[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14882-14888]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      THE GOP JOBS OFFENSIVE: ROLLING BACK JOB-KILLING REGULATIONS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ross of Florida). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Whitfield) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority 
leader.

[[Page 14883]]


  Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much.
  Over the last year particularly, great attention has been paid in 
this country to the state of our economy; and despite all of the 
efforts of the bailouts, the stimulus spending and other efforts, our 
unemployment rate is still above 9 percent nationally.
  We were told that when we adopted the bailouts, when we made money 
available for the stimulus plans, that unemployment would be reduced in 
the U.S. to a maximum of 8 percent. Well, that has not come to pass. 
And as you talk to business leaders large and small around the country, 
they will tell you that one of the primary reasons that our economy has 
not been stimulated is because of the uncertainty that has been caused 
by this administration.
  Now, the uncertainties that I'm talking about are, number one, all of 
those uncertainties that are related to the health care legislation 
that passed in the last Congress. We know that that health care bill 
will not be fully implemented until the year after the year 2014. We've 
been told that CMS and HHS and others have already written 8,700 pages 
of additional regulations. It's quite clear from discussions with 
physicians, hospital administrators, and other health care providers 
that they do not know what to do. Businesses do not know what to do 
because they are not able to determine what the cost of health care is 
going to be because they still do not even know what is in the health 
care bill.
  So with the uncertainty caused by the health care legislation, the 
uncertainty caused by the financial regulatory regime, the raising of 
the capital requirements, the changing in the methods used for 
conducting appraisals, all of that has generated a lot of uncertainty, 
and it's more difficult particularly for community banks to make loans.
  A third area of uncertainty is related to regulations implemented by 
this Environmental Protection Agency. Under the administrator, Lisa 
Jackson, this has been the most aggressive EPA in the history of the 
agency. Trying to keep up with all of the regulations coming out has 
been very difficult to do. Lawsuits have been filed, consent decrees 
have been entered, court decisions have been rendered, environmental 
groups have been reimbursed for their legal costs, the regulations are 
changing; and so businesspeople are saying, we're not going to invest 
one dollar, much less millions of dollars, until we have some certainty 
about these regulations.
  So the uncertainty related to health care, the uncertainty related to 
financial regulation, and the uncertainty related to EPA regulations 
have been a tremendous obstacle for investment to be made and for 
additional jobs to be created.
  I think it's essential that if we're going to get this economy back 
on track that we have to have certainty in a lot of these areas, and 
that's precisely what the leadership in this House of Representatives 
is attempting to do. We're calling upon the leadership in the 
Democratic-controlled Senate to do the same thing; and the sooner that 
we can do that, the more likely it is that we're going to stimulate 
this economy. It's not going to be stimulated by additional regulation, 
it's not going to be stimulated by additional government expenditures, 
which is basically what the President's jobs plan is all about, and I 
might refer to today's article in The Hill and the headline that says 
Senate Democrats Buck Obama on Jobs Plan.
  So let's get back to providing certainty; and when we do that, we're 
going to encourage investment in our economy to create more jobs.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The balance of the majority leader's time is 
reallocated to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).
  Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that, and I thank my 
friend from Kentucky for being here. I wanted to let him know that I 
have enjoyed the day. It's been a wonderful challenge and great working 
with him. I thank my friend for all the good work we did today.
  Today from 1 o'clock until close to 7 o'clock, we were debating the 
Cement Industry Relief Act, and I'm going to just rehash that a little 
bit.
  Before I start, Mr. Speaker, I had a constituent who approached me 
about the fact that as we're here tonight, that you and I are in a 
relatively empty Chamber except for all these fine folks that are all 
here working on behalf of the American people and that accused me of 
trying to fool the American people into thinking this was a full room.
  So I just wanted to set the record straight because he honestly 
didn't believe I would do it, that most evenings we are talking to our 
colleagues back in their offices and so forth who are keeping up with 
this on C-SPAN. This is often a very small group of folks who are in 
this Chamber. I'm not trying to fool anybody, and I was offended by the 
fact that he accused me of doing that. So I wanted to make the record 
clear as I started tonight that you and I are working here together.

