Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, we can't cut our way to national prosperity. Since President Obama took office, private sector employment has steadily grown; but largely due to misguided priorities of many Republican officeholders, public sector cuts have offset that private sector job gain. In fact, the States that took the most severe hatchet to their State budgets have lost the most jobs and faced a more severe economic downturn. But the States that increased spending in the public sector saw real and steady economic growth since the recession began.

According to a study by the Center for American Progress, that's because there's a corresponding increase in the private sector when we pursue a responsible policy of investment in the public sector. Some States have, in fact, slashed their way into a deeper economic slump. Yes, big cuts in public spending do have an immediate effect on the quality of life; but it's worse if in addition to affecting our quality of life, we are actually making the national employment situation much worse. There's abundant data to support that conclusion.

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that President Obama's jobs bill invests in teachers, cops and firefighters because he knows that that investment will stimulate more private sector capital investment in our communities. That's why it should be passed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a recent editorial by Nick Benton, editor and publisher of the Falls Church News Press. His editorial, which appeared on October 19, 2011, reads as follows:

It was by a remarkable and gracious coincidence that the

first weekend after the passing of our gay movement's

greatest pioneer, Franklin Kameny, the Martin Luther King Jr.

Memorial was dedicated on the National Mall.

The ceremony included a viewing of the entirety of Dr.

King's 17-minute ``I Have a Dream'' speech delivered on the

steps of the Lincoln Memorial to 300,000 in the ``Great March

on Washington'' of August 28, 1963, the year of the 100th

anniversary of Lincoln's signing of the Emancipation

Proclamation.

Seven of the handful of original gay members of the

Mattachine Society of Washington, led by Kameny, attended

that historic rally and heard that speech. It was with its

echoes ringing in their ears that in 1965, Kameny and a tiny

cadre of fellow homosexuals carried out the first-ever

organized picket line demanding homosexual equality held at

the White House gates.

In his 1963 speech, Dr. King welcomed the racially-diverse

makeup of the rally. ``Many of our white brothers, as

evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize

that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. They have

come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to

our freedom,'' he intoned.

``We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are

created equal,'' Dr. King declared. ``I have a dream that my

four little children will one day live in a nation where they

will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the

content of their character.''

That speech directly inspired the rise of our modern gay

movement, led by Kameny (May 21, 1925-October 11, 2011),

Lilli Vincenz, Barbara Gittings and a handful of others, as

chronicled in the film documentary, ``Gay Pioneers'' (2004),

produced by the Philadelphia Equality Forum.

Frank Kameny, I am proud to say, was my friend in recent

years. He was arguably the single most seminal influence in

the history of our movement, so claimed at a Rainbow History

Project forum last week. Kameny was scheduled to speak at

that forum before his untimely death at age 86 just two days

before.

His was the strident, compelling force that led the effort

against the 1950s McCarthyite anti-homosexual witch hunts in

the government (David K. Johnson, ``The Lavender Scare, The

Cold War Persecution of Gays and Lesbians in the Federal

Government,'' 2004).

He organized picket lines when no one else was doing it and

carried on a relentless, lifelong fight for equality. He ran

for public office and railed loudly against injustice in an

era when no one, except in rarefied circles of literary or

artistic elites, dared publicly declare their homosexuality.

His crowning achievement was his relentless, eventually

successful campaign to get the American Psychiatric

Association to remove homosexuality from its list of mental

disorders in 1973. That signal achievement changed the public

perception of homosexuality, laying the groundwork for

growing public acceptance and affirmation since.

Kameny invented the slogan, ``Gay is Good,'' far more

controversial in its time than it seems now. I defended it

then against objections of dedicated gay friends who

considered it too radical.

When I first met Frank, I was a young gay activist in 1970

in San Francisco. Dr. King's speech permeating the national

ethos, I'd made two life-changing decisions, entering

seminary in 1966 and joining Kameny and his San Francisco

counterparts prior to Stonewall in early 1969 to ``come out''

and join the struggle for gay, and human, liberation.

Our fight, I wrote in the editorial for the first Gay

Sunshine newspaper, ``should harken to a greater cause, the

cause of human liberation, of which homosexual liberation is

just one aspect.''

