[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14187-14203]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  TRANSPARENCY IN REGULATORY ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS ON THE NATION ACT OF 
                                  2011

  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H.R. 2401.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Palazzo). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 406 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. 2401.

                              {time}  1738


                     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. 2401) to require analyses of the cumulative and incremental 
impacts of certain rules and actions of the Environmental Protection 
Agency, 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 1 hour.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The last time the Clean Air Act was significantly changed was in 
1990, nearly 21 years ago, and since that time, a lot of changes have 
occurred in America. First of all, we find ourselves today with a 
situation where over 14 million Americans are unable to find work and 
millions more have given up trying. It appears that the only place 
where the job situation is good is at Federal regulatory agencies. 
Employment at Federal regulatory agencies has climbed 13 percent since 
President Obama took office, while private sector jobs shrank by 5.6 
percent. I believe these two divergent trends are related because the 
breaking pace at which the Environmental Protection Agency is cranking 
out new regulations is creating obstacles to job creation in America, 
and also to stimulating the economy.
  I don't care if you speak to small business people today or large 
business people today, they will tell you that one of the reasons that 
they are not investing is because of uncertainty--uncertainty about the 
health care bill that was passed last year, uncertainty about the 
financial regulations that are raising capital requirements and making 
loans more difficult to obtain, but primarily they talk about the 
excessive regulations coming out of the Environmental Protection 
Agency.
  Now, these regulations normally are not scrutinized very much, but I 
believe that the legislative branch has the responsibility, 
particularly when this many regulations are coming down the road, at a 
time when it's having impact on our ability to grow the economy, that 
the legislative branch needs to look at it, and that's precisely what 
we're doing with the TRAIN Act.

                              {time}  1740

  Under the TRAIN Act, we are establishing a government body that will 
look at the cumulative impact of about 12 regulations that have come 
down from the EPA in the last year or so. For example, there are a 
number of costly new rules impacting coal-fired electric power plants. 
These include utility MACT, Cross-State Air Pollution Rules, greenhouse 
gas rules, coal combustion residuals, and others.
  Each of these rules, alone, will force some existing power plants to 
shut down, while also blocking new ones from being built. This is bad 
enough, not just for jobs, but also because it will raise electricity 
prices. But the combined effect of all these rules is far worse. In 
fact, it could even reduce generating capacity enough that it would 
jeopardize the reliability of the Nation's electric grid system. And we 
need to know all of the information that we can obtain about these 
regulations so that we can move forward in a legitimate and 
conscientious way.
  If America is going to remain competitive in the global marketplace, 
it is going to have to have reasonable electricity prices, and that's 
going to be essential if we're ever going to stimulate this economy and 
create jobs in America.
  The cumulative burden of regulations really has not been much of a 
burden in the past because it's seldom that EPA has ever come forth 
with this many regulations. But the Obama administration's attempt to 
squeeze at least a decade's worth of major Clean Air Act regulations 
into less than 3 years, and do so in the midst of a weak economy, 
creates serious problems for America.
  The TRAIN Act, which really is very simple, will require an analysis 
of the cumulative impacts of the listed rules on energy prices and 
reliability, on jobs, and the effect on American competitiveness.
  Two upcoming rules that pose a particularly serious threat and are a 
major component of EPA's agenda are the utility MACT and the Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule. For these two rules, we will be offering an 
amendment that would put them on hold, pending completion of the 
cumulative impact study, as well as make substantive changes to make 
sure that they are achievable in real life.
  I might point out that the utility MACT is not in effect yet. The 
final rule is expected in November of this year. But the Cross-State 
Air Pollution Rule is in effect, and they'll start implementing it the 
first of the year.
  We're going to ask that that implementation be delayed until the 
final rule of our committee that's established under the TRAIN Act 
makes its final report on August 1, 2012.
  Some people are saying, well, if you delay this, then what are we 
going to do about our air transport rule? Well, the reality is that we 
have an air transport rule in effect today. I might add that EPA, when 
they implemented this bill, the CAIR Act, which was invalidated by a 
Federal court, showed that the SO2 emissions, the 
NOX emissions would be reduced significantly. And just about 
every environmental group in America supported the implementation of 
CAIR.
  I might also say that with CAIR, at that time, EPA came out with one 
of their benefit analyses, and they said CAIR will result in $85 
billion to $100 billion in health benefits each year, preventing 17,000 
premature deaths, 22,000 nonfatal heart attacks, 22,300 hospital 
admissions, 1.7 million workdays, 500,000 lost schooldays. What we have 
in place today is doing a tremendous job; and until a court invalidated 
it, everyone was pleased with it. And so there's little reason for us 
to rush forward to put in a new air transport rule when we have one 
that is working fine today.
  I might also say, some people have criticized this by trying to look 
at the cumulative impact of all these 12 or 13 regulations that EPA has 
implemented, but I would point out that President Obama, in his 
Executive Order 13563, said: I'm asking people in my administration to 
tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, taking into 
account other things, including the cost of cumulative regulations.
  So this legislation, which some people are going to describe as 
radical, is simply implementing what President Obama has asked his 
Environmental Protection Agency to do, and yet they refuse to do it.
  With that, I do hope that people will support H.R. 2401. It's a 
commonsense approach to remove regulations that are prohibiting jobs 
from being created in America and stimulating the American economy.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  This week is Dirty Air Week in the House of Representatives. 
Yesterday, in the Energy and Commerce Committee, we considered 
legislation that will increase emissions of mercury and other dangerous 
chemicals from industrial sources. Today the full House considers 
legislation to cut the heart out of the Clean Air Act.

[[Page 14188]]

  Mr. Speaker, this is the most anti-environmental House of 
Representatives in history. Since February of this year, the House has 
voted again and again 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 
protection of the environment in other ways.
  My staff prepared a database last month on every anti-environmental 
vote in this Congress. The tally was 125--125 votes to weaken clean 
air, clean water, safeguards to make our drinking water less safe, to 
weaken environmental standards in dozens of different ways. This is an 
appalling and dangerous environmental record. The full database is 
online at democrats.energycommerce.house.gov.
  Today the assault continues on the Clean Air Act. The bill we 
consider today, the TRAIN Act, will block and indefinitely delay two 
EPA rules that reduce pollution from power plants: the Mercury and Air 
Toxics Rule and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. These rules are 
critical to protecting the public health. Each year these rules will 
prevent tens of thousands of premature deaths, tens of thousands of 
heart attacks, and hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks. They will 
also prevent over 2 million lost workdays. If this legislation is 
enacted, these public health benefits will be lost, and more babies 
will be born with birth defects and learning disabilities.
  And this is not all. Today we will consider amendments offered by 
Chairman Whitfield and Representative Latta that will make this bill 
even worse. The Whitfield amendment will eviscerate the law's ability 
to require power plants to install modern pollution controls.
  EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told us this morning that if the 
Whitfield amendment is enacted, EPA will never be able to issue a rule 
to prevent emissions from power plants in one State from polluting the 
air in a downwind State. She also said that the amendment could destroy 
the agency's ability to ever reduce toxic mercury emissions from power 
plants.
  The Latta amendment is even worse. It will reverse 40 years of clean 
air policy, repealing the health-based standards that are at the heart 
of the Clean Air Act. The Latta amendment would allow our national 
goals for clean air to be determined by corporate profits, not public 
health.

                              {time}  1750

  These radical amendments were never examined in hearings or debated 
in the Energy and Commerce Committee or in any other committee. Members 
are being asked to vote on major changes to the Clean Air Act without 
any idea of their terrible impact on air quality and public health.
  My Republican colleagues will argue that we need to gut the Clean Air 
Act because it is a job-killing law. That is categorically false. The 
last 40 years proved we could have both economic growth and a clean 
environment. We do not have to choose between jobs and toxic mercury 
emissions that endanger our children's health and poison our lakes.
  The rules that are being overturned are job creators. If these rules 
are allowed to go forward, the utilities that operate our oldest and 
dirtiest power plants will have to install new pollution controls. This 
will create 1.5 million jobs by 2015. This bill puts these jobs on the 
chopping block.
  I urge all Members to oppose this legislation and protect the Clean 
Air Act.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I might just say first of all that I would tell Mrs. 
Jackson that we are not preventing her from implementing new air 
transport rules. We're going to keep in place what we have today that 
EPA said was a splendid program and even defended it in the court 
system. If my amendment is adopted, 3 years after the final report is 
made, they're totally free to go in and implement a new rule.
  At this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the vice chairman, 
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
2401, the Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation 
Act of 2011, otherwise known as the TRAIN Act.
  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 overregulation by the Federal Government.
  I strongly believe the Obama administration is moving too fast and 
showing little regard for the economic consequences of their energy and 
environmental policies. They are trying to regulate what they don't 
have the votes to legislate, and it is going to cost Americans jobs.
  With our Nation suffering under a crushing weight of 9 percent 
unemployment and the fact that the United States failed to create a 
single job in the month of August, the stakes could not be higher. The 
simple fact is that the businesses make decisions on where to invest 
based upon a number of factors, but regulatory certainty ranks at the 
top of the list.
  I introduced this bipartisan legislation to protect American jobs, 
jobs that we are in danger of losing due to the Obama administration's 
environmental regulatory agenda. The TRAIN Act will force the EPA and 
other Federal agencies to conduct an in-depth economic analysis of 
several of their rules and regulations so Congress and the American 
people can fully understand how the EPA's regulatory train wreck will 
impact our economy.
  In fact, EPA's rules and actions addressed in this legislation cost 
billions of dollars to the U.S. economy. The time to address the full 
economic burden of these regulations is now.
  At its heart, the TRAIN Act simply asks questions that should be 
asked of any expensive regulation: What do these regulations mean for 
our ability to compete in the global marketplace? Will electricity 
prices climb and by how much as power producers are required to 
retrofit plants to meet new requirements? How would higher electricity 
prices and plant closures affect jobs in the U.S.?
  It's really astonishing that the EPA is not doing this already. It is 
just common sense, good government for American workers and businesses.
  Now, some of the opponents of this commonsense legislation, including 
President Obama, say that this legislation is an assault on the Clean 
Air Act. Nothing could be further from the truth. The TRAIN Act will 
not prevent EPA from continuing to develop regulations. The TRAIN Act 
will also not limit the EPA's authority to protect public health and 
welfare in any way. The fact is EPA has never done an analysis on the 
cumulative impacts of these regulations on global competitiveness, 
energy and fuel prices, employment, or reliability of electricity 
supply, which is why we need this legislation.
  As we can see by EPA's actions on the utility sector alone, they are 
issuing multiple regulations on top of each other at an accelerated 
rate that makes it difficult for companies to invest and create jobs. 
I'm pleased that we include language to delay EPA's action on both the 
Utility MACT and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule until 6 months 
after the TRAIN Act analysis is complete.
  The Utility MACT Rule alone has the potential to be EPA's most 
expensive rule impacting the U.S. economy. And when combined, these 
proposed rules could cost almost $18 billion to implement as a result 
and cause a net employment loss of 1,450,000 jobs by 2020. These rules 
are an example of EPA's regulatory train wreck in action.
  In addition, one of the actions in my bill that we study is the 
regional haze issue, which greatly impacts my State of Oklahoma, as 
this is yet another example of EPA's overreaching on the States with 
burdensome regulations without analyzing its impact on electric 
reliability or cost. This EPA action alone is expected to cost $2 
billion to Oklahoma businesses and electric rate payers.
  If there is one thing that can help our struggling economy, it is 
having access to stable and reliable sources of energy.
  In these tough economic times, I encourage my colleagues from both 
sides

[[Page 14189]]

of the aisle to support this commonsense measure.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased at this time to yield 5 
minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Energy Subcommittee, 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
  Mr. RUSH. I want to thank the fine ranking member of the full 
committee, Mr. Waxman, for his outstanding leadership on this matter 
and other matters before our committee and before this Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I join my friend and colleague, Ranking Member Waxman, 
in his declaration that this week should be known as Dirty Air Week in 
America based on the Republican legislative agenda.
  The so-called TRAIN Act is really a train wreck for the air we 
breathe, the environment we live in, and the jobs we need. Just 
yesterday in a full Energy and Commerce Committee markup, my Republican 
colleagues on a mostly party-line vote favorably passed out two bills 
that would delay the Obama administration's new rules for industrial 
boilers and cement kilns--H.R. 2250 and H.R. 2681, respectively.
  These two bills would delay the toxic emissions limits for both 
boilers and cement kilns, two of the largest emissions sources that 
lack Federal standards and permanently weaken the Clean Air Act so that 
the EPA will be forced to issue weaker standards for these polluting 
facilities than the law currently requires.
  Now today, we're here debating the Train Wreck Act, which would delay 
for at least 3 years the implementation of two new U.S. EPA rules for 
power plants: the newly finalized Cross-State Air Pollution Rule for 
sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, and a soon-to-be finalized rule for 
hazardous toxic emissions.