                              {time}  1940

  So now that I've gotten that little pledge that I made to one of my 
constituents taken care of--I hope he was watching--I want to say that 
we've been talking for quite some time about the regulatory burden 
that's being placed on the American people and what that has to do with 
our economy, the fact that we may be approaching a double-dip 
recession, God forbid--but there's all indications that we could be--
and the fact that we're losing jobs. We've got to, instead, stop losing 
jobs. We've got to save jobs and start creating jobs.
  The truth is that the job creators of this world are, first and 
foremost, our small business people. We had a whole group of small 
business people who came up to hear the President's speech when he 
talked to us the other day. They sat right up in this section of the 
gallery, and later they talked to the press and others about what they 
thought was necessary for their individual small businesses to start to 
grow, to prosper, and to create jobs. It's a funny thing. I didn't hear 
from any of them--and there were about 12--that what we need is a 
government bailout, that what we need is a government stimulus.
  What they said was, We need the government to quit throwing up 
roadblocks to us prospering in our businesses. They mentioned the fact 
that access to capital was difficult in this country because of 
regulations that had been issued under the Dodd-Frank Act. They 
mentioned the unknown about what's going to happen as the regulations 
are being developed for health care, for what we call the ObamaCare 
bill.
  As those regulations are being developed, every day it seems like 
they hear something new that is going to be mandatory in health care. 
As mandatory regulations are put upon the insurance providers of health 
care, the prices go up. Then as many of these small business people who 
are diligently trying to keep their employees hired and their employees 
insured as the ongoing rulings by these regulators under the health 
care bill are coming to the forefront so people can know about them, 
they hear from their providers that the prices went up.
  Some of them tell me that it's now getting to a point where the costs 
that are being put upon them--basically the cost of these regulations--
are actually making them have to decide, Not only are we not going to 
be able to hire anybody, but we're not going to be able to keep 
everybody we've got because we're doubling and sometimes tripling our 
costs of providing health care for our employees. Quite honestly, with 
the number of employees we've got, we're just going to have to double 
up, and some people are going to have to carry bigger shifts. We have 
to do that. Where, in reality, the best business practice would be to 
hire somebody, the regulations keep us from doing that.
  Then they tell us, With the unknown of the tax structure that we've 
got and the fact that what we now after 12 years are still calling the 
Bush tax cuts, which in reality is the tax plan

[[Page 14884]]

that we're under now, there's a very good possibility that that tax 
plan might go away. Then the small business man and his accounting 
folks will have to look clear back to the era of Bill Clinton to see 
what the taxes were like then so they'll know what the taxes will be 
like if this body lets those things expire. They see that it's going to 
cause a tremendous amount of acceleration of their expenditures to pay 
extra taxes.
  So they say, With that being unknown, with the final price tag for 
health care being unknown and then with learning that there are other 
agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and others that are 
going to impose additional regulations and additional rules on our 
small businesses, well, you know what, we can't afford to hire anybody. 
Even if we could make it better and make a more prosperous business 
than we have, because of the unknowns, we can't afford to do that.
  Quite honestly, the President is going around all over the country. 
So far, he's been, I think, to every member of the leadership's 
district but mine, and he is telling people to tell the Congress to 
vote for his jobs bill, he calls it. I think it's the great American 
jobs bill or something to that effect. He's telling us the facts that 
he thinks we need to know about it; but that jobs bill has a lot more 
in it that is unknown, and the American people know that.
  I mean, this isn't their first rodeo, as we say in Texas. They've 
been here before; and they know that when they've got a giant bill with 
giant expenditures and when all they're hearing are talking points on 
the television and the radio, they need somebody to look at that bill. 
Those of us who are here who are looking at it are seeing many, many 
onerous things that exist in that bill that are not being talked about.
  The other night, Congressman Louie Gohmert was talking about some of 
the things he discovered as he was reading the bill. You haven't heard 
anyone talking about the things that he has discovered, but those 
things are important to the American people. It means their lives 
change both at home and in their businesses. American businessmen know 
that these unknowns are out there, and they are concerned about these 
unknowns. The unknown creates fear. It creates hesitation on behalf of 
the people who create jobs in this country.
  The real jobs are the jobs that you get hired for and you make a 
living out of. It becomes a career job, and you are able to have a 
career and hopefully work in that industry until you decide it's not in 
your best interest to work there or until you're ready to retire with a 
retirement and a Social Security system that you can trust.
  They say, But we're not sure we can trust that.
  With a health care plan that you can trust. But we're not sure we can 
trust that.
  We've got to put truth in front of the American people. We've got to 
get honest about what is in the bills that are out here. We have to be 
honest and stand up to the regulators and say, Wait a minute, what 
you're doing is going to cause people in my district back home and 
across this country to not be able to hold onto the jobs they've got.
  This is the kind of thing that is causing a lot of the problems we 
have today.
  Franklin Roosevelt said in the Great Depression: ``The only thing we 
have to fear is fear, itself.'' I think it's an argument that's still 
going on as to why private industry is fearful to hire new employees--
because they don't know what the results of that hiring will be as far 
as the bottom line of their profit margins.
  So I have been taking on the regulators and talking about various 
regulations and how colleagues in the House with me have bills and that 
we are taking up one a week until we get all of them before this 
Congress and, hopefully, get a vote and get them out of this House and 
over to the Senate.
  Then we hope and pray and beg and cajole the Senators, maybe, to take 
up the bills. We have a stack of bills sitting over on Harry Reid's 
desk right now that have been passed that will make a difference in 
creating jobs in this country; but he announces when they get there 
that they're dead on arrival and that the Senate is not going to act. 
The Senate gets paid to act, but they seem to think, this year, they 
get paid not to act. That's an issue between the American people and 
the Senate, but we have bills that are going over there. We will 
continue to send bills over to our colleagues in the Senate, and we are 
hopeful that as we approach the possibility of a double-dip recession 
that they'll open up a couple of those bills and take a look at them 
and see if they might help. I think they might.
  Today, on the floor of this House, I've been involved, by permission 
of the chairman, in this debate on the cement regulations. We've been 
talking of and dealing with amendments since 1 o'clock. So I've been 
here a long time, but I kind of like it. I enjoyed the conversation 
with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and we had a good 
debate. All the amendments had been voted on and passed up until 7 
o'clock, and the other amendments will be voted on tomorrow, then the 
final passage of this bill that is described right here, H.R. 2681.

