attacks and a lifetime of health complications. pass this bill and you saddle our economy with unnecessary costs and employers with millions of additional sick days. pass this bill and you trigger an additional 20,000 heart attacks. pass this bill and you condemn tens of thousands of americans to a premature death. mr. speaker, the cement sector regulatory relief act, that unfortunately will pass today, and the train act that passed two weeks ago, constitute an all-out war between this nation's dirtiest industries and the federal agency charged with protecting the public's death. e.p.a. has become the symbol, the center of the debate over the role of the government. it's a sad commentary for this chamber that an industry that prefers to invest in the political process rather than in saving lives by reducing harmful emissions is in fact winning the debate. . in fact the coal consuming

industries that have assaulted the e.p.a. were invited early on during the obama administration to sit down and draft a compliance option. the administration had hoped to craft a deal similar to the historic deal they made with the auto industry on fuel efficiency and tailpipe emissions. an article by carol davenport in the september 22 issue of "the national journal" referenced this meeting, but unlike the auto industry, the coal consuming industries refused to negotiate. instead, and let me quote from the article, they, in quotes, banded together with the republican party to strategize and the mid term elections offered the perfect battleground. they elected tea party candidates crusading against the role of big government. the u.s. chamber of commerce, tea parties like americans for prosperity and so-called superpacks like carol rhodes

american crossroads spent hefty amounts to help the new house republican majority. my colleagues, this bill presents a false choice. it's one peddled by an industry that refuses to clean up its act. hundreds of thousands of people owe their lives today to the environmental movement. leaders in congress and the white house who pushed for and passed the landmark environmental laws back in the 1970's that required polluters to clean our waters and reduce the pollution in the air we breathe. in the decade after 1990 klein air act, amendments were signed into law by the first president bush and then our unemployment rate declined. our economy grew. and we reduced acid rain forming gases by more than 30%. mr. speaker, do you have any more time? >> i will yield 30 additional seconds to the gentleman. mr. moran: it was actually 75% less than what e.p.a. had originally predicted, and even farther below what opponents had claimed.

in the case of the rule for boilers and solid waste incinerators, e.p.a. issued proposed standards in april of this year, 11 years after the statutory deadline. they listened to affected businesses. they cut compliance cost by a half and issued a modified final rule in february. mr. speaker, e.p.a. is doing everything the law requires and that the public health requires. this -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. moran: defeat this bill. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the distinguished lady from washington state, mrs. mcmorris rodgers, a member of the energy and commerce committee. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i thank the gentleman for yielding and appreciate his leadership on this important issue. mr. speaker, i rise today in strong support of h.r. 22 50, the e.p.a. regulatory relief act of 2011. -- h.r. 22 50, the e.p.a. regulatory relief act of 2011. when unplamente remains high,

congress should focus on legislation that keeps and creates jobs in america, not suffocate them or send them overseas. as an original co-sponsor of this legislation, i know it will do just that. last week i was home in eastern washington on an energy and jobs tour and i met with citizens and small businesses and job creators. and whether i was in up in colville or in spokane, the message is clear. the federal government is making it harder to manufacture, harder to produce, harder to innovate anything in america. the anxiety and uncertainty caused by the federal government's record regulatory overreach is destroying any chance of economic recovery. like the ozone standard, the simple truth is the true stricter boiler mact regulations will have a disastrous effect on our economy. the e.p.a. itself says that these rules will cost thousands of jobs. independent studies say up to 224,000 jobs could be lost.

one example is northern washington. the pondering news print will be forced to spend $8 million on mandatory upgrades. that's $8 million that cannot be spent on retaining and creating jobs. the e.p.a. regulatory relief act requires the e.p.a. to set realistic, achievable, fact-based standards that will not destroy jobs while still protecting the environment. i urge my colleagues to support this pragmatic, commonsense solution, and i yield -- i thank the gentleman for yielding and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves his time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. markey: yes. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for three minutes. mr. ellison: let me thank the gentleman from massachusetts and also thank you, mr. speaker. you know, mr. speaker, a number of very passionate and well-informed speakers have come before this body today to

urge a no vote based on facts, based on research and all this is extremely important and i'm so glad they did it. but, mr. speaker, for the people watching this debate today, they need to know one thing and that is that this legislation bought and paid for by industry to -- so that people could try to save money at the expense of people's health and their lives and this is exactly what's going on here today. what's going on here today is that industry interests, backed candidates who come here today and to offer legislation that would allow the cement industry, the coal fire industry, the mact -- the boiler industry users to just dump mercury and other junk into the air that makes you sick. and as we're talking about jobs, what about a jobs bill that could put americans to work as opposed to just saying we're just going to get rid of all the regulations in america?

no more -- what if we just got rid of all the regulations in america? we would be sicker, we would die sooner, we would be much less of a country. what if we just said that we're going to put the health of americans upfront? we're going to actually introduce a jobs bill like the american jobs act. what if we did those things? america would be back on track, but maybe some of these big industrial polluters will be a little sadder. i say today, mr. speaker, that this congress should reject the attack on americans' health. in the last three weeks, we have seen industry polluters from the -- industry that uses these boilers, the cement industry and the coal fired power plant industry just run amuck on the people's health and we have yet to see a single jobs bill in the course of 250-plus days as the majority has been in the hands of the republicans.

this is a national disgrace. the american people said they wanted jobs. they haven't got them. the american people said they want to be well and healthy. they have seen assaults on that. and this is something that the american people need to bring their attention to, mr. speaker, and i hope that people are paying attention to this debate because it is critical clear whose side the majority side is on. industry polluters, not the american people, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. -- kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: i don't know what the gentleman says bought and paid for by industry. i might say that this legislation is being offered because hospitals, schools, industry, wide range of interests have come to us and asked for help. and the insinuations that we were bought and paid for by industry is a little bit of an affront to this institution. this time i'd like to recognize

the gentleman from texas, mr. olson, a member of the energy and commerce committee, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. olson: i thank the chairman of the subcommittee. mr. speaker, president obama's regulatory agenda being led by the e.p.a. is going to kill the american pulp and paper industry. my father spent his entire career in the pulp and paper industry so i know firsthand that if the misguided boiler mact rules are allowed to be implemented, 36 mills across this country will close and more than 80,000 jobs will be lost. these jobs we lost because of the e.p.a.'s failure to understand the basics of how this industry works. the industry does not, does not oppose reasonable regulations.

they are just asking to have regulations based on sound science and that can be achieved with technology that's currently available here in the real world. mr. speaker, we need to stop exporting american manufacturing jobs. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on h.r. 2250, the e.p.a. regulatory relief act of 2011, to create an immediate positive impact on american jobs and the recovery of our economy. i thank the chair. yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: yes, i yield myself one minute at this time. you know, what we have here today is just one more episode in what is a one year republican control of the congress which has seen a litany of industries that no longer want to make the air

cleaner, no longer want to make the water safer to drink. come out here on the house floor with republican leadership in order to repeal the laws, to water down the laws, to protect children from mercury, to protect children from contracting asthma. that's what this is all about. e.p.a. used to stand for the environmental protection agency. now it stands for every polluter's ally out here. they all come out here and they want to ensure that the laws are watered down. that's what we are fighting. that's what democrats are fighting here. we're fighting to ensure that the water stays clean, that the air stays safe to breathe, and the boiler industry is saying, no, there's not enough mercury that gets sent up into the air. there's not enough mercury that goes into the lives of children in our country, and we're going to fight that. i reserve the balance of my

time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: yes. i would like to remind the gentleman from massachusetts that there are a large number of democrats on this legislation. at this time i'd like to recognize -- yield to the gentleman from california, mr. herger, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. herger: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 2250, which will protect american jobs from the e.p.a.'s unnecessary and economically destructive boiler mact regulations. at this time of high unemployment and economic hardship, the e.p.a. wants to require costly retrofitting boilers that small businesses, energy plants, schools and churches in northern california and congressional districts i represent and across the

nation. this regulation is another example of the obama administration's standing in the way of job growth. the department of commerce estimates that the 276 pages of federal regulation could eliminate as many as 60,000 u.s. jobs nationwide. the e.p.a.'s own fact sheet says that implementing these rules will cost more than $5 billion. in august of 2010, the small business administration explicitly warned the e.p.a. that these regulations were too extreme and would harm small businesses. unfortunately, the e.p.a. did not heed this warning. in addition, the boiler regulation will impose substantial and unnecessary costs for americans to use