Regrettably, about that same time, the onslaught of the

right wing, socially-engineered anarcho-hedonist

counterculture hijacked our movement, dashing Dr. King's

appeal to the ``content of character'' in the process. We've

had to live, and die, with the consequences of that since.

I reconnected with Frank in recent years, while his

contributions became more recognized and appreciated. A

milestone came when the many picket signs, leaflets, speeches

and photographs he'd kept from his earliest activist days

were formally received as a special collection at the

Smithsonian Institution. He was honored at the White House by

President Obama, and a photo of him and me with Vice

President Biden hangs in my office.

Along with another other early activist and mutual friend,

Lilli Vincenz, and her long-time partner Nancy Davis, I

hosted Frank as my guest at the national dinner of the Human

Rights Campaign in 2005, and often invited him to lunches at

The Palm restaurant in downtown D.C.

Those many lunches were not only to enjoy his company, but

to provide opportunities for my friends, especially younger

ones, gay and otherwise, to meet and appreciate this genuine

hero of our movement. Recently, of this ``Gay Science''

project, Kameny smiled and quipped, ``I think we wind up in

the same place.'' I concurred.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a longtime Arlington, Virginia resident, Mary Frances Bley, who will retire from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) on October 31st. During her 28 years of service with CRS, Ms. Bley distinguished herself by passionately and diligently working to ensure that congressional needs for research were responded to promptly and with the best information and analysis available.

A native of Washington state, Ms. Bley joined CRS in 1984 as a temporary employee in the Inquiry Section where she directed congressional requesters to the CRS employees best suited to respond to their particular needs. She quickly moved from a temporary to a permanent position, and soon afterward to a leadership position within the section.

During her time in the Inquiry Section, Ms. Bley returned to graduate school part-time and in 1987, she earned a Master's Degree in Library Science (MLS) from The Catholic University of America. After obtaining her MLS, she moved to a librarian position in the Congressional Reference Division within CRS, where she responded directly to congressional requests.

Ms. Bley's special aptitude for serving Congress was evident in her work as a librarian. In 1993, she was invited by CRS leadership to participate in a detail to the new Congressional Services Team in the Office of the Librarian of Congress. In this position, she worked to further the mission of the team to study and enhance the Library's understanding of and responsiveness to congressional needs, and congressional understanding of the Library's mission and potential.

In the mid-1990s, Ms. Bley was frequently at the forefront of the transition at CRS from a world dominated by print research materials to a digital research world. Her early efforts were mostly visible only to her CRS colleagues as she worked on efforts to digitize reference materials and facilitate access to online federal data sources.

Ms. Bley specialized in appropriations and budget issues, and made significant enhancements to the appropriations and budget information available through the CRS website. The culminating accomplishment of Ms. Bley's work was the extremely popular Appropriations Status Table. This tool, updated daily, allows CRS colleagues and Congress to access extensive and timely information on current and historical appropriations activities through one convenient resource.

Throughout her career, CRS leadership recognized Ms. Bley's work for Congress with numerous awards, including individual and group Special Achievement Awards and a Meritorious Service Award. Ms. Bley's efforts as a team member were lauded in one award as the ``glue'' that held the CRS Appropriations Team together. In another, Ms. Bley's work was praised as being ``distinguished by creativity, independent initiative, thoroughness, timeliness, and a service orientation that resulted in detailed responses and products of the highest quality.''

During her tenure, Ms. Bley won the respect and admiration of her colleagues and those she served in Congress. She will be remembered for her poise; her sense of perspective; her thoughtful analysis; her ability to identify and implement practical solutions to complex problems; her wit, humor, and energy; and her excitement in learning from and collaborating with colleagues. Her vision and leadership will continue to benefit CRS and Congress long after her retirement on October 31, 2011.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Ms. Bley upon her retirement from CRS. She epitomizes the dedication and excellence that make CRS the envy of legislatures around the world.

Mr. Speaker, the supercommittee is at a standstill. The Democrats won't consider cuts to entitlement programs if the money is primarily to pay for cutting taxes on the wealthy. Republicans won't consider raising taxes on the wealthy from their currently historically low levels because these are the job creators. But where are the jobs?