                              {time}  1800

  With Republicans holding the majority in the House of 
Representatives, we know that the TRAIN Act will ultimately collide 
with the health of the American people. It's going to pass this Chamber 
even though the cross-State rule alone would prevent 34,000 deaths in 
this Nation and 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma annually.
  Mr. Chairman, since the new Republican majority took control of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee and this Congress, they have been on a 
relentless crusade against our environmental protection laws, and they 
have been trying to portray the EPA as public enemy number one.
  According to the logic of today's Republican Party, agencies such as 
the EPA, the American Lung Association, the American Public Health 
Association, the Allergy and Asthma Foundation of America, and the 
Physicians for Social Responsibility are all actually enemies of the 
American people and American jobs because they oppose this radical new 
Republican agenda and because they advocate for policies that regulate 
the number of toxins and poisons that we allow industry to emit into 
the air each and every moment of the day.
  I must remind my Republican colleagues that EPA stands for the 
Environmental Protection Agency and not the Evil Practices Agency, as 
they would have us believe.
  My Republican colleagues would have the American people believe that, 
if Congress just gets out of industry's way and allows corporations to 
operate unregulated and unfettered, then they will inevitably do the 
right thing for the American people. The majority party also wants us 
to believe that we should not place standards or rules on industry 
because the inherent benevolence of corporations will ultimately lead 
them to do the right thing for the American people.
  But just think of the recent past. Let me remind my Republican 
colleagues that this philosophy has been tested under the previous Bush 
administration, and it has totally failed. It has failed the American 
people. It has failed the American environment. It has failed the 
American air that we breathe.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The time of the 
gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. RUSH. We don't have to look any further. Just look at the 
financial collapse and see what these kinds of unfettered regulations 
have done to jobs in this country and to jobs for the American people. 
This approach has put our entire economy on the brink of disaster.
  After a financial collapse, here you are today, trying to bring forth 
a collapse in terms of environmental protections--a collapse in terms 
of protecting us by changing the air that we breathe.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this egregious 
and dangerous bill.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Matheson), who is a cosponsor of this legislation.
  Mr. MATHESON. I want to thank my colleague from Kentucky for allowing 
me the time.
  I think, as we look at the TRAIN Act today, you're going to hear a 
lot during this debate from both sides of the aisle; and there are 
going to be a lot of strong words from both sides of the aisle, 
probably beyond what the TRAIN Act really is.
  The TRAIN Act was an idea: that we ought to take a look before we 
leap. The idea that we have all these processes taking place on 
individual rules, but that no one is bothering to take a look at how 
they all might fit together and what the impacts might be just doesn't 
make sense. That was the genesis behind this bill: to make sure that we 
look at the overall impact. You see, the EPA is supposed to look at the 
impacts on each individual rule, but they don't look at how they 
connect together.
  The Clean Air Act has been a wonderful success in this country. It 
has made a lot of progress, and I think everyone in this room 
appreciates the health benefits it has created. It has also made a lot 
of progress on a lot of different criteria pollutants. Now we're taking 
on and addressing issues that reflect some of the more difficult issues 
to address at smaller increments at the upper end. As we're going to do 
that, I would suggest it makes sense for us to make sure that before we 
take actions that could have great significance that we at least 
understand that significance.
  So that's the idea behind the TRAIN Act--look before you leap, and 
make sure how all of this fits together.
  Despite what this debate sounds like for people watching tonight, 
there is a common agenda here among everyone. I think most people in 
this country value clean air. They value good decision-making, too, and 
we want to make sure that we evaluate these issues with the best 
analysis possible and with the best information possible so we can make 
decisions in the most efficient way.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased and honored to yield 5 minutes 
to one of the strongest environmental champions in the House of 
Representatives, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to the Republican TRAIN Act, the Total 
Regulatory Amnesty for Industry Negligence Act of 2011.
  The very silly premise of this bill is that it's simply impossible to 
keep our air clean and still keep our economic engine chugging along. 
This Republican-led House has initiated a full-throttle ``repeal-a-
thon.'' It's a three-part strategy: one, deny the science; two, delay 
the regulations; three, deter efforts to protect the health and 
security of millions of Americans.
  We keep hearing from Republicans about how EPA's clean air standards 
to reduce mercury, lead, dioxins, and other pollutants need to be 
economically analyzed and reanalyzed. They insist that, even if a 
standard for one toxic chemical was met by an entire industrial sector, 
the removal of just one more poisonous chemical would cause a domino 
effect of problems for industry.
  And the solution to these supposed problems? It is a time-tested 
Republican tradition.
  First, pass legislation that repeals regulations that have already 
been set.

[[Page 14190]]

Two, require endless study of the cumulative effects of all regulations 
of all industries. Finally, just for good measure, pass an amendment 
that guts the very underpinnings of the Clean Air Act.
  Make no mistake, that is what we are doing here today.
  Our planet is warming and extreme weather is increasing. We're having 
record 100-year floods every few years. Hurricanes have caused floods, 
massive power outages, and deaths. Texas was on fire this summer after 
having the warmest summer ever recorded by any State. The President has 
issued disaster declarations in 48 States so far this year. We have set 
an all-time high of 83 major disasters declared in 2011. We've already 
had 10 weather events causing $1 billion or more in damages--another 
record--and we still have 3 months of the year left to go.
  And what do Republicans propose?
  Rather than saving money by cutting the hundreds of billions we spent 
on unneeded Cold War-era nuclear weapons, the Tea Party chooses to cut 
funds that would reduce our dependency on foreign oil. Rather than 
cutting the tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies we give 
to Big Oil and Big Coal, the Republicans gut programs that would 
manufacture energy-efficient cars in America and provide clean air. 
Republicans would have us pay for the costs of weather disasters caused 
by global warming by cutting funding for a program that actually 
reduces the very threat of global warming.
  For all the talk of this so-called ``TRAIN wreck of cumulative EPA 
regulations,'' there seems to be one cumulative effect that isn't 
getting mentioned by the Republicans: the cumulative effect of all of 
their goals on the health of Americans. That is because the 
Republicans, perhaps, are spending so much time doing the bidding of 
those corporations that they have lost their train of thought.
  If the regulation to remove mercury from cement plants--already 13 
years overdue--is delayed for even one more year, up to 2,500 people 
will prematurely die. There will be 17,000 cases of aggravated asthma, 
and 1,500 people will suffer heart attacks. If the regulation to remove 
mercury, lead, and cancer-causing toxins from incinerators and 
industrial boilers--already 11 years overdue--is delayed for one more 
year, there will be 6,600 people who will prematurely die because of 
that.

                              {time}  1810

  Additionally, if this bill passes, it would repeal mercury and Cross-
State Air Pollution Rules for power plants, resulting in the loss of 
25,000 more lives and more than 11,000 heart attacks. And that's just 
with 1 year of delay.
  So what's the cumulative impact of just 1 year of delay on each of 
these regulations? Thirty-four thousand people will die and many more 
will be injured.
  In discussing these Republican efforts, today, Lisa Jackson, EPA 
Administrator, testified before our committee that, ``If we could 
reduce particulate matter to healthy levels, it would have the same 
impact as finding the cure for cancer in our country.'' The difference 
is we already know how to reduce particulate matter. We don't know how 
to cure cancer.
  The Republicans are providing the American people with a false 
choice. We do not have to choose between air quality and air-
conditioning. We do not have to choose between manufacturing and 
mercury poisoning. We do not have to choose between clean air and 
cancer. Ending protections for clean air and clean water should be a 
third rail issue, but the Republican Tea Party express has veered far 
off onto the right track.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman.
  Sadly, these are the kinds of anti-innovation, anti-science, anti-
public health schemes the public has come to fear from this legislative 
wrecking crew.
  When the Republicans beckon you to come ``all aboard'' on the TRAIN 
Act, I urge you to run in the opposite direction, because the only 
train Republicans seem to care about is the Big Oil and big coal gravy 
train, and that's pulling out of the station here tonight as the 
Republicans push this bill through the Congress.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I might say to the gentleman from Massachusetts, there 
is nothing in the TRAIN Act that would delay for 1 day the greenhouse 
gas regulations that EPA adopted last January. There is nothing in this 
bill relating to the Cement MACT as well.
  At this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Griffith).
  Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Ladies and gentlemen, I knew that I was going to speak on this 
important legislation, and I tried to find the words that I would use 
this evening. And while I was attempting to do that, I came across a 
letter to the editor in the Virginian Leader in Giles County, Virginia, 
that was published yesterday, September 21, 2011, and sent in by John 
and Eleanor Kinney. They are described in their letter as an American 
blue collar worker. Neither Republican nor Democrat do they support. In 
that letter, I will quote parts of it, they say:
  ``I'm going to be very blunt with the following opinion: As a factory 
worker and taxpayer, I'm getting sick and tired of these Federal 
agencies who have nothing better to do except sit in their Washington 
offices and draw up rules and regulations to kill American jobs. Why 
don't they get off their sorry behinds and go out across this Nation 
and try to help industry save what jobs we have left? And who is paying 
these EPA people's salary? We are, the American workers. I believe in 
protecting the environment, but we can't shut the whole country down to 
achieve it.''
  Mr. and Mrs. Kinney of Narrows, Virginia, go on:
  ``I hope that anyone who agrees will write, email, or call all of our 
elected officials in Washington, D.C. Tell them the EPA is not living 
in the real world, and that it's time to put some `regulations' on them 
and how they can dictate rules to what industry we are still hanging on 
to in this Nation. In a time of recession and Americans out of work, 
they should be helping industry, not trying to close what manufacturing 
base we have left with these idiotic rules and regulations.''
  Hear, hear, Mr. and Mrs. Kinney. Hear, hear.
  This bill that we are debating tonight does exactly what you asked us 
to do. We are doing your bidding, and the millions of Americans out 
there who feel the same way you do, that it's high time we put some 
regulations and some constraints on the regulators in Washington who 
don't know what it's like to have to work for a living, who don't know 
what it's like not knowing whether or not the particular business in 
your community is going to stay open.
  These folks are particularly concerned in their discussion about a 
plant there in Giles County, one of the largest employers there that is 
in danger if we don't change some of the rules proposed by the EPA. 
They are concerned about announced layoffs in Giles County, Virginia, 
as a result of EPA regulations that will cause the power plant there at 
Glen Lyn to close down.
  So, ladies and gentlemen, don't be fooled by the folks who say we are 
doing the bidding of Big Oil and Big Coal. We are doing the bidding of 
people like Mr. and Mrs. John and Eleanor Kinney.
  I don't know the Kinneys, but I sure do look forward to getting to 
meet them, because that's the kind of people who made America great. 
And with a bill like this, we can continue to keep America great.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my fellow Californian, 
an important member of the Health Subcommittee, the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding time.
  Mr. Chairman, I express my strong opposition to this bill that will 
dismantle public health standards and safeguards and increase air 
pollution.
  The TRAIN Act may have started as a ``study,'' but it has transformed 
into

[[Page 14191]]

a fundamentally different beast. It will neither create jobs nor 
stimulate the economy. Instead, the TRAIN Act indefinitely blocks the 
EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and Mercury and Air Toxics 
Standards. These are designed to protect our children and our families 
from dangerous pollutants.
  We know that blocking these standards will lead to tens of thousands 
of premature deaths every single year. It will lead to more heart 
attacks, more respiratory illnesses, more children in the hospital 
hooked up to respirators. The TRAIN Act means more exposure to toxic 
mercury as well, a brain poison that causes developmental disorders, 
especially in small children and the unborn.
  But, Mr. Chairman, the TRAIN Act will also hurt the economy. It will 
make it harder for families to make ends meet. It will force Americans 
to miss millions of days of work each year in order to care for sick 
family members or themselves.
  It will waste billions of taxpayer dollars treating preventable 
illnesses and disease caused by pollution, which could have been 
prevented. And it will saddle families and businesses with out-of-
pocket medical costs and higher insurance premiums.
  That's what the TRAIN Act is really about, blocking the EPA from 
ridding our air of pollutants that cause asthma attacks, respiratory 
illnesses among children, heart disease, and premature deaths. And the 
other side of the aisle wants to make it worse than it already is.
  Later today, Mr. Whitfield will offer an amendment that imposes even 
longer mandatory delays on EPA's two lifesaving clean air standards, 
and it would rewrite the Clean Air Act to reverse the way toxic air 
pollution standards are set. Instead of basing standards on the 
cleanest plants, the standards would be based on what the oldest and 
dirtiest plants are doing. Today Administrator Jackson testified that 
this change alone would make it impossible to ever issue a cross-State 
pollution standard.
  Another amendment, led by Mr. Latta, would invert the Clean Air Act's 
40-year-old requirement that EPA set its clean air standards on health 
science and medicine alone. His amendment would eliminate that right, 
which Americans depend upon.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on these dangerous amendments 
because Americans don't want millions of tons of toxic pollution dumped 
into their lungs. They want jobs, and they aren't fooled that they need 
to pay for those jobs with more pollution. They want a stronger 
economy, not increased health care costs and suffering. And, most 
importantly, they want their children to breathe clean and safe air.
  I urge my colleagues vote ``no'' on this bill.

