lives impacted by the conditions these companies generate. i yield back to the gentleman. mr. whitfield: thank you very much. the purpose of the legislation is to extend to it five years because of the complications involved. for that reason, i respectfully oppose the gentlelady's amendment and ask members to vote against the amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes -- the noes have it. ms. jackson lee: i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from texas will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed until the congressional record offered by mr. quigley of illinois. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

mr. quigley: thank you, mr. speaker. my amendment would enforce the final regulations preempted by the bill at hand. if these are to find to cause cancer. the administrator should not delay actions to reduce emissions from any cement kiln. if such emissions are increasing the occurrence of cancer. we stand here today having an argument that's predicated on the notion when it comes to matters of job creation and environmental stewardship and protection of public health, you can only have one and not the other. you must pick retaining and -- between creating and retaining jobs or protecting and conserving our land, air and water. this is a false notion. one of scare tactics. those who purports these ideas are not basing their beliefs on science. there are both economic and societal factors involved.

it's not an either or. it's dollar signs, yes. cancer treatments and trips to the emergency room. come to chicago. the asthma moshedity and mortality capital of the united states. cement kiln is the third largest emission of mercury in the u.s. it impairs infants and babies to learn. it can cause cancers and they do. the pollutants caused in cement kilns damage the eyes, skin and breathing passages. the toxic air pollutants harm the kidneys, lungs and nervous systems that cause cardio and pulmonary disease. it includes toxic air pollutants including mercury, arsenic, hydrocaloric as i had,

dioxins and other harmful pollutants. there are known carcinogens. known carcinogens pump into our air, into our land and into our waters. they even land on the grass in wisconsin eaten by cows and drinken by babies from the milk. the clean air act save lives. they have saved the lives over 160,000 people in the 40 years it's been in the books. this is not a number to be debated in fact. this is a number that's conservatively estimated by the e.p.a. this is not some inflated statistic designed for shock value or any other reason that we know that the clean air act has human value. since 1990 e.p.a. has set knew marek emission emissions for more than 100 industry source categories. this has been a major success, reducing emissions of

carcinogens and other highly toxic chemicals by 1.7 million tons each year. each of e.p.a.'s proposed rules would save thousands of more lives each year. another example we're dealing with today pertains to the e.p.a.'s proposed rule regarding toxic emissions from cement kilns. they need to meet regulations for emissions. this is projected to save 2,500 lives annually. it will prevent 17,000 asthma attacks and over 1,700 hospital and emergency room visits and 130,000 days of missed work. any rule that saves lives is a matter of public health. we're dealing with skyrocketing rates of deaths due to asthma and sometimes debilitating cases of asthma due to

particulate being pumped in the air. nearly 60% of americans live in areas where air pollution has reached unhealthy levels that can and do make people sick. these are measures that will help keep us alive and able to work. these are measures that will create jobs in the clean and green industrial industries. attacks on the clean air act and the e.p.a.'s ability -- e.p.a.'s ability to regulate greenhouse gases are a huge piece of the larger climate crisis. a crisis that has a hefty cost, our lives. the need to crack down on greenhouse gas emissions is based on sound science. the results of hundreds of peer review studies that show they're deliberating effects on our health and our planet. zero peer reviews -- reviewed studies that shows that global warming that does not exist. we're asked to go back now. why? why are we considering legislation to halt rules that

have been considered for now 10 years? this is beyond me. why are we considering legislation to halt rules that will keep us at work, healthy and alive? i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. whitfield: i seek recognition in opposition of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. whitfield: 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 e.p.a. 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 e.p.a. 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 e.p.a. as you know, e.p.a. first adopted the cement rule in 1999. they did another one in 2005. it was challenged in court. they came out 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 and with that i'd yield back the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. quigley: i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote. mr. quigley: yes. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by offered by the gentleman from illinois will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. connolly: madam chairman, i have an amendment at the desk, it should be number 18. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 18 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. connolly of virginia. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. connolly: this congressional session is not a year old and the republican leadership has tried to pass more than 125 anti-environmental bills, amendments and riders. they started by attacking public health standards to reduce carbon dioxide pollution that we should trust oil

companies over scientists. global warming is already occurring and threatening our environmental and public health. they claim that they nonetheless supported clean air act standards to reduce toxic pollutants like mercury. after all, it was a republican president who signed this legislation creating the environmental protection agency more than 40 years ago. a republican president signed the clean air act of 1970 which established the process that the e.p.a. is using today to reduce toxic pollution including mercury and dioxin. a republican president signed the clean air act amendments of 1990, establishing a cap and trade program to reduce sulfur dioxide pollution. that clean air act bill of 1990 also accelerated reductions of other toxic pollutants because congress believed that the e.p.a. was not moving quickly

enough to reduce toxic pollutions. all of these major clean air bills were passed by democratic congresses with republican presidents. while it may seem unbelievable in today's political climate there was a time in the not so distant fast when environmental protection had bipartisan support. as a result of the bipartisan effort to protect the environment, our economy grew while air pollution levels fell and public health improved. air quality here in washington, d.c., in los angeles and other major cities is healthier today than it was in 1970 thanks to the clean air act. our automobiles no longer emit unlimited asthma and cancer-causing pollution or lead. our power plants now has scrubbers to reduce the sulfur dioxide pollution that caused acid rain, poisoned river and streams throughout the united states before 0e.

mercury pollution has fallen thanks to the act. it has saved 160,000 lives a year by preventing deaths otherwise caused by pollution. when this new republican congress attacked greenhouse gas regulations, they claimed they would not improve the -- reverse the improvements of the clean air act. their attempt to block the greenhouse gas pollutants was only a -- they blocked regulations of soot, smog and dioxin. their assault on the clean air act is so comprehensive that they have passed legislation to deregulate multiple kinds of soot. today we'll vote on a bill to deregulate mercury and other toxic pollution from cement factories. this bill would not only deregulate mercury pollution from cement factories, it would

also block the e.p.a. health standards such as particulate solutions that causes lung scar tissue, cancers. this would increase net costs for the american taxpayers by there are 6.3 billion to $17.6 billion every year. by increasing the incidents of heart attacks, lung cancer, asthma attacks and developmental disabilities in children. they claim these anti-public health bills will create jobs. the fact is while the clean air act has reduced the dangerous air pollution for the last 40 years saving 160,000 lives, last year alone america's economy doubled in size. it didn't shrink. the sky didn't fall. and the worst predictions of our friends on the other side, not one of them came true. i've introduced two amendments to h.r. 2681. i'm only going to move this one, madam chairman. this will clarify hat provisions of this bill will not go into effect if it causes

respiratory illness, cardiac disease or other diseases or death. this amendment will apply throughout the country, ensuring that rural and suburban communities will be protected. my amendment says the administrator will not delay actions from any cement kiln if such emission is causing respiratory illness, cardiac attacks and death. this would ensure if h.r. 2681 passes, god help us, we will not be increasing the rate of respiratory disease or sending more children to the hospital with asthma attacks. since the republicans claim to be equally concerned about the health of our citizens, i want to give them an opportunity to prove it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. whitfield: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. whitfield: i rise in opposition to this amendment offered by the distinguished gentleman from virginia. i might also add that the last

