[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14293-14300]
[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. Womack). 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 further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 2401.

                              {time}  0920


                     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 further 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. Dold (Acting Chair) 
in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, 
September 22, 2011, all time for general debate pursuant to House 
Resolution 406 had expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered 
read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 2401

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Transparency in Regulatory 
     Analysis of Impacts on the Nation Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. COMMITTEE FOR THE CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS OF REGULATIONS 
                   THAT IMPACT ENERGY AND MANUFACTURING IN THE 
                   UNITED STATES.

       (a) Establishment.--The President shall establish a 
     committee to be known as the Committee for the Cumulative 
     Analysis of Regulations that Impact Energy and Manufacturing 
     in the United States (in this Act referred to as the 
     ``Committee'') to analyze and report on the cumulative and 
     incremental impacts of certain rules and actions of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency, in accordance with sections 
     3 and 4.
       (b) Members.--The Committee shall be composed of the 
     following officials (or their designees):
       (1) The Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief 
     Economist.
       (2) The Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Chief 
     Economist and the Under Secretary for International Trade.
       (3) The Secretary of Labor, acting through the Commissioner 
     of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
       (4) The Secretary of Energy, acting through the 
     Administrator of the Energy Information Administration.
       (5) The Secretary of the Treasury, acting through the 
     Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environment and Energy of the 
     Department of the Treasury.
       (6) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency.
       (7) The Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors.
       (8) The Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission.
       (9) The Administrator of the Office of Information and 
     Regulatory Affairs.
       (10) The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
     Administration.
       (11) The Chairman of the United States International Trade 
     Commission, acting through the Office of Economics.
       (c) Chair.--The Secretary of Commerce shall serve as Chair 
     of the Committee. In carrying out the functions of the Chair, 
     the Secretary of Commerce shall consult with the members 
     serving on the Committee pursuant to paragraphs (5) and (11) 
     of subsection (b).
       (d) Consultation.--In conducting analyses under section 3 
     and preparing reports under section 4, the Committee shall 
     consult with, and consider pertinent reports issued by, the 
     Electric Reliability Organization certified under section 
     215(c) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824o(c)).
       (e) Termination.--The Committee shall terminate 60 days 
     after submitting its final report pursuant to section 4(c).

     SEC. 3. ANALYSES.

       (a) Scope.--The Committee shall conduct analyses, for each 
     of the calendar years 2016, 2020, and 2030, of the following:
       (1) The cumulative impact of covered rules that are 
     promulgated as final regulations on or before January 1, 
     2012, in combination with covered actions.
       (2) The cumulative impact of all covered rules (including 
     covered rules that have not been promulgated as final 
     regulations on or before January 1, 2012), in combination 
     with covered actions.
       (3) The incremental impact of each covered rule not 
     promulgated as a final regulation on or before January 1, 
     2012, relative to an analytic baseline representing the 
     results of the analysis conducted under paragraph (1).
       (b) Contents.--The Committee shall include in each analysis 
     conducted under this section the following:
       (1) Estimates of the impacts of the covered rules and 
     covered actions with regard to--
       (A) the global economic competitiveness of the United 
     States, particularly with respect to energy intensive and 
     trade sensitive industries;
       (B) other cumulative costs and cumulative benefits, 
     including evaluation through a general equilibrium model 
     approach;
       (C) any resulting change in national, State, and regional 
     electricity prices;
       (D) any resulting change in national, State, and regional 
     fuel prices;
       (E) the impact on national, State, and regional employment 
     during the 5-year period beginning on the date of enactment 
     of this Act, and also in the long term, including secondary 
     impacts associated with increased energy prices and facility 
     closures; and
       (F) the reliability and adequacy of bulk power supply in 
     the United States.
       (2) Discussion of key uncertainties and assumptions 
     associated with each estimate.
       (3) A sensitivity analysis.
       (4) Discussion, and where feasible an assessment, of the 
     cumulative impact of the covered rules and covered actions 
     on--
       (A) consumers;
       (B) small businesses;
       (C) regional economies;
       (D) State, local, and tribal governments;
       (E) local and industry-specific labor markets; and
       (F) agriculture,

     as well as key uncertainties associated with each topic.
       (c) Methods.--In conducting analyses under this section, 
     the Committee shall use the best available methods, 
     consistent with guidance from the Office of Information and 
     Regulatory Affairs and the Office of Management and Budget 
     Circular A-4.
       (d) Data.--In conducting analyses under this section, the 
     Committee--
       (1) shall use the best data that are available to the 
     public or supplied to the Committee by its members, including 
     the most recent such data appropriate for this analysis 
     representing air quality, facility emissions, and installed 
     controls; and
       (2) is not required to create data or to use data that are 
     not readily accessible.
       (e) Covered Rules.--In this section, the term ``covered 
     rule'' means the following:
       (1) The following published rules (including any successor 
     or substantially similar rule):
       (A) ``Federal Implementation Plans To Reduce Interstate 
     Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone'', published 
     at 75 Fed. Reg. 45210 (August 2, 2010).
       (B) ``National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone'', 
     published at 75 Fed. Reg. 2938 (January 19, 2010).
       (C) ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
     Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and 
     Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters'', published at 76 
     Fed. Reg. 15608 (March 21, 2011).