biomass energy, an essential part of job growth in the northern california district i represent. biomass is a clean and renewable energy source that could help increase our energy supplies and manage our overgrown and fire-prone forests while created much-needed jobs. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation to protect jobs and ensure that this costly regulation does not go into effect. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves his time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. markey: again, i would ask the chair if we could review again how much time is remaining? the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts has 1 3/4 minutes. mr. markey: and how much time does majority have? the chair: the gentleman from kentucky has nine minutes. mr. markey: nine minutes. so if the gentleman from kentucky would not mind, we will reserve until the

gentleman has -- mr. whitfield: at this time i'd like to recognize the gentleman from tennessee, dr. roe, for three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for three minutes. mr. roe: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the chairman for yielding. i rise in support of this legislation. we cannot afford to enforce the proposed mact regulations especially when unemployment exceeds 9%. these new burdensome regulations will result in the loss of 8,400 jobs in tennessee. when will this administration learn that further burdening the job creators does not create jobs? this is just another example of failed leadership and it is our duty to the american people to ensure the e.p.a. does not continue down the same path that will only lead to job loss. the new rules affect approximately 200,000 boilers. . they burn natural gas, refinery gas, or other gas to produce steam which is used to generate

electricity or provide heat for other industrial or i.n.s. tuelingsal facilities or schools. this will especially affect the economic outlook and agricultural community. agriculture accounts for more than 950,000 jobs, both on and off the farm. a large portion of the american economy. in tennessee 13.8% of the work force is employed in agriculture. these jobs would -- we cannot afford the government's overreach. replacing coal-fired boilers with natural gas, there is no doubt the cornerstone of our economy would suffer. or consider eastman chemical, a manufacturing company headquartered in my district. eastman generates $6.9 billion in revenue and employs over 11,000 tennesseans. there is no doubt these new regulations would negatively impact their business, the effects of which they estimate for their company alone would be in the tens of millions of dollars. in fact, boiler mact regulations

could cost the manufacturing sector over $14 billion in capital plus billions more in annual operating costs. complying with the incinerator standards could cost even billions more. as the e.p.a. has acknowledged, the rule for finalized with serious flaws because the e.p.a. was forced to meet a strict court ordered deadline. this commonsense legislation does not repeal the rules. it simply allows time to come up with a plan to support clean air efforts without more burdensome regulation on job creators. i urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. markey: i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from -- may i instead just reserve the balance. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves his time. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: at this time i'd

like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, a member of the energy and commerce committee, mr. scalise. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the gentleman from kentucky for yielding. i really want to thank him for bringing this jobs bill to the house floor. this legislation, this e.p.a. regulatory reform bill, is critical to saving tens of thousands, over 100,000 jobs in america that are at risk if the e.p.a. is able to get away with yet another rad --rd cal regulation they are trying to implement. when i talk to our job creators, small business owners, the people struggling in this economy, but they still want to create jobs, i ask them what are the things holding you back from creating jobs? from having your business grow so that more people can have great opportunities to live the american dream? there is a consistent theme that they all say. that is it is the regulations

coming out of washington, d.c. coming out of the obama administration, that are the prime reason that is holding them back from creating good jobs in this country. of course we have seen in southeast louisiana, and we've got tough times, you go all throughout the country and you see the same thing. and you just look at the numbers. from outside groups that have actually tried to figure out just how devastating the impact would be of just this boiler regulation if it were to go in effect by the e.p.a. over 1,500 boilers across this country are at risk. and you are talking about over 230,000 jobs. and just look at some of the states. the state of north carolina, the state of indiana, the state of ohio, michigan, pennsylvania, each of those states will loose over -- lose over 10,000 jobs if this radical e.p.a. regulation goes into effect. the president's running around the country saying pass this bill. he was saying pass the bill before he even filed the bill.

yet here's an actual bill on the floor of the house of representatives that will save over 230,000 jobs that will be lost. and yet the president wants to ram through this radical legislation anyway in spite of the fact that all those jobs will be lost. i think the american people understand what's going on. they are saying sanity needs to be reinvoked in washington in this administration. stop running jobs out of the country. let's put common sense reforms in place. this bipartisan legislation does that. thank you, mr. chairman, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves the balance of his time of the the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. markey: i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. moran: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for his leadership. i would like to quote bruce bartlett who was the economics advisor to both president ronald reagan and president george h.w. bush. he said this in an article in "the new york times" this week, in quotes, on august 29 the house majority leader, eric

cantor of virginia, sent a memorandum to members of the house republican conference telling them to make the repeal of job destroying regulations the key point in the republican jobs agenda. but evidence supporting mr. cantor's contention that deregulation would increase unemployment is very weak. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: may i ask how much time we have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from kentucky has four minutes. the gentleman from massachusetts has 1 1/4 minutes. mr. whitfield: i'd like to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from wisconsin, mr. duffy. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for two minutes. mr. duffy: i appreciate the gentleman from kentucky yielding. i come from central and northern wisconsin where we have a large forest product industry. we make a lot of paper in wisconsin. and if you look at these rules, they are going to have a significant impact on wisconsin

paper. real jobs that support our families. 1,400 jobs. new page, 3,200 jobs. wausau paper, 1,600 jobs. we look at these regulation that is are going to increase the standard on our boilers. and if you increase those standards, causing our companies to spend millions of more dollars to meet those standards, what's going to happen? you are going to shift wisconsin paper to china and brazil. what happens there? they don't have the same standards that we have. in the end, what's going to happen is we are going to outsource wisconsin jobs and our paper's going to be made with reduced standards. i think in the end those who care about our environment, who care about standards to make sure we have clean water and clean air, if you look over to china, they don't have those

same standards. in the end we breathe the same air and drink the same water. so let's make sure we have efficient standards that can keep american industry and wisconsin paper in business, doesn't shift these jobs overseas, but also -- mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts. reserves his time. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: mr. chairman, we do not have any other speakers. i believe that we have the right to close. i would like to let the gentleman from massachusetts go and then i'd like to close. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. markey: i yield myself the remainder of our time. the republicans have yet to bring a job creation bill out here on the house floor in the

10 months they have controlled the congress. instead, what they are doing is responding to industries who do not want to make the air cleaner, who do not want to make the water safer for the children of our country to drink and to breathe. and instead they make the case that making the environment cleaner kills jobs when we know that all evidence said it creates more jobs because it spurs innovation in new technology that create jobs that make our economy stronger. instead, they argue, that what the country needs is more mercury, more arsenic, more cad me yum -- cadmium, more mercury poisoning, more carcinogens that harm the health of our country. so not only do they not help the health of our economy by bringing out a jobs bill and instead they bring out bills that hurt the health of the

american people where they live and their families. that's what their agenda has been all about since the day they took over in january. and that's the agenda voting on here today. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: in closing i would urge every member of this body to support 2250. we believe that it is genuinely a balanced approach. e.p.a. even -- was trying to convince the court that their rule was a good rule, the old rule. and to just give you a very concrete example of some of the practical impacts of what's going on here, e.p.a. went to the court last december when it asked for time to fix the boiler mact rules which the court denied it, and pointed out that

the investments required by industry are irreversible. an example of that, representatives of notre dame university came to our hearing. and in order to comply with the boiler mact rules issued in 2004, which were invalidated by the court, the university of notre dame spent $20 million, and now they are not in compliance with the new rule. so they are going to have to come forth with an additional millions of dollars. so that's not happening only at the university of notre dame, that's happening at just about every university around the country, hospitals around the country, small businesses around the country, small utilityities around the country. -- utilityities around the country. so if we don't take some action, there are going to be a lot less -- many fewer jobs in the economy than there are today. because testimony after

testimony after testimony has indicated that entities cannot meet these new rules, are going to have to close down and lose jobs. so one way we can help the administration create jobs is to prevent the loss of jobs. and if this administration would be -- assert more common sense in their rules, we could remove some of the uncertainty to help us create more jobs in america. so i would urge every member to support 2250. it's a balanced approach. it protects health, protects industry. and provides a more commonsense approach to this significant problem. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time for general debate has expired. does the gentleman from kentucky have a motion? mr. whitfield: yes. i move that the committee do now 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. 2250 directs me to report that 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. 2250, and has come to no resolution thereon. pursuant to house resolution 419 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 2681.