significant change in 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's no question that we benefited from the clean air act. but there's also no question that this administration, this e.p.a. has been the most aggressive in recent memory. they've been passing some of the most expensive regulations ever adopted by e.p.a. and is having an impact on the economy because jobs are being lost as a direct result of many of these regulations. our bill has directed e.p.a. to protect public health, to balance the economy needs, the jobs needs, all of this as a part of an overall balanced

view of e.p.a. regulations. this -- mr. connolly: will the gentleman yield? mr. whitfield: yeah. i'd be happy to. mr. connolly: i'm just wondering if my colleague has any data on how many jobs was lost in the last 40 years due to the clean air act, net. mr. whitfield: let me just say to you the last 40 years we've had a lot of economic expansion. we are in the midst -- we've just come out of recession. we have 9.1% unemployment rate. everybody is talking about jobs and all of the testimony that we've received about these regulations indicates that jobs will be lost. . what's the difference, if you lose a job, you lose the job. it makes unemployment rates go up. i'm not debating with you over the last 40 years we have had economic expansion and job creation, but we are in a unique

time right now and we think that this is a time in which we need a more balanced approach with some of these regulations. your amendment specifically looks at respiratory illnesses and death, including heart attacks, asthma and e.p.a. looks at all of this and benefits and costs and we don't think it's necessary to specifically spell this out in our legislation. and for that, i would respectfully oppose the amendment and ask members to vote against the amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from virginia. mr. conyers: i would ask for -- mr. connolly: i would ask for a recorded vote.

the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from vermont rise? mr. welch: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 20 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. welch of vermont. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. welch: in this legislation, there are findings. it is common in our legislation for there to be a finding section. this amendment would propose a finding for inclusion in this important legislation and finding would read that congress finds that the american people are exposed to mercury from industrial sources addressed by the rules listed in section 2-b of this act and through the consumption of fish containing mercury in every state in the nation has issued at least one

mercury advisory for fish consumption. so the question is to the proponents of this legislation as to whether there would be an objection to include this finding about mercury and the scientific communities, absolute conclusion, that mercury is hazardous to the health of those who consume it. that's the question. if you believe that science has a place in our consideration of important legislation that affects health and safety, then it would suggest that you would want to have a finding affirming congress' acceptance of the scientific conclusion that mercury causes harmful health effects. so this amendment offers this congress the opportunity to say the obvious, and that is mercury

poisoning is bad for our health. and the reason why i ask that this congress consider this finding is that this congress has been debating the applicability of science to our deliberations. this is not a question of whether a regulation is ownerous or the cost is too great, but a question of whether we will accept the responsibility to acknowledge that mercury does have significant detrimental health consequences. this should be acknowledged and should be part of this legislation. what this congress cannot do, whatever its dispute is about the agree of regulation, effectiveness of regulation, whether it is too onerous is whether we can by legislation,

defile science. it does not allow us to do that. so madam speaker, i urge that this congress accept this finding. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman cannot reserve. the gentleman yield back? mr. welch: i yield back. the gentleman from texas? >> i seek time in opposition to the amendment. >> the air contains mercury and communist chinese are the world's largest polluter and plume of pollution from communist china stretches across the pacific ocean and covers up the western and central part of the united states, this map that i hope you can see there, madam speaker, shows central and western u.s. these are mercury deposits coming from communist china. through the clean air act and efforts of industry and

individuals across the nation have dramatically reduced pollution levels in the air and water. we are committed to making sure that our kids are drinking clean water and breathing clean air. this amendment makes a simple statement that we are exposed to mercury. i'm exposed to carbon dioxide and trying to make that a pollute ant. what the obama democrats have done to crush jobs in the cement industry is an illustration of what obama democrats have done to crush job creation all over in the united states. in this regulation in the cement industry, the democrats have set a high standard far beyond what the european union seeks. what the obama democrats tend to impose on the cement industry is to ask them to win, you have to have a gold medal in every event. this rule, 98% of all the

mercury has to be eliminated. the technology doesn't exist and you have to comply by next september, wiping out much of the cement industry in the united states at a time when the construction industry in america is already in the state of did he fregs. it is evident from the record that the cement industry is producing at a rate equivalent to 1962, yet the obama democrats say to crush it further and eliminate more job creation in a vital sector of american industry that will have the effect as they have already done , driving the work offshore and driving more cement production to communist china, where they have no pollution controls. we have, for example, in the auto industry, the obama democrats set automobile mileage standards so ip possibly high that -- impossiblely high that no automobile can meet it other

than a prius. the oil industry, they set high standards for drilling in the gulf of mexico, driving offshore drilling to brazil and other countries, all those big rigs are gone and won't come back. we are trying to open up drilling in the gulf. in sector after sector after sector, obama democrats are crushing the american economy and business owners with impossible regulations that cannot be met. this is common sense. and constitutional conservatives are trying to get the economy back on track and cutting taxes and cutting spending and this legislation today is a straightforward, simple attempt to postponethe damage. all we can do by controlling the house is to stop the damage inflicted by obama democrats on the american economy. that's what we do with this legislation. give us five years. until we get reinforcements and have a constitutional senate and

white house where we can grow this economy and cut taxes and cut spending and put the federal government back in the box designed by the founders. get out of my pocket, get out of my way, get off my back, unleash american flurep and you will see -- entrepreneurship and leave us alone and let us run texas and let us manage our own families and businesses and you will see american industry protect the environment. grow jobs, drile -- drill here and drill safely and you will see the cement industry and construction industry come back if we just stop crushing them with impossible regulations that cannot be meant by any available technology anywhere on terget. i ask the members of the house to oppose this amendment. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from vermont. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from kentucky has asked for a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from vermont will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from wisconsin seek recognition? ms. moore: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in the congressional record offered by ms. moore of wisconsin. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. moore: my amendment would simply require that the president certifies that this bill will not have an adverse effect on the health of americans. it would specifically and additionally ensure that the legislation would not result in a disproportionately adverse impact on the population.

madam chair, i would submit that the majority should be enthused about my amendment requiring the president to certify that the delay of cement kiln standards won't harm americans and have this disproportionate impact since we have heard all day the majority speak of how the majority of mercury, for example, comes from natural sources, that it comes from foreign sources, from the pacific to the mississippi and that the dangers of mercury should not be unfairly burdened upon cement -- and blamed on cement kilns. this presidential certification would allow them to rebut those assertions. this presidential certification would allow them to rebut that

cement kilns are the second largest source of airborne mercury pollution in the united states or that mercury is a powerful neurotoxin that can affect the mental development of children. since this majority has questioned the methodology of the o.m.b. finding, the e.p.a. findings using o.m.b. standards, the assumption -- they should welcome this presidential finding to rebut the assertion that e.p.a. has made that cement kilns also emit lead, arsenic, other toxic metals that can be carcinogenic and dangerous. we know throughout the history of the clean air act and have seen tremendous benefits in the quality of life of americans.

