Ed Whitfield

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).

Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Harper).

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I rise in opposition to the amendment by my friend, the gentleman from Illinois. As I sit here and listen to the other side, they seem to be making the argument that if you pass regulations, then you are going to create jobs. It reminds me of what you hear in China and Russia, with more government intervention, more government regulations. Our friends on the other side of the aisle say that's creating new jobs. Yet on this regulation, we have had hearing after hearing after hearing in which people in the business come to Congress and say we don't know that we can meet these standards in the timeframe necessary. We heard today, one cement kiln in Oregon has already spent $20 million and still cannot meet the requirements of this regulation, and they have said they are going to have to close down. We have heard testimony that of 100 cement plants in America, 18 percent of them are going to have to shut down. So how do you create jobs by issuing regulations that make people close plants and lose jobs? Now, I understand that we have a balance that we are trying to reach here, and that's the purpose of this legislation. We want to protect health. And, by the way, EPA in 1999 issued a cement regulation. And between 1999 and 2005, mercury emissions decreased by 58 percent during that time period. In 2006 they came out with a new regulation, and certain environmental groups didn't like it; so they filed a lawsuit. So as a result of that lawsuit, EPA had to come out with another regulation. So our legislation today is simply staying the most recent regulation. As I said, they issued the regulation in 2006, environmentalists filed lawsuits, and EPA had to come back and issue a new regulation. Our legislation, because of testimony that is indisputable, that plants are going to close and jobs will be lost, simply asks EPA to go back and, within 15 months after the legislation is passed, come out with a new regulation and give the industry 5 years to comply. And if the administrator of the EPA wants to give them longer than that to comply, she may. Of course we don't expect that she would do that. But we have heard about mercury today, for example. EPA in its own estimates said that the Cement MACT that they've issued would reduce mercury emissions by less than one- fourth of 1 percent of global emissions. In fact, it is so small that they did not even give a dollar value of benefits to the reduction of mercury emission by their regulation. So mercury, we know, is emitted naturally. It's also emitted globally. In fact, the Department of Energy said that 11 million pounds of mercury was emitted globally in 2005 from both natural and human resources. So this regulation that we are trying to delay is not going to have any impact on reducing mercury emissions by any significant amount. Now, we have heard a lot about why don't you pass the Obama jobs bill. That's how you create jobs, instead of fighting EPA over regulations. The United States Congress has an obligation and a responsibility to question regulations that we believe are harming the economy, and I notice in today's The Hill it said Senate Democrats bucked Obama on his jobs plan. So we are all committed to jobs, but I do not believe that issuing more regulations creates jobs when we have business owners large and small testify repeatedly that these regulations are going to lose jobs, that they are going to have to shut down plants at a time when the President wants to put more money into infrastructure needs in America, which is fine. You need cement to do that. Our plants are going to be closed, so we are going to be importing more cement from China, India, and elsewhere. So I would respectfully, though I have much admiration for my friend from Illinois, oppose this amendment.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. WHITFIELD. The amendment offered by the gentleman would set a 3- year compliance date and allow case-by-case extensions for up to 2 years if the administrator of EPA determines that there is a compelling need to do so. The purpose, of course, of this legislation is to protect health, provide feasibility and regulatory certainty, protect jobs, and minimize plant shutdowns. Under the Clean Air Act, sources already have 3 years to comply with section 112 standards for cement kilns, with a potential 1-year extension by the EPA administrator or a State- permitting authority. This amendment would allow for a second possible 1-year extension, so a source might be able to get 5 years for compliance. The amendment would impose additional regulatory burdens on both the EPA and those facilities trying to comply. It would require a facility to compile evidence to justify the need for an additional year, and would require the administrator to make a case-by-case determination about whether that justification is compelling. All of the testimony in the hearings on this indicated that the current 3-year compliance timeframe is simply not workable and a definitive period of at least 5 years is needed. And so for that reason, with all due respect, we would urge the defeat of the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. I certainly want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee for offering this amendment and particularly pointing out that it relates to animals as well as people, and I would say that from our analysis, certainly EPA considers work-related illnesses and absences when they issue these regulations, and the specific section of the bill, H.R. 2681, which the gentleman from Tennessee is amending relates to the provisions that the administrator must consider relating to the industry in trying to comply with the regulation. This amendment would add to that illness-related work absences would have to be considered as well, and we think that that would really be duplicative of what they already considered. And because of that, despite the great respect we have for the gentleman from Tennessee, I would urge that this amendment not be adopted and urge other Members to vote ``no'' on the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. I rise in opposition to this amendment for a couple of reasons. Number one, because EPA has already comprehensively and exhaustively examined the health benefits cost and every other analysis relating to their regulations. We have voluminous information about those benefits. I would also say that we've heard testimony after testimony from experts who say that you cannot in any way with certainty say how many lives are going to be saved, how many people are not going to be put in the hospital, how many cases of asthma are going to be not contracted because of passing a regulation or not passing a regulation. They have models. They come up with estimates, and there's not anything in this amendment that would provide any more certainty. And for that reason, I oppose the amendment and ask that it be defeated. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. Let me just say to you that the last 40 years, we've had a lot of economic expansion. Right now we've just come out of a recession. We have a 9.1 percent unemployment rate. Everyone's talking about jobs, and all of the testimony that we've received about these regulations indicates that jobs will be lost. So what's the difference then, if you lose a job, you lose a job? That makes unemployment rates go up. I'm not debating with you that over the last 40 years, generally speaking, we've had economic expansion and job creation, but we're in a very unique time right now, and we think that this is a time in which we need a more balanced approach to some of these regulations. Your amendment specifically looks at respiratory, cardiovascular illnesses, and death, including heart attacks, asthma attacks, and bronchitis. We know that EPA looks at all of this in its health benefits and costs, and we do not think it's necessary to specifically spell this out in our legislation. For that reason, I would respectfully oppose the amendment and ask Members to vote against the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I rise in opposition to this amendment offered by the distinguished gentleman from Virginia. I might also add that the last significant change to the Clean Air Act was back in 1990, and I don't think anyone would ever suggest that Congress does not have a right to go back and look at legislation that was passed 21 years ago and that there may be problems with some of that legislation. There is no question that we've benefited from the Clean Air Act, but there is also no question that this administration, this EPA, has been the most aggressive in recent memory. They've been passing some of the most expensive regulations ever adopted by EPA, and it's having an impact on the economy because jobs are being lost as a direct result of many of these regulations. Our bill has directed EPA to protect public health, to balance the economic needs, the jobs needs, all of this, as a part of an overall balanced view of EPA regulations.

