Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act of 2011

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the amendment because I'd like to make the point that Americans watching this debate, Mr. Chairman, should not be fooled into believing that there is some false choice between being able to breathe and having a job. This is just a false choice. It's a trick bag, and it's unfair to make this argument to the American people.

The fact is we can breathe and we can avoid asthma and mercury poisoning and have a job. You don't have to have one or the other. And the fact is, Mr. Chairman, is that the folks who argue against regulations that protect our health and sometimes impose a reasonable cost on industry, these folks have never liked regulations that ask business to do their fair share.

This is not a new thing. This is not unique to the cement industry. This is an ongoing ideological debate which has been going on for a long time. But thankfully, Americans recognized that we needed to breathe and work. So we passed regulations. We passed and enacted the EPA. And we brought laws and regulations into being that would protect our health. But now we're being asked to say, Your health or a job? And this is being done in the middle of one of the most dramatic recessions since the Great Depression.

The fact is, this claim that if you get rid of all the regulations these corporations are just going to spring forward and start hiring people is untrue. There's no evidence of it. I'd love to see some proof of this claim. It's not the case. And you can't tell me that if some self-interested business person comes to a hearing and says, I would hire if we could get rid of regulations, I don't buy that. I want to see some real evidence. But there is none. That's why you don't see it.

The fact is is that if you want to put people back to work today, we've got to pass the President's American Jobs Act. We ought to be on the floor talking about the President's American Jobs Act. We ought to be talking about the infrastructure bank bill. We need to be getting Americans back to work because the real reason that our economy is dragging along and unemployment is so high is because our government is not putting people back to work by investing in infrastructure, by refurbishing our school system, by putting the necessary investments into the 21st century. That's what we need to be doing, not just relieving industry of the responsibility to respect our environment and our lungs.

So I just want to say, and to say again, Mr. Chairman, that I hope the folks watching C-SPAN don't fall for the okeydoke, and be very, very careful in listening to this debate, and don't allow themselves to be fooled into thinking that they can either have a job or they can have lungs, but they can't have both.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, this amendment is very simple. All it says is that if we're going to delay these important rules, these lifesaving rules, then the EPA would be required to publish in the Federal Register the public health impact of delaying this regulation.

For example, one of the public health impacts of clean air standards for cement plants is the prevention of 17,000 cases of asthma. All we're saying is that transparency, information given to the public, so the public will know what the impact of these delayed regulations will be.

I can see no reason why Republicans wouldn't adopt a commonsense amendment like this because, quite frankly, if they feel this is such an important measure that they clearly acknowledge based on their response to the last amendment offered, they acknowledged that there will be health impacts, they most certainly would have to agree that telling the public what the health impacts will be would be a fair and important thing to do.

So my amendment is very simple. As we delay these important environmental regulations, they are proposing delaying these important environmental regulations to protect people from dirty air emitted from cement plants, let's just tell the public how many heart attacks, how many asthma attacks, how many deaths, how much mercury contamination, how much lead and arsenic will impact the health of our citizens. How much cancer. What will be the health impacts of delaying these important rules; let's print it in the Federal Register.

I'm sure that people who favor this legislation would be happy to say, you know what, yes, we're giving you cancer; yes, we're giving you heart attacks; yes, we're giving you asthma attacks, but we have to do it because we believe it'll save jobs. You have to be sick so somebody might theoretically be able to get a job in a cement plant.

The fact is, as I pointed out many times, it's a false choice between a job and a regulation. It's a false choice between economic activity and clean air and a healthy environment. But since my friends on the other end of the aisle want to make the case that we need to delay these important environmental regulations in order to promote jobs, at least let's talk about and be honest with the public about the health impacts.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ELLISON. I just want to make a few points in rebuttal.

First of all, Congresswoman Capps offered an amendment that contained the EPA findings on the health impact, and that was opposed pretty vigorously. We could have known for the public record; we would have had it there. That was opposed, though. So the response that we just heard from the other side of the aisle is interesting, to say the least.

The other important point, the fact is, if you believe this is an important measure to pass, why not disclose this to the public, let the public know what we're getting into, and I would think this would be a commonsense measure and would get approval from all sides.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source