Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. I support the amendment. It returns the bill if it became law to what are the times specified in the Clean Air Act. And I think those times are reasonable. But let me just say that EPA is working on these regulations, these rules. This is not a finished product. I believe they're taking into consideration concerns raised by the boiler industry, especially the paper and pulp industry. There have been very important and legitimate concerns that they have raised. They want to know if they can continue to use the same traditional fuels that they had been using. They don't want to be considered incinerators, because they're not. They want to know what the rules are, they want some certainty, and they want some time to comply with them. These things are under discussion at the EPA, and industry is weighing in and letting its feelings be known. Should the Environmental Protection Agency need legislation, which they may or may not, we ought to stand ready to be of assistance. I do not think the industry really wants to throw out the Clean Air Act and to allow mercury to be considered nothing, no problem, which is what you would expect when you hear the debate on the Republican side of the aisle. I don't think they would like all of this issue of public health to be so minimized as we hear in the Republican debate. This is not a practical solution. This is a blunt instrument that the Republicans are putting forward that will not become law. So let reasonable people talk about the issue and try to resolve it. If we're needed to pass legislation, then let's pass reasonable legislation and get something done, not just show that the Republican Party is being macho about jobs when they take a report that's not even based on what EPA's rules are going to be and claim that it costs all these jobs, which has already been debunked when they put forward this report when it was based on the original EPA rule. So I urge support for this amendment. And we ought to get on with the job of working on what can become law and not just fighting this fight of science denial and minimizing health risk which we hear from the Republican side of the aisle. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, yesterday Republicans told us they aren't opposed to clean air, but we just can't afford it right now. And as their bills have no deadline for ever cleaning up toxic air pollution from these sources, it appears that they don't think we can ever afford clean air even in the future. The truth is we can't afford to wait for clean air any longer, and here's why. Mercury is a potent neurotoxin. Numerous scientific studies from around the world 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. EPA has estimated that about 7 percent of women of childbearing age are exposed to mercury at a level capable of causing adverse effects in the developing fetus. That may not sound like a big number, but that translates into thousands and thousands of children who may never reach their full potential. Toxic pollution can have tragic consequences. That's why Republicans and Democrats, alike, voted in 1990 to strengthen the Clean Air Act to require dozens of industry sectors to install modern pollution controls on their facilities. And since then, EPA has set emission standards for more than 100 different categories of industrial sources. The standards simply require facilities to use pollution controls that others in their industry are already using. They are based on maximum achievable control technology. EPA's approach has been successful. Emissions standards for these industrial sources have reduced emissions of carcinogens, mercury, and other highly toxic chemicals by 1.7 million tons each year. But a few major industrial sources so far have escaped regulation, and the Republicans appear to be on a mission to help them continue to evade emissions limits on toxic air pollution. Coal-fired power plants are one major industrial source of hazardous air pollutants. In fact, they are the largest U.S. source of airborne mercury pollution. But just a couple of weeks ago, the Republicans passed the TRAIN Act to nullify EPA's rules to cut toxic air pollution from those sources. Yesterday, we debated whether or not cement kilns, another major source of mercury, should have to clean up--the Republicans said ``no''--and today, we are talking about incinerators and dirty boilers at industrial facilities across the country, including chemical plants, refineries, and large manufacturing facilities. H.R. 2250 nullifies EPA's rules to clean up toxic air pollution from these sources and requires EPA to issue new rules using confusing and unworkable criteria. These long overdue public health protections will be delayed for years. That's unacceptable for the people who live near a solid waste incinerator or a chemical plant using a dirty boiler. These communities already have been waiting for more than a decade for EPA to clean up these facilities. My amendment is straightforward. It states that EPA can continue to require an incinerator or a facility using a dirty boiler to clean up its toxic air pollution if that facility is emitting mercury or other toxic pollutants that are damaging infants' developing brains. This amendment simply clarifies our choice: allow polluters to continue to harm infants and children on the one hand, which is what the Republicans would allow, or require facilities that are actually harming our kids to reduce their pollution. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and protect our children's future. I know we hear a lot about jobs and we hear a lot about the economy. Our economy will not recover if our children's minds are not allowed to fully develop, if we don't have a population of young people that can be born healthy, can get educated, can learn, and can produce a good life for themselves, their families, and for our Nation's economy. So please support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN. I just want to point out to my colleagues that what the bill does is repeals the previous rule, regulation, and then prohibits EPA from adopting another regulation for 15 months. And when they adopt another regulation, it can't be enforced for another 5 years. And then there's no deadline. But meanwhile, they lower the standard for EPA in setting that regulation. EPA is in the process now of negotiating with the industry to work out the information and the problems that have been brought to their attention. We ought to give EPA the chance to do that and get the full input from the industry. If legislation is needed, we ought to consider what legislation is needed. The approach of this bill is to set us back enormously. When you don't have anything in place but the weakest possible criteria, and then nothing can happen for 5 years, and maybe even longer because it takes 15 months to get the regulation, no enforcement for 5 years after that--and maybe never--that's not a reasonable approach. If the industry wants a law, the industry ought to work on telling us what they need, and not going on this escapade with the Republicans who would like to repeal the whole Clean Air Act and repeal the ability of the EPA to protect the public from toxic pollution. And, of course, the amendment that's before us is that insofar as this bill becomes law, when we're talking about poisoning children's brains, we're not going to stop EPA from getting their regulations in place and getting them enforced. It's obscene to think, the idea that we would wait another 6\1/2\ years, and maybe longer, before we can do anything to start down the road to reduce the pollution that's going to poison these kids. I ask for an ``aye'' vote on the amendment, and I hope that people realize this is a bill that will pass the House, but in my view, given the President's statement of a veto, it's not going to become law. