On the recordOctober 5, 2011
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment for the simple reason that in 1999, EPA issued a rule for cement plants in which it regulated emissions from cement plants. All of us are very much aware of the health hazards of certain emissions. And that's why we support the ruling of the EPA in 1999. Now, in 2006, EPA came back with a new cement rule. But the environmental groups challenged that in court. And so as a result of that challenge, EPA went back, and they came out with the new Cement MACT rules that are the subject of our legislation today. And as we said during the general debate, the economy is unusually weak today, our unemployment is high today, and we think we need a more balanced approach than what EPA came out with in its most recent cement rule, which is in effect, but compliance is not expected until 2013. So we simply are staying that rule with this legislation asking EPA to come out with a new Cement MACT within 15 months after passage of our legislation and then give industry 5 years to comply, and longer, if the EPA administrator decides to do that. Now, looking at the history of this administrator, I can't conceive that she would be willing to give them any more than that 5 years, but that would be her choice. So I would urge the Members to oppose this amendment because we already have some basic protections in there.…





