Mr. WAXMAN. This amendment simply states a scientific fact: Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that can damage the development of an infant's brain. In 2000, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that the data linking neurodevelopment effects to mercury exposure is extensive. So what do we hear from the Republican side of the aisle? Science denial. When we talked about climate change and all the impact of the greenhouse gases, they said there's no problem. Science denial.

Well, let me just say that the Republican majority in the House can vote to amend the Clean Air Act, but they cannot vote to amend the laws of nature. Babies born to women exposed to mercury during pregnancy can suffer from [Page: H6706] a range of developmental and neurological abnormalities, including delayed onset of walking, delayed onset of talking, cerebral palsy, and lower neurological test scores. The National Academy of Sciences estimates each year about 60,000 children may be born in the U.S. with neurological problems that could lead to poor school performance because of exposure to mercury in utero. The effects of mercury exposure in utero are insidious and long term.

Now, why are we hearing that this isn't a scientific fact? Well, I heard a distinction of mercury and mercury when it's mixed with other chemicals. I think what we have here is, make up the science as you go along but deny the science that the scientists have worked for decades establishing.

Boilers and incinerators are one of the largest sources of airborne mercury pollution in the U.S. For far too long they have been allowed to pollute unabated. And now the Republican leadership wants to nullify the rules that EPA finalized to cut emissions of mercury and other toxic air pollution from boilers and incinerators. These rules were more than a decade late. The Republicans say, Well, let EPA start the rulemaking process all over again. Let them comply with a different standard. We're going to amend the law to provide a different standard. The different standard should not be to use the maximum available control technology but something that is the lowest risk of harm or cost to the industry.

The Republicans keep trying to justify this bill by saying that the public health benefits of cutting mercury pollution here at home aren't significant enough to justify the costs. Well, I think we're talking about Science 101. This is not a subject to debate. Mercury is a known neurotoxin. So I ask those that support this bill, Are you going to vote against what scientists say is a fact? Many of you voted earlier this year to reject the overwhelming science linking carbon pollution to climate change. I hope the Republicans are not going to do the same thing now by rejecting what every public health expert knows--mercury is a poison.

[Time: 16:50] I yield to the gentlelady from Illinois.