Mr. WHITFIELD. This amendment directs the administrator of the EPA to implement current cement plants rules if emissions at cement kilns are increasing the risk of cancer. This amendment would, in effect, defeat the entire purpose of our legislation. Our bill directs EPA to protect public health, also consider jobs and the effect of that on the economy, and all the aspects of American well-being, health benefits, not just one. So we think it's important that EPA consider all public health risks, not just cancer. All of the testimony has indicated that there needs to be a more balanced approach in this cement rule issued by EPA. As you know, EPA first adopted a cement rule in 1999. They did another one in 2005. It was challenged in court. They came back with another one in 2006. That one is so vigorous that it's very difficult for the industry to meet those standards. So for the fact that this amendment is focusing only on one public health risk, and I believe that it would defeat the entire purpose of our bill, which is to protect public health, but also to strengthen the economy by preventing a loss of jobs, and to look at the entire public health benefits, for that reason I would respectfully urge the defeat of this amendment. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, thank you very much. Reclaiming my time, like I said, the purpose of our legislation is to extend it to 5 years because of the complications involved. And for that reason, I would respectfully oppose the gentlelady's amendment and ask Members to vote against the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Under the existing Clean Air Act, cement plants have 3 years to comply with section 112 standards; incinerators have 5 years to comply with section 129 standards. Because of the testimony that we heard over a series of hearings, the affected industry has indicated that they need some conformity in complying with these new regulations. As you know, there were regulations adopted in 2005 or 2006 that were invalidated by the courts. EPA came back with new regulations that were a little bit more complicated, more strenuous; and as a result of that, we've discovered that these cement industries have had difficulty complying with the 112 and 129 within the time period. So our legislation simply directs the EPA to go back, relook at the regulations, and within 15 months come back with a new regulation and then give the industry 5 years to comply on the cement side and the incinerator side. So we provide some conformity in our legislation. The gentlewoman from Texas is basically changing that back to 3 years. And the whole purpose of our legislation, because of the hearings, because of the technology required, it was quite evident that more time was needed. So we set a time period, a minimum time of 5 years to comply. The administrator of the EPA may grant additional time, if necessary, but we doubt that that would happen. So for that reason, for a pragmatic reason, I would oppose the gentlewoman's amendment so that we can have some conformity in these regulations.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much. Over the last year particularly, great attention has been paid in this country to the state of our economy; and despite all of the efforts of the bailouts, the stimulus spending and other efforts, our unemployment rate is still above 9 percent nationally. We were told that when we adopted the bailouts, when we made money available for the stimulus plans, that unemployment would be reduced in the U.S. to a maximum of 8 percent. Well, that has not come to pass. And as you talk to business leaders large and small around the country, they will tell you that one of the primary reasons that our economy has not been stimulated is because of the uncertainty that has been caused by this administration. Now, the uncertainties that I'm talking about are, number one, all of those uncertainties that are related to the health care legislation that passed in the last Congress. We know that that health care bill will not be fully implemented until the year after the year 2014. We've been told that CMS and HHS and others have already written 8,700 pages of additional regulations. It's quite clear from discussions with physicians, hospital administrators, and other health care providers that they do not know what to do. Businesses do not know what to do because they are not able to determine what the cost of health care is going to be because they still do not even know what is in the health care bill. So with the uncertainty caused by the health care legislation, the uncertainty caused by the financial regulatory regime, the raising of the capital requirements, the changing in the methods used for conducting appraisals, all of that has generated a lot of uncertainty, and it's more difficult particularly for community banks to make loans. A third area of uncertainty is related to regulations implemented by this Environmental Protection Agency. Under the administrator, Lisa Jackson, this has been the most aggressive EPA in the history of the agency. Trying to keep up with all of the regulations coming out has been very difficult to do. Lawsuits have been filed, consent decrees have been entered, court decisions have been rendered, environmental groups have been reimbursed for their legal costs, the regulations are changing; and so businesspeople are saying, we're not going to invest one dollar, much less millions of dollars, until we have some certainty about these regulations. So the uncertainty related to health care, the uncertainty related to financial regulation, and the uncertainty related to EPA regulations have been a tremendous obstacle for investment to be made and for additional jobs to be created. I think it's essential that if we're going to get this economy back on track that we have to have certainty in a lot of these areas, and that's precisely what the leadership in this House of Representatives is attempting to do. We're calling upon the leadership in the Democratic-controlled Senate to do the same thing; and the sooner that we can do that, the more likely it is that we're going to stimulate this economy. It's not going to be stimulated by additional regulation, it's not going to be stimulated by additional government expenditures, which is basically what the President's jobs plan is all about, and I might refer to today's article in The Hill and the headline that says Senate Democrats Buck Obama on Jobs Plan. So let's get back to providing certainty; and when we do that, we're going to encourage investment in our economy to create more jobs. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield back the balance of my time.