[[Page 14294]]

       (D) ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
     Pollutants for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and 
     Institutional Boilers'', published at 76 Fed. Reg. 15554 
     (March 21, 2011).
       (E) ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
     Pollutants from Coal- and Oil-fired Electric Utility Steam 
     Generating Units and Standards of Performance for Fossil-
     Fuel-Fired Electric Utility, Industrial-Commercial-
     Institutional, and Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional 
     Steam Generating Units'', signed by Administrator Lisa P. 
     Jackson on March 16, 2011.
       (F) ``Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; 
     Identification and Listing of Special Wastes; Disposal of 
     Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities'', 
     published at 75 Fed. Reg. 35127 (June 21, 2010).
       (G) ``Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for 
     Sulfur Dioxide'', published at 75 Fed. Reg. 35520 (June 22, 
     2010).
       (H) ``Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 
     Nitrogen Dioxide'', published at 75 Fed. Reg. 6474 (February 
     9, 2010).
       (2) The following additional rules or guidelines 
     promulgated on or after January 1, 2009:
       (A) Any rule or guideline promulgated under section 111(b) 
     or 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7411(b), 7411(d)) 
     to address climate change.
       (B) Any rule or guideline promulgated by the Administrator 
     of the Environmental Protection Agency, a State, a local 
     government, or a permitting agency under or as the result of 
     section 169A or 169B of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7491, 
     7492).
       (C) Any rule establishing or modifying a national ambient 
     air quality standard under section 109 of the Clean Air Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 7409).
       (f) Covered Actions.--In this section, the term ``covered 
     action'' means any action on or after January 1, 2009, by the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, a 
     State, a local government, or a permitting agency as a result 
     of the application of part C of title I (relating to 
     prevention of significant deterioration of air quality) or 
     title V (relating to permitting) of the Clean Air Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), if such application occurs with respect 
     to an air pollutant that is identified as a greenhouse gas in 
     ``Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for 
     Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act'', 
     published at 74 Fed. Reg. 66496 (December 15, 2009).

     SEC. 4. REPORTS; PUBLIC COMMENT.

       (a) Preliminary Report.--Not later than January 31, 2012, 
     the Committee shall make public and submit to the Committee 
     on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and 
     the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a 
     preliminary report containing the results of the analyses 
     conducted under section 3.
       (b) Public Comment Period.--The Committee shall accept 
     public comments regarding the preliminary report submitted 
     under subsection (a) for a period of 90 days after such 
     submission.
       (c) Final Report.--Not later than August 1, 2012, the 
     Committee shall submit to Congress a final report containing 
     the analyses conducted under section 3, including any 
     revisions to such analyses made as a result of public 
     comments, and a response to such comments.

     SEC. 5. REGULATORY DEFERRAL OF CERTAIN RULES.

       (a) No Final Action.--The Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency shall not take final action 
     with respect to the rule listed in subparagraph (E) of 
     section 3(e)(1) (relating to national emission standards and 
     standards of performance for certain electric generating 
     units) until a date (to be determined by the Administrator) 
     that is at least 6 months after the day on which the 
     Committee submits the final report under section 4(c).
       (b) Rules Finalized Prior to Enactment.--Notwithstanding 
     the final action taken with respect to the rule listed in 
     subparagraph (A) of section 3(e)(1) (relating to Federal 
     implementation plans to reduce interstate transport of fine 
     particulate matter and ozone) and final action (if any) taken 
     with respect to the rule listed in subparagraph (E) of 
     section 3(e)(1) prior to the date of the enactment of this 
     Act--
       (1) such final action shall not be or become, as 
     applicable, effective until a date (to be determined by the 
     Administrator) that is at least 6 months after the day on 
     which the Committee submits the final report under section 
     4(c); and
       (2) the date for compliance with any standard or 
     requirement in either such finalized rule, and any date for 
     further regulatory action triggered by either such finalized 
     rule, shall be delayed by a period equal to the period--
       (A) beginning on the date of the publication of the final 
     action for the respective finalized rule; and
       (B) ending on the date on which such final action becomes 
     effective pursuant to paragraph (1).
       (c) Applicability of Clean Air Interstate Rule During 
     Interim Period.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
     shall continue to implement the Clean Air Interstate Rule and 
     the rule establishing Federal Implementation Plans for the 
     Clean Air Interstate Rule as promulgated and modified by the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (70 Fed. 
     Reg. 25162 (May 12, 2005), 71 Fed. Reg. 25288 (April 28, 
     2006), 71 Fed. Reg. 25328 (April 28, 2006), 72 Fed. Reg. 
     59190 (Oct. 19, 2007), 72 Fed. Reg. 62338 (Nov. 2, 2007), 74 
     Fed. Reg. 56721 (Nov. 3, 2009)) until the date on which final 
     action with respect to the rule listed in subparagraph (A) of 
     section 3(e)(1) becomes effective pursuant to subsection 
     (b)(1).

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Authorization.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out this Act for fiscal year 2012--
       (1) $3,000,000 to the Department of Commerce, of which not 
     more than $2,000,000 shall be for carrying out section 3; and
       (2) $500,000 to the Environmental Protection Agency.
       (b) Offset.--Effective October 1, 2011, section 797(a) of 
     the Energy Policy Act of 2005, as amended by section 2(e) of 
     the Diesel Reduction Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-364), is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2013''; and
       (2) by inserting ``$46,000,000 for fiscal year 2012 and'' 
     after ``to carry out this subtitle''.

