[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 188 (Thursday, December 8, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H8274-H8296]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FARM DUST REGULATION PREVENTION ACT OF 2011
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the
legislation and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 1633.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Paulsen). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 487 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1633.
{time} 1119
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 1633) to establish a temporary prohibition against revising any
national ambient air quality standard applicable to coarse particulate
matter, to limit Federal regulation of nuisance dust in areas in which
such dust is regulated under State, tribal, or local law, and for other
purposes, with Mr. Womack in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
No question, from the largest manufacturer to the smallest farm or
ranch, not enough businesses are thriving in this economy. The recovery
has been slow and weak, job growth has been anemic, and the continuous
rollout of expensive new regulations has only made it harder to get the
economy back on track. That's why the House continues to approve
bipartisan legislation addressing costly EPA rules, and that is why I
support this legislation, the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act.
This bill achieves two important goals: regulatory certainty in the
short term and common sense for rural America in the long term. The
bill retains the current coarse particulate matter standard for 1
year--a position that Administrator Lisa Jackson from EPA has embraced
with her plans to propose maintaining the standard--and it offers
regulatory relief to rural America by recognizing that States and local
communities are better equipped to monitor and control farm dust. EPA
would no longer be in the business of regulating rural dust except in
cases where it is not already regulated and the benefits of EPA
regulation outweigh the costs.
Opponents of this bill insist that it's not necessary and that rural
America has nothing to worry about, but the voices of rural America
tell quite a different story. Listen to the American Farm Bureau
Federation and all of its State affiliates. Listen to the Cattlemen's
Beef Association and over 185 other organizations who collectively
represent a significant portion of the rural economy, including
Michigan and across the country. These organizations believe that this
bill is necessary, and so do I.
The bill makes clear that the lead role in regulating nuisance dust
should rest with State, local, and tribal governments, not the EPA.
This is a smart step for a lot of reasons. For one thing, State,
local, and tribal governments already address rural dust issues. For
another, dust issues differ greatly from location to location and thus
are not well suited to a one-size-fits-all Federal approach. Further,
these levels of governments do a much better job than the Federal EPA
when it comes to weighing both the costs and the benefits of various
options and choosing a path that is cost-effective and achieves the
greatest benefits.
Finally, under this bill, in the absence of State, local, and tribal
regulation, EPA may step in and regulate nuisance dust if the case for
net benefits can be made for it. This bill is a commonsense bill that
removes a regulatory threat to economic growth and prosperity across
rural America. I urge all my colleagues to support it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Over the past year, Republicans have brought to the floor one bill
after another to weaken the Clean Air Act and eliminate EPA authority
to protect public health from dangerous air pollution. The House has
passed bills to nullify EPA's rules on air pollution from incinerators,
power plants, cement kilns, and industrial boilers. But the bill before
us today breaks new ground. It would block EPA from taking an action
that EPA has no plan to take.
This bill is called the ``Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act of
2011.'' Well, that's a misleading title. EPA currently does not
regulate farm dust and they have no plans to regulate farm dust. EPA
Administrator Jackson told Congress that she will propose no change to
the current air quality standard for coarse particles, which have been
in place since the Reagan administration.
This bill belongs in the False Advertising Hall of Fame. It is not
really about farms at all. Its real effect is to exempt industrial
mining operations and other large industries from regulation under the
Clean Air Act. And it threatens to overturn the particulate pollution
standards that protect families in both rural and urban communities.
Section three of the bill exempts so-called ``nuisance dust'' from
any regulation under the Clean Air Act. It then defines nuisance dust
incredibly broadly. The definition covers both coarse particulates and
deadly fine particulates. It covers particulates from earth moving--
which means industrial mining operations--and from activities typically
conducted in rural areas, which include cement plants, smelters, coal
processing plants, and other industrial activities that are common in
rural areas.
[[Page H8275]]
During the committee markups of this bill, the Republicans amended
the definition of so-called ``nuisance dust'' three times. This shows
how poorly drafted and broadly worded the definition really is. But
they voted down an amendment to clarify that the bill only applies to
agricultural dust and another amendment to clarify that the bill does
not apply to mining activities. They even voted down an amendment to
preserve EPA's authority to regulate emissions of arsenic from copper
mines and smelters.
