Bobby Rush

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman prior to me asked, where is the common sense? Well, common sense begins with science, and the science is clear. I want to let the gentleman know that all sense is not common sense. In this instance, common sense begins with the science, and the science is absolutely clear that EPA must be able to reduce toxic pollution from the cement manufacturing process. Cement kilns across the U.S. produce more toxic air pollutants, including mercury, arsenic, acid gases, hydrochloric acid, dioxins, and other harmful pollutants that add to the nation's problems with soot and smog. Cement kilns are the third-largest source of mercury emissions in the U.S. Toxic air pollutants can cause cancer, impair brain development and the ability to learn, damage the eyes, skin, and breathing passages, harm the kidneys, harm the lungs, harm the nervous system, and cause pulmonary and cardiovascular disease and premature death. Cleaning up cement kilns saves lives and protects children from hazardous air pollutants. EPA estimates that reducing toxic pollution from cement kilns can save up to 2,500 lives each year by 2013. The limit will annually prevent 1,500 heart attacks, 17,000 asthma attacks, over 1,700 hospital and emergency room visits, and 130,000 missed days of work. The most vulnerable populations depend on the EPA to protect them from the harmful health effects of cement kiln pollution. Children, teens, senior citizens, and people who exercise or work outdoors or with chronic lung diseases such as asthma, COPD, emphysema, these are the children and the people who are most in danger. People with low incomes or who are members of racial and ethnic minorities are disproportionately affected by air pollution, in part, because they tend to live closer to industrial facilities such as cement kilns. Mercury is a potent neurotoxin. Reams of scientific studies, common sense studies, show that babies and children who are exposed to mercury may suffer damage to their developing nervous systems, hurting their ability to think, learn, and speak. Children exposed to mercury may never ever reach their full potential. The National Academy of Sciences estimates that each year about 60,000 American children are born right here in the U.S. with neurological problems that could lead to poor school performance because of exposure to mercury in utero. The Waxman amendment is straightforward. It is common sense. It states that the EPA can continue to require a cement kiln to clean up toxic air pollution if that kiln is emitting mercury or other toxic pollutants that are causing damage to infants' developing brains. This amendment simplifies our choice. Allow polluters to continue to harm children, to harm infants, or require facilities that are actually harming our kids to reduce their pollution. It's not too much to ask, and I ask the Members to support the Waxman amendment.

Mr. RUSH. I thank the ranking member of the full committee, and I commend him on his outstanding work not only on this particular matter but in most of the issues that come before this Congress as it relates to not only the purpose of us but the prosperity of the American people. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong, strong opposition to this bill, H.R. 2681. I call it the Dirty Cement Pollution Bill. Let's be perfectly clear, Mr. Chairman. This bill, this measure is not about jobs. For the chairman of the subcommittee, and my friend, just to try to persuade Members of this body that this is about jobs, I think that it's the worst kind of politics. Jobs now is the useful canard, but this is not about jobs. This is about an industry that is singular in its being eliminated or being not under the auspices of the Clean Air Act, and about an industry that is unique because it doesn't have to adhere to any of the provisions of the Clean Air Act. And it's about time that this industry be included with other industries in this Nation to come under the auspices, the jurisdiction, and the standards of the Clean Air Act. Cement kilns emit nearly 8 tons of mercury each year, making them the Nation's second-largest mercury emitting source. Before the EPA issued its 2010 air toxics rule, these emissions remained essentially unrestrained due to the lack of controls for cement kilns regulating the release of mercury into the atmosphere. H.R. 2681 would roll back existing Clean Air Act standards by revoking three Clean Air Act rules, including the only national limits on emissions of air toxics, such as mercury, from cement kilns. This Dirty Cement Pollution Bill will also require EPA to propose and finalize weaker replacement rules that will allow for more pollution than the law currently permits. This bill is intended to significantly change how EPA sets the standards when issuing the alternative rules. H.R. 2681 would indefinitely delay the reductions of air toxics and other hazardous pollutants by prohibiting EPA from finalizing replacement rules prior to March 2013 if this bill were to be enacted at the end of this year. Also, this bill does not include any statutory deadline for when polluters must reduce emissions, leaving the process ambiguous and open-ended. At the very least, this Dirty Cement Pollution Bill would postpone emission reductions from cement kilns until at least 2018--a 4\1/2\-year delay. In fact, the health safeguards from these standards are long, long, long, long overdue. EPA just finalized standards for cement plants in September of last year, making them 13 years overdue under the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990--13 years overdue already. They are overdue 13 years. The science tells us that these dirty air toxics can cause a variety of serious health effects, including cancer and respiratory neurological impairments, as well as reproductive problems.

