Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, as the designee of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), I offer an amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN. No, I don't agree with you. First of all, it says ``adverse.'' I think adverse is pretty understandable. Adverse would be negative, negative.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to at this point yield 5 minutes to the very distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to put this bill in the perspective of what the House has been doing on the environment. The House has voted 136 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 in coastal areas, and to weaken the protections of the environment in other ways as well. This is the most anti-environment Congress in history. Last month, the House passed radical legislation to turn back 40 years of progress towards clean air. That bill will nullify pollution control requirements on power plants--the largest source of toxic mercury pollution in the country--and weaken our national clean air goals by basing them on corporate profits, not on public health. Today, the House continues its frontal assault on public health and the environment. The bills we will consider this week are the next phase of the Republican concerted attack on our environment. The bills would gut the Clean Air Act provisions that protect American families from toxic air pollutants. If these bills are 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, the Congress, on a bipartisan basis, voted to protect the public from these toxic pollutants. The law directed EPA to set standards requiring the use of a 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 this Nation. But a large source of categories still have not been required to control toxic air pollution due to delays and litigation. The bill we consider today would nullify and indefinitely delay EPA's efforts to reduce toxic emissions from cement plants. Now, the chairman of the subcommittee said this is a commonsense bill. It's only for a short delay. He said that cement plants would have up to 5 years to comply with pollution control requirements. And you might think, well, a little bit more time is not going to do that much harm. But that is not a correct statement of what this bill would do. The bill says that EPA cannot require any pollution reduction from any cement plant for at least 5 years. So it's 5 years before they can do anything at EPA. And then there's no deadline thereafter where the facilities ever have to comply. That, to me, is not a simple, commonsense approach to a very dangerous pollution. Later this week, we are going to have consideration of a bill to indefinitely delay pollution controls on industrial boilers and waste incinerators. Both of these bills would rewrite the standard provisions of the Clean Air Act to weaken the levels of protection and set up new hurdles for EPA rules. We're 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. We're going to need more factory workers. We're going to need to build the pollution controls. We're going to need construction workers to install them on-site, cement plant employees to operate them. We hear this all the time, these statements that pollution controls will cost us jobs. But these arguments have been thoroughly debunked by independent experts. For instance, the Congressional Research Service examined one and concluded ``little credence can be placed in these estimate of job losses.'' The State and local air pollution agencies concluded that one study's assumptions are grossly in error. It's my hope that this body will not be so easily misled. It was lack of regulation at Wall Street--on the banks and the brokers and the other people who spent their time figuring out very crafty investments for which nothing backed them up--that caused this recession, not because we had environmental regulations that protect children from toxic mercury emissions. I oppose these bills on substance, and I also have concerns about the process. But let me go into concern about the process. We were told this is a small issue. It depends on how you look at it. These bills are bad enough to oppose simply on the basis of what they would do. But it shows how the Republican majority in this House wants to adopt rules and regulations on themselves but then not abide by them. The House didn't change the rules, but the majority leader said we have a protocol that, whenever we have a discretionary CutGo rule in the legislative protocols for the 112th Congress, we must have funding authorized to make up for the extra requirement that's going to be required of any government agencies. And this requires a specific amount to be offset by a reduction in an existing authorization. The majority leader announced that compliance with these protocols would be necessary before legislation could be scheduled for floor consideration. We had a similar situation where Chairman Upton said that our committee would follow this discretionary CutGo rule. He sent me a letter, which I'll make part of the record, in June to clarify this discretionary CutGo policy will apply to pending bills before our committee. ``If CBO determines,'' he said, ``that any of these bills will have a significant impact on the Federal budget, we'll offset the newly authorized spending with reductions elsewhere.'' Well, CBO has determined that both of these bills that are on the floor this week will, in fact, authorize new discretionary spending. I read one of the quotes from a Republican staff person. We don't need to worry about it because it doesn't really authorize new spending. CBO says it does. They determine these bills will have a significant impact on the Federal budget because of the bill's requirement the EPA spend resources on proposing and finalizing new regulations. They said it's only going to cost $2 million over a 5-year period. That's not a lot of money, but it is money, and that's why the Republicans had this protocol. They said we didn't want any money being spent without it being offset. Now, this is not a rule. We don't have to waive this rule. But what we have is not a waiver of this rule. We have the Republicans ignoring their own protocol and their own policies. The American people need to focus on the radical agenda of the Republicans that are controlling this House of Representatives. I don't think when the Republicans were voted into office the American people voted for poisoning more children with mercury and letting more of our seniors die prematurely because of uncontrolled pollution. I oppose this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have in front of me the bill, and it says, whatever regulations the EPA is proposing--and it's taken them a decade to finally come up with these regulations--it'll be null and void. It will have no force of action. It will be treated as though such rule had never taken effect. And then it's going to be replaced. Now, how is it going to be replaced? Well, it says we're not going to let them replace this rule for 5 years. Well, during this period of time, people are still being exposed to these toxic pollutants. So it says, not earlier--they'll establish compliance and they'll establish new regulations, but nobody has to do anything for 5 years. But then it doesn't say at any time about when you have to actually come into compliance, which, of course, in existing law is set in place. That's repealed. And then it goes on to say they're going to have to meet a different standard. The standard that's in the law is going to be replaced by some other standard that basically waters it all down. The standard in the law, by the way, is the maximum achievable control technology. That means technology that already achieves reductions. But that will be wiped out. They'll have a new standard. It can't be pursuant to the regulation; the regulation can't come out for 5 years; we don't know when it would ever be complied with; and it would be based on a different standard. That is not simple. That is in effect saying nothing is going to be done. We repeal what is being set in law, and then we are going to insist that nothing be done. That to me is an absurdity, and it's harmful to the public that's going to be exposed to these harmful chemicals. I would at this time yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), who is the lead appropriator on our side of the aisle when it comes to these kinds of issues.