One supporter of this bill is Kennecott Copper, which operates one of
the largest open pit copper mines in the world. The company's mining
activities are the single largest source of particulate pollution in
Utah and a big reason why the 1 million residents of Salt Lake County
breathe unhealthy air. This bill would exempt all particulate matter
pollution from the Kennecott mine and all other mines from the entire
Clean Air Act. Let's be honest: The reason industrial mining operations
are pushing this bill has nothing to do with protecting family farms.
The bill would also make unenforceable the national air quality
standards for both fine and coarse particulate pollution. Particulate
pollution causes aggravated asthma attacks, heart attacks, respiratory
diseases, strokes, and premature death. Reductions in particulate
pollution under the Clean Air Act account for some of the largest
public health benefits produced by the act. Gutting these standards
would be radical and devastating.
The American people support the Clean Air Act. People want clean air.
And over the past 40 years, the Clean Air Act has brought us dramatic
air quality improvements. But House Republicans are intent on undoing
these achievements. In bill after bill, for one industry after another,
the House has voted to punch holes in the Clean Air Act. It has voted
for more weather-altering carbon pollution, more toxic mercury
pollution, more arsenic and lead pollution, more particulate matter
pollution, more sulfur dioxide pollution, and more nitrogen oxide
pollution. In fact, the House has voted 170 times to undermine our
Nation's environmental laws--over 60 of those votes were to dismantle
the Clean Air Act.
I urge my colleagues to protect clean air and the health of all
Americans and oppose H.R. 1633.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
American farmers, ranchers, and other rural businesses, like many
other sectors of our economy, have faced an onslaught of EPA
regulations. Now, we all support the environment, but our economy is
struggling today, and every regulation adds additional cost.
The Congressional Research Service recently reported that agriculture
has been facing new Clean Air Act greenhouse gas standards; engine
emission standards; national ambient air quality standards for ozone
and particulates; Clean Water Act permitting and other requirements;
Superfund reporting requirements; and regulations for disclosure,
permitting, and other regulatory requirements relating to the use of
pesticides. And until recently, the dairy industry faced ambiguity
about whether milk and milk containers would be subject to the EPA oil
spill prevention regulations.
We have 2.2 million farms in America employing 1.8 million people and
providing 5 percent of this Nation's exports. We need to do everything
possible to make it easy for them to do business and still protect the
economy.
{time} 1130
Today we're going to consider H.R. 1633, the Farm Dust Regulation
Prevention Act of 2011. At a time when rural economies are struggling,
this bill provides certainty that farmers, ranchers, and other rural
businesses will not be burdened with costly and unnecessary new dust
regulations from Washington, D.C.
As one might expect, a reasonable and commonsense measure like H.R.
1633 has garnered 120 bipartisan cosponsors. I would like to
particularly thank and commend the efforts of Representative Kristi
Noem, as well as Representative Leonard Boswell, Representative Robert
Hurt, and Representative Larry Kissell for their tireless efforts on
behalf of rural Americans and this bill.
Our bill makes clear that the lead role in regulating so-called
nuisance dust rests with State, local, and tribal governments. And the
bill defines nuisance dust to include particulate matter generated
primarily from natural sources, unpaved roads, earth moving, and other
activities typically conducted in rural areas.
In some ways, it's ludicrous we're sitting here debating about the
EPA regulating dust. And I might say that we have 197 organizations
supporting this legislation.
Now, why do we need the bill? Well, EPA has been considering more
costly, stringent PM10 standards. It is true that the EPA
Administrator, Lisa Jackson, recently announced that she would not
propose new regulations, that she would retain the current PM10
standards. But the problem with that is, when they finalize a standard,
it's uncertain whether EPA will finalize a standard that imposes
greater costs to rural businesses. And we all know that many of the
regulations and EPA environmental protections today are decided by the
court system. So even though Lisa Jackson says she's not going to do
anything, lawsuits can be filed requiring her to do certain things. So
this legislation simply provides certainty.
I might also say, because the science does not support the regulation
of coarse rural dust, EPA itself proposed, in 2006, to exempt this dust
from their national ambient air quality standards. And the integrated
science assessment for particulate matter at EPA said, for long-term
effects of coarse particles, there is next to no evidence in support of
long-term health effects.
I would urge all the Members to support this legislation, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to our
senior member on the committee and former chairman of our committee,
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, this is a magnificent solution to a
nonexistent problem. But it's made a lot of money for a lot of
lobbyists, and a lot of industrial polluters are going to enjoy this,
hiding behind the supposed benefit that it's going to give to the
farmers.