will the gentleman from california, mr. denham, kindly take the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 2681 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to provide additional time for the administrator of the environmental protection agency to issue achievable standards for cement manufacturing facilities, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on wednesday, october 5, 2011, a request for recorded vote on amendment number 3 printed in the congressional record by the the gentlewoman from maryland, ms. edwards, has been postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in the congressional record which further proceedings were postponed in the following

order. amendment number 23 by mr. cohen of tennessee. amendment number 5 by mr. keating of massachusetts. amendment number 3 by ms. edwards of maryland. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in the series. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 23 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 23, printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. cohen of tennessee. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for 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 will be a 15-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 172. the nays, 248. one voting present. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on

amendment number 5 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. keating, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5, printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. keating of massachusetts. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for 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: on this vote the yeas are 162 and the nays are 257. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on a recorded vote on amendment number 3 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentlewoman from maryland, ms. edwards, on which further proceedings were postponed, on which the noes prevailed by a voice vote. the clerk will redess -- redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in the congressional record offered by ms. edwards of maryland. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the 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 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 165, the nays are 258. the amendment is not adopted. the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. those in favor please say aye. those opposed say no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted and accordingly under the rule 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 curned h.r. 2681 reports the bill back to the house with amendments. the speaker pro tempore: the committee of the whole house on

the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 2681 and pursuant to house resolution 419 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment in the adoption of the committee of the whole. under the rule the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to provide additional time for the administrator of the environmental protection agency to issue achievable standards for cement manufacturing facilities and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlelady opposed to the amendment -- i opposed to the bill? capps capts mr. speaker, i can't hear you -- mrs. capps: mr. speaker, i cannot hear you. the speaker pro tempore: house will be in order.

the house will be in order. is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill? mrs. capps: yes. the speaker pro tempore: without -- the gentlewoman is qualifies -- the gentlewoman qualifies and is recognized. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mrs. capps of california moves to recommit the bill, h.r. 2681, to the committee on energy and commerce with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendments. at the end of the bill, add the following section, section 6, protection of infants, children and pregnant women from toxic and cancer-causing air pollutants. notwithstanding any other provision of this act, the administrator shall not delay

actions pursuant to the rule identified in section 2-b-1 of this act, to reduce air pollution from cement kilns as defined pursuant to this act, where such cement kilns are within five miles of any school, any dayer, any play ground or any hospital with a maternity ward or neonatal unit. section 7, notifications to communities, with respect to each requirement for a facility to implement an air pollution control or emissions reduction that is eliminated by this act, such facilities shall provide notice of such eliminations to affected communities not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this act. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members, pleast take conversations from the floor. members in the back of the chamber. members in the back of the chamber, please cease conversations.

would members in the back of the chamber please cease conversations. the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. mrs. capps: mr. speaker, there are times when we come to this floor and engage in heated debates and we've heard some heated debate on this bill. but my final amendment offers us the opportunity to come together and do something extraordinarily important and that is to protect our children and grandchildren from mercury and other toxic air pollutants. i want to be clear, the passage of this amendment will not prevent the passage of the underlying bill. if it's adopted my amendment will be incorporated into the bill and the bill will be immediately voted upon. now, i make no apologies for opposing the bill. but regardless of how one feels about this bill or even e.p.a.'s

-- >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members in the back of the chamber, please take conversations off the floor. members on the majority side in the back of the chamber. the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. capps: but regardless of how one feels about this bill or even e.p.a. cement standards, my amendment would be something that we should all agree upon and that's because it only does two simple things. first, it says we should have safer air standards on giant cement plants if they're located near schools or hospitals with a maternity ward or a nero natal unit and that's because these large factories are the third largest source of mercury pollution in the united states. we all know that mercury extremely dangerous to young children, to nursing mothers, to women of childbearing age.

mercury exposure affects the developing child's ability to walk, to talk, to read, to write, to learn. that's why i think none of us should want to see this in our districts. if a giant cement plant in texas is spewing mercury and other pollutants into the air right next to j.a. elementary school, but i don't want to just pick on texas. in california a giant cement plant sends far more mercury into the air than any other plant in the state and it's less than 3,000 feet, 3,000 feet from monroe high school. that's less than half the distance between where we are today here in the capitol and the washington monument. mr. speaker, nothing is more important to us than our children and our grandchildren. having spent 20 years as a school nurse, i really don't need any reminders of this but just six months ago my family was blessed with again with the birth of a new baby boy. so every time debates about

mercury pollution come up, my thoughts immediately go to him and the tens of millions of other children in this country. i know how small and fragile little oscar is and i want to make sure that i'm doing everything i can to protect him. to make sure the air he breathes and the water he drinks -- drinks is as safe as it can possibly be and i'm no different from the mothers, millions of mothers and fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers, aunts and uncles across this country and right in this chamber. we all want the best for our kids so we must reduce the risks of pollution to them. it's -- >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: members in the back of the chamber will please remove their conversations from the floor. so that the gentlelady can be heard. the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. capps: we all want the best for our kids.

so we must reduce the risks of this pollution to them. especially in places that should be safe like a school. now, the second part of my simple amendment gives all communities the right to know what pollution is coming from these giant cement factories. without the sites of ominous causes coming from flanlts -- plants, it's easy to assume you're safe. but you don't need to live right next door to a plant to suffer the affects of mercury pollution and i learned this firsthand when i received test results showing that i have an unsafe level of mercury in my body. and i'm not alone. both in the levels of mercury in my system and by the fact that i didn't know about it until i got tested this past summer. who in this chamber thinks they have a dangerous level of mercury in their system? probably no one. but who has actually been tested to know for sure? probably very few of us. so my final amendment just calls for a little transparency. it makes sure that giant cement

plants can't hide the truth about the pollution they're dumping on -- into our air each year. it justs gives american citizens the right to know what's in their air. that's all. mr. speaker, i respectfully ask that my colleagues consider these two simple propositions. why should our kids go to schools where mercury is smoking -- is spewing from smokestacks just down the street? and why should any of our constituents be kept in the dark about the pollutants that they're being exposed to? they shouldn't. and we shouldn't stand idly by and let it happen. so today we have the opportunity to speak with one voice. we can vote to protect our children and our grandchildren from mercury and other toxic air pollutants. it's up to us and so i urge all of us to support this final amendment to the bill and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. whitfield: mr. speaker -- to speak in opposition to the -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman -- the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for five minutes. mr. whitfield: at this time i'd like to yield a minute to the gentleman from california. >> i appreciate my colleague yielding and i'm rising only because of the comments from the gentlelady from who just spoke. nobody in this chamber has spent more time working on air quality than this member. i was the author of a major bill in california that changed the scene there in terms of polluting the air. mr. lewis: during that discussion we said, we can control 97% of emissions from smokestacks in a relatively short time, if we will. but the real problem's going to be detroit. if we really want to change that we have to change detroit. well, the gentlelady's amendment would follow a logical line, we

would indeed insist on having an amendment. instead it would close down all of detroit. the problem of mercury is a totally different question than the way this gentlelady presented it. we found problems in the air and we found there was no problem we thought was there in the first place. instead of using this for politics, let's try to really solve the problems that are air quality problems and let our industry move forward and get our economy to work again. thank you. i yield back. mr. whitfield: our legislation, h.r. 2681, provides a balanced approach to a significant problem. these new regulations put out by the e.p.a. relating to cement company regulations are unbalanced, we've had testimony after testimony from representatives of the industry that 20% of the u.s. cement manufacturing industry will probably close down within two

years if these regulations remain in effect. . our legislation is very simple. it simply says to the e.p.a., go back and within 15 months come back with a new regulation, more balanced, give the industry five years to comply. if the administrator wants to give them more, he or she may do so. but this is about protecting jobs as well as about protecting health. as you know, our economy is struggling right now. the testimony shows quite clearly that if we allow these regulations to remain in effect, we are going to lose a lot more jobs. the good news is that once e.p.a. goes back and revis its this issue, they most certainly are going -- revisits this issue, they are most certainly going to revisit health benefits. i might also say we heard a lot

about mercury. e.p.a. has made it very clear that in the regulation that we are trying to postpone that they did not even consider the dollar benefit from the reduction in mercury emissions. so from their perspective the benefits from mercury emissions was insignificant. all of the benefits comes from particulate matter reductions. so i would urge every member of this body to vote no on this motion to recommit and yes on our legislation, h.r. 2681, if we want to save jobs in america, if we want a more balanced approach to environmental regulation. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mrs. capps: ask for a recorded vote. the chair: recorded vote is requested.

those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time of any electronic vote on the question of passage. this is a 15-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: on this this 176, the nays are 247. less than majority voting in thify affirmative, the bill is

not agreed to. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. . in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mrs. capps: requested vote, qu recorded vote, please. the speaker pro tempore: members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-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 262. the nays are 161. the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the gentleman from illinois. >> mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 2 of rule 9, i rise to give notice of my intent to raise a questions of the privileges of the house, the former of the resolution is as follows. mr. jackson: whereas, on october 2, 2011, mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house will be in order. the gentleman from illinois. mr. jackson: whereas, on october 2, 2011, "the washington post" reported a story called, and i quote, rick perry and a word set on stone, unquote.