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment is in order 
except those printed in House Report 112-213. Each such amendment may 
be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member 
designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable 
for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by 
the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and 
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Welch

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in House Report 112-213.
  Mr. WELCH. I seek to offer the amendment of Mr. Rush of Illinois as 
his designee.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       In section 2(b)(3), insert ``and the Deputy Secretary of 
     Labor'' before the period.
       In section 2(b)(4), insert ``and the Deputy Secretary of 
     Energy'' before the period.
       At the end of section 2(b), add the following:
       (12) The Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality.
       (13) The Secretary of the Interior.
       (14) The Secretary of Health and Human Services.
       (15) The Director of the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention.
       (16) The Director of the National Institute of 
     Environmental Health Sciences.
       Amend section 2(c) to read as follows:
       (c) Chair.--The Secretary of Commerce and the Chair of the 
     Council on Environmental Quality shall serve as co-chairs of 
     the Committee. In carrying out the functions of the Chair, 
     the co-chairs shall consult with the members of the 
     Committee.
       In section 2(d), insert ``stakeholders and relevant 
     experts, including'' after ``reports issued by,''.
       In section 3(b)(1), insert after subparagraph (D) the 
     following (and redesignate accordingly):
       (E) any resulting change in the incidences of asthma and 
     asthma attacks and other pulmonary disease;
       (F) any resulting change in the occurrence of birth and 
     developmental defects;
       (G) any resulting change in the occurrence of premature 
     mortality;
       (H) any resulting change in the occurrence of other adverse 
     health effects;
       (I) the effect on clean energy jobs;
       (J) the effect on clean energy companies, including 
     companies that export clean energy technology;
       (K) the effect on regional air quality, including any 
     resulting change in the impairment of visibility, due to 
     reduced pollution;
       (L) the effect on the water quality of lakes and streams;
       (M) any resulting change in the number of work days missed;
       (N) any resulting change in the number of school days 
     missed;
       (O) any resulting change in the use of emergency medical 
     services;
       In section 3(b)(4), insert after subparagraph (D) the 
     following (and redesignate accordingly):
       (E) vulnerable subpopulations, including the elderly, 
     pregnant women, and populations with pulmonary disease;
       (F) the environment, including impacts on global climate 
     change;
       (G) development of infants and children;

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 406, the gentleman 
from Vermont (Mr. Welch) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes needed changes to the 
economic analysis mandated by the underlying bill; but fundamentally 
this bill, itself, we believe, is an assault on the Clean Air Act, not 
really a bill that requires a study.
  The legislation began in committee as a bill to require a new study 
on the economic impacts of EPA rules to cut air pollution. At that 
point, the bill

[[Page 14295]]

simply required a burdensome and redundant study of EPA rules and did 
not affect any of the rules it proposed to examine.
  It changed in committee. The Republican members amended it to 
indefinitely delay implementation of two very key rules to reduce power 
plant pollution, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and the Mercury and 
Air Toxics Rule.
  Now Mr. Whitfield has proposed amending the bill to further eliminate 
those rules altogether and prevent EPA from being able to clean up 
power plants in the future. Mr. Latta has offered an amendment to force 
EPA to listen to polluters' accountants rather than scientists when 
setting air quality standards. This bill is now a direct attack on the 
heart of the Clean Air Act. That act has saved thousands of lives.
  The bill still contains a study on the economic impact of EPA rules, 
although I'm not sure why it would do that. The Rush amendment, Mr. 
Chairman, would make the study required by this legislation a little 
less biased and a little more useful.
  The bill creates a new government bureaucracy to conduct a 
complicated study of EPA rules. It's not necessary. In addition, the 
bill ensures that the final study will be unbalanced and inherently 
biased. It's one thing to take a hard look at regulations. It's another 
thing to cook the outcome of that examination.
  The Rush amendment ensures that the committee will look at both the 
costs and the benefits of EPA rules.
  The bill's supporters originally presented this bill as a means to 
