[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 148 (Wednesday, October 5, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H6573-H6617]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              CEMENT SECTOR REGULATORY RELIEF ACT OF 2011

  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the 
legislation and to insert extraneous material on the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walden). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 419 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2681.

                              {time}  1300


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2681) to provide additional time for the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency to issue achievable standards for 
cement manufacturing facilities, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Womack in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  There has been a lot of discussion in the 1-minutes this morning 
about the importance of passing the Obama jobs bill. I would like to 
remind everyone today that the bailouts, the stimulus packages, all 
have exceeded $2 trillion in the spending of taxpayer money. And 
despite the expenditure of all of that money, the unemployment rate in 
America is still well over 9 percent, even though it was suggested that 
with the spending of the stimulus money, unemployment would be brought 
down to less than 8 percent.
  I would also remind everyone that within the last 3 days, the 
Department of Energy shoved out the door approximately $5 billion in 
loan guarantees for so-called green energy projects without, in my 
view, the necessary time to clearly evaluate the loans that were being 
made. And we have proof of this because, in the Solyndra case, the 
taxpayers are going to have to expend $538 million because that company 
went bankrupt. Now in the Obama jobs bill, they're asking for another 
approximately $500 billion to be spent to create jobs.
  Well, the reason that we're here today is that if you talk to any 
businesspeople today, large or small, they will tell you that the 
reason jobs are not being created in America is because of uncertainty, 
the uncertainty about health care regulations, not knowing what they're 
going to be. Already, 8,700 pages of new regulations have been written.
  The uncertainty created by the new financial regulations that 
increase the capital requirements for loans to be made changes the 
appraisal process. That has created great uncertainty; but, most 
important, the uncertainty created by this aggressive Environmental 
Protection Agency. This administrator has been the most aggressive in 
issuing new regulations in the history of the EPA.
  We all are committed to clean air that allows for healthful living in 
America, but we also want to use common sense, particularly at this 
time when our economy is struggling. And so when you issue new 
regulations that create additional obstacles for job creation, that is 
a major problem.
  I noticed today, for example, in The Hill magazine: ``Senate 
Democrats Buck Obama on Jobs Plan.''

                              {time}  1310

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

[[Page H6574]]

months after the passage of this legislation and give the affected 
industry up to 5 years to comply with the new regulations. Because in 
doing so, we're going to reduce the loss of jobs, which is critical at 
this time of our Nation's history.
  Now, I would also like to say that this legislation introduced by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan) has bipartisan support. If you 
look at the sponsors and cosponsors, you will see a lot of Democratic 
cosponsors of his legislation. I would also say to you that there are 
over 29 national associations and construction groups that support this 
legislation led by the American Road & Transportation Builders 
Association; the Associated General Contractors of America; the 
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, 
Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers; the International Association of 
Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers; the United 
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America; Laborers' 
International Union of North America; and the International Union of 
Operating Engineers. So you have businesses and labor unions all 
supporting this commonsense legislation simply directing EPA to do a 
more careful analysis before they fully implement this hard-hitting 
regulation that would close 18 percent of the cement plants in America.
  We believe that this can be done and still clearly protect the health 
of the American people as well as the clean air that we now have in 
this great country.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to at this point yield 5 minutes to 
the very distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy, 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
  Mr. RUSH. I thank the ranking member of the full committee, and I 
commend him on his outstanding work not only on this particular matter 
but in most of the issues that come before this Congress as it relates 
to not only the purpose of us but the prosperity of the American 
people.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong, strong opposition to this bill, 
H.R. 2681. I call it the Dirty Cement Pollution Bill. Let's be 
perfectly clear, Mr. Chairman. This bill, this measure is not about 
jobs. For the chairman of the subcommittee, and my friend, just to try 
to persuade Members of this body that this is about jobs, I think that 
it's the worst kind of politics. Jobs now is the useful canard, but 
this is not about jobs. This is about an industry that is singular in 
its being eliminated or being not under the auspices of the Clean Air 
Act, and about an industry that is unique because it doesn't have to 
adhere to any of the provisions of the Clean Air Act. And it's about 
time that this industry be included with other industries in this 
Nation to come under the auspices, the jurisdiction, and the standards 
of the Clean Air Act.
  Cement kilns emit nearly 8 tons of mercury each year, making them the 
Nation's second-largest mercury emitting source. Before the EPA issued 
its 2010 air toxics rule, these emissions remained essentially 
unrestrained due to the lack of controls for cement kilns regulating 
the release of mercury into the atmosphere.
  H.R. 2681 would roll back existing Clean Air Act standards by 
revoking three Clean Air Act rules, including the only national limits 
on emissions of air toxics, such as mercury, from cement kilns. This 
Dirty Cement Pollution Bill will also require EPA to propose and 
finalize weaker replacement rules that will allow for more pollution 
than the law currently permits.
  This bill is intended to significantly change how EPA sets the 
standards when issuing the alternative rules. H.R. 2681 would 
indefinitely delay the reductions of air toxics and other hazardous 
pollutants by prohibiting EPA from finalizing replacement rules prior 
to March 2013 if this bill were to be enacted at the end of this year.
  Also, this bill does not include any statutory deadline for when 
polluters must reduce emissions, leaving the process ambiguous and 
open-ended. At the very least, this Dirty Cement Pollution Bill would 
postpone emission reductions from cement kilns until at least 2018--a 
4\1/2\-year delay. In fact, the health safeguards from these standards 
are long, long, long, long overdue. EPA just finalized standards for 
cement plants in September of last year, making them 13 years overdue 
under the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990--13 years overdue already. 
They are overdue 13 years.
  The science tells us that these dirty air toxics can cause a variety 
of serious health effects, including cancer and respiratory 
neurological impairments, as well as reproductive problems.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. RUSH. In particular, mercury exposure can cause great harm to 
pregnant women, unborn babies, and young children by damaging their 
developing nervous systems, which affects children's ability to learn 
and to think.
  Additionally, mercury emissions can also damage the environment by 
polluting our Nation's lakes and streams and the seafood which we eat. 
In fact, EPA estimates that H.R. 2681 will allow for thousands of 
additional premature deaths and premature heart attacks, as well as 
tens of thousands of additional asthma attacks that could have been 
avoided.
  Mr. Chairman, the public health benefits from the reduction of air 
toxics emissions from cement kilns have already been delayed long 
enough. Now is the time. The radical Republican majority cannot keep 
making excuses and exceptions for the largest industrial emitters of 
mercury in the U.S., cement plants and industrial boilers, while over 
100 other industries have already controlled their air toxic pollution.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I know that we're going to be hearing a lot about 
mercury today. I would like to point out that it's been indicated that 
98 percent of the mercury present in America today, air, land, and so 
forth, comes from natural causes and from sources outside of the United 
States. And the EPA, in its analysis of the cement regulation that they 
just issued, did not assign any dollar value that would come from the 
reduction of mercury emissions.

                              {time}  1320

  So I think that this is a red herring that our friends are bringing 
up on the other side.
  At this point in time, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan), the author of this legislation.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. As we go around our districts, as I go around my 
district in Oklahoma, many people come up to me and say, John, what are 
you politicians in Washington going to do to help this economy? What 
are you going to do to create jobs here in America? Well, you know, we 
politicians don't create jobs, but what we do do is we get in the way. 
And one of the things we can do to keep jobs in place and even foster 
new jobs is getting the heck out of the way with these burdensome over-
regulations that are out there.
  The EPA has gone rogue, wanting to shut down 20 percent of our cement 
plants. And President Obama, when he came to the joint session here 
recently, said he wanted to build roads and bridges and infrastructure. 
Well, I guess he wants to do that with imported Chinese cement, not 
American-made cement.
  I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2681, the Cement Sector 
Regulatory Relief Act of 2011. As House Republicans move forward with a 
bold agenda to grow our economy and put Americans back to work, one 
area that must be addressed is the issue of over-regulation by the 
Federal Government.
  With our economy suffering, and given that 14 million Americans are 
out of work, Congress must implement Federal policies that grow jobs, 
increase domestic manufacturing, and restore the global economic 
competitiveness of the United States.
  Businesses make decisions on where to invest based upon a number of 
factors, but regulatory certainty ranks among the top factors, which is 
why H.R. 2681, the Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act of 2011, is so 
important.
  I introduced this bipartisan legislation with my good friend and 
colleague from Arkansas, Mike Ross, to protect American jobs, jobs that 
we are in danger of losing due to the Obama administration's radical 
environmental regulatory agenda.

[[Page H6575]]

  The purpose of this legislation is to provide EPA additional time to 
repropose and finalize its rules setting Maximum Achievable Control 
Technology and other standards for cement manufacturing plants so that 
the rules are both achievable and protect American jobs.
  Specifically, the EPA would be required to repropose the Cement MACT 
rules 15 months after enactment of this legislation. The bill will also 
extend the dates for compliance with the rules from 3 to 5 years to 
give our domestic cement manufacturing industry the time to comply with 
its rules.
  If EPA's Cement MACT rule is not revised, thousands of jobs will be 
lost due to cement plant closures and high construction costs. This 
rule alone threatens to shut down up to 20 percent of the Nation's 
cement manufacturing plants in the next 2 years, sending thousands of 
jobs permanently overseas and driving up cement and construction costs 
across the country.
  Additionally, the Portland Cement Association estimates it will cost 
$3.4 billion--half of the industry's annual revenues--to comply with 
the EPA's Cement MACT rule. Does that make any sense?
  The EPA's Cement rule also greatly impacts our Nation's construction 
industry, where unemployment rates have hovered between 16 and 20 
percent nationally. Without my legislation, construction job losses 
would be further exacerbated with reduced supplies of cement being 
produced in the United States.
  The simple fact is cement is the backbone for the construction of our 
Nation's buildings, roads, bridges, and crucial water and wastewater 
treatment infrastructure. Without further investment in cement capacity 
expansion, the United States will become increasingly dependent on 
foreign imports.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman 1 additional 
minute.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Additionally, lost supplies of cement resulting from 
closure of cement plants would also drive up the cost of infrastructure 
projects and potentially limit the number of projects that may be 
undertaken.
  Now, some of the opponents of this commonsense, bipartisan 
legislation, including President Obama, say this legislation weakens 
the Clean Air Act. Nothing could be further from the truth. H.R. 2681 
does not change or modify any existing public health protections. It 
simply directs the EPA to establish regulations achievable in practice 
by real-world cement plants. At a time of great economic uncertainty, 
this is something worth doing for the health of our economy.
  I do not know if the President is watching, but right now jobs are 
not being created and our economy is not growing. The cement sector is 
struggling in the current economic climate and in the face of foreign 
competition from abroad.
  President Obama likes to talk about the need to invest in our 
Nation's infrastructure, and this legislation will remove one of the 
several barriers to growth in the construction and manufacturing 
industries. I am amazed he is opposed to this bipartisan measure, and I 
encourage my colleagues to support this.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to put this bill in the perspective of what the House has been 
doing on the environment. The House has voted 136 times this Congress 
to block action to address climate change, to halt efforts to reduce 
air and water pollution, to undermine protections for public lands in 
coastal areas, and to weaken the protections of the environment in 
other ways as well. This is the most anti-environment Congress in 
history.
  Last month, the House passed radical legislation to turn back 40 
years of progress towards clean air. That bill will nullify pollution 
control requirements on power plants--the largest source of toxic 
mercury pollution in the country--and weaken our national clean air 
goals by basing them on corporate profits, not on public health.
  Today, the House continues its frontal assault on public health and 
the environment. The bills we will consider this week are the next 
phase of the Republican concerted attack on our environment. The bills 
would gut the Clean Air Act provisions that protect American families 
from toxic air pollutants. If these bills are enacted, there will be 
more cases of cancer, birth defects, and brain damage. The ability of 
our children to think and learn will be impaired because of their 
exposure to mercury and other dangerous air pollutants.
  In 1990, the Congress, on a bipartisan basis, voted to protect the 
public from these toxic pollutants. The law directed EPA to set 
standards requiring the use of a Maximum Achievable Control Technology 
to control emissions of mercury, arsenic, dioxin, PCBs, and other toxic 
emissions. This approach has worked well. Industrial emissions of 
carcinogens and other highly toxic chemicals have been reduced by 1.7 
million tons each year.
  EPA has reduced pollution from dozens of industrial sectors. More 
than 100 categories of sources have been required to cut their 
pollution, and this has delivered major public health benefits to this 
Nation. But a large source of categories still have not been required 
to control toxic air pollution due to delays and litigation.
  The bill we consider today would nullify and indefinitely delay EPA's 
efforts to reduce toxic emissions from cement plants. Now, the chairman 
of the subcommittee said this is a commonsense bill. It's only for a 
short delay. He said that cement plants would have up to 5 years to 
comply with pollution control requirements. And you might think, well, 
a little bit more time is not going to do that much harm. But that is 
not a correct statement of what this bill would do.
  The bill says that EPA cannot require any pollution reduction from 
any cement plant for at least 5 years. So it's 5 years before they can 
do anything at EPA. And then there's no deadline thereafter where the 
facilities ever have to comply. That, to me, is not a simple, 
commonsense approach to a very dangerous pollution.
  Later this week, we are going to have consideration of a bill to 
indefinitely delay pollution controls on industrial boilers and waste 
incinerators. Both of these bills would rewrite the standard provisions 
of the Clean Air Act to weaken the levels of protection and set up new 
hurdles for EPA rules. We're told that we need to pass these bills 
because the threat of EPA regulation is dragging down our economy. The 
reality is that requiring installation of pollution controls will 
create jobs.

                              {time}  1330

  We're going to need more factory workers. We're going to need to 
build the pollution controls. We're going to need construction workers 
to install them on-site, cement plant employees to operate them. We 
hear this all the time, these statements that pollution controls will 
cost us jobs.
  But these arguments have been thoroughly debunked by independent 
experts. For instance, the Congressional Research Service examined one 
and concluded ``little credence can be placed in these estimate of job 
losses.'' The State and local air pollution agencies concluded that one 
study's assumptions are grossly in error. It's my hope that this body 
will not be so easily misled.
  It was lack of regulation at Wall Street--on the banks and the 
brokers and the other people who spent their time figuring out very 
crafty investments for which nothing backed them up--that caused this 
recession, not because we had environmental regulations that protect 
children from toxic mercury emissions.
  I oppose these bills on substance, and I also have concerns about the 
process. But let me go into concern about the process.
  We were told this is a small issue. It depends on how you look at it. 
These bills are bad enough to oppose simply on the basis of what they 
would do. But it shows how the Republican majority in this House wants 
to adopt rules and regulations on themselves but then not abide by 
them. The House didn't change the rules, but the majority leader said 
we have a protocol that, whenever we have a discretionary CutGo rule in 
the legislative protocols for the 112th Congress, we must have funding 
authorized to make up for the extra requirement that's going to be 
required of any government agencies.

[[Page H6576]]

And this requires a specific amount to be offset by a reduction in an 
existing authorization. The majority leader announced that compliance 
with these protocols would be necessary before legislation could be 
scheduled for floor consideration.
  We had a similar situation where Chairman Upton said that our 
committee would follow this discretionary CutGo rule. He sent me a 
letter, which I'll make part of the record, in June to clarify this 
discretionary CutGo policy will apply to pending bills before our 
committee. ``If CBO determines,'' he said, ``that any of these bills 
will have a significant impact on the Federal budget, we'll offset the 
newly authorized spending with reductions elsewhere.''
  Well, CBO has determined that both of these bills that are on the 
floor this week will, in fact, authorize new discretionary spending. I 
read one of the quotes from a Republican staff person. We don't need to 
worry about it because it doesn't really authorize new spending.
  CBO says it does. They determine these bills will have a significant 
impact on the Federal budget because of the bill's requirement the EPA 
spend resources on proposing and finalizing new regulations. They said 
it's only going to cost $2 million over a 5-year period. That's not a 
lot of money, but it is money, and that's why the Republicans had this 
protocol. They said we didn't want any money being spent without it 
being offset.
  Now, this is not a rule. We don't have to waive this rule. But what 
we have is not a waiver of this rule. We have the Republicans ignoring 
their own protocol and their own policies.
  The American people need to focus on the radical agenda of the 
Republicans that are controlling this House of Representatives. I don't 
think when the Republicans were voted into office the American people 
voted for poisoning more children with mercury and letting more of our 
seniors die prematurely because of uncontrolled pollution.
  I oppose this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I might say to the distinguished ranking member that 
we do not authorize any additional funding in this bill and that EPA 
does have a $2 billion budget that allows them to deal with regulatory 
issues.
  I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the 
chairman emeritus of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the distinguished subcommittee chairman.
  I listened with interest to Mr. Waxman's remarks. Sometimes, when 
there's not a lot you can say substantively against an issue, you just 
put a lot of stuff out there and hope something sticks; and I would 
have to characterize most of his remarks as hoping that some of what he 
said sticks.
  The bill that he just spoke against is only 8 pages long. It's just 8 
pages. And here's the gist of the bill. It asks the EPA, or directs the 
EPA, to go back and spend 12 to 15 months to take a look at the rule 
that it was about to propose, in other words, to go back and reanalyze 
it. I don't think that's gutting the Clean Air Act.
  Then it extends the compliance deadline for an additional 3 to 5 
years. Now, that's substantive. That could result in some additional 
time, which I think is a good thing. But that, in and of itself, 
shouldn't be a showstopper.
  And then it asks that the EPA, when they adopt these new rules, to 
make sure that it's still allowable for cement manufacturing to use 
alternative fuels. Well, last time I looked, the Democratic Party was 
big on alternative fuels and supporting loan guarantees to develop 
those fuels, so that shouldn't be a showstopper.
  Then, finally, it says, whatever rule that you eventually adopt, you 
have to be able to implement it in the real world. Now, that is an 
amazing thing, that we want a regulation to be promulgated that you can 
actually achieve with real-world technology. In Texas, that's called 
common sense. I'm not sure what it's called up here.
  That's the bill. That's the bill. It's an 8-page bill.
  Now, Mr. Waxman also said that we've had 100 votes trying to do 
terrible things to the environment in this Congress. We've not had one 
vote, ladies and gentlemen, that changed an existing statute that's 
already in place, an existing standard. All these votes that my good 
friend from California talks about are a time-out and saying, wait a 
minute, before we make them even tighter, let's make sure they make 
sense.
  We've got an economy that's reeling. We've got unemployment at 10 
percent. The compliance cost of this plethora of EPA regulations is in 
the billions of dollars annually. Billions. Billions. This particular 
Cement MACT rule, if implemented, would shutter somewhere between 15 to 
20 percent of cement production in the United States. That's not 
trivial, folks. That's real.
  So what those of us that support the bill are saying is: Let's take a 
second look at it. Let's make sure that the rules have time to be 
implemented. Let's let alternative fuels be used, and let's let 
whatever regulation is ultimately implemented actually be achievable in 
the real world.
  I think that's worthy of support, and I would ask my friends on both 
sides of the aisle to support this when it comes up for a vote, I would 
assume sometime tomorrow probably. We've got 20-something amendments, 
so we're going to be here debating it.
  But this is a good piece of legislation. It's common sense. It would 
help our economy, and we would still get additional regulation that 
makes sense for cement kilns.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have in front of me the bill, and it 
says, whatever regulations the EPA is proposing--and it's taken them a 
decade to finally come up with these regulations--it'll be null and 
void. It will have no force of action. It will be treated as though 
such rule had never taken effect. And then it's going to be replaced.
  Now, how is it going to be replaced? Well, it says we're not going to 
let them replace this rule for 5 years. Well, during this period of 
time, people are still being exposed to these toxic pollutants. So it 
says, not earlier--they'll establish compliance and they'll establish 
new regulations, but nobody has to do anything for 5 years.
  But then it doesn't say at any time about when you have to actually 
come into compliance, which, of course, in existing law is set in 
place. That's repealed.
  And then it goes on to say they're going to have to meet a different 
standard. The standard that's in the law is going to be replaced by 
some other standard that basically waters it all down.

                              {time}  1340

  The standard in the law, by the way, is the maximum achievable 
control technology. That means technology that already achieves 
reductions. But that will be wiped out. They'll have a new standard. It 
can't be pursuant to the regulation; the regulation can't come out for 
5 years; we don't know when it would ever be complied with; and it 
would be based on a different standard.
  That is not simple. That is in effect saying nothing is going to be 
done. We repeal what is being set in law, and then we are going to 
insist that nothing be done. That to me is an absurdity, and it's 
harmful to the public that's going to be exposed to these harmful 
chemicals.
  I would at this time yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Moran), who is the lead appropriator on our side of the aisle when 
it comes to these kinds of issues.
  Mr. MORAN. I thank the distinguished ranking member, particularly for 
his leadership in protecting the public's health.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. If this bill 
is enacted, an intolerable number of American babies will be born with 
birth defects that could have been avoided. The majority sets out a 
false choice: roll back clean air protections or lose jobs. The real 
choice is a moral one, but the economic case for defeating this bill is 
also compellingly clear.
  EPA cement kiln rules are designed to reduce harmful pollutants from 
cement production, including metals like mercury, hydrocarbons, 
particulate matter, acid gases, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides. 
EPA's standards are both achievable and defensible. They will yield far 
more economic benefits than costs, preserving jobs and Americans' 
health.

[[Page H6577]]

  The most harmful of these cement kiln pollutants is mercury. Congress 
required EPA to regulate mercury emissions in the 1990 Clean Air Act 
amendments and to identify the largest sources of mercury reductions. 
EPA has done what we required. These regulations are necessary because 
cement kilns are the second-largest source of mercury emissions in the 
United States. Some cement kilns emit more mercury than some coal-fired 
power plants. One hundred fifty cement kilns operating in the United 
States emit as much as 27,500 pounds per year, double EPA's estimates 
from 6 years ago. In Oregon, New York, and California, the largest 
single mercury pollution source is a cement kiln.
  Please focus on this: Mercury is so toxic that just one-seventieth of 
a teaspoon of mercury, or .0024 ounces, can contaminate a 20-acre lake 
and render the fish in that lake poisonous to eat. Mercury exposure 
causes a number of health problems, including heart disease, reduced 
fertility, genetic mutations, immune system suppression, premature 
death, and major losses in children's mental capacity.
  Elemental mercury from kilns goes up into the air. The rain washes it 
into our rivers and streams. Then the bacteria in the water converts it 
into methyl mercury, which is lethally poisonous, because methyl 
mercury is almost completely absorbed into the blood and distributed to 
all our tissues, including the brain. It passes readily through the 
placenta in a mother's womb and into the fetus and into the fetal 
brain. Mercury then continues to impact the brains of those children as 
they grow and age. We know this now, which was not as clear as it is 
now, back in 1990. So if we know mercury does this to our children and 
that these regs can prevent those children from such irreparable harm, 
don't we have a concomitant moral responsibility to protect our 
children from such intellectual deprivation and suffering for the 
duration of their lives?
  Let me say it again. It is well-documented that exposure even to low 
levels of mercury does reduce a child's IQ. This IQ reduction has real 
impacts on those children, their families, and ultimately the U.S. 
economy. If the majority won't listen to health-based arguments, 
perhaps they will listen to the economics of this issue.
  Mercury exposure during pregnancy and childhood has direct and 
indirect effects on that child's future earning potential. Mercury-
exposed children have harder times getting and keeping jobs later in 
life, and their performance when they get those jobs is worse. The cost 
to society of this IQ reduction is enormous, but it's not incalculable. 
Independent scientific studies estimate that the cost is as high as 
$22,300 per IQ point per child, which cumulatively amounts to $8.7 
billion in lost potential per year, based on CDC studies of half a 
million children who have blood cord mercury levels higher than 5.8 
micrograms per liter, the level that adversely affects their IQ.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. MORAN. I thank the gentleman.
  We know this $8.7 billion can now be quantified.
  There are so many other things that mercury does, I won't go into 
them. But this cement kiln rule also applies to other harmful 
pollutants.
  The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that the majority constantly urges us to 
balance the costs and benefits of environmental regulation, but when 
the benefits of regulating hazardous pollution substantially outweigh 
the costs, as they do with mercury, all of a sudden that doesn't become 
an issue for the debate. It ought to be an issue for the debate, 
because it's about the future health of our children.
  If we don't defeat this bill, if it were to be enacted, children will 
suffer and our economy will become weaker. The fact is that we have 
both a moral and an economic responsibility to defeat this bill, and 
thus I urge its defeat.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 15 minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from California has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I now yield 4 minutes to the chairman of the Telecom Subcommittee of 
Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).
  Mr. WALDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
  I just want to touch on a couple of things. First of all, you can 
tell we're into October and Halloween is coming because all the scare 
tactics are out and on display.
  We heard several things from the last speaker, and since I'm from the 
State of Oregon, I want to point out, he mentioned that the biggest 
polluter of mercury in Oregon is the cement kiln. Why is that? Because 
we only have one coal plant and it's being closed. So that's it.
  The cement factory in Durkee, Oregon, which is in my district, a 
county of 16,000, 3 years ahead of any of these rules invested $20 
million in the latest, most advanced technology to remove their 
pollutants, reduce their emissions, $20 million, they reduced their 
emissions by 90 percent, and what this rule would do, the MACT rule 
under consideration here that we're trying to delay and bring common 
sense to, it would put them out of business, because they're already 
using the maximum achievable control technology that is available in 
the world. They've reduced their emissions by over 90 percent on a 
consistent basis. There isn't technology available to go further, 
because the limestone found behind this plant that's been in operation 
for, I don't know, 30 or 40 years, happens to have a little higher 
level of mercury.
  The Clean Air Act would allow the EPA to create a subcategory. They 
chose not to. The Clean Air Act says you can't force a company to do 
more substitution, and yet that's what would have to occur here--except 
there's no limestone anywhere nearby.
  According to the EPA's own ``Roadmap for Mercury'' study in 2006, 83 
percent of the mercury deposited in the U.S. originates from 
international sources. This is the State of Oregon. Guess what's out 
here somewhere: It would be China. We get it in from the atmosphere. So 
what we're doing here is trading our jobs to China, buying our cement 
there, they don't have these rules, we get their pollution, we lose, 
and you put a plant out of business.

                              {time}  1350

  You want to talk about jobs? There are 109 individuals who work at 
the Ash Grove Cement Company in Durkee, Oregon. The Teamsters wrote to 
me back in March, imploring me to do everything I could to ensure these 
jobs:
  ``As you are aware, this cement plant is important to the community 
in Durkee, and also, their product is vital to rebuilding and building 
our infrastructure. Economic stability and jobs should be the number 
one priority for all of us,'' Lynn Lehrbach, Representative, Joint 
Council of Teamsters No. 37.
  The entire Oregon delegation recently signed a letter to the EPA, 
advocating Ash Grove for their Clean Air Excellence Award. In that 
letter, it reads:
  ``Ash Grove's commitment to proactively reduce mercury emissions at 
its Durkee, Oregon, plant 3 years ahead of the new EPA rules taking 
effect is commendable. This type of action by Ash Grove's and their 
ultimate success in making meaningful reductions is a model that others 
should emulate.''
  Yet if these rules were to go into effect, they can't meet the new 
rules because the new rules would make them reduce their emissions by 
98.4 percent. Now, this is the biggest employer in Baker County with 
direct and indirect jobs of some 654 in the area. They have been a good 
corporate citizen. They care about the people of Baker County and the 
surrounding areas. They are working day and night to reduce their 
emissions, and it's simply not achievable. Baker already has 10.7 
percent unemployment. You take this away, and think what that 
unemployment rate will be. They have reduced their emissions. The 
emissions we're getting--83 percent according to the EPA--are already 
coming in from elsewhere, deposited in the United States from 
international sources, both natural and remitted.
  Look, we're just trying to find some balance here. We're saying the 
Clean Air Act set the maximum achievable control technology, but that 
can't be met here. It doesn't work. They're already using the activated 
carbon injection filtering system. They've already

[[Page H6578]]

spent $20 million to achieve their goals. We're just saying we care 
about the jobs, too. We care about the air, and we care about the jobs.
  So when Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy testified before our 
committee, I asked her, I'm concerned about these health problems. 
Would you provide for me the effects in Baker County in Oregon that 
you've demonstrated to come up with these data points.
  Twenty-seven days later, we still have no response.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill, to save the jobs and to 
bring responsible management to air control and quality improvement.