whereas upon reading that story the vast majority of the people of the united states were morrallly outraged. whereas, most of the facts in this resolution come from that "washington post" story. whereas, governor rick perry has described a childhood in has kill county, paint creek, texas, as the center on boy scout, school, and church. whereas texas governor, rick perry, is from west texas and was originally a southern democrat often known as a dixicrat who switched parties in the late 1980's to become a republican and is currently a leading republican presidential candidate. whereas, ranchers who once grazed cattle on the 1,070 acre parcel in on the clear fork of the brasols river, near where governor perry was raised in paint creek, texas, it has become a hunting ground called by the name, nickerhead, well before governor perry and his father began hunting there in

the early 1980's, even though there is no definitive account when the rock first appeared on the property. whereas the use of the term, nigger head, to describe a hunting retreat is morrallly offensive. whereas, ronnie brooks, a local resident who guided a few turkey shoots for governor perry between 1985 and 1990, said he holds governor perry, and i quote, in the highest esteem, unquote, but said that of this rock at the camp, quote, it kind of offended me, truthfully, unquote. whereas, has kill county judge, david davis, sitting in his courtroom and looking at a window there, said the word was, quote, like those vertical blinds, it's just what it was called. there was no significance other than a hunting deal, unquote. in other words, the judge was -- whereas the name of this particular parcel did not change for years and for many remained the same after it became associated with rick perry. first as a private citizen, then

as a state official, and finally, as texas governor. whereas, some local residents still call it by the morrallly repugnant named, nigger head. whereas recently as this summer a slab like rock flying flat portions of the name still visible beneath white paint remained by the gate to the camp. whereas asked last week about the name, governor perry said on the rock is an offensive name that has no place in the modern world. implying it may have been ok and had an appropriate place in that community when he was growing up. whereas, mary lou has lived in haskill county, texas, and recalls the racism she feels in 1950's and 1960's in west texas when being called an offensive name like white screeting blacks with, quote, morning, nigger, was like a broken record. whereas throck morton county, near haskill county, was for

years considered a no-go zone by african-americans because of old stories told by locals of african-american men lynched there. whereas they began observing martin luther king jr.'s day, birthday celebration, just two years ago according to a county commissioner in haskill county. whereas governor perry grew up in a segregated area -- era whose history has defined and complicated the careers of many southern politicians. whereas governor perry has spoken often about how his upbringing in his sparsely populated farming community influenced his conservatism. whereas, governor perry says he mentioned the offensive word on the rock to his parents shortly after they signed a lease and he had visited the property, and they rather immediately painted over the word during the next july 4 holiday. but seven people interviewed by "the washington post" said they still saw the word on the rock at various points during the years that the perry family was

associated with the property through his family, partners, or signature on the lease. whereas another local resident who visited the property with governor perry and the legislators he brought there to go hunting recalled seeing the rock and the name clearly visible. whereas, how, , when weather governor perry dealt with it when he was using the property isn't clear and as a dimension to the emerging biographer of governor perry who quickly moved in the top-tear of republican presidential candidates when he entered the race in august. whereas, herman cane is the only republican presidential candidate to criticize governor rick perry for being insensitive when the word was not immediately condemned, but we would remind herman cain, it is insensitive and it is also offensive. now therefore it be resolved, resolved that the house of representatives call on governor rick perry to apologize for not immediately doing away with the rock that contained the word nigger head, at the entrance of

a ranch he was leasing on and which he was taking friends, colleagues, and supporters to hunt. it calls on governor rick perry's presidential rivals who have not yet made strong statements of outrage over the rock that contained the word to do so. it calls upon governor rick perry to condemn the use of this word as being totally offensive and inappropriate at any time and at any place in united states history. and lastly, it calls upon governor rick perry to list the names of all lawmakers, friends, and financial supporters he took with him on his hunting trips to nigger head. the speaker pro tempore: under rule 9 the resolution offered from the floor by a member other than the majority leader or minority leader is as a question of privileges of the house has immediate precedence only at a time designated by the chair within two legislative days after the resolution is properly noticed. pending that designation, the form of the resolution noticed

by the gentleman from illinois will appear in the record at this point. the chair will not at this point determine whether the resolution constitutes a question of privilege. that determination will be made at the time designated for consideration of the resolution. mr. jackson: i thank you, mr. speaker.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 419 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 2250. will the gentleman from idaho, mr. simpson, kindly take the chair.

the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 2250 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to provide additional time for the administrator of the environmental protection agency to issue achievable standards for industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers, process heaters, and incinerators, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole house rose earlier today pursuant to house resolution 419, all time for general debate had expired. pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in bill shall be considered as an original bill for purposes of amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. no amendment in the committee -- no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those received for printing in the portion of the congressional record designated for that purpose in a daily issue dated october 4, 2011, or earlier and except pro forma

amendments for the purposes of debate. each amendment so received may be offered only by the member who caused it to be printed or a designee and shall be considered as read if printed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment preprinted in the record add amendment number 9 to h.r. 2250. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9, printed in the congressional record offered by mr. waxman of california. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, yesterday republicans told us they aren't opposed to clean air, but we just can't afford it right now. and as their bills have no deadline for ever cleaning up toxic air pollution from these sources, it appears that they don't think we could ever afford clean air even in the future. the truth is we can't afford to wait for clean air any longer. and here's why. mercury is a potent neuro toxin.

numerous scientific studies from around the world show that babies and children who are exposed to mercury may suffer damage to their developing nervous systems, hurting their ability to think, learn, and speak. e.p.a. has estimated that about 7% of women of childbearing age are exposed to mercury at a level capable of causing adverse effects in the developing fetus. that might not sound like a big number, but that translates into thousands and thousands of children who may never reach their full potential. toxic pollution can have tragic consequences, that's why republicans and democrats alike voted in 1990 to strengthen the clean air act to require dozens of industry sectors to install modern pollution controls on their facilities. and since then e.p.a. has set

emission standards for more than 100 different categories of industrial sources. the standards simply require facilities to use pollution controls that others in their industry are already using. they are based on maximum achievable control technology. e.p.a.'s approach has been successful. emission standards for these industrial sources have reduced emissions of carcinogens, mercury, and other highly toxic chemicals by 1.7 million tons each year. but a few major industrial sources so far have escaped regulation and the republicans appear to be on a mission to help them continue to evade emissions limits on toxic air pollution. coal-fired power plants are one major industrial source of hazardous air pollutants. in fact they are the largest u.s. source of air born mercury

pollution, but just a couple weeks ago the republicans passed the train act to nullify e.p.a.'s rules to cut toxic air pollution for most sources. yesterday we debated whether or not cement kilns, another major source of mercury, should have to clean up. the republicans said no. and today we are talking about incinerators and dirty boilers and industrial facilities across the country. including chemical plants, refineries, and large manufacturing facilities. h.r. 2250 nullifies e.p.a.'s rules to clean up toxic air pollution from these sources and requires e.p.a. to issue new rules using confusing and unworkable criteria. these long overdue public health protections will be delayed for years. that's unacceptable for the people who live near a solid

waste incinerator or chemical plant using a dirty boiler. these communities already have been waiting for more than a decade for e.p.a. to clean up these facilities. my amendment is straightforward. it states that e.p.a. can continue to require and incinerator or facility using a dirty boiler to clean up its toxic air pollution if that facility is emitting mercury or other toxic pollutants that are damaging infants' developing brains. this amendment simply clarifies our choice, allow polluters to continue to harm infants and children on the one hand, which is what the republicans would allow, or require facilities that are actually harming our kids to reduce their pollution. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and protect our children's future. i know we hear a lot about jobs and we hear a lot about the

economy, our economy will not recover if our children's minds are not allowed to fully develop if we don't have a population of young people that can be born healthy, can get educated, can learn, and produce a good life for themselves, their families, and for our nation's economy. so please support this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. . the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. whitfield: mamplee, i rise in otchsition to the -- mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. the chair: our ledge -- mr. whitfield: our legislation, 2250rks does not leave the american people with a choice of having to have unregulated air, polluted air that creates horrible health consequences. our legislation is a balanced approach that -- approach that simply says we think congress

has the responsibility to review regulations that, where the american people have told us in hearings, that they have great difficulty in complying. in some instances they are unable to comply and that result jobs will be lost. sometimes listening to the debate it sounds like that we have the most polluted air in the world. i would note that e.p.a. reported that since 1990 nationwide air quality has improved significantly for the sixth common air pollutants. for example, ozone pollution has been lowered by 14%. course particulate matter, dust, nitrogen dioxide by 35%, carbon monoxide identify by 68%, surl sulfur dioxide by 59%. so we have a very clean air standard today.