                              {time}  1820

  Mr. WHITFIELD. I might say to the gentlelady from California, the air 
transport rule we have in effect today, when it was implemented, EPA 
said it would reduce SOX and NOX by 73 and 57 
percent by the year 2015. So it's not like we don't have something 
already in place.
  At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
Member from California (Mr. Costa).
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank our Republican 
colleagues for giving us time to speak on this important bill.
  As we've discussed, H.R. 2401, the underlying bill, is one that is 
important and appropriate that we consider at this time. I support the 
underlying legislation. And also as my colleague, Congressman Matheson 
stated, while it's okay to have strong feelings on this measure, it's 
not appropriate to overstate in fact what this legislation does.
  This measure requires the creation of an interagency committee to 
study the effects of the current and proposed regulations put forth by 
the Environmental Protection Agency that together have major effects 
not only on our way of life but on our economy, our economy which at 
this point in time is in a very fragile recovery period.
  For too long, constituents that I represent, farmers, farm workers 
and small businesses in the San Joaquin Valley, have had to shoulder 
the burden of mounting regulations of the EPA. They've worked hard to 
meet stricter standards, and we're making progress. We've made great 
progress in cleaning up the air quality in the valley, even while the 
population is growing more rapidly than any other place in the State. 
Yet common sense must prevail. At some point it's time to put the 
brakes on regulations and understand the effects on consumers, on 
energy, on manufacturing industries, on electricity, on fuel prices, 
and our country's competitiveness in the global market.
  Recently, the administration has acknowledged that many regulations 
are having an effect on our economy. It's time that they step up to the 
plate and work with the Congress for common sense to prevail.
  I thank Congressmen Matheson and Sullivan for introducing this 
important measure, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it. 
It's not an either/or choice. We can have clean air and we can have a 
good, commonsense decision-making process. The two are not mutually 
exclusive, as some of my colleagues are suggesting. I urge that you 
vote for this measure. It's a commonsense way to work through these 
difficult issues.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, before I yield, I want to indicate that Mr. 
Whitfield just argued that this bill will not harm public health 
because although it blocks two critical rules to clean up old power 
plants, it doesn't repeal the Clean Air Interstate Rule, or the CAIR 
rule. Well, leaving an inadequate rule in place does not achieve the 
health benefits lost by blocking the Mercury Air Toxics Rule and the 
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. The CAIR rule was blocked by the 
courts. They found it didn't comply with the Clean Air Act because it 
did not effectively address pollution that crosses State lines. That 
means that States suffering from up-wind pollution have to look for 
additional, more costly, pollution reductions from smaller local 
sources; and it does not require power plants to clean up mercury and 
other toxic air pollution. His statement was absolutely incorrect.
  At this time I want to yield 3 minutes to a very important member of 
our committee, Ms. Schakowsky from the State of Illinois.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The majority's assault on clean air continues and has culminated into 
what my friend and colleague, Mr. Waxman, has rightly referred to as 
Dirty Air Week.
  The effort to further delay EPA from protecting our air would damage 
our environment and the health of our citizens. Today, 60 percent of 
Americans live in areas where air pollution has reached unhealthy 
levels. The health care costs associated with air pollution are 
estimated at over $100 billion annually. But these statistics would be 
even worse without the protections of the Clean Air Act. According to 
the American Lung Association, Clean Air Act regulations prevented over 
160,000 premature deaths in 2010.
  Over the past 20 years, the EPA estimates that the Clean Air Act 
prevented 21,000 cases of heart disease, 672,000 cases of chronic 
bronchitis, 843,000 asthma attacks, and 18 million child respiratory 
illnesses.
  Yet today we consider a bill the Natural Resource's Defense Council 
has deemed the deadliest bill on the Republican agenda. The goal of the 
TRAIN Act is to undermine EPA's ability to protect our citizens from 
dangerous toxins through the dismantling of the Mercury and Air Toxics 
and Cross-State air pollution standards.
  As a mother and a grandmother, I have been a long-time advocate of 
clean air practices, especially with regard to mercury.
  Mercury threatens public health, but is particularly dangerous to 
pregnant women and children. Overexposure to mercury inhibits a 
developing child's ability to walk, talk, read, write, and comprehend 
and is one of the most dangerous unregulated toxins, which is why I led 
legislation in the last Congress to curb mercury emissions from various 
facilities.

[[Page 14192]]

  In my home State of Illinois, coal-fired power plants emitted almost 
5,000 pounds of mercury into the atmosphere in 2009, making Illinois 
the seventh most mercury-polluted State in the Nation. But while 
Illinois has taken steps to reduce mercury contamination, air pollution 
doesn't stop at State borders. Federal standards are needed to ensure 
that every State makes a good-faith effort to protect its residents.
  The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards will prevent 4,500 cases of 
acute bronchitis and 6,800 premature deaths. And the Cross-State Air 
Pollution Rule will prevent 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma and 
34,000 deaths per year.
  My colleagues across the aisle claim to be in the business of 
eliminating burdens. But by my math, every year these regulations are 
delayed, over 40,000 preventable deaths will occur. And as much as 
Republican opponents to the EPA would like to disagree, these rules, 
like the previous Clean Air Act regulations, will grow our economy.
  Earlier this year, the Political Economy Research Institute concluded 
that the Cross-State and Mercury and Air Toxics rules will drive 
investments that could create 300,000 new jobs annually. The Mercury 
and Toxics Air Standard alone is expected to generate $7 billion in 
annual GDP growth. The numbers are clearly in favor of the Clean Air 
Act and I reject the Republican idea that Americans need to choose 
between jobs and health. The proven good news is that we can do both.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), a member of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. GUTHRIE. The bipartisan position, the one that both parties 
working together have put forward, is to support this; and we've had 
different comments about the Republicans are doing this or that. But 
the truth of the matter is this is a bipartisan bill. It's a bipartisan 
bill that our country needs because for 2\1/2\ years bureaucrats at the 
Environmental Protection Agency have run wild with new regulations 
while hiding the staggering job losses that would result.
  The TRAIN Act requires an interagency committee to study the actual 
economic effects of EPA regulations and make the findings public. Most 
of us say that's a commonsense request of EPA, no more regulations 
until we know how many jobs will be lost.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a manufacturing background, and I come from a 
manufacturing State. In Kentucky, we know what it takes to keep and 
grow jobs, and it isn't excess regulations from EPA. I implore my 
colleagues to pass the TRAIN Act and shed light on the havoc that this 
agency is causing for job creators nationwide. A vote for this bill is 
a vote for jobs and for transparency.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady from the State of 
Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, for too long too many people in this body 
have proposed that we must make what amounts to a devil's bargain: 
choosing between environmental protections and jobs. Today, the 
ideology behind that false choice brings us to the brink of gutting one 
of our Nation's fundamental laws, the Clean Air Act.
  Mr. Chairman, the Clean Air Act has safeguarded our economy and our 
families' health for decades. And despite heated rhetoric from the 
other side, it does not stand in the way of creating jobs. In 2010 
alone, the Clean Air Act prevented 160,000 premature deaths, 3 million 
lost school days, and 13 million lost workdays.

                              {time}  1830

  By 2020, the Clean Air Act's total benefit to the economy will reach 
$2 trillion, outweighing the costs by 30-1. But despite the actual 
numbers, today we find ourselves debating a full attack on clean air--
through the TRAIN Act--which would represent an unprecedented upheaval 
of our long-held pollution standards.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, we had a 3-hour hearing in my committee, the 
Oversight Subcommittee, today talking about the alleged job loss that 
the majority claims would happen. I heard no--repeat no--evidence that 
these rules would cause a job loss. In fact, the evidence put into the 
record at the hearing showed that these regulations will create jobs at 
the same time they are preserving our citizens' health.
  A key amendment to this act, which will be introduced later by Mr. 
Whitfield and which was accepted during the committee markup, is a 
dangerous measure that would indefinitely block two major Clean Air Act 
regulations. First, the Utility MACT rule, reducing mercury and other 
toxic emissions from power plants, and also the Cross-State Air 
Pollution Rule, reducing sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions 
from power plants. Both of these rules are being developed after 
extensive cost benefit analyses.
  Together, the two rules would prevent more than 50,000 premature 
deaths per year across the country. Now why would we delay 
implementation of the rules based solely on letters from constituents 
and anecdotal evidence? In fact, these two critical federal regulations 
correspond to successful pollution regulations in my home State of 
Colorado that are already bringing positive results for our State.
  Now everybody in this Chamber knows the natural beauty of Colorado is 
a treasure for everyone to enjoy. People move there because of the 
clean air and safe water. It is also a primary driver in our economy 
through natural resources development and tourism. But because of 
mercury emissions from power plants, cement kilns, refineries, and 
commercial boilers, about 20 percent of our pristine lakes and 
reservoirs contain mercury-tainted fish, including in our alpine areas.
  To combat that, Colorado has adopted some of the most stringent 
mercury rules in the country, with regulations on the books to cut 
mercury emissions by 80 percent by 2012 and 90 percent by 2018. These 
State regulations have been implemented successfully and to our 
collective economic benefit--a federal overlay to such regulations 
would bring the benefits that we have in States like Colorado to the 
entire Nation.
  Colorado also has been a leader in cutting sulfur dioxide and 
nitrogen oxide emissions to our economic and environmental benefit. 
While some States had a tough time designing haze-reduction plans in 
response to the Bush administration's now-defunct Clean Air Interstate 
Rule, Colorado didn't wait. We knew that we could clean up our power 
plants and also the power the economy.
  So in 2010, Colorado enacted the Clean Energy Clean Jobs Act. The law 
calls for utilities to reduce haze-causing emissions of sulfur dioxide 
by about 80 percent and nitrogen oxide by about 85 percent. As a 
result, Colorado's largest utility, Xcel Energy, is on track to shutter 
four coal-powered plants, three in Denver, and replace that generation 
with natural gas-powered units. It will also install emissions controls 
for another 951 megawatts of coal-fired electrical generation. And, Mr. 
Chairman, Xcel expects that these improvements will only increase rates 
by 2 percent annually over the next 10 years.
  Colorado's successful experience with these types of regulations 
stands as even further proof that effective and efficient regulations 
to protect our air and water bring ever growing benefits to our Nation. 
And blocking these regulations is a dangerous game where America's 
families will pay the price.
  Mr. Chairman, the provisions of these amendments will fundamentally 
rewrite our approaches to the Clean Air Act regulations that have been 
the gold standard of our environmental laws since 1990.
  I urge rejection of the amendments, and I urge rejection of this 
bill.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I certainly have great respect for the gentlelady from 
Colorado, whom I've had the opportunity to work with on a lot of 
issues, but I would say to her and to others the only regulation that 
we're delaying relating to mercury is the Utility MACT. And I might say 
that EPA said that the health benefits from the reduction of mercury 
because of the Utility MACT was so insignificant that

[[Page 14193]]

they did not even include it as a benefit.
  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 my colleague from Kentucky.
  Mr. Chairman, there appears to be some funny accounting at the 
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA justifies issuing major rules that 
will have a tremendous negative impact on our economy by relying on the 
concept of ``lives saved from premature death.'' Well, let's take a 
look at those ``lives saved'' numbers.
  Ninety percent of the 13,000 to 34,000 theoretical ``lives saved'' 
from the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule are from particulate matter 
exposures already below the National Air Ambient Quality Standard. 
Ninety percent of the 6,000 to 17,000 theoretical ``lives saved'' from 
the Utility MACT are from particulate matter exposures already below 
the National Air Ambient Quality Standard.
  Do you notice the theme? The EPA should explain how they attribute a 
net benefit to a concentration of particulate matter below their own 
standards.
  I encourage Members to vote ``yes'' on the TRAIN Act, H.R. 2401, to 
hold the EPA accountable, and to put a stop to this job-killing 
nonsense.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, my colleague, Mr. Whitfield, just said that 
the EPA found that the mercury reduction benefits were so insignificant 
by EPA. Well, what they found was they couldn't put a pricetag on the 
avoided birth defects and brain damage to babies. If that's 
insignificant, I just think people ought to put this whole effort to 
deregulate the efforts to protect the environment in perspective. I 
think the Republicans think it's insignificant because we can't put a 
dollar figure on birth defects and brain damage to an infant--and so 
many Republicans call themselves pro-life.
  I want to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the 
Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee who has fought so 
hard to protect environmental regulations, especially those that 
protect the public health, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Waxman for his constant, 
credible leadership. He is saying what all Americans should be aware 
of. This is an incredibly important piece of legislation. Mr. Chairman, 
power plants emit 96,000 pounds of mercury into the air we breathe 
every year. Yet this bill would prevent EPA from regulating mercury.
  Mercury is an extremely dangerous neurotoxin. It damages children's 
developing brains, reducing their IQ and their ability to learn. At low 
levels of exposure, it causes insomnia, neuromuscular changes, 
headaches, disturbances in sensations, changes in nerve responses and 
impairment of cognitive functions. Hundreds of thousands of people have 
been affected in this way. But at higher exposures, it affects kidneys, 
causes respiratory failure and death.
  One gram of mercury, a tiny drop, can be enough to contaminate 200 
million gallons of water, which is the size of a 20-acre, 30-foot deep 
lake. All but one State, Alaska, have issued health advisories warning 
their residents against eating fish caught in their waters because of 
mercury contamination. It goes up in the air from the power plants, 
then when it rains, it goes into the water, it poisons the fish, and 
ultimately it poisons human beings. Two States, Oklahoma and Maine, 
have issued Statewide fresh water advisories that you should be wary of 
eating any large fish due to the possibility of mercury poisoning.
  Think of this: Despite this acknowledged danger, each year, power 
plants release 96,000 pounds of mercury into the air.
  EPA's proposed Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule requires power 
plants to meet the same requirements that other industries have already 
met using proven emission control technologies that will reduce mercury 
emissions by 91 percent. It can be done. And the cost of meeting both 
regulations pales in comparison to the economic benefits Americans will 
receive with cleaner air.

