[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 149 (Thursday, October 6, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H6631-H6638]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   EPA 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 materials on H.R. 2250.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. 2250.

                              {time}  0916


                     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. 2250) to provide additional time for the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency to issue achievable standards for 
industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers, process heaters, and 
incinerators, and for other purposes, with Mr. Denham 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.
  Since 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency has rolled out a long 
list of regulations that are really unprecedented in their cost and 
complexity. The impacts on jobs, energy prices, and America's 
industrial competitiveness in the world are extremely serious.
  But of all these rules, the Boiler MACT rule, which we will be 
discussing today, stands out in that it will apply to a very wide 
variety of employers. Not only will industrial facilities be impacted, 
but also colleges, universities, hospitals, government buildings, and 
large commercial properties.
  The impact on jobs projected is staggering, but the cost will be 
borne by all of us in the form of higher tuition costs, higher hospital 
bills, higher rent, as well as higher prices for manufactured goods. 
Just about everyone will be adversely impacted either directly or 
indirectly.
  The good news is that we can reduce emissions from boilers without 
causing economic harm. The EPA Regulatory Relief Act, H.R. 2250, 
accomplishes this goal by taking a sensible, middle ground, balanced 
approach; and I would like at this time to thank Mr. Butterfield of 
North Carolina, as well as Mr. Griffith of Virginia, for their 
sponsorship of this bipartisan bill.
  A study conducted by IHS Global Insight, a respected research 
company, found that the rules that we are talking about today would 
impose total costs of over $14 billion and put at risk 230,000 jobs in 
America at a time when we already have a 9.1 percent unemployment rate. 
My home State of Kentucky, under the analysis, would face estimated 
costs of $183 million and 2,930 potential job losses. Twenty-five other 
States are hit even harder. That includes at least 10,000 jobs 
estimated for North Carolina, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, 
South Carolina, and Virginia, as well as over 5,000 job losses for 
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Alabama, Tennessee, Iowa, New York, Illinois, 
Maine, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, and Arkansas.

                              {time}  0920

  These boiler rules largely target coal-fired boilers and thus 
discourage the use of this energy source which, by the way, today 
provides about 50 percent of all of the electricity produced in 
America.
  I should add that the problems with EPA's boiler rules are not the 
sole fault of the agency. These rules, like many today, are being 
rushed out the door to comply with a court-ordered deadline. EPA asked 
for additional time, but their request was refused by the courts. EPA 
then published the rules by the deadline, but immediately announced 
that it was reconsidering portions of them because they were so 
complicated. However, this is not an adequate solution, as the 
reconsideration only applies to some of the many problematic provisions 
in these rules; and the reconsideration process is an uncertain one. In 
reality, it is unlikely that all the issues can be addressed.
  So our legislation is to help EPA deal with this problem. We create a 
comprehensive solution not only for EPA but also for boiler owners, and 
we provide the certainty that this solution will be implemented. It 
still requires

[[Page H6632]]

additional emissions reductions from boilers, but it gives EPA the time 
it needs to do it right. It gives the regulated community the time it 
needs in order to comply.
  This bill is supported by over 300 organizations and five national 
labor unions. It will require that the standards be reasonable and take 
into account cost and achievability under real-world conditions. I 
believe that EPA's original rules were a departure from the 
congressional intent in the Clean Air Act, and the EPA Regulatory 
Relief Act that we're discussing today represents a return to 
congressional intent.
  Make no mistake, under this bill that we're discussing, new standards 
will be imposed on boiler owners and operators. The goals of the Clean 
Air Act can be accomplished without undue cost and job losses, 
particularly at this time when our Nation's economy is struggling, and 
the EPA Regulatory Relief Act is the way to do it.
  So I would urge every Member of this body to come forth today and 
help us pass this legislation--help us save over 230,000 jobs at risk 
in America that we can ill-afford to lose--with this balanced approach 
to the problem.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Today's debate is going to seem awfully familiar to anyone that's 
been paying attention. Today's debate will remind us of the bill we 
passed in April to block any requirements to control carbon pollution; 
and the bill we passed in June to loosen pollution controls on oil 
companies; and the bill we passed in September to gut the Clean Air Act 
and block pollution controls on power plants; and the bill we debated 
yesterday to ensure cement kilns don't have to clean up their toxic air 
pollution.
  In total, the House has voted 146 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 and coastal areas, 
and to weaken the protection of the environment in other ways. This is 
the most anti-environment Congress in history.
  Today, the House continues its frontal assault on public health and 
the environment. The bill we consider today would nullify and 
indefinitely delay EPA's efforts to reduce toxic emissions from 
industrial boilers and waste incinerators.
  If this bill is 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, Congress adopted a bipartisan approach to protect the public 
from toxic substances. The law directed EPA to set standards requiring 
the use of 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 the 
Nation.
  But a few large source categories still have not been required to 
control toxic air pollution due to delays and litigation. Now that 
pollution controls are finally being required on industrial boilers and 
waste incinerators, this bill would intervene and delay pollution 
controls indefinitely. It would also rewrite the standard-setting 
provisions in the Clean Air Act to weaken the level of protection and 
set up new hurdles for EPA rules.
  We're told that this bill simply gives EPA the time they requested to 
get the rules right. Well, the EPA has not requested this from 
Congress, and the President has said he'll veto this bill if it gets to 
his desk.
  We're also 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. 
Fabricators and factory workers build the pollution controls, 
construction workers install them on site, and industry employees 
operate them.
  We'll hear over and over today, as we've heard in the past, about 
self-serving industry studies that claim pollution controls will cost 
us jobs. These studies have been thoroughly debunked by independent 
experts. For instance, the Congressional Research Service examined the 
key study by the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners and concluded that 
it was so flawed that ``little credence can be placed in these 
estimates of job losses.''
  It's my hope this body will not be so easily misled. It was the lack 
of regulation of Wall Street banks that caused this recession, not 
environmental regulations that protect children from toxic mercury 
emissions.
  I oppose these bills on the substance, but I also have concerns about 
the process as well. When Congress organized at the beginning of the 
year, the majority leader announced that the House would be following a 
discretionary CutGo rule. Similarly, Chairman Upton on our committee 
stated that he'd be following that same discretionary CutGo rule. Well, 
CBO has determined that the bill we consider today authorizes new 
discretionary spending and will have significant impact on the Federal 
budget.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  However, this new authorization is not offset and the bill does not 
comply with the Republican's discretionary CutGo policy. It is not 
discretionary in the sense that they have discretion whether to follow 
it or not, but discretionary spending when it is mandated in a bill 
must be paid for. The American people need to focus on the radical 
agenda of the Republicans that control the House of Representatives. I 
don't think when the Republicans were voted into office the American 
people wanted poisoning more children with mercury and letting more of 
our seniors die prematurely because of uncontrolled air pollution.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta), a member of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
rise today in support of H.R. 2250.
  I'm a cosponsor of this legislation which was introduced in response 
to yet another overreaching EPA rule proposal, this time for industrial 
boilers. This rule finalized will have devastating effects on the 
Nation's economy and lead to further job loss, especially in my home 
State of Ohio.
  The community of Orrville, Ohio, which is east of me, a small city 
which has just over 8,300 residents, provides a perfect example of the 
wide-ranging negative impacts of the rule.