                                                  Joint Council of


                                             Teamsters No. 37,

                                 Portland, Oregon, March 31, 2011.
     Hon. Greg Walden,
     U.S. Representative, Oregon District 2, Rayburn House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Greg Walden,
     U.S. Representative, Oregon District 2,
     Medford, OR.
       Dear Representative Walden: The current economic conditions 
     are affecting most of our Teamster Industries. One in 
     particular is our Durkee Cement Plant in your district.
       The EPA/Oregon DEQ is attempting to shut the Durkee Cement 
     Plant down for not meeting emission standards. The Durkee 
     Plant spent $20 million to retrofit their plant to meet the 
     EPA's requirement. They came close, but no horseshoe.
       As you are aware, this cement plant is important to the 
     community in Durkee, and also, their product is vital to 
     rebuilding and building our infrastructure. Economic 
     stability and jobs should be the No. 1 priority for all of 
     us.
       We are asking for your help to keep the Durkee Cement Plant 
     in operation. Thank you for your attention to this most 
     important issue.
       If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Lynn R. Lehrbach,
     Representative.
                                  ____

                                                   Congress of the


                                                United States,

                                               September 27, 2011.
     Re Clean Air Excellence Awards--Ash Grove Cement Company, 
         Durkee, OR

     Attn: Pat Childers,
     U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Childers: Please accept our endorsement of Ash 
     Grove Cement Company's application for consideration of the 
     12th annual EPA Clean Air Excellence Awards in the categories 
     of Clean Air Technology and the Gregg Cooke Visionary Award. 
     Ash Grove commitment to proactively reduce mercury emissions 
     at its Durkee, Oregon, plant three, years ahead of the new 
     EPA rules taking effect is commendable. This type of action 
     by Ash Grove and their ultimate success in making meaningful 
     reductions is a model that others should emulate.
       In 2008, after several years of involvement from citizens, 
     scientists and leaders from the local community and from 
     around Oregon, Ash Grove signed an agreement with the Oregon 
     Department of Environmental Quality to voluntarily reduce 
     mercury emissions at the Durkee plant. This led to the 
     development and implementation of a first-of-its-kind 
     Enhanced Activated Carbon Injection system, based on the best 
     available science and peer-reviewed technology in the world. 
     Ash Grove invested more than $20 million in this project with 
     the goal of reducing mercury emissions by at least 75 
     percent. In actuality, the mercury control efficiency has 
     been in excess of 95 percent.
       Located in rural eastern Oregon, Ash Grove's Durkee plant 
     is the last remaining manufacturing business in Baker County. 
     Unfortunately, the region's limestone contains naturally high 
     concentrations of mercury due to the region's volcanic 
     geologic history. Ash Grove's willingness to step up and 
     address mercury emissions at its plant is vital to the 
     social, economic and environmental welfare of our 
     constituents.
       We admire Ash Grove for proactively taking on this 
     important environmental challenge. The results of their 
     efforts will have a lasting benefit for Oregonians and the 
     U.S. for generations to come and they are deserving of 
     recognition for this contribution.
           Respectfully yours,
     Jeffrey A. Merkley,
       U.S. Congress.
     Ron Wyden,
       U.S. Congress.
     Greg Walden,
       U.S. Congress.
     Kurt Schrader,
       U.S. Congress.
     Earl Blumenauer,
       U.S. Congress.
     Peter DeFazio,
       U.S. Congress.

  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I want to acknowledge that the gentleman from Oregon is pointing out 
a real problem for his district, but it is a unique problem in his 
district because the limestone that's used in the kiln has a high 
content of mercury. I understand that EPA is trying to work through 
that issue, but I do want to point out to my colleagues that this 
example should not serve as the basis for this bill that's before us.
  We've heard over and over again from my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle that 99 percent of the mercury in America comes from 
nature, from outside other countries that the trade winds bring here to 
our land. Chairman Barton even said most mercury that's emitted is 
emitted by natural causes. In 2000, EPA estimated that roughly 60 
percent--not 99 percent as Mr. Whitfield pointed out--of the total 
mercury deposited in the United States comes from anthropogenic air 
emission sources within the United States, such as from power plants, 
incinerators, boilers, cement kilns, and others, and that the remaining 
40 percent comes from the combination of sources of natural emissions 
and remission into the United States from the wind.
  It hasn't changed much since the year 2000. An example is one study 
by the University of Michigan, which found that the majority of mercury 
deposited at a monitoring site in eastern Ohio came from local and 
regional sources. EPA estimated that 80 percent of the mercury 
deposited in Pines Lake, New Jersey, comes from man-made U.S. sources. 
There was a bit of peer-reviewed scientific study that found two-thirds 
to three-quarters of the annual global mercury emissions are caused by 
human activity. So let us not minimize the problem where those who are 
living near these facilities are experiencing a great deal of harm.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a 
member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Olson.
  Mr. OLSON. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, today, the House takes another step to ensure a stable 
regulatory environment for the cement industry. In a rush to regulate, 
the EPA issued economically damaging rules that jeopardize 4,000 
American jobs in the cement industry. The cement industry has stated 
that it cannot comply with these rules even with the best current 
technology.
  CEMEX is a cement company with operations based in Houston, Texas. 
They've asked Washington for help in negotiating with EPA on these 
unachievable rules. CEMEX is just one company of many that Congress has 
repeatedly heard from that may be forced to move operations overseas 
where regulations are more reasonable.
  EPA's failure to strike the proper regulatory balance puts U.S. jobs 
in jeopardy and hurts our global competitiveness. The bill before the 
House today simply gives EPA the needed time to ensure the rules are 
reasonable and attainable in the real world.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 2681, the Cement 
Sector Regulatory Relief Act, so we can stop exporting American jobs.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Harper).
  Mr. HARPER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2681, the 
Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act of 2011.
  H.R. 2681 is on the House floor today as part of the Republican 
regulatory relief agenda to reduce job-killing government regulation on 
businesses. This bipartisan bill would provide a much needed 
legislative stay for the EPA to redraft new cement requirements that 
would affect approximately 100 cement plants and thousands of jobs.
  This type of government regulation hinders job creation and forces 
American jobs overseas. The American public is growing increasingly 
concerned about government regulation coming out of the Environmental 
Protection Agency. A recent survey found that 74 percent of American 
voters throughout the country believe that businesses and consumers are 
overregulated. This overregulation has a chilling effect on job 
creation.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2681 in an effort to rein in the 
EPA and government regulation.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Bachus).
  Mr. BACHUS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

[[Page H6579]]

  I think we can all agree on some things. I think Mr. Waxman would 
agree and Mr. Moran, number one, that we want to preserve American jobs 
if we can; but I think, number two, we don't want to compromise our 
health standards. There has been a lot of talk today about we have to 
either do one or the other, but I think we can do both.
  Now, if you'll look at the EU, which passed what they call the ``gold 
standard'' on emissions from cement plants, they determined that 
mercury they could bring down to .05. What has the EPA said? They've 
said they want to bring it down to .01. That's five times more 
restrictive than in Europe. .5, which is the European standard, is 
about four times more strict than in Mexico. I think we all agree that 
even the EPA said we'd close 20 percent of our factories, but we would 
get that cement, according to the Congressional Budget Office, from 
Mexico, which is polluting our air and does not have nearly the 
standards we have.
  So if mercury is a problem, why would we shift production to 
something that is four times more dangerous than even that of the 
European Union? On the other hand, as to the European Union, which is 
the strictest on environmental standards in the world now, why are 
their standards so bad? They don't go below this.
  One reason with mercury is it is naturally occurring. There's a 
debate whether it's 60 or 40, but let me say this: At .01, it's 
actually more severe than what is naturally occurring in some of the 
supply.

                              {time}  1400

  Yes, I have a vested interest. The second largest employer in my 
second biggest county is a cement plant. The largest employer in one of 
my cities of 20,000 people is a cement plant.
  Those jobs won't exist. They're willing to spend $350,000; but in an 
industry that only had $2 billion worth of revenue, there is no way 
they can spend $10 billion.
  Let's restore a little sanity, and we can do that. Common sense 
dictates that we can have jobs, and we can have safety, and we can do 
that not by these onerous standards on hydrochloric acid and other 
things.

                  U.S. VS. EUROPEAN EMISSION STANDARDS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            U.S. standards
      Parameter (mg/Nm\3\ at 10% O2)          (EPA final      European
                                                 rule)        standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury...................................            0.01          0.05
Hydrochloric Acid.........................            3.83         10
Particulate Matter........................            7.72         20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared by the Office of Congressman Spencer Bachus.

  Mr. WAXMAN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Altmire).
  Mr. ALTMIRE. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Cement Sector Regulatory 
Relief Act. The cement industry is in its weakest economic condition 
since the 1930s. Domestic demand for cement has dropped by more than 35 
percent in the last 4 years, killing more than 4,000 manufacturing 
jobs.
  In March of last year, 136 cement workers were laid off at the Wampum 
cement plant in my district. It was the oldest continuously operating 
Portland cement manufacturing site in the United States, but now cement 
production at Wampum has ceased and only 15 jobs remain.
  Despite this bleak scenario, the EPA issued its regulation which has 
a $3.4 billion price tag and standards that no cement plant in the 
United States can achieve while demand languishes. The economy will 
have to improve for these jobs to return to Wampum; but when the EPA 
issues unfair, unachievable regulations, it sets these manufacturers 
back even further.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on each side?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining, 
and the gentleman from California has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Dent).
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to speak on 
this bill.
  First, I am the co-chair of the Cement Caucus, along with Congressman 
Mike Ross of Arkansas.
  My district is the largest cement producing district in America. I 
have a town in my district called Cementon. I have a high school team 
called the Konkrete Kids. This is what we do in my district in large 
part.
  I have five cement plants, Lafarge, Buzzi, Keystone, Essroc, 
Heidleberg-Hanson, Lehigh Portland cements. I have a company that 
manufactures and constructs cement plants, FLSmidth-Fuller. This is a 
big business where I live. It's an important business, the basic 
industry and the manufacturing to the industrial sector of this 
country.
  These three rules that we are dealing with are going to have a 
dramatically negative impact on cement production in America. Foreign 
imports currently make up more than 20 percent of total U.S. cement 
sales, and that number is going to grow if these regulations are 
implemented.
  Many of these foreign producers, as has been pointed out by some of 
the previous speakers, do not operate with anything close to the types 
of regulations that we are talking about here today, whether they be in 
Europe or Mexico, China or elsewhere. And as has been stated 
previously, close to 20 percent of all cement production facilities in 
this country are likely to close as a result of these three rules.
  What are they? It's NESHAP rule, which cobbles together a whole range 
of different performance characteristics for different pollutants 
without determining if it is possible for any single cement plant to 
comply with all the various standards simultaneously.
  Also one called CISWI--and I won't read the acronym--but that is 
going to have an impact on the ability to use solid waste in the form 
of tires, waste plastics, and other materials that we use in cement 
plants. This material would be land-filled. We'd have unsightly tire 
piles all over America, breeding grounds for mosquitos and West Nile 
virus. We burn them in cement plants. They have high Btu content. This 
will make it much more difficult, these rules, if they are implemented. 
So we have to stop it.
  So what this bill does, it scraps its three existing rules and 
requires the EPA administrator to develop and propose more realistic 
and achievable regulations within 15 months. This is completely 
reasonable. Support this. This is about protecting American jobs. I 
urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 2681, and I just want to talk a little bit about the real-world 
effects that have been alluded to.
  I have firsthand knowledge. My family's company, now owned by my 
cousins, but a company started by my father and my uncle has been in 
the Redi Mix concrete business for over 40 years. I own a sand and 
gravel company back in Michigan.
  I just want to point out that this is actually not an attack on clean 
air, as some of my colleagues on the other side have said. This stops 
an attack on the American worker. Let's talk about some of those real-
world effects.
  We will be buying more cement from outside the United States, as has 
been pointed out, and it is much dirtier produced over there. What are 
the challenges that we have been seeing in this industry over the last 
few years?
  We know that a soft economy means less construction. Other challenges 
that we have been dealing with: increased fuel costs, increased health 
care costs under ObamaCare and other requirements, increased 
unemployment insurance requirements, increased labor regulations, now 
even greater costs with little or no benefit directly coming to us.
  I don't quite understand what my colleagues on the other side think 
is going to happen when we are talking about building roads. Do they 
want to drive on wooden roads? Do they want to live in mud brick hovels 
and shiver in the cold?
  I mean, we have got to have concrete and cement as the backbone of 
the recovery here that we are going to be having. We will simply be 
forced to buy that cement from outside the United

[[Page H6580]]

States, and I don't understand why this administration insists on 
attacking the engine of our recovery.
  This stops an attack on the American worker and job creators, and I 
support the bill.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire if the gentleman from 
Kentucky has more than one speaker?
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I have one more speaker and he will be 
closing. Other than that, I have no further requests for time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. May I inquire, Mr. Chairman, which side has the 
prerogative to close?
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from Kentucky has 
the right to close.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 3 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from California has 4\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the EPA has been working on this regulation since the 
1990s. Under the 1990 law, they are required to put in place a 
regulation to protect from these toxic pollutants.
  They are required to be put into place by the year 2000. They tried, 
thrown it out of court, they have now tried again, and they have 
already proposed a rule that is now going to be repealed by this 
legislation. So it's taken them over a decade to finally get to this 
point.
  It's a long, overdue rule that requires cement kilns to reduce their 
emissions of toxic air pollutants. EPA estimates that this rule will 
reduce mercury emissions from cement kilns by 16,400 pounds, or 92 
percent, compared with projected levels, that is, if they are allowed 
to remain in effect; and they also had to do a cost-benefit analysis.
  They said that this rule will yield $7 to $19 in health benefits for 
every dollar that's spent to meet the standards and will prevent up to 
2,500 premature deaths and 17,000 asthma attacks each year. So EPA has 
been mindful of the costs and the benefits.
  The bill before us effectively vacates the cement rules, kiln rules, 
nullifies these health benefits, forces EPA to start all over again. 
They give EPA 15 months to come up with more regulation, and then they 
bar EPA from enforcing any final rules for at least 5 years.
  During all this time--and we have no guarantee after 5 years if 
anything will happen--cement kilns will avoid having to clean up their 
toxic air pollution, maybe indefinitely. The bill threatens EPA's 
ability to ever reissue limits on toxic air pollution from cement 
kilns.

                              {time}  1410

  This bill that's before us would set a new and unworkable 
methodology. They're not looking at the methodology that Congress 
provided to at least use the maximum achievable control limits. They 
will simply be told they have to take a subjective approach that lumps 
all pollutants together, and then they have to decide whether emitting 
more mercury but less lead is better or worse for public health than 
the reverse. It's an impossible choice. It's going to guarantee years 
of litigation.
  The bill prevents EPA from setting any emission limits at all. Under 
this legislation, it would require EPA to select regulatory 
alternatives that are the least burdensome. But the ``least 
burdensome'' to cement kilns does not mean that we will get the option 
that provides the best public health benefits. In effect, the bill 
would exempt cement kilns from ever having to achieve meaningful 
reductions in toxic air pollution.
  So in other words, they postpone the time for regulation, then 
postpone for 5 more years compliance with that regulation. They change 
the standard from the maximum achievable under existing technology to 
something else. The something else is the least burdensome to the 
kilns. And during all that time, we will have people exposed to these 
toxic pollutants.
  This strikes me as not a simple, fair-minded approach. It's turning 
our back on the purpose of the Clean Air Act. It's turning our back on 
the harm that's going to be done, especially to children, from the 
poisoning they'll get from the mercury levels from the cement kilns.
  I think this is inexcusable legislation. I think we ought to stay 
with the work done by the EPA, not pass a law, tell them to do the job, 
and then wipe out their work after 11 years and say we want another 
decade or more to get around to doing regulations that should have 
already been in place long ago.
  I want you to know that many organizations oppose this regulation. 
You would expect all of the public health groups and the environmental 
groups, but even sporting organizations and outdoor groups and the 
people who work in the field at the State level on air pollution 
matters tell us: Do not support this legislation.
  I urge opposition to it, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).
  Mr. CARTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2681, a bill 
designed to prevent the collapse of a strategic domestic industry, the 
United States cement industry.
  About a year ago, I became active on this issue and made it a 
priority of mine to help save the American cement industry and the 
hardworking Americans at work in those industries. Some have questioned 
my motives, and they are welcome to do that. But for me it's as simple 
as this: The new regulations on the cement industry is the wrong rule 
at the wrong time. It asks too much too soon. NESHAP is a rule based on 
questionable science and promises to export American jobs and, 
ultimately, result in the import of pollution from other countries.
  The U.S. cement industry is suffering through the greatest decline 
since the 1930s, with current employment down to a mere 15,000 jobs and 
less than $6.5 billion in 2010 annual revenues. This represents a 25 
percent reduction in employment and over a 35 percent reduction in 
revenues from prerecession levels. The cement and concrete product 
manufacturing sectors combined have shed more than 62,000 jobs between 
2005 and 2009.
  At this critical time when the cement industry can least afford 
significant investments from new mandates, analysts estimate this 
single EPA rule would cost $3.4 billion in compliance costs, 
representing approximately half of the cement industry's annual 
revenues. This is very onerous. Let us repeat, Mr. Chairman, the NESHAP 
rule will cost $3.4 billion compliance costs out of a $6.5 billion 
annual revenue. That's over 50 percent of the industry's revenues.
  Now, if you own a cement plant, where is the money for compliance 
costs going to come from? Probably from closing down a plant, stalling 
plans for the construction of new plants, and laying off American 
workers in high-paying jobs. The average low job in this industry is 
around $60,000 a year, and they go up from there.
  Common sense is the missing ingredient in NESHAP. In fact, at the 
same time that the EPA finalized the NESHAP emission standards last 
fall, we just saw a chart that the European Union had just issued their 
own compliance standards, and the EPA standards are five times more 
stringent than the famous model of the European Union. So what's wrong 
with this picture?
  Speaking of common sense, if you want to remember that map that we 
just looked at, the map that shows you all the colors, the red part of 
that map represents between 80 and 100 percent of the estimated mercury 
deposits, and they're all from foreign sources.
  So, Mr. Chairman, this is the wrong rule at the wrong time, and what 
we are doing here fixes this problem and gives us time to study.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chair. We are lucky in Nebraska.
  Our unemployment rate is currently around 4.2%.
  Personally, I'd like to see it be an even smaller number.
  Without passage of H.R. 2681 and H.R. 2250, we will see job loss in 
Nebraska.
  With regards to the Boiler MACT rules--Nebraska estimates a potential 
job loss of 921 jobs at a cost of over 57 million dollars.
  With regards to the Cement MACT rules--Nebraska estimates a cost of 
$24-28 million to keep the approximately 135 jobs.

[[Page H6581]]

  These bills give EPA time to reconsider and re-propose these 
regulations so the final rules are achievable and based on real-world 
technologies.
  We like our low unemployment numbers in Nebraska and passing these 
two bills will help ensure our numbers stay low.
  Mr. President, don't let the EPA kill jobs in my state.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this legislation, 
which would delay for another five years Clean Air Act standards for 
cement kilns that are already thirteen years overdue.
  Like so many other bills the current House Leadership has brought 
before us, this bill is premised on a fundamentally false choice--that 
we can't have good jobs unless we are willing to breathe dirty air. I 
don't believe that. And I don't think most Americans believe that. In 
fact, the entire forty year history of the Clean Air Act demonstrates 
conclusively that it just isn't true.
  The Clean Air Act protections at issue in this legislation will for 
the first time limit mercury, arsenic, soot, hydrochloric acid and 
other dangerous emissions from cement kilns. The proposed reductions 
will prevent as many as 2500 premature deaths and 17,000 asthma attacks 
annually, and produce $7 to $19 in public health benefits for every $1 
spent on cleanup costs. Which is why the protections have the support 
of reputable public health organizations like the American Lung 
Association, the American Public Health Association and the Asthma and 
Allergy Foundation of America.
  Rather than undermining our nation's public health, we should be 
focused on enacting a real jobs agenda to put Americans back to work 
and accelerate our economic recovery.
  I urge a no vote.
  Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Chair, to spur job creation in this country, we must 
remove burdensome regulations stifling our job creators.
  The EPA's Maximum Achievable Control Technology or MACT rule is set 
to crush our cement manufacturers.
  Eastern Kansas has three cement manufacturers who employ thousands. I 
recently toured plants at Monarch Cement in Humboldt, Ashgrove Cement 
in Iola and LaFarge Cement in Fredonia, and heard a similar story from 
all three.
  They have the revenue stream and the desire to hire more Kansans, but 
the cost of complying with Government regulations, like the cement 
MACT, restrict their ability to do so.
  The EPA shouldn't be implementing regulations that do more economic 
damage than they achieve in environmental good.
  I hope the EPA will take this opportunity to reform this rule and be 
part of the solution rather than the problem.
  Let's end over regulation and get Americans back to work.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered 
read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 2681

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Cement Sector Regulatory 
     Relief Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. LEGISLATIVE STAY.

       (a) Establishment of Standards.--In place of the rules 
     specified in subsection (b), and notwithstanding the date by 
     which such rules would otherwise be required to be 
     promulgated, the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency (in this Act referred to as the 
     ``Administrator'') shall--
       (1) propose regulations for the Portland cement 
     manufacturing industry and Portland cement plants subject to 
     any of the rules specified in subsection (b)--
       (A) establishing maximum achievable control technology 
     standards, performance standards, and other requirements 
     under sections 112 and 129, as applicable, of the Clean Air 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 7412, 7429); and
       (B) identifying non-hazardous secondary materials that, 
     when used as fuels or ingredients in combustion units of such 
     industry and plants are solid waste under the Solid Waste 
     Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.; commonly referred to as 
     the ``Resource Conservation and Recovery Act'') for purposes 
     of determining the extent to which such combustion units are 
     required to meet the emissions standards under section 112 of 
     the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412) or the emission standards 
     under section 129 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 7429); and
       (2) finalize the regulations on the date that is 15 months 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Stay of Earlier Rules.--
       (1) The following rule is of no force or effect, shall be 
     treated as though such rule had never taken effect, and shall 
     be replaced as described in subsection (a): ``National 
     Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the 
     Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and Standards of 
     Performance for Portland Cement Plants'', published at 75 
     Fed. Reg. 54970 (September 9, 2010).
       (2) The following rules are of no force or effect, shall be 
     treated as though such rules had never taken effect, and 
     shall be replaced as described in subsection (a), insofar as 
     such rules are applicable to the Portland cement 
     manufacturing industry and Portland cement plants:
       (A) ``Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources 
     and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and 
     Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units'', published at 76 
     Fed. Reg. 15704 (March 21, 2011).
       (B) ``Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials 
     That Are Solid Waste'', published at 76 Fed. Reg. 15456 
     (March 21, 2011).

     SEC. 3. COMPLIANCE DATES.

       (a) Establishment of Compliance Dates.--For each regulation 
     promulgated pursuant to section 2, the Administrator--
       (1) shall establish a date for compliance with standards 
     and requirements under such regulation that is, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, not earlier than 
     5 years after the effective date of the regulation; and
       (2) in proposing a date for such compliance, shall take 
     into consideration--
       (A) the costs of achieving emissions reductions;
       (B) any non-air quality health and environmental impact and 
     energy requirements of the standards and requirements;
       (C) the feasibility of implementing the standards and 
     requirements, including the time needed to--
       (i) obtain necessary permit approvals; and
       (ii) procure, install, and test control equipment;
       (D) the availability of equipment, suppliers, and labor, 
     given the requirements of the regulation and other proposed 
     or finalized regulations of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency; and
       (E) potential net employment impacts.
       (b) New Sources.--The date on which the Administrator 
     proposes a regulation pursuant to section 2(a)(1) 
     establishing an emission standard under section 112 or 129 of 
     the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412, 7429) shall be treated as 
     the date on which the Administrator first proposes such a 
     regulation for purposes of applying the definition of a new 
     source under section 112(a)(4) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7412(a)(4)) or the definition of a new solid waste 
     incineration unit under section 129(g)(2) of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7429(g)(2)).
       (c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed to restrict or otherwise affect the provisions of 
     paragraphs (3)(B) and (4) of section 112(i) of the Clean Air 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(i)).

     SEC. 4. ENERGY RECOVERY AND CONSERVATION.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and to ensure 
     the recovery and conservation of energy consistent with the 
     Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.; commonly 
     referred to as the ``Resource Conservation and Recovery 
     Act''), in promulgating rules under section 2(a) addressing 
     the subject matter of the rules specified in section 2(b)(2), 
     the Administrator--
       (1) shall adopt the definitions of the terms ``commercial 
     and industrial solid waste incineration unit'', ``commercial 
     and industrial waste'', and ``contained gaseous material'' in 
     the rule entitled ``Standards of Performance for New 
     Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing 
     Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration 
     Units'', published at 65 Fed. Reg. 75338 (December 1, 2000); 
     and
       (2) shall identify non-hazardous secondary material to be 
     solid waste only if--
       (A) the material meets such definition of commercial and 
     industrial waste; or
       (B) if the material is a gas, it meets such definition of 
     contained gaseous material.

     SEC. 5. OTHER PROVISIONS.

       (a) Establishment of Standards Achievable in Practice.--In 
     promulgating rules under section 2(a), the Administrator 
     shall ensure that emissions standards for existing and new 
     sources established under section 112 or 129 of the Clean Air 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 7412, 7429), as applicable, can be met under 
     actual operating conditions consistently and concurrently 
     with emission standards for all other air pollutants 
     regulated by the rule for the source category, taking into 
     account variability in actual source performance, source 
     design, fuels, inputs, controls, ability to measure the 
     pollutant emissions, and operating conditions.
       (b) Regulatory Alternatives.--For each regulation 
     promulgated pursuant to section 2(a), from among the range of 
     regulatory alternatives authorized under the Clean Air Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) including work practice standards 
     under section 112(h) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(h)), the 
     Administrator shall impose the least burdensome, consistent 
     with the purposes of such Act and Executive Order 13563 
     published at 76 Fed. Reg. 3821 (January 21, 2011).
  The Acting CHAIR. 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 purpose of debate. Each amendment so 
received may be offered only by a Member who caused it to be printed or 
a designee and shall be considered as read if printed.


                 Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Waxman

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

[[Page H6582]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following section:

     SEC. 6. PROTECTION FOR INFANTS AND CHILDREN.

        Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the 
     Administrator shall not delay actions pursuant to the rules 
     identified in section 2(b) of this Act to reduce emissions 
     from any cement kiln if such emissions are harming brain 
     development or causing learning disabilities in infants or 
     children.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, chronic exposure to 
carcinogens, neurotoxins, and other dangerous chemicals can take a 
terrible toll on people's health, particularly in communities that live 
in the shadows of major sources of pollution. I have next to me here a 
diagram, a picture of cement kilns next to an elementary school.
  Everyone in this Chamber probably knows someone who's been stricken 
by cancer or who has a child with a learning disability or birth 
defect. Environmental pollution does not cause all cancers or every 
health problem, but numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies tell us 
that chemicals classified as carcinogens cause cancers, and those 
cancers sicken and kill real people.
  Chemicals classified as neurotoxins damage the nerve system. They 
pose a particular threat to infants and developing brains. These 
effects are significant, tragic, and avoidable. That's why Republicans 
and Democrats together voted in 1990 to strengthen the Clean Air Act to 
require dozens of industry sectors to step up and install modern 
pollution controls on their facilities.
  The American people were tired of having their communities harmed by 
toxic air pollution. They didn't want to live in fear that the factory 
down the road would give their children cancer or damage their baby's 
brain. We made a promise to the American people that EPA would require 
polluters to cut their emissions of mercury, lead, dioxins, and other 
air pollutants linked to serious health effects.
  The Clean Air Amendments of 1990 set up an effective program to 
reduce toxic air pollution. It would achieve cost effective pollution 
reductions by simply requiring facilities to use pollution controls 
that others in their industry were already using.
  Since 1990, EPA has set these emission standards for more than 100 
different categories of industrial sources. They've reduced emissions 
of carcinogens and other highly toxic chemicals by 1.7 million tons 
each year.

                              {time}  1420

  But today, this Chamber is seriously proposing to just let these 
cement kilns pollute our communities with impunity. Cement kilns are 
one of the largest sources of mercury pollution. For far too long, they 
were allowed to pollute without installing modern technology to reduce 
their emissions. In August of last year, EPA finally issued standards 
they've been working on since the late 1990s. EPA estimated these rules 
will reduce mercury emissions from cement kilns by 16,400 pounds, or 92 
percent, compared with projected levels. The rules would also cut 
emissions of hydrocarbons by 83 percent and particulate matter by 92 
percent.
  But the bill that's before us would nullify those rules, and they 
would force EPA to start all over again with another rulemaking, using 
new and unworkable criteria. These long overdue public health 
protections will be delayed, at a minimum, for 6 more years and maybe 
forever.
  And the bill doesn't just delay. By changing the approach adopted in 
1990, it threatens EPA's very ability to issue replacement standards 
for cement kilns that will achieve any meaningful reductions in mercury 
pollution.
  EPA testified before our committee, and they said that this 
legislation would create new legal ambiguities that would tie up the 
new rule in litigation for years. Other clean air lawyers testified 
this bill would eviscerate the ability of the law to control air toxics 
for cement kilns.
  But the Republicans have charged forward in what amounts to 
legislative negligence. And they say reassuring things like, this is a 
commonsense, minor approach delaying it for a little while. Well, we 
cannot afford additional delays. We cannot afford to lose these 
protections altogether. All across America, communities are living in 
the shadow of these plants. And I again refer you to this picture. 
These are plants next door to an elementary school, and nearby these 
kids and their families live. And the closer you live, the more exposed 
you are. All of these people who live near these facilities are running 
a very high risk for dreaded diseases.
  Mercury is a potent neurotoxin. Reams of scientific studies show that 
babies and children who are exposed to mercury may suffer damage to 
their developing nervous systems, hurting their ability to think, 
learn, and speak. Children will never reach their full potential.
  That is why I ask that we support this amendment that says, in 
effect, let's not wait any longer when it comes to something that deals 
with poisoning our kids from mercury.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment 
for the simple reason that in 1999, EPA issued a rule for cement plants 
in which it regulated emissions from cement plants. All of us are very 
much aware of the health hazards of certain emissions. And that's why 
we support the ruling of the EPA in 1999.
  Now, in 2006, EPA came back with a new cement rule. But the 
environmental groups challenged that in court. And so as a result of 
that challenge, EPA went back, and they came out with the new Cement 
MACT rules that are the subject of our legislation today. And as we 
said during the general debate, the economy is unusually weak today, 
our unemployment is high today, and we think we need a more balanced 
approach than what EPA came out with in its most recent cement rule, 
which is in effect, but compliance is not expected until 2013.
  So we simply are staying that rule with this legislation asking EPA 
to come out with a new Cement MACT within 15 months after passage of 
our legislation and then give industry 5 years to comply, and longer, 
if the EPA administrator decides to do that. Now, looking at the 
history of this administrator, I can't conceive that she would be 
willing to give them any more than that 5 years, but that would be her 
choice.
  So I would urge the Members to oppose this amendment because we 
already have some basic protections in there. We have the 1999 rule 
that is in effect if we are successful in passing this legislation that 
would negate the most recent Cement MACT rule. And as I said before, we 
hear today from businesses all over the country who are talking about 
the uncertainty--particularly because of the excess of regulations 
coming out from EPA--not knowing what standards are required, and in 
many instances not even having technology that's available to meet the 
standards.
  So I think our H.R. 2681 is a reasonable approach: Ask EPA to step 
back, propose a new rule, do it within 15 months and give the industry 
5 years. And for that reason, I would reiterate all of us have the same 
concerns that the gentleman from California has. I do not believe that 
his amendment is necessary, and I would urge all of our Members to 
oppose his amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I rise in support of the Waxman 
amendment, and without the amendment I rise in opposition to H.R. 2681, 
the Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act of 2011.
  As we all know, cement plants are one of the primary sources of 
mercury pollution in the U.S. In my State of Texas alone, there are 10 
cement plants which emitted 225 pounds of mercury in 2009 alone. It 
takes only one-seventieth of a teaspoon of mercury to contaminate a 25-
acre lake and render the fish unsafe to eat. And children are the most 
vulnerable.

[[Page H6583]]

  Mercury exposure impairs a child's ability to learn, write, walk, 
talk, and read. As a registered nurse, I have seen firsthand how 
children are particularly sensitive to emissions of mercury and other 
air toxins. As a mother and a grandmother, I cannot stand by and watch 
these emissions go unchecked.
  I have always been a strong and proud defender of EPA's charge to 
protect public health and the environment. In 2009, I led a letter to 
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson calling for even stronger emissions 
standards to reduce mercury pollution. Last year, I was pleased to see 
that EPA finalized standards for cement plant emissions that will 
reduce mercury and particulate matter pollution by over 90 percent, 
resulting in health savings of up to $18 billion each year.
  Despite all the talk that we have heard in recent months, EPA 
regulations do not kill jobs. As the ranking member of the Science, 
Space, and Technology Committee, I know that our Nation's scientific, 
entrepreneurial, and industrial sectors have and will innovate to meet 
new standards as they always have. We will reduce air pollution in this 
country while creating thousands of jobs.
  The predictions of widespread economic disruption and collapse of our 
industrial sector because of what some have called the overreaching 
Clean Air Act have been proven wrong time and again. We should expect 
that today's hysteria is no different.
  Therefore, I stand with the citizens of Texas and impacted 
communities across the Nation in opposing this bill and not with the 
big polluters. Congress passed the Clean Air Act 40 years ago, and we 
have cleaner air today because of it. But we can always do better. And 
that is why we must support the purpose and the mission of the EPA and 
oppose this bill without this amendment. We are not here to kill jobs, 
but we are here to save lives.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  I listened to Mr. Waxman's argument, and I looked at his amendment. 
And this amendment targets a specific health issue: brain development 
and learning disabilities in infant children. We believe the EPA should 
consider all public health risks.
  Mr. Waxman raised the issue of accusing the Republicans of, as he 
said, ``legislative negligence.'' I'm sure it was not legislative 
negligence on the part of Mr. Waxman when he failed to include cancer 
in this bill even though in his argument to this august body he 
certainly argued that this amendment would help with cancer.
  The truth is this amendment addresses one public health issue, the 
disability of children, and it addresses it as it relates to mercury. 
And we've heard arguments in this Chamber about mercury, but we've also 
seen the air studies that have been done by the electric industry in 
which they tell us that, at least west of the Mississippi, somewhere 
between 80 percent and 100 percent of all the mercury pollution in that 
area comes from outside the United States.
  Where outside the United States is fairly obvious, China and India, 
which have the largest amount of Portland cement manufacturing in the 
world, also the least amount of protection of the air quality. They are 
polluting somewhere between 80 and 100 percent of mercury, which is 
what, according to the argument from the other side, is the issue here. 
It is not cancer, and this does not address cancer. It is harming the 
brain development of infant children--mercury.
  So if almost 100 percent of it is west of the Mississippi, then more 
than half the country is polluted from outside this country. And yet we 
would shut down factories and force them to move to places like China 
and India--where there is no protection for the health of anybody on 
this globe--so that they can stay in business because we have adopted a 
1 percent standard rather than the 5 percent standard from our so-
called ``model'' of the future, the European Union. Now, I think that 
we need to question this amendment.
  I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. LEE of California. I rise in strong support of this amendment. 
However, the underlying bill actually nullifies the EPA's rules to 
require cement kilns to reduce their emissions of toxic mercury and 
other toxic pollutants and forces EPA to go back to square one. In 
doing so, this bill nullifies the rule's promised reductions in mercury 
pollution from cement kilns, delays any potential future reductions, 
and threatens EPA's ability to issue replacement standards that will 
achieve the same benefit for public health.
  Mercury is a potent neurotoxin. Babies born to women exposed to 
mercury during pregnancy can suffer from a range of developmental and 
neurological abnormalities, including delayed onset of walking, delayed 
onset of talking, cerebral palsy, and learning disabilities. This is 
certainly an important issue for Democrats and Republicans to support.
  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 cement kilns. Cement kilns 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 of mercury and other toxic 
chemicals. The Clean Air Act directed EPA to issue standards to cut 
emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants from cement kilns by 
2000. That was a decade ago. EPA didn't finalize these rules until 
August of last year.
  EPA estimates that the rules will reduce mercury emissions from 
cement kilns by 16,400 pounds, or 92 percent, compared with projected 
levels. Now the Republican leadership wants to nullify these rules to 
cut mercury pollution and delay these important public health 
protections. Further delay is unacceptable for the people who have been 
waiting for these cement kilns to clean up for years.
  This amendment is straightforward. It states that the bill does not 
stop EPA from taking action to clean up toxic air pollution from a 
cement kiln if that kiln is emitting mercury or other toxic pollutants 
that are damaging babies' developing brains.
  The Republicans deny that this bill is an attack on the Clean Air Act 
or public health. They argue that this bill won't prevent EPA from 
reducing toxic mercury pollution from cement kilns. I strongly 
disagree. And these statements stand in stark contrast to the body of 
science linking mercury exposure to neurological problems.
  And I have to say, instead of working to create jobs, Republicans are 
bringing up another assault on our public health and the Clean Air Act. 
We should be passing the President's American Jobs Act and other pieces 
of emergency jobs legislation that create jobs as soon as possible. But 
instead of focusing on jobs, the GOP wants to eliminate and delay Clean 
Air Act regulations. This will jeopardize our public health and the 
clean air that we breathe.
  This clean air regulation will reduce toxic pollutants produced by 
cement plants and will prevent 2,500 premature deaths every year. This 
regulation also will provide up to $19 million in public health 
benefits for every dollar spent on reducing harmful air pollution. So 
we have to support the amendments that are going to protect the public 
health of our people.
  I urge support of the Waxman amendment, and all of the amendments 
that are coming today, for the sake of the public health of Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, we're talking about common 
sense. Unfortunately, I don't think we're hearing much of that coming 
out of the other side because they're talking out of both sides of 
their mouth here. How in the world does a 20 percent reduction in the 
number of cement plants in the United States, out of the 100 that we 
have, how

[[Page H6584]]

does that 20 percent loss, or estimation of 18 to 20 cement plants, 
equal more jobs? I'm a little lost. I know I'm a freshman here, but I'm 
lost as to how, when we're shutting down businesses, that equals more 
jobs.
  I'm also curious about how in the world we can call this a Maximum 
Achievable Control Technology when people in the industry and people 
outside the industry say it's not achievable. We might as well call it 
the ``maximum dreamed-up control technology.'' We've got to introduce 
some common sense to this.
  Now, we can solve all of our pollution issues coming out of cement 
plants by shutting every single one of them down. We can shut every 
single one of those 100 plants down here in the United States. I do not 
think that India is going to shut theirs down. I don't think China is 
going to be shutting theirs down. I know Indonesia is not going to be 
shutting theirs down. I'm betting our friends and neighbors in Canada 
aren't going to be shutting theirs down.
  So we can shut down every single cement plant. That's not going to 
solve our problems, though, because we have to keep going further. 
We've got to shut down every power plant. We've got to stop driving 
every car, every bus, every train. We might as well ban campfires, 
grilled foods--and cancel Christmas while we're at it. There has got to 
be some common sense involved here.
  Ontario tried this a few years ago when they were going to shut down 
all of their coal-fired power plants. Their goal: get rid of them all. 
The outcome: not a single one--zero--was shut down because they know 
that it wasn't possible. And we're seeing here a proposed regulation 
that is five times more stringent than what our friends in the European 
Union are talking about, and in Canada: five times more stringent. How 
is that going to make the United States more competitive, and how is 
that going to retain jobs here?
  Mr. Chairman, we have got to make sure that, instead of using the 
``maximum dreamed-up control technology,'' we actually use the Maximum 
Achievable Control Technology. And that is what we have today.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I do want to respond to the gentleman who 
just spoke about how they're going to shut down these plants. Why do 
they have to shut down the plants? If they have to put in a control 
technology that's already being used somewhere else in the country to 
reduce that mercury pollution, that other cancer-causing pollution, 
they put the equipment in. They pay for it.
  Now, cement kilns are having financial problems, not because of these 
regulations, but because of the low demand for cement. The industry 
admits this on their Web site, and they have a problem. But we are 
telling them that when the economy starts picking up, they'll get a 
greater demand. But we also want to make sure that they put in the 
control technology. They don't have to close just simply to do that.

                              {time}  1440

  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman prior to me asked, where is the 
common sense?
  Well, common sense begins with science, and the science is clear. I 
want to let the gentleman know that all sense is not common sense. In 
this instance, common sense begins with the science, and the science is 
absolutely clear that EPA must be able to reduce toxic pollution from 
the cement manufacturing process.
  Cement kilns across the U.S. produce more toxic air pollutants, 
including mercury, arsenic, acid gases, hydrochloric acid, dioxins, and 
other harmful pollutants that add to the nation's problems with soot 
and smog. Cement kilns are the third-largest source of mercury 
emissions in the U.S.
  Toxic air pollutants can cause cancer, impair brain development and 
the ability to learn, damage the eyes, skin, and breathing passages, 
harm the kidneys, harm the lungs, harm the nervous system, and cause 
pulmonary and cardiovascular disease and premature death.
  Cleaning up cement kilns saves lives and protects children from 
hazardous air pollutants. EPA estimates that reducing toxic pollution 
from cement kilns can save up to 2,500 lives each year by 2013. The 
limit will annually prevent 1,500 heart attacks, 17,000 asthma attacks, 
over 1,700 hospital and emergency room visits, and 130,000 missed days 
of work.
  The most vulnerable populations depend on the EPA to protect them 
from the harmful health effects of cement kiln pollution. Children, 
teens, senior citizens, and people who exercise or work outdoors or 
with chronic lung diseases such as asthma, COPD, emphysema, these are 
the children and the people who are most in danger.
  People with low incomes or who are members of racial and ethnic 
minorities are disproportionately affected by air pollution, in part, 
because they tend to live closer to industrial facilities such as 
cement kilns.
  Mercury is a potent neurotoxin. Reams of scientific studies, common 
sense studies, show that babies and children who are exposed to mercury 
may suffer damage to their developing nervous systems, hurting their 
ability to think, learn, and speak.
  Children exposed to mercury may never ever reach their full 
potential. The National Academy of Sciences estimates that each year 
about 60,000 American children are born right here in the U.S. with 
neurological problems that could lead to poor school performance 
because of exposure to mercury in utero.
  The Waxman amendment is straightforward. It is common sense. It 
states that the EPA can continue to require a cement kiln to clean up 
toxic air pollution if that kiln is emitting mercury or other toxic 
pollutants that are causing damage to infants' developing brains.
  This amendment simplifies our choice. Allow polluters to continue to 
harm children, to harm infants, or require facilities that are actually 
harming our kids to reduce their pollution. It's not too much to ask, 
and I ask the Members to support the Waxman amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, job creators across a wide range of 
industry have sent urgent calls to Washington pleading for Congress to 
remove burdensome regulations that could destroy hundreds of thousands 
of jobs nationwide.
  Yesterday, I had the opportunity to meet with two of America's job 
creators, Karl Watson from Houston, Texas, who represents CEMEX, a 
global leader in the building materials industry, and Brad Slabaugh of 
Hilltop Basic Resources, a small building materials and ready-mixed 
concrete producer from Ohio.
  While these job creators may hail from different regions of the 
country, and one employs thousands of workers, versus the one that 
employs several hundred middle class Americans, they both face the same 
challenges under the Obama administration's oppressive regulatory 
regime. That is why Mr. Watson and Mr. Slabaugh came to Washington this 
week, to discuss their real world examples of how the Obama 
administration burdensome regulatory policy is devastating to the 
concrete production industry and to virtually all American employers 
and job creators. The worst offender that is inflicting this regulatory 
flaw under the Obama administration is the Environmental Protection 
Agency.
  This week the House is tackling some of the most economically 
dangerous regulations that the EPA has imposed on our Nation's 
creators, Boiler MACT and Cement MACT. These unwarranted and 
indefensible regulations are costing hundreds of thousands of much-
needed American jobs at a time when unemployment stands at 9.1 percent 
and families and small businesses are struggling to stay afloat.
  Worse yet, both appear to be based upon ideology versus sound science 
and real word cost-benefit analyses. Both the Boiler MACT and Cement 
MACT could have a combined economic impact of more than 230,000 
existing American jobs lost and $14.4 billion in

[[Page H6585]]

projected compliance, according to the Council on Industrial Boilers.
  In my home State of Texas, which is home to 27 boiler facilities, the 
economic impact of the Boiler MACT rule on boiler and process heater 
owners and operators is well over $200 million, putting thousands of 
good-paying jobs at risk, and opening the door to further burdens, not 
only for large industrial boilers, but also important institutions such 
as hospitals and universities.
  This additional regulatory damage comes within 2 weeks of a large 
Texas power producer that has announced, due to the EPA's Cross State 
Air Pollution Rule, it will cause the loss of 500 middle class American 
jobs and the closure of five job sites in Texas.
  The Cement MACT regulations that CEMEX and Hilltop face are some of 
the harshest of seven proposed or recently finalized EPA regulations 
targeting an already weakened cement industry. The Portland Cement 
Association estimates that the Cement MACT would force the shutdown of 
up to 20 percent of the Nation's 100 existing cement plants, and that 
does not include the seven plants that have already announced, due to 
economic or other reasons, that they have faced permanent closure since 
2008.
  Both CEMEX and Hilltop are experiencing depressed volume levels and 
are having to shed middle class jobs as they respond to increasing 
economic uncertainty being generated by unelected, unaccountable 
Washington bureaucrats. If the commonsense relief that we are currently 
considering does not pass, these companies will face the shutdown of up 
to 20 percent of their operations. Such a decrease in production 
capacity of the cement industry would have a ripple impact across the 
economy, impacting not only cement manufacturing jobs, but also 
industries that rely heavily on them, such as construction and 
building.
  Worse yet, for all Americans, these jobs and plants will be relocated 
to foreign countries, further damaging America's already declining 
industrial base and middle class job opportunities. The bipartisan 
legislation coming to the floor today will provide the EPA with at 
least 15 months to re-propose and finalize new rules regarding the 
economically dangerous Boiler MACT and Cement MACT.
  Without this commonsense regulatory relief, the EPA's current rules 
endanger hundreds of thousands of American middle class jobs nationwide 
by forcing plant shutdowns and relocation of American manufacturing and 
jobs to foreign countries.
  Congress and this administration can and should encourage private 
sector job growth in this country, not hinder it with unreasonable 
regulations.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and the Obama 
administration to join me in removing barriers to job creation and 
support both H.R. 2250, the EPA Regulatory Relief Act of 2011, and H.R. 
2681, the Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act of 2011.

                              {time}  1450

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. RANGEL. I rise in support of the Waxman amendment. As long as Mr. 
Waxman has been in the Congress, he should know that recently a new 
group has arrived here, and there are three things that you shouldn't 
do, and that is ask for anything that might be good for the President 
of the United States, ask for anything that could improve the 
environment of the people that breathe the air, and for God's sake 
don't ask them to bring up any bills that could create jobs.
  Having said that, it just seems to me that we're involved in a 
political fight that concerns Democrats and Republicans and others; and 
yet you would think if you listened to the debate that the air in which 
we breathe, there's a Democratic area and there's a Republican area, or 
when you start talking about this is saving lives through providing an 
opportunity for our youngsters to be able to grow up in a healthy 
environment that we're just talking about Democratic babies. What we're 
talking about--pardon the word ``scientific''--is a connection between 
pollution of the air and how people breathe it and what happens to 
their general health.
  I don't really believe that anyone challenges the fact that whether 
it happens on a 9/11 site or on a coal mine that what you breathe is 
going to have an impact and if indeed it leads to illnesses, that's 
going to be very costly. And so it just seems to me that if we 
concentrate on what can we do, I know there are people who don't like 
the President, but there are millions of people that go to sleep every 
night wondering what the heck are we doing in the Congress, and it just 
seems so unfair for us to go back and say, we cannot bring out a bill 
that the President proposed that's going to create jobs.
  It would be different if we said we're going to bring it out, and 
we're not going to vote for it; or we're not going to bring it out 
because we have our own bill. It just seems to me that very few 
Americans are going to sleep at night wondering what happens at cement 
factories throughout the United States. Maybe those from Texas or those 
that have one or two in their districts might have some concern as to 
whether it would cost their employers and businesspeople in order to 
clean the air, but that's a constant problem we always have when it 
costs a little extra to do the right thing to extend the value and, 
indeed, the condition of life.
  But to get back to jobs, there's something going on in America; and I 
don't know whether or not it reaches the floor, since the best place to 
find out what's going on in the country is right here, as we come from 
435 different areas and we come to tell what's happening.
  In New York, people are mad as hell. They're not going to take it 
anymore. They're not against Democrats; they're not against 
Republicans. They just don't see why they have to suffer the way they 
do after some of them have lost their ability to go to school, have 
lost their jobs, have lost their savings, have no idea what the future 
looks like for them, and we're not even giving them hope.
  Hope has made our middle class, not the rich that control most of the 
Nation's wealth, and certainly not the poor that people all over the 
world would like to escape. But when you see the hope for the middle 
class just dropping and squeezing and pushing people into poverty, it 
seems to me that we have a higher responsibility than that.
  Often I ask for our spiritual leaders to help us, because, hey, it's 
right over the Speaker: ``In God We Trust.'' That means that we don't 
have to trust each other, but maybe if some of the rabbis, ministers, 
and Catholics could come down and try to get our priorities in order, 
because if you're talking about human life, that includes the ability 
to have health care, to have a healthy environment in terms of housing, 
and I think we do have a moral obligation not only to get ready for the 
polls in 2012 but to do something for the people who are so completely 
helpless now.
  I would like to emphasize that there's no way to split up the jobs 
with Democrats or Republicans, and so we are not being fair to the 
Republicans or that the cement is going to hurt us and not you. These 
things are so nonpolitical that I just hope that someday, and someday 
very, very soon, we will respond to the frustrated people we have, even 
the wealthy, and come up with something on the floor that whether we 
win or lose, we can be so very proud that we're doing something to 
improve the economy, put America back to work, have things once again 
made in America.
  I want to thank the gentleman from California for at least directing 
us to the right track, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I was proud to work with my colleagues on the committee in developing 
the Cement Regulatory Relief Act.
  Let's just take a quick gander at what's happened here. Last 
September, the EPA released new regulations--that's kind of a theme 
we've been hearing a lot lately--new regulations on the American cement 
industry. These new requirements will cost $3.4 billion, it will close 
18 of America's 100 cement plants, and leave 20,000 more Americans 
without jobs. In my district alone,

[[Page H6586]]

the 11th Congressional District in Illinois, 155 companies use that 
cement daily.
  This is the same story, but just a little bit of a different subject: 
the same story of over-regulation, more government, more rules, more 
paperwork, more disclaimers, more everything that people are sick of in 
Washington, D.C. This is just more of it. This is typical of over-
regulation. Somebody comes up with an idea and says, what's the sane 
thing to do here, or what can we do that will way overstep the role of 
the Federal Government? Well, that's exactly what came down within the 
rules.
  All we want to do is give a little more time for the cement industry, 
instead of saying, well, this is catching us flatfooted again, 18 of 
our plants are going to close, we're looking at this and saying, how 
can we keep these open and create jobs? There's been a lot of talk in 
this body, as there should be, about creating jobs, about the economy. 
Look, I'm 100 percent in. We want to create jobs, and so some of the 
things we see are, well, we need to spend additional Federal Government 
money, the size of what we'll call stimulus 2.
  I tell you what we need to do. The very first step to creating jobs 
in this country is to stop killing them. That would be a great move in 
the right direction. If we stop killing jobs, then we can regroup and 
say, now how can jobs be created in the private sector? Yet we continue 
on and on with more and more regulation. We now hear the industry 
saying, look, this is going to cost 20,000 jobs. It's your prerogative 
out of Washington, but this is going to cost us 20,000 jobs. This is 
typical Federal Government over-regulation.
  We have a responsibility here to do the right thing. We have a 
responsibility to do the economically and environmentally sound thing. 
When this rule goes into effect, the same amount of cement is going to 
be needed, so it's not like we're closing 18 of 100 plants and we're 
going to use 18 of 100 plants' less worth of cement.
  We're still going to need to use that cement. Right? In fact, in the 
stimulus 2, they talk about the fact of spending more on cement. Well, 
then, okay. So what happens is these plants close, and we have to buy 
that cement from China. This is a great bill, and not the one where 
we're talking about saving jobs here, but if these rules go into 
effect, that will be great for creating jobs in China, and China has 
zero environmental constraints like we have here in the United States.
  So what's the environmentally right thing to do? Keep these jobs in 
the United States, where there are good environmental regulations in 
place, take a look at what we need to do, but not send them over to a 
country that all they care about is pumping out cement, and they care 
nothing about the environment. That's the responsible thing to do. This 
bill simply gives regulators the time to develop practical rules for 
cement manufacturing facilities, and it's going to protect jobs in the 
manufacturing industry, the construction industry, and all those areas, 
these jobs which are otherwise going to be sent overseas.
  Look, enough is enough. I mean, really, enough is enough. I urge my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, please just support this. This 
doesn't have to be a partisan thing. This is just for America. How are 
we going to create and save American jobs so that the families who 
every day wake up and say, I wonder if I can pay my bills next week, I 
wonder if I can make my house payment, I wonder if I can make my car 
payment, I wonder if I can send my kids to college.
  Some of those people that have those pains and wonder that every day 
work in the cement industry; and if these rules come into effect, that 
horror that they are predicting may happen, that they'll lose their 
job, will happen for 20,000 members and 20,000 citizens of the United 
States. I call for an end to the madness. Let's be sane about this. 
Let's finally, once and for all, save American jobs and then create 
them and do what we have to do to get this economy back to work.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CLAY. I rise today in support of the Waxman amendment as well as 
of the subsequent amendments to come, especially the Capps amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we in Congress need to be working to create jobs. 
Instead of doing anything that would create jobs, my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle are making yet another assault on our public 
health and the Clean Air Act in the form of H.R. 2681. We should pass 
the President's American Jobs Act and other pieces of emergency jobs 
legislation that create jobs as soon as possible.
  As my friend the President said, ``Pass the bill. Pass the bill.'' 
Then we will create jobs.
  Unemployed Americans need emergency jobs legislation now, not an 
ideological attack on public health. Instead of focusing on jobs, 
Republicans want to eliminate or delay reasonable Clean Air Act 
regulations. This will jeopardize our public health and the clean air 
that we all breathe--regardless of party affiliation. This clean air 
regulation will reduce toxic pollutants produced by cement plants and 
will prevent 2,500 premature deaths every year. It will also be very 
cost-effective. This regulation provides up to $19 in public health 
benefits for every dollar spent on reducing harmful air pollution.
  I represent the State of Missouri, the St. Louis metropolitan region. 
Less than 100 miles south of the St. Louis metropolitan area, we have 
the largest cement kiln in the country. The people that I represent in 
the St. Louis region suffer disproportionately from pollutants in the 
atmosphere, pollutants that come from that nearby cement kiln, as well 
as from other pollutants that are emitted through smokestacks in the 
region. Children in my district suffer from a high incidence of asthma 
as well as from other respiratory diseases.
  Mr. Chairman, let me make it rather personal. Shortly after my 
youngest son was born, he contracted asthma. It is no mere coincidence, 
as we were so close to a cement kiln, that he, as well as thousands of 
other children in the St. Louis region, suffer disproportionately from 
asthma attacks and respiratory diseases that are unnecessary.
  The Clean Air Act is a commonsense approach, a balance, in order to 
allow for industry to do its work and create jobs and to also protect 
those children and others who live in the St. Louis region who have to 
breathe this air. The Clean Air Act is a commonsense approach, and it 
does not deserve to be attacked.
  I urge my colleagues to pass the Waxman amendment as well as the 
Capps amendment.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. CHU. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. CHU. I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2681 and H.R. 
2250.
  Some in Congress want to use the jobs crisis as an excuse to roll 
back clean air protections that will prevent 9,000 premature deaths 
every year. Today, we are debating an unnecessary, wasteful bill that 
only delays long overdue pollution-reducing regulations at the expense 
of Americans' health. This is one of the Republicans' so-called ``jobs 
bills,'' conducting redundant and costly studies that will do nothing 
but add paper to landfills instead of creating jobs by upgrading cement 
kilns so that they are no longer a threat to public health.
  These studies have been done. Americans are still breathing mercury, 
arsenic, and lead; but we have a means to clean it up. It's called the 
Clean Air Act, and it was passed in 1963. It is known as one of the 
most successful pieces of legislation in congressional history; yet the 
Republican majority is trying to gut it over and over, bill after bill, 
wasting time and energy that could be spent passing legislation that 
would help create new jobs for Americans. Today's bill would cancel 
requirements to clean up toxic air pollution, smog, and soot from 
cement plants.
  So, while big companies save a penny or two, American families will 
face billions of dollars in increased health costs. Thousands more 
people will go to hospitals with cases of bronchitis, heart attacks, 
asthma attacks, and

[[Page H6587]]

thousands more will die prematurely. These pollutants are also 
neurotoxins, causing major harm to the development of unborn babies, 
infants, and children.
  While the majority claims that eliminating this antipollution rule 
for the cement industry will be good for business and the economy, the 
EPA rule institutes new standards based on the best available 
technology already in use in the industry. Let me repeat that. This 
rule that the Republicans are trying to weaken is based on the best 
available technology already in use voluntarily by a good portion of 
the companies in the industry.
  What does that mean? These antipollution standards are actually 
achievable today, and companies are already using them and making a 
profit.
  So today's bill is just another in a long string of anti-environment/
anti-health attacks that look out for corporate interests over the best 
interests of American families. We cannot afford to give polluters a 
free pass to spew deadly, toxic air pollution that hurts our health and 
puts our children at risk. No matter what anyone says, increased 
pollution is not a sustainable path to job creation. Instead, we should 
be saving lives, saving our environment, and investing in the clean-
tech jobs of the future.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and the anti-environment/
anti-American health bill that is up for a vote tomorrow.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Rush

  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of section 5, add the following:
       (c) Rule of Construction.--This section is intended to 
     supplement the provisions of, and shall not be construed to 
     supersede any requirement, limitation, or other provision of, 
     sections 112 and 129 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412, 
     7429).