                              {time}  1840

  The proposed Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule has a quantified 
benefit of between 5 and 13 times its cost. And the pollution 
reductions required by the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule will yield 
benefits of $120 billion to $280 billion per year, which is between 150 
to 350 times its cost.
  This bill serves the interest of no one but a few CEOs and the 
politicians who are supported by them, who refuse to accept 
responsibility for the harm their unregulated power plants have imposed 
on the rest of us.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill itself is deliberately deceiving. In fact, 
the title of the bill implies something that is not true. The 
Environmental Protection Agency is fully transparent, and it has 
already performed a Regulatory Impact Analysis on the cost of its Clean 
Air Act regulations. And the intent of the bill is not what it claims. 
The true intent of this bill is to slow down or block implementation of 
EPA's obligations under the law to regulate our environment. It 
specifically suspends further action on two regulations--the Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule and the proposed rule on Mercury and Air 
Toxics Standards--that are required under the Clean Air Act amendments 
of 1990.
  Pass this bill and you will condemn tens of thousands of Americans to 
a premature death, you will sentence millions more to a lifetime of 
health complications, and you will straddle our economy with 
unnecessary costs and employers with millions of additional sick days.
  The goal of a cleaner environment and a healthier population should 
not be sacrificed in order to keep this Nation's dirtiest power plants 
from doing what almost every other industry and all governments have 
done to reduce harmful air pollution.
  What we're being given here is a false choice peddled by, as I say, a 
fraction of CEOs in the utility industry who refuse to clean up their 
antiquated coal-fired power plans.
  We can have clear air and more jobs. History provides us with proof 
it is possible because it has already happened. Hundreds of thousands 
of people owe their life today to the environmental movement and 
leaders in Congress like Mr. Waxman and the White House who pushed for 
and passed the landmark environmental laws--back in the 1970s in the 
Nixon administration, and in 1990--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 George 
H.W. Bush, our unemployment declined, our economy grew, and we reduced 
acid rain-forming gases by more than 30 percent.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. MORAN. I thank the gentleman.
  I want you to listen to this, Mr. Chairman. The cost of meeting the 
emission reductions was actually 75 percent less than what EPA had 
originally predicted in 1990, and it was far below what opponents had 
claimed. But there are still a number of provisions of the Clean Air 
Act that have never been implemented, and now we have much more 
scientific and medical evidence to inform our decisionmaking. We know 
that a drop of mercury can poison an entire lake. We know these things 
now. We know the harm of mercury and toxic chemicals. We know how much 
is coming from power plants.
  The rule for power plants is long overdue. It's been in development 
for close to 20 years. If one wants to talk about uncertainty, how 
about allowing certainty by letting EPA finalize its rules on mercury, 
on air toxics, and on cross-State air pollution. Then we will protect 
the health of our people. Then our plants will know exactly what is 
expected of them.
  The fact is municipalities do this for their waste recovery plants 
and their medical waste incinerators. They are required to do it. And 
no municipality

[[Page 14194]]

ever went bankrupt over this regulation. And medical wastes are 
disposed of today in a safe and reliable manner.
  We can do this, we should do this, and we should defeat this bill.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I would say to my friend from Virginia that EPA is not 
always as transparent as they may seem. When they issued the greenhouse 
gas regulation in January of this year, they did not give the public 
any information about cost or benefits, and the reason they didn't is 
they didn't conduct one.
  At this time, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
former chairman and chairman emeritus of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee, a real leader in our committee, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Barton).
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Kentucky.
  I would like to start off, Mr. Chairman, by making the point that the 
TRAIN Act doesn't change any existing environmental law or existing 
environmental rule. It simply delays proposed regulations that the EPA 
has promulgated and requires a study of some of those regulations 
before moving forward with them.
  My friends on the Democratic side would have you believe that we're 
going in and gutting the Clean Air Act. Nothing is further from the 
truth. I'm a cosponsor of the Clean Air Act amendments of 1991, and 
believe it or not I'm a strong supporter of an active EPA enforcing 
existing rules. I have a sister whose an enforcement attorney at the 
EPA in Dallas, Texas, and has about a 99 percent conviction rate. So 
Republicans want a strong EPA. We want strong air and water quality 
rules, but we also want, in this struggling economy, some common sense 
to be used before proposing new additional rules.
  There is no criteria pollutant under the Clean Air Act that is 
currently becoming worse. In fact, the air is becoming cleaner, and 
that can be proven factually by monitoring. Every power plant in the 
country is monitored 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, as 
are our chemical plants and all major source emitters. The data is 
there, Mr. Chairman.
  The question that I asked the EPA Administrator today, Lisa Jackson, 
is: Is it better, Madam Administrator, to keep an existing plant that 
is in compliance with existing air quality regulations in production, 
or is it better to close that plant because it can't comply with new, 
more stringent regulations that are being proposed? That's the 
question. And that's the reason that Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Whitfield and 
myself and others have either sponsored or cosponsored this 
legislation. We want strong air quality regulations. We want those 
rules enforced, but we don't want an EPA that continues to go stronger 
and stronger and stronger, regardless of the economic consequences.
  Now, Mr. Whitfield, tomorrow, is going to offer an amendment that 
replaces the proposed Cross-State Air Transport Rule with the CAIR 
regulation that the Bush administration promulgated back in the early 
2000s, that he wants a delay of the proposed boiler MACT while we have 
a little more time to implement that. And he also has, at my 
suggestion, put into that amendment that we should use real monitored 
data as opposed to EPA-modeled data. How unique. Let's actually use 
what's happening in the real world.
  This monitoring versus modeling does not mean the EPA can't use 
models. We understand that you would have to be able to model the 
environment and the effects, but you can use real data to put in your 
model, not projected or hypothetical data. Real data.
  The Whitfield amendment is an important addition to the TRAIN Act, 
and I hope that we will support it.
  With regards to mercury, mercury has been reduced since the mid-1990s 
by 90 to 95 percent in the United States.

                              {time}  1850

  The gentleman who spoke about mercury just now correctly stated the 
amount of mercury that's emitted, 96,000 pounds, 48 tons, 96,000 
pounds. What he did not say is that that is less than 1 percent of the 
total mercury emitted in the country. Most mercury that's emitted is 
emitted by natural causes; and if you enforce the new proposed mercury 
regulation, you're going to get an improvement of .0004 percent, four-
thousandths of 1 percent.
  For an average 500-megawatt coal-fired power plant, they emit about 
70 pounds per year of mercury.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield the gentleman another minute.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. We've already reduced mercury emissions by 90 to 
95 percent. To get another 90 to 95 percent is so cost prohibitive that 
you would probably just shut down some of those plants. In my opinion, 
that's not necessary.
  So what the TRAIN Act, in conclusion, is doing, Mr. Chairman, is just 
saying let's do a time-out. Before we go forward with any new 
regulations, let's make sure that there really is a true benefit that 
outweighs the cost.
  In my district alone last week, a closure was announced of one plant 
and one coal mine that are going to cost directly at least 500 jobs. 
That's not hypothetical. That's not modeled. That's real. And if all 
these plethora of EPA regulations go forward, you're going to see 
thousands of jobs eliminated, billions of dollars in cost, and very 
problematic improvements in health.
  Please vote for the TRAIN Act when it comes up for final passage.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to set the record straight because I 
think we're getting a lot of false information. We are told that this 
bill doesn't weaken any existing law. That's not correct. The Cross-
State Rule has already been finalized, which means if you are living in 
an area where pollution's coming from another State, and there's 
nothing you can do about it, the State that's causing the pollution has 
to reduce that pollution in order not to affect you. And that's going 
to be repealed by this legislation that's before us.
  We're told all that's going to happen is we're going to delay some of 
these rules. Well, yes. We're going to delay the rules. And then Mr. 
Whitfield is going to offer an amendment to make sure that EPA can 
never adopt any of those rules.
  And the thing that just galls me is the statement that the benefits 
from reducing mercury are insignificant. Well, EPA was unable to 
quantify or monetize all the health and environmental benefits 
associated with the proposed toxic rule, but EPA believes these 
unquantified benefits are substantial. We are talking about impaired 
cognitive development, problems with language, abnormal and social 
development, potential for fatal and nonfatal heart attacks, 
association with genetic defects, possible auto-immunity effects in 
antibodies. This is not insignificant. And I think that it's not 
accurate to tell us that this bill simply provides some transparency. I 
think the authors of the bill ought to provide us a little bit more 
transparency.
  I at this point want to yield 6 minutes to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, as I enjoy 
listening to the former chairman of the Commerce Committee in his 
argument on the floor. He gave us part of the story.
  I find a certain irony, however. He talked about how he supported the 
1990 Clean Air Act. Well, many of the arguments he makes that we're 
hearing here today could have been directed towards him and his own 
support in 1990.
  But bear in mind what happened in 1990. It didn't impose a bunch of 
rules and regulations. It put in motion a process so that we would have 
those studies. From 1990 to 1998, EPA was studying the issue. They came 
to the conclusion that the study mandated under the 1990 Clean Air Act 
required that we promulgate rules to regulate this pollution.
  From 1998 until 2005, the Clinton administration, and then the Bush 
administration's EPA, they kind of studied it. They came to the same 
conclusion. The Bush administration came up with rules that were so 
flawed they were thrown out by the Courts. It didn't meet the standard 
that was required by your 1990 Clean Air Act.

[[Page 14195]]

  So here we are now, in 2011, 21 years later, talking about another 
study to delay it further, delay further what the gentleman, and I 
would say a number of Republicans on the Commerce Committee, supported 
in 1990. But now it's crunch time. We actually have to do something.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle are fond of saying we 
shouldn't pick winners and losers in the economy. Well, Mr. Chair, I 
find it ironic that this Dirty Air Act does pick winners and losers. 
Who are the losers?
  I agree with my good friend from California, the ranking member, the 
losers are hundreds of thousands of people will die, get illness from 
cancer, asthma, lost school days, millions of lost work days, the lost 
quality of life that is documented beyond belief. This is real, and 
these people lose.
  Who else loses?
  The downwind areas lose because they will not be able to act to be 
able to deal with the problems that the pollution drifts over their 
jurisdictions. And as again my friend from Southern California pointed 
out, that means that local communities that don't have the protection 
because we can't stop the drift, they're going to have to do all sorts 
of things that are more expensive and less effective, and it's not 
their fault.
  The losers are going to be the American economy. We will lose the 
economic benefits of getting the work from unions and contractors from 
pollution control. Bear in mind, pollution control devices are an 
export area. We have a net benefit. We make money exporting this 
abroad.
  We lose the net economic benefit of the lost health. We bear the cost 
of unnecessary damage.
  But there's another area of losers. Mr. Chairman, I find it 
interesting, in December 2010, eight major CEOs sent a letter to the 
editor of The Wall Street Journal saying that they didn't oppose--that 
the EPA agenda would have negative economic consequences. Their 
companies' experience complying with air quality regulations 
demonstrates that regulations can yield important economic benefits, 
including job creation and maintaining reliability.
  On March 16, 2011, six leading energy companies joined together to 
applaud EPA's release of one of their proposed rules.
  The losers in the approach that you take are the early adapters, the 
people who took the law at its word and started cleaning up. They lose 
by taking the word of Congress that we were serious about reducing 
pollution, including one of my local utilities, Portland General that's 
moving ahead to close down a dirty coal plant to meet their 
responsibilities.
  Who wins under the Republican approach?
  Well, the winners, under the Republican approach, are those who 
profit from pollution: the people who are dragging their feet, who bet 
that we will, yet again, have another study, that we won't follow 
through. The winners under this are the people who are cynical, who 
think that they don't have to comply with the Clean Air Act.
  I noticed that today, in China Daily, dated September 22, the Chinese 
are talking about their tougher emission standards. They are talking 
about the fact that there's a pushback from their utilities because 
there's cost of compliance. But they know that there is a health 
benefit. They can't continue to pollute. And there's an economic 
benefit for people who move ahead with the compliance. The Chinese are 
going to make money by being cleaner, adopting technologies to reduce 
emissions.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. Chair, I'm embarrassed that we have, after 21 years, a proposal 
to yet again delay implementation, that they're picking winners and 
losers, putting people who profit from pollution ahead of people who 
are responsible. It's just wrong.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I might say to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon 
that it is correct that the court invalidated the current Air Transport 
Rule that we have in effect in America today, but I would also like to 
read from that decision because one of the reasons they invalidated 
this law was because EPA was looking at a regional basis rather than 
within individual States.
  The court said: ``It is possible that CAIR would achieve air 
transport goals. EPA's modeling shows that sources contributing to 
North Carolina's non-containment areas will reduce their emissions even 
after opting into CAIR's trading programs.''
  My point in saying that is this still is a particularly effective Air 
Transport Rule.
  At this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Carter).
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
2401, the TRAIN Act, and I want to congratulate my friend from Oklahoma 
for this good piece of legislation.
  For the past 9 months I've been on the floor of the House, and it's 
been my mission to rein in, or at least to attempt to rein in, some of 
these out-of-control regulators in this country today who intend on 
keeping our economy in the ditch by placing barriers in the way of job 
creation and in keeping jobs.
  I'm so glad that this bill is on the floor because this job-killing 
regulation is center stage at this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to see the TRAIN Act provisions delay this 
EPA job-killing and energy-killing rule known as Cross-State Air 
Pollution for the next 6 months.
  Let's point out that we heard comments about transparent analysis. My 
own State, Texas, was dropped into the final Cross-State Air Pollution 
Rule in the last minute. Texas was not included in the proposed rule, 
and our citizens were denied their right under the Administrative 
Procedures Act to review the impact and comment on the proposed rule. 
We just got kind of air-dropped into this at the last minute.
  Thirty-one members of the Texas delegation have written a letter to 
the White House, including eight of the Democrats in our delegation, 
expressing concerns about this rule and how it was forced down the 
throats of the citizens of Texas. I think that that ought to be some 
indication that something is wrong here.
  Now, Mr. Barton indicated something that is actually larger than what 
he stated. In his district, one plant has closed, but two plants have 
actually closed in Texas as a result of this rule already, and three 
mines have closed. And we know at least of the 500 jobs that Mr. Barton 
has referenced here today, but we haven't gotten the count from the 
other two.
  This is a serious loss of good-paying jobs to Texas. These are the 
kinds of jobs people seek after.
  The step in the right direction is to hold off. And when you say 
you're doing studies, by the very statements made on this floor, it's 
about scientific proof. But there are also human beings involved in 
this, and we should at least do an economic analysis of what this does 
to our economy, which I think this administration is bound and 
determined to drag down into the mud. And I think we should know how 
many jobs we're going to lose. We're trying to build jobs, not lose 
jobs.
  We are, in this country, about growing jobs in America, not losing 
them. And these regulations are job-killing regulations.
  I'm really pleased with the work of the Energy and Commerce Committee 
on all of their hard work on these issues. This is important to 
American workers everywhere.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the Republican spinmeisters like to come up 
with slogans. So they've come up with the slogan ``job-killing 
regulation.'' Well, let me tell you what we're talking about: children-
killing pollution.
  And I just think that when we hear the statements that they're not 
going to weaken or delay any rules that protect public health and the 
environment, we shouldn't take their word for it.
  I have a letter here from the National Association of Clean Air 
Agencies. They represent the State and local air pollution control 
people who