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield myself 2 minutes. I want to acknowledge that the gentleman from Oregon is pointing out a real problem for his district, but it is a unique problem in his district because the limestone that's used in the kiln has a high content of mercury. I understand that EPA is trying to work through that issue, but I do want to point out to my colleagues that this example should not serve as the basis for this bill that's before us. We've heard over and over again from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that 99 percent of the mercury in America comes from nature, from outside other countries that the trade winds bring here to our land. Chairman Barton even said most mercury that's emitted is emitted by natural causes. In 2000, EPA estimated that roughly 60 percent--not 99 percent as Mr. Whitfield pointed out--of the total mercury deposited in the United States comes from anthropogenic air emission sources within the United States, such as from power plants, incinerators, boilers, cement kilns, and others, and that the remaining 40 percent comes from the combination of sources of natural emissions and remission into the United States from the wind. It hasn't changed much since the year 2000. An example is one study by the University of Michigan, which found that the majority of mercury deposited at a monitoring site in eastern Ohio came from local and regional sources. EPA estimated that 80 percent of the mercury deposited in Pines Lake, New Jersey, comes from man-made U.S. sources. There was a bit of peer-reviewed scientific study that found two-thirds to three-quarters of the annual global mercury emissions are caused by human activity. So let us not minimize the problem where those who are living near these facilities are experiencing a great deal of harm. I reserve the balance of my time.

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, may I inquire if the gentleman from Kentucky has more than one speaker?

Mr. WAXMAN. May I inquire, Mr. Chairman, which side has the prerogative to close?

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the EPA has been working on this regulation since the 1990s. Under the 1990 law, they are required to put in place a regulation to protect from these toxic pollutants. They are required to be put into place by the year 2000. They tried, thrown it out of court, they have now tried again, and they have already proposed a rule that is now going to be repealed by this legislation. So it's taken them over a decade to finally get to this point. It's a long, overdue rule that requires cement kilns to reduce their emissions of toxic air pollutants. EPA estimates that this rule will reduce mercury emissions from cement kilns by 16,400 pounds, or 92 percent, compared with projected levels, that is, if they are allowed to remain in effect; and they also had to do a cost-benefit analysis. They said that this rule will yield $7 to $19 in health benefits for every dollar that's spent to meet the standards and will prevent up to 2,500 premature deaths and 17,000 asthma attacks each year. So EPA has been mindful of the costs and the benefits. The bill before us effectively vacates the cement rules, kiln rules, nullifies these health benefits, forces EPA to start all over again. They give EPA 15 months to come up with more regulation, and then they bar EPA from enforcing any final rules for at least 5 years. During all this time--and we have no guarantee after 5 years if anything will happen--cement kilns will avoid having to clean up their toxic air pollution, maybe indefinitely. The bill threatens EPA's ability to ever reissue limits on toxic air pollution from cement kilns. This bill that's before us would set a new and unworkable methodology. They're not looking at the methodology that Congress provided to at least use the maximum achievable control limits. They will simply be told they have to take a subjective approach that lumps all pollutants together, and then they have to decide whether emitting more mercury but less lead is better or worse for public health than the reverse. It's an impossible choice. It's going to guarantee years of litigation. The bill prevents EPA from setting any emission limits at all. Under this legislation, it would require EPA to select regulatory alternatives that are the least burdensome. But the ``least burdensome'' to cement kilns does not mean that we will get the option that provides the best public health benefits. In effect, the bill would exempt cement kilns from ever having to achieve meaningful reductions in toxic air pollution. So in other words, they postpone the time for regulation, then postpone for 5 more years compliance with that regulation. They change the standard from the maximum achievable under existing technology to something else. The something else is the least burdensome to the kilns. And during all that time, we will have people exposed to these toxic pollutants. This strikes me as not a simple, fair-minded approach. It's turning our back on the purpose of the Clean Air Act. It's turning our back on the harm that's going to be done, especially to children, from the poisoning they'll get from the mercury levels from the cement kilns. I think this is inexcusable legislation. I think we ought to stay with the work done by the EPA, not pass a law, tell them to do the job, and then wipe out their work after 11 years and say we want another decade or more to get around to doing regulations that should have already been in place long ago. I want you to know that many organizations oppose this regulation. You would expect all of the public health groups and the environmental groups, but even sporting organizations and outdoor groups and the people who work in the field at the State level on air pollution matters tell us: Do not support this legislation. I urge opposition to