                              {time}  0930

  As written, the Boiler MACT rule would require Orrville Utilities, a 
nonprofit electric service provider, to spend $40.2 million on 
additional controls to remain in compliance. This equates to $4,843 for 
every man, woman and child living in Orrville, as well as putting the 
utility workers' jobs at risk.
  While that cost increase alone would be devastating to the families 
and job creators in the community, the unintended consequences reach 
much deeper. For example, Smucker's, that company that we all know and 
love which makes jellies, jams, apple butter, spreads and other food 
products has been a staple of America's homes for over 110 years; and 
it employs over 1,500 people at its home factories in Orrville. 
Smucker's has been a customer of Orrville Utilities since the 
establishment of the utility in 1917, and the company's CEO says 
``Smucker's has elected to remain in the Orrville, Ohio, community for 
many reasons, including the low rates, reliable service, and the 
company benefits of working with a city-owned and -operated electric 
utility.''
  It is impossible for me to understand why anyone would support a rule 
that would force a nonprofit utility like Orville to significantly 
raise their rates, as the result of a rule EPA has admitted was based 
on faulty information, and make it more difficult for companies that 
have been providing thousands of jobs in communities like

[[Page H6633]]

Orrville for over 110 years to do business.
  It is important to note that this bill does not ask the EPA not to 
regulate these facilities. It only lays out a framework that allows the 
EPA to regulate them in a more reasonable fashion, over a more 
reasonable time frame so we can protect the environment and take 
advantage of all the economic benefits that these facilities provide to 
the communities and businesses they service.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this important job-
saving legislation.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, before I recognize the subcommittee 
chairman, I want to indicate to the gentleman from Ohio who just spoke, 
Mr. Latta, that he was giving a speech on the wrong rule, that this 
bill does not pertain to the rule that he mentioned in his comments.
  I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), the 
distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy and the 
Environment.
  Mr. RUSH. I want to thank my leader, the ranking member of the full 
committee, for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2250, the 
Dirty Boiler Enhancement and Enabler bill.
  Mr. Chairman, here we go again. This bill represents yet another 
Republican unrestrained, unrestricted assault on the Clean Air Act and 
on our Nation's most fundamental environmental protection laws. In 
fact, since the new Republican majority has taken over, there's been a 
constant assault against the Environmental Protection Agency and the 
clean air policies that they enforce on behalf of a few of the most 
avaricious, opportunistic, and dirtiest polluters ever known in the 
history of mankind and to the detriment of the American public as a 
whole.
  Since the new Tea Party-led majority has taken control of this 
Congress, this body has passed bill after bill that will weaken our 
Nation's most basic clean air and clean water regulations. One of the 
very first bills that this new radical Republican majority passed out 
of the Energy and Commerce Committee, H.R. 910, was a direct frontal 
attack to the EPA's ability to even regulate greenhouse gas emissions 
at all, despite the warnings and evidence from those in the scientific 
community that these gases directly contribute to climate change.
  Last month, the radical Republican majority followed that up with 
H.R. 2401, the TRAIN Wreck Act, which will repeal and block smog, soot, 
mercury and air toxics standards for power plants that will potentially 
save thousands of lives and avoid hundreds of thousands of asthma 
attacks in this Nation.
  Now, here we are today debating H.R. 2250, the Dirty Boiler 
Enhancement and Enabler bill, which would vacate three Clean Air Act 
rules that establish the only national limits on emissions of air 
toxics, including mercury, from certain boilers and incinerators. This 
bill would require EPA to propose and finalize weaker alternative rules 
that will allow for more pollution than the law currently permits by 
intentionally making substantial changes in how the EPA sets the 
standards for the rules.
  At a minimum, this Dirty Boiler Enabler and Enhancement bill would 
delay EPA reductions from boilers and incinerators until at least 2018, 
which is a 3-year delay. Mr. Chairman, the science tells us that these 
dirty air toxics can cause a variety of serious health effects, 
including cancer, respiratory and neurological impairments, as well as 
reproductive problems. The research also tells us that low-income 
families and minorities are disproportionately affected by toxic air 
pollution, including impaired neurological development, as well as 
higher rates of respiratory and cardiovascular disease because these 
groups are more likely to live closer to industrial power plant 
facilities.
  In fact, by the EPA's own estimate, H.R. 2250 will allow up to tens 
of thousands of additional premature deaths and heart attacks and 
hundreds of thousands of additional asthma attacks that could have been 
avoided.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, it is now time that the radical Republican 
majority stop putting profits in the pockets of dirty polluters and 
stop putting dirty air in the lungs of the American people. Now is the 
time for the Republicans to cease their unending assault on the 
Environmental Protection Agency.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to oppose this egregious and 
dangerous bill.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I would like to yield 4 minutes to the primary sponsor 
of the legislation, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith), a 
member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. I rise today in support of H.R. 2250, the 
EPA Regulatory Relief Act of 2011.
  Excessive regulations are threatening jobs across the Nation. We all 
recognize the need for reasonable regulations to protect the public. 
There are good regulations that ensure public safety and protect our 
environment. But there are also unnecessary and unreasonable 
regulations that hurt jobs in some of our Nation's most critical 
industries.
  Recently, a representative from Celanese, a chemical company in the 
Ninth District of Virginia, which I'm proud to represent, testified 
that the EPA's Boiler MACT rules, as written, could force them to 
significantly scale back or change operations at a plant in Giles 
County that employs hundreds of people in the Ninth District. Giles 
County and communities throughout southwest Virginia are already facing 
job losses resulting from other excessive EPA regulations.
  The Boiler MACT rules are a very complex area of law and regulation. 
We are talking about hundreds of pages of rules in the Federal 
Register. These rules would affect boilers used by thousands of major 
employers and smaller employers, including hospitals, manufacturers, 
and even our colleges.
  By the EPA's own estimates, compliance with its Boiler MACT rules 
will impose $5.8 billion in upfront capital costs and impose new costs 
of $2.2 billion annually. However, the Council of Industrial Boiler 
Owners estimates that the capital costs alone of the final rules will 
exceed $14 billion and could put more than 230,000 jobs at risk, 
including 10,000 jobs in Virginia.

