Bobby Rush

Mr. RUSH

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

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

Mr. RUSH. I thank the gentleman for yielding. ``This administration remains committed to commonsense approaches to improving air quality across the country and preserving the competitiveness of every economic sector. Because H.R. 1633 is not only unnecessary, but also could have significant adverse public health consequences, the administration strongly opposes this bill. ``If H.R. 1633 were presented to the President, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto this bill.'' Why are we wasting our time on this nuisance which is nonsense?

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, if the premise of this bill is to simply provide regulatory certainty to rural farmers and reiterate what Administrator Jackson has already publicly stated--that EPA would not alter the Bush-era standards for coarse particulate matter--then the Rush amendment would satisfy that objective. During the subcommittee hearing on H.R. 1633, we heard testimony from the bill's sponsor that the intent of this legislation was to address the regulatory uncertainty over ``farm dust.'' However, during that same hearing, we heard testimony from the Assistant Administrator of the Office of Air and Radiation, Gina McCarthy, where she expressed a serious concern over the ambiguous language in the bill and the overly broad impact it could have on existing Clean Air Act programs. Mr. Chairman, the Rush amendment would remove the ambiguity and provide clarity to the bill's intent so that we can keep in place standards to protect our Nation's most vulnerable populations. At the end of section 2, my amendment would add the following: ``Nothing in this Act precludes the Administrator from proposing, finalizing, implementing, or enforcing the national primary ambient air quality standard or the national secondary air quality standard for PM2.5.'' Additionally, because there is such widespread suspicion that the real intent of this bill is to roll back existing Clean Air Act protections, my amendment would strike section 3 altogether, which contains the most overly ambiguous and excessively broad provisions of the bill. In section 3, the bill's exclusion for particulate matter from combustion would not exclude particulate pollution from sources such as open-pit mines, mining processing plants, sand and gravel mines, smelters, coal mines, coal-processing plants, cement kilns, and waste and recovery facilities. Mrs. McCarthy raised serious concerns about the effect of this bill on existing health-based standards due to the fact that the term ``nuisance dust'' is not a scientifically-defined term, and it would be very difficult to incorporate into a scientifically-based program. As Mrs. McCarthy noted, ``Coarse particles have been linked to a variety of adverse health effects, including hospitals visits related to cardiovascular and respiratory disease, and premature death. While the body of scientific evidence is much more limited for coarse PM than for fine particles, the agency's review of the studies indicate that short- term exposures to coarse particles remain a concern.'' Mr. Chairman, the Rush amendment would provide regulatory certainty to rural farmers while also protecting our Nation's most vulnerable population, including our children, our senior citizens, people with low incomes, and people with chronic lung disease such as asthma, chronic bronchitis, and emphysema. I urge all my colleagues to support my amendment. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, earlier this month some of our darkest fears came to light. As parents and mentors of young children, we were horrified to hear and read about news allegations of a sexual abuse scandal involving the Penn State University football program. In piecing the news together, there were clues and red flags along the way, suggesting that the allegations are regrettably and probably true. Based on what is known now, it is also not inconceivable that the horrible actions alleged to have occurred at Penn State could have just as easily occurred at any other major collegiate sports program in the country. What this sad and tragic episode affirms is that the abuse of children is real and alive in the sports world today. And it is just as alive and real in collegiate sports as it could be in any institutional system that has commonalities with big-time college sports. A little more than a week ago, even before the news of this scandal broke, I hosted two collegiate sports roundtables here in our Nation's Capitol. I invited sports journalists, economists, parents of former big division athletic scholarship recipients, and current professionally qualified basketball players and former collegiate student athletes to speak openly. They were asked what they thought about some of the NCAA's new proposed reforms, like compensating student athletes with a stipend and increasing academic accountability of student athletes who play in Bowl Conference Series tournaments. The roundtables dispelled some of the widely held myths about the manner in which the colleges go about recruiting high school athletes. They also corrected some persistent misunderstandings about what and how much NCAA athletic scholarships and medical insurance cover. And they did an excellent job of exposing hardships that student athletes and their families face for being unable to come up with the extra money to pay the differences in the medical costs and the costs of these athletic scholarships. The roundtables sadly affirmed that, just as the scandal does, the business of college sports is not beneath using--and can even thrive upon, in too many instances--collusion, corruption, and cover-ups. As part of its core purpose, the NCAA says its mission is to ``integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student athlete is paramount.'' But, unfortunately, I must say that I am highly suspicious of this creed, in that the NCAA system culture has increasingly become more shadowy and exceedingly exploitative. Exploitation maximizes revenues for colleges and conferences. Exploitation also helps member conferences and athletic programs hide behind flimsy excuses that doing more to support student athletes financially would be unprincipled and unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, as a Nation, we must hear the voices of young victims, pray for their healing, and dedicate ourselves to doing all that we can to end outrageous abuse of vulnerable children. We, as Members of Congress, have two primary responsibilities: one, to protect our Nation against foreign enemies, and, two, to protect our children. God bless America, and God bless our children.