[[Page 14196]]

are on the ground every day working to improve the Nation's air 
quality. What they say is that if this bill is adopted it ``will create 
regulatory delays that could lead to thousands of premature deaths, 
remove important regulatory tools upon which States and localities 
depend, impose additional costs on government as well as small 
businesses, create regulatory uncertainty, cause job losses, and defund 
an important and cost-effective air pollution control program.''
  Mr. Chairman, at this time I want to yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from the State of Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank my good friend and the 
distinguished ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is extraordinary even for the most anti-
environmental House of Representatives in American history. The 
Republican leadership has attempted already to pass over 110 anti-
environmental bills, amendments, and riders. But the TRAIN Act would be 
one of the most destructive for America's environment and our public 
health.
  It appears that the Republican leadership took every anti-
environmental bill, rider, amendment, and nighttime fantasy of the Koch 
brothers and wrapped it into a single legislative package called the 
TRAIN Act.
  This bill would block clean air, public health standards for mercury, 
dioxin, smog, soot, and other toxic pollutants. We're supposed to 
believe no, no, no, all we're doing is just delaying and studying. 
Twenty-one years is a long time to study. And if you have a loved one 
whose health is at stake, that delay can be life threatening.
  By increasing the incidence of emphysema, lung cancer, asthma, and 
cardiac diseases, this bill will kill 25,000 Americans every year--
nearly as many as are killed in highway accidents.
  Just one standard this bill would repeal, the Cross-State Air 
Pollution Rule, would have significant ramifications for my district 
and for the National Capital Region from which I come. The wind 
transport of power plant and other harmful emissions from polluters to 
the west in our community is one of the reasons the Capital Region is 
listed as a non-attainment area for air quality. But we have to clean 
it up.
  The preponderance of harmful ground level ozone threatens seniors, 
asthmatics, and those with respiratory conditions--not to mention the 
fact that it threatens our eligibility for long-term transportation 
funding.
  Monitoring and responsibly regulating cross-State air pollution here 
and in other regions would save, not cost, save $280 billion a year in 
health care costs. But not if the Republicans pass this bill.
  But of course they don't want you to look at the other side of the 
ledger. There are benefits to be had by implementing the EPA standards 
rather than delaying them, $280 billion worth, but they don't want you 
to know that. They don't want to talk about that.
  I was proud to work with a number of my colleagues to lead a group 
letter signed by 60 Members of this body reaffirming our support for 
the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. This public health standard is 
critical for economic and human health in our region. That rule is just 
one example among many successful public health standards established 
under the Clean Air Act.
  Since its inception in 1970, the Clean Air Act has produced economic 
benefits that far outweigh the cost of compliance by as much as 8 to 1. 
The Small Business Majority credits the Clean Air Act with widespread 
economic benefits, both across urban and rural communities, improving 
public and worker health, and creating jobs, millions of them.

                              {time}  1910

  Each year, the Clean Air Act prevents 22,000 hospital visits which 
would otherwise be caused by pollution-induced respiratory diseases, 
67,000 chronic asthma and bronchitis attacks, and saves over $110 
billion in health care costs. The TRAIN Act would block nearly every 
major public health standard being implemented by the Clean Air Act.
  I heard my colleague and friend, Mr. Griffith from Virginia, talk 
about a letter he read in a local newspaper in Charles County, 
Virginia. This couple purportedly couldn't understand why bureaucrats 
who were sitting on their rear ends somehow come up with these 
fantastical regulations that are just burdensome and serve no purpose.
  Perhaps if that couple had sat with a child in a hospital room, 
fighting for his or her breath, they'd understand why we need these 
regulations and why those professionals at EPA are doing their job to 
protect public health. Perhaps if they had seen a loved one or a spouse 
hooked up to tubes, fighting for her life because she's severely 
asthmatic, they'd understand why we need these standards. Perhaps if 
they understood a friend had COPD and has to walk around now all the 
time with oxygen in a mask to function and be mobile, they'd better 
understand the life-and-death struggle of people who live in areas 
affected by dirty, polluted air and would better respect why the EPA is 
protecting our health--even if that couple in Charles County doesn't 
understand.
  I urge opposition to this bill.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. May I ask how much time we have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 25 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from California has 12 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Harper), who is a member of the Energy 
and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. HARPER. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the TRAIN Act is on the House floor today as part of 
the Republican regulatory relief agenda to reduce job-killing 
government regulation on businesses. Americans are tired of Big 
Government, and a majority believes that government regulation coming 
out of Washington, D.C., has a costly impact on life essentials, such 
as food and gasoline. Too many Americans are unemployed, and a recent 
survey shows that 70 percent of voters believe that increasing 
regulations on American businesses will result in more jobs moving 
overseas. That is unacceptable.
  No government agency is more to blame for an absurd increase in 
regulation than the Environmental Protection Agency. We all want clean 
air. We all want clean water. We're all conservationists and want those 
things, but the effects of the actions of the EPA are clear--they're 
killing jobs and job creation.
  We've asked our colleagues on the other side of the aisle over and 
over, Where are the jobs? I submit that a thorough investigation of 
recent EPA regulations could answer that question.
  I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the TRAIN Act so that Americans will 
have an even better understanding of the negative impact that the EPA 
is having on each of our lives.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hultgren).
  Mr. HULTGREN. I thank my colleague from Kentucky for yielding.
  I rise in support of the TRAIN Act, which will help give small 
businesses and our Nation's job creators the certainty they need to 
hire, expand, and invest. This is an excellent bill which will help 
create the pro-growth environment our economy needs.
  Upcoming EPA gasoline regulations, along with other regulations 
impacting domestic refiners, have the potential to raise the price at 
the pump, to reduce domestic gasoline output and increase reliance on 
imports, and to destroy domestic refining jobs. Fuel price changes 
create a ripple effect throughout the economy, increasing the price of 
food, goods, and services that are transported to our communities, 
increasing the price of driving to work each day.
  These broad impacts must be taken into account when we seek to 
understand the cumulative impact of EPA

[[Page 14197]]

regulations on the energy prices, jobs, and our global competitiveness. 
I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in 
supporting the TRAIN Act.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  Mr. ELLISON. Let me thank the gentleman for yielding, and let me 
thank all of us who are assembled here on the floor tonight to talk 
about the state of our lungs, the state of our health, and to talk 
about how the deprivation of protection will lead to harming our 
health. It's a sad day, and I'm just glad we're here to debate this 
issue so that the American people can see who's for them and who's not.
  What my friends on the other side of the aisle call ``regulation'' we 
call protecting our lungs. What they call ``red tape'' we call fighting 
asthma from mercury. What they call ``government interference'' we call 
staying out of the hospital and getting some asthma treatments and 
being able to eat the fish that we catch in our rivers and streams 
across this great Nation. What they call ``job-killing regulation'' we 
call child-killing pollution.
  It's just amazing how different the world would be if we could all 
just focus on what really matters.
  What we really should be doing is arguing about how we can get 
Americans back to work. That's not what we're doing. What we're doing 
is trying to say, if they got rid of all the regulations--all the 
health and safety regulations--and then if they even got rid of all the 
taxes, then the business community would have enough certainty to 
actually hire somebody.
  But I don't think anybody really believes that.
  We've got a nation in this world that has gotten rid of all the 
regulations and that doesn't really tax anybody. It's called Somalia. I 
don't think that's a good business environment for much of anybody 
unless you're a warlord.
  The fact is that, instead of focusing on creating jobs, Republicans 
are bringing up another assault on our public health--in the Clean Air 
Act. We should have the American Jobs Act here, and we should be 
debating that. We should be passing bills to create jobs and improve 
economic growth. We should not be telling American workers that the 
only thing between them and a job is a regulation to protect their 
lungs. They're trying to say, A paycheck or your lungs. You can have a 
paycheck or you can have asthma, but you can't have a paycheck and be 
well. That's what they're arguing today, and this is what we have to 
reject.
  Instead of bringing up bills to create jobs, the GOP is bringing up 
yet another assault on the Clean Air Act, blocking two of the most 
important lifesaving Clean Air Act rules in decades--the Mercury and 
Air Toxics rule and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule.
  The Mercury and Air Toxics rule will prevent 17,000 premature deaths 
per year. I couldn't agree more with the gentleman from Virginia, Gerry 
Connolly, who reminded us that, if you've ever held the hand of a loved 
one who is suffering through an asthma attack, it would be hard to see 
how you could callously vote for a bill like this TRAIN Act, which I 
like to call the Train Wreck Act, because it's just that bad. The 
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule will prevent 34,000 premature deaths per 
year.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. ELLISON. I thank the gentleman, and I'll wrap it up with this:
  We can have energy and jobs. The Clean Energy Group, a coalition of 
energy utilities and power companies, has said that the changes in 
industry practice that the Mercury and Air Toxics rule would produce 
are reasonable, can be accomplished, and are not a burden on industry. 
Not all industry agrees that we need to get rid of every regulation. A 
study released by the Environmental Defense Fund has estimated that the 
Mercury and Air Toxics rule and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 
would together create nearly 1.5 million jobs over the next 5 years.
  So let me just say that it's time for the American people to say we 
want good health, that we want good jobs, that we want clean air, and 
that we want healthy lungs--and we don't want the train wreck bill 
offered by the Republicans.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Farenthold).