and our legislation is not going to in any way protect the health protections. we simply are asking because of the concerns expressed by many people around the country, many industries around the country that e.p.a. should go back within 15 months have a new rule, within five years give the industry that much time to comply if the e.p.a. administrator thinks they need more time, then she or he may do that. but it is not required to do so. but our physician is that this is a balanced approach, particularly at this vulnerable time in our economy when our unemployment rate is high. that we can protect jobs, we can help stimulate the economy and we can also protect health without endangered our young people. so, for that reason, i would

oppose the amendment and ask members to oppose this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from california. for what purpose do you rise? the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of this amendment. the bill before us nullifies e.p.a.'s rules to require industrial boilers and incinerators to reduce their emissions of toxic mercury and other toxic pollutants. the bill removes legal deadlines for pollution controls to be installed, fundamentally weakening the clean air act and allowing years or decades of continued toxic air pollution. mr. speaker, mercury is a potent neurotoxin. ms. roybal-allard: according to the california department of toxic substances control, human exposure to organic mercury can result in long-lasting health effects, especially if it occurs

during fetal development. in addition, scientists have linked mercury poisoning to nervous system, kidney and liver damage and impaired childhood development. nervous system disorders can include impaired vision, speech, hearing and coordination. in other words, babies born to women exposed to mercury during pregnancy can suffer from a range of developal and neurological problems, including delays in speaking and difficulties in learning. children suffering from the chronic effects of mercury exposure may never reach their full potential. this clearly has a profound impact on the affected children and their families and it also has a long-term societal impact. in 1990 congress amended the clean air act on a bipartisan basis to reduce emissions of

mercury and other toxic pollutants from a range of industrial sources including boilers and incinerators. boilers and incinerators are one of the largest sources of airborne mercury pollution in the united states. for far too long they have been allowed to pollute without installing modern technology to reduce their emissions. this is a particular concern for women who are pregnant, may become pregnant or who are nursing. mercury exposure in the womb can adversely affect the developing brain and nervous system. this can lead to problems with a child's cognitive thinking, memory, attention, language and fine motor skills. as of 2008 50 states, one u.s. territory and three tribes, have issued advisories for mercury.

earlier this year e.p.a. finalized standards to cut emissions of mercury and other toxic air pollutions from boilers and incinerators. these rules were more than a decade late. e.p.a. is in the process of reconsidering those rules and plans to finalize the revised rules by next april. one finalize -- once finalized e.p.a.'s rules for boilers and incinerators will cut mercury pollution from these sources. the republican leadership wants to nullify these rules. they have also passed legislation to nullify rules that clean up mercury pollution from cement plants and they have passed legislation to newly if -- nullify rules that clean up mercury pollution from dirty coal-fired power plants, the largest u.s. source of mercury pollution to the air. this is unacceptable for public health. people living near these polluting facilities have waited

far too long for them to clean up their pollution. they shouldn't have to wait any longer. this amendment is straightforward, it states that the bill does not stop e.p.a. from taking action to clean up toxic air pollution from an industrial boiler on -- or incinerator if that facility is emitting mercury or other toxic pollutants that are damaging babies' developing brains. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from connecticut rise? the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. delauro: mr. speaker, i rise in support of this amendment. we should not be putting the interests of polluters before the health of our children. numerous studies have demonstrated a link between increased exposure to industrial tanlts and impaired brain development or learning disabilities in children. for example, according to the

center for disease control, health effects linked to prenatal and childhood methyl mercury exposure include problems with language, memory, attention, visual skills and lower i.q.'s. and exposure to mercury is particularly dangerous for pregnant and breast feeding women. as well as children. since mercury is most harmful in the early stages of development. in some cases around the world, such as in japan in the 1950's, we have seen exposure to industrial mercury sicken an entire generation of children. mothers who exhibited no clinical symptoms of mercury poison gave birth to infants suffering from blindness and mental retardation. you know, we tend to think of an environmental catastrophe like that could not happen here. but it could. already in the united states one in six women of childbearing age

have blood mercury levels that exceed those considered safe by the e.p.a. for a developing baby. this amounts to -- to approximately 630,000 babies born every year at risk of developal problems because of prenatal mercury exposure. while america's approximately 600 coal-fired power plants are the single largest source of mercury contamination in the united states, boilers and waste incinerators that burn mercury-containing products and chlorine manufacturers rank close behind. and yet it is now proposed that we delay, that we weaken the regulations protecting infants and children and allow these incinerators and boilers to continue spewing significant amounts of mercury pollution into the air every year. harming the health of our children and future generations of our children. it is unconscionable.

and mercury is just one of the dangerous contaminants putting the development of children at risk. exposure to lead threatens the health of young children and unborn babies in particular, can lead to miscarriage, preterm birth, low birth weight and developal delays. and that is why it was banned from gasoline and house paint by the e.p.a. in the 1980's. these contaminants are deadly which is why the e.p.a., the environment protection agency, put forward a rule to reduce them. in fact, the implementation of the boiler mact would reduce mercury emissions from major source boilers and process heaters nationwide by 1.4 tons a year. it would also cut nonmercury metals, including lead, by 2,700 tons per year, hydrogen chloride by 30,000 tons per year, particulate matter by 47,000 tons per year, volatile organic compounds by 7,000 tons per year and sulfur dioxide by 440,000

tons per year. according to the e.p.a. the benefits of reducing all of these dangerous emissions would outweigh costs by at least $20 billion a year. but even that aside, this act means 2,500 to 6,500 less premature deaths, 1,600 fewer cases of chronic bronchitis, 4,000 less heart attacks, 4,300 fewer hospital and emergency room visits, 3,700 fewer cases of acute bronchitis, 41,000 cases of aggravated asthma, 78,000 fewer cases of respiratory system and 310,000 fewer missed work days. and it means fewer cases of impaired brain development and learning disabilities in our children. so on one side of the equation we have $20 billion in savings per year. cleaner air, thousands of fewer deaths and a healthy development of our kids. on the other, we have polluters,

we have polluters who want to just keep harming the health and the lives of americans. i know which side i'm on and i find it extraordinarily telling that this house majority would take the side of big polluters over the health and the welfare of america's children. i urge my colleagues, stand up for america's children, stand against big polluters and support this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida rise? >> to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of the waxman amendment and in opposition to this g.o.p. bill. ms. castor: mr. chairman, all americans should be concerned with the g.o.p. purn to roll back -- push to roll back america's fundamental environmental protections and health protections. this g.o.p. bill strikes at the heart of american values. we are not a smoggy, third world

country. this is the united states of america and over the past decade, since the passage of the clean air act, businesses have flourished and the air and water have gotten cleaner. these are not mutually exclusive. that's why this g.o.p. bill takes a step backward, it fundamentally weakens the clean air act and grants unnecessary breaks to toxic air polluters. now, mr. waxman's amendment is very important because it targets one of the most dangerous and toxic neurotoxins, that is mercury. we know that babies born to women exposed to mercury during pregnancy can suffer from a range of developal and neurological problems, including delays in speaking and difficulties learning. children suffering from the chronic effects of mercury exposure may never reach their full potential. this clearly has a profound

impact on the affected children and their families but it also has a long-term societal impact. and you know it was in 1990 when the congress in a bipartisan fashion amended the clean air act and targeted the particular, the specific polluters coming from specific sources. these specific polluters, some of them created jobs, acted to bring in modern technology, the scrubbers, they took the mercury out of the air, there are many examples in my home state of florida of these manufacturing plants and utilities that have taken the mercury out of the air by installing the up-to-date modern equipment. but there have been some businesses that have been very resistant to this. and they need to get with the program. because it has been since 1990 when the law has said it's time to clean it up, now what year is

this? this is 2011. now, i would offer that after 20 years these businesses have been on notice that they can use the american know-how and modern technology to clean up their plants. just like a lot of their other competitors have done. now, i've heard the argument that, boy, this is bad for business. but i'll tell you, coming from the state of florida, clean air and clean water are good for business. our tourism industry relies on clean water and clean air and for the plants in the state of florida that have cleaned up it has really improved the commercial fishing industry, the recreational fishing industry, billion-dollar industries in my state. if they had not, if the congress had not acted in a bipartisan way decades ago to say, we're going to clean up the air and the water, i don't think we'd have as many visitors coming to my beautiful state for their vacations and fishing.