the individual admission of carcinogenics and other chemicals have been reduced by 1.7 million tons each ear through actions taken voluntarily in many cases by more than 170 industries and they keep adding up. they have been tremendously important. in 2010, the reductions in final parallel and ozone pollution from the 1990 clean air act amendments prevented more than 160,000 cases of premature mortality, 130,000 heart attacks, 13 million lost work days and 1.7 million asthma attacks. but there is so much more work to be done. this immoral toxin is widespread in our nation's waterways. currently 48 states have issued fish consumption advisories,

including 23 states that have issued statewide advisories for all of their lakes and rivers. in my district, milwaukee, wisconsin is loathed on one of the great lakes that is a major resous for my community for the region and indeed for the world. and it has been subject to large mercury contamination from mercury airborne pollutants. i would be interested in the assurance that the delay of this bill would not have an adverse impact on my constituents. the demrakes regional collaboration mercury reductions compiled data for the eight great lakes' states and found that in 2005 portland cement plants in these states emitted 1.4 tons of mercury, roughly 4%

of the total of 39.4 tons. i would immensely, madam chair, interested in the certification by the president of the united states that indeed, indeed this mercury contamination was not caused by these cement kilns but were caused by natural causes or from foreign sources. this, i think, would vindicate those who are trying to delay this process and it would work toward advancing their theory that economic development should not be hindered by untoward, unproven health concerns. and with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i rise in opposition.

. mr. carter: this amendment should be called the more veto amendment because what this does is veto this bill. i point out that paul, former member of the harvard school of public health, testified to the energy and commerce committee that by every public health measure from infant mortality to life expectancy we are healthier today, exposed to fewer hazards than ever before. our present day air was much cleaner than a year ago and our air quality is among the best in the world. h.r. 2681 does not change or modify any existing public health protection. it simply sets forth a process for e.p.a. to implement stronger protections as called for in the clean air act that are achievable. and the issue here is acheefblet. standards in this act --

achieveability. standards in this act is set to sut a standard that it will take time. the e.u. which is supposedly one of the standards of the law on air and water quality has set a standard that ours is -- is five times less onerous than the ones being imposed by the e.p.a. and arguably the industry says meeting that standard is going to take more technology and more time. this bill simply directs the e.p.a. to follow the language of the clean air act statute and write standards that real world cement plants can meet. and it may be the standards are the standards they can meet. i'm not here to make that determination. but the standards that we're presently asked to meet in the cement industry are not attainable at this time. and it takes time to make it work.

h.r. 2681, without it, the costs are certain. it will be astronomical. the businesses tell us they will shut down plants. and when you shut down a plant you kill jobs. and the labor that works in that plant will be unemployed. and it will be part of the unemployment figures we will read within the next year as the plant shuts down. so achievable standards gives you the opportunity to work towards the objective we are all seeking here. but unachievable standard causes panic, causes excess cost and that up achievable regulation causes the industry, some of which are not tied together, there are separate companies owned by separate people to say, we can't meet this standard. not within the time we've been given. we might as well shut the plant and go someplace else. so they shut the plant and go someplace else. americans lose jobs that pays

$65,000 to $85,000 a year and the plant goes over to china and joins china's belch of mercury, which many talked about here today, that sweeps across our country every day because they don't meet the clean air standards that we already meet in this great nation. at some point in time reasonableness and common sense have to come into these regulations. give the industry a chance to achieve something that is achievable. and that's what this bill does. it says, take another look. come up with achievable standards and then give us the time to achieve them. i don't think that is an unreasonable position to take. i think it's the proper position to take to save this industry, the cement industry from possible annihilation in this country and soon we will face once again people saying, why are all the cement jobs overseas?

madam speaker, i oppose the moore amendment. i was attempted to call it another amendment but i'm not going to do this. having veto power over this amendment is not the suggestion that is relative to the debate we are having here today. i ask there be a no vote on this amendment. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. waxman: madam chair, i rise in support of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. waxman: this amendment says that the president, whoever that president is or will be, would certify that implementation of the act will not adversely affect public health in the country and will not have a disproportionate impact, negative impact on subpopulations that are most at risk from hazardous air pollutants, including minorities, low-income communities, pregnant women and the elderly. i don't know how my republican colleagues can oppose that.

first of all, i didn't like that little slur that i heard about the president of the united states. i think the president would make an honest call. i trust any president of the united states make an honest call if this amendment were adopted. but the whole idea of an environmental law is that we could long live together. if an elderly person is more susceptible to asthma and if children are nor susceptible to the harm from air pollution, we don't want to say they have to live somewhere else. we should all be able to live together, but there are some populations that are at greater risk and we ought to recognize that. especially low-income populations. a lot of minority groups are more susceptible to asthma. and when you talk about minority and low-income people, they don't have houses where they can send their kids down to the playroom they are going to have their kids play outside and they are going to be

breathing in a lot of this air pollution. so i think that before we implement this law to delay for six, eight, 10 years any impact to control the harmful air pollution that we ought to have some certification that we are not going to be putting these populations at risk. yes, i'd be happy to yield. >> that's one of the concerns. if there's any adverse impact then the act doesn't go into effect. those terms are not defined. would you agree there's no definition? mr. waxman: first off, it says adverse. i think adverse is pretty under standable. mr. culberson: any. mr. waxman: we are talking about air pollution. harmful air pollution. we are talking about cancer, toxic air pollutants can cause

brain damage. we are not talking about some inconvenience to them. we are talking about adverse public health impact on the public in the united states. first of all. and then a disproportionate negative impact on sub populations that are at risk. mr. culberson: if i may, sir. mr. waxman: yes. mr. culberson: if there is any disproportionate impact the act will not go into effect. mr. waxman: will not have a disproportionate negative impact or adversely affect public health. it -- i think the language is clear enough for the president to make a finding and get guidance on it in order to determine whether this bill should be held up. so we may disagree but i don't think that the language is poorly drafted. i think it's pretty clearly drafted, and i would support the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the

gentlelady from wisconsin. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not -- ms. moore: madam chair, i would note that a quorum is not present and would ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from wisconsin will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? mr. ellison: i have an amendment at the desk, amendment number 14. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 14 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. ellison of minnesota. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. ellison: this amendment is very simple. it says if we are going to delay these important rules, these life-saving rules, then the e.p.a. would be required to publish in the federal register the public health impact of delaying this regulation. for example, one of the public

health impacts of clean air standards for cement plants is the provision of 17,000 asthma -- cases of asthma. all we're saying is transparency, information given to the public so the public will know what the impact of these delayed regulations will be. i can see no reason why republicans wouldn't adopt a commonsense amendment like this because quite frankly if they feel this is such an important measure to -- that they clearly acknowledge based on the response to the last amendment offered, they acknowledged there will be health impact, they most certainly would have to agree that telling the public what the health impacts would be would be a fair and important thing to do. so my amendment is simple. as we delay these important -- they're proposing delaying these important environmental regulations to protect people