Mr. RUSH. In particular, mercury exposure can cause great harm to pregnant women, unborn babies, and young children by damaging their developing nervous systems, which affects children's ability to learn and to think. Additionally, mercury emissions can also damage the environment by polluting our Nation's lakes and streams and the seafood which we eat. In fact, EPA estimates that H.R. 2681 will allow for thousands of additional premature deaths and premature heart attacks, as well as tens of thousands of additional asthma attacks that could have been avoided. Mr. Chairman, the public health benefits from the reduction of air toxics emissions from cement kilns have already been delayed long enough. Now is the time. The radical Republican majority cannot keep making excuses and exceptions for the largest industrial emitters of mercury in the U.S., cement plants and industrial boilers, while over 100 other industries have already controlled their air toxic pollution.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. Many organizations are on record opposing the TRAIN Act or opposing efforts to block rules to reduce pollution from the country's dirtiest power plants. Numerous public health groups, including the American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, the American Thoracic Society, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America all sent a letter to Congress expressing their support for full implementation of the Clean Air Act and opposing ``all efforts to weaken, delay, or block progress toward the continuing implementation of this vital law.'' The American Public Health Association stated that it opposes the TRAIN Act because it is ``ill-conceived legislation that would prevent EPA from protecting the public's health from dangerous and deadly air pollution.'' The National Association of Clean Air Agencies opposes this bill as well. NACAA sent a letter expressing its concern that the TRAIN Act would ``create regulatory delays that could lead to thousands of premature deaths, remove important regulatory tools upon which States and localities depend, impose additional costs on government as well as small businesses, create regulatory uncertainty, cause job losses and defund an important and cost-effective air pollution control program.'' Groups representing millions of individual Americans who believe in protecting our environment strongly oppose this bill and other efforts to weaken clean air protections. These groups include the League of Conservative Voters, the Sierra Club, National Resources Defense Council, Environment America, the National Audubon Society, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. They stated in a letter to Congress that ``sacrificing tens of thousands of American lives will not create more jobs. Poisoning the air our children and our families breathe will not stimulate the economy.'' Three hundred sportsmen's organizations representing our Nation's hunters, anglers, and the businesses that depend on our wildlife and natural resources support the EPA's effort to cut mercury pollution, and I quote them with these words. They said: ``Strongly oppose any effort to weaken the Clean Air Act.'' The Evangelical Environment Network has been running radio ads expressing their opposition to efforts to block the Mercury and Air Toxics rule. Mercury can damage the developing brain of fetuses and children, causing learning disabilities and neurological problems. The president of this group stated: ``We believe that mercury offers a significant potential for hindering our children from developing a pure and wonderful life.'' The Obama administration strongly opposes the TRAIN Act. The administration plans to veto this legislation if it ever reaches the President's desk, as the bill would undermine decades of progress in cleaning up the Nation's air quality by--and this is a quote from the Obama administration--``blocking EPA's ability to move forward with two long-overdue Clean Air Act rules.'' Americans don't support weakening the Clean Air Act or blocking efforts to reduce dangerous air pollution from power plants. The widespread opposition to the TRAIN Act makes that perfectly clear. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this horrendous bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSH. I claim time in opposition for purposes of debate. The ACTING Chair. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. RUSH. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

