"Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk (Rush #01).
"Mr. Chairman, cement kilns are a major source of mercury pollution and other toxic air pollution.
"Until last year, cement kilns had managed to avoid any sort of requirement to reduce these emissions.
"In August, EPA finalized requirements for cement kilns to use readily available technology to cut their pollution.
"This bill nullifies these new health standards and requires EPA to go back to the drawing board.
"Supporters of this bill argue that it will provide certainty to industry, when in fact, it does precisely the opposite.
"First, as we've discussed previously, this bill allows for an indefinite delay of the cement rules, so that industry has no idea when it will have to comply with new emissions limits, if at all.
"Additionally, as written, Section 5 of H.R. 2681 will raise legal uncertainty and ambiguity for industry, for the EPA, and the Courts over whether the language contained in this bill should modify or supersede existing provisions of the Clean Air Act, which were designed to achieve maximum reductions in toxic air pollution.
"This section requires EPA to set emissions standards for cement kilns that can be met "consistently and concurrently."
"It also requires the EPA to select the "least burdensome" regulatory alternative even if a stronger standard is feasible and would provide more public health benefits.
"While words like "least burdensome' and "consistent' and "concurrent' sound reasonable, in this case they are misleading.
"The Clean Air Act requires EPA to set toxic air pollution standards for cement kilns based on numeric emissions levels that cleaner facilities are actually achieving today in the real world.
"Not in a lab, but in the real world.
"However, Section 5 could replace the existing criteria for the EPA to set numeric emissions standards with a requirement that EPA must always choose the "least burdensome" regulatory option, including just requiring work practice standards, even if that option doesn't go far enough to protect public health and other feasible options are available.
"I've been arguing that this section could gut the Clean Air Act and has the potential to weaken public health protections, because the language in the bill is ambiguous.
"Does the bill intend to replace the existing criteria and let polluters off the hook? Or does it intend to give the EPA direction where they already have some discretion?
"Even for the policymakers that are responsible for enacting this legislation it is as unclear to us as it will be to them
"My amendment would clarify that Section 5 of H.R. 2681 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 amendment clarifies the rules and provides certainty for the EPA, industry, and the courts.
"Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support my amendment and with that I yield back the balance of my time."
"Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of contagious bipartisanship, I offer this amendment."