it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, chronic exposure to carcinogens, neurotoxins, and other dangerous chemicals can take a terrible toll on people's health, particularly in communities that live in the shadows of major sources of pollution. I have next to me here a diagram, a picture of cement kilns next to an elementary school. Everyone in this Chamber probably knows someone who's been stricken by cancer or who has a child with a learning disability or birth defect. Environmental pollution does not cause all cancers or every health problem, but numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies tell us that chemicals classified as carcinogens cause cancers, and those cancers sicken and kill real people. Chemicals classified as neurotoxins damage the nerve system. They pose a particular threat to infants and developing brains. These effects are significant, tragic, and avoidable. That's why Republicans and Democrats together voted in 1990 to strengthen the Clean Air Act to require dozens of industry sectors to step up and install modern pollution controls on their facilities. The American people were tired of having their communities harmed by toxic air pollution. They didn't want to live in fear that the factory down the road would give their children cancer or damage their baby's brain. We made a promise to the American people that EPA would require polluters to cut their emissions of mercury, lead, dioxins, and other air pollutants linked to serious health effects. The Clean Air Amendments of 1990 set up an effective program to reduce toxic air pollution. It would achieve cost effective pollution reductions by simply requiring facilities to use pollution controls that others in their industry were already using. Since 1990, EPA has set these emission standards for more than 100 different categories of industrial sources. They've reduced emissions of carcinogens and other highly toxic chemicals by 1.7 million tons each year. But today, this Chamber is seriously proposing to just let these cement kilns pollute our communities with impunity. Cement kilns are one of the largest sources of mercury pollution. For far too long, they were allowed to pollute without installing modern technology to reduce their emissions. In August of last year, EPA finally issued standards they've been working on since the late 1990s. EPA estimated these rules will reduce mercury emissions from cement kilns by 16,400 pounds, or 92 percent, compared with projected levels. The rules would also cut emissions of hydrocarbons by 83 percent and particulate matter by 92 percent. But the bill that's before us would nullify those rules, and they would force EPA to start all over again with another rulemaking, using new and unworkable criteria. These long overdue public health protections will be delayed, at a minimum, for 6 more years and maybe forever. And the bill doesn't just delay. By changing the approach adopted in 1990, it threatens EPA's very ability to issue replacement standards for cement kilns that will achieve any meaningful reductions in mercury pollution. EPA testified before our committee, and they said that this legislation would create new legal ambiguities that would tie up the new rule in litigation for years. Other clean air lawyers testified this bill would eviscerate the ability of the law to control air toxics for cement kilns. But the Republicans have charged forward in what amounts to legislative negligence. And they say reassuring things like, this is a commonsense, minor approach delaying it for a little while. Well, we cannot afford additional delays. We cannot afford to lose these protections altogether. All across America, communities are living in the shadow of these plants. And I again refer you to this picture. These are plants next door to an elementary school, and nearby these kids and their families live. And the closer you live, the more exposed you are. All of these people who live near these facilities are running a very high risk for dreaded diseases. Mercury is a potent neurotoxin. Reams of scientific 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 will never reach their full potential. That is why I ask that we support this amendment that says, in effect, let's not wait any longer when it comes to something that deals with poisoning our kids from mercury.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I do want to respond to the gentleman who just spoke about how they're going to shut down these plants. Why do they have to shut down the plants? If they have to put in a control technology that's already being used somewhere else in the country to reduce that mercury pollution, that other cancer-causing pollution, they put the equipment in. They pay for it. Now, cement kilns are having financial problems, not because of these regulations, but because of the low demand for cement. The industry admits this on their Web site, and they have a problem. But we are telling them that when the economy starts picking up, they'll get a greater demand. But we also want to make sure that they put in the control technology. They don't have to close just simply to do that.