                              {time}  1950

  What it does--probably is kind of hard to read--it provides employers 
with extended compliance period. What we've got is another form I want 
you to look at in this debate. I'll put it down there, and I'll hang it 
up there in a minute.
  First, what this bill does, it provides additional time to comply 
with the Clean Air Act and the rules that they've set relative to the 
manufacture of Portland cement. It blocks current regulatory overreach 
by the authority. It gives the EPA at least 15 months to re-propose and 
finalize new and available rules that do not destroy jobs.
  It affects the Cement MACT and two related rules. It's expected to 
affect approximately 100--this current set of rules is expected to 
affect 100 cement plants in America, has already caused suspension of a 
new $350 million cement plant proposed in, I believe, the State of 
Alabama, putting 1,500 construction jobs on hold.
  That's what this proposed rule has already done. What this does is 
say time out, EPA, you're killing jobs.
  So here's what we ask you to do. I want you to look at this rule and 
look at it in light of the fact that there's a possibility that 20 
percent or more of these 100 cement plants will close. They will either 
close down and stop making Portland cement in the United States, or 
they will close down until they can open up overseas in an environment 
that is, quite honestly, not regulated at all. Not that our Americans 
don't want clean air, they do. But if they've got the clean air rules 
that are going to destroy them because of the cost, and the fact that 
they can't meet the standards and there aren't scrubbers to help them 
meet the standards, then they're going to say, well, if I'm going to 
stay in business I have got to go someplace where the regulations are 
not so fierce.
  Now, why do I say they're fierce? Well, historically when we started 
off our environmental cleanup--which is a great thing, and every 
American's proud of it--I can remember that Europeans were held out as 
an example, just as they're being held out today as an example of green 
energy. They were held out as an example on water and air quality of 
how dedicated regimes could come up with solutions to solve the air and 
the water problem.
  We have all seen the Sherlock Holmes movies of the smog and the fog 
in London, and it's gone. We've all heard of the pollution of the Rhine 
River, and it's not polluted anymore. And the Europeans were held out 
as having set the standards that the world needed to follow.
  Well, let's look at the standards that the Europeans sets for the 
cement industry. The EU has just issued their final standards. The 
parameter for mercury, the U.S. standard in the EPA rule that we are 
dealing with in House bill 2681 is .01 percentage of mercury as an 
emission. The European standard, supposedly the state-of-the-art, is 
.05.