                              {time}  0940

  The EPA Regulatory Relief Act would provide the EPA with 15 months to 
repropose and finalize new, achievable, and workable rules to replace 
those that were published earlier this year. The legislation would 
extend the compliance deadlines from 3 to at least 5 years to allow 
facilities--like Celanese and others--enough time to comply with these 
very complex and expensive standards and to install the necessary 
equipment. It also directs the EPA to ensure that new rules are in fact 
achievable by real-world boilers, process heaters, and incinerators, 
and directs the EPA to impose the least burdensome regulatory 
alternatives under the Clean Air Act, consistent with the act and 
President Obama's Executive order.
  Despite what opponents may say, this bill recognizes the need for 
reasonable boiler regulations. This is not an attempt to forego the 
rules entirely. Under H.R. 2250, the EPA must issue replacement rules 
and must set compliance dates. The bill simply provides sufficient time 
for the government to get the rules right and come up with a more 
reasonable and achievable approach that protects the public without 
imposing unnecessary costs on businesses that employ thousands of 
hardworking Americans.
  Protecting jobs is an issue that transcends party lines. This 
commonsense bill represents a compromise. Like any compromise, the 
language of H.R. 2250 is not what I might have done if I were acting 
alone. However, this bill brought together a group of legislators from 
both sides of the aisle with a reasonable approach and reasonable 
language. The EPA Regulatory Relief Act has 126 bipartisan cosponsors.
  America's job creators are also speaking out in support of this bill. 
The EPA Regulatory Relief Act has received hundreds of support letters 
from businesses, unions, and trade associations. Understand, the 
investments required by these rules are irreversible. For those 
businesses that decide to

[[Page H6634]]