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank you for yielding to me. I want to join you in urging support for this amendment. Whatever the motivation is of your legislation--and I can understand your reason for being very skeptical. I share it. But what the industry should want is regulatory certainty. And this bill adds more confusion to what is already a long overdue effort to reduce toxic air pollution from boilers and incinerators. With no timeline for implementation of new emissions standards, the bill creates significant questions about how EPA would set limits for toxic air pollution. If they think it's regulatory certainty that they don't have to do anything for years, they'd better not count on it. And if they want regulatory certainty, they'd better come forward and work something out. In the meantime, your clarification provides the certainty, and I urge Members to support it.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN. I support this amendment, and I want to congratulate the gentlelady from California for offering this amendment. Her constituents should be rightfully proud of the fact that she is fighting for them and for the good health of the American people. Her amendment recognizes the fact that we've made great progress on air pollution in this country because we've had a strong Clean Air Act and because we've let EPA do its job under both Democratic and Republican administrations. But let's not pretend that the job is done. In the 10 worst polluted areas--these are the worst polluted, nonattainment areas in the country--every day, people are breathing unhealthy levels of air pollution, and they're going to emergency rooms because the air outside is making them sick. And every day, some are dying before their time. In the summer, cities and towns across the country have red alerts, and moms are afraid to let their kids play outside. There's something fundamentally wrong with that. Despite the progress we've made, we need to make sure that we cut these air pollutants that are very, very harmful. We've been talking a lot today about mercury, but the EPA boiler rules would reduce the emissions of fine particle pollution, which can lodge deep in the lungs and cause serious health effects. Living in the United States should not be a health risk, and I hope that we will not vote to nullify these EPA boiler rules and also nullify the health benefits in these various polluted areas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. Today's debate is going to seem awfully familiar to anyone that's been paying attention. Today's debate will remind us of the bill we passed in April to block any requirements to control carbon pollution; and the bill we passed in June to loosen pollution controls on oil companies; and the bill we passed in September to gut the Clean Air Act and block pollution controls on power plants; and the bill we debated yesterday to ensure cement kilns don't have to clean up their toxic air pollution. In total, the House has voted 146 times this Congress to block action to address climate change, to halt efforts to reduce air and water pollution, to undermine protections for public lands and coastal areas, and to weaken the protection of the environment in other ways. This is the most anti-environment Congress in history. Today, the House continues its frontal assault on public health and the environment. The bill we consider today would nullify and indefinitely delay EPA's efforts to reduce toxic emissions from industrial boilers and waste incinerators. If this bill is enacted, there will be more cases of cancer, birth defects, and brain damage. The ability of our children to think and learn will be impaired because of their exposure to mercury and other dangerous air pollutants. In 1990, Congress adopted a bipartisan approach to protect the public from toxic substances. The law directed EPA to set standards requiring the use of Maximum Achievable Control Technology to control emissions of mercury, arsenic, dioxin, PCBs, and other toxic emissions. This approach has worked well. Industrial emissions of carcinogens and other highly toxic chemicals have been reduced by 1.7 million tons each year. EPA has reduced pollution from dozens of industrial sectors. More than 100 categories of sources have been required to cut their pollution, and this has delivered major public health benefits to the Nation. But a few large source categories still have not been required to control toxic air pollution due to delays and litigation. Now that pollution controls are finally being required on industrial boilers and waste incinerators, this bill would intervene and delay pollution controls indefinitely. It would also rewrite the standard-setting provisions in the Clean Air Act to weaken the level of protection and set up new hurdles for EPA rules. We're told that this bill simply gives EPA the time they requested to get the rules right. Well, the EPA has not requested this from Congress, and the President has said he'll veto this bill if it gets to his desk. We're also told that we need to pass these bills because the threat of EPA regulation is dragging down our economy. The reality is that requiring installation of pollution controls will create jobs. Fabricators and factory workers build the pollution controls, construction workers install them on site, and industry employees operate them. We'll hear over and over today, as we've heard in the past, about self-serving industry studies that claim pollution controls will cost us jobs. These studies have been thoroughly debunked by independent experts. For instance, the Congressional Research Service examined the key study by the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners and concluded that it was so flawed that ``little credence can be placed in these estimates of job losses.'' It's my hope this body will not be so easily misled. It was the lack of regulation of Wall Street banks that caused this recession, not environmental regulations that protect children from toxic mercury emissions. I oppose these bills on the substance, but I also have concerns about the process as well. When Congress organized at the beginning of the year, the majority leader announced that the House would be following a discretionary CutGo rule. Similarly, Chairman Upton on our committee stated that he'd be following that same discretionary CutGo rule. Well, CBO has determined that the bill we consider today authorizes new discretionary spending and will have significant impact on the Federal budget.