The fact is that corporate profits are at historic highs, as are CEO and investor compensation. But the reason for that corporate profit being historically high is that over the last several years, 75 percent of corporate profit has come from reduction in personnel costs. Then the top 1 percent reward themselves for cutting those costs and raising profits by increasing their own income and bonuses to record high levels.

In fact, the CBO report that came out today confirms this. The wealthiest 1 percent, whose income the Republican majority wants so much to protect, went up by 275 percent since 1980. You don't get upward mobility, you don't realize our full potential as a Nation when we have such a concentration of wealth at the top.

I thank the very distinguished leader from California (Mr. Waxman).

Over 30 years ago, Congress accepted the legal responsibility to protect human health, conserve our natural resources, reduce waste, and ensure that waste is managed in an environmentally sound manner. That's the underpinning of what this argument is about.

Now, every year, America generates about 61 million metric tons of coal ash and slag and about 17 million metric tons of coal sludge from utility and industrial boilers. Now, Mr. Waxman mentioned what's in this sludge and slag, and that's why we're raising this argument, because it contains all the chemicals Mr. Waxman referred to--arsenic, chromium, cobalt, lead, and mercury. In fact, it includes radioactive elements including uranium, thorium, and radium.

This material is very toxic. But we also know that coal ash, slag, and sludge have a number of beneficial reuses in concrete, roads, and roofing. And EPA is not trying to ban the beneficial reuse of coal ash. In fact, EPA proposed two separate possible regulations so that you could have a robust dialogue on the most effective means of coal ash disposal. EPA wants to ensure that the ultimate decision is based upon the best available science and technical data, and is taken with the fullest public input. EPA had extensive public involvement--thousands of public comments and eight public hearings around the country.

Now, this legislation would deprive EPA of the ability to use the best available science in its decisions, and it would negate those thousands of public comments that have been received since the rule's proposal. It would block the current progress on federal safeguards before the regulations have been finalized.

Now, what's the problem with the approach that has been made by the other side? Well, it would create a patchwork of compliance with up to 50 different State-by-State regulations, and it would block federal enforcement of what is clearly a national problem.

It's a national problem because States with lax coal ash disposal requirements--and there will probably be economic competition to reduce the requirements as much as possible--those States would be allowed to pollute the streams and rivers of downstream States, and the Federal Government would be powerless to do anything about it. That's why these interstate impacts are the very reason federal regulation is appropriate, necessary and, in fact, is our legal responsibility.

We understand that many people are concerned about this. Granted. And a number of claims have been made that it would ban the ability to develop concrete and road material and so on. But this rule has not been finalized. EPA has received so many comments and suggestions that it would seem that we are in a situation where we can structure a rule that not only takes care of the concerns but protects the public health.

I would have to say, as important as it is to protect jobs, it's important to protect lives. We have a responsibility to protect lives. You heard what's in this material. You can see why it's a national responsibility. So let's fulfill that national responsibility. Rely on EPA to use scientific findings. Let's protect the public health and do the right thing and defeat this legislation.

Will the gentleman yield?

As we know, airstreams and rivers and other bodies of water don't stop at a State's border. If that is the case, how is it fair for one State to let that pollution go into a downstream State's water? That's our concern.

I thank my friend.

Madam Speaker, how much floor time do we have to spend on redundant legislation that will surely die in the Senate and has already been threatened with a veto?

We've had this debate. We know what the final result will be. Federal funding of abortion is already illegal except in cases of incest, rape, and life-threatening situations. We accept that. But while millions of Americans are losing their jobs and seeing their life savings evaporate, the Republican majority insists on wasting our time on publicly demagoguing a deeply personal issue.

This bill also contains a refusal clause that would allow emergency room health professionals to deny lifesaving care to a pregnant woman because of their personal beliefs. Evidence shows that barriers to abortion services increase the risk of maternal injury and death, and that the best way to reduce the number of abortions is with accurate sexual education and the widespread availability of contraception. Yet the same people who oppose abortions also oppose appropriate sex education and family planning services.

The Supreme Court has ruled abortion is legal. Federal funds don't pay for abortion. Those policies are in place. Let's move on with help for the millions of unemployed individuals who need a good job and leave the women of America alone to control their own body and their own lives.