gather more facts on key EPA rules. As amended by the Republicans, it's 
increasingly clear that the facts really don't matter.
  I support the Rush amendment, but I remain staunchly opposed to final 
passage of the bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I rise in opposition to this amendment for a number of 
reasons. First of all, the TRAIN Act, the underlying bill that we're 
talking about here, applies to 14 regulations of EPA. It does not delay 
in any way any of those regulations, except for two, and that's 
referred to as the Utility MACT and the Cross-State Air Transport Rule. 
And even on those two acts, it only delays the Cross-State Transport 
Rule by 3 years, and it delays the Utility MACT by 1 year.
  The whole purpose of the TRAIN Act is simply to look more closely at 
the cumulative impact on jobs, on electricity prices, on American 
competitiveness in the global marketplace. EPA has done a very thorough 
job on most of these regulations in calculating benefits, but they had 
not looked closely in all of them on cost. Under the TRAIN Act, we're 
simply asking this independent government agency to look at all costs 
and all benefits.
  Another reason that I would speak in opposition to this amendment, 
one of the things that it requires this independent body to do is to 
examine the effect on green energy companies. Now, there's nothing in 
the TRAIN Act that's selecting one industry to give some favorable 
treatment to, and that's particularly what this amendment does.
  I might add, on green energy, the green energy industry has received 
increases of 153 percent of subsidies. Subsidies have increased 153 
percent for green energy. So I don't think that they should be 
receiving some special benefit from this Rush amendment; and that's why 
I would oppose it, and I would ask all Members to oppose it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELCH. How much time do I have?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Vermont has 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. WELCH. Thank you.
  I want to talk a little bit about the Clean Air Act, Mr. Chair. We 
have power plants that are coal-burning and emit toxins into the air. 
That's not in dispute. But the attack on any kind of regulation says 
that if there's any expense associated with providing health and safety 
to the people downwind of the polluting emitting power plants, they're 
on their own. They've got to breathe that air, and it's their problem.
  Now, I live in Vermont; and the coal-burning plants, the air all 
comes and falls in Vermont. The Clean Air Act has had tremendous 
success in actually cleaning up some of these power plants.
  Now, of course there's some expense associated with burning clean; 
but there's also, as you know, Mr. Chair, an enormous cost associated 
with burning dirty. It may be cheaper for the power plant owner, and it 
might even be cheaper for the electricity users of that power plant; 
but the costs associated with the health, the safety, the environmental 
impacts are simply off-loaded by the polluter on to the innocent 
members of society who are downwind of the mercury-spewing polluting 
plants.
  So, sure, we can have some debate about what should be the proper 
expense. But should we really have a debate that it is illegitimate for 
the Federal Government to take actions, regulatory and legislative, 
that protect the health and safety of innocent people?
  The law of physics has air-carrying pollutants going in the direction 
that nature sends it, and that means everybody downwind gets affected. 
It's really astonishing that in the legitimate effort to ask legitimate 
questions about whether a regulation is serving a useful purpose, 
whether the regulation achieves the intended goal, whether there's a 
way to achieve that goal at less expense, those are all fair questions. 
But to abolish the regulations altogether, to suggest that everybody 
who will be affected by mercury pollution has no remedy and cannot look 
to the Federal Government to provide them with some protection for 
their health, for the health of their children, that's extreme, and 
it's unacceptable, and it's expensive.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. May I ask how much time I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 3 minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, I would say first to the distinguished gentleman 
that while we're delaying this Cross-State Air Transport Rule, we have 
in effect today the CAIR Act, which has been in effect since 2005. The 
EPA itself has said that this act that is currently controlling the 
cross-wind interstate movements will reduce sulfur dioxide and 
NOX emissions by 57 and 63 percent respectively. That 
regulation is still going to be in effect.
  I would also remind everyone that EPA, when they implemented the CAIR 
Act, pointed out that it would have $100 billion in health benefits 
each year, preventing 17,000 premature deaths, 22,000 nonfatal heart 
attacks, 12,300 hospital admissions, 1.7 million lost workdays, 500,000 
lost school days, and it goes on to all of the benefits.