stop producing their product at a particular location, the job losses 
are also irreversible.
  The good news here is excessive regulations are reversible and 
fixable. We must fix unreasonable regulations like the Boiler MACT 
rules and keep the focus on protecting valuable American jobs.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues 
to join me in supporting the EPA Regulatory Relief Act of 2011. I 
appreciate this opportunity to carry this important legislation, which 
will protect jobs not only in the Ninth District of Virginia, but 
across these United States.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I wish to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank our leader from California.
  I just want to say that these bills represent a toxic assault that 
compromises public health for polluter wealth. Republicans are 
continuing their war on the environment with episode 37 of the Clean 
Air Act repeal-a-thon. It is a tried-and-true, three-part Republican 
strategy:
  First, pass legislation that repeals regulations that have already 
been set. Second, indefinitely delay new regulations from ever being 
set. And third, just for good measure, include a provision that 
eviscerates the very underpinnings of effective Federal law and deters 
any effort to protect the health and well-being of millions of 
Americans.
  Make no mistake, that is what we are doing here this week. These 
bills block and indefinitely delay implementation of the rules that 
would reduce hazardous air pollution, such as mercury, lead, and 
cancer-causing substances released from cement kilns and industrial 
boilers, and do so in callous disregard for adverse impacts those 
pollutants have on public health, particularly on the health of infants 
and children.
  Republicans have decided to stage their own public event today on the 
floor: Occupy Stall Street. But lest you think that Republicans always 
want to delay regulations, it turns out that sometimes they want to 
speed up the wheels.
  Republicans voted to tell EPA to hurry up and make decisions to issue 
air permits for drilling rigs off the pristine coast of Alaska. 
Republicans have voted to give the Department of the Interior a mere 30 
days to approve permit applications for drilling in the gulf at the 
same time they block legislation to implement any drilling reform in 
the wake of the BP disaster. And they've also voted to reduce the time 
allowed for environmental review so that the State Department would 
approve the Keystone pipeline as soon as possible.
  But when it comes to regulations that would decrease the amount of 
toxic pollutants in our air or water, apparently the same Federal 
agencies that evaluate hazardous pollutants in the first place just 
need more time to review the science, more time to understand the 
technologies, more time before doing anything to make our water safer 
to drink, make our air safer to breathe, and protect the health of 
children around the country.
  And it also turns out that Republicans don't always turn a blind eye 
towards the health effects of toxic chemicals. Three months ago, as our 
country stood on the edge of default due to Tea Party brinksmanship, 
House Republicans chose to vigorously debate a bill to ban compact 
fluorescent light bulbs. During that debate, Republicans repeatedly 
told us that the mercury vapor from those light bulbs is dangerous and 
that exposing our citizens to the harmful effects of the mercury 
contained in CFL light bulbs is likely to pose a hazard for years to 
come. Yet the bills considered today would result in nearly 16,600 
pounds of extra mercury vapors being released directly into the air, 
and that's just in 1 year. That is the equivalent of 2.5 billion 
compact fluorescent light bulbs. And the mercury released as a result 
of these bills is not the kind you can sweep off the living room floor 
or throw into a trash can. This is the mercury released directly into 
the air that we all breathe and finds its way into the food that we 
eat.
  If the regulation to remove mercury from cement plants--which is 
already 13 years overdue--is delayed for even 1 year, up to 2,500 
people will die prematurely, there will be 17,000 cases of aggravated 
asthma, and 1,500 people will suffer heart attacks.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman.
  If the regulation to remove mercury, lead, and cancer-causing toxins 
from incinerators and industrial boilers--which is already 11 years 
overdue--is delayed for even 1 year, there will be 6,600 people who 
will die prematurely and people will miss 320,000 days of work and 
school.
  The Republicans are presenting yet another false choice to the 
American people. We do not have to choose between manufacturing and 
mercury. We do not have to choose between concrete and cancer. We can 
have both clean air and a healthy manufacturing sector.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this terrible Republican 
cancer-causing bill out here on the floor today.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I might just note to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
that our legislation does not postpone this indefinitely. EPA has 15 
months after passage of the bill to come out with the regulations and 5 
years to comply. And the only way they can be extended beyond 5 years 
is if the EPA administrator, herself, decides to do so.
  At this time I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, a member of the committee.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 2250, the EPA Regulatory Relief Act of 2011.

                              {time}  0950

  This important legislation will greatly reduce the onerous regulatory 
burden caused by what is commonly referred to as Boiler MACT, the 
Boiler MACT rule that has been proposed by the EPA.
  Furthermore, I commend the sponsors of the bill and fellow members of 
the Energy and Commerce Committee, Chairman Whitfield, Mr. Griffith of 
Virginia, and Mr. Butterfield of North Carolina, for their leadership 
on this important issue.
  Unfortunately, the Boiler MACT rule has the potential to cost a broad 
base of industries a total of nearly $14.4 billion in compliance costs, 
and it could jeopardize upwards of 225,000 jobs. In my home State of 
Georgia alone, the Boiler MACT rule would put nearly 6,400 jobs at 
risk. At a time when 14 million Americans are out of work, we need to 
take the necessary steps to prevent adding even more people to these 
unemployment rolls.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2250 would simply delay this rule by 15 months in 
order to insert much-needed common sense into this rulemaking process. 
By providing this important delay, there will be ample time for the EPA 
to craft rules that will take into account the economic impact of these 
regulations and to provide industries with the needed time for their 
implementation. This has the potential of creating more certainty in 
the marketplace than currently exists and will help spur economic 
growth.
  Mr. Chairman, critics of this legislation will say that we are simply 
ignoring the Clean Air Act and risking irresponsible harm to our 
environment. Let me assure my colleagues that this argument is false. 
The intent of H.R. 2250 is not to completely repeal this environmental 
rule. The legislation seeks to correct the regulatory overreach by the 
EPA, especially in this depressed economy, and to reconfigure this rule 
so that it can be functional for industries and save much-needed jobs 
in the process.
  So, Mr. Chairman, in closing, I urge all my colleagues to please 
support H.R. 2250.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, before I yield, I want to set the record 
straight. Our distinguished colleague on the other side of the aisle 
said that this bill would provide 15 months to promulgate a rule and 
then 5 years to comply. There are 15 months to promulgate the rule, but 
there's no requirement that there ever be compliance.

[[Page H6635]]