Mr. Speaker, I do understand the concern that my very good friends have expressed on the Democratic side about the threat of violence in Colombia and the loss of jobs in America. What I don't understand is how voting against this trade agreement helps on either front. A ``no'' vote does nothing to create more jobs in America or, in fact, to reduce the level of violence in Colombia.

The fact is that the rate of violence in Colombia has been cut in half. The murder of trade union members is down by 80 percent. College enrollment is up by 50 percent. 90 percent of children are in school now. Poverty is down by 25 percent. Why? In large part because of the $8 billion in Plan Colombia we provided.

Now the Colombian Government wants to show its appreciation for our investment in Colombia's future by letting us share in their new prosperity. It's difficult to do that, though, when Colombia has average tariff barriers of 9 percent, with agriculture at 17 percent. The U.S. has virtually no tariff barriers, so this is a one-way street going in our direction, this trade agreement.

The share of U.S. imports, though, to Colombia, as a total amount of their imports, has dropped from 21 percent to 9 percent; and that's because of the trade agreements Colombia has been able to sign with Argentina, Brazil, Canada, and others; and they're about to further eat into American jobs by signing a trade agreement with the European Union. We in America made the investment to help Colombia become less violent, more democratic and more prosperous; and now we want to disengage rather than reap the benefits of producing jobs, products and services in America for export to Colombia.

It seems to me my very good friends on the Democratic side should support our President, who is doing everything he can to create jobs here. He understands when other countries, don't have tariff barriers that we have to overcome we can produce and sell more products and services to those countries and generate more jobs in this country. That's what we ought to be about. It seems to me a ``yes'' vote on all three trade agreements is the right thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support of the United States Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) National Trademark Expo. In a time of ongoing challenges for the American and global economy, I want to join the USPTO in its efforts to recognize the vital role trademarks play in the economy.

Trademarks are words, names, symbols, sounds, or colors that identify and distinguish the goods and services of one party from those of others. American innovation and its associated intellectual property are very important to job creation and economic recovery. The USPTO facilitates the efficient approval of intellectual property rights to deliver goods and services to the global market. Through the registration of trademarks, the agency assists businesses in protecting their investments, promoting goods and services, and safeguarding consumers against confusion and deception in the marketplace.

The USPTO disseminates trademark information at the Expo to educate the public about the important role trademarks play in our society and the global marketplace. The National Trademark Expos have been very successful events attended by the trademark community and the public at large. This year's 2-day event will be held on Friday, October 14th, from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and Saturday, October 15th, from 10:00 a.m. to 4 p.m., at the USPTO headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia.

During the Trademark Expo, Chubby Checker will twist with the audience and costumed trademarked characters to music played by Max Impact, the rock band of the United States Air Force. A new cast of characters featuring registered trademarks including Barbie, The Pink Panther, The Very Hungry Caterpillar, Hamburger Helper, Rita's Ice Guy, and Fruit of the Loom ``fruit suits'' will join veteran Expo characters GEICO's Gecko, Crayola crayons' mascot ``Tip,'' Pillsbury's Doughboy, Curious George, Clifford the Big Red Dog, Popeye, Olive Oyl, the 5-Hour Energy Bottle, Spuddy Buddy, Reese's Peanut Butter Cups, and Hershey's Milk Chocolate Bar. Large inflatable characters, including a Pinocchio Giant Inflatable, a Bridgestone Tire, GEICO's Gecko, Collegiate mascots and NFL Football player inflatables of the Washington Redskins and Baltimore Ravens will once again transform the USPTO's campus into a ``Trademark Theme Park''. A NASCAR show car for 5-Hour Energy, a UPS truck, and Caterpillar machines will also decorate the grounds. A story time featuring literary trademarked characters sponsored by Hooray for Books!, a local children's bookstore, will help tell the story of the prevalence of trademarks in our daily lives and their value as source indicators.