and fishing is important because we have so many that goes out in the gulf of mexico and the keys and they fish and they bring it home to eat. now, because mercury is not cleaned up to the greatest extent that we can clean it up, the florida department of health has advised -- and i'm reading from the florida department of environmental protection advisory, the florida department of health has advised the public to limit their consumption of fish from hundreds of water bodies throughout the state due to unacceptable risk of mercury exposure. as a result, these water bodies have listed as impaired for mercury. this doesn't mean it's unsafe but it means that you can't go overboard. but you know what, we have the technology to continue to clean up so that people can eat all the great florida seafood that is available to them. there's no reason to take a

step backward. other businesses have done this. they have cleaned up. so earlier this year after a decade of analysis and work by the e.p.a. and interaction with businesses and other stakecals holders all across the country, the e.p.a. finalized standards to cut emissions of mercury and other toxic air pollution from these particular polluters. their goal was to finalize, was to finally put these rules into effect this coming april. but unfortunately we'ring into opposition of the most -- we're running into opposition of the most anti-environmental congress in the history. it states that the bill does not stop e.p.a. taking action to clean up toxic air pollution from these particular sites. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. ms. karror: and other toxic pollutants were not going to proceed. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from washington rise? mrs. mcmorris rodgers: to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mrs. mcmorris rodgers -- ms. butteler: my home is home to private land forest owners. whether it's a family farm or business which is wearhowser which is one of our largest businesses and employers, we have put of mill, paper mill and a biomass industry. what do these all have in common, they all provide tens of thousands of jobs, good, family waged jobs to the folks in the region and they are part of the forest products industry which has been the cornerstone of southwest washington's economy. you know, if we don't pass this

underlying bill unamended they will all shed the thousands of jobs in southwest washington. how many are we talking about? well, a recent study showed that 18% of those jobs would be lost. those who produce pulp and paper would be laid off by this onerous boiler mact rule as written. those are blue-collar families. those are family wage jobs. those jobs will be at risk if we do not protect the jobs. the ripple effect in our region and across the country would be an additional 87,000 jobs lost if we do not act and pass this bill. in a place like my district, one out of every 10 moms and dads are out of work, the affect of this rule, if we don't fix it and we don't fix it soon, would further devastate an already devastated economy. in august, 89,000 jobs were created.

they were added nationwide. so basically if we don't move now we're going to wipe out the entire month of august's growth. that's going to put our economy backwards, not forward, and make no mistake, mr. speaker, that's one thing the current majority in the house is about is creating jobs for the men and women at home so they can make sure they have jobs for their kids. it's the american dream. let's pass this bipartisan piece of legislation today without this amendment. it won't add to the deficit and the going to preserve those jobs for those folks struggling in my home region in southwest washington and across the country. let's give the e.p.a. the time it's requested to rewrite the rule in a commonsense way. you know, the great thing about this is our environment and our economy, they are not -- they don't have to be mutually exclusive which is why we're taking a balanced approach to change this rule. i'm assuming that's part of the reason the e.p.a. wants more time to rewrite it because they

had the feedback. yes, we can innovate and create and reduce and i support reducing whatever type of emissions we're producing as a nation. we need to go there but we need to do it in a commonsense way that doesn't handicap the economy at a time we need it to grow. so let's give the e.p.a. the time they requested so that facilities like longview fiber and longview washington won't have to lay any more people off. with this legislation we can protect our environment and protect american jobs. so with that, mr. speaker. i yield back. -- so with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> mr. chairman, i rise in support of the amendment. the chair: the gentlelady moves to strike the last word? >> i do. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. eshoo: i rise in support of this amendment. i think it's a very, very important one. the bill nullifies the e.p.a.'s

rules to require boilers and incinerators to reduce their emissions of toxic mercury. that's really quite a sentence. it requires the -- the rules require that boiler and incinerators to reduce their emissions of toxic mercury. and in doing so this bill nullifies the mercury reductions in our country that would have been achieved and it indefinitely delays, not just for a given time frame, it's indefinite. indefinitely delays the implementation of any replacement standards that e.p.a. issues. now, my friend, mr. whitfield, said earlier today that the bill doesn't provide -- does not provide for an indefinite delay of any new rules. that's false. it's false. the bill clearly states that facilities have at least five

years to comply without any hard deadline for compliance. that's the definition of an indefinite delay. our republican colleagues also claim that mercury pollution from dirty boilers and incinerators do not harm public health. that's quite a stand. that is quite a stand. i think it's terrorfying, myself, in a civilized society that this is not going to damage anyone and their health. they blame china even though the u.s. facilities are emitting toxic mercury pollution from smoke stacks right here within our borders. i acknowledge that there is some that does come from china. are we going to replicate china? i don't think that's the gold standard for our country. the mercury released here at home is just as toxic as mercury released anywhere.

that's how toxic it is. ours is not less toxic because it's u.s.. it's the same horrible, dangerous stuff. and how toxic is it? you know, there are a lot of things under attack here in the house of representatives, but i think one of the most serious attacks is the attack on science. we're coming up with a lot of political science for underlying legislation. listen to what the national academy of sciences have said. they stated unequivocally that mercury is a powerful neurotoxin. the national a academy of -- national academy of sciences says that mercury is highly toxic. they said, i quote, the exposure of mercury can result in adverse effects in several organ systems throughout the life span of humans and animals. there is expensive data on the effects of data on the development of the brain in

humans. the national academy of sciences has also stated that exposure to mercury can cause mental retardation, share balance palsy, deafness, blindness -- creeb rale palsy, deafness, blindness -- cerebral palsy, deafness, blindness. this is stunningly shocking. this is not republican pollution, democratic pollution. this is something that will harm our people. why would we not protect them? why would we not protect them? and the national academy of sciences have said again, and i quote, chronic, low-dose prenatal mercury exposure has been associated with impacts on attention, fine motor function, language and verbal memory. the national academy of sciences have stated that prenatal mercury exposure could

cause irreversible damage to the developing central nervous system. but our republican friends say we shouldn't worry about mercury pollution from boilers, incinerators, cement kilns and power plants. i know who i trust, and it's not the phony, balony political science around here. i'll put my money any day on what the national academy of science have said. they are the gold standard in our country. this is not something to be fooled around with. this is a huge danger to our people. this amendment is straightforward. it states that the bill does not stop e.p.a. from taking action to clean up toxic air pollution from an incinerator or a chemical plant or a manufacturing plant with a dirty boiler. if that facility is emitting mercury or other toxic pollutants. i urge my colleagues to vote

for the amendment. and i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from michigan rise? mrs. miller: mr. speaker, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. miller: we certainly understand that our economy is struggling, that millions of americans can't find a job. too many families are struggling to make ends meet. and that the american people are very frustrated that washington is simply not doing enough to get our economy moving. and i would argue not only is washington doing enough to get our economy moving but it is actually harming the efforts of american innovators, of manufacturers, of small businesses, of the job creators because of government overregulation. and the fact is today that the obama administration has publicly listed almost 220 new regulations just this year alone, that's a 15% increase in one year alone of new regulatory actions under consideration. each one of them is estimated to cost at least $100 million each, if you can imagine.

mr. speaker, the bill that's currently under consideration would provide relief from some of the new e.p.a. regulations that would cost american job creators more than $14 billion and threaten over 230,000 jobs. in my home state of michigan, this government overregulation would cost nearly $800 million and put nearly 13,000 jobs at risk. mr. speaker, in my home state of michigan, we are on our knees economically, and we cannot tolerate this anymore. it has to stop. i talked to many families, major corporations, etc. the message is all the same, that government overregulation is absolutely killing their efforts to grow and to create jobs. i'll give you one example. there's a company in port huron, michigan, called donnar company. port huron has been hit particularly hard. the unemployment rate is in the

