have great regard for the gentleman from Virginia, I must rise to oppose this amendment.

In his 2008 convention speech, Barack Obama promised to create 5 million green energy jobs. An article in The New York Times headlines, ``Where the Jobs Aren't,'' talks about all the government money that's being spent to subsidize green energy today. They gave an example of one government program that provided $300 million to a company. They created 150 jobs at what turned out to be a cost of $2 million for every job.

The reason that solar and wind are not taking off is they are too expensive and too inefficient. Having said that, I recognize that they have a part in our economy and that they have a part in producing electricity, but they can never be the base load. That cannot be attained. We cannot provide enough electricity without coal, nuclear, and natural gas.

Now, this amendment gives special attention to the green energy field. I would remind everyone, once again, that renewable energy subsidies increased over the last 3 years by 186 percent: from $5 billion to $14 billion. Renewables saw, by far, the largest increase in Federal benefits. Wind alone received a tenfold increase in subsidies: from $476 million to almost $5 billion. Solar increased by a factor of 6: from $179 million to $1.2 billion.

Let me just finish this one sentence.

So these strategies can't work without government support. I don't object to government supporting them, but they do not need to get even more special privileges from this amendment.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

The direct expenditure for coal was $42 million last year, and for wind it was $3.556 billion.

I will tell you that oil and gas and coal are willing to give up all of their subsidies if green energy wants to give up their subsidies, because they're getting a lot more than anyone else.

At this point, I reserve the balance of my time.

Once again, I oppose the amendment.

Green energy is getting every benefit possible from this administration--money, studies, and in every other way. It will never be able to meet the base load of our electricity needs. Therefore, unless we can continue to have low-cost electricity, we're not going to compete in the global marketplace, and we're going to continue to lose jobs. The EPA is making direct attacks against an industry. For that reason, I respectfully oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

First, I would like to say to the gentlelady from Texas, who does such a great job on all of these issues, that we do not intend in any way to remove any of the authority of the EPA to regulate the Cross-State Transport Rules. As a matter of fact, of the 14 rules that we're examining that EPA has issued, 12 of them we do not delay in any way. On the Air Transport Rule, we simply go back to the original Air Transport Rule of which EPA talked about all of the marvelous benefits. The EPA defended it in court. The environmental groups supported it: 67 and 53 percent reductions in SO2 and NOX emissions. That will remain in effect.

As far as the gentlelady's amendment, we would be happy to accept it, because I think it's a good amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Thank you.

It's already been stated today that the TRAIN Act examines 14 EPA regulations. On 12 of them, we do not delay in any way, but we do ask for a study of the cumulative impact on jobs, on American competitiveness, on the price of electricity and the reliability of electricity.

We do that because we are in a very fragile time in our economy. We have high unemployment, we've been unable to get out of it; and in order to do it, we have to have some certainty on these regulations. Business people tell us they are not investing right now because of uncertainty about health care, uncertainty about the new financial regulations and uncertainty about the plethora of EPA regulations coming down the road.

So although we don't touch 12 regulations, the two that we are concerned about--and the reason we're concerned about them--is that they are the most expensive ever issued by EPA. Independent analysts have indicated that there will be a net, after including job gains, a net loss of almost 1.4 million jobs.

My amendment would do this: it would provide that the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule has no legal force or effect, and it does direct EPA to continue to apply the Clean Air Interstate Rule, which is in effect today.

As I had indicated earlier, EPA, when they adopted CAIR, they talked about the billions of dollars in health benefits, 17,000 premature deaths that they would prevent, 22,000 nonfatal heart attacks that they would prevent; and I could go on and on and on. And EPA defended the CAIR Act in court. The environmental groups supported the CAIR Act.

Our air transport rules and regulations are still going to be in effect; and we simply say that for at least 3 years, EPA cannot change the CAIR Act, but during that time do a more detailed analysis of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule because of the enormous cost, the enormous impact on jobs and so forth.

The amendment also requires that the proposed Utility Maximum Achievable Control Technology rule has no legal force in effect and that any subsequent Utility MACT rule be issued no sooner than 1 year after the study called for in the TRAIN Act. So we simply ask the EPA to repropose the utility rule.

Now, people are saying, oh my gosh, if we don't have this utility rule in effect, mercury is going to do all of these horrible things.

I would remind everyone once again EPA says that 99 percent of the mercury in America comes from nature and from trade winds coming in from other countries. And EPA itself said Utility MACT benefits by mercury reductions of that whole bill would be .004 percent.

I would also say that utility companies have no problem with mercury. They're doing a good job on that, and they can do even better. But the two gases that they are asking them to regulate have never been regulated before--I had the name of them awhile ago and I can't remember them--but the technology is not available to meet the requirements of the Utility MACT. So you are asking these companies to spend this money, provide this uncertainty, and so that's what my amendment does. It basically delays the implementation of the Utility MACT, asks for a reproposal, and it also maintains the existing CAIR air transport rule.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I would just say that the two gases I was trying to think of are hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride. Those are the real problems in this Utility MACT: the lack of technology, the unachievability of the standards, and that's why this amendment is asking that the implementation be delayed for 3 years of this air transport rule.

With that, I urge Members to support my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion.

I would say to the gentlelady that not only are we concerned about the Great Lakes, but we're concerned about every body of water in America, and we believe that the TRAIN Act protects that water, does not take away any authority from the EPA to deal with water issues.

The TRAIN Act is very simple. It asks the government commission to study 14 regulations of EPA. On 12 of them we do not delay them in any way. On the other two, we delay one for 1 year and the other for 3 years.

We have adequate protections in place. We simply think that we should examine the cumulative impact of the regulations from the most aggressive EPA in recent memory to determine what impact it is going to have on jobs; what impact it is going to have on electricity prices; what impact it is going to have on electricity reliability, and will it damage America's competitiveness in the world marketplace.

I would urge passage of this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the gentleman another minute.

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

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

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

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

May I ask how much time we have remaining?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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