Some of America's leading large corporations, small businesses, governmental agencies, and non-profit corporations will highlight the various types of trademarks, the breadth of trademarks used by one source, interesting stories about trademarks and their creation, and the benefits of federal trademark registration. The exhibitors include 5-Hour Energy; 1000 Cranes, LLC; American Girl, LLC; American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA); Bigsby Division and the Gretsch Company; Bridgestone Americas, Inc.; Caterpillar Inc; City of Falls Church; CMG Worldwide, Inc.; Cotton Incorporated; Elevation Burger; GED Testing Service; GEICO; Idaho Potato Commission; International Trademark Association (INTA); Mattel, Inc.; Rita's Italian Ice; The Girl Scout Council of the Nation's Capital; The Hershey Company; The Pepsom Group; Travelers; UPS; U.S. Air Force; U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration; U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, National IPR Coordination Center; U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection; U.S. Department of Interior, Indian Arts and Crafts Board (IACB); and U.S. Department of the Army.

The Expo will also feature educational seminars, children's workshops, story time and guided tours. Educational seminars will include presentations on ``What Every Small Business Should Know About Intellectual Property,'' ``Counterfeiting & Piracy--Why Buy 'Legit'?, ``Common Mistakes to Avoid When Filing for Trademark Registration,'' ``Know What You're Buying: American Indian Art and Imitations,'' and ``Trademarks 101'' which covers basic facts about trademarks and trademark law. A video made to instruct pro se applicants will play in the National Inventors Hall of Fame Museum throughout the Expo. Also, the Museum's current exhibit titled ``Exercising Ingenuity: Inventions in Health and Fitness'' highlights trademarks related to fitness and health.

The National Trademark Expo will also display different types of trademarks including non-traditional trademarks such as sound marks, which are marks comprised of a sound or series of sounds, highlighted in an exciting interactive exhibit, and trademarks that identify shapes and configurations of products highlighted in an elaborate display of trademarked bottle shapes and a variety of other goods. Banners will feature century-old registered trademarks, the evolution and transformation of trademarks, the history of people behind certain trademarks, and other information about trademarks.

I applaud the USPTO for its continued efforts to educate the public on the important role of trademarks and the benefits of federal registration through the National Trademark Expo. I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the USPTO, at this time when trademark protection and intellectual property rights play an increasingly important role in our global economy. And, I encourage the public and my fellow Members of Congress and staff to bring their family and friends to this family friendly and free event.

I thank my very good friend for yielding to me.

Mr. Chairman, a rigorous peer-reviewed analysis, called ``The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020,'' conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency, found that the air quality improvements under the Clean Air Act will save $2 trillion by 2020, and prevent at least 230,000 deaths annually--230,000 lives saved on an annual basis. We could save four times the number of people killed each year in automobile accidents by reducing air pollution.

Yet, just 2 weeks ago, this Chamber approved legislation to block the EPA from implementing rules to clean up the single largest stationary source of air pollution. That legislation gave this Nation's oldest and dirtiest coal-fired power plants another pass to pollute and avoid compliance with the Clean Air Act.

Today we're considering legislation, the EPA Regulatory Relief Act, to exempt the second-largest source of hazardous air pollution: Industrial and commercial boilers, process heaters, and commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators.

Under this bill, these large boilers and incinerators would be given at least a 75-month pass from regulation; a 15-month delay before any new rules could be issued, and an additional 5 years beyond that delay before any new emission standards could be issued; and no deadline for industry compliance. This bill does more than just offer a pass from regulation. It also ensures that any final regulation will be weaker than what the law requires.

The final section of this bill deals with the Clean Air Act's most protective legal standard for reducing toxic air pollution, the Maximum Available Control Technology. After 20 years, we're replacing it with the absolutely least protective of measures, called ``work practice standards'' such as equipment tuneups that need not even reduce emissions.

Pass this bill and you sentence hundreds of thousands to asthma attacks and a lifetime of health complications. Pass this bill and you saddle our economy with unnecessary costs and employers with millions of additional sick days. Pass this bill and you trigger an additional 20,000 heart attacks. Pass this bill and you condemn tens of thousands of Americans to a premature death.

Mr. Chairman, the Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act that unfortunately will pass today and the TRAIN Act that passed 2 weeks ago constitute an all-out war between this Nation's dirtiest industries and the Federal agency charged with protecting the public's health. EPA has become the symbol, the center, of a debate over the role of government. It's a sad commentary for this Chamber that an industry that prefers to invest in the political process rather than in saving lives by reducing harmful emissions is in fact winning the debate.