                              {time}  1920

  Mr. FARENTHOLD. I rise today in support of the TRAIN Act.
  Despite what my friends and colleagues across the aisle say, we are 
not out to poison America. My children, my wife, I breathe the air and 
drink the water in this country.
  What we are asking for is to look at regulations with a scientific 
analysis and not an emotional analysis. Do what every business in this 
country does. Do what every family in this country does when they are 
faced with tough decisions or any decision.
  When I go to the grocery store, I have the option of buying ramen 
noodles or lobster, and I usually settle somewhere in the middle on 
chicken. Businesses look at the cost and benefit of everything that 
they do just like families do.
  What we are asking through the TRAIN Act is to take a look at what 
these oppressive regulations cost. We've got great regulations in place 
now. We've improved the air immensely. Let's see if it's worth going 
the next step.
  We can factor in all of the things that our friends on the other side 
of the aisle want, but we need to do the study, and we need to have the 
information so we can make informed decisions.
  The money that these excessive regulations cost businesses are passed 
on to the consumer. American families are asked all the time to make 
sacrifices to make ends meet.
  As these regulations run up energy costs, our families' electric 
bills and gasoline bills go up, and they have to make decisions about 
whether they're going to fill their car with gas or what kind of food 
they're going to buy, if any, to put on their tables.
  We have got to keep people working. If these regulations put people 
out of work, the families that the wage owners support suffer too. They 
don't have the money to pay their bills. They don't have the money to 
buy food. They don't have the money to buy medicine. We have got to be 
as intelligent as we are compassionate.
  The intelligent thing to do is to do a cost-benefit analysis of what 
regulations do. That's what we are asking in the TRAIN Act. Let's use 
our brains.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield 4 minutes to the gentlelady from Wyoming (Mrs. 
Lummis).
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, the language in this bill does not prevent 
the EPA from regulating emissions from coal-fired utilities, and it 
does not prevent the EPA from dealing with cross-State pollution. The 
EPA must regulate emissions under its current rules.
  So let's focus on the facts as presented by the EPA.
  Thanks to the Clean Air Interstate Rule, emissions from fossil fuel 
power plants in the lower 48 States were 44 percent below 2005 levels 
by 2009.
  In the past 40 years, our population has grown 48 percent. Gross 
domestic product has increased 209 percent and coal-fueled electricity 
has increased by 184 percent. Yet during that time, emissions from 
coal-based electricity generation have dropped by 60 percent.
  Despite this success, EPA is still pushing for the most expensive 
rules ever imposed on utilities, every single dime of which isn't paid 
by the utilities; it's paid by everyday Americans who use electricity 
and by America's manufacturers.
  Just the two rules in this bill, the ones that the TRAIN Act seeks to 
delay, would increase the nationwide average price of electricity by 
11.5 percent, and it's even worse in this Nation's manufacturing 
States. Look at this map. The upper Midwest could see their electricity 
rise by 17 percent; Michigan by 20 percent, one of the States that's 
really hurting; Kentucky and Tennessee, by more than 23 percent. These 
are where our manufacturing jobs reside.

[[Page 14198]]

  Raising energy costs would remove one of the few remaining advantages 
that U.S. manufacturing has over low-cost foreign competitors, that is, 
access to affordable, reliable energy.
  My own industry people tell me that the one advantage they have over 
foreign countries when it comes to competing head to head is the 
availability of affordable, reliable energy. And on the environmental 
side, President Obama's former environmental czar, Carol Browner, 
herself, said that the rule would provide ``no health benefits 
associated with addressing non-mercury emissions.''
  The rhetoric, Mr. Chairman, used to attack this bill has reached a 
fever pitch, but it is not backed by the facts.
  I urge my colleagues to support the TRAIN Act.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. I appreciate the gentleman from Kentucky yielding to 
me on this very important legislation.
  At a time when 25 million Americans are unemployed or underemployed, 
the last thing Washington needs to be doing is making it more difficult 
to grow the economy. But that seems to be the operating question of 
this administration. The question is this: They ask, how can we make it 
more challenging for America's job creators to hire?
  America's energy sector is under direct assault. Energy companies 
looking to meet the rapidly growing energy needs of our Nation are 
either being forced to put on hold their efforts or are self-imposing 
barricades on future construction or expansion as a result of new or 
anticipated regulatory requirements.
  It has been reported recently that 351 stalled energy projects cost 
the Nation $1.1 trillion in GDP and 1.9 million jobs, yes, jobs. On 
this list is the Sunflower Electric Power Plant in Holcomb, Kansas. 
Sunflower Electric is a rural co-op that with a needed expansion can 
provide many new jobs in western Kansas.
  Most importantly, this expansion will allow Kansas to have the energy 
it needs in order to prevent brownouts, which are a very real 
possibility and a threat to our part of the country. Not only do 
families, schools, and hospitals depend on this energy production but. 
So does our agriculture sector, which is a key and vital component of 
rural Kansas.
  Sunflower faces considerable, unnecessary, and excessive regulatory 
scrutiny, not only for its existing operations but for the planned 
expansion in Holcomb as well. Whether it is the cross-State pollution 
rule, the MACT rule or many others, each one of these has a major 
impact. But the bigger problem--and that is what the TRAIN Act wants to 
demonstrate--is that these rules will be devastating and expensive to 
America's energy industry and all Americans.
  The President came before this House a few weeks ago and talked about 
the need for America to improve its infrastructure. Power plants in 
America are the very type of infrastructure that our country needs, 
particularly when energy consumption is growing rapidly in our Nation. 
These private companies, private companies, are willing to add to the 
country's infrastructure and create jobs, all without the help of the 
Federal Government. In fact, all they need is for Washington to take a 
step back.
  A Kansas business leader summed up this administration's guilty-
until-innocent approach to regulation. He said, ``We have a regulatory 
environment that assumes businesses are crooks, and government must 
catch them at it. This only raises the costs on business and makes it 
more difficult to operate.''
  I think his analysis says it all.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. May I inquire how much time is remaining, Mr. 
Chairman?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 14\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from California has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, let me just mention, I congratulate my 
counterpart from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan) in bringing this forward and 
giving us a chance to work through this process. We both come from the 
beautiful State of Oklahoma. And I invite anyone to be able to come to 
Oklahoma and drink our water and breathe our air and see the beautiful 
land, but also see a very successful State in dealing with energy.
  We've done hydraulic fracking in our State since 1949. And while it 
may be new to other States, it's not new to Oklahoma. Over 100,000 
times in Oklahoma we've done hydraulic fracking. Yet I would invite you 
again, come drink our water, come breathe our air, come see our 
beautiful land.
  Our State leadership has done a tremendous job in dealing with 
environmental quality issues, and they have done great in relationships 
with companies, whether that be power companies, utility companies, 
whether that be actual producers, whether it be service companies, 
through the process. It's a great model in much of the United States, 
if you get a chance to come and see what's going on there.
  But what we're currently experiencing is this whole sense that if the 
Federal Government doesn't come down on Oklahoma and every other State 
around the United States, surely children will die. Surely people will 
be thrown out of work because they have these wonderful compliance jobs 
required by the EPA and other areas.
  It's a frustration for me to be able to hear someone stand up in this 
Chamber and say, If those Republicans get what they want, 25,000 people 
will die next year because those mean Republicans are going to come and 
shut everyone down.
  People should know, I have children that live in the State. In fact, 
I have a child that has asthma. If you want to talk about a dad who 
loves his children and who wants to see a great future for them, that's 
me as well. It's not as if Republicans are suddenly wanting dirty air 
and dirty water; we just want basic common sense in our regulations.
  If every company, whether they be the energy producer or whether they 
be some utility, is constantly looking over their shoulder worried 
every day that some new restriction is going to come down on them and 
change their plan, they can't function. They can't go forward. They 
can't find investors for that business. What they're doing is very 
capital intensive, and if the rules change constantly and the 
regulations are constantly shifting, no one can really do investment, 
and the cost of all of our electricity goes up. The cost of every 
product that we buy goes up. The cost of every bit of our food goes up 
because we've added regulations, many of which make no sense. And they 
spend years and years trying to fight them in the courts just to not be 
shut down from doing what is best and right for the community.
  I understand there are bad actors. I do. And those bad actors should 
suffer consequences. But to be able to say that every energy producer 
and every utility out there is suspect and they'll never do the right 
thing unless we stand over them with thousands of regulators, I think 
overlooks the reality of a great-hearted group of Americans scattered 
around the country who are doing their best to do the right thing.
  Now, some would also say that these regulations aren't all that 
large, they're not all that expensive. They're just a bunch of small 
regulations. It reminds me of a friend of mine several years ago that 
was hiking through central Africa. And he and a guide were hiking 
through and he made the mistake in this particular area of swatting a 
bee that was one of those killer bees that we hear so much about. And 
as soon as that bee stung him and he swatted it, thousands of bees came 
down on him and began to sting him. Those bees kill, not from a single 
sting, but from thousands. That's what our utility companies are facing 
right now. It's not one little regulation; it's hundreds of them coming 
at them all at

[[Page 14199]]

once, and they're trying to figure out through lawyers and through 
adding additional staff and compliance people, how do we manage all of 
these regulations coming.
  This TRAIN Act does a simple thing. It begins to pull all of these 
regulations together and look at them in totality. I understand that 
you say that's just one little piece, and it's one little piece there, 
but let's look at them all together and be able to find out the 
consequences of them. Rather than have these things coming from 
everywhere, let's simplify the structure on it.
  I urge this Chamber's support of getting some common sense back into 
our regulatory scheme.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to correct some of the statements that have been made. The 
gentleman from Oklahoma talked about the clean air in his area. That's 
fine. They have attained the standards for protecting public health. 
But there are a lot of other areas where they don't have that 
attainment of health-based standards.
  Market forces alone will not correct problems that hurt our public 
health and the environment. Why should any business spend money to 
install pollution control devices if they don't think their competitors 
are going to do the same thing? So government must establish some 
standards so that everybody knows what the rules are going to be and 
the investments will be made.
  Approximately two-thirds of the coal-burning power plants in this 
country have the up-to-date controls in those power plants. What we're 
talking about for the most part are those third we were told were going 
to be retired. But they're not being retired. They're still being used, 
and they're still polluting. And those power plants ought to come up to 
compliance with the reductions in their emissions.
  One of the other speakers on the other side of the aisle said we 
don't have a real economic analysis of all of these regulations. That's 
not true. There are thousands of pages of economic analysis before 
these regulations have been promoted.
  Another person on the other side said a lot of these rules are so 
onerous that they should be blocked because we're going to be 
threatening the reliability of the Nation's electric grid by causing 
these old, inefficient power plants to put modern pollution controls on 
them. Well, that's not the testimony that we received on September 14, 
2011, in the Energy and Commerce Committee where Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission Chairman Jon Wellinghoff took a different 
position, as did FERC Commissioner John Norris, and former DOE 
Assistant Secretary for Policy Susan Tierney. A stack of independent 
analyses confirmed that these protections that will require controls on 
these power plants will not threaten the reliability of our grid.
  And over and over again we've heard unless we adopt this TRAIN Act, 
we are going to lose jobs. Well, the TRAIN Act blocks and indefinitely 
delays two of the most important clean air regulations of the past few 
decades: the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, which are, again, 
directed at those power plants that emit toxic air pollutants, 
including mercury and carcinogens; and then the other rule is the 
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule to reduce power plant emissions that 
cause pollution problems in downwind States.
  I don't believe they're telling us the facts when they say we're 
going to lose jobs. The truth of the matter is, according to the 
Economic Policy Institute, they reported in June that the Air Toxics 
rule would have a positive net impact on overall employment, creating 
up to 158,000 jobs between now and 2015.
  The Political Economy Research Institute at the University of 
Massachusetts released a report showing that the utility investments 
driven by the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and the Air Toxics rule 
would create nearly 1.5 million jobs by 2015.
  Moving toward a cleaner, more efficient power sector will create 
capital investments such as installing pollution controls and 
constructing new capacity. These new investments create a wide array of 
skilled, high-paying jobs.
  And I must say to my Republican friends, if we want to create jobs, 
let's pass the President's jobs bill. I'd like the Republicans not to 
block every effort by this administration to create new jobs in this 
country.
  There are numerous groups that are on record in opposition to the 
TRAIN Act. Obviously, the public health groups are opposing the bill: 
the American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, 
the American Thoracic Society, and the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of 
America. The American Public Health Association called this ill-
conceived legislation that would prevent EPA from protecting the 
public's health from dangerous and deadly air pollution. The National 
Association of Clean Air Agencies, the ones that are doing the job of 
protecting our environment, groups that represent millions of 
Americans, particularly all of the environmental groups, oppose this.
  Scientists have told us--and I know a lot of Republicans deny 
science--but scientists, I think, are to be respected. And they say 
sacrificing tens of thousands of Americans' lives will not create more 
jobs. Poisoning the air our children and our families breathe will not 
stimulate the economy.
  Three hundred sportsmen organizations representing our Nation's 
hunters, anglers, and the businesses that depend on our wildlife and 
natural resources support EPA efforts to cut mercury pollution and 
strongly oppose any efforts to weaken the Clean Air Act.
  The Evangelical Environmental Network opposes these efforts to block 
the Mercury and Air Toxics rule because they point out that in the 
developing brains of fetuses and children, this will cause learning 
disabilities and neurological problems, and is not something that 
people who claim to be pro-life ought to support.