20th percentile, if you can imagine that. it's unbelieve how bad it is there at this time. domcar is a paper company that employs 45 people. it generates $8 million to $12 million in revenue annually. they estimate -- i talked to them about this regulation under consideration today. they estimate that this regulation today would cost them $9 million to scrub the coal that they use to operate their boilers and would cost $3 million to $4 million to convert to natural gas and have an additional annual cost of $3 million to $4 million a year just to stay compliant and they estimate that these costs would likely force the company to shut down two of their four paper machines. of course, forcing a reduction in jobs, mr. speaker. this company, this community, this nation cannot handle that kind of loss in additional jobs that this regulation would force. it seems today that the three most feared letters of -- to american job creators, it used

to be i.r.s. today those letters are e.p.a. it's no longer the i.r.s. it's now the e.p.a. and why is that? well, on april 30 of 2010, the e.p.a. issued a statement on a study of impact. it was studying the impact of one of those proposed regulations. this is what they said -- the regulatory impact does not have qualitative or quan tative estimation of the potential effects of the proposed rule on economic productivity, economic growth, employment, job creation or international economic competitiveness. in other words, they don't care what their regulations have to do with job creation much less stifling and killing job creation in this country. this is what our own government is doing to our job creators. and this is from an administration who claims that job creation is its number one priority. are you kidding? you got to be kidding. we have to stop putting all of this government regulation on killing jobs, and certainly

house republicans have been trying to lift the boot of big government off the necks, off the throats of job creators and of workers who are looking for a job. . we have heard repeatedly from this president in needing to invest in transportation and infrastructure. at the same time, this president and this administration is talking about how infrastructure is such an economic life blood for our economy. which i agree with and i think house republicans agree with. but at the same time the president is saying we got to invest in infrastructure and fixing roads his administration is moving forward on this regulation that we're talking today that would put large segments of the american concrete, of the cement plants in this country, out of business. and i would tell the president, it's very hard to have infrastructure investment, to build roads, if you don't have any concrete. if you don't have any cement. i would say, mr. speaker, i speak against this amendment but i speak in favor of the underlying bill and i would call

on my colleagues to pass this bill now. pass this bill. let's get america moving again. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from massachusetts rise? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. ms. tsongas: i rise in support of the waxman amendment. today we are taking up yet another bill that continues the g.o.p. majority's ongoing attack on public health. this bill seeks to gut e.p.a. rules requiring reductions in emissions of toxic air pollutants, including mercury, from industrial boilers and incinerators. industrial boilers and incinerators are among the largest sources of mercury pollution in the country, a potent brain poison that can cause severe developal problems in children and toddler -- developmental problems in children and toddlers. according to the national academy of sciences, even in low

doses mercury can tragically affect a child's development, delaying walking and talking and causing learning disabilities. children suffering from the chronic effects of mercury exposure may never reach their full potential. this is simply unacceptable, especially when we have the technology to address it. the waxman amendment is straightforward, it says that the bill cannot stop the e.p.a. from taking action to clean up toxic air pollution from an industrial boiler or incinerator if that facility is emitting mercury or other toxic pollutants that are damaging to children's developing brains. i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment and stand up for health of our children and grandchildren. thank you and yield back. -- i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from the virgin islands rise? mrs. christensen: mr. chairman, i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes.

mrs. christensen: thank you, mr. chairman. as a physician and a mother and a person of the racial minority i rise in opposition to 2250, as well as 2861, which just passed and in strong support of the waxman amendment which i urge every colleague to support. both bills, h.r. 2861 and h.r. 2250, essentially wipe out e.p.a.'s regulations, first of cement kilns, now industrial boimers and incinerators, and it would have significant public health impacts because it would allow high emissions of dangerous pollution that -- pollutants that would cause more as marks heart attacks, birth defects, impaired brain development which i'll come back to and other illnesses at a time when we're working to improve the health of all americans, reduce health care costs and we're already struggling to remain competitive. all e.p.a. is asking these entities to do is to meet the best existing standards in the industry, existing standards. standards that they've had years

to meet. mr. chairman and colleagues, allowing these regulations to go forward is critical because these entities emit lead, arsenic, particulate matter and other toxic substances, especially mercury. so if the republican majority, the proponents of this bill, have their way, we will see more than 15,000 more cases ofing a can ravated asthma, over 1,500 more heart attacks, over 600 more cases of chronic bronchitis every year. and we'll also have over 100,000 additional missed working days which means lost productivity, all of the time when we're trying to improve health of all americans, as i said, and improve american competitiveness. but most importantly the large boilers and incinerators are the second largest source of mercury which as you've heard is a grave risk to our children, both before and after birth. especially on their brain development. which makes these bills especially dangerous for the public health and can damage the

learning and thus the social and economic potential of our children. and mercury stays in the environment for a long time. as an african-american, i have to be particularly concerned with more than 60% of polluting industries located in or near minority communities. it is clear that the learning and other pour thatlogical deficiencies caused by mercury will impact our communities. this not to ought only concern african-americans, latinos and indians whose children would be more likely to be impaired, it should be a concern to all of us. all the time spent on this bill and the other bill that was just passed that the house majority leadership knows are going nowhere is a pure waste of time, also a waste of money. i guess it's not important because it's being used to try to kill programs they've never liked and also they probably think it could hurt president

obama if it doesn't pass and it also protects the bill corporations. beyond that it creates no jobs. it just creates the potential to cause more sickness and premature death, to damage the potential of our children and therefore damage our country's potential as well. the claims of lost jobs i believe are highly exaggerating. bringing and pushing these extremely misguided and dangerous bills says that the proponents are willing to put our country and the future of their and our constituents, their and our children at risk. i ask my colleagues to vote for this amendment. this amendment that protects the public health will save our children from a life that would not be what we would want for them, one in which they might not be able to enjoy all of the benefits of this country, or fully realize their potential or the american dream. reject -- please -- support this amendment, reject the underlying bill and all of the bills that attempt to weaken the e.p.a.

vote instead for our children, our grandchildren and this country. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. whitfield: trike the -- strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. whitfield: a number of speakers on the other side have indicated that if our legislation passes new regulations relating to boiler mact would be put off indefinitely. and i would like to clarify and point out that in section 3, on page 6 of this bill, it says, for each regulation promulgated pursuant to this legislation, the administrator of the environmental protection agency shall, not may, shall establish a gate for compliance. so this is not being put off indefinitely. it explicitly says shall. now, during the hearings that

we've had, extensive hearings on this boiler mact that was adopted by e.p.a. in 2004, which was invalidated by the courts because of lawsuits filed by environmental groups, a typical testimony was this, the e.p.a. file rules impose unrealistic and very costly requirements that e.p.a. has not justified by corresponding environmental and health protection from reduction of hazardous air pollutants. and as just a practical example of what i'm talking about, many universities in order to comply with that 2004 rule spent large sums of money, the university of notre dame spent $20 million to comply with that rule, which has

now been invalidated and e.p.a. has come out with an even more stringent rule that's going to cost a lot more money to be spent. so we genuinely believe that e.p.a. has the health standards in effect that can protect our children. there's nothing in in bill that's going to change any of that. but we know that if these universities continue to spend that kind of money on regulations that are invalidated and then have to come baseball and spend more money -- back and spend more money, tuition costs are going to go up. which makes it more difficult for some children to go to college. so this simply is a commonsense approach, a balanced approach thing, e.p.a., go back, revisit this issue, 15 months, come out with a new regulation and the

e.p.a. administrator shall set a compliance date, not sooner than five years after the final rule, but we've also heard a lot of discussion today about mercury. and, yes, we're all concerned about mercury. but e.p.a. itself in developing the benefits of their regulation that we're trying to postpone did not assign one dollar, one dime or one penny of benefit for the reduction of mercury. -- mercury emissions. and the reason they didn't, because there was not enough reduction, because it doctor we've already cleend up the air a great deal relating to mercury. all of the benefits that they calculated from their rule came from reduction of particulate matter. and in fact they said the mercury reductions would be less than 3/100 of 1% of global

emissions. and we've heard all sorts of testimony about mercury that 90% or so of mercury comes from nature or from sources outside of the u.s. so, i don't think we need to be alarmist about this. this is simply an approach to, hey, our economy's pretty weak right now. we're losing a lot of jobs. we're having difficulty creating jobs. so, look, let's just go back, look at this 15 months, come back with a new regulation, set a date for compliance and let's move forward. i don't think that anyone can make a credible, verifiable argument that we're out to destroy every young person in america. every child in america. as a matter of fact, we have a lot of democrats on this bill.

there's been a similar bill introduced to this on the senate side with democratic support. so i would urge all the members to defeat the markey -- i mean, the waxman amendment and support our underlying legislation, 2250, and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from maryland rise? ms. edwards: mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. edwards: thank you, mr. chairman. you know, i was going to speak about mercury and i'll get to that, but i really have to clarify for the record and the public record, we keep hearing and we've heard once again on this floor from our republican colleagues that the bill won't harm public health. or weaken health standards. and this is just not accurate. and it's really important, mr. chairman, for the public to understand that. in fact, section 2 of the bill lists four final clean air rules and says they shall have, and i quote, no force or effect.