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, this atrocious bill, H.R. 2681, will make 
permanent changes to the Clean Air Act by weakening health- and 
science-based standards.
  Cement kilns are a major source of mercury pollution as well as of 
other toxic air pollution. However, until last year, these plants had 
managed to avoid any sort of requirement to reduce these emissions. 
Last year, the EPA finally finalized requirements for cement kilns to 
use readily available technology to cut their pollution. This bill that 
is before us today will now nullify the new health standards and direct 
the EPA to go back to the drawing board.
  Mr. Chairman, my Republican colleagues would like to frame this as a 
debate between jobs and public health benefits, but I believe that this 
is, indeed, a false choice.

                              {time}  1510

  I am for jobs. The people in my district need jobs, but also we need 
clean air in order to be alive to get to those jobs and to work those 
jobs.
  We know that since the inception of the Clean Air Act opponents of 
this law have been exaggerating the costs of implementing the 
regulations associated with the act while at the same time downplaying 
the benefits that the new rules have brought.
  H.R. 2681, the bill before us, does not take into account the 
positive impacts on the economy and jobs that EPA regulations will have 
by spurring additional research and development of cleaner technologies 
and by making these same plants more efficient.
  In a recent Washington Post article, the economist Steven Pearlstein 
takes issue with the Republican analysis of regulatory costs in an 
article aptly entitled, ``The magical world of voodoo `economists.' ''
  Mr. Pearlstein correctly notes that these EPA rules spur the creation 
of innovative new technologies that will not only control pollution but 
also create new jobs to install the emissions-control equipment.
  Supporters of this bill, Mr. Chairman, will also argue that it will 
provide certainty to industry when, in fact, this bill as currently 
drafted does precisely the opposite.
  As written, section 5 of H.R. 2681 will raise legal uncertainty and 
ambiguity by requiring the EPA to select the ``least burdensome'' 
regulatory alternative even if a stronger standard is feasible and 
would provide more public health benefits.
  However, under current law, plant owners already have the flexibility 
to select an appropriate combination of controls to comply based on the 
practices of the cleanest and most efficient plants that are operating 
today.
  The Clean Air Act requires that the EPA set toxic air pollution 
standards for cement kilns based on numeric emission levels that 
cleaner facilities are actually achieving right here, right now, today 
in this world, the real world.
  Pollution control technologies that meet the requirements are 
commercially available and, in fact, many plants in this Nation have 
already installed modern pollution control technology, even as you 
argue for this bill and against my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, even for policymakers that are responsible for enacting 
this legislation, the language in section 5 is ambiguous and vague.
  I ask, Mr. Chairman, that my colleagues support this amendment.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I rise in opposition to the amendment by my friend, 
the gentleman from Illinois.
  As I sit here and listen to the other side, they seem to be making 
the argument that if you pass regulations, then you are going to create 
jobs. It reminds me of what you hear in China and Russia, with more 
government intervention, more government regulations. Our friends on 
the other side of the aisle say that's creating new jobs. Yet on this 
regulation, we have had hearing after hearing after hearing in which 
people in the business come to Congress and say we don't know that we 
can meet these standards in the timeframe necessary.
  We heard today, one cement kiln in Oregon has already spent $20 
million and still cannot meet the requirements of this regulation, and 
they have said they are going to have to close down. We have heard 
testimony that of 100 cement plants in America, 18 percent of them are 
going to have to shut down. So how do you create jobs by issuing 
regulations that make people close plants and lose jobs?
  Now, I understand that we have a balance that we are trying to reach 
here, and that's the purpose of this legislation. We want to protect 
health. And, by the way, EPA in 1999 issued a cement regulation. And 
between 1999 and 2005, mercury emissions decreased by 58 percent during 
that time period. In 2006 they came out with a new regulation, and 
certain environmental groups didn't like it; so they filed a lawsuit. 
So as a result of that lawsuit, EPA had to come out with another 
regulation.
  So our legislation today is simply staying the most recent 
regulation. As I said, they issued the regulation in 2006, 
environmentalists filed lawsuits, and EPA had to come back and issue a 
new regulation. Our legislation, because of testimony that is 
indisputable, that plants are going to close and jobs will be lost, 
simply asks EPA to go back and, within 15 months after the legislation 
is passed, come out with a new regulation and give the industry 5 years 
to comply. And if the administrator of the EPA wants to give them 
longer than that to comply, she may. Of course we don't expect that she 
would do that.
  But we have heard about mercury today, for example. EPA in its own 
estimates said that the Cement MACT

[[Page H6588]]

that they've issued would reduce mercury emissions by less than one-
fourth of 1 percent of global emissions. In fact, it is so small that 
they did not even give a dollar value of benefits to the reduction of 
mercury emission by their regulation.
  So mercury, we know, is emitted naturally. It's also emitted 
globally. In fact, the Department of Energy said that 11 million pounds 
of mercury was emitted globally in 2005 from both natural and human 
resources. So this regulation that we are trying to delay is not going 
to have any impact on reducing mercury emissions by any significant 
amount.
  Now, we have heard a lot about why don't you pass the Obama jobs 
bill. That's how you create jobs, instead of fighting EPA over 
regulations. The United States Congress has an obligation and a 
responsibility to question regulations that we believe are harming the 
economy, and I notice in today's The Hill it said Senate Democrats 
bucked Obama on his jobs plan.
  So we are all committed to jobs, but I do not believe that issuing 
more regulations creates jobs when we have business owners large and 
small testify repeatedly that these regulations are going to lose jobs, 
that they are going to have to shut down plants at a time when the 
President wants to put more money into infrastructure needs in America, 
which is fine. You need cement to do that. Our plants are going to be 
closed, so we are going to be importing more cement from China, India, 
and elsewhere.
  So I would respectfully, though I have much admiration for my friend 
from Illinois, oppose this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.

                              {time}  1520

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. RUSH. I thank the ranking member for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I have some questions that I want to ask the Members on 
the other side.
  How much time do you need? How much time are you asking the American 
people to wait? How much longer do they have to wait for the EPA to 
finally come up with rules and regulations that will regulate the 
cement kiln industry, an industry that up until this date, 13 years 
later--13 years later--still no regulation on the cement kiln industry? 
Thirteen years. And then you have the audacity to come before this 
Congress and come before the American people and say, after 13 years, 
We want you to wait even longer. Another year and a half for the EPA to 
act on this bill and another 5 years, another 5 years before this bill 
will force them to comply. That's a total of 18 years, 19 years, 19\1/
2\ years. You want the American people to continue to breathe bad air, 
to get diseases, cancer, lung diseases, another 19 years?
  How dare you come before the American people and come before this 
Congress and say you want more time. They've had 13 years, and most of 
the industries in this Nation have already complied. This one industry, 
the only one, the one you're trying to protect, it's the only one 
that's excluded. And I say we can't wait any longer. The American 
people can't wait any longer. Our children can't wait any longer. Our 
senior citizens can't wait any longer. We can't wait any longer. We 
cannot give them another 7 years.
  Mr. WAXMAN. If I might reclaim my time, I think the gentleman is 
absolutely right. The gentleman from Kentucky said that they had a 
witness that said it's irrefutably true that they're going to lose all 
of these jobs. That same witness urged our committee to repeal the 
Clean Air Act, which seems like what the Republicans would like to do, 
but they want to do it bit by bit.
  This amendment before us by Mr. Rush addresses one of the most 
egregious provisions of the bill. It changes the requirement. It 
changes the standard. And it would set up a standard that would be 
litigated for many, many more years. He talked about how long they have 
been let off the hook. They'll wait many years after that because the 
courts will have to decide it.
  What his proposal is and this pending amendment is to say this bill 
would be in addition to a standard that's already in place, and that 
standard is to require the use of a maximum achievable control 
technology to control the emissions of mercury, arsenic, dioxin, PCBs, 
and other toxic emissions. This is not a pie-in-the-sky technology. 
It's requiring technology that's already being used at the present 
time.
  And so it would set up a floor for each toxic air pollutant that 
reflects the emission levels that are actually being achieved in the 
real world. The bill before us would strike that and replace it with a 
requirement that would be the least burdensome on the industry, even if 
it's the least effective in stopping the harm to children and others 
from the mercury and other toxic pollutants.
  So I rise in support of the Rush amendment. I urge my colleagues to 
adopt it. It simply states that we're not replacing the requirement 
that's in the law. A requirement would be added onto it, and it would 
clarify that EPA should set numeric emission limits to reduce the air 
toxic pollution from cement kilns unless such limits are not feasible 
as described in the statute.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Rush amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair would remind all Members that remarks 
should be directed to the Chair and not addressed to other Members.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the recognition, and I rise in 
support of the Rush amendment and in opposition to the underlying bill.
  First of all, let us lament the fact that we are not considering on 
the floor today a jobs bill. Now, I understand that my friend from 
Kentucky believes this affects jobs. He may well be right. But it 
doesn't affect jobs in the short term. In fact, as the gentleman knows, 
one of these regulations that is the subject of legislation this week 
has been stayed until next year, and the EPA is working very closely 
with the cement industry and particular individuals in the cement 
industry to try to work towards an implementation which they can in 
fact comply with.
  What is lamentable, however, and the gentleman from Kentucky 
mentioned it, that somehow, and he pointed at the Senators, the 
Senators don't agree with the President's jobs bill. In fact, the 
Senators do agree with the jobs bill; they don't agree with how it's 
paid for. And so they have a different pay-for. That, I suggest to you, 
is the legislative process.
  But what I tell my friend from Kentucky, what my friends on the 
Democratic side in the Senate and the Democrats in the House both agree 
on, we ought to be considering jobs legislation. We ought to have every 
day on this floor, 5 days a week, legislation trying to get Americans 
back to work; millions of Americans who can't find jobs, who can't 
support their families, who psychologically are being damaged daily by 
their inability to have a job. That's what we ought to be doing. We've 
been in this Congress now for almost 10 months, 9 months plus, and we 
haven't had a jobs bill on this floor.
  The President of the United States came before the Congress and the 
American people and said: I've got a bill, the Americans Jobs Act, and 
it invests in creating jobs, invests in putting money in people's 
pockets, and invests in making small businesses more able to expand 
their base, expand jobs, and grow their businesses. It invests in 
making sure that our schools are appropriate for our kids, and it 
invests in making sure that 240,000 teachers stay on the job educating 
our kids so when they get out of school they can get a job.
  And yet, my friends, we're here talking about two industries vital to 
America's well-being. I couldn't agree more with the gentleman from 
Kentucky, we need to have regulations and rules that are consistent 
with Americans being able to grow their businesses. And the gentleman 
from Kentucky said you're concerned about the air. I'm absolutely 
convinced of that. I know you are. But I'm also convinced that the 
gentleman from California, who's been such a

[[Page H6589]]

giant in this effort for clean air in America, was correct when he said 
the witness said you ought to do away with the Environmental Protection 
Agency and the Clean Air Act.
  I have a granddaughter who has asthma. Now, luckily, we have an 
intervention that she puffs on every morning and every evening that 
helps her. But throughout the rest of the day, she puffs on the air in 
our country, in our State and in our county. And Americans expect us as 
their Representatives to try, to the extent we can, to make sure that 
air is healthy and breathable and life-sustaining.
  And so, yes, we have to make a balance. And that balance is between 
making sure that our people are healthy and making sure also, 
hopefully, that they're wealthy; not wealthy in the sense of being 
rich, but wealthy in terms of having a job, having the self-respect of 
a job and the ability to support themselves and their families.
  We ought to be considering a jobs bill. I know you say these 
regulatory bills are jobs bills, but I want to call your attention to 
an article written by somebody who you may know, Mr. Bruce Bartlett. As 
you know, Mr. Bruce Bartlett was in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush 
administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp 
and Ron Paul. He has never been on our press staff.
  He says the focus on these regulations as if they are job creators or 
job destroyers is inaccurate. That does not mean we shouldn't pay 
attention to them; we should. But, ladies and gentlemen, we ought to 
have on this floor jobs legislation, job creation legislation.
  Bring to the floor the President's bill. If you don't like it, vote 
against it. If you don't like it, amend it, but give the American 
public, the American people the chance to have a jobs bill considered 
on this floor to give them hope and opportunity.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1530


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair will remind the Members that remarks in 
debate must be addressed to the Chair and not to others in the second 
person.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, there's a pretty heated argument going on 
here, and there are a couple of things I would like to point out here. 
First off, the EPA is conducting a reconsideration of certain aspects 
of the recent cement rules. However, EPA is only reconsidering a 
certain aspect of these rules. EPA has stayed the effective date on 
only one of the three rules proposed. They have stayed it only for a 
short period of time, and environmentalists have sued the EPA for 
staying the rule. None of the compliance dates for any of the three 
recent cement sector rules have been changed, and it is not clear that 
they will be. Only a legislative stay will provide regulatory certainty 
for these rules.
  President Obama has publicly stated to us that he learned that 
``shovel-ready'' doesn't always mean ``shovel-ready,'' and that we are 
still waiting for some of the projects from the original stimulus bill 
to be created because ``shovel-ready'' doesn't mean ``shovel-ready.'' 
And, in fact, we have a few of these in my district.
  But let me say this: What we're talking about here is something that 
we've heard from the administration since the Obama administration has 
been in charge, and that is it is a success if you have prevented the 
loss of jobs. So you take credit for saying we didn't lose certain jobs 
because of this action. Well, we have evidence here that says we are 
going to lose certain jobs because of this action. In fact, we are told 
that we could have the close-down of 20 percent of the cement factories 
currently in existence within the next 2 years. That means shut down 
and either moved overseas or just shut down and no longer in business 
as a result of the regulations that are imposed by EPA. And that's 
actually not only the industry, but even EPA acknowledges that that is 
a possibility.
  So what this amendment that is proposed here does is it says--and the 
argument we heard was we ought to be ashamed of ourselves for the 
position we're taking and that for 18 years we've done nothing. Well, 
for 18 years, we've not exactly done nothing. In 1999, regulations were 
imposed by the EPA which were submitted to the cement industry; and 
they, by their own statement of EPA, they put those in place, and then 
the regulations changed in '06 and they were in process; and many, as 
we heard from our friend from Oregon, have put those regulations in 
place to reduce emissions. In fact, we have reduced mercury emissions 
by 56 percent by the regulations that have been put in place and the 
implementation that the industry has done.
  So it seems to be maybe another case of legislative negligence here 
to make the accusation that we have done nothing for the 13 years that 
have gone forward. Of course, that is just not true. They have done 
something.
  But now we've got the example of the plant that is in Oregon which 
has met the '99 and met the '06 regulations, and now they're looking at 
these regulations and the standard we have to meet, which is a 1 
percent versus a 5 percent standard, .01 versus a .05 percent standard, 
that the folks in the European Union have set as a clean air standard. 
They are five times dirtier than what we are proposing, and they've 
taken a look at it and said, we can't meet this standard within the 
time frame that EPA has set forth for us.
  So what we, by the underlying bill in this case, have said is EPA is 
supposed to be a real-world operation that this is supposed to meet. It 
is clearly--at least the industry feels in the timeframe set we can't 
meet that real-world standard. Therefore, how about taking another look 
for the next 15 months at these standards; and then when you come up 
with something that can be met in the real world, give us 5 years to 
implement, which is pretty reasonable if you look at the distance 
between '99 and '06, between the time the regulations changed the last 
time. It is right within the same time frame. But all of a sudden, we 
have accelerated the implementation of these rules, and we've set 
standards that we pretty well agree, everyone agrees, are not meetable.
  I oppose this amendment and I support the underlying bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mrs. Capps

  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       After section 1, insert the following section (and 
     redesignate the subsequent sections, and conform internal 
     cross-references, accordingly):

     SEC. 2. FINDING.

       The Congress finds that according to the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, if the rules specified in section 3(b) are 
     in effect, then for every dollar in costs, the rules will 
     provide at least $7 to $19 in health benefits, due to the 
     avoidance each year of--
       (1) 960 to 2,500 premature deaths;
       (2) 1,500 nonfatal heart attacks;
       (3) 1,000 emergency room visits;
       (4) 17,000 cases of aggravated asthma; and
       (5) 130,000 days of missed work.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, it's my sincere hope that we can all agree 
to this amendment because it would simply add a finding to the 
underlying bill of illustrating the health benefits of EPA's mercury 
and air toxics cleanup standards for large cement plants. Opponents of 
these clean-up standards argue that they cost too much. I don't happen 
to agree with that assessment. But while we can debate the cost of the 
standards, the health benefits are not in dispute, and that is why 
those facts should be included as part of this bill; and that is what 
this amendment makes in order.
  Mr. Chairman, for decades, cement plants have been one of the largest 
pollution emitters in the United States.

[[Page H6590]]

They are responsible for some of the most dangerous air pollutants in 
the Nation, including mercury and other emissions that react in the air 
to form soot and smog. But some cement plants are still failing to 
comply with basic Clean Air Act protections that are 13 years overdue. 
And that's why the EPA took final action last year to require these 
large cement plants to cut their emissions and to simply follow the 
law.
  EPA science and health standards are based on the track record of the 
existing plants that do the best job at limiting harmful emissions. In 
fact, many plants have already installed modern pollution control 
technology that meets these requirements. But instead of supporting the 
EPA's lifesaving clean-up standards, the bill before us would delay 
these standards by at least 4\1/2\ additional years. And it eliminates 
any deadline by which cement plants must comply with EPA's safeguards. 
This could mean thousands and thousands of additional pounds of mercury 
and other toxic pollution released into our air each and every year.
  These pollutants can cause cancer. They can impair brain development, 
and they can harm children's ability to learn. They affect the kidneys, 
the lungs and the nervous system, and they cause lung and heart disease 
and premature deaths.
  Now, you've heard that some large cement plants want a free pass from 
cleaning up air pollution in the name of jobs. But indefinitely 
delaying EPA's clean-up standards will not prevent job losses. What it 
will do for certain is to put the lives and the health of millions of 
Americans at risk. Failing to implement the EPA's air pollution 
standards for cement plants over 1 year would lead to as many as 2,500 
premature deaths, as many as 1,500 heart attacks, about 1,000 emergency 
room visits, about 17,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and 130,000 days 
of work missed by people affected.
  It's clear that the benefits of these pollution safeguards 
significantly outweigh these costs. For every dollar the cement 
industry spends to clean up one of its plants, Americans get up to $19 
in health benefits back, and this fact is backed by peer-reviewed 
science.

                              {time}  1540

  What other investment results in this astonishing return for the 
American people? That's why I'm offering this simple amendment today. 
It would remind us of all the tremendous health benefits that EPA's 
mercury and air toxic clean-up standards will achieve.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this straightforward amendment to 
the bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman 
from California's amendment. In doing so, I would be the first to 
recognize that she has been one of the real leaders in the Congress of 
looking after the health of all of our constituents in the U.S. The 
reason that I'm opposed to this particular amendment, however, is that 
she asks us to adopt EPA's findings about health and cost benefits. She 
wants that to be adopted as a finding in the legislation. In our 
legislation, we don't have any findings that we're adopting at all. And 
one of the reasons, among many, that we are opposed to putting the 
health and cost benefits as a finding in the legislation is that we 
have not had the ability to undertake any full analysis of EPA's 
methodology in assessing those health benefits and costs. And we 
furthermore do not have any idea what assumptions they used.
  And another reason that I personally am opposed to their health and 
cost benefits is that we know for a fact that they do not include as a 
cost the health benefits lost by family members of those people who 
lose jobs as a result of the regulation adopted by EPA.
  So if you're going to look at the cost of health benefits that people 
incur for the emissions that may be affected by the regulation, you 
most certainly should examine and analyze the cost of the health 
benefits to those people who lose jobs, lose their health insurance, 
because there has been shown to be a direct correlation between 
economic livelihood and health. So because of that, I would be very 
much opposed to adopting this as a finding. We already know that EPA 
has set out their cost benefits and analysis. That's available to the 
public, so we're not really accomplishing any purpose by putting it in 
this legislation.
  I would also just like to make one additional comment going back to 
my friend from Illinois about delay, delay, delay. And I would 
reiterate what the gentleman from Texas said. EPA adopted the first 
cement regulation in 1999. They came back in 2006 and adopted another 
one. That would be in effect today except that the environmental groups 
filed a lawsuit against it. And as we know, the pattern seems to be 
environmental groups file the lawsuit, EPA enters a consent decree 
agreeing, and then they pay the legal fees of the environmental groups. 
So these regulations would have been in effect a long time ago if that 
lawsuit had not been filed.
  So all we're saying is the industry and EPA and others had agreed to 
those second regulations, but once the lawsuit was filed, the 
regulations became so stringent that the testimony has shown that many 
of these plants simply cannot meet those standards.
  So with that, I yield back the balance of my time and ask Members to 
oppose the Capps amendment.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the Capps amendment, 
and I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, it's been 274 days since the Republicans 
took over the House. What do we have to show for it? Well, first up, 
they've introduced a budget that would end Medicare as we know it. Then 
the Republican-led House voted to take money away from NPR. Next up, 
they voted to make it easier to outsource jobs. And just last week, 
they even voted to cut programs supporting green jobs. Quite a record: 
not one single job-creation bill. So what's on deck for today? A bill 
that would allow more toxic pollutants in the air that we breathe.
  I'm certain, Mr. Chairman, that if we went outside and asked 100 
people, would you prefer dirtier, more toxic air, we are going to get 
100 ``noes.'' So why are we taking this up today? It's not because 
working families are clamoring for more toxins in their homes, at the 
workplace, or in the parks. This bill is a handout to the polluters of 
America. It says that their profits are more important than the health 
of our Nation. More asthma? Who cares. We've got to make a profit.
  Well, let's admit what this underlying bill is really about. It's one 
more break for Big Business at the expense of working families and our 
communities.
  The American people have had enough, Mr. Chairman. Let's stand up for 
public health. Let's stand up for common sense. I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no'' on this dangerous and reckless legislation, and I urge the 
Republicans to get behind President Obama's jobs bill and put America 
back to work.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the amendment because 
I'd like to make the point that Americans watching this debate, Mr. 
Chairman, should not be fooled into believing that there is some false 
choice between being able to breathe and having a job. This is just a 
false choice. It's a trick bag, and it's unfair to make this argument 
to the American people.
  The fact is we can breathe and we can avoid asthma and mercury 
poisoning and have a job. You don't have to have one or the other. And 
the fact is, Mr. Chairman, is that the folks who argue against 
regulations that protect our health and sometimes impose a reasonable 
cost on industry, these folks have never liked regulations that ask 
business to do their fair share.
  This is not a new thing. This is not unique to the cement industry. 
This is an ongoing ideological debate which has been going on for a 
long time. But thankfully, Americans recognized that

[[Page H6591]]

we needed to breathe and work. So we passed regulations. We passed and 
enacted the EPA. And we brought laws and regulations into being that 
would protect our health. But now we're being asked to say, Your health 
or a job? And this is being done in the middle of one of the most 
dramatic recessions since the Great Depression.
  The fact is, this claim that if you get rid of all the regulations 
these corporations are just going to spring forward and start hiring 
people is untrue. There's no evidence of it. I'd love to see some proof 
of this claim. It's not the case. And you can't tell me that if some 
self-interested business person comes to a hearing and says, I would 
hire if we could get rid of regulations, I don't buy that. I want to 
see some real evidence. But there is none. That's why you don't see it.
  The fact is is that if you want to put people back to work today, 
we've got to pass the President's American Jobs Act. We ought to be on 
the floor talking about the President's American Jobs Act. We ought to 
be talking about the infrastructure bank bill. We need to be getting 
Americans back to work because the real reason that our economy is 
dragging along and unemployment is so high is because our government is 
not putting people back to work by investing in infrastructure, by 
refurbishing our school system, by putting the necessary investments 
into the 21st century. That's what we need to be doing, not just 
relieving industry of the responsibility to respect our environment and 
our lungs.
  So I just want to say, and to say again, Mr. Chairman, that I hope 
the folks watching C-SPAN don't fall for the okeydoke, and be very, 
very careful in listening to this debate, and don't allow themselves to 
be fooled into thinking that they can either have a job or they can 
have lungs, but they can't have both.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Capps 
amendment.
  First let me say that the underlying concept behind the Capps 
amendment is fine. We are all concerned about the health of people.
  Everybody's using examples of asthma. I have asthma, okay; that's why 
I sound like this. All right. So I understand asthma. But I want to 
point out some things about this that concern me.
  First and foremost, we have scientific information. And what the 
chairman of the subcommittee said is that we don't know exactly upon 
what methodology the EPA bases its analysis of the health care 
incidents that occurred from this industry.