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my outrage and my disappointment at the Oakland, California, Police Department, which reacted with brutality to those peacefully protesting. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind our Nation's law enforcement authorities all across the land that civil disobedience is as American as American pie. It is the act through which our great Nation was conceived. It required great courage to do what they did at the Boston Tea Party. It required great courage for the great American, Henry David Thoreau, to refuse to go to war against Mexico in 1849, an act that gave birth to the anti-war movement that continues today. The equalities that we as Americans enjoy today are the result of those great, courageous Americans that fought for our liberties, Mr. Speaker. The women's suffrage movement went from 1848 to 1920. Generations of courageous women marched, they fasted, and they were arrested. Finally, in 1920, the 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote. It took more than seven decades of civil disobedience to achieve the change that they sought. Let's not forget, Mr. Speaker, that the abolition of slavery, the labor movement and the eradication of child labor, the civil rights movement, and the environmental movement all used civil disobedience as a powerful and peaceful weapon to change laws and to protect all of our liberties. Members of the Occupy Movement now emerge as yet another generation of courageous Americans voicing a general frustration that many citizens feel: It was a money-driven elite that mismanaged the American economy. They are challenging us, this Congress, our government, to reform not only Wall Street but reform a culture of selfishness and greed that has distorted who we are and made the American Dream appear unattainable. We are losing ground as a result of these individuals, this grotesque, American, greedy and avaricious elite. The Occupy Movement, Mr. Speaker, embodies a sense of growing disillusionment with the direction of our country. I, for one, understand that feeling. With deadlock a daily occurrence in this very House, it is hard for the American people not to feel a sense of utter frustration. They see their elected representatives unable to govern at this crucial time. Mr. Speaker, a betrayal of American values occurred last night in Oakland, California, when police fired tear gas on those peaceful demonstrators. It occurred in New York City when police maced and beat protesters. Government violence against our own people? Is this not the very thing that we condemn in other places all around the world? How dare we denounce an action when committed abroad but yet remain silent when it happens in our own, very own--our own backyards. I, for one, cannot remain silent. History teaches us that a violent response to civil disobedience never, ever works. It makes people angrier and turns public opinion against law enforcement, against the police. It is counterproductive, and it never achieves the goals of those who are trying to impose order. Getting arrested is a fundamental part of civil disobedience. The Occupy Movement demonstrators expected to be arrested. Civil disobedience participants all expect to be arrested, but they should also expect that the police will conduct themselves with professional understanding and a sensitivity of the power that they possess and of the government they represent. They carry weapons. They have the power to maim, to kill, to wound, and to arrest. With that great power comes an even greater responsibility. That greater responsibility includes the freedoms that were promised to all American citizens in that great document, the preamble to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which is the freedom from ``unreasonable searches and seizures'' as promised in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution; the freedom from ``cruel and unusual punishments'' as promised in the Eighth Amendment; finally, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps most importantly, the freedom enshrined in the First Amendment, which guarantees ``the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.'' It is the job of law enforcement to uphold these freedoms, to uphold our Constitution, to uphold justice even in the most difficult of situations. Beatings and mace and tear gas against our own people exercising their constitutional rights? That is unacceptable. More importantly, it is un-American. I do sympathize with the tough job our Nation's police officers face now and have faced, and I can understand why they may feel intimidated by the sheer numbers or may mistake the demonstrators' passion for aggression. However, in a humble way, I ask the police officers who are monitoring these protests to act with a rational head, with soberness, with restraint. Violence only breeds violence. Such unwarranted crowd control methods will only serve to create mutual contempt between protesters and the police alike, dividing Americans against Americans and citizens against the police. We don't want that. This is not a nation that supports and encourages that type of activity. It was only last week, Mr. Speaker, that we--this Nation, the citizens of the greatest country in the history of the world--dedicated a memorial to a man who was the embodiment, the living proof, of the power of civil disobedience and nonviolence. It is those who marched peacefully in the face of fire hoses, in the face of dogs attacking them, of police batons striking them all over their bodies, including their heads, who changed America. Now a new generation follows boldly and audaciously with an American audacity. They follow in the footsteps of those American patriots who dared to disobey the law of the land as a matter of conscience and priority, as a matter of conscience that created this great civil society called the United States of America. They made our Nation better back then, and I believe the Occupy Movement challenges us to make America better now. Yes, it can be done. America can be better. America must address the issues that those who are now demonstrating peacefully across the land are raising. They are only trying to peacefully redress their grievances. It is their constitutional right. How dare dogs, how dare tear gas, how dare police attack them in the wee hours of the morning. Mr. Speaker, the mayor of Oakland, California, Mayor Jean Quan, owes the Occupy Movement a sincere, heartfelt apology. Mayor Quan owes the American people a sincere, heartfelt apology. At 3 a.m. yesterday, the Oakland Police invaded the park where the protesters were assembled. Forty-five years ago in the same city, 45 years ago this very week, an organization that I became a member of, the Black Panther Party, was founded in Oakland, California, as a result of the police brutality of the Oakland Police Department. Forty-five years later, I as a Member of this