On the recordOctober 5, 2011
I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think we can all agree on some things. I think Mr. Waxman would agree and Mr. Moran, number one, that we want to preserve American jobs if we can; but I think, number two, we don't want to compromise our health standards. There has been a lot of talk today about we have to either do one or the other, but I think we can do both. Now, if you'll look at the EU, which passed what they call the ``gold standard'' on emissions from cement plants, they determined that mercury they could bring down to .05. What has the EPA said? They've said they want to bring it down to .01. That's five times more restrictive than in Europe. .5, which is the European standard, is about four times more strict than in Mexico. I think we all agree that even the EPA said we'd close 20 percent of our factories, but we would get that cement, according to the Congressional Budget Office, from Mexico, which is polluting our air and does not have nearly the standards we have. So if mercury is a problem, why would we shift production to something that is four times more dangerous than even that of the European Union? On the other hand, as to the European Union, which is the strictest on environmental standards in the world now, why are their standards so bad? They don't go below this. One reason with mercury is it is naturally occurring.…
Source
govinfo.gov