  I want to also point out that this argument about jobs being lost is 
absolutely wrong for four reasons, and four reasons you shouldn't 
believe them. First, the claims are based on fundamentally flawed 
studies, bought and paid for by the regulated industry.
  Second, the rules are stayed. EPA is in the process of redoing them, 
and not one of these studies has analyzed the actual final rule.
  Third, EPA has done a rigorous 251-page economic analysis, and found 
that the boiler rules issued in February would be expected to create 
over 2,000 jobs.
  And finally, history tells us to be very, very skeptical of industry 
claims that the sky is falling. EPA is in the process of rewriting 
these rules. I say to the industry, let us work together to fashion 
legislation that will solve the immediate problems, a bill that can be 
signed by the President, not this bill, which may never see the light 
of day out of the Senate, and if it did, the President has indicated he 
would veto it.
  I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow), a 
member of our committee.
  Mr. BARROW. I thank the ranking member for the time to express 
another view on the legislation.
  I'm proud to be an original sponsor of the EPA Regulatory Relief Act. 
This legislation was drafted in response to new EPA regulations on 
emissions from industrial boilers. I believe those regulations, however 
well meaning, cannot reasonably be met with today's technologies. I 
believe that this bill is a more reasonable solution than that proposed 
by the EPA.
  The choice before us is not between the two mutually exclusive 
outcomes of dirty air or more jobs. Our challenge is to promote 
policies that serve both. I think this bill strikes a better balance. 
It will spur industry to make investments that cut down on harmful air 
emissions, while minimizing the chances of negative economic 
consequences and job losses.
  I'm proud to have worked in a productive, bipartisan way to get this 
bill to the floor, and encourage my colleagues' support.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), who's chairman of the 
Science Committee.
  Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, Chairman Whitfield, of course I rise in 
support of H.R. 2250.
  As policymakers, it's our job to use common sense and judgment to 
balance the universal priorities of a strong economy, security at home 
and security abroad, and healthy communities. And this country has a 
history of remarkable achievement in addressing these priorities. 
However, with an unemployment rate of more than 9 percent, it's 
irresponsible for the executive branch to stifle job growth and, for 
that matter, to create job loss through the outrageous and inflexible 
negotiations and regulations.
  In my district alone, the Boiler MACT rules threaten more than 800 
good-paying manufacturing jobs. These are not jobs that can be re-
created. Once eliminated, they're gone. Several weeks ago Assistant 
Administrator Gina McCarthy stated arrogantly, I don't want to create 
the impression that EPA is in the business of creating jobs.
  I feel that statement's inappropriate and unfeeling toward those who 
have lost their jobs and lost the ability to provide for their family's 
future. H.R. 2250 is a clear statement by Congress that EPA slow down 
and allow for reasoning along with some regulations.
  The President said that his administration would be the most 
transparent in history. Instead, we find clandestine models, cherry-
picking of data, double-counting of benefits, and a failure to follow 
basic peer review guidelines. This is a recipe for losing the public's 
trust. EPA needs a timeout, and this bill provides it.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, can you inform us as to how much time is 
remaining on both sides?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 11 minutes remaining, 
and the gentleman from Kentucky has 13\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Moran).
  Mr. MORAN. I thank my very good friend for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, a rigorous peer-reviewed analysis, called ``The 
Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020,'' conducted 
by the Environmental Protection Agency, found that the air quality 
improvements under the Clean Air Act will save $2 trillion by 2020, and 
prevent at least 230,000 deaths annually--230,000 lives saved on an 
annual basis. We could save four times the number of people killed each 
year in automobile accidents by reducing air pollution.
  Yet, just 2 weeks ago, this Chamber approved legislation to block the 
EPA from implementing rules to clean up the single largest stationary 
source of air pollution. That legislation gave this Nation's oldest and 
dirtiest coal-fired power plants another pass to pollute and avoid 
compliance with the Clean Air Act.
  Today we're considering legislation, the EPA Regulatory Relief Act, 
to exempt the second-largest source of hazardous air pollution: 
Industrial and commercial boilers, process heaters, and commercial and 
industrial solid waste incinerators.
  Under this bill, these large boilers and incinerators would be given 
at least a 75-month pass from regulation; a 15-month delay before any 
new rules could be issued, and an additional 5 years beyond that delay 
before any new emission standards could be issued; and no deadline for 
industry compliance. This bill does more than just offer a pass from 
regulation. It also ensures that any final regulation will be weaker 
than what the law requires.
  The final section of this bill deals with the Clean Air Act's most 
protective legal standard for reducing toxic air pollution, the Maximum 
Available Control Technology. After 20 years, we're replacing it with 
the absolutely least protective of measures, called ``work practice 
standards'' such as equipment tuneups that need not even reduce 
emissions.
  Pass this bill and you sentence hundreds of thousands to asthma 
attacks and a lifetime of health complications. Pass this bill and you 
saddle our economy with unnecessary costs and employers with millions 
of additional sick days. Pass this bill and you trigger an additional 
20,000 heart attacks. Pass this bill and you condemn tens of thousands 
of Americans to a premature death.

                              {time}  1000

  Mr. Chairman, the Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act that 
unfortunately will pass today and the TRAIN Act that passed 2 weeks ago 
constitute an all-out war between this Nation's dirtiest industries and 
the Federal agency charged with protecting the public's health. EPA has 
become the symbol, the center, of a debate over the role of government. 
It's a sad commentary for this Chamber that an industry that prefers to 
invest in the political process rather than in saving lives by reducing 
harmful emissions is in fact winning the debate.
  In fact, the coal consuming industries that have underwritten this 
assault on EPA were invited early on during the first year of the Obama 
administration to sit down and craft a compliance option. The 
administration had hoped to craft a deal similar to the historic deal 
it made with the Nation's auto industry on fuel efficiency and tailpipe 
emissions. An article by Coral Davenport in the September 22 issue of 
the National Journal referenced this meeting. But unlike the auto 
industry, the coal consuming industries refused to negotiate.
  Instead, and let me quote from the article, they ``banded together 
with the Republican Party to strategize, and the 2010 midterm elections 
offered the perfect battleground. The companies invested heavily in 
campaigns to elect Tea Party candidates crusading against the role of 
Big Government. Industry groups (like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce), 
Tea Party groups with deep ties to polluters (like Americans for 
Prosperity), and so-called super PACs (like Karl Rove's American 
Crossroads) spent record amounts to help elect the new House Republican 
majority.''
  My colleagues, this is a bill peddled by an industry that refuses to 
clean up