esteemed body, the House of Representatives, am ashamed to bear witness once again to the same Oakland Police Department violating and attacking and brutalizing innocent citizens who are protesting, bringing their deep-felt grievances to the forefront and engaging in acts of civil disobedience. Police batons, tear gas, mace, no matter what the weapon is, no matter what the strategy is, they cannot kill this movement. They cannot stop this movement. This occupy movement is going to move forward. It's going to move forward with an accelerated pace because of the actions of the police department in Oakland and in other cities across this Nation. They have a right to protest. They have a right to make their voices heard. They have a right, as called for in the gospel of Jesus Christ in the Bible, to make their bodies a living sacrifice. These individuals, they are epitomizing the greatness in this hour. It's a thing that we celebrate all across the land. We celebrated it in Tunisia, we celebrated it in Egypt, we celebrated it in Libya, we celebrated it in Yemen, we celebrated it in China, we celebrated it in other places all across the world. How can we be so hypocritical? How can we be so insensitive? How can we be so arrogant to celebrate civil disobedience in other places across the world and attack the same, the very same actions and attitude here in our Nation when our citizens engage in civil disobedience? Mr. Speaker, I say that those who are involved in the occupy movement, you are just lighting the first spark in a prairie fire of peaceful demonstrations across this land. Don't give up, don't give out, and please don't give in. Godspeed to you. We need you. You're doing the right thing at the right time for the right reasons. Keep doing what you're doing. Stand up for what you believe in. Stand up for what you believe in. It's high time now that the American people stand up for what they believe in and take to the streets to demonstrate to all that we're sick and tired of being sick and tired. We're sick and tired of home foreclosures. We're sick and tired of unemployment. We're sick and tired of being sick and tired, as Fannie Lou Hamer once said. We're just sick and tired. We're sick, yes, of the rising cost of health care. We need to demonstrate and protest the rising cost of health care. We're sick and tired of the rising gap between those who are sitting high on the hog, the wealthy, the elite, and those who are at the bottom; the rising gap between those who are unemployed and underemployed, who are chronically unemployed and the 1 percent who are reaping all the wealth of this Nation and telling the rest of us that they have a right to the wealth of the Nation, but yet we as American citizens don't have a right to a decent job. We as American citizens don't have a right to decent housing, that we as American citizens don't have a right to a decent education, that we as American citizens don't have a right to decent health care. How can they look down on us and tell us that we don't have a right to the same opportunities and to the same life-style and to the same benefits? How can they tell the dwindling, disappearing American middle class that they don't have a right to demonstrate? These are our children, and they want a better future. These are our children, and they are willing to fight for a better future. These are our children, and they have the courage to stand up against the government, to stand up against the elite, to stand for their rights. And I am proud that our children are standing up and standing for something to try to get some meaning into their lives and try to make this Nation a better Nation. I'm proud of them and, again, I say to them, don't give up, don't give out, and please don't give in. Godspeed to you. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. Madam Chair, my amendment simply provides Federal enforcement authority so that if the EPA administrator determines that a structure is in violation of a State coal combustion residuals permit program and the State has not taken appropriate action to enforce such permit program with respect to such structure, the administrator may inspect such structure and enforce the requirements of such permit program. Madam Chair, as currently drafted, H.R. 2273 fails to require States to enforce their own permit requirements. The manager's amendment only requires States to describe their ``process to enforce,'' but there is no hint, no requirement, not a syllable to actually enforce regulations. This built-in loophole in H.R. 2273 does not require adequate State inspection of coal ash ponds and landfills, and it allows States to set up voluntary regulatory programs, which will clearly not ensure the safe design, the safe operation, and the cleanup of the Nation's many toxic coal ash disposal sites. Madam Chair, due to a well-noted case in my district of Crestwood, Illinois, where contaminated drinking water was piped into the homes of my constituents for over 20 years, between 1986 and 2007, without any intervention from either the State or Federal EPA agencies, I, for one, am very sensitive to this issue. Since the beginning of this current Congress, the Republican majority has been on a never-ending, nonstop, forever-and-ever crusade against the EPA and our Nation's environmental protection laws on behalf of a few industries and to the detriment of the public good. However, for many of my constituents, there is no greater role for Congress to play than to protect their lives, their livelihoods, the livelihoods of their children, and the lives of their children by ensuring that all American citizens have access to clean air and clean water. Madam Chair, I believe that it is a false choice to try to frame these tremendously important policy decisions under the paradigm of either clean air and water or jobs and employment. As leaders, it is our job, it is our responsibility to find the right balance when crafting legislation so that our constituents are not faced with these types of lose-lose situations and decisions. I believe that my amendment will go a long way in trying to make this legislation far more balanced so that, at the very least, we allow the Federal Government, our government, to serve as the last backstop for the American people against companies that will seek to skirt the law without regard for the families and communities these companies would do harm to. Madam Chair, many of my constituents, they don't have the money. They don't have the influence that industry has. So they're counting on us, this Congress, their Congressional representatives, to protect their interests, to fight for them just as those who are fighting for the interest of a few corporations in this body are doing. In fact, Madam Chair, I want to end with a quote from a letter dated July 11 that my office received from a number of ordinary American families who live by coal ash dumps all across this country.