                              {time}  0930

  Simply because a court invalidated the CAIR Act because EPA was 
looking at a regional program rather than at a State-by-State program 
does not mean that this is not an effective regulation that's in 
existence today. Even many environmental groups actually supported EPA 
in opposing the effort to invalidate the CAIR Act. EPA made strong 
arguments that the CAIR Act was adequate.
  So all we're doing is trying to delay this cross-State rule. As I 
said, even respected independent analyses have indicated that these two 
rules--the Utility MACT and the Cross-State Air Transport Rule--will 
have a net effect of a loss of 1.4 million jobs and will increase 
electric utility bills by 23 percent.
  Now, at a time when our economy is so weak and when we're trying to 
create jobs, we simply wanted to look at it more closely and give EPA a 
little bit more time. That's all that we're trying to do with our act, 
and that's why we're very much opposed to the Rush amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

[[Page 14296]]

  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont will 
be postponed.


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. McNerney

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 112-213.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 6, line 22, strike ``; and'' and insert a semicolon.
       Page 6, line 24, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 6, after line 24, insert the following new 
     subparagraph:
       (G) the effect on clean energy jobs and clean energy 
     companies, including companies that export clean energy 
     technology.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 406, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McNerney) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a simple and 
straightforward amendment to H.R. 2401.
  My amendment will help make sure that the reports required by H.R. 
2401 are fair--not skewed to support the majority's favorite talking 
points. It's critical that the reports look at the beneficial 
consequences of environmental protection, including the fact that good 
environmental policies create jobs in the clean energy sector.
  I reject the argument that the majority is making here today. 
Contrary to what we've heard members of the majority say over and over 
during today's debate, policies that protect our environment also 
create jobs. They create good family-wage jobs.
  Before I came to Congress, I spent my career as a clean energy 
engineer. I helped design windmills that overlooked my congressional 
district in California, and I've seen hundreds of jobs created in the 
clean energy sector; but to my great distress, I also watched many of 
those jobs get shipped overseas to places like Germany because our 
country did not have the right policies in place to support that 
industry.
  I am committed to creating jobs and seeing more goods produced right 
here in America, a goal I am confident that every Member of this 
Chamber shares. The clean energy industry is poised to lead the way but 
only if we make the right decisions. Policies that promote a clean, 
healthy environment create new incentives for investments in clean 
energy, creating thousands of jobs, supporting new industries, 
promoting exports, and benefiting public health.
  My amendment simply ensures that we include the job-creating effects 
of environmental policies on the clean energy sector in the reports 
provided by this bill. I am confident that a fair, unbiased assessment 
of environmental rules will show that they also create good, family-
wage, clean energy jobs. I hope the majority will accept this 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. While I have great respect for the gentleman from 
California, I would remind everyone that, in his 2008 convention 
speech, Barack Obama promised to create 5 million green energy jobs, 
and those jobs have not been created.
  I would also point out that renewable energy subsidies increased by 
186 percent over the last 3 years: from $5.1 billion to $14.7 billion. 
The wind industry, for example, received a tenfold increase: from $476 
million to $4.986 billion. Solar subsidies increased by more than a 
factor of 6: from $179 million to $1.134 billion.
  Then we noted that, over at the Department of Energy, there are loan 
guarantee programs. As this article in The New York Times stated, they 
gave an example of one company that had received $300 million to create 
green technology jobs. They ended up creating 150 jobs at a cost of $2 
million per job. Now, coal, nuclear, and natural gas still provide 
about 95, 96 percent of the electricity produced in America; but the 
reason we oppose this amendment is that it also gives special treatment 
to green energy. As illustrated by the increase in renewable subsidies 
available to them, I think it's quite obvious that government programs 
favor green energy right now.
  Our position is, with the three basics--coal, nuclear, and natural 
gas--providing the base load to create the industrial growth of this 
country by providing low-cost electricity, we do not need this 
amendment to instruct this independent body to look at specifically the 
impact on green energy exporting companies. So, for that reason, I 
would oppose the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I don't dispute the facts of my good 
friend from Kentucky. Basically what I'm asking is that we make sure 
that these jobs are counted, that they're not ignored or looked over, 
which is what I'm afraid will happen.
  At this point, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I want to emphasize what my friend from California just said. What 
the amendment does is to make sure that you add to the analysis the 
impact on clean energy jobs and clean energy companies. Why wouldn't 
you want to make sure explicitly that that is a part of the analysis?
  I invite you to come to Portland, Oregon, where it is, I think, the 
wind energy capital. It's making a lot of difference in our community 
and across America. Wind energy, for instance, is the fastest growing 
in terms of installed capacity, and costs are going down. It is an area 
that makes a difference to the economy. What my colleague from 
California is urging is to make sure that it's a part of the study.
  It is unfortunate that we're to this point this morning anyway. We 
started this odyssey in 1990 with the Clean Air Act. After 8 years of 
study at EPA, the conclusion was this is a real problem, and the 
Clinton administration and the EPA started the rulemaking process. The 
Bush administration drug its feet until 2005 with an inadequate 
response that was thrown out by the courts. Finally now, after 21 
years, we're starting to move forward with something that wouldn't take 
effect until 2015. In the meantime, there would be many jobs that would 
be available in construction and in clean technology.
  At least, at least, at least I hope you're not successful in 
stretching this out even further to delay the action; but at a minimum, 
you would think that you would want to have a full picture. Look at the 
people, like in my community, who are producing product and making it 
available for export.
  Support this amendment.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 45 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. McNERNEY. I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  0940

  Mr. WHITFIELD. Does the gentleman from California have the right to 
close?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has the right to close.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Does the gentleman from California have anything else 
to say on the amendment?
  Mr. McNERNEY. Thank you.
  Basically I just want to emphasize I have actually experienced job 
creation in the green energy sector. I have seen hundreds if not 
thousands of jobs created. I want to make sure we count those jobs. I 
don't want this to be a whitewash or anything like that. It's important 
that this analysis be open and that it be fair and balanced, and that's 
all that we are asking on this side.

[[Page 14297]]

  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I would say to the gentleman, we all recognize the 
importance of green energy, but there isn't one of these regulations 
that we are looking to for an analysis that has any negative impact on 
green energy. In fact, every one of these regulations will help green 
energy.
  And, as I said, the government's philosophy right now is to do 
everything possible for green energy, more subsidies, a study going on 
all of the time on the impact on the jobs. For that reason, we do not 
feel that this amendment is necessary and would ask the Members to 
oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Moore

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in House Report 112-213.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chair, I offer an amendment that is at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 7, after line 10, insert the following new 
     subparagraphs (and redesignate accordingly):
       (E) low-income communities;
       (F) public health;