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. 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.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. I want to thank the fine ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Waxman, for his outstanding leadership on this matter and other matters before our committee and before this Congress. Mr. Chairman, I join my friend and colleague, Ranking Member Waxman, in his declaration that this week should be known as Dirty Air Week in America based on the Republican legislative agenda. The so-called TRAIN Act is really a train wreck for the air we breathe, the environment we live in, and the jobs we need. Just yesterday in a full Energy and Commerce Committee markup, my Republican colleagues on a mostly party-line vote favorably passed out two bills that would delay the Obama administration's new rules for industrial boilers and cement kilns--H.R. 2250 and H.R. 2681, respectively. These two bills would delay the toxic emissions limits for both boilers and cement kilns, two of the largest emissions sources that lack Federal standards and permanently weaken the Clean Air Act so that the EPA will be forced to issue weaker standards for these polluting facilities than the law currently requires. Now today, we're here debating the Train Wreck Act, which would delay for at least 3 years the implementation of two new U.S. EPA rules for power plants: the newly finalized Cross-State Air Pollution Rule for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, and a soon-to-be finalized rule for hazardous toxic emissions. With Republicans holding the majority in the House of Representatives, we know that the TRAIN Act will ultimately collide with the health of the American people. It's going to pass this Chamber even though the cross-State rule alone would prevent 34,000 deaths in this Nation and 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma annually. Mr. Chairman, since the new Republican majority took control of the Energy and Commerce Committee and this Congress, they have been on a relentless crusade against our environmental protection laws, and they have been trying to portray the EPA as public enemy number one. According to the logic of today's Republican Party, agencies such as the EPA, the American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, the Allergy and Asthma Foundation of America, and the Physicians for Social Responsibility are all actually enemies of the American people and American jobs because they oppose this radical new Republican agenda and because they advocate for policies that regulate the number of toxins and poisons that we allow industry to emit into the air each and every moment of the day. I must remind my Republican colleagues that EPA stands for the Environmental Protection Agency and not the Evil Practices Agency, as they would have us believe. My Republican colleagues would have the American people believe that, if Congress just gets out of industry's way and allows corporations to operate unregulated and unfettered, then they will inevitably do the right thing for the American people. The majority party also wants us to believe that we should not place standards or rules on industry because the inherent benevolence of corporations will ultimately lead them to do the right thing for the American people. But just think of the recent past. Let me remind my Republican colleagues that this philosophy has been tested under the previous Bush administration, and it has totally failed. It has failed the American people. It has failed the American environment. It has failed the American air that we breathe.

Mr. RUSH. We don't have to look any further. Just look at the financial collapse and see what these kinds of unfettered regulations have done to jobs in this country and to jobs for the American people. This approach has put our entire economy on the brink of disaster. After a financial collapse, here you are today, trying to bring forth a collapse in terms of environmental protections--a collapse in terms of protecting us by changing the air that we breathe. Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this egregious and dangerous bill.

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I really want my friend from Illinois to know that I don't have to travel to Joliet, Illinois, or any other part of Illinois; I don't even have to come down to his district in Peoria to see unemployment, to see the joblessness. I am not standing here fighting against jobs. I am fighting for jobs. But I think at the same time that we fight for jobs, we have to also fight so that the American people have input in terms of making decisions such as this. Mr. Chairman, I also believe that at the end of the day, we want to ensure that this pipeline benefits America and not China. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of Mr. Murphy's amendment, and this amendment replaces misleading findings about the Keystone XL pipeline's critical faster implementation. The only problem that I see was the majority's argument in that Canada has really--and I agree with Mr. Cohen--that Canada has no way to send oil to China now and no realistic prospect of ever sending oil to China. They won't do anything any time soon. So I think that this is a commonsense amendment, and I certainly stand in support of this amendment.