Mr. RUSH. I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment. Hon. Fred Upton, Chairman, House Energy and Commerce Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: Tomorrow, we understand that your committee will vote on a bill that would leave oversight of coal ash dumps to the states, and prevent EPA from taking action against polluters who threaten Our groundwater. We know Congress has already heard from industry lobbyists, big contributors, and bureaucrats. But please hear our voices, since we live near these dumps, and put up with their pollution year after year. We know what it is like to suffer through the daily onslaught of blowing ash, drink water from faucets contaminated with ash leachate, and see our wetlands and creeks poisoned with toxic metals like arsenic. We have complained again and again about the endless noise, dust and pollution from trucks dumping coal ash near us while we become more stressed out or sick and the value of our property plummets, with no real response from our states. Two years ago, we were promised that the US Environmental Protection Agency would finally set national standards to clean up these sites, and close the most dangerous ones. Now we face legislation that would stop EPA in its tracks, and replace real standards with state ``plans'' that polluters could ignore without fear of enforcement by EPA. After what is already known about the danger from storing millions of tons of coal ash in unlined ponds, why would you tie the government's hands from ever stopping this practice? Do our lives matter to you? Is protecting coal ash ``recycling'' more important than our health or the quality of our water? Even those who believe that cannot seriously argue that shielding leaking dumps from EPA enforcement somehow makes recycling easier. And ash mixed with other wastes in leaking ponds--now a common practice--cannot be recycled at all. What will you accomplish by requiring federal and state bureaucrats to review, and then approve, disapprove, and reapprove state plans that can never actually be enforced by EPA against polluters? If your own family's drinking water was being contaminated, would you think haggling over ``plans'' the right response? States have had decades to clean up these dumpsites, and have done nothing--or next to nothing--as contamination has spread, even after the TVA spill put the issue on the national news. We know good, hard-working people in our state agencies, but budget cuts, political pressure, the power of local polluters, and the lack of any serious oversight or enforcement from EPA make their job impossible. Put yourself in our place. Have you lived near a power plant's landfill or ash pond like we or our neighbors do, and found out that the water you and your children drink may be unsafe to drink? How long would you want to wait for your state agency to do something about the problem? Three years? Five years? Ten? We have waited that long, and are waiting still. As the Americans who live next to our nation's ash dumps, our opinions should matter. These dumps should have permits that we can comment on. We need the right to comment on a solid waste plan. We should be able to object to any permit or plan that threatens our lives and property, and the government should be given a deadline to respond. Dumps that contaminate groundwater should be closed, and the groundwater cleaned up. And EPA should be able to crack down on polluters--without having to wade through endless ``planning''--or the bill you pass will mean nothing. As you consider this legislation, please don't forget about us. We are not `against the coal industry.' We simply want the laws that are supposed to protect people to be enforced. We appreciate your time and consideration. Sincerely, Joe and Teresa Trotter, 117 South County Road 400 West, Sullivan, IN 47882. George Adey, 4082 W Dunes Hwy, Michigan City, IN 46360. Terry Miller and Barbara Handley-Miller, 4649 David Court, Bay City, MI 48706. Patrick Race, 1004 N. Sheridan, Bay City, MI 48708. Saleh and Hanadi Abu-Hussein, 8424 State Road 64, Princeton, IN 47670. George Bink, 6125 E. County Line Rd., Racine, WI 53402. Vicki Kuzio and Shirley Stribling, 3888 W. Dunes Hwy, Michigan City, IN 46360. Ron and Patricia Riley, 8329 W 175 N, Princeton, IN 47670. Daniel Brand, 5228 County Road A, Sheboygan Falls, WI 53085. Mike and Rachel Slunder, 8245 W 175 N, Princeton, IN 47670. Mary Tinsley, 325 Division St., Mount Carmel, IL 62863. Vicki Hodgson, 15466 N 2250 Boulevard, Allendale, IL 62410. Amy Bonsall, Labadie Environmental Organization, 4467 Boles Road, Labadie, MO 63055. Cathy Schnur, 5337 Heatherfield Ct., Sheboygan, WI 53083. Norm and Jill Buchmann, 6508 Running Horse Road, Racine, WI 53402. Raymond and Yelissa Pfeiffer, 806 S Arbor St, Bay City, MI 48706. Barbara Hugier, 8741 Foley Road, Racine, WI 53402, Oak Creek/Caledonia coal run power plant (WE). Michael and Martha Blann, 4919 W County Rd 25 N, Sullivan