[[Page 14885]]

Our standard is five times more restrictive than the European standard.
  Hydrochloric acid, our standard is 3.83. The European standard is 10.
  In particulate matter, our standard is 7.72, the particulate matter 
standard in Europe, in the EU, is 20.
  So the people that we and the progressives in this House held up as 
the model for knowing how to clean up the atmosphere and clean up the 
water was the EU. They have issued rules approximately at the same time 
we have issued our rules, and you can see how much more stringent the 
rules we're placing on the industries of America versus the rules that 
are being placed on the European industries, our competitors.
  I don't mean in any way to criticize the Europeans. I just find it 
questionable, if the Europeans say .05 and we've got .01, and we're 
dealing with mercury, which is one of the pollutants that are discussed 
in the issue of Portland cement factories, then it's five times more 
difficult for us to meet the standards.
  At least from what the industry says, there is equipment available to 
meet the European standard. Our standard at this time doesn't have 
equipment available to meet it. So even if they wanted to jump in and 
do it in the 3-year time period they have to do it, they know they 
can't. They don't think they can meet that standard. They feel it's 
either going to be cost-prohibitive because of research and development 
to come up with solutions, or it's not going to be reachable at all, 
which could cause major fines. After they spent millions of dollars 
trying, they said, heck, we just can't do it.
  At least 20 percent of the plants have already said, hey, we just 
can't do it. We're small, small businesses, we're not the giant 
conglomerates that people presume us to be, but most of our folks that 
own cement plants own anywhere from one to maybe five, some of them 
have a few more. But most of them are fairly small, a one-family or 
one-person operation. They're sitting there saying, we can't meet it, 
we're going to shut down; or we're going to look at the areas in the 
world where we can meet it, maybe Mexico--which does have some 
standards but nothing anywhere even near the standards of Europe--or 
maybe we'll go to China or to India where they basically have no 
standards, not that we want to have a plant like that. But if we put 
the plant that has got the filters on it right now that meets a current 
standard and take it over there, at least we won't be polluting the 
atmosphere too much more, and we'll at least be able to be in business.
  What does that mean to us? Well, the President of the United States 
is going all over the country, and he's making speeches. And one of the 
things he says is don't the Republicans want to rebuild the 
infrastructure of this country? Don't they want to construct new 
schools and repair the old schools?
  Well, have you ever looked at what kinds of materials we use to build 
schools in the current modern world? Of course, even in the old antique 
world you start with a foundation made out of, what, concrete, which is 
made with Portland cement. So, if the Portland cement is moving 
overseas, and we have less and less people that can meet the standard--
and it could be more than 20 percent that moved--those are the ones who 
have told us they'll move.
  But as a business practice they're going to look at it and see if 
they can make it work. Now why do I say it is going to be tough to 
work? Well let's look at it.
  They're roughly a $6 billion industry. The estimated cost agreed 
upon--and the EPA doesn't dispute this--the estimated cost of making 
the changes to these plants, to meet the requirements set by the .01 on 
mercury, is $3.4 billion. So the whole industry makes $6 billion, and 
they have got to pay $3.4 billion to fix the problem.
  Now, that is half, more than half of the income from the whole 
industry to fix these problems. When you think about that, that's a 
terrible, terrible hit for people who are in the business of making a 
profit. I don't think anybody in America thinks that people are 
supposed to work for no salary and no profit.
  And, by the way, the jobs that we have in the cement industry are 
good-paying labor jobs. They make somewhere between something like 
$45,000 to $65,000 at the lower range and $65,000 to $85,000 or $90,000 
in the upper range. That's a good-paying job.