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 406, the gentlewoman 
from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.
  Ms. MOORE. I do thank you, Mr. Chair.
  My amendment would simply ensure the low-income communities and the 
public health generally of all Americans are considered in the bill's 
section on studies about the impact of this regulation.
  I offer this amendment, Mr. Chair, in hopes that we might have an 
honest debate, a debate that is inclusive of those most affected by the 
very policies that my colleagues are attempting to tie up and, in two 
cases, outright prevent.
  Let me be frank with you, Mr. Chair. I was born in 1951, and I grew 
up gasping for breath most of my life. I grew up in an industrial city, 
a manufacturing city in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and I had my first asthma 
attack shoveling coal into a furnace and then gasping for breath 
because of the smog that was generated from manufacturing. Thank God 
for the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments.
  We have seen tremendous health benefits over the years, thanks to the 
work of the Environmental Protection Agency, and not only the 
bureaucracy, but the courts that have made sure the deadlines are 
enforced and not simply thrown to the curb. According to a recent EPA 
study, we have substantial and hard scientific proof that protecting 
our Nation's air quality from hazardous pollutants is a very 
substantial benefit.
  In 2010, the reductions in fine particle and ozone pollution from the 
1990 Clean Air Act amendments prevented more than 160,000 cases of 
premature mortality, 130,000 heart attacks, 13 million lost workdays, 
and 1.7 million asthma attacks.
  We do know that the Clean Air Act regulations by the EPA especially 
helped low-income communities who are often impacted by environmental 
injustices and other vulnerable populations.
  A recent 2-year-old study by the University of Massachusetts and the 
University of Southern Carolina analyzed 300 different metropolitan 
areas and ranked them based on how pollution affects low-income and 
minority communities.
  This study cited that air pollution is unevenly distributed within 
States as well as between them. A growing body of research has 
demonstrated that people of color and low-income communities often face 
the greatest environmental hazards. And the area that I represent in 
the metro Milwaukee area came in in the top 10 cities in both cases.
  I just would like to add my own personal experience to the body of 
this research.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I would like to remind everyone once again that the 
TRAIN Act is applied to 14 regulations coming out of EPA, and it's 
seldom that Congress intervenes in these regulations. But there are so 
many of these, and the cost of jobs and the cost of buying the 
equipment and the lack of achievability of many of them to meet the 
criteria is the reason we want to do this study. I would remind 
everyone we do not delay in any way any of these regulations except two 
of them.
  I would say to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin that I agree with her. 
Many of the communities that would most suffer high energy prices and 
unemployment as a result of the EPA regulations are those communities 
that rely on affordable, reliable, coal-fired energy to light their 
homes and run their businesses. These communities are the least able to 
afford increased unemployment, increased energy prices, and the illness 
that results from unemployment and being unable to afford fuel.
  And I might say that when EPA does their analysis, they never look at 
the effect of the health of the children of the people working in the 
coal mines and the utility plants who lose their jobs, and there is an 
impact on it.
  But I think this is a good amendment that would help the analysis, 
and I would like to tell the lady from Wisconsin we would be happy to 
accept this amendment.
  Ms. MOORE. I'm sorry. You would be happy to accept it, you say?
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes, ma'am.
  Ms. MOORE. Well, I do thank the gentleman for accepting this 
amendment.
  I do repeat that the two parts that this bill had formally included 
prior to your accepting my amendment would have made it impossible for 
a State that wanted clear air--they would find themselves hopeless 
because it would basically eviscerate their ability to prevent 
pollution from crossing the border. So I do appreciate the gentleman 
accepting my amendment.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I would just like to remind the gentlelady that the 
CAIR Act is still in effect. As I read earlier, all the benefits are 
there that the EPA said would be there, and it's significantly reduced 
NOX emissions, SOX emissions. We're not doing 
anything to change that existing law.
  Thank you for making the amendment. As I said, we feel like it will 
really help on this study.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Wisconsin 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  0950


                 amendment no. 4 offered by mrs. capps

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in House Report 112-213.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:


[[Page 14298]]