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

Mr. RUSH. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RUSH. I want to thank the gentleman. I have read the bill. And under this bill, if a State fails to do an adequate job of enforcing this program there is only one remedy: EPA has to take over the entire program. And we all know that having EPA take over a State's program is unlikely and highly undesirable. My amendment creates an additional remedy for inadequate State enforcement that is more measured than taking over a State's program. It allows the EPA to enforce State requirements if a structure is in violation and the State isn't doing anything about it. Without this amendment, a State could fail to implement their program for coal ash disposal in a way that puts human health and the environment at risk, and there would be no discrete way for the EPA to intervene to provide the necessary safeguards.

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

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, no one will forget the fateful day of 9/11 or those who lost their lives in those shocking, cold-blooded attacks. The bombing of Afghanistan and the subsequent invasion was our response, intended to catch those who hid, armed, and helped plan the attacks on U.S. soil. And, due to the diligence and tireless efforts of the members of our Armed Forces and Intelligence community, we have eliminated nearly all the people involved in the 9/11 attacks, including Osama Bin Laden, and overthrown the Taliban regime that supported them. If there was justice to be had surely, we have found it. Afghanistan has been embroiled in conflict since 1979 and there is no sign of an end to this conflict. The future stability of Afghanistan is, of course, an ideal we all wish for but with Americans deployed so far away from their homes and families, with our troop presence at an all-time high, and with the insurgency still on-going, we need to reassess why, 10 years later, we are still fighting a costly war with no victory or stability in sight. We have spent approximately half a trillion dollars in our war in Afghanistan. It is, therefore, past time that we remember what we've learned in the past: that fighting a war against a nationalistic guerilla organization takes more than technological superiority and force of numbers. Imagine what this resource could do on our homeland. Imagine how many schools, roads, and hospitals half a trillion dollars could build in our own country. Imagine how many hungry kids we could feed or how many of our sick we could treat. Half a trillion dollars could stamp out poverty in places like Philadelphia, Detroit, Memphis, and my hometown of Chicago. It is perplexing to me, then, why some people would rather spend half a trillion dollars on an unwinnable war abroad rather than on solutions to problems here at home. I sincerely hope that the Afghan people get to enjoy the benefits of living in a free and prosperous society. They should be free to pursue the education or livelihood of their choosing. I have great respect for our foreign policy and the fact that we care so deeply about the freedoms of those abroad but now is the time we need to be ensuring the economic freedoms of our citizens here at home. Now is the time that we must refocus on our own country and reinvest in our people and their future. Not tomorrow, not next year, but now! Our rates of unemployment and poverty, if left neglected, will only further divide a nation whose principles serve to inspire the world. The battles we should be fighting are America's war on poverty and our still-to-be-seen war against unemployment. There is terror here at home, the terror that families face when faced with the question of how they are going to pay their bills or feed their children--the terror and anxieties our citizens feel because they believe their government will simply abandon them. Once again, Mr. Speaker, that is the war we should be fighting and the one that, if we come together, I believe we can win.