                              {time}  1550

  There probably are health care incidents. The question is, what's the 
analysis? And I would start with scientific evidence that has appeared 
here today that somewhere between 100 and 85 percent of the mercury 
pollution that's found from the Pacific Ocean to the Mississippi River 
comes from foreign sources.
  My first question would be, in their analysis, did they analyze that 
relative to the mercury--infant child brain damage relative to the 
somewhere between 100 and 85 percent of the mercury--that comes from 
foreign sources, which we have no control over? And we could shut all 
our concrete plants down, which we may do, and the result would be, I 
don't know, somewhere between 15 percent better and no better, at least 
west of the Mississippi. So did they analyze it that way accordingly?
  And then, therefore, if they said that they did it that way, is the 
number they're talking about relative to the 15 percent or the 0 
percent that these plants are creating?
  I don't know the answer to that question. But that's the reason I 
think it would be an irregular thing for this Congress to do to adopt 
the findings of the EPA or other health organizations without us 
knowing what actual facts they used in their analysis of doing this. 
And I would think that would require a pretty hard and tough inquiry, 
not that I'm saying there's not health care issues with anything that 
goes in the air. Certainly, there's got to be.
  Then another question we hear today is, why don't you guys quit 
talking--you're not talking about creating any jobs. No, we're talking 
about the same argument that the administration's been using for the 
entire length of the administration. We're talking about saving 
American jobs, because there's no evidence to the contrary that if you 
close down a plant and it employs 15 to 30 workers, you lose 15 to 30 
jobs, not 15 to 30 corporations, 15 to 30 American worker jobs.
  If you close 20 percent of the plants, and there's approximately 100 
in the country, then you're going to have 20 times somewhere between 15 
and 20 jobs, whatever the number is. And these are $65,000 to $85,000-
a-year jobs by labor. But we're going to lose those jobs. And this bill 
that this amendment is seeking to be attached too, its purpose is to 
save those people's jobs, those American laborers' jobs. I think it's 
something we should think about.
  The American Jobs Act, if it can get the support in the Senate--to my 
knowledge, it has not yet been dropped in the House, but I'm sure it 
will be sometime; someone will step up and do it.
  And then the question becomes, what about the President's public 
statement that shovel-ready doesn't mean shovel-ready?
  Well, if you're going to have to bring in a part, a major part of 
fixing highways and schools, which is concrete, if you're going to have 
to bring in the element of concrete, because Portland cement, as my 
colleague has corrected my Texas language, is an integral portion of 
that, if that has to be brought in from China, don't you think that 
also is going to slow down again the President's complaint that shovel-
ready doesn't always mean shovel-ready? I think it is.
  And, in fact, do we have any quality assurance that when we build 
that bridge across the Mississippi River, like we did in Minnesota, 
that the cement that we put into that bridge is of an adequate quality 
that we feel safe driving over? I don't know, but that's going to be 
our option if our cement industry goes overseas.
  So at some point in time we have to ask ourselves, we're losing jobs 
when they close plants. If it's so onerous that they have to move, then 
why not take time to study and come up with something that actually 
works in the real world, as this EPA rule is supposed to work?
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I rise in support of the Capps amendment.
  The Capps amendment doesn't change the bill. It allows the bill to go 
into effect, but the amendment would simply add the health benefits 
findings in the legislation. It doesn't change what the bill does, but 
it does provide crucial context for the bill's provisions.
  Now, I should point out that the bill, itself, nullifies the cement 
kiln rules and forces EPA to start all over again. In doing so, the 
bill nullifies all of these health benefits such as fewer asthma 
attacks, avoided premature deaths, reduced exposure to toxic pollution. 
In its place the bill offers no guarantee that any new rules will have 
to achieve the same level of public health protection. So the Capps 
amendment ensures that we have an honest accounting of the health 
benefits that the Republican leadership says we should erase because 
they just aren't worth it.
  Well, I would urge that we vote for the Capps amendment because this 
finding is important for Members to have so that they understand 
they're voting with their eyes wide open to eliminate those very health 
benefits.
  I just want to respond to this business about China. It's like we're 
going to close down cement plants and bring it all into the United 
States from China. Well, that just doesn't make a lot of sense. That's 
just not credible. U.S. clinker output has dropped nearly 50 percent 
since 2006, but the imports have declined by more than 80 percent. How 
could that be?
  Well, there's a lack of demand. That's the reason we have a problem. 
The domestic cement industry is regional in nature. According to the 
Portland Cement Association, the cost of shipping cement prohibits 
profitable distribution over long distances. As a

[[Page H6592]]

result, customers traditionally purchase cement from local sources. If 
we're not producing more cement, it's not because we're bringing it in 
from China. It's because the demand is not there.
  Now, the findings that the Capps amendment would put into place are 
based on the EPA's economic analysis that has to follow criteria set by 
the Office of Management and Budget. So they're based on peer-reviewed 
studies. They're transparent. They're subject to public comment. 
They're reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
  The industry studies meet none of these criteria. Members can get up 
here and say numbers of jobs that will be lost, but we don't know where 
those numbers have come from. We haven't seen any peer-reviewed 
studies.
  In 40 years of experience in implementing the Clean Air Act, we've 
heard these predictions of disaster time after time, and yet the 
economy has continued to grow. Chicken Little has nothing on industry 
when it comes to requirements to clean up pollution.
  So when we hear that we can't protect our children from toxic 
pollution, from brain damage, from cancers because plants will close 
down, I would urge my colleagues not to believe it. I don't think we 
have to make that stark choice. And if you're going to make that stark 
choice, don't oppose the findings being in the bill because you don't 
like those findings, you don't want to face those findings. I think we 
ought to have them in the bill because that's exactly what we're going 
to do.
  So if you're going to support this bill, then support it with the 
understanding that those public health benefits will be lost.
  Mr. CARTER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CARTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just want to 
correct--maybe you said it wrong; maybe I said it wrong. If I did, I 
apologize. I'm not saying Chinese industry will move to the United 
States. I'm saying that if they close down plants in the United States, 
which the industry has given us a percentage of at least 20 percent of 
the plants will close--and we know the construction of a new plant in 
Alabama will stop until the stay--then I'm saying that then we would 
have to supplement that by overseas shipments from the largest producer 
of cement in the world, China.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Reclaiming my time, I did understand you to say that, and 
I just can't think of that as a credible statement because we've 
already had a drop of nearly 50 percent since 2006 of cement in the 
United States. That didn't mean we brought in more from China. In fact, 
our demand, our imports from anywhere else declined by more than 80 
percent.

                              {time}  1600

  So it's not a question of we're going to have to come from China; we 
just don't have the demand. I think we should take the cement industry 
at their word, when the Portland Cement Association tells us the cost 
of shipping cement prohibits profitable distribution over long 
distances. We can continue with our own industry and still meet these 
health-based standards.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be pretty 
brief in saying this.
  It seems like we've often taken this idea of jobs and everything 
else, and, again, in Washington D.C., we have two epic competing 
viewpoints right now: One says that we need jobs; the other says we 
need jobs. One says we need jobs through more government spending, more 
government interaction, more stimulus. In fact, I had a colleague once 
tell me that the problem with the stimulus is it wasn't large enough. 
Well, I guess stimulus 2 that's being proposed is actually half as 
large.
  There's different competing things on how to create jobs, but the one 
thing we can all agree on is the Environmental Protection Agency needs 
to protect the environment and it needs to do so at prevention of 
killing and stopping job creation or putting people out of work.
  Again, when we talk about this whole issue, I think the thing that 
needs to be very obvious here is we need cement, obviously, to build 
infrastructure. The industry is saying, You're going to cost us 18 out 
of 100 plants and you're going to cost 20,000 jobs. Now, we can take 
issue with that. I just heard my colleague say that we have to take the 
cement industry at their word. I agree. This is what's being said: 
20,000 jobs.
  So the question is, now, do we just go ahead and say, Well, let's not 
give any additional time to figure out how to comply with these 
regulations so those jobs aren't lost; let's just take the arbitrary 
number and move forward? All we're trying to do is buy a little more 
time to allow the industry to protect those 20,000 people.
  Imagine right now--and it's not just a number. Imagine there are 
20,000 people out there in the United States right now that are going 
about their business. It's 4 o'clock on the east coast, so some are 
maybe getting off of work, or maybe they're going to a second shift, 
and they have no idea that this faceless 20,000 number is actually 
them. They are that 20,000 number right now. They don't realize it. 
They've got the little ``20,000'' above their head. They say, I hope my 
job's safe; but no, it's them. Because if these rules are allowed to go 
into effect haphazardly like this, they will be out of work.
  Again, we have two competing philosophies here, and we can talk about 
those philosophies, but ultimately the first thing we have to do is 
quit killing jobs. It's the Environmental Protection Agency. It's not 
the Employment Prevention Agency or anything along that line.
  We've got a lot of work to do. This is a great bill, and I would urge 
my colleagues to support it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mrs. Capito). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Schakowsky

  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       After section 1, insert the following section (and 
     redesignate the subsequent sections, and conform internal 
     cross-references, accordingly):

     SEC. 2. FINDING.

       The Congress finds that mercury released into the ambient 
     air from cement kilns addressed by the rules listed in 
     section 2(b) of this Act is a potent neurotoxin that can 
     damage the development of an infant's brain.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Madam Chair.
  My amendment is simple. It would include in the findings the 
scientific fact that mercury released into the ambient air from cement 
kilns is a potent neurotoxin that can damage the development of an 
infant's brain.
  Let me just read the finding from my amendment. It says, ``The 
Congress finds that mercury released into the ambient air from cement 
kilns addressed in this act is a potent neurotoxin that can damage the 
development of an infant's brain.''
  That is just fact. This is not up for debate. That is just a fact and 
should be acknowledged in the legislation, that mercury is one of the 
most harmful toxins in our environment. Forty-eight tons of mercury is 
pumped into our air each year, threatening one in six women nationwide 
with dangerous levels of mercury exposure. Pregnant women, infants, and 
young children are most vulnerable to mercury poisoning, which harms a 
developing child's ability to walk, talk, read, write, and comprehend. 
Developing fetuses and children are especially at risk to even low-
level mercury exposure that causes adverse health effects. Up to 10 
percent of U.S. women of childbearing age are estimated to have mercury 
levels high

[[Page H6593]]

enough to put their developing children at increased risk for cognitive 
problems.
  Cement kilns are among the largest sources of airborne mercury 
pollution in the United States, and there is existing technology right 
now that would prevent that. When mercury is pumped into our air, very 
often it ends up in bodies of water and is ingested by fish. Mercury-
contaminated fish are found in almost every American body of water, and 
eating contaminated fish is the dominant cause of mercury exposure in 
people.
  This is a serious problem in my home State of Illinois. In April, 
Environment Illinois issued a report showing that the amount of mercury 
in the average sport fish tested in 36 counties exceeds the EPA safe 
limit for regular consumption. Due to this contamination, the Illinois 
Department of Public Health warns women and children to limit their 
consumption of fish.
  Illinois is not unlike other States. According to the EPA, nearly 
every fish nationwide contains mercury. The EPA actually advises women 
who are pregnant or who may become pregnant to eat no more than 12 
ounces of any fish per week, and to eat limited or no amounts of fish 
that have high mercury content. That advisory has also been issued for 
infants and children. That's because we know beyond any scientific 
doubt that mercury inhibits brain development in the fetal and early 
childhood development stages. EPA analysis and peer-reviewed studies 
show that mercury leads to increased incidence of neurological 
disorders, increased incidence of learning disabilities, and increased 
incidence in developmental delay.
  The EPA cement plant standards would reduce this major threat without 
undue burden to industry. The standards will lower the mercury exposure 
of more than 100,000 women of childbearing age in Illinois whose blood 
mercury levels exceed the recommended limit. When fully implemented, 
EPA estimates that mercury emissions from cement kilns will be reduced 
by 92 percent. The legislation we consider today will block EPA's 
efforts. It will send EPA back to the drawing board with new untested 
and legally vulnerable guidance for setting air pollution standards.
  My colleagues across the aisle talk a lot about not wanting to burden 
the next generation with debt. Where is their concern with burdening 
the next generation with reduced brain capacity? H.R. 2681 patently 
ignores the scientifically proven fact that mercury exposure inhibits 
brain development, especially in infants. If we are prepared to pass 
legislation that would jeopardize the health of children by increasing 
mercury emissions, we should be willing to acknowledge the scientific 
fact that EPA inaction poses a serious health risk.
  The previous speaker, my colleague from Illinois who spoke, said we 
have different philosophies. I hope not. I hope we agree that it is a 
rightful function of government to say that we don't want to overburden 
industry but we do want to say that our job is to protect the health 
and safety of the people of the United States, and mercury is a danger 
that is proven.
  I urge my colleagues to support this simple amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1610

  Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentlelady from Illinois is certainly a valuable 
member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and is an effective 
advocate for her positions, but her amendment would require a finding 
that mercury emitted from the cement kiln is a neurotoxin.
  I would first point out that EPA, itself, in its reports, has 
indicated that the regulation of domestic mercury, because of the Clean 
Air Act, has already decreased by 58 percent. It has also estimated 
that the Cement MACT that it issued, which is at issue in this 
legislation, would reduce global emissions of mercury by less than one-
fourth of 1 percent. It also said that the Department of Energy 
estimated that the global emissions of mercury amount to about 11 
million pounds.
  So the amount of mercury that we're talking about in this cement 
regulation is so minute that the EPA, itself, did not even assign a 
dollar value to the benefit because it was so, in its opinion, 
inconsequential.
  Obviously, Congress is not a scientific body. We know that mercury is 
dangerous, but when mercury comes out of a cement kiln, it comes out as 
elemental mercury. It then must fall into water, where organisms 
convert it to methylmercury. A fish has to take in the methylmercury, 
and that fish has to be cooked. Then someone has to eat it for it to be 
damaging to that person.
  So these are very scientific assumptions. As I said, Congress is not 
a scientific body. The scientific understanding of mercury is certainly 
far more complicated than is reflected in this finding that asks to be 
included in the bill. This statement simply assigns the responsibility 
for specific health impacts to specific sources when there are multiple 
sources of mercury in the environment, including natural resources. 
There is some mercury in the air as a result of cement kilns, but there 
is an awful lot in there which is natural, and then there is an awful 
lot that comes from sources outside the U.S.
  We do not believe that the EPA can quantify any health benefit from 
reducing emissions of mercury from these sources, because they've said 
that themselves. Because of that, I would oppose putting into a finding 
this particular statement. I might also say to the gentlelady from 
Illinois that we don't have any findings in this legislation at all, so 
I would respectfully request that the Members oppose this particular 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I rise in support of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair and my colleagues, this amendment simply 
states the finding of the science.
  It simply says that Congress finds that mercury released into the 
ambient air from cement kilns, addressed by these rules listed in 2(b) 
of this act, is a potent neurotoxin that can damage the development of 
infants' brains.
  That's the finding. It's a scientific finding.
  As I heard the argument of the gentleman from Kentucky, the chairman 
of the subcommittee, he said it depends on how much you've ingested and 
all that, but nobody's talking about that. This is just a finding of 
the science. He also indicated there is no finding in this bill. So 
what? This is an amendment to the bill.
  EPA didn't put a dollar figure on the potential health benefits from 
reducing the emissions of mercury, carcinogens, and other toxic 
pollutants.
  It's not that there won't be any benefits. EPA simply couldn't 
produce a well-supported dollar value estimate of those benefits given 
the time and methodological constraints. So I don't see how anybody can 
oppose this amendment, because it simply states a scientific fact. Let 
me be very concrete about it. This is a simple statement of a 
scientific fact. If Congress wants to go on record, as we already have 
in other legislation, that we don't believe in science, you can do it, 
but it doesn't wish the scientific finding away.
  Mercury exposure in the womb, which can result from a mother's 
consumption of mercury-tainted fish and shellfish, can adversely affect 
the developing brain and nervous system.
  You can't wish that away. You can't vote it down and say that it's 
not true.
  Babies that were exposed to mercury in utero can suffer long-term 
problems with cognitive thinking, memory, attention, language, and fine 
motor and visual spatial skills.
  You can't say that's not true. That's what the scientists have 
concluded.
  In 1990, we adopted the Clean Air Act. We asked that these cement 
kilns and other polluters reduce those pollutants because they are 
toxic air pollutants. The Schakowsky amendment says there is a 
scientific basis for this law. She repeats the science. Republicans can 
amend the Clean Air Act and say we're not going to do anything about 
it, but they cannot amend the laws of nature. They cannot change the 
scientific reality.
  I must also point out with this bill that, not only are Republicans 
urging

[[Page H6594]]

that we deny the scientific reality, but they want to make sure we 
don't do anything about that scientific reality. The Schakowsky 
amendment doesn't change that. It only says that we ought to face the 
scientific fact, as I indicated, which is the overwhelming scientific 
consensus. I don't know anybody who's against this scientific 
consensus. If we vote against her amendment, we're denying the 
scientific fact that mercury is a potent neurotoxin that can damage the 
development of an infant's brain. I don't see how anybody could vote 
against that.
  Even if you want to postpone the rules, even if you want to give the 
EPA more time and make the industry have to avoid coming into 
compliance for 10, 16, 18, 20 years, whatever it may be, it's 
irrefutable. This is the reason we want these rules in place. 
Otherwise, the Republicans ought to say, ``We don't want the rules in 
place,'' because there's no reason to have these rules. If that's what 
they believe, then they can vote against the Schakowsky amendment, but 
it doesn't make any sense.
  I don't know if I have any remaining time, but I would be happy to 
yield to the gentlelady from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) if she wants to 
say anything more.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I'll not even take that 30 seconds.
  This is a question of voting on the scientific conclusion, so I urge 
my colleagues to vote for the Schakowsky amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DENT. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DENT. I rise with strong reservations about this amendment, but I 
also want to talk about the underlying legislation.
  I think, really, what we have to be focused on here is jobs. Again, 
as I stated earlier during floor debate, I represent the largest 
cement-producing district in America. We have five cement plants in my 
district. Those five cement plants produce more cement than did the 50 
plants that preceded them. We used to have 50 plants in my district, 
and now those five plants that are remaining produce more than the 50. 
The point is that the industry has become much more productive in many 
respects, including being environmentally more productive and 
sensitive.
  That said, these new rules, these three rules in particular, will 
restrict the industry's ability to remain competitive with foreign 
producers. These foreign imports currently make up more than 20 percent 
of the total U.S. cement sales. If these three rules are implemented, 
we will see less domestic cement production.
  To add insult to injury with respect to what the EPA is doing with 
their regulatory assault on the cement industry as well as on the coal 
industry, what they are doing here is just unfair to basic industry--to 
manufacturing, to industrial America. When you look at the stimulus law 
that was enacted a couple of years ago, look at what happened. Our 
stimulus dollars, Federal dollars, are being used to finance a cement 
importation terminal in New York City for the purpose of bringing in 
Peruvian cement.

                              {time}  1620

  No, I am not making that up; that's real. And I've talked about this 
issue before on the House floor. Because this regulatory assault on 
domestic cement and our own Federal Government, another arm of the 
Federal Government, trying to basically subsidize the importation of 
foreign cement, it's going to have a very negative impact on my 
congressional district, which is, again, the largest cement producing 
district in America.
  And it's been stated before these NESHAP rules just cobble together a 
range of different performance characteristics for different pollutants 
without determining if it is possible for any single cement company to 
comply with all these standards simultaneously.
  There are two other rules, the CISWI rule and the nonhazardous solid 
waste rule, that will deal with issues like tires.
  And many modern cement plants here, as well as in Europe, use 
alternative fuel sources with high Btu content. They use tires. They 
use waste plastics ground up. Many of these materials and waste would 
be otherwise, ordinarily, landfill. We burn them in cement kilns with a 
high Btu content, and that replaces other fuels like coal.
  So this is very important. It's a great reuse of these materials. If 
we leave those unsightly tire piles out and about, what will happen is 
we'll see another situation like we saw in Philadelphia years ago where 
the tire pile ignited and melted the I-95 bridge in Philadelphia. 
That's when many people started to realize that there was a better use 
for tires than letting them sit in these piles under interstate 
freeways and use them in cement kilns. It makes great sense, and these 
new rules will imperil our ability to use those types of waste fuel 
oils, waste tires and ground-up plastics. So this is something I think 
we really have to focus on as we deal with this issue.
  Finally, I wanted to mention a couple of other things about what's 
occurring here. By scrapping these three existing rules and requiring 
the EPA administrator to develop and propose more realistic and 
achievable regulations within 15 months, we are going to provide more 
time for the industry to prepare for full implementation and 
compliance.
  We are going to require that the EPA administrator establish 
compliance dates and requirements after considering compliance costs, 
non-air quality health and environmental impacts, energy requirements, 
the feasibility of implementation, the availability of equipment 
suppliers and labor, and the potential net employment impacts. That 
means jobs.
  As has been pointed out at various points here, the industry today 
employs about 17,000 Americans, and we have lost more than 4,000 jobs 
in the cement industry since 2008. As I pointed out, in a district like 
mine where we have five cement plants that are operating, and operating 
effectively--and not only the cement plants, but we also have ancillary 
industries, like the FLSmidth Company, formerly the Fuller Company, 
where they actually make cement equipment and build cement plants. 
These types of jobs are good-paying jobs, are essential to America's 
industrial base, to our basic industry.
  We have to stop this regulatory assault on these types of 
manufacturing jobs. We can make things in America if our government 
will just allow us.
  So, once again, I want to express my concerns regarding the 
underlying amendment but, at the same time, expressing my strong and 
unreserved support for the underlying legislation, which is much 
overdue.
  Again, cement is a critical industry to our Nation, and it's time 
that we adopt this very important Cement MACT legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. HIRONO. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Hawaii is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. HIRONO. Madam Chair, I rise today in opposition to the two bills 
before the House, H.R. 2250 and H.R. 2681.
  There is an old saying, ``The people have spoken.'' The people spoke 
clearly back in 1990. They said, We want cleaner air and healthier 
communities. So President George H.W. Bush proposed changes to 
strengthen the Clean Air Act.
  The legislation to carry out these changes was introduced by a 
coalition of 22 Senators from both sides of the aisle, Democrats and 
Republicans. Then, after an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 401-25 in 
the House and 89-10 in the Senate, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 
were signed into law. That was 21 years ago that these updates to the 
Clean Air Act were enacted. The law required acid rain, urban air 
pollution, and toxic air emissions to be combated by reducing the 
release of 189 poisonous pollutants. The deadline for implementing 
these changes was the year 2000. Eleven years later, the people of 
Hawaii and the United States are asking for the certainty that they 
were promised, the certainty that by 2000 their air, our air, would be 
on the path to being cleaner.
  We have heard the arguments against these regulations before: They 
are too expensive; they will kill jobs. We have heard the same 
arguments for years.

[[Page H6595]]

However, since the passage of the Clean Air Act 40 years ago, our 
Nation's economy has grown 200 percent.
  When acid rain regulations were proposed after the 1990 law was 
enacted, industry claimed that it would cost $7.5 billion to comply and 
tens of thousands of jobs. But we know that that was not what happened. 
Instead, our economy added 21 million jobs and had the longest-running 
expansion in our Nation's history.
  Recent surveys also show the biggest challenge facing small 
businesses today isn't regulation. The biggest challenge is that 
consumer demand for products and services is low.
  We all agree that we need to help our economy and create more jobs, 
but we shouldn't be doing that at the expense of the health of our 
communities and our families. That is not the way to create jobs. 
Instead, it's time to give the American people the certainty that the 
air that we breathe won't contribute to asthma or heart attacks or 
birth defects; and it's time to give the American people the certainty 
that when they speak, as they did in 1990, their government will carry 
out their will.
  So enough is enough. The deadlines are passed; the issues have been 
studied; the rules have been litigated and, in some cases, relitigated. 
Now is the time for the Environmental Protection Agency to finish the 
job it was given by Congress and finish these rules, and let's get to 
work on legislation to create jobs.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing both of these bills. The 
American people want jobs legislation now, not ideological attacks on 
the Clean Air Act.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Waxman

  Mr. WAXMAN. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following section:

     SEC. 6. DETERMINATION; AUTHORIZATION.

        Not later 10 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in 
     consultation with the Chief Financial Officer of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency, the Comptroller General of 
     the United States, and the Director of the Congressional 
     Budget Office, shall make a determination regarding whether 
     this Act authorizes the appropriation of funds to implement 
     this Act and, if so, whether this Act reduces an existing 
     authorization of appropriations by an offsetting amount. The 
     provisions of this Act shall cease to be effective if it is 
     determined that this Act authorizes the appropriation of 
     funds without an offsetting reduction in an existing 
     authorization of appropriations.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I oppose this bill on substantive grounds 
because it nullifies EPA's rules to cut toxic pollution from cement 
kilns and threatens EPA's ability to reissue rules that are protective 
of public health.
  And we certainly had an exhaustive discussion of why we think this is 
not a good bill, but this bill has another problem: It does not comply 
with the Republican leadership's policy for discretionary spending.
  When Congress organized this year, the majority leader announced that 
the House would be following a discretionary CutGo rule. This requires 
that when a bill authorizes discretionary funding, that funding is 
explicitly limited to a specific amount. The protocols also require 
that the specific amount be offset by a reduction in an existing 
authorization.
  This rule was embodied in a document entitled, ``Legislative 
Protocols for the 112th Congress.'' The majority leader announced that 
compliance with these protocols is necessary for legislation to be 
complied with before the bill would be scheduled for floor 
consideration.
  Well, this bill fails to meet these protocols on two counts:
  First, the bill does not include a specific authorization for EPA to 
complete the rulemaking required by the bill. After all, EPA finalized 
the cement rulemaking more than a year ago. EPA will have to start from 
scratch, according to this bill, and follow a whole new approach for 
setting emission standards. That's going to cost money.