[[Page H6636]]

its act. Hundreds of thousands of people owe their lives today to the 
environmental movement, leaders in Congress, and the White House who 
pushed for and passed the landmark environmental laws back in the 1970s 
that required polluters to clean our waters and reduce the pollution in 
the air we breathe.
  In the decade after the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments were signed 
into law by the first President Bush, our unemployment rate declined, 
our economy grew, and we reduced acid rain-forming gases by more than 
30 percent.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, the cost of meeting the emission reductions 
was actually 75 percent less than what EPA had originally predicted and 
even farther below what opponents had claimed. In the case of the rule 
for boilers and solid waste incinerators, EPA issued its proposed 
standards in April of this year, 11 years after the statutory deadline. 
They listened to affected businesses, they cut compliance costs by a 
half and issued a modified, final rule in February.
  Mr. Chairman, EPA is doing everything the law requires and that the 
public health requires. This body ought to do the same and defeat this 
bill.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished lady from 
Washington State (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers), a member of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee.
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. I thank the chairman for yielding, and I 
appreciate his leadership on this important issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2250, the EPA 
Regulatory Relief Act of 2011. At a time when our Nation's economy 
continues to struggle and unemployment remains far too high, Congress 
should focus on legislation that will keep and create jobs in America, 
not suffocate them or send them overseas. As an original cosponsor of 
this legislation, I know it will do just that.
  Last week, I was home in eastern Washington on an energy and jobs 
tour where I met with citizens, small businesses, and job creators. 
Whether I was up in Colville or in Spokane, the message was clear: The 
Federal Government is making it harder to manufacture, harder to 
produce, and harder to innovate anything in America. The anxiety and 
the uncertainty caused by the Federal Government's record regulatory 
overreach is destroying any chance of economic recovery.
  Like the ozone standard, the simple truth is the new, stricter Boiler 
MACT regulations will have a disastrous effect on our economy. The EPA, 
itself, says that these rules will cost thousands of jobs. Independent 
studies say up to 224,000 jobs could be lost. One example is in eastern 
Washington, where the Ponderay Newsprint Company will be forced to 
spend $8 million on mandatory upgrades. That's $8 million that cannot 
be spent on retaining or creating jobs.
  The EPA Regulatory Relief Act requires the EPA to set realistic, 
achievable, fact-based standards that will not destroy jobs while still 
protecting the environment. I urge my colleagues to support this 
pragmatic, commonsense solution.
  I again thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Ellison).
  Mr. ELLISON. Let me thank the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. Chairman, a number of very passionate and well-informed speakers 
have come before this body today to urge a ``no'' vote based on facts 
and based on research. All this is extremely important, and I'm so glad 
they did it, but for the people watching this debate today, they need 
to know one thing, and that is that this legislation is bought and paid 
for by industry so that people could try to save money at the expense 
of people's health and their lives, and this is exactly what's going on 
here today.
  What's going on here today is that industry interests backed 
candidates who come here today to offer legislation that would allow 
the cement industry, the coal-fired power industry and the boiler 
industry users to just dump mercury and other junk into the air that 
makes you sick.
  And as we're talking about jobs, what about a jobs bill that could 
put Americans to work, as opposed to saying, we're just going to get 
rid of all the regulations in America? What if we just got rid of all 
the regulations in America? We would be sicker, we would die sooner, 
and we would be much less of a country. What if we just said that we're 
going to put the health of Americans up front, that we're going to 
actually introduce a jobs bill like the American Jobs Act? What if we 
did those things? America would be back on track. But maybe some of 
these big industrial polluters would be a little sadder.
  I say today, Mr. Chairman, that this Congress should reject the 
attack on Americans' health. In the last 3 weeks, we have seen industry 
polluters from the industry that uses these boilers, the cement 
industry and coal-fired power plant industry, be able to just run amok 
on the people's health, and we have yet to see a single jobs bill in 
the course of the 250-plus days that this majority has been in the 
hands of the Republicans.
  This is a national disgrace. The American people said they wanted 
jobs. They haven't gotten them. The American people say they want to be 
well and healthy. They are seeing assaults on that. This is something 
that the American people need to bring their attention to, Mr. 
Chairman; and I hope that people are paying attention to this debate 
today because it is crystal clear whose side the majority is so on: 
industry polluters, not the American people.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I may say to the gentleman from 
Minnesota, I don't know exactly what he's talking about when he says 
``bought and paid for by industry.'' I might say that this legislation 
is being offered because hospitals, schools, industry, a wide range of 
interests, have come to us and asked for help, and the insinuation that 
we were bought and paid for by industry is a little bit of an affront 
to this institution.
  At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Olson), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. OLSON. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, President Obama's regulatory agenda, being led by the 
EPA, is going to kill the American pulp and paper industry. My father 
spent his entire career in the pulp and paper industry, so I know 
firsthand that if the misguided Boiler MACT rules are allowed to be 
implemented, 36 mills across this country will close and more than 
80,000 jobs will be lost. These jobs will be lost because of the EPA's 
failure to understand the basics of how this industry works.