from dirty air emitted by cement plants, let's just tell the public how many heart attacks, how many asthma attacks, how many deaths, how much mercury contamination, how much lead and arsenic will impact the health of our citizens. how much cancer. what will be the health impacts of delaying these important rules? let's print it in the federal register. i'm sure that people who favor this legislation would be happy to say, you know what, yes, we're giving you cancer, yes, we're giving you heart attacks, yes, we're giving you asthma attacks but we have to do it because we believe it will save jobs. you have to be sick so that somebody might theer receiptcally get a job in -- thert receiptcally get a job in a cement plant. it's a false choice between a job and a regulation. it's a false choice between economic activity and clean air

and healthy environment, but sense my friends on the other end of the aisle want to make the case that we need to delay these important environmental regulations in order to promote jobs, at least let's talk about and be honest with the public about the health impact. and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. whitfield: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. whitfield: i rise in opposition of this amendment for a couple simple reasons. number one, e.p.a. has already comprehensively and exhaustively examined health benefits costs and other analysis relating to their regulations and we have voluminous about those benefits. we heard testimony after testimony from experts who say 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 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. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. waxman: i rise in support of the amendment and i want to yield -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. ellison: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to make a couple points in rebuttal. congresswoman cappsed had an amendment that would have the e.p.a. findings on the health impact and that was opposed pretty vigorously. we could have known for the public record. we could have had it there. that was opposed though. so the response we just heard

from the other side of the aisle is interesting to say the least. the other important point is that, you know, the fact is if you believe this is an important measure to pass, why not just be perfectly disclosive with the public, let the public know what we're getting in for, and i would think that this will be a commonsense measure and get approval from all sides. i yield back to the gentleman. mr. waxman: i don't think the congress of the united states ought to deny them that information. as i heard the argument of the gentleman from kentucky, it's already been evaluated in the record by the e.p.a. i think putting in the congressional record is not even enough. if the public wants to know, we ought to have -- we ought to have full-page ads in the newspapers. that's my view. that's not as far as the amendment would go. simply to put it in the federal

register, hope the paper will pick it up and let the american people know. don't let the cement kilns avoid coming to terms with regulations that will protect the public health from all these different incidents of serious diseases and then not tell the american people that we've let them off the hook and they should understand that one of the consequences will be all of these diseases, all of these deaths that otherwise could have been prevented. so i strongly support the gentleman's amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. ellison: madam speaker, we do ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by by the gentleman from minnesota will be postponed. .

the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will resume on those amendments printed in the congressional record on which further proceedings were postponed, amendment number 11 by mr. waxman of california, amendment number 7 by mr. rush of illinois. amendment number 17 by mrs. california. amendment number 1 of mrs. schakowsky. amendment number 9 of mr. waxman. amendment number 16 by mr. waxman of california. amendment number 21 by mr. pallone of new jersey. amendment number 8 by mr. quigley of illinois. amendment number 18 by mr. connelly of virginia. amendment number 20 of mr. welch of vermont. amendment number 2 by ms. moore of wisconsin. amendment number 14 by mr. ellison of minnesota. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is

request for recorded vote on amendment number 11 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 11 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. waxman of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. will the house suspend the rules and pass house of representatives -- any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush, on which further proceedings were postponed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number seven printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. rush of illinois. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise and be downed. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is

expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this amendment, the yeas are 62, the nays are 161, the amendment is not agreed to. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california, mrs. capps, on which the further -- on which further proceed wrgs postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 17, printed in the congressional record, offered by mrs. capps of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning

institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 158, the nays are 254, the amendment is not agreed to. the chair: the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in the congressional record offered by

the the gentlewoman from from illinois, ms. schakowsky. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in the congressional record, offered by ms. schakowsky of illinois. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 175, the nays are 248. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 9 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. waxman of california. a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 162 --

the chair: the yeas are 167 and the nays are 264 and the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is request for recorded vote on amendment number 16 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed by a voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 16 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. waxman of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house

proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 169, the nays are 254, the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 21 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone. on which the noes prevailed by a voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 21 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. pallone of new jersey. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is

ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 166, the nays are 244, the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is on the requester if a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will reles ig --

redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number four offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: those in support of the request for a robbeded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 162, the nays are 262, the amendment is not agreed to. the request for the rored vote on amendment number eight printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from illinois, mr. quigley, on which further pr seedings were post-toned -- postponed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number

eight printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. quigley of illinois. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. those in support of the recorded vote will rise and be counted. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yadse are 175, the nays are 248, the amendment is not agreed. to the unfinished business is

the request for a recorded vote on amendment number eight offered by mr. conley, the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 18 printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. comely of virginia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 176, the nays are 248, the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 20 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch, on which further proceedings were postponed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 20 printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. welch of vermont. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is order. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or

commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 174 and the nays are 249. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in the congressional record offered by ms. moore, on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed on a voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in the congressional record offered by ms. moore of wisconsin. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 167 and the nays are 256. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 14 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, on which further proceedings were postponed and noes prevailed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 14 printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. ellison of minnesota. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the nays are -- the yeas are 170, the nays are 252. and the amendment is not agreed to.

the chair: the committee will come to order. members, please take their conversations off the floor. the chair: for what reason the gentleman from tennessee rise? mr. cohen: i have an

designate the amendment. the house will come to order. mr. cohen: unanimous consent it be adopted. yes. thank you. the clerk: amendment number 23 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. cohen of tennessee. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for five minutes. mr. cohen: the house is not in order. the chair: will the house come to order. members please take your conversations off the floor. please take your conversations off the floor. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. my amendment simply requires that the environmental protection agency administrator consider the potential reductions in the number of

illness-related absences from work when establishing a compliance date for this cement kiln rules. this is the second source of air borne pollution and leader emitter of lead and other toxic dangerous metals. neither would like to see floating around the atmosphere. reducing the amount of toxic pollutants that kilns can spew, will make america a more healthier and productive nature. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee is correct. the committee will be in order. please take your conversations off the floor. . the committee will come to order. the gentleman from stn recognized. mr. cohen: the e.p.a. projects that every year that this

particular rule is applicable, the administration's cement kiln rule will prevent up to 2,500 premature deaths, 17,000 asthma attacks and 100,000 days when people will be too sick to work. despite erroneous claims that this rule will ruin the economy, the truth is the cement kiln rule will strengthen the economy and the american workers because cement kilns emit thousands of pounds of mercury and acid gases every year, thousands of workers are unable to go to work because they are too sick, meaning everyday americans are unable to work and earn a pabling to put food on their family's table. not only are they not generating income but they spend their limited income on doctor's bills and hospitals and medicines. they want to work, their employers want them to work but these kilns are spewing poison