                              {time}  2000

  Now, why would we want to ship that job out of the country so that 
America loses a job and somebody in India or China or Mexico gets a 
job? Why would we want to do that? That's a question we have to ask 
ourselves.
  What our bill does, it says to the EPA, take another look at this and 
take into consideration the economic impact on our economy, take into 
consideration the impact on employment in our economy and the impact on 
lost jobs in our economy and the good you will do for the health care 
issues that are raised and have been raised all day by the Democratic 
Party in this Chamber.
  Does anybody want sick people? Of course not. And to make that 
accusation against those of us who say these are onerous regulations I 
think is ridiculous. Nobody wants somebody to get sick, but is what 
we're doing going to keep them well? Let's examine that and see what we 
think.
  I've shown this map before, but this is a very, very informative map. 
It tells you the percentage of mercury deposition that originates 
outside of the United States. And the red is somewhere between 78 and 
100. So in the areas that are tinted red there, the mercury that's in 
those areas, between 100 percent and 78 percent of it comes from 
outside this country. It's because the prevailing winds blow the plume 
of mercury from the areas where there are no restrictions and no clean 
air, and that would basically be Communist China and India. They choose 
to live like that. That's their choice, but their pollution blows to 
our country.
  The yellow is from 78 to, it looks like, 58. So between 78 percent 
and 58 percent of the areas marked in yellow are foreign pollution. The 
green is between 58 percent and 19 percent that's foreign pollution in 
that area. And the blue, there is very little blue, just a few dots up 
on the East Coast and a couple of dots in the Midwest, the blue is 19 
to zero is foreign pollution.
  So with that much mercury as the example coming from other sources, 
putting the kind of burden that this thing does on our industry, which 
has nothing to do with the pollution source from outside our country, 
and yet we're going to make our folks meet a standard of 0.01 when our 
other clean competitor, EU, is 0.05, so you can see why the industry 
would say, yeah, there's plenty of equipment to meet 0.05, but we don't 
think we can meet 0.01.
  So what does this mean? Well, it means in Oregon where they have 
already cleaned up their plant, one plant has announced if these rules 
go into effect, after they've cleaned up their plant to meet the best 
standards available and being told it's not good enough, they're 
saying, We may have to close this plant. And people in Oregon are going 
to lose jobs that pay $80,000 to $100,000 a year.
  What's wrong with this picture? Well, I'll tell you what's wrong with 
it. The regulators are not thinking about whose job is going to get 
lost.
  And meanwhile, if we cleaned up our 100 plants, and this is the 
pollution that's coming in from foreign sources, then how in the world 
are we going to say we're protecting our children from disease? Well, 
if you're going to protect our children from disease, what about all of 
this pollution? We can't do anything about that. We need to, but we 
can't.
  So sometimes when you get a job and you work for an agency, you 
become so wrapped up in trying to save the world from your standpoint 
that you don't think about who gets hurt in the process. But I think 
it's pretty clear who gets hurt is some people who have some pretty 
darn good jobs. And that 9 percent unemployment figure could rapidly go 
up just in this industry of good American labor folks who lose great-
paying jobs. And who do they lose them to? Foreign operations.

[[Page 14886]]

  And then you ask people: Why do our jobs keep going overseas? At 
least in the concrete industry, the cement industry, we know.
  Also, as Mr. Obama travels the country, he loves to talk about we're 
going to rebuild infrastructure. We talked about that in the original 
stimulus bill, and how out of all those $600 billion or $700 billion, 
whatever it was we spent--I know it turned out to be around 50 or $60 
billion that actually went to highways even though we were promised we 
were going to fix all of the highways and bridges, but let's just 
assume that they are going to fix the highways and bridges right now. 
If the cement industry is in trouble, then the concrete industry is 
going to be in trouble. And they have already had a 62 percent 
reduction in both those industries in the last 4 years because the 
economy has been bad and they're in the construction business.
  So how are we going to build a bridge across the Mississippi River 
when we have to ship the products that we need to make our concrete 
over from China? Well, we'll do it. We'll figure out a way to transport 
that across the ocean. It can be done.
  But remember when the President told us he found out that shovel-
ready jobs in America weren't always shovel ready? Well, it's because 
something stood in between the time the shovel actually got used 
because there were other things that stood in the way. I would argue 
many of those other things were regulations. They were environmental 
regulations. They were endangered species regulations. And now they 
would be Portland cement regulations if this regulation stays in place.
  Now, is this bill unreasonable? Well, we can analyze that for 
ourselves. It doesn't say we don't want to clean up the air. It says 
take another look at this. Factor in the economic impact and the labor 
impact, and then try to come up with a number that we have existing new 
ideas to clean up to, and that seems to be 0.05. And then when you've 
come up with a final rule that is doable in the industry as it exists--
and that's part of the direction that EPA is given. It needs to be 
doable out in the actual working environment that it's in, not in some 
laboratory someplace. If you put rules together that will do that, then 
we'll all start to do it. And give us 5 years--we may do it quicker, 
but give us at least 5 years to spread out the cost because we're 
talking about a lot of cost for an industry that has to struggle. So 
give them a chance to get this thing done in a reasonable point of 
time.
  Meanwhile, we're not making the air any dirtier. We're just 
maintaining the status quo which was cleaned up in 1999 and cleaned up 
again in 2006. So this is the third new standard. It's not like we have 
the dirty plants like our foreign competitors. No, we don't. We cleaned 
our act up in 1999 and cleaned them up again in 2006, and the only 
thing that kept anything from getting done was lawsuits filed by 
environmentalists who said it wasn't enough.
  Well, the industry tries its best to meet the standards. Obviously, 
they change almost every 5 years. So what's wrong with a period of time 
that says give us a chance to have 5 years to change? It's not 
unreasonable. It's a reasonable request to save jobs and keep an 
American industry alive in this country. So that's the example. That's 
what's being discussed today.