                              {time}  1010

  The industry does not--does not--impose reasonable regulations. They 
are just asking to have regulations based on sound science, which can 
be achieved with technology that is currently available here in the 
real world.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to stop exporting American manufacturing jobs. 
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2250, the EPA Regulatory 
Relief Act of 2011, to create an immediate positive impact on American 
jobs and the recovery of our economy.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself 1 minute.
  What we have here today is just one more episode in what is a 1-year 
Republican control of the Congress, which has seen a litany of 
industries that no longer want to make the air cleaner, that no longer 
want to make the water safer to drink.
  We come out here on the House floor with Republican leadership in 
order to repeal the laws, to water down the laws to protect children 
from mercury, to protect children from contracting asthma. That's what 
this is all about. The EPA used to stand for the Environmental 
Protection Agency. Now it stands for ``every polluter's ally'' out 
here. They all come out here, and they want to ensure that the laws are 
watered down.
  That's what we're fighting. That's what Democrats are fighting here. 
We're fighting to ensure that the water stays clean, that the air stays 
safe to breathe. The boiler industry is saying, no, there's not enough 
mercury that gets sent up into the air; there's not

[[Page H6637]]

enough mercury that goes into the lives of children in our country. 
We're going to fight that.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I would like to remind the gentleman from 
Massachusetts that there is a large number of Democrats on this 
legislation.
  At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Herger).
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2250, which will 
protect American jobs from the EPA's unnecessary and economically 
destructive Boiler MACT regulations. At this time of high unemployment 
and economic hardship, the EPA wants to require the costly retrofitting 
of boilers at small businesses, energy plants, schools, and churches in 
the northern California congressional district I represent and across 
the Nation.
  This regulation is another example of the Obama administration 
standing in the way of job growth. The Department of Commerce estimates 
that the 276 pages of Federal regulations could eliminate as many as 
60,000 U.S. jobs nationwide. The EPA's own fact sheet says that 
implementing these rules will cost more than $5 billion.
  In August of 2010, the Small Business Administration explicitly 
warned the EPA that these regulations were too extreme and would harm 
small businesses. Unfortunately, the EPA did not heed this warning. In 
addition, the boiler regulation will impose substantial and unnecessary 
costs for Americans to use biomass energy--an essential part of job 
growth in the northern California district I represent. Biomass is a 
clean and renewable energy source that could help increase our energy 
supplies and manage our overgrown and fire-prone forests while creating 
much needed jobs.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, which will protect 
jobs and ensure that this costly regulation does not go into effect.
  Mr. MARKEY. I would ask the Chair if we could review again how much 
time is remaining.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 1\3/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  The gentleman from Kentucky has 9 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MARKEY. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee, Dr. Roe.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  I rise today in support of this legislation. We cannot afford to 
enforce the proposed MACT regulations, especially when unemployment 
exceeds 9 percent. These new burdensome regulations would result in the 
loss of over 200,000 jobs, over 8,400 of which are in Tennessee.
  When will this administration learn that further burdening the job 
creators does not create jobs?
  This is just another example of failed leadership, and it is our duty 
to the American people to ensure that the EPA does not continue down 
the same path that will only lead to job loss.
  The new rules affect approximately 200,000 boilers. These boilers 
burn natural gas, fuel oil, coal, biomass, refinery gas, or other gas 
to produce steam, which is used to generate electricity or to provide 
heat for factories and other industrial or institutional facilities or 
schools.
  This will especially affect the economic outlook in the agriculture 
community. Agriculture accounts for more than 950,000 jobs both on and 
off the farm--a large portion of the American economy. In Tennessee, 
13.8 percent of the workforce is employed in agriculture, and these are 
jobs we cannot afford to lose to government overreach. If forced to 
replace current coal-fired boilers with natural gas-fired boilers at 
this time, there is no doubt that the cornerstone of our economy would 
suffer.
  Or consider Eastman Chemical, a manufacturing company headquartered 
in my district. Eastman generates $6.9 billion in revenue and employs 
over 11,000 Tennesseans. There is no doubt these new regulations would 
negatively impact their business, the effects of which they estimate 
for their company alone would be in the tens of millions of dollars. In 
fact, the Boiler MACT regulations could cost the manufacturing sector 
over $14 billion in capital, plus billions more in annual operating 
costs; and complying with the incinerator standards could cost even 
billions more.
  As the EPA has acknowledged, the rules were finalized with serious 
flaws because the EPA was forced to meet a strict court-ordered 
deadline. This commonsense legislation does not repeal these rules; it 
simply allows time to come up with a plan to support clean air efforts 
without more burdensome regulations on job creators.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. MARKEY. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I yield 2 minutes to a member of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Scalise).
  Mr. SCALISE. I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky for 
yielding. I really want to thank him for bringing this jobs bill to the 
House floor.
  This legislation, this EPA regulatory reform bill, is critical to 
saving tens of thousands of jobs--over 100,000 jobs--in America that 
are at risk if the EPA is able to get away with yet another radical 
regulation they're trying to implement.
  When I go throughout southeast Louisiana and talk to job creators, 
our small business owners--the people who are struggling in this tough 
economy but who still want to try to create jobs--and when I ask them, 
What are the things that are holding you back from creating jobs, from 
having your business grow so that more people can have great 
opportunities to live the American Dream?, there is a consistent theme 
that they all say, that it's the regulations coming out of Washington, 
D.C., coming out of the Obama administration. That is the prime reason 
that is holding them back from creating good jobs in this country.
  Of course, we've seen it in southeast Louisiana--we've got tough 
times--but if you go all throughout the country, you'll see the same 
thing. Just look at the numbers from outside groups that have actually 
tried to figure out just how devastating the impact would be of just 
this boiler regulation if it were to go into effect by the EPA. Over 
1,500 boilers across this country are at risk, and you're talking about 
over 230,000 jobs. Just look at some of the States--I mean, the State 
of North Carolina, the State of Indiana, the States of Ohio, Michigan, 
Pennsylvania. Each of those States will lose over 10,000 jobs if this 
radical EPA regulation goes into effect.
  The President is running around the country, saying, Pass this bill. 
He was saying pass this bill before he even filed the bill. Here is an 
actual bill on the floor of the House of Representatives that will save 
over 230,000 jobs that will be lost; yet the President wants to ram 
through this radical regulation anyway in spite of the fact that all 
those jobs will be lost.