into the air to keep them from working. despite their sincere desire so work -- to work, they can't. if the e.p.a. administrator has to factor in issues such as potential net employee impacts when establishing compliance date the administrator also has to factor in reduckses in illness-related absences from work. what good is saving one day of work at a cement plant if it means that people will be too sick to work that day? if the united states will retain its status as the world's economic engine. mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman will suspend. the committee will come to order. please take your conversations outside the chamber. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. cohen: the united states -- if the united states is going going to retain its status as

the world's biggest economic engine, we must have our work force, that won't happen if we let cement kilns across the country undermine the work force. i urge my creags to support my amendment. we must recognize that any establishment of a compliance date that does not factor in the health of the american work force is fundamentally flawed and inadequate. this will affect horses, horses and dogs will breathe in the same air and it will affect their well being. on bhf of the hundreds of thousands of american workers and animals who have been forced to miss work because of sickness incurred by breathing in toxic fumes from cement kilns, i ask you to support this amendment. it's time to protect our most value usual resource, the american worker and also the american worker's best friend, his dog and sometimes his horse. i urge passage of the amendment and reserve the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman may

not reserve his time. the gentleman from kentucky. >> strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. whitfield: i 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 e.p.a. considers work-related illnesses and absences when they issue these regulations and the specific section of the bill, 2681, that the gentleman from tennessee is amending relates to the provisions that the administrator must consider relating to the industry and trying to comply with the regulations and this amendment

would add to that work-related ill -- illness-related work absences would have to be considered as well. and we think that that would be duplicative of what they already consider and because of that, we ask that despite the great respect we have for the gentleman from tennessee, we urge that this amendment not be adopted and urge other members to vote no on the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. co-hep: i share the -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. cohen: ok then. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> strike the last word. and i yield to the gentleman from tennessee.

mr. cohen: i would say is it his position, if there's no harm, no foul, and it's duplicative, then there's no reason not to adopt it. the best case is you protect the worker, if you -- worst case is you have a couple of extra sentences in a law that make no difference. i suggest we join together in a bipartisan, kum-ba-yah moment. mr. waxman: i yield to the gentleman if he is convinced by the rebuttal. if not, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose -- mr. cohen: i ask for a roll call vote for the animals as well. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee will be postponed.

for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? >> mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number five printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. keating of massachusetts. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes. mr. keating: thank you, mr. speaker. this bill gives the impression that we're going to deal with this issue in five years. if you look at the bill carefully you find out, mr. speaker, that indeed what it could postpone is the effective -- the effect of this amendment forever. in fact, in terms of pollution, in terms of toxins, this is the equivalent of the pollution road to nowhere, where there's no ending in sight, none that will ever be reached and it's just nothing but a guise for the people to think they're doing something within the five-year time frame my amendment would allow the five years, but it would be a maximum of five years before the source has to be

implemented and the changes are met in terms of emissions. what else would this amendment do? it would save 10,000 related deaths, avert 6,000 heart attacks, avoid nearly 70,000 asthma attacks. and the pollution reductions required in this rule would cut mercury emissions from cement kilns by over 90%. as all of us know, mr. speaker, mercury is a poisonous substance that affects the ability of infants and children to learn and to think. it also results in birth defects and cognitive disabilities. cement kilns emit lead and arsenic which cause cancer and damage to the nervous system. let's line up the costs and benefits. costs, birth defects, cognitive disability, cancer, heart attacks, asthma, attacks on the nervous system, on one side of the ledger. the other side of the ledger,

marginal savings. by the companies for not doing what they really should be doing in terms of keeping people safe. now let's add up the costs of that versus the cost of all those ailments, all those things that affect young people, that will affect taxpayers funding this for decades to come. a multiple of whatever savings is there. for the industries that request it. so i hope this amendment passes. i think what this attempts to do is say, let's cut through the guile. you mean five year you mean five years. so we should be in agreement on this, if that is indeed the case. i hope this amendment gets the support from my colleagues that believe five years is a reasonable time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. whitfield: strike the last

word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. whitfield: this would set a three-year compliance date and allow a case-by-case extension up to two years if the administrator of the e.p.a. determines there is a compelling need to do system of the purpose of this legislation is to protect health, provide feasibility and regulatory certainty, protect jobs and minimize plant shutdowns. urn the clean air act, sources already have three years to comply with section 112 standards for cement kilns, with a potential one-year extension by the e.p.a. administrator or a state permitting authority. this amendment would allow for a second possible one-year extension, so a source might be able to get five years for compliance. the amendment would impose additional regulatory burdens on both the e.p.a. 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 and the hearings on this indicated that the current three-year compliance time frame is simply not workable. and a definitive period of at least five years is needed. so for that reason, with all due respect, we would urge the defeat of the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. waxman: i rise in support of the pending amendment and i want to yield to the author of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. keating: i thank the gentleman for yielding. when you talk about certainty,

the only thing i would say is this, the only certainty about this bill is there's no end to it. if you call certainty, no time frame that can ever be reached for certain. when you're talking about the costs to the e.p.a., the marginal costs that might be there to the industry in terms of savings, that pales in comparisons by multiples of the cost those taxpayers have to pay for the cognitive disabilities, the birth defects of infants and young children that will be born, in most case -- that will be borne, in most cases, by the taxpayers, because we're not making these industries do what they're supposed to do. i yield back my time. mr. waxman: i want to reclaim my time. the gentleman is correct. there's no end point to when there will be compliance so we can get the health benefits, because of that compliance. let's go through the bill again. the bill would nullify e.p.a.'s

emission standards for cement kilns. it assures that if e.p.a. is able to issue new standards, the new standard would be less protective of public health and more protective of the cement manufacturers' profits. even then, the bill allows for implementation of new standards to be indefinitely delayed. it blocks e.p.a. from requiring cement kilns to comply with the new rules for at least five years and fails to establish any deadline for compliance whatsoever. this could allow cement kilns to continue to pollute without limit, indefinitely. i support this amendment because it would use this existing framework of the bill as a baseline for compliance but it would also allow the administrator to provide adgsal extensions of one year for existing sources if she determines there is a compelling reason. already under the clean air

act, every facility has complied no later than three years after the limits go into effect. over the past 20 years, tens of thousands of sources across, about 100 industries, have cleaned up their toxic air pollution within that three-year period. i think the statutory time frame is sufficient. five years is a long time to wait for the communities living in the shadow of these cement kilns, at least this amendment sets an outer bound for when cement kilns will have to comply, unlike the underlying legislation. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from massachusetts. >> i request the -- mr. keathing: i request the yeas

and nays, or the roll call. the chair: the gentleman asks for a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 1, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from maryland rise? ms. edwards: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. cloim amendment number three offered by ms. edwards of maryland. ms. edwards: the clean air act has a proven 40-year track record of delivering technological innovation and economic growth for the american people, at the same time protecting public hell and our nation's environment. this was originally signed into law by president richard nixon and the amendments were enacted by president george h.w. bush. unfortunately my republican colleagues here today don't see eye-to-eye even with their own

party's former presidents. since its inception, the clean air act has netted americans $40 in benefits for every $1 that's been spent in making it one of the most successful and significant statutes in our nation's history. my amendment highlights the fact that if the rules repealed by this bill remained in effect, they would yield annual public health benefits of between $6.7 billion and $18 billion. at a cost of under $1 billion. the benefit of complying with the a.p.a.'s cement kiln standards exceeds the cost by a factor of at least seven and as much as 18. and let's say in really plain language. that is between a 700% to an 1,800% return on an investment. it sound likes a good investment. and these returns come from a avoiding the health care -- avoiding the health care and social costs associated with 1,500 heart attacks, 17,000 cases of aggravated asthma and