In a nutshell, this legislation is not going to help the farmers;
it's going to help the people who farm the farmers. And the end result
is that, when this nonsensical bill gets over to the courts, the courts
are going to look at it and say, Just what, in the name of common
sense, is the House trying to do with this legislation?
Nowhere in the Clean Air Act is a word about nuisance dust, but it's
very prominently put here in the legislation. And lo and behold, it
also has something do, supposedly, with some kind of action that the
EPA is supposed to take. But diligent looking at the legislation
doesn't reveal what that might be.
The question here, then, is: We have a solution in search of a
problem. We've got a job crisis in our Nation, crippling debt,
excessive deficit, and the gaping inequality between the poor and the
well-to-do is putting democracy at risk. And when this country needs us
to focus on serious problems like deficit and national debt, we are
here busily scratching around to try and fit a solution on a problem
that doesn't exist.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were the last major changes to
the original Clean Air Act of 1970; and, unlike what we are piddling
around with today, those legislations were needed, and they have served
us well. The Congress held lengthy hearings and did a tremendous amount
of work to understand what it was. Eighteen months or so of
consideration of the legislation led finally to its enactment, and it
has cleaned up the air for our people.
While the amendments of 1990 were truly bipartisan, only four of the
120 sponsors of this legislation are Democrats. Ten amendments were
considered in the committee, but only one Democratic amendment was
adopted. The final adoption of the legislation occurred strictly along
partisan lines. It should be clear to anyone that this is not
compromise legislation.
[[Page H8276]]
Supporters insist the legislation is necessary due to uncertainty
regarding EPA action. There is no uncertainty here. The Republican
author of a similar Senate bill, a former Secretary of Agriculture,
takes a different position. In one of his weekly columns, the Senate
sponsor stated, ``I asked only for clarity from EPA, and this week
Administrator Jackson finally provided it.'' It's obvious to our
friends in the Senate and from the EPA Administrator, herself, that EPA
will not implement stricter regulations.
Even newspapers in the sponsor's home State have questioned the logic
of this legislation. The Sioux Falls Argus Leader wrote that the bill
is fighting ``against a made-up problem'' and that it's time for the
sponsor ``to let the phantom issue of dust regulation settle.''
The Yankton Daily Press and The Dakotan gave a ``thumbs down'' signal
on the bill, in which they say it is unnecessary. The two local papers
wish that those who had sponsored this legislation would stop trying to
stir the fear of farmers and ranchers and, instead, spend time fighting
real problems rather than those which are imaginary.
This bill does not help the farmers and ranchers. It helps the people
who farm the farmers and a fine collection of well-to-do lobbyists down
on K Street who are profiting mightily on selling a nonsensical piece
of legislation which wastes the time of Congress and does nothing for
the farmers or the ranchers or the economy or the jobs.
So I hope that the House will reject these half-baked bills that are
poorly written, contain no solutions, deal with no problems, help no
one, and that the two parties can sit down and find real, important,
reasoned compromises to real problems.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the bill.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from
South Dakota (Mrs. Noem), who is a strong advocate for rural America
and the creation of jobs in rural America.
Mrs. NOEM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1633 because I
coauthored this bill with my friend and colleague from Virginia (Mr.
Hurt), and I did it to bring certainty, regulatory certainty to farmers
and ranchers across this country. Farmers and ranchers have been
working on this issue for a long time. We look forward to passing it
off the House floor today.
It's not a partisan issue. I introduced this with my colleagues Mr.
Boswell and Mr. Kissell, and 121 of my colleagues from both sides of
the aisle are cosponsors.
The Clean Air Act has a worthy goal, but it's not a perfect law, and
it does have unintended consequences. My bill would improve the current
statute. It also makes permanent what the administrator has said, which
is that she did not intend to regulate farm dust.
As South Dakota Farm Bureau President Scott VanderWal said, ``If we
don't deal with this issue today, it's going to be right back here 5
years from now.''
{time} 1140
I would like to reiterate why this bill is necessary. First, farm
dust is already regulated. It is not a myth. It's very real to all of
my constituents. We heard testimony from farmers in the hearing in
committee that they're currently being regulated as a result of the
EPA's standards. Regulation of farm dust is a problem today and will
only continue to be a problem into the future if we do not pass this
bill.
If my colleagues will take the time to read the bill, they'll notice
that this bill doesn't eliminate any regulations. It simply leaves the
regulation of rural dust to the States and to the local communities who
best understand how to manage what is happening in their own backyard.