                              {time}  2010

  Next week and the week after that, there will be other bills that are 
out there.
  Here is one that's probably the next one to come along, the Boiler 
MACT rules. What does that mean? Well, it means that we are taking a 
look at industries and entities that use boilers in their operation 
either to heat and cool or whatever, but they use a boiler to do it. 
And this is going to take place I think if not this week, early next 
week, maybe tomorrow.
  Here's a statement about it. From hospitals to factories to colleges 
to industry, thousands of major American employers use boilers that 
will be impacted by the EPA's new Boiler MACT rules. These stringent 
rules will impose billions of dollars in capital and compliance costs, 
increase the costs of many goods and services, and put over 200,000 
people's jobs at risk. American forest and paper industry, for example, 
will see an additional burden of at least 5 to $7 billion.
  H.R. 2250, a bill that we will have, the EPA Regulatory Relief Act, 
sponsored by Morgan Griffith of Virginia, will provide a legislative 
stay of four interrelated rules issued by the EPA in March of this 
year. The legislation would also provide the EPA with at least 15 
months to repropose and finalize new and achievable rules that do not 
destroy jobs and provide employers with an extended compliance period.
  Sound familiar? It's basically the same thing.
  Hold up. What you're doing could cost 200,000 jobs and billions of 
dollars in extra costs. Take another look at it. Take a look at the 
jobs in a possibly double-dip recession that's coming up and say, Is 
that really what we want to do? Do we really want to have a potential 
of losing 200,000 jobs or more because we're not willing to take 
another look and see if there's not a better idea to make this thing 
clean? What's another 15 months when you are being told these kind of 
economic ramifications are there? And, by the way, give us 4 years to 
put them in place once you come up with these reasonable rules.
  This is not unreasonable. This is, again, thinking first about the 
working person and thinking first about our economy and what it takes 
to make our place run in a clean, efficient, and manageable manner. And 
if we don't get that, we lose jobs.
  In this environment, for the last 3 years, we've had an interesting 
concept. When we put the stimulus package out there, we were waiting to 
hear how many jobs we had created. Well, we heard about a few. Some of 
those jobs cost a lot of money to create them. You get a $40,000-a-year 
job and you spend $1 million of America's tax money to get that 
$40,000-a-year job. It's not real economically feasible, but we have 
some of those jobs. But the other thing we heard from people was, oh, 
well, it's not just the jobs we create; it's the jobs we saved. Well, 
that's exactly what we're talking about.
  We've got evidence that jobs are going down the tubes as a result of 
the action of a United States Government bureau, the Environmental 
Protection Agency. They are going to cause potentially the loss of 
200,000 jobs. Pass this, and we've just saved, just like the Obama 
administration, we just saved 200,000 jobs. This is good. This is how 
we do things now. We've been told for the last 3 years this is how we 
estimate we're doing good.
  Now, it didn't turn out exactly that way, but at least you're not 
going to make those unemployment numbers go up. And one of our goals is 
to stop those things from going up and start them going down. It's the 
goal of every American. It's the goal of the President, and it's the 
goal of every American that works up here on the Hill. We have 
different concepts of how to go about it. We can look at the concepts 
that have been used thus far and see what their success is.
  How about looking at some new ideas and see how successful those will 
be? If we can cut costs to people who create jobs, we'll get more jobs. 
If we can keep jobs that pay well for the American worker, he will be 
able to buy product. He will be in the market. He will help create 
demand, and we will have more jobs.
  But if we are going to, by an action of a Federal agency, if we are 
going to cost 200,000 jobs and cause industry to go out and spend an 
inordinate amount, in the billions of dollars, to make the corrections, 
how many jobs do you think--when they get it cranked up and meeting the 
EPA standards, how many jobs do you think they're going to create after 
that? Well, first they have to figure out a way to make up that 5 to $7 
billion that the printing industry says they're going to lose. And how 
are they going to make that up? Guess what? They're not going to hire 
anybody.
  This is not rocket science. This is pretty simple. If you don't have 
the money, you can't hire anybody. And if you've had to spend money you 
didn't