In fact, the coal consuming industries that have underwritten this assault on EPA were invited early on during the first year of the Obama administration to sit down and craft a compliance option. The administration had hoped to craft a deal similar to the historic deal it made with the Nation's auto industry on fuel efficiency and tailpipe emissions. An article by Coral Davenport in the September 22 issue of the National Journal referenced this meeting. But unlike the auto industry, the coal consuming industries refused to negotiate.

Instead, and let me quote from the article, they ``banded together with the Republican Party to strategize, and the 2010 midterm elections offered the perfect battleground. The companies invested heavily in campaigns to elect Tea Party candidates crusading against the role of Big Government. Industry groups (like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce), Tea Party groups with deep ties to polluters (like Americans for Prosperity), and so-called super PACs (like Karl Rove's American Crossroads) spent record amounts to help elect the new House Republican majority.''

My colleagues, this is a bill peddled by an industry that refuses to clean up

its act. Hundreds of thousands of people owe their lives today to the environmental movement, leaders in Congress, and the White House who pushed for and passed the landmark environmental laws back in the 1970s that required polluters to clean our waters and reduce the pollution in the air we breathe.

In the decade after the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments were signed into law by the first President Bush, our unemployment rate declined, our economy grew, and we reduced acid rain-forming gases by more than 30 percent.

Mr. Chairman, the cost of meeting the emission reductions was actually 75 percent less than what EPA had originally predicted and even farther below what opponents had claimed. In the case of the rule for boilers and solid waste incinerators, EPA issued its proposed standards in April of this year, 11 years after the statutory deadline. They listened to affected businesses, they cut compliance costs by a half and issued a modified, final rule in February.

Mr. Chairman, EPA is doing everything the law requires and that the public health requires. This body ought to do the same and defeat this bill.

I thank the gentleman for his leadership.

I would like to quote Bruce Bartlett, who was the economics adviser to both President Ronald Reagan and President George H. W. Bush. He said this in an article in The New York Times this week.

``Republicans have a problem. People are increasingly concerned about unemployment, but Republicans have nothing to offer them. The GOP opposes additional government spending for jobs programs and, in fact, favors big cuts in spending that would be likely to lead to further layoffs at all levels of government. Republicans favor tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, but these had no stimulative effect during the George W. Bush administration and there is no reason to believe that more of them will have any today. And the Republicans' oft-stated concern for the deficit makes tax cuts a hard sell. On August 29, the House majority leader, Eric Cantor of Virginia, sent a memorandum to members

of the House Republican Conference, telling them to make the repeal of job-destroying regulations the key point in the Republican jobs agenda. Evidence supporting Mr. Cantor's contention that deregulation would increase unemployment is very weak. As one can see, the number of layoffs nationwide caused by government regulation is minuscule and shows no evidence of getting worse during the Obama administration.''

I thank the distinguished ranking member, particularly for his leadership in protecting the public's health.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. If this bill is enacted, an intolerable number of American babies will be born with birth defects that could have been avoided. The majority sets out a false choice: roll back clean air protections or lose jobs. The real choice is a moral one, but the economic case for defeating this bill is also compellingly clear.

EPA cement kiln rules are designed to reduce harmful pollutants from cement production, including metals like mercury, hydrocarbons, particulate matter, acid gases, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides. EPA's standards are both achievable and defensible. They will yield far more economic benefits than costs, preserving jobs and Americans' health.

The most harmful of these cement kiln pollutants is mercury. Congress required EPA to regulate mercury emissions in the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments and to identify the largest sources of mercury reductions. EPA has done what we required. These regulations are necessary because cement kilns are the second-largest source of mercury emissions in the United States. Some cement kilns emit more mercury than some coal-fired power plants. One hundred fifty cement kilns operating in the United States emit as much as 27,500 pounds per year, double EPA's estimates from 6 years ago. In Oregon, New York, and California, the largest single mercury pollution source is a cement kiln.

Please focus on this: Mercury is so toxic that just one-seventieth of a teaspoon of mercury, or .0024 ounces, can contaminate a 20-acre lake and render the fish in that lake poisonous to eat. Mercury exposure causes a number of health problems, including heart disease, reduced fertility, genetic mutations, immune system suppression, premature death, and major losses in children's mental capacity.