                              {time}  1940

  The Obama administration opposes this TRAIN Act. They threaten to 
veto this legislation if it reaches the President's desk. Americans 
don't support weakening the Clean Air Act or blocking EPA's efforts to 
reduce dangerous air pollution from power plants.
  I think, my colleagues, that this TRAIN Act and some of the 
amendments that are going to be added to it are reason enough to oppose 
this legislation, and I urge opposition to it.
  I am going to reserve the balance of my time if the gentleman, the 
chairman of the subcommittee, is not ready to close on the legislation.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I was prepared to close, but we do have one other 
speaker, and then I will close. He just came in, and we were not 
totally aware.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), who is a valuable 
member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and a chairman of one of 
our subcommittees.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I do apologize to my friend from 
California for coming late and kind of disrupting what was planned to 
be a closing, but this is an important debate, and my colleague from 
California and I have crossed sabers many times on these issues. I 
don't question his commitment to the environment and the regs and rules 
and the like.
  As he knows, I'm from southern Illinois. I'm from an area that was 
devastated in the jobs issue and during the 1992 Clean Air Act, and I'm 
from an area of the country that still is not being all it can be based 
upon the excessive rules and regulations that come out of Washington, 
D.C.
  The TRAIN Act is really a first step to help us ask a simple 
question: Shouldn't we, as an interagency process, shouldn't we at 
least ask the basic question of what effect is this going to have on 
jobs and what effect will it have on our competitiveness worldwide?
  It is really a basic debate. It's a good one to have. I applaud the 
chairman for bringing this to the floor. We need an up-or-down vote 
because, as much as

[[Page 14200]]

we want clean air, we would like jobs. They're not exclusionary. We can 
do both. We have the cleanest environment that anyone has seen in 
decades in this country, and it is attributed to the work that past 
Congresses have done. But the difference is this, that in today's 
environment--well, let's go back.
  Three decades ago, when you wanted to clean up 50 percent of the 
emissions, you could make the capital investments and you could do it. 
The debate now is: How clean is clean? What is the cost benefit 
analysis and what is the effect on jobs if we get to a limit that you 
don't find naturally?
  What the TRAIN Act basically does is it says, before we promulgate 
more rules and more regulations, we ought to at least admit the fact 
that it may affect our competitiveness in our economic position. We 
ought to accept the premise that if you continue to put more rules and 
regulations on electric generation, that electricity costs are going to 
go up. What does that do to the manufacturing sector? I think that's 
what this bill is just asking. If we find out these answers and we 
figure out that the economic costs outweigh the environmental benefit, 
well maybe we better slow down. If we decide the environmental benefits 
are so great that we're willing to accept the cost, then we ought to 
move forward. But for us not to have this debate is not doing our job 
and it is not doing our duty.
  I am really pleased that we've brought this bill to the floor. We've 
had numerous hearings. We've gone through the legislative process. I 
appreciate Speaker Boehner and the openness because we've had hearings. 
We had a subcommittee mark. We've had a full committee mark. We've had 
this debate on amendments to this bill, and now we're ready to have 
this debate on the floor.
  The last hearing we had in Chairman Whitfield's committee was on the 
reliability issue, and I took to task the chairman of the FERC who, in 
their own analysis, said that if we continue to move on this regulatory 
regime, 80 gigawatts of power is going to go offline. Now, EPA did the 
analysis, and they said eight. So you've got a tenfold difference. 
Well, maybe they're both wrong. Maybe it's 40 gigawatts.
  My friends, 40 gigawatts is a lot of power and will affect the 
reliability of the electricity grid in this country. We rely on that 
reliability for a lot of things. We rely upon it in the manufacturing 
sector and the manufacturing facilities, but we also rely upon the 
reliability in the safety of our citizens who are in the hospitals and 
in long-term care who need power to those facilities just for their 
livelihood.
  So if our aggressive environmental movement takes away 80 gigawatts 
of power, will that affect our electricity reliability? I think it 
will.
  Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. WAXMAN. The EPA did an economic analysis looking at the cost and 
benefits. And on the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, they said that the 
costs would be less than a billion, but the benefits would be up to 
$280 billion per year, 150 to 350 times its cost.
  I want the chairman of the subcommittee to answer a question when he 
closes. I believe the Republicans have misrepresented this bill during 
the debate, but false information was put on their Web site tonight. 
They claimed hundreds of groups support the TRAIN Act, and immediately 
two groups came forward, and maybe others will as well, saying that 
they would never support the TRAIN Act--Clean Water Action Committee 
and the Clean Air Watch.
  I'd like to know if the information that is on the Web site is being 
checked for accuracy, because I know that a lot of things that have 
been said in this debate from the other side of the aisle have not been 
accurate.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I want to thank the gentleman for the debate today. I was not aware 
that we had sent out a letter of supporters of this legislation, and 
evidently in that letter there was a letter in opposition that should 
not have been in there. If that created any hardship for anyone or 
problems, we certainly do apologize for that.
  We should remind ourselves that by every public health measure, from 
infant mortality to life expectancy, we are healthier today and are 
exposed to fewer hazards than ever before. Our present day air is much 
cleaner now than years ago thanks to EPA, and our air quality is among 
the best in the world. And we recognize the importance of EPA. However, 
when EPA becomes so aggressive, as this EPA has become, and in a very 
short period of time they've come forward with 14 regulations--and we 
know that when you look at cost-benefit analyses, different entities 
come up with different figures on the cost and the benefits.
  We, for example, have come up with an analysis on the Utility MACT 
and the air transport rule alone saying that the annualized cost of 
that will be $17 billion, that industry will have to spend that kind of 
money to get new equipment, that the total cost between 2011 and 2030 
would be $184 billion. But one of the figures that really scares you in 
this is that they say there will be a net loss of 1.4 million jobs. 
Now, we know that some jobs will be created in trying to build this 
equipment that these regulations are going to require, but most of the 
analyses that we've seen indicate that there is going to be more of a 
job loss.

                              {time}  1950

  All the TRAIN Act is doing is saying let's have an independent 
government agency, including EPA, do an analysis of cost/benefit of all 
of these rules. We would also like them to look at what impact does it 
have on America's ability to be competitive in the global marketplace. 
We'd also like for them to look at what will be the job loss, net job 
loss. We would also like for them to look on what impact it's going to 
have on electricity prices as well as the reliability of electricity.
  And on 12 of those regulations, we do not stop them in any way; but 
on two of them, the ones that are most costly--Utility MACT, and what I 
refer to as the ``air transport rule''--we do, in this legislation, 
delay the effective date of those, the implementation of those until 6 
months after the report is due that this legislation requires.
  Now, in my view, that's not being unreasonable. Some people think it 
is because it is the first time that Congress has ever come to the 
floor to question some of the EPA regulations, and I really think that 
that's our responsibility. They issue the regulations; but if they 
reach a point where we think they're being unreasonable, then we have 
an obligation to come and let's examine these, let's look at them 
before we move totally forward with it.
  Now, Lisa Jackson, when she has come before us and testified, she has 
always made the comment that ``I'm creating jobs with these new 
regulations.'' And as I said earlier, she does create new jobs, but the 
net effect is there is a loss of jobs. Now, some of these rules may be 
great in areas like California and New York and the Northeast and 
elsewhere; but in the areas of the country where coal--and, by the way, 
coal still provides 50 percent of all the electricity in America. Our 
electricity demand is going to increase significantly in the next 30 
years, so we're going to have to rely on coal. But a lot of these 
regulations are going to put coal miners out of business because 
they're going to close some of these coal mines. It's going to put some 
coal-fired utilities out of business because they're going to close 
these utility plants because the cost is not going to be worth what 
they have to do to meet these air quality regulations.
  Now, on the air quality regulations, the question becomes, if you're 
98 percent pure already, is it worth this much money to go 2 percent 
more? So that's the question we come down to, and that's why we ask for 
this analysis; and I would urge everyone to support this TRAIN Act 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page 14201]]

  Mr. BUCSHON. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the legislation 
before the House--H.R. 2401, the Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of 
Impacts on the Nation Act. Coal mining is a lifeblood industry in 
southwest Indiana and throughout the Midwest. We have abundant reserves 
of the natural resource throughout my state and the citizens of my 
district depend heavily on coal mining and the burning of coal for 
electricity. In fact, 98 percent of Indiana's power generation comes 
from coal.
  The Environmental Protection Agency has gone to great lengths to 
disrupt coal production in the United States--in many cases haphazardly 
and without recognition of the economic and social benefits derived 
from coal mining and the electricity it generates.
  The further hampering of our country's ability to mine and utilize 
coal will have drastic effects on the economy--hitting hardest those 
areas, like my district, that depend on coal for jobs and paychecks.
  That said, there are utilities in this country that have completed or 
are making currently the strategic investments necessary to comply with 
the EPA rules this bill seeks to delay. These investments have been 
made at significant cost to the utility customers, who are paying 
higher rates as a result.
  As this legislative initiative moves from House passage to Senate 
consideration--and negotiation between the two bodies--it is imperative 
we find a workable solution that both protects the investments these 
utilities have made and are making while maintaining the underlying 
intent of the bill before us.
  For this reason, I plan to work toward such a solution because not 
doing so would leave those utilities at a significant competitive 
disadvantage in the marketplace--and frankly would be unfair to the 
customer. I am hopeful my colleagues will join me in this effort.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chair, today's debate is deja vu from the debate 
within the House Energy and Commerce committee. Once again my 
colleagues and I on the Energy and Commerce Committee had the 
opportunity to address and protect human health and environment, while 
also promote and encourage innovation and job creation. These are 
serious issues facing our country and the EPA, issues that require 
serious solutions. Sadly, this bill does nothing to actually address 
those issues.
  In addition to the lack of a well thought-out strategy, the proposed 
amendments to this bill would make serious changes to the Clean Air Act 
without any congressional hearing or testimony. None of these proposals 
have had serious examination by the Energy and Commerce Committee, 
which has jurisdiction over this matter. This is not the open and 
transparent legislative process that my colleagues have committed to. 
We cannot responsibly govern in this matter and ignore our 
Constitutional obligation to hold hearings, hear testimony, and give 
these matters the in-depth consideration major policy initiatives 
deserve.
  As I said, there are legitimate problems with some of the proposed 
rules coming out of EPA, and they need to be dealt with. However, this 
Polish lawyer from Detroit happens to believe we would get further with 
a more surgical approach to dealing with these matters.
  I am particularly concerned with the Utility MACT, which in its 
current form, could have a devastating effect on the economy of 
Midwestern manufacturing States, including my home State of Michigan. I 
am convinced that a balanced, bipartisan solution to this issue was 
available to us. In fact, I offered to work with all of my colleagues, 
both Democrats and Republicans on this matter. Sadly, my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle would rather play political games rather 
than work on a reasonable solution to a legitimate problem.
  I would note to my colleagues that we spent only one day on the 
failed Continuing Resolution, but will spend two days on this bill. 
This, I believe, demonstrates the true intention of the GOP. That is 
not to actually deal with a legitimate and disconcerting problem, but 
to spend time on their favorite whipping boy, EPA. Now, I have had my 
share of issues with that particular agency, but I have always sought a 
solution--not played games to gain political points.
  As such, it is my intent to vote against the TRAIN Act and the 
amendments proposed by the other side of the aisle. The President 
already indicated his strong opposition and as such, the bill before us 
is nothing more than veto bait. I would call on my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to work with me on these matters in a reasonable 
way.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the TRAIN Act. This 
misguided legislation would undermine the Environmental Protection 
Agency's ability to enforce the Clean Air Act and significantly limit 
the federal government's ability to ensure that the air we breathe is 
safe and pollution-free.
  Some in the Majority have used the title of this legislation to refer 
to EPA's so-called regulatory train wreck. Well, the TRAIN Act amounts 
to a wrecking ball for public health protections.
  Sadly, the TRAIN Act is the latest in a long line of bills from the 
majority that puts big polluters before the health and safety of the 
American people. From the Dirty Air Act that would remove EPA's 
statutory authority to regulate carbon pollution to legislation that 
removes accountability for offshore drilling operations, the majority 
seems intent on rolling back programs that preserve our environment, 
protect our public health, and grow our economy.
  For forty years the Clean Air Act has been successful in protecting 
public health and preventing deaths from respiratory disease because it 
was written to follow science as science evolved. The success of the 
Clean Air Act is because its regulations are based in science. 
Legislators shouldn't pretend to be scientists.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the TRAIN Act and urge 
the House to reject it.
  The Clean Air Act is one of this nation's most important laws. Over 
the last 40 years, it has greatly reduced pollution across the length 
and breadth of this country, allowing all Americans to live longer, 
healthier lives. There is a tendency to take the steady air quality 
improvements our country has made for granted. In the course of my 
trade duties on the Ways and Means Committee, I have visited many 
countries. I've been to foreign cities where the air is so thick with 
smog that some days you can't see buildings that are just a few blocks 
away. The air is hard to breathe because it is thick with ozone and 
particulate pollution. This is not what we want here in America.
  The legislation before the House today has many shortcomings. I 
especially object to the provisions of this bill that delay two 
important Clean Air rules. The bill would delay the Mercury and Air 
Toxics Standards Rule as well as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 
until at least 2013, and very likely much longer than that since the 
bill eliminates all statutory and court-ordered deadlines for both 
rules.
  Congress ordered EPA to take action to curb mercury and other air 
toxics 21 years ago, and more than two decades later we're still 
waiting for action. This is particularly a problem in the Great Lakes 
region. Mercury is thrown into the air by coal-burning power plants 
hundreds of miles away and bioaccumulates in Great Lakes fish. Mercury 
is especially a health risk for pregnant women and infants because 
exposure to mercury has been linked to nervous system damage.
  The cost of further delay of the Mercury and Air Toxics Rule is high. 
For each year we delay, there will be up to an additional 17,000 
premature deaths; 11,000 non-fatal heart attacks; 120,000 cases of 
aggravated asthma, and 12,200 hospital and emergency room visits. The 
Republican leadership of the House appears to be comfortable with 
continued inaction on air toxics. I am not. We should vote this bill 
down.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, for decades public health has been the basis 
for how we enact emissions standards. The bill before us today, the 
TRAIN Act, represents a view of environmental protection that is simply 
off the rails.
  Initially drafted to study the effect of new and proposed clean air 
rules, it has troublingly morphed into a bill blocking action on them 
indefinitely. First, it would prohibit the EPA from finalizing its rule 
to reduce mercury emissions. This rule had its origin in the 1990 Clean 
Air Act, which passed this House with a strong bipartisan vote of 401-
25. An American Lung Association study earlier this year found that 
today 70 percent of Republicans still support stricter limits on 
mercury. Second, the TRAIN Act would prevent the implementation of new 
rules protecting communities from pollutants drifting over from out-of-
state.
  Clean air regulations are ultimately investments in our economy. They 
save us hundreds of billions of dollars each year in health costs from 
associated lung ailments. Even further, they incentivize the growth of 
clean technologies that will help us remain competitive and increase 
our innovation and manufacturing strength here in America.
  While I oppose this bill overall, Congressmen Connolly and McNerney 
have proposed amendments that would refocus the bill where Congress's 
attention belongs--job creation. Their amendments would support 
Democrats' Make It in America plan by studying the job-creating effects 
of pollution controls. Additionally, Congresswoman Richardson's 
amendment would prevent a cut in the program reauthorized just last 
year by voice vote that supports American-made technology to reduce 
diesel bus exhaust.