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. I want to thank my leader, the ranking member of the full committee, for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2250, the Dirty Boiler Enhancement and Enabler bill. Mr. Chairman, here we go again. This bill represents yet another Republican unrestrained, unrestricted assault on the Clean Air Act and on our Nation's most fundamental environmental protection laws. In fact, since the new Republican majority has taken over, there's been a constant assault against the Environmental Protection Agency and the clean air policies that they enforce on behalf of a few of the most avaricious, opportunistic, and dirtiest polluters ever known in the history of mankind and to the detriment of the American public as a whole. Since the new Tea Party-led majority has taken control of this Congress, this body has passed bill after bill that will weaken our Nation's most basic clean air and clean water regulations. One of the very first bills that this new radical Republican majority passed out of the Energy and Commerce Committee, H.R. 910, was a direct frontal attack to the EPA's ability to even regulate greenhouse gas emissions at all, despite the warnings and evidence from those in the scientific community that these gases directly contribute to climate change. Last month, the radical Republican majority followed that up with H.R. 2401, the TRAIN Wreck Act, which will repeal and block smog, soot, mercury and air toxics standards for power plants that will potentially save thousands of lives and avoid hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks in this Nation. Now, here we are today debating H.R. 2250, the Dirty Boiler Enhancement and Enabler bill, which would vacate three Clean Air Act rules that establish the only national limits on emissions of air toxics, including mercury, from certain boilers and incinerators. This bill would require EPA to propose and finalize weaker alternative rules that will allow for more pollution than the law currently permits by intentionally making substantial changes in how the EPA sets the standards for the rules. At a minimum, this Dirty Boiler Enabler and Enhancement bill would delay EPA reductions from boilers and incinerators until at least 2018, which is a 3-year delay. Mr. Chairman, the science tells us that these dirty air toxics can cause a variety of serious health effects, including cancer, respiratory and neurological impairments, as well as reproductive problems. The research also tells us that low-income families and minorities are disproportionately affected by toxic air pollution, including impaired neurological development, as well as higher rates of respiratory and cardiovascular disease because these groups are more likely to live closer to industrial power plant facilities. In fact, by the EPA's own estimate, H.R. 2250 will allow up to tens of thousands of additional premature deaths and heart attacks and hundreds of thousands of additional asthma attacks that could have been avoided.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, it is now time that the radical Republican majority stop putting profits in the pockets of dirty polluters and stop putting dirty air in the lungs of the American people. Now is the time for the Republicans to cease their unending assault on the Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to oppose this egregious and dangerous bill.