[[Page 14887]]

expect to spend to the tune of 5 to 7 billion--with a B--dollars, it's 
a tremendous hit. And that's just one industry. That's just the forest 
and paper industry. In that situation, they're not hiring anybody. You 
don't have to be a genius to figure that out. It's easy for you to 
figure that out.
  So by the very nature of the regulation we're talking about on 
boilers, we could be looking at the loss of 200,000 jobs and an 
extended period that that industry isn't hiring anybody.
  Just to give you an example of the regulations that are out there, 
we've already dealt with a bill by Representative Scott about the 
National Labor Relations Board telling Boeing that they couldn't build 
a plant in South Carolina when they wanted to because South Carolina 
was not a closed shop union State. Mr. Sullivan today is working on the 
Cement MACT bill. Mr. Griffith is in line, in the queue, to come up 
with solutions for the Boiler MACT bill. Mr. McKinley has a bill that 
has to do with coal ash rules. Mrs. Noem has a bill to deal with farm 
dust rules. And I, with several of my colleagues, have a bill to put a 
2-year moratorium on regulations. And we will hopefully come with a 
bill that will be reasonable, accessible, and acceptable to the people 
that are concerned about this and put a stop to this question mark that 
industry is asking: What's around the corner? Because there's tons of 
rules around the corner.
  In the month of July, there's almost 300 new major rules that will 
affect this country with over $100 million or more. There were almost 
300 of them. In August, there were almost 400 of them. Now we're just 
talking about one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, right here, 
bills to deal with seven instances. But the person who keeps up and 
looks at these other regulations that are out there says, Holy cow, 
what's out there? If these things are going to cost, like the example 
with this EPA Regulatory Relief Act, if the Boiler MACT rules are going 
to cost one industry $7 billion, what about all those other rules? We 
don't even know what they do. And what are they going to do to us?

                              {time}  2020

  And once again we have to convince the people who are standing on the 
sidelines to get back in the game and hire folks so we'll have jobs in 
this country.
  It is unacceptable for us to look at 9 percent unemployment as the 
low figure for this year. It's unacceptable. It's been much higher. 
We've come down to 9.3, we seem to have stuck there, but that's 
unacceptable for an unemployment number in America. But you can't stop 
it unless you get real jobs created by real people. And the way you do 
that is take the unknown out of their lives at least until we can get 
our feet back on the ground.
  You know, throwing all the money in the world at our problems, we 
have some pretty good examples of how that doesn't work, the stimulus 
bill being the perfect example. We threw a half a billion dollars at 
that solar company out there in California that is under Federal 
investigation by the Justice Department for what they did with our 
money. A half a billion dollars was thrown at those people, and what 
happened? Where is our money? Where did it go? They shut the doors. 
They declared bankruptcy. We threw it at them in a relatively short 
period of time, 2 or 3 years. That's a lot of money to blow in 2 or 3 
years. We're now learning that some of the stuff they have is like 
the--not Mercedes Benz, but more the Lamborghini model of furniture and 
fixtures and so forth, high-dollar stuff. But the reality is we threw 
money at a problem, and the money didn't solve it. I don't think we 
should throw money at these problems that we've got right now. I think 
we should instigate common sense for the problems we've got right now.
  I mentioned some of those things that are out there. We've got 
another bill that's very interesting. It has to do with cross-state air 
pollution--CSAPR they call this--for utility plants. These are plants 
that produce electricity. And the truth is that there was a concept, it 
was designed for the eastern part of the United States because the 
States are a lot smaller in the eastern part of the United States. So 
if you're living in Vermont, New Hampshire--and I'm not picking on 
them, they're just side by side, fairly small. If a plant in Vermont 
has prevailing winds blowing into New Hampshire and they've got some 
pollutant out there, they want to be able to stop the cross-State-line 
expansion of pollution into another State. And that's what these rules 
are set for.
  They set out specifically which States would be under these rules--
they expanded them some, but it was designed for the Midwest, some 
southern States, and the Northeast. And it specifically, for instance, 
said Texas is not under these rules. Then 19 days before they issued 
the final rule they said, oh well, we decided, even though we didn't 
test any of the air, didn't test any of the directions of the air, 
didn't do any monitoring at all in the State of Texas, we're putting 
them under the rule anyway, and we're just going to presume that the 
prevailing winds blow the way we think they do. I don't think anybody 
that wrote that rule had ever set foot in the State of Texas or they 
would have known better than that. But they presumed that we were 
blowing all of our air, any pollution we created up to the Midwest and 
the Northeast. They presumed that our prevailing winds blew from the 
Southwest to the Northeast. And I think anybody that lives in Texas 
knows that's far from the prevailing winds in Texas. If anything, if we 
have a prevailing wind, it blows from the Gulf of Mexico--which is the 
Southeast--to the Northwest of our country. And the rest of the West, 
by the way, is not under these rules, with the exception of Oklahoma.
  So these rules are going to impose such onerous air standard 
qualities that at least in the State of Texas, with one company, they 
have 13 power plants, they're saying they're going to close two--even 
before this starts they're going to close two. They're going to close 
one coal mine. They're going to stop shipping Western coal to that part 
of our State--because these are coal-powered plants. So there's two 
offline right there of the 13 they've got online. And potentially they 
could shut down more than that, maybe even half. That's one company's 
power plants.
  Now, what does that do to you, to us as American citizens? It makes 
the price of electricity go up. It makes the possibility of a brownout 
and a blackout more relevant. If it's too cold or it's too hot--and 
down where we live it's mostly too hot--you might have a power outage. 
If you take power plants offline because they can't meet EPA standards 
because the standards are too onerous--and quite honestly a complete 
surprise in our State because we didn't even know we were supposed to 
be under this set of rules--we're probably going to have power 
shortages in our State.
  But that's not all. The rest of the country has got these rules too, 
and they're just as surprising and onerous as they are to us. The only 
difference between them and us is they knew they were going to be under 
it--this is the eastern part of the country. We didn't know we were 
going to be under it, so we've got a particularly loud gripe. But other 
States are saying the same thing: Holy cow, what are we going to do?
  The Midwest, almost all their power comes from coal--not in our 
State; we still have oil and gas. But in the Midwest, all their power 
comes from coal. What are they going to do when they start shutting 
down plants? How cold is it going to be in Chicago this next year--
which my dad claims when the wind blows off the lake is the coldest 
place on Earth--how cold is it going to be when they shut down the 
power plants in the central part of the United States in the Midwest? 
It's a frightening thought.
  The impact on humanity ought to be one of the analyses that's made 
when you start making an analysis under these EPA regulations. Nobody 
wants to dirty up the air, but you can do it with reasonable 
assumptions as to how much harm you're going to do when you start doing 
it. And the harm we're looking at here is a lot of harm. It's downright 
scary what can happen in a cold winter or a hot summer.
  We're in the middle of a drought right now in Texas. And where I 
live, it