Elemental mercury from kilns goes up into the air. The rain washes it into our rivers and streams. Then the bacteria in the water converts it into methyl mercury, which is lethally poisonous, because methyl mercury is almost completely absorbed into the blood and distributed to all our tissues, including the brain. It passes readily through the placenta in a mother's womb and into the fetus and into the fetal brain. Mercury then continues to impact the brains of those children as they grow and age. We know this now, which was not as clear as it is now, back in 1990. So if we know mercury does this to our children and that these regs can prevent those children from such irreparable harm, don't we have a concomitant moral responsibility to protect our children from such intellectual deprivation and suffering for the duration of their lives?

Let me say it again. It is well-documented that exposure even to low levels of mercury does reduce a child's IQ. This IQ reduction has real impacts on those children, their families, and ultimately the U.S. economy. If the majority won't listen to health-based arguments, perhaps they will listen to the economics of this issue.

Mercury exposure during pregnancy and childhood has direct and indirect effects on that child's future earning potential. Mercury- exposed children have harder times getting and keeping jobs later in life, and their performance when they get those jobs is worse. The cost to society of this IQ reduction is enormous, but it's not incalculable. Independent scientific studies estimate that the cost is as high as $22,300 per IQ point per child, which cumulatively amounts to $8.7 billion in lost potential per year, based on CDC studies of half a million children who have blood cord mercury levels higher than 5.8 micrograms per liter, the level that adversely affects their IQ.

I thank the gentleman.

We know this $8.7 billion can now be quantified.

There are so many other things that mercury does, I won't go into them. But this cement kiln rule also applies to other harmful pollutants.

The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that the majority constantly urges us to balance the costs and benefits of environmental regulation, but when the benefits of regulating hazardous pollution substantially outweigh the costs, as they do with mercury, all of a sudden that doesn't become an issue for the debate. It ought to be an issue for the debate, because it's about the future health of our children.

If we don't defeat this bill, if it were to be enacted, children will suffer and our economy will become weaker. The fact is that we have both a moral and an economic responsibility to defeat this bill, and thus I urge its defeat.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak for the three bilateral trade agreements which the President submitted to the Congress yesterday. I applaud the administration on the negotiated revisions to these agreements, which will improve market access in Korea, tax transparency in Panama, and labor rights in Colombia. Through their hard work, our trade negotiators, led by Ambassador Kirk, have made real and significant improvements to these agreements. Their passage is long overdue.

While political negotiations over previously uncontroversial Trade Adjustment Assistance programs have dragged on here in Washington, American businesses have been losing market share in these three countries. For

example, in the first month after the European Union-South Korea free trade agreement went into effect in July, EU exports to South Korea increased 36 percent over the year before. Meanwhile, U.S. market share has been steadily declining, from 21 percent 10 years ago to 9 percent today. Colombia has implemented trade accords with its neighbors and with Canada and will soon implement an agreement with the European Union, but U.S. exporters still face an average of 9 percent in tariffs. These treaty agreements need to be passed to create jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge September as Childhood Obesity Awareness Month. Increasing awareness of this pervasive problem can help curb the increase in this epidemic and help families and children make better choices in the foods they eat and their overall lifestyle.

Over the past three decades, the rate of childhood obesity has risen to crisis proportions. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 32 percent of children are overweight, 16 percent are obese, and 11 percent are extremely obese. In some racial and ethnic groups, in low-income populations, and among recent immigrants, the rates of obesity among children and youth are alarmingly high.

The health consequences for these children are very serious. They are at much greater risk of developing diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, asthma, and other diseases than their non-obese peers. Many children are subjected to ridicule and bullying that damages their emotional well-being. Beyond the tragic consequences for the children themselves are the effects on the American economy. Obese children are at risk of growing into obese adults who do not participate fully in the workforce because of employment discrimination, lost productivity due to illness and disability, and premature death. If the childhood obesity epidemic continues at its current rate, conditions related to type 2 diabetes, such as blindness, coronary artery disease, stroke, and kidney failure, may become common conditions of middle age. Health care costs for this population are likely to rise to an extent we are only now beginning to appreciate.