32,000 cases of respiratory illnesses each year. the cost of 1,000 emergency room visits, 740 hospital admissions, multiple trips to the doctor and taking prescription drugs. the cost of 130,000 days of missed work a year, costs felt by employers in the form of lost productivity. and the employee in the form of lost wages. one person working seven days a week would have to work 356 years to reach 130,000 days. this very extreme analogy makes a simple point. if we put it in perspective, the cement industry employs 13,000 workers. and if those workers took the 130,000 sick days it would shut down the entire -- entire cement industry, the entire industry for 10 days every year. a study published in the may, 2011, health affairs found that we spend $76 billion a year

treating environmental diseases in children like lead poisoning, prenatal methyl mercury exposure, childhood cancer, asthma and intellectual disability, autism and adhd and now cement factory emissions may not be responsible for every one of these instances but cement kilns are the second largest source of airborne mercury pollution in the united states. after power plants. it's extraordinary, mercury's a powerful neurotoxin and when it's ingested, particularly by pregnant women, in the form of fish, can impair cognyity five function in infants and children. in 2000, national research council warned that 60,000 children could be born annually with neurological problems from exposure to mercury while in the womb. it's a simple fact, at a time when our nation is struggling with budget deficits, we should be targetsing the causes of disease and acting to reduce the need for health care spending. and yet producers of toxic emissions need to step up and

assume their fair share of responsibility. now, those who want to gut the e.p.a.'s cement kiln standards say that complying with these rules would force them to jack up the price of cement and drive consumers, mostly construction companies, to buy cheap imports from china instead. it's not true and it's just a square tactic. instead, look at the facts. e.p.a. says its cement makers would recoup nearly 90% of their pollution control costs which are anyway amer advertised over years of operation by adding just $4.50 to a price of a ton of cement. this is not a prohibitive hike. and more importantly cement is expense to have ship so the likelihood of shipping it from china seems highly skeptical. the truth is that the sector is vulnerable because the construction industry's taken a big hit in the recession. and hasn't recovered. and here we're in a congress trying to gut e.p.a.'s standards when we actually should be creating jobs.

and this, if you want to talk about job killers, this bill is a job killer. because we should be investing in the industry, allowing it to produce roads, bridge, all of our infrastructure, instead of gutting e.p.a. standards. there's no way to do this except by investing in infrastructure. and so i would urge us to look at the real cost of lowering these standards, the real cost to industry and urge us instead to think -- think about the clean air act and the benefits to communities -- to communities and make sure that we pass this amendment. thank you and i yield my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. for what reason does the gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. whitfield: to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky voiced for five minutes. mr. whitfield: 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 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 e.p.a. and 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 cost as computed by e.p.a. now, we have difficulty of just adopting their health benefits and cost 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 e.p.a. in computing costs and benefits. and many people have found that there is a lack of transparency in the megged oddology used by e.p.a. -- methodology used by the e.p.a. in making many of these calculations. and i might also say that because of that, for example, e.p.a. determined that the cost of these rules would be between $926 million to $950 million and yet other independent analysis 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. and i might also add that respect -- with respect to the benefits e.p.a. itself has acknowledged that it has not even quantityified 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 e.p.a.'s estimates of benefits are all related to incident 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 -- and -- and request that they vote in opposition to it and with that i'd yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky yields back.

for what reason does the gentleman from california rise? mr. waxman: i rise in support of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. waxman: for decades regulated industry has claimed that e.p.a. rules are not worth the cost. for decades they've pushed laws and executives orders to require more and more detailed cost-benefit analyses. so now that's what e.p.a. does for every major rule. e.p.a. conducts a regulatory impact analysis that quantifies and monetizes to the extent possible the cost and benefit of each rule. these analyses are based on peer-reviewed science. they're reviewed by the office of management and budget. the analyses are usually a couple hundred pages long. e.p.a. prepares a draft analysis for the proposed rule which is available for public comment before it is finalized with the final rule. the information about the cost and benefits of the rules helps

e.p.a. make a sensible decision about how stringent the standards should be. for example, as a consequent -- consequence e.p.a. almost never adopts rules where monetized costs outweigh the benefits. last year e.p.a. finalized long overdue standards to cut emissions of mercury and other toxic air pollutants from cement kilns. as it does for every rule, e.p.a. conducted a thorough regulatory impact analysis of cement kiln rules following the process i just described. this analysis found that the benefits of these rules for public health far outweigh the costs to the polluters. that means that as a nation we're far better off with these rules than without them. but now the republicans aren't interested in the benefit-cost analysis, they're only interested in the cost, regardless of how much those costs are outweighed by

benefits. here's why these rules are such a good deal for the american public. the rules will significantly reduce emissions of fine particle pollution which can lodge deep in the lungs and cause serious health problems. by cutting emissions of fine particles, e.p.a. estimates that these rules will prevent up to 2,500 premature deaths, 1,500 nonfatal heart attacks, 17,000 cases of aggravated asthma and 130,000 days when people miss work or school each year. e.p.a. estimates that the cost to comply with the rules will be about $950 million in 2013. in contrast, e.p.a. estimates that the monetized health benefits associated with reduced exposure to air pollution range from $6.7 billion to $18 billion in 23 and annually thereafter. moreover these figures likely underestimate the health

benefits of the rule because given time and data limitations e.p.a. wasn't able to put a dollar value on the health benefits of reducing cement kiln emissions of car sin generals and other toxic substances such as mercury which is a powerful neurotoxin. well, this amendment simply restates the conclusions of e.p.a.'s cost-benefit analysis. this amendment does not change what the bill does. if this amendment passes the bill would still nullify the cement kiln rules and force e.p.a. to start all over again. the bill would still rewrite the clean air act in such a way that e.p.a. may never be able to reissue emission limits for toxic air pollution from cement kilns. but this amendment provides an important reminder. by nullifying the rules, the bill also nullifies the $6.7 billion to $18 billion in annual health benefits that would have made americans better off if the

rules remain in place. this amendment ensures that we have a clearly stated accounting of the monetized costs and benefits of this bill. the republicans have been eager to talk about the benefits to industry, of shielding them from having to cut their toxic mercury emissions. this amendment simply outlines the cost to public health of nullifying these rules. when it came to congressman ellison's amendment, where he wanted the benefits clearly stated, the republicans opposed it because they said that e.p.a. had already studied it. so why should we have to tut it -- put it in the find sngs when it comes to this amendment they say, well, maybe they haven't studied it well enough and they want to put it in the -- findings for that reason. i find both arguments not only inconsistent but not very, very persuasive. so i urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from maryland. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentlewoman from maryland. ms. edwards: i'd ask for a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from maryland will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. whitfield: i move now that the committee do rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the committee rises.

the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union, having had under consideration h.r. 2681, directs me to report it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 2681 and has come to no resolution thereon. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. whitfield: i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourn today it adjourn to meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. the chair: without objection, so ordered. -- the speaker pro tempore: whox, so ordered.