                              {time}  1630

  Second, the bill does not offset the new spending with cuts in an 
existing authorization. In addition to violating the protocols of the 
majority leader, the bill violates the policies of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee. Chairman Upton said the committee would be 
following a discretionary CutGo rule. He sent me a letter in June to 
clarify this CutGo policy with regard to bills pending before our 
committee, which said: If CBO determines that any of these bills will 
have a significant impact on the Federal budget, we will offset the 
newly authorized spending with reductions elsewhere.
  Well, CBO has determined that H.R. 2681 does, in fact, authorize new 
discretionary spending. CBO determined that this bill will have a 
significant impact on the Federal budget because it requires EPA to 
spend resources on proposing and finalizing new regulations. CBO 
estimates that implementing this bill would cost EPA $1 million over a 
5-year period.
  Now, my Republican colleagues claim that this bill doesn't trigger 
the CutGo requirement. They say that EPA can use existing funds to 
complete the work mandated by the bill, but that's not how the 
appropriations law works. Not including an authorization in H.R. 2681 
does not have the effect of forcing the executive branch to implement 
the legislation with existing resources. To the contrary, it has the 
effect of creating an implicit authorization of ``such sums as may be 
necessary.'' Anyone familiar with Federal appropriations law knows this 
and the Government Accountability Office or the Congressional Budget 
Office can confirm it.
  My amendment would simply ask a third party to settle the debate. It 
requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in 
consultation with EPA's Chief Financial Officer, the Comptroller 
General of GAO, and CBO, to determine whether this bill authorizes the 
appropriation of funds to implement its provisions and, if so, whether 
this bill reduces an existing authorization of appropriations by an 
offsetting amount.
  If it is determined that this act authorizes the appropriation of 
funds without an offsetting reduction, the provisions in the act will 
be nullified. This is a truth-in-advertising amendment. With great 
fanfare, the Republicans announced they were so serious about 
addressing the Federal deficit that they would live by a new protocol 
on discretionary CutGo.
  This amendment is an opportunity for the Republicans to live by their 
word. If we adopt this amendment and the legislation complies with 
discretionary CutGo, then the amendment will have no effect. If, on the 
other hand, this legislation fails to comply, as the Congressional 
Budget Office indicates, and has a significant impact on the Federal 
budget, then my amendment will ensure that the offending provisions do 
not go into effect.
  I urge all Members to support this amendment. Let's hold the 
Republican leadership to their word.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. All of us are very much concerned about excessive 
spending by the Federal Government. We know we have a serious debt, we 
have a serious deficit, and all of us are determined to bring that in 
line and to solve that problem.
  Now, the gentleman from California's amendment is trying to use the 
so-called CutGo rule as a means to invalidate this legislation. In our 
legislation, we do not authorize the appropriation of any additional 
funds. We do not create any new programs in this legislation.

[[Page H6596]]

  And I might say that each year EPA receives an appropriation for its 
activities, and we know that more than any other agency in the Federal 
Government, EPA is sued more than almost any other agency. At any one 
time, they have 400 or 500 lawsuits going. As a result of many of those 
lawsuits, they have to go back and they have to re-look at rules and so 
forth; and there's never any additional money appropriated to them for 
that purpose. So what we're doing in this legislation is no different 
than what they deal with at EPA every year.
  Now, CBO did come forth and say that over a 5-year period, because 
they would have to re-look at these rules and issue new rules and so 
forth, there would be maybe a million dollars in additional cost. But 
that's not any different than what EPA goes through every year, as I 
said, because of lawsuits that are filed.
  Our position is we do not authorize additional money in this 
legislation. We do not create a new program in this legislation; and, 
therefore, the CutGo rules are not applicable. And it is the decision 
of the House leadership to determine if that is the case or not, and 
they've determined that is not the case. So for those reasons, I would 
oppose the gentleman's amendment and would urge all Members to oppose 
the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Waxman

  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, as the designee of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       After section 1, insert the following section (and 
     redesignate the subsequent sections accordingly):

     SEC. 2. FINDING.

       The Congress finds that if the rules specified in section 
     3(b) remain in effect, they are expected to reduce the amount 
     of mercury that deposits to land and water by up to--
       (1) 30 percent in some areas of the western United States; 
     and
       (2) 17 percent in some areas of the eastern United States.
       Page 5, line 11, strike ``section 2'' and insert ``section 
     3''.
       Page 6, line 14, strike ``section 2(a)(1)'' and insert 
     ``section 3(a)(1)''.
       Page 7, line 8, strike ``section 2(a)'' and insert 
     ``section 3(a)''.
       Page 7, lines 9 and 10, strike ``section 2(b)(2)'' and 
     insert ``section 3(b)(2)''.
       Page 8, line 3, strike ``section 2(a)'' and insert 
     ``section 3(a)''.
       Page 8, line 14, strike ``section 2(a)'' and insert 
     ``section 3(a)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, this amendment was going to be offered by 
Mr. Markey, and he strongly supports it, and I want to offer it in his 
place.
  Power plants, cement kilns, incinerators, manufacturing facilities, 
and other industrial sources release toxic mercury into the air. These 
emissions travel through the atmosphere and eventually deposit to land 
or water. Once deposited, the mercury can build up in fish, shellfish, 
and animals that eat fish. Consumption of fish and shellfish is the 
main route of mercury exposure to humans.
  EPA and FDA have warned women who are pregnant, of childbearing age, 
or nursing that they should limit their consumption of certain types of 
fish and avoid others entirely due to mercury contamination.
  EPA's cement kiln rules are designed to cut emissions of mercury as 
well as other hazardous air pollutants. EPA estimates that the rules 
will reduce mercury emissions from cement kilns by 16,400 pounds, or 92 
percent, compared with projected levels.
  EPA looked at how these reductions would affect the emissions that 
are deposited to land or water. EPA estimated that the cement rules 
would reduce mercury deposition by up to 30 percent in the West and up 
to 17 percent in the East by 2013. The agency's modeling indicates that 
the mercury deposition reductions would be the greatest nearest the 
cement kilns.
  This amendment adds a simple finding to the bill, stating that EPA's 
cement kiln rules are expected to reduce mercury deposition in the 
eastern and western United States. This amendment does not change the 
substance of the bill. The bill still nullifies EPA's cement rules, 
which have been in place for a year. The amendment simply adds 
important context for this nullification. By nullifying the cement 
rules, this bill erases the reductions in mercury deposition that the 
rules would achieve.
  This debate has shown us how we need this context. The bill's 
supporters have claimed that 99 percent of mercury is natural; and, 
thus, they imply, we don't need to worry about it. I have no idea where 
they get that figure. It wasn't from the EPA. But if that's why they're 
supporting this bill, their support isn't based on the facts.
  The amendment sets the record straight. It makes it clear to all 
Members that the cement rules will have a real and significant impact 
on mercury deposition. These effects will be the largest, of course, 
closest to the plants that will have to clean up their pollution.

                              {time}  1640

  But before we vote to throw out rules that have been in the works for 
over a decade, before we vote to leave communities exposed to toxic air 
pollution for years or decades more, let's at least recognize what we 
are throwing away. And what we'd be throwing away is this particular 
finding that is so important.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam Chair, Congress should not adopt as its own 
specific findings made by EPA in the context of these rulemakings. 
Congress has not undertaken a full analysis of the EPA's methodology in 
assessing these reductions. EPA's estimates encompass multiple 
assumptions that may or may not be true and which deserve further 
scrutiny.
  EPA estimates that the Cement MACT will reduce mercury emissions by 
16,400 pounds per year, an amount that is only 0.15 percent of global 
emissions. Mercury is emitted naturally and also globally. The 
Department of Energy estimates that 5,500 tons, or 11 million pounds, 
of mercury was emitted globally in 2005 from both natural and human 
sources. Emissions from these sources are modest when considered 
relative to natural and foreign emissions.
  These projections are complex. Where these estimates have not been 
subject to rigorous scrutiny, it would be irresponsible for Congress to 
simply adopt EPA's findings as its own.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Pallone

  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       After section 1, insert the following section (and 
     redesignate the subsequent sections, and conform internal 
     cross-references, accordingly):

     SEC. 2. FINDING.

       The Congress finds that Federal departments and agencies 
     should support efforts to achieve the science-based, 10-year 
     national objectives for improving the health of all Americans 
     through reduced exposure to mercury that are established in 
     Healthy People 2020 and were developed under the leadership 
     of the National Institutes of Health and the

[[Page H6597]]

     Centers for Disease Control and Prevention during two 
     presidential administrations.
       At the end of the bill, add the following section:

     SEC. 7. REDUCING BLOOD-MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS.

       The provisions of this Act shall cease to be effective, and 
     the rules specified in section 3(b) shall be revived and 
     restored, if the Administrator finds, in consultation with 
     the directors of the National Institutes of Health and the 
     Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, that by allowing 
     continued uncontrolled emissions of mercury from cement kilns 
     this Act threatens to impede efforts to achieve the science-
     based, 10-year national objective for reducing mercury 
     concentrations in children's blood that is established in 
     Healthy People 2020.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I offer this amendment to this legislation 
that will ensure that the public health of Americans is protected under 
the bill.
  In December of last year, the U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services released their Healthy People 2020 report. And this report is 
a culmination of a major undertaking initiated under the Bush 
administration and completed by the Obama administration. It sets goals 
and objectives with 10-year targets designed to guide national health 
promotion and disease prevention efforts to improve the health of all 
people in the United States.
  In Healthy People 2020, HHS sets a goal to reduce the American 
people's exposure to mercury. Mercury can cause aggravated asthma, 
irregular heartbeat, heart attacks, and premature death in people with 
heart and lung disease. In addition, mercury is a potent neurotoxin. It 
is toxic to all of us, but it's particularly dangerous to our children. 
That's why as part of the Healthy People 2020 report, HHS set a goal to 
reduce concentrations of mercury found in children's blood samples by 
30 percent by 2020.
  Children who are exposed to mercury during pregnancy can suffer from 
a range of developmental and neurological abnormalities, including 
delayed onset of walking, delayed onset of talking, cerebral palsy, and 
learning disabilities. The National Academy of Sciences estimates that 
each year about 60,000 children may be born in the U.S. with 
neurological problems that could lead to poor school performance 
because of exposure to mercury.
  Cement kilns are one of the largest sources of air-borne mercury 
pollution in the United States, and yet here we are, Madam Chair, 
debating bills on the House floor that would go in the opposite 
direction. We're talking about nullifying regulations that are already 
on the books to increase infants' and children's exposure to mercury by 
indefinitely delaying implementation of a law to reduce these toxic 
emissions from cement kilns.
  When the rules were finalized last year to cut pollution from cement 
kilns, the EPA conducted an analysis of the effects of the rule. The 
agency found that this rule would cut emissions of mercury from cement 
plants by 92 percent--almost 17,000 pounds of mercury each year that 
would be prevented from being released into our environment. For some 
places, like in the heart of the Western United States, that means a 
reduction of mercury deposition by 30 percent. And now in one fell 
swoop, Madam Chair, this legislation will reverse that 30 percent 
reduction.
  My amendment would not let this happen if doing so would interfere 
with achieving HHS' goal. It would prevent this bill from going into 
effect if it interferes with the Department of Health and Human 
Services' goal of reducing our children's exposure to mercury. And I 
don't want to see this legislation enacted if it's going to affect our 
children's ability to talk, read, write, or learn. I don't want more 
people to be at risk for asthma and heart attacks, and I want Health 
and Human Services to be able to do their job. If they have identified 
mercury exposure as a risk to our children and to our citizens, I want 
them to be able to minimize that risk, and we should not interfere.
  So, Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and 
ensure that we can keep our country progressing towards improved public 
health and keep our children safe from environmental pollutants.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. I rise in opposition to the Pallone amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. This amendment calls for findings and also would 
effectively veto this bill. These are not findings for which we 
established an underlying record in the proceedings relating to this 
bill. The MACT program is a separate mandate for regulation and it 
operates separately from the Healthy People 2020 initiative as far as 
we are aware.
  EPA estimates that the Cement MACT will reduce mercury emissions by 
16,400 pounds per year, an amount that is only 0.15 percent of global 
emissions. Mercury is emitted naturally and also globally. The 
Department of Energy estimates that 5,500 tons, or 11 million pounds, 
of mercury was emitted globally in 2005 from both natural and human 
sources.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pallone amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WAXMAN. First, this amendment simply adds a congressional finding 
that Federal agencies should support ongoing efforts to reduce 
Americans' exposure to mercury. This seems to me a no-brainer.
  For the past 30 years, under both the Democrats and the Republicans, 
the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institutes of 
Health, the Centers for Disease Control and other agencies at the 
federal, State, and local levels have worked together to set science-
based, 10-year national objectives for improving the health of all 
Americans. This is called the Healthy People initiative.
  The Healthy People initiative has set critical public health 
objectives for 2020. These goals are the product of an extensive 
stakeholder process that involved public health experts, a wide range 
of federal, State, and local government officials, a consortium of more 
than 2,000 organizations, and the public.
  The Healthy People 2020 initiative set a goal for reducing mercury 
exposure. This goal is to reduce the level of mercury in the blood of 
children and women of childbearing age by 30 percent by 2020. Mercury 
exposure in the womb or at a young age can adversely affect the 
developing brain and nervous system, damaging a child's long-term 
cognitive thinking, memory, attention, language, and fine motor skills.
  This amendment states that Congress agrees that we ought to set this 
goal and we ought to try to achieve this goal as a way to reduce the 
mercury levels in children. I hope we can all agree this is a 
worthwhile objective.
  The amendment also puts some weight behind this finding. If the EPA 
administrator determines that allowing cement kilns to continue 
emitting toxic mercury without controls threatens to block attainment 
of the Healthy People standard by 2020 to reduce mercury in children, 
then the bill has no effect. The administrator can reach this 
determination only after consultation with experts at NIH and CDC.
  This amendment is common sense. There's no point in engaging in an 
extensive process to set broadly agreed upon goals to guide agency 
actions to improve the health of Americans and then adopt laws that 
prevent agencies from meeting these goals.
  Now, if Republicans want to vote against these goals, that's what 
they'll be doing if they vote against the Pallone amendment. 
Unfortunately, the bill we're considering today could hinder this 
initiative's goal to reduce children's mercury exposure by nullifying 
long overdue rules to reduce toxic mercury pollution from cement kilns.

                              {time}  1650

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

[[Page H6598]]

no impact on the mercury levels in children's blood.
  I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment, to support 
these goals, and not to nullify the goals as they would like to nullify 
the EPA rules.
  I support the Pallone amendment and urge my colleagues to vote for 
it.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
will be postponed.


          Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 5, lines 16 and 17, strike ``not earlier than 5 years 
     after the effective date of the regulation'' and insert ``not 
     later than 3 years after the regulation is promulgated as 
     final''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I've been to the floor before and I've used 
these famous words, and I think I've even used them in committee: Can 
we all get along?
  I just can't imagine that if we queried this industry that so many 
people would want to, if you will, ignore the facts that are impacting 
not only our community but our children.
  First of all, it's important to note that the CBO has established 
that H.R. 2681 will cost $1 million.
  I want jobs to continue. I want jobs to be created. I think the 
service dealing with our industry is important, but I think lives are 
important. And I cannot imagine in this particular instance why we 
would want to block the EPA from finding a way to save lives. And so I 
rise today to introduce an amendment that would establish the fact that 
compliance would come by 3 years after the implementation of the 
resolution by the EPA.
  Remember now that every party has an opportunity to participate, but 
listen to what is happening with the impact of mercury on our children.
  If these safeguards are blocked, up to 34,300 premature deaths would 
be in place. These will be the consequences of it. Over 17,800 more 
heart attacks; over 180,000 additional asthma attacks; over 3 million 
more days of missed work or school; and billions of taxpayer dollars 
wasted treating these preventible accidents--or illnesses, if you will.
  In addition, I believe that the idea of jobs should not be a threat 
to life. Currently, the bill requires the cement industry to comply 
with EPA rules no earlier than 5 years after the rules have been 
finalized. The bill also allows indefinite noncompliance. There is no 
deadline set for the industry compliance. That's an unfair imbalance 
between jobs and lives, and I know that we can find the right balance.
  These industry leaders are citizens in communities. They support Boy 
Scouts and Girl Scouts. They support PTOs and school athletic teams. 
Their very constituents are their workers and their families, some of 
those very families that will be subject to the conditions where 
schools are near concrete manufacturing companies. It is happening all 
over America.
  I have offered this amendment to ensure that the EPA has the ability 
to reduce toxic emissions from numerous industrial sources, including 
the cement industry, as they're required to do under the Clean Air Act. 
The EPA has issued 100 rules targeting this and have resulted in 
saving--a 1.7 million ton reduction of air pollution per year.
  My amendment simply says that to comply with the EPA rules, it should 
occur no later than 3 years after the rules have finalized.
  Let me tell you why this is a good amendment. It gets people to work. 
It gets you focusing quickly on the remedy. It helps you put the remedy 
in place, and it helps to save lives.
  This is a task that has been given to the EPA for 40 years. In fact, 
it was given to the EPA under a Republican administration, as I recall, 
Richard Nixon. We worked together then because we believed that America 
could be better by creating jobs but also protecting our environment.
  There has been a consistent theme of chipping away at the ability of 
the EPA to protect our air, but I believe we can do both. We can work 
together.
  There is pollution; it does exist. Just come to a city like Houston 
where asthma rates are up because of the pollution that we have.
  It is important to find a way to balance the lives of those who are 
impacted by things like chest pain, coughing, digestive problems, 
dizziness, fever, lethargy, sneezing, shortness of breath, throat 
irritation, watery eyes, while keeping our jobs.
  How do we do it? We rush toward fixing the problem. We rush toward 
creating the jobs by having the kind of technology that allows us to 
cure this problem and keep these jobs.
  Colleagues, I believe this is an important approach. It is to find 
the new technology that allows us to clean the air. It is not to stall 
and block the EPA. It is to find a way to get quickly to the solution 
to be able to save lives.
  Let me say that I am hopeful that the amendment will be perceived as 
an amendment that rushes toward helping those who are creating jobs, 
but it is rushing toward allowing the EPA to save lives. Let us not 
sacrifice lives for convenience. Let us save lives.
  My amendment is a very constructive amendment to allow compliance in 
3 years. I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 2681 the 
``Cement Sector Regulator Relief Act.'' My amendment requires the 
cement industry to comply with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
rules no later than 3 years after the rules have been finalized.
  Currently, the bill requires the cement industry to comply with EPA 
rules no earlier than five years after the rules have been finalized. 
The bill also allows indefinite noncompliance; there is no deadline set 
for industry compliance.
  I have offered this amendment to ensure that the EPA has the ability 
to reduce toxic emissions from numerous industrial sources, including 
the cement industry, as they are required to do under the Clean Air 
Act. The EPA has issued 100 rules targeting 170 different types of 
facilities which have resulted in a 1.7 million ton reduction in air 
pollution per year. EPA rules are now being finalized for the cement 
kiln industry and these bills are intended to indefinitely delay 
compliance with EPA's Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 
standards, prior to their promulgation.
  For more than 40 years the EPA has been charged with protecting our 
environment. There has been a consistent theme of chipping away at the 
ability of the EPA to protect our air. We have to consider the long 
term costs to public health if we fail to establish reasonable measures 
for clean air.
  Outdoor air pollution is caused by small particles and ground level 
ozone that comes from car exhaust, smoke, road dust and factory 
emissions. Outdoor air quality is also affected by pollen from plants, 
crops and weeds. Particle pollution can be high any time of year and 
are higher near busy roads and where people burn wood.
  When we inhale outdoor pollutants and pollen this can aggravate our 
lungs, and can lead us to developing the following conditions; chest 
pain, coughing, digestive problems, dizziness, fever, lethargy, 
sneezing, shortness of breath, throat irritation and watery eyes. 
Outdoor air pollution and pollen may also worsen chronic respiratory 
diseases, such as asthma. There are serious costs to our long term 
health. The EPA has promulgated rules and the public should be allowed 
to weigh in to determine if these rules are effective.
  The purpose of having so many checks and balances within the EPA is 
to ensure that the needs of industries and the needs of our communities 
are addressed. This bill is a step in the wrong direction. The EPA has 
spent years reviewing these standards before attempting to issue 
regulations. The proposed regulations to the industrial boiler industry 
will significantly reduce mercury and toxic air pollution from power 
plants and electric utilities.
  The EPA estimates that for every year this rule is not implemented, 
mercury and toxic air pollution will have a serious impact on public 
health.
  Think for a moment about the lives that can be saved. We are talking 
about thousands of health complications and deaths. What more

[[Page H6599]]

do we need to know. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, 
this rule would prevent the following:
  9,000 premature deaths;
  5,500 heart attacks;
  58,000 asthma attacks;
  6,000 hospital and emergency room visits;
  6,000 cases of bronchitis; and
  440,000 missed work days.
  The EPA has done its due diligence; a comprehensive review of all 
aspects of these regulations has been done, and the EPA is currently in 
the process of revising its proposed rules in order to reflect industry 
concerns. If the EPA is willing to compromise, the cement industry must 
be as well.
  I understand the economic impacts of regulation, but we must also act 
responsibly. We cannot ignore the public health risks of breathing 
polluted air, nor can we pretend that these emissions do not exacerbate 
global warming. Alternatively, we certainly do not want to hinder job 
creation and economic growth. Congress passed the Clean Air Act to 
allow the EPA to ensure that all Americans had access to clean air, and 
we must not strip the agency of that right.
  Lest we forget that since 1999, Houston has exchanged titles with Los 
Angeles for the poorest air quality in the nation. The poor air quality 
is attributed to the amount of aerosols, particles of carbon and 
sulfates in the air. The carcinogens found in the air have been known 
to cause cancer, particularly in children. The EPA is the very agency 
charged with issuing regulations that would address this serious 
problem. This bill may very well jeopardize the air that we breathe, 
the water that we drink, our public lands, and our public health by 
deep funding cuts in priority initiatives.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle seem much more interested 
in stripping the EPA of its authority than passing jobs legislation. It 
has been nearly 10 months since the Republicans took control of the 
House, promising the American people they would create jobs. As October 
begins, they have not offered a single jobs bill, nor have they brought 
President Obama's American Jobs Act to the floor for a vote.
  The focus of this Congress must be on passing President Obama's 
American Jobs Act and other legislation that will create jobs and put 
the American people back to work. Last weekend, I had the opportunity 
to visit several small businesses at home in the 18th Congressional 
District of Texas. I was able to roll up my sleeves and get involved 
with the hard working men and women of Houston.

  I visited Dr. German Ramos at the Canal Medical Center, where I had 
the opportunity to meet with Dr. Ramos and his employees. I visited 
Atlantic Petroleum and Mineral Resources where I met with President and 
CEO Donald Sheffield, and got to work at De Walt Construction Company, 
owned by single mother Wanda De Walt, who employs 15 people and wants 
to hire more. I also had the opportunity to visit floral shops, beauty 
salons, bakeries and other small businesses throughout Houston.
  I spoke with these entrepreneurs and small business owners who 
represent America's biggest job creators, and their message was clear. 
These business owners and entrepreneurs encouraged me to work to pass 
powerful bipartisan, specific proposals to create jobs. It was a 
privilege to perform the hands on duties these hard working Houstonians 
do every day. We must engage and support entrepreneurs, innovators and 
small businesses to create jobs. I will be proposing a bill that will 
create jobs, and I look forward to bipartisan support.
  Madam Chair, there are times in which we are 50 individual states, 
and there are times when we exist as a single nation with national 
needs. One state did not defend the nation after the attacks on Pearl 
Harbor. One state, on its own, did not end segregation and establish 
civil rights. Every so often, there comes an issue so vital we must 
unite beyond our districts, and beyond our states, and act as a nation, 
and protecting the quality of our air is one of those times.
  I encourage my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment in 
order to uphold the EPA's authority to enforce the Clean Air Act. By 
ensuring the cement industry must comply with finalized EPA 
regulations, we are protecting the quality of the air that all of our 
constituents breathe. Surely preventing illness and premature death by 
ensuring every American has access to clean air is not controversial. 
Again, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Under the existing Clean Air Act, cement plants have 3 
years to comply with section 112 standards; incinerators have 5 years 
to comply with section 129 standards. Because of the testimony that we 
heard over a series of hearings, the affected industry has indicated 
that they need some conformity in complying with these new regulations.
  As you know, there were regulations adopted in 2005 or 2006 that were 
invalidated by the courts. EPA came back with new regulations that were 
a little bit more complicated, more strenuous; and as a result of that, 
we've discovered that these cement industries have had difficulty 
complying with the 112 and 129 within the time period. So our 
legislation simply directs the EPA to go back, relook at the 
regulations, and within 15 months come back with a new regulation and 
then give the industry 5 years to comply on the cement side and the 
incinerator side. So we provide some conformity in our legislation.
  The gentlewoman from Texas is basically changing that back to 3 
years. And the whole purpose of our legislation, because of the 
hearings, because of the technology required, it was quite evident that 
more time was needed. So we set a time period, a minimum time of 5 
years to comply. The administrator of the EPA may grant additional 
time, if necessary, but we doubt that that would happen.
  So for that reason, for a pragmatic reason, I would oppose the 
gentlewoman's amendment so that we can have some conformity in these 
regulations.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman.
  I think the very argument that you just made is one that I would like 
to utilize and suggest that conformity could be 3 or 5. And I'm 
suggesting conformity should be 3 years, with the EPA doing just as you 
said, having the discretion to give more time. I think it shows us, as 
a Congress, being as balanced for jobs--which I know that you're trying 
to do--as trying to save lives. And there are lives that are impacted 
by the conditions that these companies generate.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, thank you very much.
  Reclaiming my time, like I said, the purpose of our legislation is to 
extend it to 5 years because of the complications involved. And for 
that reason, I would respectfully oppose the gentlelady's amendment and 
ask Members to vote against the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will 
be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Quigley

  Mr QUIGLEY. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following section:

     SEC. 6. PROTECTION FROM AVOIDABLE CASES OF CANCER.

        Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the 
     Administrator shall not delay actions pursuant to the rules 
     identified in section 2(b) of this Act to reduce emissions 
     from any cement kiln if such emissions are increasing the 
     risk of cancer.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Chair, my amendment permits the EPA to continue to 
enforce and finalize the regulations preempted by the bill at hand if 
the emissions limited by these regulations are found to cause cancer. 
In other words, this amendment says the administrator shall not delay 
actions to reduce the emissions from any cement kiln if such emissions 
are increasing the occurrence of cancer.
  We stand here today having an argument that is predicated on the 
notion that when it comes to matters of job creation and environmental 
stewardship and protection of public health,

[[Page H6600]]

you can only have one or the other. You must pick between creating and 
retaining jobs, they'll tell you, or protecting and conserving our 
land, air, water, and keeping our public healthy. This is a false 
notion, born of scare tactics and the fact that those who purport these 
ideas aren't basing their beliefs on science.
  There are both economic and societal factors involved. It's not an 
either/or. It's dollar signs, yes; but it's also lives, days in 
hospitals, cancer treatments, and trips to the emergency room for small 
children and the elderly.
  Come to Chicago, the asthma morbidity and mortality capital of the 
United States.
  Cement kilns are the third largest source of mercury emissions in the 
U.S. Mercury is a powerful neurotoxin that impacts and impairs the 
ability of infants and children to think and learn. The toxic air 
pollutants found in cement kiln emissions can cause cancer, and they 
do.
  The toxic air pollutants found in cement kiln emissions damage the 
eyes, skin, and breathing passages. The toxic air pollutants found in 
cement kiln emissions harm the kidneys, lungs, and nervous systems. 
They cause pulmonary and cardiovascular disease and premature death.
  The carcinogens found in cement kiln emissions include toxic air 
pollutants including mercury, arsenic, acid gases, hydrochloric acid, 
dioxins, and other harmful pollutants that add to the Nation's problems 
with soot and smog. They are known carcinogens, known carcinogens 
pumped from these sources into our air, into our land, and into our 
waters. They even land on the grass in Wisconsin eaten by cows and 
drunk in milk.
  But don't take my word for it. Look at the numbers. Plain and simple, 
Madam Chair, the Clean Air Act saves lives. The Clean Air Act has saved 
the lives of over 160,000 people in the 40 years it has been on the 
books. This is not a number to be debated. In fact, this is a number 
that is conservatively estimated by the EPA.
  This is not some inflated statistic designed for shock value or for 
any other reason. We know that the Clean Air Act has human value. Since 
1990, EPA has set numeric emission limits on a pollutant-by-pollutant 
basis for more than 100 industry source categories. This approach has 
been a major success, reducing emissions of carcinogens and other 
highly toxic chemicals by 1.7 million tons each year.
  Each of EPA's proposed rules would save thousands more lives each 
year. One example, an example we're dealing with today, pertains to the 
EPA's proposed rule regarding toxic emissions from cement kilns. This 
rule simply calls for cement kilns to meet numeric emission standards 
for mercury and other toxic pollutants.
  This so-called ``job-killing'' rule is predicted to save up to 2,500 
lives each year. The limit will annually prevent 1,500 heart attacks, 
17,000 asthma attacks and over 1,700 hospital and emergency room visits 
and 130,000 days of missed work. Any rule that saves lives is a matter 
of public health.
  We're dealing with skyrocketing rates of death due to asthma and 
burdening more children at earlier ages with lifelong and sometimes 
debilitating cases of asthma from particulate matter being pumped into 
our air.
  A report released by the American Lung Association reported nearly 60 
percent of Americans live in areas where air pollution has reached 
unhealthy levels that can and do make people sick.
  These are measures that will help keep us alive and able to work. 
These are measures that will create jobs in the clean and green 
industrial industry.
  Attacks on the Clean Air Act and the EPA's ability to regulate 
greenhouse gases are a huge piece of the larger climate crisis, a 
crisis that has a hefty cost: our lives. The need to crack down on 
greenhouse gas emissions is based on sound science, the results of 
hundreds of peer-reviewed studies that show their debilitating effects 
on our health and our planet--zero peer-reviewed studies that show that 
global warming does not exist and that man does not contribute to it.
  We're asked to go back now. Why? Why are we considering legislation 
to halt rules that have been considered for now 10 years? This is 
beyond me. Why are we considering legislation to halt rules that will 
keep us at work, healthy and alive?
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. This amendment directs the administrator of the EPA to 
implement current cement plants rules if emissions at cement kilns are 
increasing the risk of cancer. This amendment would, in effect, defeat 
the entire purpose of our legislation.
  Our bill directs EPA to protect public health, also consider jobs and 
the effect of that on the economy, and all the aspects of American 
well-being, health benefits, not just one. So we think it's important 
that EPA consider all public health risks, not just cancer.
  All of the testimony has indicated that there needs to be a more 
balanced approach in this cement rule issued by EPA. As you know, EPA 
first adopted a cement rule in 1999. They did another one in 2005. It 
was challenged in court. They came back with another one in 2006. That 
one is so vigorous that it's very difficult for the industry to meet 
those standards.
  So for the fact that this amendment is focusing only on one public 
health risk, and I believe that it would defeat the entire purpose of 
our bill, which is to protect public health, but also to strengthen the 
economy by preventing a loss of jobs, and to look at the entire public 
health benefits, for that reason I would respectfully urge the defeat 
of this amendment.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
will be postponed.


          Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Connolly of Virginia

  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following section:

     SEC. 6. PROTECTION FROM RESPIRATORY AND CARDIOVASCULAR 
                   ILLNESS AND DEATH.

        Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the 
     Administrator shall not delay actions pursuant to the rules 
     identified in section 2(b) of this Act to reduce emissions 
     from any cement kiln if such emissions are causing 
     respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses and deaths, 
     including cases of heart attacks, asthma attacks, and 
     bronchitis.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Chairman, this congressional session 
is not even a year old and the Republican leadership has already tried 
to pass more than 125 anti-environmental bills, amendments, and riders.
  They started by attacking public health standards to reduce carbon 
dioxide pollution on the premise that we should trust oil-funded 
soothsayers over climatologists and reject the overwhelming scientific 
consensus that global warming is already occurring and threatens our 
environment and public health.
  When the Republicans attacked greenhouse gas standards, they claimed 
that they, nonetheless, supported Clean Air Act standards to reduce 
toxic pollutants like mercury. After all, it was a Republican President 
who signed this legislation creating the Environmental Protection 
Agency more than 40 years ago.
  A Republican President signed the Clean Air Act of 1970, which 
established the process that the EPA is using today to reduce toxic 
pollution, including mercury and dioxin. A Republican President signed 
the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 establishing--steel yourself--a 
cap-and-trade program to reduce sulfur dioxide pollution. That Clean 
Air Act bill of 1990 also accelerated reductions of other toxic 
pollutants because Congress believed that

[[Page H6601]]

the EPA was not moving quickly enough to reduce toxic pollution.

                              {time}  1710

  All of these major clean air bills were passed by Democratic 
Congresses with Republican Presidents. While it may seem unbelievable 
in today's political climate, there was a time in the not-so-distant 
past when environmental protection had bipartisan support. As a result 
of the bipartisan effort to protect the environment, our economy grew 
while air pollution levels fell and public health improved.
  Air quality here in Washington, D.C., in Los Angeles, and other major 
cities is healthier today than it was in 1970 thanks to the Clean Air 
Act. Our automobiles no longer emit unlimited quantities of asthma and 
lung cancer-causing pollution, or lead. Our power plants now have 
scrubbers to reduce the sulfur dioxide pollution that caused acid rain 
and poisoned rivers and streams throughout the United States before 
1990. Mercury pollution has fallen 80 percent thanks to that act. 
Thanks to these improvements in air quality, the Clean Air Act saves 
approximately 160,000 lives a year by preventing deaths otherwise 
caused by pollution.
  When this new Republican Congress attacked greenhouse gas 
regulations, they claimed that they would not reverse the improvements 
that the Clean Air Act has made in reducing toxic pollution. Of course, 
their attempt to block greenhouse gas pollution standards was only the 
opening salvo. This Republican House has passed dozens of bills and 
amendments effectively repealing the Clean Air Act by blocking 
regulation of soot, smog, and dioxin. Their assault on the Clean Air 
Act is so comprehensive that they have passed regulation to deregulate 
multiple kinds of soot. Today, we'll vote on a bill to deregulate 
mercury and other toxic pollution from cement factories.
  This bill would not only deregulate mercury pollution from cement 
factories, it would also block the EPA public health standards for 
other deadly pollutants such as the particulate pollution that scars 
lung tissue and causes cancer and emphysema. Blocking public health 
standards for cement kilns will increase net costs for American 
taxpayers by $6.3 billion to $17.6 billion every year by increasing the 
incidence of heart attacks, lung cancer, asthma attacks, and 
developmental disabilities in children.
  They claim that these antipublic health bills would create jobs. The 
fact is that while the Clean Air Act has reduced dangerous air 
pollution for the last 40 years, saving 160,000 lives last year alone, 
America's economy doubled in size. It didn't shrink, the sky didn't 
fall, and the worst predictions of our friends on the other side, not 
one of them came true.
  I have introduced two amendments to H.R. 2681. I'm only going to move 
this one, Madam Chairman. This will clarify that the provisions in this 
bill will not go into effect if it causes respiratory illness, cardiac 
disease, other diseases, or death. This amendment would apply 
throughout the country, ensuring that rural, suburban, and urban 
Americans would be protected equally from reckless provisions in the 
underlying bill.
  My amendment says, ``The administrator shall not delay actions to 
reduce emissions from any cement kiln if such emission is causing 
respiratory and cardiovascular illness and death, including cases of 
heart attacks, asthma attacks, and bronchitis.'' This ensures that if 
H.R. 2681 passes, God help us, we will not be increasing the rate of 
respiratory disease or sending more children to the hospital with 
asthma attacks. Since members of the majority claim to be equally 
concerned about the health of our constituents, I wanted to give them 
an opportunity to prove it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I rise in opposition to this amendment offered by the 
distinguished gentleman from Virginia.
  I might also add that the last significant change to the Clean Air 
Act was back in 1990, and I don't think anyone would ever suggest that 
Congress does not have a right to go back and look at legislation that 
was passed 21 years ago and that there may be problems with some of 
that legislation.
  There is no question that we've benefited from the Clean Air Act, but 
there is also no question that this administration, this EPA, has been 
the most aggressive in recent memory. They've been passing some of the 
most expensive regulations ever adopted by EPA, and it's having an 
impact on the economy because jobs are being lost as a direct result of 
many of these regulations.
  Our bill has directed EPA to protect public health, to balance the 
economic needs, the jobs needs, all of this, as a part of an overall 
balanced view of EPA regulations.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. My colleague, whom I respect, said that 
we're losing jobs because of this onerous regulation. I'm just 
wondering if my colleague has any data on how many jobs were lost in 
the last 40 years due to the Clean Air Act--net.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Let me just say to you that the last 40 years, we've 
had a lot of economic expansion. Right now we've just come out of a 
recession. We have a 9.1 percent unemployment rate. Everyone's talking 
about jobs, and all of the testimony that we've received about these 
regulations indicates that jobs will be lost. So what's the difference 
then, if you lose a job, you lose a job? That makes unemployment rates 
go up.
  I'm not debating with you that over the last 40 years, generally 
speaking, we've had economic expansion and job creation, but we're in a 
very unique time right now, and we think that this is a time in which 
we need a more balanced approach to some of these regulations.
  Your amendment specifically looks at respiratory, cardiovascular 
illnesses, and death, including heart attacks, asthma attacks, and 
bronchitis. We know that EPA looks at all of this in its health 
benefits and costs, and we do not think it's necessary to specifically 
spell this out in our legislation. For that reason, I would 
respectfully oppose the amendment and ask Members to vote against the 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Welch

  Mr. WELCH. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       After section 1, insert the following section (and 
     redesignate the subsequent sections, and conform internal 
     cross-references, accordingly):

     SEC. 2. FINDING.

       The Congress finds that the American people are exposed to 
     mercury from industrial sources addressed by the rules listed 
     in section 2(b) of this Act through the consumption of fish 
     containing mercury and every State in the Nation has issued 
     at least one mercury advisory for fish consumption.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Vermont is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WELCH. Madam Chair, in this legislation there are findings. It is 
common in our legislation for there to be a finding section. This 
amendment would propose a finding for inclusion in this important 
legislation, and that finding would read that ``Congress finds that the 
American people are exposed to mercury from industrial sources 
addressed by the rules listed in section 2(b) of this act through the 
consumption of fish containing mercury, and every State in the Nation 
has issued at least one mercury advisory for fish consumption.''
  So the question is, to the proponents of this legislation, as to 
whether there would be an objection to include this finding about 
mercury and the scientific community's absolute conclusion that mercury 
is hazardous to the

[[Page H6602]]

health of those who consume it. That's the question. If you believe 
that science has a place in our consideration of important legislation 
that affects health and safety, then it would suggest that you would 
want to have a finding affirming Congress's acceptance of the 
scientific conclusion that mercury causes harmful health effects.
  So this amendment offers this Congress the opportunity to say the 
obvious, and that is: Mercury poisoning is bad for our health.
  The reason why I ask that this Congress consider this finding is that 
this Congress has been debating the applicability of science to our 
deliberations. This is not a question of whether a regulation is 
onerous or not or the cost is too great for the benefits derived; it's 
a question of whether we will accept the responsibility to acknowledge 
that mercury does have significant detrimental health consequences. 
This should be acknowledged. It should be part of this legislation.
  What this Congress cannot do, whatever its dispute is about the 
degree of regulation, the effectiveness of regulation, whether it's too 
onerous or not, is have the point of view that we can, by legislation, 
defy science. It does not allow us to do that.
  So, Madam Chair, I urge that this Congress accept this finding, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1720

  Mr. CULBERSON. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chairman, the air contains mercury. The 
environment contains mercury from natural sources. The Communist 
Chinese, of course, are the world's largest polluter, and the plume of 
pollution from Communist China stretches all the way across the Pacific 
Ocean and covers up the Western and Central part of the United States.
  This map, which I hope you can see there, Madam Chairman, shows the 
Western and Central U.S. covered by a plume of red. These are mercury 
deposits coming from Communist China. The United States, through the 
Clean Air Act and with the efforts of industry and individuals across 
the Nation, has dramatically reduced pollution levels in the air and in 
the water.
  We are all committed to making sure that our kids are drinking clean 
water and breathing clean air. This amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Vermont is a simple statement that we find we're exposed to 
mercury. Congress might as well also issue a finding that we're exposed 
to carbon dioxide. I'm exposed to carbon dioxide right here. They're 
trying to make that a pollutant.
  What the Obama Democrats have done to crush jobs in the cement 
industry is an illustration of what Obama Democrats have done in their 
attempt to crush job creation all over the United States.
  In this EPA regulation on the cement industry, the Obama Democrats 
have set an impossibly high standard far beyond what even the European 
Union seeks. What the Obama Democrats attempt to impose on the cement 
industry is like asking them to win the decathlon, where you have to 
get a gold medal in every event. They've set, for example, this rule 
that 98 percent of all mercury has to be eliminated. The technology 
doesn't exist for that, yet the industry has to comply with the Obama 
Democrat rule by next September, wiping out much of the cement industry 
in the United States at a time when the construction industry in 
America is already in a state of depression.
  It is evident from the record that the cement industry today is 
producing at a rate equivalent to 1962, yet the Obama Democrats seek to 
crush it further and eliminate more job creation in an absolutely vital 
sector of American industry, which will simply have the effect, as they 
have already done in so many other industries, of driving the work 
offshore--driving more cement production to Communist China, where they 
have no pollution controls.
  For example, in the auto industry, the Obama Democrats have set 
automobile mileage standards so impossibly high that no automobile in 
America today can meet it other than the Prius. So the auto industry is 
going to be crushed. In the oil industry, they've set impossibly high 
standards for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, driving offshore drilling 
to Brazil and other countries. All those big rigs are gone. They won't 
come back, but we're trying to open up drilling in the gulf.
  In sector after sector after sector, Obama Democrats are crushing the 
American economy and crushing American business owners with impossible 
regulations that cannot be met.
  This is common sense. Constitutional conservatives in the House are 
trying to get this economy back on track and to grow jobs by 
eliminating regulation, by cutting taxes, and by cutting spending. This 
legislation today is a straightforward, simple attempt to postpone the 
damage. All we can do by controlling the House is to stop the damage 
inflicted by Obama Democrats on the American economy. That's what we 
can do with this legislation.
  Give us 5 years more to implement it until we get reinforcements and 
have a constitutionally conservative Senate and a constitutional 
conservative in the White House, which is when we can really grow this 
economy and cut taxes and cut spending and can put the Federal 
Government back in the box designed by the Founders.
  Get out of my pocket. Get out of my way. Get off my back. Unleash 
American entrepreneurship, and you'll really see the American economy 
grow if you'd just leave us alone. Let Texans run Texas. Let 
Kentuckians run Kentucky. Let us manage our own businesses, our own 
families, our own affairs--to manage and invest and save or spend our 
own money in the way we wish.
  You'll see American industry protect the environment, grow jobs, 
drill here and drill now for oil and gas safely and cleanly in the Gulf 
of Mexico and across the United States. You'll see the cement industry 
and the construction industry come back if we just stop crushing them 
with impossible regulations that cannot be met by any available 
technology anywhere on Earth.
  For all of those reasons, I ask the Members of the House to oppose 
this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont will 
be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Moore

  Ms. MOORE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end of the bill the following:

     SEC. 6. DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--This Act shall not take effect until the 
     President certifies that implementation of this Act--
       (1) will not adversely affect public health in the United 
     States; and
       (2) will not have a disproportionately negative impact on 
     subpopulations that are most at risk from hazardous air 
     pollutants, including communities with a high proportion of 
     minorities, low-income communities, pregnant women, and the 
     elderly.
       (b) Determination Required.--Not later than 90 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall 
     publish in the Federal Register--
       (1) the certification described in subsection (a); or
       (2) an explanation of why such certification is not 
     warranted.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. MOORE. Madam Chair, my amendment would simply require that the 
President certify that this bill will not have an adverse effect on the 
health of Americans. It would specifically and additionally ensure that 
the legislation would not result in a disproportionately adverse impact 
on at-risk subpopulations.
  I would submit that the majority should be enthused about my 
amendment to require the President to certify that the delay of cement 
kiln standards won't harm the public health of Americans and have this 
disproportionate adverse impact. This is since we have heard all day 
the majority speak of how the majority of mercury,

[[Page H6603]]

for example, comes from natural sources, that it comes from foreign 
sources from the Pacific to the Mississippi, and that the dangers of 
mercury should not be unfairly burdened and blamed on cement kilns.
  This Presidential certification would allow them to rebut those 
assertions. This Presidential certification would allow them to rebut 
that cement kilns are the second-largest source of airborne mercury 
pollution in the United States or that mercury is a powerful neurotoxin 
that can affect the mental development of children.
  Since this majority has questioned the methodology of the EPA 
findings using OMB standards, the assumptions, they should welcome this 
Presidential finding to rebut the assertion that EPA has made that 
cement kilns also emit lead, arsenic, and other toxic metals that could 
be carcinogenic and seriously dangerous.
  We do know that, throughout the history of the Clean Air Act, we have 
seen tremendous benefits in quality of life for Americans. Under the 
Clean Air Act, the individual emissions of carcinogens and other highly 
toxic chemicals have been reduced by 1.7 million tons each year through 
actions taken, voluntarily in many cases, by more than 170 industries. 
The health benefits just keep adding up, and they've been tremendously 
important. In 2010, the reductions in fine particles and ozone 
pollution from the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments prevented more than 
160,000 cases of premature mortality, 130,000 heart attacks, 13 million 
lost workdays, and 1.7 million asthma attacks.
  But there is so much more work to be done.
  This neurotoxin is widespread in our Nation's waterways. Currently, 
48 States have issued fish consumption advisories due to mercury 
contamination, including 23 States that have issued Statewide 
advisories for all of their lakes and rivers. My district, of course, 
in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, is located on one of the Great Lakes, which is 
a major resource for my community, for the region and, indeed, for the 
world, and it has been subject to large amounts of mercury 
contamination from airborne pollutants.
  I would certainly be interested in a Presidential certification and 
in the assurance that the delay of this bill would not have an adverse 
impact on my constituents. The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration 
Mercury Emissions Reduction Strategy compiled mercury emissions data 
for the eight Great Lakes States and found that, in 2005, Portland 
cement plants in these States emitted 1.4 tons of mercury, which is 
roughly 4 percent of the total of 34.9 tons.

                              {time}  1730

  I would be immensely, Madam Chair, interested in a certification by 
the President of the United States that indeed, indeed, this mercury 
contamination was not caused by these cement kilns but, instead, was 
caused by natural causes or from foreign sources. This, I think, would 
vindicate those who are trying to delay this process, and it would work 
toward advancing their theory that economic development should not be 
hindered by untoward, unproven health concerns.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTER. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTER. Madam Chair, this amendment should really be called the 
``Moore veto amendment'' because what it effectively does is veto this 
bill.
  I would point out that Paul Valberg, former member of the Harvard 
School of Public Health, testified before the Energy and Commerce 
Committee that by every public health measure, from infant mortality to 
life expectancy, we are healthier today and exposed to fewer hazards 
than ever before.
  Our present-day air is much cleaner than it was a year ago, and our 
air quality is among the best in the world. H.R. 2681 does not change 
or modify any existing public health protection. It simply sets forth a 
process for EPA to implement stronger protections as called for in the 
Clean Air Act that are achievable, and the issue here is achievability. 
Standards in this act are set in such a manner that it's going to take 
time to achieve these emissions.
  As we pointed out, the EU, which is supposedly one of the standards 
of the world on air and water quality, has set a standard that ours is 
five times less onerous than the one that is being imposed by the EPA; 
and, arguably, the industry says meeting that standard is going to take 
more technology and more time.
  This bill simply directs the EPA to follow the language of the Clean 
Air Act statute and write standards that real-world cement plants can 
meet. It may be the EU standards are the standards they can meet. I am 
not here to make that determination.
  But the standards that we are presently asked to meet in the cement 
industry are not attainable at this time, and it takes time to make it 
work.
  Well, in H.R. 2681, the costs are certain. It's going to be 
astronomical and certain enough that the businesses tell us that it 
will shut down plants. And when you shut down a plant, you kill jobs 
and the labor that works in that plant will be unemployed; and that 
will be part of the unemployment figures we will read within the next 
year as the plant shuts down.
  So achievable standards give you the opportunity to work towards the 
objective that we're all seeking here. But unachievable standards cause 
panic, cause excess costs, and that unachievable regulation causes the 
industries, some of which are not tied together, they are separate 
companies owned by separate people, to say we can't meet this standard, 
not within the time we have been given.
  We might as well shut the plant and go someplace else, and so they 
shut the plant and go someplace else. Americans lose jobs that pay 
$65,000 to $80,000 a year, and the plant goes over to China and joins 
in China's belch of mercury--which many people have talked about here 
today--that sweeps across our country every day because they don't meet 
the clean air standards that we already meet in this great Nation.
  At some point in time, reasonableness and common sense have to come 
into these regulations. Give the industry a chance to achieve something 
that is achievable, and that's what this bill does. It says, take 
another look, come up with achievable standards, and then give us the 
time to achieve them. I don't think that is an unreasonable position to 
take.
  I think it's the proper position to take to save this industry, the 
cement industry, from possible annihilation in this country; and soon 
we would face, once again, people saying why are all the cement jobs 
overseas.
  Madam Chair, I oppose the Moore amendment. I was tempted to call this 
the ``fox watching the hen house amendment,'' but I'm not going to do 
that.
  We need to get this done, and having veto power over this amendment 
is not the suggestion that is relative to the debate we are having here 
today.
  I ask that there be a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WAXMAN. This amendment says that the President, whoever that 
President is or will be, would certify that implementation of the act 
will not adversely affect public health in the country and will not 
have a disproportionate impact, a negative impact on sub-populations 
that are most at risk from hazardous air pollutants, including 
communities with a high proportion of minorities, low-income 
communities, pregnant women, and the elderly.
  I don't know how my Republican colleagues can oppose that. First of 
all, I didn't like that little slur that I heard about the President of 
the United States. I think the President would make an honest call. I 
trust any President of the United States to make an honest call if this 
amendment were adopted.
  But the whole idea of our environmental laws is that we could all 
live together. If an elderly person is more susceptible to asthma, and 
if children are more susceptible to harm from air pollution, we don't 
want to say that they have to live somewhere else. We should all be 
able to live together. But

[[Page H6604]]

there are some sub-populations that are at greater risk; and we ought 
to recognize that, especially low-income populations.
  A lot of minority groups are more susceptible to asthma. And when you 
talk about minority and low-income people, they don't have houses where 
they can send their kids down to the playroom. They can have their kids 
play outside, and they are going to be breathing in a lot of this air 
pollution.
  So I think that before we implement this law to delay for 6, 8, 10 
years any impact to control the harmful air pollution, we ought to have 
some certification that we are not going to be putting these 
populations at risk.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Waxman, there is no definition of ``adverse'' in 
the act. That's in this amendment. That's one of the concerns. If 
there's any adverse impact, then the act doesn't go into effect, nor is 
there any definition of ``disproportionately.'' Those terms are not 
defined. Would you agree there is no definition?
  Mr. WAXMAN. No, I don't agree with you. First of all, it says 
``adverse.'' I think adverse is pretty understandable. Adverse would be 
negative, negative.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Any negative.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Well, negative to air pollution. We're talking about air 
pollution, the harm from air pollution. We are talking about asthma, 
cancer. Toxic pollutants can cause brain damage.
  We're not talking about some inconvenience to them. We're talking 
about adverse public health impact on the public in the United States, 
first of all, and then a disproportionate negative impact on sub-
populations that are most at risk for hazardous air pollutants.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. CULBERSON. If there is any adverse impact or any disproportionate 
negative impact, the act is not going to affect that, no matter how 
small.
  Mr. WAXMAN. It says will not have a disproportionate negative impact 
or adversely affect public health. I think the language is clear enough 
for the President to make a finding and get the guidance on it in order 
to determine whether this bill should be held up.
  So we may disagree, but I don't think that the language is poorly 
drafted. I think it's pretty clearly drafted, and I would support the 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. MOORE. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Wisconsin 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  1740


                Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Ellison

  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 5, after line 8, insert the following subsection:
       (c) Notice in Federal Register.--Not later than 60 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator 
     shall publish a notice in the Federal Register estimating the 
     public health impact of delaying regulation for the Portland 
     cement manufacturing industry and Portland cement plants 
     until the compliance date of the rules required by subsection 
     (a) instead of the compliance date of the rules made 
     ineffective by subsection (b).

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, this amendment is very simple. All it says 
is that if we're going to delay these important rules, these lifesaving 
rules, then the EPA would be required to publish in the Federal 
Register the public health impact of delaying this regulation.
  For example, one of the public health impacts of clean air standards 
for cement plants is the prevention of 17,000 cases of asthma. All 
we're saying is that transparency, information given to the public, so 
the public will know what the impact of these delayed regulations will 
be.
  I can see no reason why Republicans wouldn't adopt a commonsense 
amendment like this because, quite frankly, if they feel this is such 
an important measure that they clearly acknowledge based on their 
response to the last amendment offered, they acknowledged that there 
will be health impacts, they most certainly would have to agree that 
telling the public what the health impacts will be would be a fair and 
important thing to do.
  So my amendment is very simple. As we delay these important 
environmental regulations, they are proposing delaying these important 
environmental regulations to protect people from dirty air emitted from 
cement plants, let's just tell the public how many heart attacks, how 
many asthma attacks, how many deaths, how much mercury contamination, 
how much lead and arsenic will impact the health of our citizens. How 
much cancer. What will be the health impacts of delaying these 
important rules; let's print it in the Federal Register.
  I'm sure that people who favor this legislation would be happy to 
say, you know what, yes, we're giving you cancer; yes, we're giving you 
heart attacks; yes, we're giving you asthma attacks, but we have to do 
it because we believe it'll save jobs. You have to be sick so somebody 
might theoretically be able to get a job in a cement plant.
  The fact is, as I pointed out many times, it's a false choice between 
a job and a regulation. It's a false choice between economic activity 
and clean air and a healthy environment. But since my friends on the 
other end of the aisle want to make the case that we need to delay 
these important environmental regulations in order to promote jobs, at 
least let's talk about and be honest with the public about the health 
impacts.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I rise in opposition to this amendment for a couple of 
reasons. Number one, because EPA has already comprehensively and 
exhaustively examined the health benefits cost and every other analysis 
relating to their regulations. We have voluminous information about 
those benefits.
  I would also say that we've heard testimony after testimony from 
experts who say that you cannot in any way with certainty say how many 
lives are going to be saved, how many people are not going to be put in 
the hospital, how many cases of asthma are going to be not contracted 
because of passing a regulation or not passing a regulation. They have 
models. They come up with estimates, and there's not anything in this 
amendment that would provide any more certainty. And for that reason, I 
oppose the amendment and ask that it be defeated.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the author of the amendment.
  Mr. ELLISON. I just want to make a few points in rebuttal.
  First of all, Congresswoman Capps offered an amendment that contained 
the EPA findings on the health impact, and that was opposed pretty 
vigorously. We could have known for the public record; we would have 
had it there. That was opposed, though. So the response that we just 
heard from the other side of the aisle is interesting, to say the 
least.
  The other important point, the fact is, if you believe this is an 
important measure to pass, why not disclose this to the public, let the 
public know what we're getting into, and I would think this would be a 
commonsense measure and would get approval from all sides.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Reclaiming my time, I think the public has a right to 
know, and I don't think the Congress of the United States ought to deny 
them that information. As I heard the argument from the gentleman from 
Kentucky,

[[Page H6605]]

it's already been evaluated and is in the record by the EPA. I think 
putting it in the Congressional Record is not even enough. If the 
public wants to know, we ought to have full-page ads in the newspapers. 
That's my view.
  But that's not as far as the amendment would go, simply to put it in 
the Federal Register and hope that the press would pick it up and 
inform people. Let people know. Don't pass a bill to let the cement 
kilns avoid coming to terms with regulations that will protect the 
public health from all of these different incidents of serious diseases 
and then not tell the American people that we've let them off the hook 
and they should understand one of the consequences will be all of these 
diseases and all of these deaths that otherwise could have been 
prevented.
  So I strongly support the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota 
will be postponed.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in the Congressional Record 
on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 11 by Mr. Waxman of California.
  Amendment No. 7 by Mr. Rush of Illinois.
  Amendment No. 17 by Mrs. Capps of California.
  Amendment No. 1 by Ms. Schakowsky of Illinois.
  Amendment No. 9 by Mr. Waxman of California.
  Amendment No. 16 by Mr. Waxman of California.
  Amendment No. 21 by Mr. Pallone of New Jersey.
  Amendment No. 4 by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
  Amendment No. 8 by Mr. Quigley of Illinois.
  Amendment No. 18 by Mr. Connolly of Virginia.
  Amendment No. 20 by Mr. Welch of Vermont.
  Amendment No. 2 by Ms. Moore of Wisconsin.
  Amendment No. 14 by Mr. Ellison of Minnesota.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


                 Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Waxman

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Waxman) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 166, 
noes 246, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 747]

                               AYES--166

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Woolsey

                               NOES--246

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Bachmann
     Boren
     Cohen
     Davis (CA)
     Deutch
     Engel
     Giffords
     Larson (CT)
     Lowey
     Maloney
     McIntyre
     Nadler
     Pastor (AZ)
     Polis
     Rangel
     Ryan (OH)
     Schwartz
     Sutton
     Thompson (MS)
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                              {time}  1811

  Messrs. AMODEI, BENISHEK, THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, FLORES, CANSECO, 
WALBERG, BISHOP of Utah, ROE of Tennessee and Mrs. BLACK changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. GENE GREEN of Texas and BISHOP of Georgia changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. McIntrye. Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 747, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''


                  Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Rush

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded

[[Page H6606]]

vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 162, 
noes 251, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 748]

                               AYES--162

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Woolsey

                               NOES--251

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hochul
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Bachmann
     Boren
     Cohen
     Culberson
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     Dreier
     Giffords
     Goodlatte
     Gutierrez
     Larson (CT)
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Polis
     Ryan (OH)
     Sarbanes
     Sutton
     Thompson (MS)
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). One minute remains in this vote.