As a nation, we need to make sure that our young people receive a consistent message that encourages them to adopt healthful eating patterns; helps them to understand their nutritional needs; and teaches them healthy lifestyle choices, especially relating to physical activity.

We can, and we simply must, make addressing childhood obesity a national priority. Not only must we help the children who are already affected, we must not fail to protect another generation. Health is more than the absence of physical or mental illness--it is also the extent to which children and youth have the capacity to reach their full potential.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Federal Employees Leave Transfer Act of 2011. Put simply, this bill will permit federal employees to transfer unused sick leave, without compensation, to agency sick leave banks.

I offer this bill during a time when federal employee benefits and service are under attack. Unlike some voices, I believe that public service as a worthwhile endeavor, and that the civil service is a talented workforce that needs to be carefully managed and developed.

Though this bill is a small change to existing law, it is an important one because it reassures federal employees that if they became catastrophically ill, or require extended leave due to the illness of a loved one, other federal employees can come to their assistance through the donation of their excess sick leave.

This bill is expected to be nearly cost-neutral. The bill states that federal employees cannot be compensated for transferring their sick leave to a sick leave bank. That provision is expected to nearly eliminate the cost of the bill, with the small exception of program administration.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, until 2014, Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) employees will be allowed to use one-half of their accumulated sick leave for annuity purposes. This bill will allow federal employees to donate their excess leave to a sick bank, rather than suffering from the ``FERS flu.'' This bill could even increase productivity by preventing the abuse of sick leave.

Sick leave donation programs and banks are abundant in state and local government, at public and private universities, and in the private sector. Therefore this bill will not grant federal employees a benefit not enjoyed by the private sector.

For those who believe this bill may contribute to abuse, it must be noted that a federal employee cannot draw from a leave bank unless he/ she donates to the bank in the first place. That incentivizes participation. Second, a federal employee cannot actually draw from a leave bank until he/she has exhausted all of their own sick and annual leave. Therefore, leave banks are shielded from abuse since federal employees cannot take advantage of this benefit until they have significant skin in the game.

Finally, I am proud that this bill has 4 esteemed public servants as original co-sponsors: Congressmen Connolly, Wolf, Sarbanes and Van Hollen. This bill is also supported by the American Federation of Government Employees, the National Treasury Employees Union, the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, and Federal Managers Association.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Hunger Action Month and to honor the Arlington Food Assistance Center, located in the Eighth Congressional District.

Hunger Action Month was established to help inform individuals, communities, corporations and policy makers that hunger is a severe domestic issue and deserves our critical attention. The Arlington Food Assistance Center's sole mission is to feed the hungry. This important action allows their clients to make other necessary purchases, such as paying for rent and utilities, without having to sacrifice their health and nutritional needs.

Despite the fact that Arlington County is one of the wealthiest areas in the country, plenty of local residents do not have enough to eat. The Arlington Food Assistance Center seeks to remedy this problem by distributing fruit, vegetables, meat, milk, eggs, bread and other food items to those in Arlington who are in need. It currently distributes food to approximately 1,350 clients each week, amounting to 2.1 million pounds of food provided directly to Arlington families last year. About 65 percent of this food was donated from bakeries, supermarkets, farmers' markets, food drives, schools, congregations, businesses and private donors in the local community.

I would like to commend the staff and volunteers of the Arlington Food Assistance Center for their hard work providing food for Arlington's needy families and raising awareness of hunger in our communities.

Madam Speaker, corporate profits have now reached historically high levels--$2 trillion just in the last two quarters. But most of that profit comes from reductions in personnel and benefit costs which are at a 50-year low as a percent of our economy. This is one of the reasons why the richest 1 percent earn as much as the bottom 60 percent and have as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent of Americans. Tax cuts for the richest, as the House majority demands, is only going to widen this historic disparity. The President's Jobs Act, though, will help to close this gap.

Madam Speaker, we're losing our middle class. Our country is becoming divided between the very rich and the rest. That may be good for the financial base of the Republican Party, but it's bad for America. The private sector will start to hire when the public sector shows it has sufficient faith in our future to adequately invest in the physical and the human infrastructure of this country. It takes money, but the future of our middle class is worth it.