                              {time}  1020

  I think the American people understand what's going on. They're 
saying sanity needs to be reinvoked in Washington in this 
administration.
  Stop running jobs out of the country. Let's put commonsense reforms 
in place. This bipartisan legislation does that.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Moran).
  Mr. MORAN. I thank the gentleman for his leadership.
  I would like to quote Bruce Bartlett, who was the economics adviser 
to both President Ronald Reagan and President George H. W. Bush. He 
said this in an article in The New York Times this week.
  ``Republicans have a problem. People are increasingly concerned about 
unemployment, but Republicans have nothing to offer them. The GOP 
opposes additional government spending for jobs programs and, in fact, 
favors big cuts in spending that would be likely to lead to further 
layoffs at all levels of government. Republicans favor tax cuts for the 
wealthy and corporations, but these had no stimulative effect during 
the George W. Bush administration and there is no reason to believe 
that more of them will have any today. And the Republicans' oft-stated 
concern for the deficit makes tax cuts a hard sell. On August 29, the 
House majority leader, Eric Cantor of Virginia, sent a memorandum to 
members

[[Page H6638]]

of the House Republican Conference, telling them to make the repeal of 
job-destroying regulations the key point in the Republican jobs agenda. 
Evidence supporting Mr. Cantor's contention that deregulation would 
increase unemployment is very weak. As one can see, the number of 
layoffs nationwide caused by government regulation is minuscule and 
shows no evidence of getting worse during the Obama administration.''
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. May I ask how much time remains, Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 4 minutes remaining, and 
the gentleman from Massachusetts has 1\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).
  Mr. DUFFY. I appreciate the gentleman from Kentucky for yielding.
  I come from central and northern Wisconsin where we have a large 
forest products industry. We make a lot of paper in Wisconsin. And if 
you look at these rules, they are going to have a significant impact on 
Wisconsin paper, real jobs that support our families. Domtar 
Industries, 1,400 jobs; Flambeau River Paper, 300 jobs; New Page, 3,200 
jobs; Wausau Paper, 1,600 jobs.
  So we look at these regulations that are going to increase the 
standard on our boilers. And if you increase those standards, causing 
our companies to spend millions of more dollars to meet those 
standards, what's going to happen? You are going to ship Wisconsin 
paper to China and Brazil. And what happens there? They don't have the 
same standards that we have. And, in the end, what's going to happen is 
we're going to outsource Wisconsin jobs and our paper is going to be 
made with reduced standards.
  I think in the end, those who care about our environment, who care 
about standards to make sure we have clean water and clean air, if you 
look over to China, they don't have those same standards. But, in the 
end, we breathe the same air and drink the same water.
  So let's make sure we have efficient standards that can keep American 
industry and Wisconsin paper in business and doesn't shift these jobs 
overseas.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The Republicans have yet to bring a job creation bill out here on the 
House floor in the 10 months they have controlled the Congress.
  Instead, what they're doing is responding to industries who do not 
want to make the air cleaner, who do not want to make the water safer 
for the children of our country to drink and to breathe. And, instead, 
they make the case that making the environment cleaner kills jobs when 
we know that all evidence says it creates more jobs, because it spurs 
innovation in new technologies that create jobs that make our economy 
stronger. Instead, they argue that what the country needs is more 
mercury, more arsenic, more cadmium, more asthmas, more mercury 
poisoning, more carcinogens that harm the health of our country.
  So not only do they not help the health of our economy by bringing 
out a jobs bill, instead they bring out bills that hurt the health of 
the American people where they live and their families. That's what 
their agenda has been all about since the day they took over in 
January, and that's the agenda that we are voting on here today.
  Vote ``no'' on this Republican health-killing bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. In closing, I would urge every Member of this body to 
support H.R. 2250. We believe that it is genuinely a balanced approach. 
EPA even was trying to convince the court that their rule was a good 
rule, the old rule.
  To just give you a very concrete example of this, of the practical 
impacts of what's going on here, EPA went to the court last December 
when it asked for time to fix the Boiler MACT rules, which the court 
denied it, and pointed out that the investments required by industry 
are irreversible.
  An example of that, representatives of Notre Dame University came to 
our hearing. And in order to comply with the Boiler MACT rules issued 
in 2004, which were invalidated by the court, the University of Notre 
Dame spent $20 million, and now they're not in compliance with the new 
rule, so they're going to have to come forth with additional millions 
of dollars.
  So that's happening not only at the University of Notre Dame, that's 
happening at just about every university around the country, hospitals 
around the country, small businesses around the country, small 
utilities around the country. So if we don't take some action, there 
are going to be a lot less, many fewer jobs in the economy than there 
are today, because testimony after testimony after testimony has 
indicated that entities cannot meet these new rules, are going to have 
to close down and lose jobs.
  So one way that we can help the administration create jobs is to 
prevent the loss of jobs. If this administration would assert more 
common sense in their rules, we could remove some of the uncertainty to 
help us create more jobs in America.
  I would urge every Member to support 2250. It's a balanced approach. 
It protects health, protects industry, and provides a more commonsense 
approach to this significant problem.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  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. Denham, 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. 
2250) to provide additional time for the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency to issue achievable standards for 
industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers, process heaters, and 
incinerators, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution 
thereon.

                          ____________________