       Page 7, after line 15, insert the following new paragraph:
       (5) Estimates of the impacts of delaying the covered rules 
     and covered actions on the incidence of birth and 
     developmental defects and infant mortality.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 406, the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Capps) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  You know, it's clear that the goal of the TRAIN Act is not simply to 
study EPA standards. The goal of the majority is to block the efforts 
of EPA to cut mercury and other toxic pollution from dirty power 
plants. That's dangerous and it's misguided.
  The research is clear, unless EPA enforces these standards, there 
will be more premature deaths, more heart and asthma attacks, more 
hospital and emergency room visits.
  Up until recently, I thought I was safe from this pollution. I don't 
live next door to a power plant; I live near the coast of the Pacific 
Ocean. But I learned that you don't need to live near a dirty power 
plant to be exposed to its harmful effects. I received test results 
this summer showing that I have an unsafe level of mercury in my body. 
And I'm not alone. Tens of millions of American women of child-bearing 
age, and their children, are at risk from mercury and other toxins that 
are released into our air each and every year. Every year, hundreds of 
thousands of babies are exposed to mercury.
  Mercury exposure can cause learning disabilities, developmental 
delays, and other developmental problems. We owe it to our children to 
clean up toxic mercury pollution, and that's why I'm offering this 
amendment.
  The amendment would simply require that this committee designate the 
analysis of the true costs of including health effects in blocking 
EPA's lifesaving clean air safeguards. These costs are clear to mothers 
and grandmothers across the Nation--brain damage, developmental 
problems, infant deaths. Support my amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. All of us certainly are concerned about impacts on 
children. One of the problems that we have with this amendment is that 
when you try to determine specifically what causes a birth defect, for 
example, there are lots of different reasons. Folic acid is a B 
vitamin. Taking folic acid supplements before getting pregnant and in 
early pregnancy lowers the risk of having a baby with serious birth 
defects. Drinking alcohol increases the likelihood of serious birth 
defects. Smoking. Women who are obese when they get pregnant are at 
higher risk of having a baby with serious birth defects. Poor control 
of diabetes in pregnant women increases the chance of having a birth 
defect. So there's lots of different reasons, and it's difficult to set 
out a causal reason.
  I would say to the gentlelady from California who we know is 
genuinely concerned about these health issues and has distinguished her 
career by raising them frequently, the EPA did extensive analysis of 
the health benefits of all of these rules with the exception of 
greenhouse gas. They didn't do any study on anything there. So we have 
a lot of information about the health benefits.
  As far as the mercury issue, I would say to the gentlelady that the 
Utility MACT, EPA itself said that this would reduce mercury by such a 
small amount that it would represent only 0.004 percent of the total 
claimed benefits of the rule, and the remaining 99.996 percent would be 
due to particulate matter reduction.
  And I would also remind the gentlelady that the Department of Energy 
and other groups have indicated that 99 percent of mercury deposits in 
the U.S. do not come from utility companies, but they originate from 
nature and foreign industrial sources in which the wind brings them to 
the U.S.
  We believe that there's adequate information on health benefits. 
Furthermore, the TRAIN Act does ask the independent body to look at 
benefits--it can be health, whatever--and cost. For that reason, we 
would oppose the gentlelady's amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, power plants 
are the biggest industrial source of mercury pollution in the United 
States, and I believe that the remarks of the chairman of the Energy 
Committee underscore the very reason that we should have the studies of 
the health effects included in the study that is requested by the TRAIN 
Act.
  I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my colleague from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer), a champion of livable cities, to speak on this topic.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentlelady's courtesy, and I 
appreciate your offering this amendment. My friends on the other side 
of the aisle can't have it both ways. There has been a lot of study. 
For heaven's sake, EPA has already estimated cost of compliance, less 
than $1 billion, and the savings to Americans from lives saved, health 
care costs avoided and days of work and school not missed between $120 
billion and $280 billion. This is a part of the study effort that has 
been going on for 20 years.
  We had hoped that on the 25th anniversary of the Clean Air Act in 
2015 we would probably have full compliance. Yet we are quibbling here 
about things that EPA has been unable to monetize like a birth defect--
but for Heaven's sake, it's serious--in addition to the hundreds of 
billions that they can monetize.
  It is, I think, unfortunate that if this approach is approved, it 
will enable the Chinese to get ahead of us again. Remember, I put in 
the Record last night the front page of the Chinese Daily where they 
are moving ahead to reduce emissions. They are willing to incur the 
costs because of the health benefits, but it's not enough for my 
friends on the other side of the aisle to go ahead after 25 years.
  I thank the gentlelady.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Does the gentlelady from California have any time 
left?
  Mrs. CAPPS. May I ask how much time is left?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 2\1/2\ minutes. The 
gentlewoman from California has 1 minute.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I don't have any other speakers, so I reserve the 
balance of my time to close.
  Mrs. CAPPS. I am happy to yield my 1 minute to my colleague from 
Florida, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a mother of three young children.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the 
amendment offered by my friend and colleague, Congresswoman Lois Capps, 
and in opposition to the underlying bill--the majority's latest assault 
on clean air and public health. I'd like to thank Congresswoman Capps 
and all of my colleagues who've spoken in opposition to this bill, 
which puts the health of all Americans--especially our children--at 
great risk.
  This amendment simply requires recognition of the very real health 
consequences of air pollution. For example, curbing mercury pollution 
will protect children and mothers from toxins that damage a developing 
brain.
  With this amendment, the required report must assess the effect on 
birth and developmental defects and infant mortality rates caused by 
the delay in better clean air standards. What's wrong with that? Who 
could be opposed to that?
  For such a small additional effort, this assessment would provide 
crucial information affecting the health of all American families.
  As a mother of three young children, whose health is among my 
absolute greatest concerns, I urge my colleagues who are parents and 
grandparents to take a moment and consider the impacts of this bad 
bill.
  Delaying EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards will have serious 
consequences on their children and grandchildren. Remember that we are 
their first line of defense in this world.

[[Page 14299]]

  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this good amendment and 
opposing the underlying bill.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I would remind everyone just once again that we're 
talking about 14 regulations. We're not delaying 12 of them in any way. 
We're asking for further analysis of two of them. For that reason, I 
would oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.


          Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in House Report 112-213.
  Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of section 3(e)(2), add the following:
       (D) Any rule addressing fuels under title II of the Clean 
     Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521 et seq.) as described in the Unified 
     Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions under 
     Regulatory Identification Number 2060-AQ86, or any 
     substantially similar rule, including any rule under section 
     211(v) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(v)).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 406, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.