section 3 of the bill eliminates the three-year compliance deadline in the clean air act. the clean air act. and doesn't set any new deadline. and for the record section 5 of the bill directs e.p.a. to set weaker standards than the clean air requirements. and so make no mistake, h.r. 2250, contrary to what the other side is saying, has real legal effect and consequence and those effects weaken our protections from air pollution and harm the health of americans, especially our children. now, i recognize that there is a zeal for deregulation. but for clean air standards, for clean water standards, this really makes no sense. in fact, the bill throws out e.p.a.'s rules to require boilers and incinerators to reduce their emissions of toxic mercury. and unlike the statements that have been made on this floor this comes in the wake of a bill to nullify e.p.a.'s rules to

clean up cement kilns and yet another bill to nullify e.p.a.'s rules to clean up power plants. when does it stop? when does the public health and the consequences of these actions become important to the american people? instead of just this move to deregulation? just this last month the republicans have pushed legislation to let the nation's largest source of toxic mercury pollution off the hook for cleaning up their emissions. jeopardizing public health and for what? now i've heard that we shouldn't have so much concern about mercury but somebody in this house, somebody in this congress has to be concerned about the public health consequences to our children of toxic mercury emissions. studies from the american forest and paper commission and these are nothing more than industry studies that seek to absolve the industry from

cleaning up its own mess. they've been refuted by actual scientists, and i suggest on this floor we actually pay attention to science and facts and not just a move to deregulate because we're interested in doing industry a favor in expense of public health. and we know that contrary to what's been said the public health consequences of mercury are clear. they're stated, they're facts, they're science. so let's not undercut that. mercury is a powerful neurotoxin. it harms the brains of infants. it leads to learning disabilities. it causes attention deficits and behavioral problems and whole range of other problems. and so the republicans cannot be allowed, mr. chairman, to pick and choose their fax and their science. the facts and the science are as they are, and we should not be nullifying e.p.a.'s rules that protect the public health. and with that i'd yield and urge my colleagues to support this amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman

yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of this amendment and, by the way, i believe we should be alarmists. ms. hahn: and i am an alarmist. maybe it's because i'm a mother. maybe it's because i'm a grandmother. and maybe it's because i represent los angeles which has some of the worst air in this country. just last year in california we had 2,400 deaths because of cargo related pollution. we're paying for the costs of people all over this country getting goods on time in their local stores. because of cargo-related pollution, there is about 350,000 days of lost school.

that is a real problem for this country. pollution does impact our children. pollution does impact their lives. we know there is a million days of lost work, lost productivity in this country because of pollution-related illnesses in the workplace. and i am for this amendment because the underlying bill nullifies e.p.a.'s rules to require boiler and incinerators to reduce their emissions of toxic mercury, and this comes in the wake of a bill to nullify e.p.a.'s rules to clean up cement kilns and another bill to nullify e.p.a.'s rules to clean up power plants. just within the last month my colleagues on the other side have pushed legislation to let the nation's largest sources of toxic mercury pollution off the hook for cleaning up their emissions. and they defend this policy by pointing to these industry

studies about the cost of complying with these rules. one study that gets cited over and over is a study by the council of industrial boiler owners, or cibo. this study, by the way, has been completely discredited. for example, the nonpartisan congressional research service examined this study and concluded, quote, the base of cibo's analysis is flawed. as a result, little claims can be placed in cibo's estimate of job losses. they also cite a study by the american forest and paper association concluding that the boiler rules will cost jobs. mr. chairman, dr. charles culstadt, at the university of california-santa barbara, reviewed this analysis and said, quote, if i were grading this i would give it an f.

the economics is all wrong, dr. culstadt describes it as, quote, fundamentally flawed, and he said that as a result the jobs estimate were completely invalid. and we know that the national academy of sciences, an independent public health -- and independent public health experts around the world have proven time and time again that mercury is a powerful neurotoxin that harms the developing brains of infants, leading to learning disabilities, attention deficits, behavioral problems and a range of other problems. this amendment is straightforward. it states that the bill does not stop e.p.a. from taking action to clean up toxic air pollution from an industrial boiler or incinerator if that facility is emitting mercury or other toxic pollutants that are damaging babies' developing

brains. who can vote against this? you know, we talked about jobs. my colleague, mrs. miller, earlier talks about jobs and the economy and the costs of the regulations, but at what price to we have to pay for -- do we have to pay for the next generation's health and quality of life? by the last time i checked, adding more pollution into the air is not a jobs plan. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. speaker, ladies and gentlemen, i listened to the lady with interest and, of course, it's easy to sit in washington and whatever group you may be with to say, well, this group is wrong and that group is wrong and everybody can try out their experts, but, ladies and gentlemen, the c.r.s. doesn't own and operate

boilers. businesses do. lots of them are going to be impacted by this. big businesses, small businesses and the people who work for them. mr. griffith: last week i referenced a letter to the editor of the virginian leader sent in by mr. and mrs. kenny in which they said, quote, i am going to be blunt with the following opinion. as factory worker and taxpayer i'm getting sick and tired of these federal agencies. they have nothing better to do except sit in their washington offices and kill jobs. why don't they get off their sorry behind and save what jobs we have left? and who is paying the e.p.a. people's salary? we are. the american workers. i believe in protecting the environment, but we can't shut the whole country down to achieve it. i referenced that letter last week, and then i referenced giles county and my comments in a republican radio address

later last week, and a response to that, mr. and mrs. kenny wrote to the leader. we are not talking about big business here. we're talking about businesses that affect the employees and small counties all across this country. the leader, for example, has 5, 010 subscribers. the kennies wrote back in and said, as i stated in my letter, i'm a blue collar factory worker with limited education and worked for our county's largest employer for nearly 35 years. the only reason i am speaking out on this issue is this -- to get others involved. our economic future and way of life here in giles county could be on the line unless residents, business owners, civic organization and others come together and support h.r. 2250. you know what, ladies and gentlemen, the people of america understand that the e.p.a. is in fact killing jobs. they understand that while we have to have a clean environment and we all want a clean environment, as the gentleman from kentucky said earlier today, we can do that.

this is a reasonable approach. h.r. 2250 is a very reasonable approach, which will do both -- continuous on the regulatory -- continuous on the regulatory path but make sure they are reasonable and effective and make sure we protect the jobs of the united states of america while we go forward in protecting the environment as well. and i yield back my time, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> strike the last word. the chair: is there objection? hearing none, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. waxman: i just want to point out to my colleagues that what the bill does is repeal the f.d.a.'s previous rule, regulation and then prohibits e.p.a. from adopting another regulation for 15 months. when they adopt another regulation, it can't be enforced for another five years. and then there's no deadline.

meanwhile, they lower the standard for e.p.a. in setting that regulation. e.p.a. is in the process now of negotiating with the industry to work out the information and the problems that have been brought to their attention. we ought to give e.p.a. the chance to do that and get the full input from the industry. if legislation is needed, we ought to consider what legislation is needed. the approach of this bill is to set us back enormously. when you don't have anything in place but the weakest possible criteria and then nothing can happen for five years and maybe even longer because it takes 15 months to get the regulation, no enforcement five years after that, and maybe never, that's not a reasonable approach. if the industry wants a law, the industry ought to work on telling us what they need and

not going on this escapde with the republicans who would like to repeal the whole clean air act, repeal the ability for the e.p.a. to protect the public from toxic pollution and, of course, the amendment that's before us is insofar as this bill becomes law, when we are talking about poisoning children's brains, we're not going to stop e.p.a. from getting their regulations in place and getting them enforced. it's obscene to think of the idea that we would wait 15 and another 16 -- another 6 1/2 years and maybe longer before we can do anything to start down the road to reduce the pollution that's going to poison these kids. i ask for an aye vote on the amendment, and i hope that people realize this is a bill that will pass the house but in my view, given the president's statement of a veto, it's not

going to become law. i'm ready for the previous question on the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mr. waxman. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. waxman: mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: i ask for a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? mr. rush: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. rush of illinois. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for five minutes. mr. rush: mr. speaker, let us not be distracted. my -- misconfused, backward and short-term saving on the part of my republican colleagues. this bill represents just

another attack on the nation's long-standing environmental protection laws in general, and the e.p.a. in particular. on behalf of a select few polluting industries that are operating under the assumption that the time is right to permanently alter what and obliterate the clean air act. the law is that the chairman of the subcommittee admitted earlier in his testimony, the law that he said earlier is working on behalf of the american people. while most businesses have been planning and preparing for these rules which have already been delayed for years and some

cases have been delayed over a decade, some of the more opportunistic, dirty industries , the majority republican telling the e.p.a. and all of the clean air laws as the perfect time to try and permanently alter the clean air act. since -- h.r. 2250 will reduce toxic air pollution like mercury and soot from some of our nation's many polluters. cement plants, industrial boilers and incinerators. instead, this wil