                              {time}  1815

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 748, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


                 Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mrs. Capps

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 158, 
noes 254, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 749]

                               AYES--158

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Woolsey

                               NOES--254

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz

[[Page H6607]]


     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hochul
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Bachmann
     Berg
     Bilbray
     Boren
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Davis (CA)
     Edwards
     Fattah
     Giffords
     Hunter
     Johnson, Sam
     Larson (CT)
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Polis
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Thompson (MS)
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). One minute remains in this vote.

                              {time}  1818

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Chair, on rollcall Nos. 747, 748, and 
749, I was unable to vote. Had I been present I would have voted on 
747--``yes,'' on 748--``yes,'' and on 749--``yes.''


               Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Schakowsky

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois 
(Ms. Schakowsky) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 175, 
noes 248, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 750]

                               AYES--175

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--248

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bachmann
     Boren
     Giffords
     Hirono
     Larson (CT)
     Maloney
     Polis
     Sutton
     Thompson (MS)
     Wilson (FL)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). One minute remains in this vote.

                              {time}  1822

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Waxman

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Waxman) on which further proceedings

[[Page H6608]]

were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 167, 
noes 254, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 751]

                               AYES--167

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--254

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bachmann
     Boren
     Canseco
     Giffords
     Gohmert
     Larson (CT)
     Maloney
     McMorris Rodgers
     Polis
     Sutton
     Thompson (MS)
     Wilson (FL)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). One minute remains in this vote.

                              {time}  1826

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. CANSECO. Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 751, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''.


                 Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Waxman

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Waxman) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 169, 
noes 254, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 752]

                               AYES--169

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--254

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole

[[Page H6609]]


     Conaway
     Costa
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hochul
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bachmann
     Boren
     Giffords
     Larson (CT)
     Maloney
     Polis
     Sutton
     Thompson (MS)
     Wilson (FL)
     Yoder


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). One minute remains in this vote.

                              {time}  1830

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Pallone

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Pallone) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 166, 
noes 253, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 753]

                               AYES--166

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--253

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bachmann
     Boren
     Deutch
     Emerson
     Franks (AZ)
     Giffords
     Griffith (VA)
     Larson (CT)
     Maloney
     Perlmutter
     Polis
     Sutton
     Thompson (MS)
     Wilson (FL)

                              {time}  1833

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


          Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.

[[Page H6610]]

  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 162, 
noes 262, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 754]

                               AYES--162

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--262

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hochul
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bachmann
     Boren
     Giffords
     Larson (CT)
     Maloney
     Polis
     Sutton
     Thompson (MS)
     Wilson (FL)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in 
this vote.

                              {time}  1837

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Quigley

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Quigley) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 175, 
noes 248, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 755]

                               AYES--175

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--248

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)

[[Page H6611]]


     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bachmann
     Boren
     Giffords
     Gohmert
     Larson (CT)
     Maloney
     Polis
     Sutton
     Thompson (MS)
     Wilson (FL)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). One minute remains in this vote.

                              {time}  1840

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


          Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Connolly of Virginia

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Connolly) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 176, 
noes 248, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 756]

                               AYES--176

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--248

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bachmann
     Boren
     Giffords
     Larson (CT)
     Maloney
     Polis
     Sutton
     Thompson (MS)
     Wilson (FL)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in 
this vote.

                              {time}  1846

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Welch

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont 
(Mr. Welch) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 174, 
noes 249, not voting 10, as follows:

[[Page H6612]]

                             [Roll No. 757]

                               AYES--174

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--249

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hochul
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bachmann
     Boren
     Dicks
     Giffords
     Larson (CT)
     Maloney
     Polis
     Sutton
     Thompson (MS)
     Wilson (FL)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in 
this vote.

                              {time}  1850

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Moore

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 167, 
noes 256, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 758]

                               AYES--167

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--256

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger

[[Page H6613]]


     Herrera Beutler
     Hochul
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bachmann
     Boren
     Dicks
     Giffords
     Larson (CT)
     Maloney
     Polis
     Sutton
     Thompson (MS)
     Wilson (FL)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). One minute remains in this vote.

                              {time}  1853

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Ellison

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Ellison) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 170, 
noes 252, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 759]

                               AYES--170

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--252

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hochul
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bachmann
     Boren
     Cardoza
     Dicks
     Giffords
     Larson (CT)
     Maloney
     Polis
     Sutton
     Thompson (MS)
     Wilson (FL)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). One minute remains in this vote.

                              {time}  1857

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Chair, on October 5, 2011, I was not 
present for rollcall votes 747-759 due to the death of a close family 
friend. If I had been present for these votes, I would have voted: 
``aye'' on rollcall vote 747; ``aye'' on rollcall vote 748; ``aye'' on 
rollcall vote 749; ``aye'' on rollcall vote 750; ``aye'' on rollcall 
vote 751; ``aye'' on rollcall vote 752; ``aye'' on rollcall vote 753; 
``aye'' on rollcall vote 754; ``aye'' on rollcall vote 755; ``aye'' on 
rollcall vote 756; ``aye'' on rollcall vote 757; ``aye'' on rollcall 
vote 758; ``aye'' on rollcall vote 759.


                 Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Cohen

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Ross of Florida). The Clerk will designate the 
amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 6, line 11, strike ``and'' after the semicolon.
       Page 6, line 12, strike ``impacts.'' and insert ``impacts; 
     and''.
       Page 6, after line 12, insert the following subparagraph:
       (F) potential reductions in the number of illness-related 
     absences from work due to respiratory or other illnesses.


[[Page H6614]]


  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5 
minutes.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chair, my amendment simply requires--it's a very 
simple amendment--that the Environmental Protection Agency 
administrator consider the potential reductions in the number of 
illness-related absences from work when establishing a compliance date 
for this cement kiln rule.
  Cement kilns are the second-largest source of airborne mercury 
pollution in the United States and also a leading emitter of lead, 
arsenic, and other toxic dangerous metals--nothing, of course, that 
anybody on either side of the aisle would like to see floating around 
the atmosphere and absorbed in our bodies. Dramatically reducing the 
amount of toxic pollutants cement kilns can spew in our Nation's air 
and water will make America a healthier, more productive nation.
  The EPA projects that every year that this particular rule is 
applicable, the administration's cement kiln rule will prevent up to 
2,500 premature deaths, 17,000 asthma attacks, and 130,000 days when 
people will be too sick to go to work. Despite the erroneous claims 
from a handful of vocal individuals within the cement industry that 
this rule will ruin the economy, the truth is the cement kiln rule will 
strengthen America's economy and the American worker because cement 
kilns emit thousands of pounds of mercury and acid gases every year, 
thousands of workers are unable to go to work because they are simply 
too sick, meaning every day hardworking Americans are unable to work 
and earn a paycheck so they can put food on their family's table. Not 
only are these hardworking Americans not generating income, but many of 
them are forced to spend their limited income on doctors' bills, 
emergency room visits, and expensive medicines.
  These Americans want to work. They want to be productive citizens. 
Their employers want them to work, but the employers are spewing 
environmental disaster into the air that prevents them from working. 
Despite their most sincere interest and desire to put in a hard day's 
work, they can't because the dirty cement kiln is spewing toxic 
pollutants into the air making them sick and making them drive to the 
hospital instead of their offices.
  If the EPA administrator has to factor in issues such as potential 
net employee impacts when establishing compliance dates when they 
shouldn't, the administrator also will have to factor in potential 
reductions in the number of illness-related absences from work. But 
what good is saving 1 day's work at a cement plant if it means that 
dozens of people will be too sick to go to work that day?
  If the United States is going to retain its status as the world's 
economic engine, then we need to have the world's healthiest and most 
productive workforce. But that will not happen if we continue to let a 
handful of dirty cement kilns scattered across the country undermine 
the health and well-being of thousands of American workers.
  I encourage my colleagues to understand the importance of a healthy 
workforce and support my amendment. We must recognize that any 
establishment of a compliance date that does not factor the health of 
the American workforce is fundamentally flawed and inadequate.
  I also would mention that this will affect horses, for horses and 
animals, dogs and horses will breathe in the same air and it will 
affect their well-being--well noted. On behalf of the hundreds and 
thousands of American workers and animals who have been forced to miss 
work because of the sickness incurred by breathing in toxic pollutants 
from cement kilns, I ask you to support this amendment. It's time for 
this Congress to stand up to protect our Nation's most valuable 
resource, the American worker, and also the American worker's best 
friend, his dog, and sometimes his horse.
  I urge passage of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I certainly want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee 
for offering this amendment and particularly pointing out that it 
relates to animals as well as people, and I would say that from our 
analysis, certainly EPA considers work-related illnesses and absences 
when they issue these regulations, and the specific section of the 
bill, H.R. 2681, which the gentleman from Tennessee is amending relates 
to the provisions that the administrator must consider relating to the 
industry in trying to comply with the regulation.
  This amendment would add to that illness-related work absences would 
have to be considered as well, and we think that that would really be 
duplicative of what they already considered. And because of that, 
despite the great respect we have for the gentleman from Tennessee, I 
would urge that this amendment not be adopted and urge other Members to 
vote ``no'' on the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I would yield to the gentleman from Tennessee if he 
wishes to make any further statements.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chair, I respect the gentleman from Kentucky greatly 
and appreciate his remarks, but I would say if his position is there's 
no harm, no foul, if there's no harm, no foul and it's duplicative, 
then there's no reason not to adopt it in case he's wrong, and I think 
he is. I think it does add something. So the best case is you protect 
the worker, and the worst case is you have a couple of extra sentences 
in the law that make no difference.
  So I would ask that we all join together in a bipartisan Kumbaya 
moment that we've been missing and need to have again, and I ask you to 
support it.
  Mr. WAXMAN. In light of that argument, I'd be pleased to yield to the 
gentleman from Kentucky if he's now been convinced of the rebuttal. If 
not, I will yield back my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Keating

  Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 5, beginning on line 13, strike paragraph (1) and 
     insert the following paragraph (and redesignate the 
     subsequent paragraph accordingly):
       (1) shall establish a date for compliance with standards 
     and requirements under such regulation in accordance with 
     section 112(i)(3) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7412(i)(3));
       (2) may, if the Administrator determines there is a 
     compelling reason to extend the date for such compliance, 
     provide an extension, in addition to any extension under 
     section 112(i)(3)(B) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(i)(3)(B)), 
     extending the date for such compliance up to one year, but in 
     no case beyond the date that is 5 years after the effective 
     date of such regulation; and

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, this bill gives the impression that we're 
going to deal with this issue in 5 years. If you look at the bill 
carefully, you will find out, Mr. Chair, that indeed what it could 
postpone is the effect of this amendment forever. In fact, in terms of 
pollution, in terms of toxins, this is the equivalent of the 
``pollution road to nowhere'' where there's no ending in sight, none 
that will ever be reached, and it's just nothing but a guise for the 
people to think they're doing something within the 5-year timeframe.
  Now, my amendment would allow the 5 years, but it would be a maximum 
of

[[Page H6615]]

5 years before the source has to be implemented and the appropriate 
changes are met in terms of emissions.
  Now, what else would this amendment do? This amendment would save 
10,000 related deaths, avert 6,000 heart attacks, avoid nearly 70,000 
asthma attacks, and the pollution reductions required in this rule 
would cut mercury emissions from cement kilns by over 90 percent.
  As all of us know, Mr. Chairman, mercury is a poisonous substance 
that affects the ability of infants and children to learn and to think. 
It also results in birth defects and cognitive disabilities. Cement 
kilns emit lead and arsenic which cause cancer and damage the nervous 
system.
  Now let's line up the costs and benefits. The costs--birth defects, 
cognitive disabilities, cancer, heart attacks, asthma, and attacks on 
the nervous system--are on one side of the ledger. On the other side of 
the ledger are marginal savings by the companies for not doing what 
they really should be doing in terms of keeping people safe.
  Now let's add up the cost of that versus the cost of all those 
ailments, all those things that affect young people and that will 
affect taxpayers funding this for decades to come, a multiple of 
whatever savings is there for the industries that are in question.
  So I hope this amendment passes. I think what this attempts to do is 
say let's cut through the guile. If you mean 5 years, you mean 5 years. 
And so we should be in agreement on this if that is indeed the case. 
And I hope this amendment gets the support from my colleagues that 
believe 5 years is a reasonable time.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1910

  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. The amendment offered by the gentleman would set a 3-
year compliance date and allow case-by-case extensions for up to 2 
years if the administrator of EPA determines that there is a compelling 
need to do so.
  The purpose, of course, of this legislation is to protect health, 
provide feasibility and regulatory certainty, protect jobs, and 
minimize plant shutdowns. Under the Clean Air Act, sources already have 
3 years to comply with section 112 standards for cement kilns, with a 
potential 1-year extension by the EPA administrator or a State-
permitting authority. This amendment would allow for a second possible 
1-year extension, so a source might be able to get 5 years for 
compliance. The amendment would impose additional regulatory burdens on 
both the EPA and those facilities trying to comply. It would require a 
facility to compile evidence to justify the need for an additional 
year, and would require the administrator to make a case-by-case 
determination about whether that justification is compelling.
  All of the testimony in the hearings on this indicated that the 
current 3-year compliance timeframe is simply not workable and a 
definitive period of at least 5 years is needed. And so for that 
reason, with all due respect, we would urge the defeat of the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the pending amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I would like to yield to the author of the amendment, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KEATING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would just say this: When you talk about certainty, the only thing 
that is certain about this bill is there's no end to it. So if you call 
certainty meaning there's no timeframe that can ever be reached for 
certain, then I don't understand the paradox.
  And when you're talking about the cost to the EPA and the marginal 
cost that might be there to the industry in terms of savings, that 
pales in comparison--by multiples--to the cost that taxpayers are going 
to have to pay for the cognitive disabilities, the birth defects of 
infants and young children that will be borne, in most cases, by the 
taxpayer because we're not making these industries do what they're 
supposed to do.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I want to reclaim my time because the gentleman is 
absolutely correct. There is no end point to when there would be 
compliance so that we can get the health benefits because of that 
compliance.
  But let's go through the bill again. The bill would nullify EPA's 
emission standards for cement kilns. It ensures that if EPA is able to 
issue a new standard, the new standard would be less protective of 
public health and more protective of the cement manufacturers' profits. 
And even then, the bill allows for implementation of any new standard 
to be indefinitely delayed. It blocks EPA from requiring cement kilns 
to comply with the new rules for at least 5 years, and fails to 
establish any deadline for compliance whatsoever. This could allow 
cement kilns to continue to pollute without limit indefinitely.
  I support this amendment because it would use this existing framework 
of the bill as a baseline for compliance, but it would also allow the 
administrator to provide additional extensions of 1 year for existing 
sources if she determines there is a compelling reason. No polluter can 
have more than 5 years to comply. Already under the Clean Air Act, 
every facility has complied no later than 3 years after the limits go 
into effect.
  Over the past 20 years, tens of thousands of sources across about 100 
industries have cleaned up their toxic air pollution within that 3-year 
period. I think the statutory timeframe is sufficient. Five years is a 
long time to wait for the communities living in the shadow of these 
cement kilns. At least this amendment sets an outer bound for when 
cement kilns will have to comply, unlike the underlying legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Edwards

  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       After section 1, insert the following section (and 
     redesignate the subsequent sections accordingly):

     SEC. 2. FINDING.

       The Congress finds that if the rules specified in section 
     3(b) remain in effect, they will yield annual public health 
     benefits of $6,700,000,000 to $18,000,000,000, while the 
     costs of such rules are $926,000,000 to $950,000,000.
       Page 5, line 11, strike ``section 2'' and insert ``section 
     3''.
       Page 6, line 14, strike ``section 2(a)(1)'' and insert 
     ``section 3(a)(1)''.
       Page 7, line 8, strike ``section 2(a)'' and insert 
     ``section 3(a)''.
       Page 7, lines 9 and 10, strike ``section 2(b)(2)'' and 
     insert ``section 3(b)(2)''.
       Page 8, line 3, strike ``section 2(a)'' and insert 
     ``section 3(a)''.
       Page 8, line 14, strike ``section 2(a)'' and insert 
     ``section 3(a)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I think it's important for us to take a 
step back and review our history.
  The Clean Air Act has a proven 40-year track record of delivering 
technological innovation and economic growth for the American people 
while at the same time protecting public health and our Nation's 
environment. This bipartisan act was originally signed into law by 
President Richard Nixon, and the 1990 amendments were enacted by 
President George H.W. Bush. Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues 
here today don't see eye to eye even with their own party's former 
Presidents.
  Since its inception, the Clean Air Act has netted Americans $40 in 
benefits for every $1 that's been spent, making it one of the most 
successful and significant statutes in our Nation's history. My 
amendment highlights the

[[Page H6616]]

fact that if the rules repealed by this bill remained in effect, they 
would yield annual public health benefits of between $6.7 billion and 
$18 billion, at a cost of under $1 billion.
  The benefit of complying with the EPA's cement kiln standards exceeds 
the cost by a factor of at least 7 and as much as 18. And let's say 
this in really plain language: That is between a 700 percent to an 
1,800 percent return on an investment. It sounds like a good 
investment. And these returns come from avoiding the health care and 
social costs associated with 2,500 premature deaths, 1,500 heart 
attacks, 17,000 cases of aggravated asthma, 32,000 cases of respiratory 
illnesses each year, the cost of 1,000 emergency room visits, 740 
hospital admissions, multiple trips to the doctor and taking 
prescription drugs, and the cost of 130,000 days of missed work a year, 
costs felt by employers in the form of lost productivity and the 
employee in the form of lost wages. One person working 7 days a week 
would have to work 356 years to reach 130,000 days.
  This very extreme analogy makes a simple point. If we put it in 
perspective, the cement industry employs 13,000 workers. And if those 
workers took the 130,000 sick days, it would shut down the entire 
cement industry for 10 days every year.
  A study published in the May 2011 Health Affairs found that we spend 
$76 billion a year treating environmental diseases in children like 
lead poisoning, prenatal methylmercury exposure, childhood cancer, 
asthma, intellectual disability, autism, and ADHD. Now, cement factory 
emissions may not be responsible for every one of these instances, but 
cement kilns are the second-largest source of airborne mercury 
pollution in the United States--after power plants. It's extraordinary. 
Mercury is a powerful neurotoxin that when ingested, particularly by 
pregnant women, in the form of fish, can impair cognitive function in 
infants and children. In 2000, the National Research Council warned 
that 60,000 children could be born annually with neurological problems 
from exposure to mercury while in the womb.
  It's a simple fact: At a time when our Nation is struggling with 
budget deficits, we should be targeting the causes of disease and 
acting to reduce the need for health care spending. And yet producers 
of toxic emissions need to step up and assume their fair share of 
responsibility.
  Now, those who want to gut the EPA cement kiln standards say that 
complying with these rules would force them to jack up the price of 
cement and drive consumers--mostly construction companies--to buy cheap 
imports from China instead. It's not true, and it's just a scare 
tactic. Instead, look at the facts. The EPA estimates that cement 
makers would recoup nearly 90 percent of their pollution control 
costs--which are anyway amortized over years of operation--by adding 
just $4.50 to the price of a ton of cement. This is not a prohibitive 
hike. And more importantly, cement is expensive to ship, and so the 
likelihood of shipping it from China seems highly skeptical. The truth 
is that the cement sector is vulnerable because the construction 
industry has taken a big hit in the recession and hasn't recovered. And 
here we're in a Congress trying to gut EPA standards when we actually 
should be creating jobs.
  And if you want to talk about job killers, this bill is a job killer 
because we should be investing in the industry, allowing it to produce 
cement for roads, bridges, all of our infrastructure instead of gutting 
EPA standards. There's no way to do this except by investing in 
infrastructure.
  And so I would urge us to look at the real cost of lowering these 
standards, the real cost to industry, and urge us instead to think 
about the Clean Air Act and the benefits to communities, and make sure 
that we pass this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1920

  Mr. WHITFIELD. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. The last time that the Clean Air Act was amended in 
any significant way was 1990, over 21 years ago. And Congress certainly 
has the responsibility, from time to time, to look at the Clean Air Act 
to make changes when we believe changes should be made. And with the 
current situation in our economy, and the high unemployment and the 
number of concerns expressed by industries around the country, as well 
as individuals about the lack of jobs, we made a decision that we would 
start questioning some of the regulations coming out of the EPA.
  The gentlelady from Maryland, who is a very effective Member of this 
body, is suggesting that, in our legislation, that we adopt as a 
finding the health benefits and costs as computed by EPA.
  Now, we have difficulty just adopting their health benefits and costs 
and putting it in our legislation as a finding for a number of reasons. 
Number one, we don't really know the assumptions that they're using. 
Number two, many universities and others have questioned the models 
being used by EPA in computing costs and benefits. And many people have 
found that there is a lack of transparency in the methodology used at 
EPA in making many of these calculations.
  I might also say that, because of that, for example, EPA determined 
that the cost of these rules would be between $926 million to $950 
million; and yet other independent analyses have indicated that the 
cost would be anywhere up to $3.4 billion. So we genuinely believe that 
for Congress to simply take those calculations and put them in as a 
finding of this legislation would be irresponsible.
  I might also add that, with respect to the benefits, EPA itself has 
acknowledged that it has not even quantified the benefits from the 
reductions of hazardous air pollutants, which are the very pollutants 
that these rules, these cement rules, were intended to target. Rather, 
EPA's estimates of benefits are all related to incidental health 
benefits by the reduction of particulate matter, which are already 
regulated by other parts of the Clean Air Act.
  So for all of those reasons, I would respectfully urge Members to 
oppose the gentlelady's amendment and request that they vote in 
opposition to it.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I rise in support of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WAXMAN. For decades, regulated industry has claimed that EPA 
rules are not worth the cost. For decades, they've pushed laws and 
executive orders to require more and more detailed cost-benefit 
analyses. So now, that's what EPA does for every major rule. EPA 
conducts a regulatory impact analysis that quantifies and monetizes, to 
the extent possible, the costs and benefit of each rule.
  These analyses are based on peer-reviewed science. They're reviewed 
by the Office of Management and Budget. The analyses are usually a 
couple hundred pages long. EPA prepares a draft analysis for the 
proposed rule, which is available for public comment before it is 
finalized with the final rule.
  The information about the costs and benefits of the rules helps EPA 
make a sensible decision about how stringent the standards should be. 
For example, as a consequence, EPA almost never adopts rules where 
monetized costs outweigh the benefits.
  Last year, EPA finalized long overdue standards to cut emissions of 
mercury and other toxic air pollutants from cement kilns. As it does 
for every rule, EPA conducted a thorough regulatory impact analysis of 
cement kiln rules following the process I just described. This analysis 
found that the benefits of these rules for public health far outweigh 
the costs to the polluters. That means that, as a Nation, we're far 
better off with these rules than without them.
  But now the Republicans aren't interested in the cost-benefit 
analysis. They're only interested in the costs, regardless of how much 
those costs are outweighed by the benefits.
  Here's why these rules are such a good deal for the American public: 
the rules will significantly reduce emissions of fine particle 
pollution which can lodge deep in the lungs and cause

[[Page H6617]]

serious health problems. By cutting emissions of fine particles, EPA 
estimates that these rules will prevent up to 2,500 premature deaths, 
1,500 non-fatal heart attacks, 17,000 cases of aggregated asthma, and 
130,000 days when people miss work or school each year.
  EPA estimates that the cost to comply with the rules will be about 
$950 million in 2013. In contrast, EPA estimates that the monetized 
health benefits associated with reduced exposure to air pollution range 
from $6.7 billion to $18 billion in 2013 and annually thereafter.
  Moreover, these figures likely underestimate the health benefits of 
the rule because, given time and data limitations, EPA wasn't able to 
put a dollar value on the health benefits of reducing cement kiln 
emissions of carcinogens and other toxic substances such as mercury, 
which is a powerful neurotoxin.
  Well, this amendment simply restates the conclusions of EPA's cost-
benefit analysis. This amendment does not change what the bill does. If 
this amendment passes, the bill would still nullify the cement kiln 
rules and force EPA to start all over again. The bill would still 
rewrite the Clean Air Act in such a way that EPA may never be able to 
reissue emission limits for toxic air pollution from cement kilns.
  But this amendment provides an important reminder. By nullifying the 
rules, the bill also nullifies the $6.7 billion to $18 billion in 
annual health benefits that would have made Americans better off if the 
rules remain in place. This amendment ensures that we have a clearly 
stated accounting of the monetized costs and benefits of this bill.
  The Republicans have been eager to talk about the benefit to industry 
of shielding them from having to cut their toxic and mercury emissions. 
This amendment simply outlines the costs to public health of nullifying 
these rules.
  When it came to Congressman Ellison's amendment, where he wanted the 
benefits clearly stated, the Republicans opposed it because they said 
that EPA had already studied it, so why should we have to put it in the 
finding. When it comes to this amendment they say, well, maybe they 
haven't studied it well enough; and they didn't want to put it in the 
findings for that reason. I find both arguments not only inconsistent, 
but not very persuasive.
  So I'd urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Maryland 
will be postponed.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Griffith of Virginia) having assumed the chair, Mr. Ross of Florida, 
Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the 
bill (H.R. 2681) to provide additional time for the Administrator of 
the Environmental Protection Agency to issue achievable standards for 
cement manufacturing facilities, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________