                              {time}  1000

  Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. I want to thank my colleague from Texas 
(Mr. Gonzalez) for coauthoring this amendment with me to H.R. 2401, the 
TRAIN Act. It's an important bipartisan amendment that hits directly on 
what Americans, particularly my constituents in Illinois, are facing 
every day, the high cost of gasoline.
  Later this year, it's expected that the EPA will promulgate rules on 
gasoline refiners mandating that they offer sulfur levels and vapor 
pressure by 70 percent. This would be even further below the already 
low levels mandated in 2004.
  In 2004, the EPA's tier 2 rules lowered sulfur and gasoline by 90 
percent. The impacts of these new rules could force refineries in the 
U.S. to slash their gasoline production by up to 14 percent, leaving 
the United States even more dependent on foreign sources of oil.
  Our amendment would require the EPA just to study the economic costs 
of these new fuel requirements. Before delivering what could be a 
devastating blow to the customer and to our economy, the EPA should 
first provide data to show lowering the sulfur content will actually 
achieve cost-effective, real emissions reductions in air quality and 
health and welfare benefits.
  Americans are fed up with the volatility in the gasoline markets. 
While we may not be able to control the price of oil on the global 
market, we can control the cost of regulations on our fuel. Every 
dollar that's taken out of the taxpayer pocket due to new regulation is 
a dollar that's not going to refuel the American economy.
  We need commonsense regulations, and we need to know the impacts of 
regulations on families and businesses before they go into effect.
  This amendment is a commonsense approach to ensure Americans are 
getting the cause-worthy benefits that we need out of regulations. I 
urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  At this time it is my honor to yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez), coauthor of the amendment.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I extend my thanks to my 
colleague from Illinois for joining me in cosponsoring what I believe 
is a very important amendment.
  We offered this amendment because we have concerns with EPA's intent 
to proceed with a tier 3 rulemaking which would establish new fuel 
specification standards without justifying it with the sufficient data 
that has already been called to be conducted under a study in a 
previous bill.
  In 2007, Congress included a provision in the Energy Independence and 
Security Act of 2007 that directed EPA to study and implement fuel 
changes to negate any detrimental air quality impact resulting from the 
renewable fuel standard. EPA has not conducted this required study.
  I am concerned that EPA may be moving too quickly with tier 3 
regulations. EPA should complete the study first and provide for 
adequate comment and feedback from stakeholders before proceeding with 
the proposed rule. Any proposed changes to gasoline sulfur content and 
vapor pressure should be backed by sound data. These reductions must be 
justified because they have real costs. I have concerns about the 
effects these new regulations could have on refiners. These costs could 
result in decreased gasoline supplies and possible refinery closures, 
both of which could undermine our Nation's energy security.
  Our amendment simply adds any proposed tier 3 rulemaking to the list 
of regulations where EPA must conduct additional analyses, as outlined 
in TRAIN. This additional study will ensure that all of the costs and 
impacts are known before EPA proceeds with its proposal.
  I hope my colleagues in the House can support this straightforward 
amendment. It simply calls on an agency to simply do that which it was 
directed to do years ago before proceeding and not to basically proceed 
before you have the vital information on which to base some very 
important regulations.
  Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. RUSH. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. RUSH. Thank you.
  Even if this amendment passes to improve the study of EPA rules, that 
will not address the underlying problems with this bill. Proponents of 
this bill imply that it simply requires EPA to study the cumulative 
impact of EPA rules. That is false. What began as a bill to study EPA 
rules has morphed into a bill to actually block the EPA rules. In fact, 
the bill blocks and indefinitely delays two of the most important air 
pollution rules in decades.
  First, the bill blocks EPA from finalizing a proposed rule to cut 
toxic air pollution from power plants, which are the most egregious and 
the largest source of toxic mercury pollution in our Nation. Mercury is 
dangerous in small amounts, and mercury can damage the developing 
brains of infants and children.
  The proposed rule would prevent more than 90 percent of the mercury 
in coal from being emitted into the air. The rule also would reduce 
fine particle emissions by more than a quarter, producing tremendous 
widespread health benefits.
  For each year this bill delays the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards 
rule, it will allow up to an additional 17,000 premature deaths, 
120,000 cases of asthma, and 850,000 days when people miss work due to 
illness.
  But that's not all. The bill also blocks the EPA from implementing 
the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule to require 27 States to reduce power 
plant emissions that pollute the air in downwind States.
  Each year of delay in implementing this rule will produce up to an 
additional 35,000 premature deaths, 400,000 cases of asthma, and 1.8 
million days when people will miss work or school due to illness.
  The benefits of these rules far exceed the costs. For the Cross-State 
Air Pollution Rule alone, the pollution reductions will yield annual 
health benefits that outweigh the rule's costs by up to 350 to 1.

[[Page 14300]]

  The bill still creates a new government bureaucracy to produce a 
study of EPA rules, but this study is just a Trojan horse to disguise 
the true intent of this legislation: to block and delay two important 
EPA rules to protect public health from air pollution.
  The bill that emerged from committee already is a horrible, terrible 
bill. But it promises to get even worse, significantly worse, as my 
Republican colleagues amend this horrible and horrendous bill before 
us.
  Mr. Whitfield himself has offered amendments that completely nullify 
the two power plant rules and force EPA to start all the way back to 
the beginning, to start from scratch--but with new limits on what the 
agency can do to reduce pollution. According to the EPA administrator, 
these changes could prevent the EPA from ever reissuing these same 
rules, deny them far into the future from ever reissuing these same 
rules.
  Mr. Latta has offered an amendment that strikes at the heart of the 
Clean Air Act by requiring the EPA to prioritize cost over public 
health when setting national air quality standards. These standards 
form the foundation of why we have been able to clean up air pollution, 
and Mr. Latta wants to throw it out the window.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RUSH. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, can I inquire as to how much 
time I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 1 minute.
  Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. I yield the balance of my time to my good 
friend from Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I thank my colleague from Illinois for 
yielding to me.
  The EPA is currently developing a tier 3 rulemaking that would 
further reduce sulfur levels in gasoline to an average of 10 parts per 
million, a 70 percent change from today's already low standards, while 
reducing the gasoline volatility.

                              {time}  1010

  The EPA is expected to issue a proposed rule by the end of this year. 
The problem we have is that in the Energy Independence and Security Act 
of 2007, section 209 required the EPA to conduct a study 18 months 
after the enactment to determine whether the renewable fuels required 
by the section would adversely impact air quality and not later than 3 
years after that enactment. The problem is EPA has not finished that 
study we require them to conduct even before these new regulations. Now 
they're moving forward with a rule with a half-baked study, and that's 
why I support this amendment to the TRAIN Act, Mr. Chairman. This is 
not a delay amendment. This is just to make sure we don't get the cart 
in front of the horse, and we need to have that study finished before 
the EPA moves forward with that sulfur criteria.
  That's why I support my colleague from Illinois' and my colleague 
from Texas' amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
will be postponed.
  The Committee will rise informally.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois) assumed the 
chair.

                          ____________________