-- without objection, so ordered. the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 771, an act to designate the facility of the united states postal service in schwartz, texas, as the schwartz veterans post office.

the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011rk the gentleman from kentucky, mr. whitfield is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. whitfield: 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 the efforts of the bailout, the stimulus spending, and other efforts,

you are you are -- our unemployment rate is still above 9% nationally. we were told that when we adopted the bail lout -- bailout, when we made money available for the stimulus plans that unemployment would be reduced in the u.s. to a maximum of 8%. that has not come to pass. 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 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 c.m.s. and h.h.s. 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 for, particularly, community banks to make loans. a third area of great uncertainty is related to regulations implemented by this environmental protection agency. under the administrator lisa jackson, this has been the most aggressive e.p.a. in the history of the agency. trying to keep up with all 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 business people 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 e.p.a. regulations have been a tremendous obstacle for investment to be made in tra d -- and traditional 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. that's precisely what the leadership in this house of representatives is attempting to do. we're calling upon the

leadership on the -- in the democratic controlled senate to do the same thing and the sooner 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 regulations. it's not going to be stimulated by additional government expenditures, which is basically what the president's job plan is all about, and i might refer to today's article in "the hill," the headline says "senate democrats buck obama on jobs plan." 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 and with that, mr. speaker, i would like to yield back the balance of my time to the chair. thank you.

the speaker pro tempore: the balance of the majority leader's time is reallocated to the gentleman from texas. mr. carter: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from kentucky for being here. i've enjoyed the day, wonderful challenge, i thank my friend for all the good work we did today. i think the -- i thank the speaker for recognizing me. today, from 1:00 until about close to 7:00, we were debating the cement industry relief act. i'm going to just rehash that a little bit. i would first like to make an inquiry of the parliamentarian.

before i start, mr. speaker, i had a constituent who approached me about the fact that as we're here tonight that you and i are in a relatively empty chamber except these fine folks here working on behalf of the american people and that accuse me of trying to fool the american people into thinking this was a full room. i just wanted to set the record straight because he obviously didn't believe i would do it, that most evenings we are talking to our colleagues back in their offices and so forth who are keeping up with this on

c-span and this is often a very, very small group of folks in this chamber. i'm not trying to fool anybody. i was offended by the fact that he accused me of doing that, i wanted to make the record clear as i started tonight, that you and i are working here together. the speaker pro tempore: yes, sir. mr. carter: thank you, mr. speaker. now that i've gotten that little pledge to one of my constituents taken care of, i hope he was watching, i want to say, we've been talking about, for quite some time the regulatory burden being placed on the american people and what that has to do with our economy, the fact that we may be approaching a double dip recession, god forbid, but there's all indications we could be and the fact that we are losing jobs and we've got to instead stop losing jobs, save jobs and create jobs. the truth is, the job creators of this world are first and

foremost our small business people. we have a whole group of small business people who came up to hear the president's speech when he talked to us the other day, sat right up in this section of the gallery and later they talked to the press and others about what they thought was necessary for their individual small businesses to start to grow, prosper, and to create jobs. you know, it's a funny thing. i didn't hear any of these, there were about of them, say we need a government bailout, we need a government stimulus. what they said was, we need the government to quit throwing up roadblocks to us prospering in our business. they mentioned the fact that access to capital was difficult in this country because of regulations that have been issued under the dodd-frank act. they mentioned that the unknown about what's going to happen as

regulations are being developed for the health care, what we call the obamacare bill, as those regulations are being developed, every day it seems like they hear something new that is going to be mandatory in health care and is mandatory , put upon the insurance providers of health care, the price goes up. and many of the small business people who are diligently trying to keep their employees hired and their employees insured as the ongoing rulings by this -- these regulators under the health care bill are coming to the forefront, where people can know about them, then they hear from their providers, the price went up. now some of them tell me that it's getting to a point where the cost is being put upon them, basically because of these regulations is actually

making them have to decide, not only are we not going to be able to hire anybody, we're not going to be able to keep everybody we've got because we're doubling and sometimes tripling our cost of providing health care for our employees. quite honestly with the number of employees we've got, we're going to have to double up and some people have to carry bigger shifts and we have to do that, whereas in reality, the best business practice would be hiring somebody, the regulations keep us from doing that. then think tell us, and the unknown of our tax structure we've got, the fact that what we now, after 12 years, are still calling the bush tax cuts which in reality is the tax plan we are under now, there's a very good possibility that that tax plan might go away and then the small businessman and his accounting folks have to look clear back to the era of bill clinton to see what the taxes were like then so they'll

know what the taxes will be flike they -- if this body lets those things expire. and they see that it's going to cause a tremendous amount of acceleration of expenditures to pay extra taxes. and so they say, you know, with that being unknown, with what the final price tag is going to be for health care is unknown, and then we -- we learn that there are other agencies like the environmental protection agency and others that are going to impose additional regulations and additional rules on our small businesses, you know what? we can't afford to hire anybody. even if we could make it better to make a more prosperous business that we have, because of the unknown, we can't afford to do that. quite honestly, the president

is going around all over the country, so far he's been, i think, to every member of the leadership's district but mine and he is telling people to tell the congress to vote for his jobs bill he calls it. i think great american jobs bill or something to that effect. and yet -- and he's telling us facts that we think we need to know about it. but that jobs bill has a lot more in it that is unknown. and the american people know that. i mean, they have -- this isn't their first rodeo -- rodeo, as we say in texas. they have been here before. they know when they've got a giant bill with giant expenditures and all they're hearing is talking points on the television and radio, that they need somebody to look at that bill. and those of us that are here looking at it are seeing many, many onerous things that exist in that bill that are not being

talked about. if louie gohmert, congressman gohmert the other night was talking about some of the things he discovered as reading the bill. and you haven't heard anyone talking about the things that he's discovered. but those things are important to the american people. it means their life changes, both at home and in their business. and the american business man knows that -- businessman knows that these unknowns are out there and they are concerned about these unknowns and the unknown creates fear. and creates hesitation. on behalf of the people who create jobs in this country. and the real jobs are the jobs that you get hired for and you make a living out of it, it becomes a career job, and you are able to have a career, hopefully work in that industry until you decide it's not in your best interest to work there or until you're ready to retire with a retirement and a social security system that you can trust. and they say, but we're not sure we can trust that.