Mr. RUSH

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

Mr. RUSH. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, let us not be distracted by this confused, backward, and short-term thinking on the part of our Republican colleagues. This bill represents just another attack on the Nation's long-standing environmental protection laws in general and the EPA in particular. On behalf of a select few polluting industries that operate under the assumption that the timing is right to permanently alter, gut, and obliterate the Clean Air Act, the law that the chairman of the subcommittee and many others have said is working on behalf of the American people. While most businesses have been planning and preparing for these rules, which have already been delayed for years and in some cases have been delayed over a decade, some of the more opportunistic dirty industries see this radical Republican majority and their radical agenda targeting the EPA and all of our clean air laws as the perfect time to try and permanently alter the Clean Air Act. Section 5 of H.R. 2250 disregards the clean air standards that will help reduce toxic air pollution, like mercury and soot from some of our Nation's biggest polluters--cement plants, industrial boilers, and incinerators. Instead, this section would make fundamental and damaging changes to the Clean Air Act and would ensure that future standards do not meaningfully reduce emissions into the air. So, Mr. Chairman, I must offer an amendment that will clarify that section 5 of H.R. 2250 is intended to supplement the provisions of and shall not be construed to supersede any requirement, limitation or other provision of sections 112 and 129 of the Clean Air Act. This single provision in section 5 will have the effect of exempting incinerators, exempting industrial boilers, and exempting cement plants from maximum reductions in toxic air pollution emissions, in contrast to every other major industrial source of toxic air pollution in this Nation. The majority, even after being asked repeatedly over and over and over again, has yet to explain why Congress should carve out exemptions for the Nation's dirtiest polluters, in total disregard for the public health of the American people and at the expense of those very companies that have already invested in the technology to meet the minimum requirements of this law. Mr. Chairman, if it is truly the majority's intent to clarify the rules and to provide certainty for business, then this amendment will accomplish that purpose; but I don't believe that that is their intent, and I don't believe that that is what their goal and objectives are. They have a singular purpose in all of these bills that we have been debating on this floor as it relates to the Clean Air Act, and that is to completely nullify and gut the Clean Air Act so that polluters in this Nation can keep on polluting the very air that we breathe. So, Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support my amendment.

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

Mr. RUSH. I yield to the ranking member.

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the life and labor of Mr. George Timothy Evans who made his heavenly transition on Sunday, October 2, 2011 at the age of 92. For 27 years, Mr. Evans served admirably as a Court Bailiff for the Illinois Appellate Court and the Illinois Supreme Court. A native of Arkansas, Mr. Evans attended Langston High School in Hot Springs, Arkansas, where he played football with former Illinois Appellate Court Justice Glenn T. Johnson, the second African-American to serve on the Illinois Appellate Court, sparking a close friendship that would be rekindled when they both ultimately moved to Chicago. Mr. Evans met his wife of more than 60 years, Tiny Marie Evans, who preceded him in death, at the Bethel AME Church in Malvern, Arkansas and was united in holy matrimony on June 2, 1942. To this union was born a son, Timothy C. Evans, the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County, and the first African-American to hold this office and a daughter, Sandra Marie (Evans) Johnson. They relocated to Chicago in 1957, at a time when Arkansas was the epicenter of bitter school integration battles, to seek better opportunities in the North. Mr. Evans served faithfully as a member of the Greater Institutional AME Church on the south side of Chicago. He was an outstanding and devoted servant of God, who dedicated his life towards making a difference in the lives of all people. Mr. Evans was a shining example of how God can use us to help make this world a better place. Mr. Speaker, I am appreciative of the life and legacy of Mr. George T. Evans and I want to encourage his family, his sons Chief Judge Timothy Evans and George Evans, daughter Sandra Johnson, sister-in-law Hazel Bailey, his grandchildren and great-grandchildren and his many friends to always remember to look to the hills from which comes all of their help. I am honored to pay tribute to this dedicated public servant and am privileged to enter these words into the Congressional Record of the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. RUSH

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

Mr. RUSH. I thank the ranking member for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I have some questions that I want to ask the Members on the other side. How much time do you need? How much time are you asking the American people to wait? How much longer do they have to wait for the EPA to finally come up with rules and regulations that will regulate the cement kiln industry, an industry that up until this date, 13 years later--13 years later--still no regulation on the cement kiln industry? Thirteen years. And then you have the audacity to come before this Congress and come before the American people and say, after 13 years, We want you to wait even longer. Another year and a half for the EPA to act on this bill and another 5 years, another 5 years before this bill will force them to comply. That's a total of 18 years, 19 years, 19\1/ 2\ years. You want the American people to continue to breathe bad air, to get diseases, cancer, lung diseases, another 19 years? How dare you come before the American people and come before this Congress and say you want more time. They've had 13 years, and most of the industries in this Nation have already complied. This one industry, the only one, the one you're trying to protect, it's the only one that's excluded. And I say we can't wait any longer. The American people can't wait any longer. Our children can't wait any longer. Our senior citizens can't wait any longer. We can't wait any longer. We cannot give them another 7 years.

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