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. If I might reclaim my time, I think the gentleman is absolutely right. The gentleman from Kentucky said that they had a witness that said it's irrefutably true that they're going to lose all of these jobs. That same witness urged our committee to repeal the Clean Air Act, which seems like what the Republicans would like to do, but they want to do it bit by bit. This amendment before us by Mr. Rush addresses one of the most egregious provisions of the bill. It changes the requirement. It changes the standard. And it would set up a standard that would be litigated for many, many more years. He talked about how long they have been let off the hook. They'll wait many years after that because the courts will have to decide it. What his proposal is and this pending amendment is to say this bill would be in addition to a standard that's already in place, and that standard is to require the use of a maximum achievable control technology to control the emissions of mercury, arsenic, dioxin, PCBs, and other toxic emissions. This is not a pie-in-the-sky technology. It's requiring technology that's already being used at the present time. And so it would set up a floor for each toxic air pollutant that reflects the emission levels that are actually being achieved in the real world. The bill before us would strike that and replace it with a requirement that would be the least burdensome on the industry, even if it's the least effective in stopping the harm to children and others from the mercury and other toxic pollutants. So I rise in support of the Rush amendment. I urge my colleagues to adopt it. It simply states that we're not replacing the requirement that's in the law. A requirement would be added onto it, and it would clarify that EPA should set numeric emission limits to reduce the air toxic pollution from cement kilns unless such limits are not feasible as described in the statute. I urge my colleagues to support the Rush amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time. Announcement by the Acting Chair

Mr. WAXMAN. Reclaiming my time, I did understand you to say that, and I just can't think of that as a credible statement because we've already had a drop of nearly 50 percent since 2006 of cement in the United States. That didn't mean we brought in more from China. In fact, our demand, our imports from anywhere else declined by more than 80 percent. So it's not a question of we're going to have to come from China; we just don't have the demand. I think we should take the cement industry at their word, when the Portland Cement Association tells us the cost of shipping cement prohibits profitable distribution over long distances. We can continue with our own industry and still meet these health-based standards. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair and my colleagues, this amendment simply states the finding of the science. It simply says that Congress finds that mercury released into the ambient air from cement kilns, addressed by these rules listed in 2(b) of this act, is a potent neurotoxin that can damage the development of infants' brains. That's the finding. It's a scientific finding. As I heard the argument of the gentleman from Kentucky, the chairman of the subcommittee, he said it depends on how much you've ingested and all that, but nobody's talking about that. This is just a finding of the science. He also indicated there is no finding in this bill. So what? This is an amendment to the bill. EPA didn't put a dollar figure on the potential health benefits from reducing the emissions of mercury, carcinogens, and other toxic pollutants. It's not that there won't be any benefits. EPA simply couldn't produce a well-supported dollar value estimate of those benefits given the time and methodological constraints. So I don't see how anybody can oppose this amendment, because it simply states a scientific fact. Let me be very concrete about it. This is a simple statement of a scientific fact. If Congress wants to go on record, as we already have in other legislation, that we don't believe in science, you can do it, but it doesn't wish the scientific finding away. Mercury exposure in the womb, which can result from a mother's consumption of mercury-tainted fish and shellfish, can adversely affect the developing brain and nervous system. You can't wish that away. You can't vote it down and say that it's not true. Babies that were exposed to mercury in utero can suffer long-term problems with cognitive thinking, memory, attention, language, and fine motor and visual spatial skills. You can't say that's not true. That's what the scientists have concluded. In 1990, we adopted the Clean Air Act. We asked that these cement kilns and other polluters reduce those pollutants because they are toxic air pollutants. The Schakowsky amendment says there is a scientific basis for this law. She repeats the science. Republicans can amend the Clean Air Act and say we're not going to do anything about it, but they cannot amend the laws of nature. They cannot change the scientific reality. I must also point out with this bill that, not only are Republicans urging that we deny the scientific reality, but they want to make sure we don't do anything about that scientific reality. The Schakowsky amendment doesn't change that. It only says that we ought to face the scientific fact, as I indicated, which is the overwhelming scientific consensus. I don't know anybody who's against this scientific consensus. If we vote against her amendment, we're denying the scientific fact that mercury is a potent neurotoxin that can damage the development of an infant's brain. I don't see how anybody could vote against that. Even if you want to postpone the rules, even if you want to give the EPA more time and make the industry have to avoid coming into compliance for 10, 16, 18, 20 years, whatever it may be, it's irrefutable. This is the reason we want these rules in place. Otherwise, the Republicans ought to say, ``We don't want the rules in place,'' because there's no reason to have these rules. If that's what they believe, then they can vote against the Schakowsky amendment, but it doesn't make any sense. I don't know if I have any remaining time, but I would be happy to yield to the gentlelady from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) if she wants to say anything more.

Mr. WAXMAN. I'll not even take that 30 seconds. This is a question of voting on the scientific conclusion, so I urge my colleagues to vote for the Schakowsky amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.