[[Page 14202]]

  Now is not the time to debate the environmental protections supported 
overwhelmingly and on a bipartisan basis, which carry tangible health 
and economic benefits. Instead we should be focusing on serious steps 
to get more Americans back to work.
  Mr. FINCHER. Mr. Chair, I come to the floor this morning to discuss 
an issue important to all American families living on a budget.
  This Administration's overreaching regulations placed on energy are 
causing increases to American families' utility bills.
  Families need certainty that their energy needs will be met and their 
energy costs will remain low.
  Which is why, I have introduced America's Energy Independence Act, 
which prevents the EPA from enforcing the Cross-State Air Pollution 
rule for 10 years to keep the cost of utilities low for families.
  As we all know, the Cross-State Air Pollution rule finalized by the 
Environmental Protection Agency on July 6, 2011, and will lead to 
negative increases in energy prices for families, job loss, with what 
benefit.
  This country needs to create a stable regulatory environment, where 
the energy costs to families is balanced with the benefit of the 
regulation, allowing families to have certainty that any new rules and 
regulations will have their best interests in mind.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule was just recently updated in 2005.
  Simply put, this regulation will have a significant negative economic 
impact of $2.4 billion dollars a year, a cost that will be passed to 
families across the country, including the Eighth District of 
Tennessee.
  The bottom line is that the EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution rule will 
contribute to a reduction in energy outputs, and an increase to 
families' utility bills.
  At a time when families are struggling to make ends meet, the last 
action the Obama Administration should take is another multi-billion 
dollar regulation that kills jobs and increase costs.
  That is why I would like to thank the House Committee on Energy and 
Commerce for including the language of H.R. 2891.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chair, I am proud to serve as a 
Representative of California's Ninth Congressional District, which has 
long been at the forefront of the environmental movement, including 
working on the critical issue of climate change, as well as fighting 
for renewable energy, green jobs, and environmental justice.
  That is why I am speaking today against the TRAIN Act--it undermines 
the Clean Air Act's ability to crack down on air pollution, threatening 
the quality of life for our children, our families and our communities, 
including my constituents in the East Bay, many of whom already suffer 
unjustly from poor air quality.
  The Clean Air Act is one of the most successful public health 
programs in American history--with a return of more than $30 in 
benefits for every dollar invested in pollution reductions over the 
life of this law.
  The TRAIN Act is a direct attack on the Clean Air Act and its 
regulations. This bill blocks EPA's ability to move forward with two 
long overdue Clean Air Act rules--the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard 
and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule--which will reduce harmful air 
pollution that threatens public health, especially the health of the 
most vulnerable populations, including children and seniors.
  The Republicans' attack on the Clean Air Act and its work to 
dismantle the EPA will not only result in job loss but will result in 
poorer public health across this Nation.
  Rather than the Republicans taking action to create jobs, this bill 
cuts funding to create green jobs.
  We should move President Obama's American Jobs Act now to begin to 
give Americans what they want: a job.
  I urge a no vote on this measure and urge the Republicans to stop 
playing political games and couching deregulation as job creation. Wall 
Street got deregulated and the result was a financial crisis. The 
American people do not need an environmental and public health crisis, 
the American people need jobs.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, today's legislation continues the 
majority's relentless assault on the Clean Air Act and our nation's 
public health.
  Let's be clear: clean air is not--and has never been--the enemy of 
economic growth. If history has taught us anything, it is that a 
healthy environment and a healthy economy go hand in hand. Since 1970, 
the Clean Air Act has reduced air pollutants by 60 percent while the 
economy has grown by over 200 percent, with economic benefits expected 
to reach $2 trillion by 2010--exceeding costs by more than 30 to 1.
  Rather than building on this bipartisan record of cost-effective 
environmental achievement, today's legislation proposes to block two of 
the most important Clean Air Act rules in decades: the mercury and air 
toxics rule and the cross-state air pollution rule.
  The proposed mercury and air toxics standards would prevent more than 
90% of the mercury from coal-fired power plants to be emitted into the 
air by 2015--and it would reduce fine particle emissions by 29 percent. 
More than half of the nation's coal-fired power plants already deploy 
the technology necessary to meet these standards, whose adoption will 
prevent 17,000 premature deaths and 120,000 cases of asthma a year.
  The long overdue cross-state air pollution rule would require 27 
upwind states to reduce their sulfur dioxide emissions by 75 percent 
and their nitrogen oxide emissions by 54 percent. These reductions will 
prevent an additional 34,000 premature deaths and 400,000 cases of 
asthma each year and the ``good neighbor'' principle it represents is 
especially important to downwind states like my home state of Maryland, 
which currently must bear the brunt of air pollution that blows in from 
other states.
  The economic and public health benefits from both of these rules far 
outstrip the cost of the pollution control technology necessary to 
achieve them--a fact the one-sided ``study'' in this legislation is 
deliberately designed to obscure. And the pollution control technology 
itself will drive investment and job creation for professionals like 
engineers, electricians, pipefitters and boilermakers whose expertise 
and labor will be needed to install it. It's a clear win for our 
economy and a clear win for our public health.
  I urge a no vote.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2401. Instead 
of legislation that would train Americans to get back to full 
employment, the majority is bringing to the floor a bill that harms the 
health of our nation.
  This bill would endanger the health of millions of our nation's 
children, seniors, and sick by blocking rules to reduce cross-state air 
pollution and to reduce the emissions of mercury, lead, dioxin, and 
other toxic chemicals from power plants. H.R. 2401 would also delay 
future safeguards by requiring studies that only measure pollution 
cleanup costs while disregarding health and other benefits.
  Along with many of my colleagues, I recently sent letters to the 
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, in support of the Power Plant Air 
Toxics Rule and the Cross-State Air Pollution Control Rule because of 
the positive impact these rules will have on the public health of our 
nation. Toxic air pollution from power plants remains a major 
unregulated source of mercury and lead in the air. Already, more than 
half of all coal-fired power plants use widely available pollution 
control technologies to meet these important standards. Once the rule 
is final, the remaining 44 percent will take similar steps to decrease 
dangerous pollutants, saving thousands of lives and avoiding tens of 
thousands of illnesses. It is clear that the benefits of the mercury 
and air toxics standards will far outweigh its costs--it is estimated 
that the pollution reductions required by the rule will yield health 
benefits of $59 billion to $140 billion per year (from lower health 
care costs and higher worker productivity), which is 5 to 13 times its 
costs.
  Further, by delaying the Cross-State Air Pollution Control Rule this 
bill would allow highly polluting facilities located upwind to continue 
to pollute major metropolitan areas with impunity. Such sources of 
pollution have made it unattainable for major metropolitan areas like 
New York City to be in compliance with federal standards for smog 
pollution even though most pollution is generated by large upwind 
sources. The Cross State Rule would make polluters control pollution at 
the source rather than continuing to shift the cost burden onto local 
governments and local taxpayers.
  This bill requires an unnecessary, duplicative, and biased study of 
specified air quality and hazardous waste regulations without assessing 
the benefits of environmental and public health standards. Impeding 
these EPA rules jeopardizes the health and well-being of the American 
people. I encourage my colleagues to vote against this legislative 
train wreck.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2401, 
The TRAIN Act. This bill would continue the subordination of public 
health and common sense to the narrow, temporary and misguided pursuit 
of profits for the few. It endeavors to kill essential environmental 
and public health protections by imposing the exact kind of redtape my 
colleagues so emphatically claim to oppose.
  The TRAIN Act slams the brakes on essential public health 
initiatives, first by burdening the initiatives with unnecessary and 
redundant study. These regulations include efforts to reduce airborne 
ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur

[[Page 14203]]

dioxide, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, toxic metals like mercury, 
arsenic and chromium, and any effort to stem greenhouse gases, the 
single biggest threat to our way of life and our very existence in 
recorded history. The TRAIN Act also tries to overtly stop two 
essential rules. It indefinitely blocks EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics 
standards and Cross-State Air Pollution Rule by eliminating any legal 
deadline for EPA action. It prevents EPA from adopting the Cross-State 
Air Pollution Rule for a minimum of 19 months, and the Mercury and Air 
Toxics standards for at least 15 months.
  Each year the Cross-State Air Pollution rule is delayed brings about 
up to 34,000 premature deaths, 19,000 emergency room visits for 
respiratory and cardiovascular disease, and about 400,000 cases of 
aggravated asthma. The pollution reductions under the rule are 
estimated to create health benefits of $59 billion to $140 billion per 
year; 5 to 13 times its costs.
  Each year the Mercury and Air Toxics rule is delayed brings about 
17,000 additional premature deaths, 12,200 emergency room visits for 
respiratory and cardiovascular disease, and about 120,000 cases of 
aggravated asthma. Enacting the rule would bring about health benefits 
of $120 to $280 billion per year; 150 to 350 times its costs.
  If I told you Washington, DC were to incur an act of terrorism that 
would cost over 50,000 lives over the next year, I guarantee you this 
Congress would launch a multibillion dollar effort to save those lives. 
If an explosion at a nuclear power plant killed a baseball stadium's 
worth of people, you can bet we would spend billions of dollars 
figuring out what went wrong, conducting cleanup, performing oversight, 
and so much more. If a massive flood caused an outbreak of an enigmatic 
infectious disease that killed 34,000 people over 12 months, you can be 
certain we would mobilize all levels of government and the private 
sector to stop it. There would be clearly identifiable victims. There 
would be heroes. Not so in the field of public health where the victims 
are harder to identify and the cause of their death, less grandiose.
  We have an opportunity here to prevent the deaths of tens of 
thousands of innocent Americans for far less money than it would cost 
to relaunch a war on terror, to clean up after a nuclear catastrophe, 
or to stop the spread of a flood-borne emerging infectious disease. 
There are many environmental issues demanding our attention which will 
require remedies that are simply not cost-effective, in the narrowly 
defined economic sense of the term. The regulations at issue today do 
not fall into that category. This bill is a true test of fiscal 
rectitude. I urge my colleagues to reject it.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chair, I'm deeply disappointed that once again we're 
voting on a bill designed to cripple the Environmental Protection 
Agency--the agency tasked with protecting our environment and our 
health.
  This bill, the Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the 
Nation, TRAIN, Act blocks and indefinitely delays two of the most 
important clean air regulations of the last few decades--the Mercury 
and Air Toxics Standards, and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule.
  These rules require decades-old coal-fired power plants with no 
modern pollution controls to install readily available technology, 
reducing cancer-causing dioxins, acid gases and mercury.
  Mercury pollution from power plants is particularly harmful for 
children and can adversely affect developing brains and bodies. 
Nevertheless, the bill before us expands and deregulates mercury 
pollution.
  The American Lung Association has highlighted the importance of the 
Mercury and Air Toxics Standards Rule:

       The rule closes a toxic loophole that has existed for 20 
     years by updating standards to protect Americans all across 
     the country from hazardous air pollution. Without these 
     standards, toxic pollution will continue filling our lungs 
     and more people will suffer--and even die--unnecessarily.

  TRAIN Act will create a Train Wreck that will pollute our air and put 
lives at risk. Ironically, the bill also creates exactly what the 
majority says they want to get rid of--a new bureaucratic layer to 
analyze only the cost of EPA regulations while ignoring critical, life-
saving benefits.
  This legislation is a waste of taxpayer money and I urge my 
colleagues to vote against it.
  The Acting 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. 
Lankford) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington, 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. 2401) to require analyses of the cumulative and incremental 
impacts of certain rules and actions of the Environmental Protection 
Agency, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________