with a health care plan that you can trust, but we're not sure we can trust that. we've got to put truth in front of the american people. we've got to get honest about what is in the bills that are out here. we have to be honest and stand up to the regulators and say, wait a minute, what you're doing is going to cause people in my district back home and across this country to not be able to hold on to the job they've got. and this is the kind of thing that is causing a lot of the problems we have today. franklin roosevelt said in the great depression, the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. and i think it's an argument that that's still a lot of what's going on and why private industry is fearful to hire new employees because they don't know what the results of that hiring will be as far as the bottom line of their profit

margin. so, i have been taking on the regulators and talking about various regulations and how colleagues in the house with me are -- have bills that we are taking up one a week until we get all of them before this -- this congress and hopefully get a vote and get them out of this house and over to the senate and then we hope and pray and beg and con joel the senators maybe to take up the bills. we have a stack of bills sitting over on harry reid's desk right now that have been passed that would make a difference in creating jobs in this country but he announces when they get there that they're dead on arrival and the senate is not going to act. the senate gets paid to act, they seem to think this year they get paid to not act. well, that's -- that's an issue between the american people and the senate. but we are -- we have bills that are going over there and we will continue to send bills over to

our colleagues in the senate and we are hopeful that as we approach the possibility of a double dip recession that that will open up a couple of those bills and take a look at them and see if they might help. i think they might. today on the floor of this house , and i've been involved by permission of the chairman in this debate on the cement regulatory -- regulations, we've been talking and having and dealing with amendments since 1:00. so i've been here a long time. but i kind of like it. and i enjoyed the conversation with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and we -- we had a good debate and we now think that we have got all the amendments have been voted on and it passed up until 7:00. the other amendments will be voted on tomorrow and then the final passage of this bill that's described right here,

h.r. 2618, what it does, probably kind of hard to read, it provides employers with extended compliance period. what we've got is another form i want you to look at. in this debate. i'll put it down there and hang it up there in a minute. first what this bill does, it provides additional time to comply with the clean air act and the rules that they've set relative to the manufacture of cement. it blocks current regulatory overreach by the authority, gives the e.p.a. at least 15 months to repropose and finalize new and available rules that do not destroy jobs, it affects the cement industry in two -- it

affects the cement mact and two related rules are -- it's expected to affect approximately 100 -- this current set of rules is expected to affect 100 cement plants in america, has already caused suspension of a new $350 million cement plant proposed in i believe the state of alabama, putting 1,500 construction jobs on hold. that's what this -- this proposed rule has already done. what this does is say, time-out, e.p.a. you're killing jobs. so here's what we ask you to do. you set some reasonable -- let's your -- look at this rule and look at it in light of the fact that you're -- there's a possibility that 20% or more of these 100 cement plants will close. well, they will either close

down and stop making portland cement in the united states or they will close down until they can open up overseas in an environment that is, quite honestly, not regulated at all. not that our americans don't want clean air, but they do. but if they've got the clean air rules that are going to destroy them because of the cost and the fact that they can't meet the standards and there's not scrubbers to make -- help them meet the standards, then they're going to say, well, if i'm going to stay in business i have to go someplace where the regulations are not so fierce. why do i say they're fierce? well, historically when we started all of our environmental cleanup, which is a great thing and every american's proud of it, i can remember that -- that europeans were held out as an example, just as they're being held out today as an example of green energy, they were held out as an example on water and air

quality, of how dedicated regimes could come up with solutions to solve the air and the water problem. we've all seen the sherlock holmes movies of the smog and the fog in london. and it's gone. we've all heard of the pollution of the river and it's not polluted anymore. and the europeans were held out as having set the standards that the world needed to follow. well, let's look at the standards that the europeans set for the cement industry. the e.u. has just issued their final standards. the parameter for mercury, the u.s. standard in the bill -- in the e.p.a. rule that we're dealing with with house bill 2681 is .01 percentage of

mercury as an emission. the european standard, supposedly the say the of the art, is .05. our standard is five times more restrictive than the european standard. and hydrochloric acid, our standard is 3.83, the european standard is 10. in particulate matter, our standard is 7.72, the particulate matter standards in european, in the e.u., is 20. so the people that we and the progressives in this house held up as the model for knowing how to clean up the atmosphere and clean up the water was the e.u., they have issued rules approximately at the same time we've issued our rules and you can see how much more stringent

the rules we're placing on the industries of america versus the rules that are being placed on the european industries. our competitors. i don't mean in any way to criticize the europeans. i just -- i just find it questionable, if the europeans say, .05 and we got .01 and we're dealing with mercury which is one of the -- the pollutants that is discussed in the issue of portland cement factories, then it's five times more difficult for us to meet the standard. and for -- at least from what the industry says, there is equipment available to meet the european standard. our standard at this time doesn't have equipment available to meet it. so even if they wanted to jump

in and do it, in the three-year time period they have to do it, they know they can't -- they don't think they can meet that standard, they feel it -- it's either going to be cost prohibitive because of research and development to come up with solutions or it's not going to be reachable at all which could cause major fines, after they've spent millions of dollars trying, they said, heck, we just can't do it. and at least 20% of the plants have already said, hey, we just can't do it, we're small, small businesses, we're not the giant conglomerates that people presume us to be, but most of our folks that own cement plants own either one to maybe five, some of them have a few more, but most of them are fairly small one-family or one-person operation and they're sitting there saying, we can't meet it, we're going to shut down. or we're going to look at the areas in the world where we can meet it. maybe mexico, maybe -- which

does have some standards but nothing anywhere even near the standard of europe. or maybe we'll go to china or to india where they basically have no standards, not that we want to have a plant like that, but if we put the plant that's got -- the filt -- the filters on it right now that meets a current standard and take it over there, at least we won't be polluting the atmosphere too much more and we'll at least be able to be in business. what does that mean to us? well, you know, the president of the united states has gone all over the country and he's making speeches and one of the things he says is, don't the republicans want to rebuild the infrastructure of this country? don't they want to construct new schools and repair the old schools? well, have you ever looked at what kind of materials we use to build schools? in the current modern world?

of course even in the old, antique world you start with a foundation made out of what? concrete. which is made with portland cement. so, if the portland cement is moving overseas and we have less and less people that can meet the standard, and it could be more than 20% that move, that's the ones that have told us they'll move. but as a business practice they're going to look at it and see if they can make it work. now, why do i say it's going to be tough to work? l.a. well, let's look at it. they're roughly a $6 billion industry. the estimated cost agreed upon -- and the e.p.a. doesn't dispute this, the estimated cost of making the changes to these plants to meet the requirements set by the .01 on mercury is

$3.4 billion. so the whole industry's worth -- makes $6 billion and they got to pay $3.4 to fix the problem -- $-- 3 $-- -- $3.4 billion to fix the problem. now that's more than half of the income for the whole industry to fix these problems. and when you think about that, that's a terrible, terrible hit, for people who are in the business of making a profit. i don't think anybody in america thinks that people are supposed to work for no salary and no profit. by the way, the jobs that we have in the cement industry are good-paying labor jobs. they make somewhere between -- something like $45,000 to $65,000 the lower range and 65,000 to $85,000 or $90,000 in the upper range. that's a good-paying job. now, why we would want to ship now, why we would want to ship that job