[[Page 14888]]

hasn't rained in--gosh, I don't know, a long time, at least 4 or 5 
months. We had barely a sprinkle on top of my patio in the back yard--
didn't even get my street wet, but they called it rain. I don't count 
that. I'm talking about when it rains. Now, could we get one? Yeah. 
We're a land of wild weather. We could get one tomorrow that would wash 
us off the face of the Earth. But that's fine--we could use it.
  But the point is, that sure tells you how hot it has been. From 
starting in May until late in the month of September, almost the entire 
State of Texas had over 100-degree weather every single day. Normally 
our hot weather starts in late July through August, mid-September we're 
over 100. We had 105 and 106 the whole summer long. Now you can just 
imagine how much electricity got cranked out.
  If we implement the rules that are imposed by the EPA, we will double 
the cost of electricity. I'll use my electricity bill as an example. 
The entire summer my electricity bill was approximately $600 plus a 
month. What that's telling me is look for $1,200 bucks a month. The guy 
that's got $200 bucks a month--which is the average smaller home in our 
area--he's looking at $400 a month. It's a shocker to have something 
like that happen to you and to realize it had to because people didn't 
think out regulations they imposed. We can still meet the standards and 
not put our people at risk. These are the kinds of things that we're 
talking about that so concern us.
  And the first thing, when this all happens--and the reason I've been 
talking about this now for almost a year is because I'm convinced that 
a lot of Americans believe that when this happens to them in their 
life, they believe this is done because the Congress of the United 
States passed some law that caused that to happen.

                              {time}  2030

  They don't know that it's an unelected group of bureaucrats in an 
agency somewhere that made this decision, not Members of this Congress, 
not the people they elect to speak for them in Washington, D.C. No, 
people who have jobs that they can't be fired from and who are 
entrenched in these agencies around this town write rules that affect 
the lives of ordinary Americans, and they never know where they came 
from unless they're in the industry that gets affected. Industry knows 
what bureaucrats do, but the average American citizen, he doesn't know. 
That's why everywhere I go, I talk about this because I want everybody 
to know, but particularly I want my folks back home that I represent to 
know just what these agencies do on their causes that causes the cost 
of living to go up.
  Well, I'm about through, so I'll do this the easy way. I want to 
thank the Speaker for his patience. I've got plenty more to talk about. 
We'll talk about it on another day.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________