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds. However, this new authorization is not offset and the bill does not comply with the Republican's discretionary CutGo policy. It is not discretionary in the sense that they have discretion whether to follow it or not, but discretionary spending when it is mandated in a bill must be paid for. The American people need to focus on the radical agenda of the Republicans that control the House of Representatives. I don't think when the Republicans were voted into office the American people wanted poisoning more children with mercury and letting more of our seniors die prematurely because of uncontrolled air pollution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, before I recognize the subcommittee chairman, I want to indicate to the gentleman from Ohio who just spoke, Mr. Latta, that he was giving a speech on the wrong rule, that this bill does not pertain to the rule that he mentioned in his comments. I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment.

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I wish to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, before I yield, I want to set the record straight. Our distinguished colleague on the other side of the aisle said that this bill would provide 15 months to promulgate a rule and then 5 years to comply. There are 15 months to promulgate the rule, but there's no requirement that there ever be compliance. I want to also point out that this argument about jobs being lost is absolutely wrong for four reasons, and four reasons you shouldn't believe them. First, the claims are based on fundamentally flawed studies, bought and paid for by the regulated industry. Second, the rules are stayed. EPA is in the process of redoing them, and not one of these studies has analyzed the actual final rule. Third, EPA has done a rigorous 251-page economic analysis, and found that the boiler rules issued in February would be expected to create over 2,000 jobs. And finally, history tells us to be very, very skeptical of industry claims that the sky is falling. EPA is in the process of rewriting these rules. I say to the industry, let us work together to fashion legislation that will solve the immediate problems, a bill that can be signed by the President, not this bill, which may never see the light of day out of the Senate, and if it did, the President has indicated he would veto it. I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow), a member of our committee.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. I rise in support of the Capps amendment. The Capps amendment doesn't change the bill. It allows the bill to go into effect, but the amendment would simply add the health benefits findings in the legislation. It doesn't change what the bill does, but it does provide crucial context for the bill's provisions. Now, I should point out that the bill, itself, nullifies the cement kiln rules and forces EPA to start all over again. In doing so, the bill nullifies all of these health benefits such as fewer asthma attacks, avoided premature deaths, reduced exposure to toxic pollution. In its place the bill offers no guarantee that any new rules will have to achieve the same level of public health protection. So the Capps amendment ensures that we have an honest accounting of the health benefits that the Republican leadership says we should erase because they just aren't worth it. Well, I would urge that we vote for the Capps amendment because this finding is important for Members to have so that they understand they're voting with their eyes wide open to eliminate those very health benefits. I just want to respond to this business about China. It's like we're going to close down cement plants and bring it all into the United States from China. Well, that just doesn't make a lot of sense. That's just not credible. U.S. clinker output has dropped nearly 50 percent since 2006, but the imports have declined by more than 80 percent. How could that be? Well, there's a lack of demand. That's the reason we have a problem. The domestic cement industry is regional in nature. According to the Portland Cement Association, the cost of shipping cement prohibits profitable distribution over long distances. As a result, customers traditionally purchase cement from local sources. If we're not producing more cement, it's not because we're bringing it in from China. It's because the demand is not there. Now, the findings that the Capps amendment would put into place are based on the EPA's economic analysis that has to follow criteria set by the Office of Management and Budget. So they're based on peer-reviewed studies. They're transparent. They're subject to public comment. They're reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. The industry studies meet none of these criteria. Members can get up here and say numbers of jobs that will be lost, but we don't know where those numbers have come from. We haven't seen any peer-reviewed studies. In 40 years of experience in implementing the Clean Air Act, we've heard these predictions of disaster time after time, and yet the economy has continued to grow. Chicken Little has nothing on industry when it comes to requirements to clean up pollution. So when we hear that we can't protect our children from toxic pollution, from brain damage, from cancers because plants will close down, I would urge my colleagues not to believe it. I don't think we have to make that stark choice. And if you're going to make that stark choice, don't oppose the findings being in the bill because you don't like those findings, you don't want to face those findings. I think we ought to have them in the bill because that's exactly what we're going to do. So if you're going to support this bill, then support it with the understanding that those public health benefits will be lost.

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

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