Mr. RUSH. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, today's debate on fast-tracking the Keystone XL pipeline by 2 months reminds me of a saying that adequately sums up the fight before this Congress: Good sense minus common sense equals nonsense. With the current crisis our Nation faces on lifting the debt ceiling and other priorities for the American people, including the economy and jobs, it is incomprehensible that we are here debating a bill that is totally and absolutely unnecessary, completely futile, and is not even worth not one millisecond of Congress' time. Mr. Chairman, as written, this bill will force the administration to issue the Presidential permit for the pipeline within 30 days of the environmental impact statement and no later than November 1, 2011, regardless of whether or not the review process has been completed. This arbitrary, willy-nilly time line would reduce the allocated time that the Federal agencies will have to determine the national interest in deciding this proposal by almost two-thirds of the time that they need, while also reducing or eliminating the 30-day public comment period. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I am offering would allow for 120 days after the final environmental impact or no later than January 1, 2012, for the President to issue a final decision on the Keystone XL pipeline. I believe that public input is a vital and necessary part of the permitting process, and I also believe that it is important for the various departments to weigh in with their national interest determinations, which this bill would severely curtail, if not completely eliminate. In fact, in conversations that my office has held with the State Department and the EPA, we were informed that it would be close to impossible for the responsible agencies to complete their due diligence and reply by the arbitrary timeline of November 1, as this bill would mandate. Additionally, just yesterday, the State Department publicly stated that this bill was ``unnecessary'' since the agency already plans to reach a final decision on the Keystone XL by the end of the year, after first holding a series of public hearings in the very six States that would be affected by the enactment of this bill. Mr. Chairman, whether you support the Keystone XL pipeline or not, it is extremely important that all of the relevant information and consequent impacts be considered so that an informed decision can be made. So I urge all my colleagues to support my amendment, which would allow for the appropriate time period for the public and the different agencies to weigh in, while also mandating that a decision is made within a timely manner. With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSH. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Mr. RUSH. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. RUSH. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Madam Chair, during both the subcommittee and full committee markups, I offered my amendment to delete a finding that I thought was particularly misleading. Finding No. 15 states: ``Analysis using the Environmental Protection Agency models shows that the Keystone XL pipeline will result in no significant change in total United States or global greenhouse gas emissions.'' My amendment was defeated on a party-line vote after my colleagues on the other side insisted that the statement was indeed true. Well, Madam Chair, I took it upon myself to write a letter to the EPA asking the agency to weigh in on the accuracy of this finding, and this was the agency's reply: ``EPA has conducted no modeling, nor provided any models, to analyze the likely effect of the Keystone XL pipeline on U.S. or global greenhouse gas emissions. The language in the above finding is therefore incorrect.'' The official EPA statement went on to say: ``As detailed in the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL project issued by the Department of State, the Department of Energy directed a contractor to conduct modeling on potential impacts of the project. EPA provided some data to be used in that effort, but EPA models were not used and EPA did not model any projected emissions effects of the project.'' Madam Chairman, there are some who believe that the majority does not care about facts or truth or science or climate change if these facts and otherwise get in the way of industry moving forward unfettered. Well, by voting for my amendment, we have an opportunity to set the record straight and prove to the American people that when a statement is demonstrably shown to be false, then Members of Congress from both sides, Democrat or Republican, will put their partisan differences aside and stand on the side of truth. Know ye the truth and the truth shall set you free. So I urge all my colleagues to support my corrective amendment in order to correct this misleading statement contained in the bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSH. Madam Chair, this is simply an argument over whether or not this House will allow demonstrably false information in this bill to move forward even though we have documentation from the very agency in question stating that the information is false. This is the letter. This is the letter. It's a letter dated June 22, and it says: ``EPA has conducted no modeling, nor provided any models, to analyze the likely effect of the Keystone XL pipeline on U.S. or global greenhouse gas emissions. The language in the above finding is therefore incorrect.'' How clear can it be that the EPA states beyond a shadow of a doubt that this particular passage in this bill is false, is misleading? And if, in fact, we vote to enact this wrong piece of legislation, not only is it wrongheaded, it's wrong in its effort. If we vote to pass this legislation, then we are perpetuating a falsehood. Madam Chair, this Congress stands for a greater and higher standard than to vote for something that we know is false. We know it's not accurate. The other side knows it's not accurate. But if industry wants it, if it's accurate or not, industry, according to them, must have it. And I say industry must not have it. We should have to stand for the truth in this Congress, and the truth is that the EPA did not conduct any model. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, it is often difficult to find words to express the depth of one's feelings with the passing of a constituent. Nevertheless, I rise today to pay tribute to the late Willye Mae Payne, who made her heavenly transition on Tuesday, July 12, 2011. Mrs. Payne dedicated her life towards making a difference in the lives of other people. She was a shining example of how God can use even the ordinary to accomplish the extraordinary. Indeed, many who have had the privilege of knowing and associating with her have come to recognize that they are much better the person as a result. A member of the Salem Baptist Church of Chicago, Mrs. Payne worked for over thirty-five years at the Children's Audy Home and the Cook County Hospital. She attended Malclom X Community College and graduated from Olive Harvey Community College as a Licensed Practical Nurse. I have been privileged to know and work with her granddaughter, Cheryl Hyman, the Chancellor of the City Colleges of Chicago. Mr. Speaker, I want to encourage her children Katherine McMurtry, Jacklyn Payne, James Payne, Walter Payne and Christine Jackson, her brother Mr. Johnny Robinson, her grandchildren, great grandchildren, the entire family and the many friends of Mrs. Willye Mae Payne to always remember to look to the hills from which comes all of their help, trusting that their help will surely come from the Lord. I am honored to pay tribute to this outstanding woman and privileged to enter these words into the Congressional Record of the United States House of Representatives.