Too often, bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. who have never stepped
foot on a farm or lived in rural America try to impose a one-size-fits-
all approach to regulation.
Let's be realistic. Dust in rural America is not the same as dust in
urban areas. It's common sense that dust from a dirt road is much
different than soot from a car; and it's common sense that they should
be treated differently, which is exactly what this bill does.
I would ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to consider this
piece of legislation very carefully. Even if you're not from a rural
area, this is still an important piece of legislation to all of us who
rely on farmers to feed our families.
You don't have to take my word for it. I have a letter here that I
would like to submit for the Record of over 190 different organizations
supporting this bill and its passage. Many of these organizations are
local businesses and agriculture groups within all of our districts.
They represent thousands and thousands of people across the country.
Let's not forget that we all reap the benefits of the success of our
ag producers through safe, nutritious, and affordable food. Let's not
burden our communities with overbearing regulations. Let's pass this
commonsense legislation and provide farmers, ranchers, and local
businesses with the certainty that they need in an already volatile
industry.
I urge all of my colleagues to join me in support of rural America
and vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1633.
Dec. 5, 2011.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker, House of Representatives, U.S. Capitol, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives, U.S. Capitol,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi: The
undersigned organizations would like to express our strong
support for the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act of 2011,
H.R. 1633. H.R 1633 would bring some much needed certainty to
agriculture and other rural businesses by exempting rural
``nuisance dust'' from EPA regulation if states and
localities regulate it on their own. Our organizations
request your support in keeping jobs in rural America by
passing H.R. 1633.
As you are aware, farming and other resource-based
industries are dusty professions. From tilling fields, to
driving on dirt roads, to extracting resources, rural
Americans deal with dust every day. Working in the soil is
where they derive their livelihoods, and where the world
derives much of its food and other essential resources. If
EPA were to revise the dust standard now or in the future,
states would be put in a position of having to impose
regulatory restraints on rural operations, increasing the
cost of production when that cost is already at historically
high levels. And, for what purpose? Scientific studies have
never shown rural dust to be a health concern at ambient
levels.
While the undersigned organizations welcome EPA's Oct. 14
announcement that the agency plans to propose to retain the
current coarse particulate matter (PM10) National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), the announcement does
not provide the certainty that rural America needs. First, it
is common for the agency to finalize a rule that is different
from the proposed rule. In fact, in 1996 EPA proposed to
remove the PM10 24-hour standard altogether, only
to bring it back in the final rule. And in 2006, EPA proposed
to exempt agriculture dust, but that exemption also
disappeared in the final rule. Second, under the Clean Air
Act, EPA must review this standard every five years. That
means we could be facing the same challenges again in just
five short years.
Thankfully, this Congress has the opportunity to ease this
potential burden on rural America. H.R. 1633 would exempt
rural ``nuisance dust'' from regulation under the Clean Air
Act if states and localities regulate it on their own. In the
event a state or locality does not regulate rural dust, the
administrator could regulate it only if validated scientific
analysis shows there is a significant health effect from such
dust in a particular area and that the costs to the local
economy associated with dust regulation would not outweigh
any benefits.
H.R. 1633 is common sense legislation that the undersigned
strongly support. We urge the Senate to pass this bill to
help protect rural American jobs.
Sincerely,
Agribusiness Association of Indiana; Agribusiness
Association of Iowa; Agricultural Council of Arkansas;
Agricultural Retailers Association; Agri-Mark, Inc.; Alabama
Cattlemen's Association; Alabama Pork Producers Association;
All-Terrain Vehicle Association; American Farm Bureau
Federation and their 51 state affiliates; American Feed
Industry Association; American Highway Users Alliance;
American Motorcyclist Association; American Seed Trade
Association; American Sheep Industry Association; American
Veal Association; Americans for Limited Government; Americans
for Prosperity; Americans for Tax Reform; Arkansas
Cattlemen's Association; Arkansas Pork Producers Association.
Arkansas Poultry Federation; Arizona Cattle Feeders'
Association; Arizona Cattle Growers' Association; Arizona
Cotton Growers Association; Arizona Pork Council; California
Cattlemen's Association; California Pork Producers
Association; CropLife America; Colorado Association of Wheat
Growers; Colorado Cattlemen's Association; Colorado Corn
Growers Association; Colorado Lamb Council; Colorado
Livestock Association; Colorado Pork Producers Council;
Colorado Potato Administrative Committee; Colorado Sheep &
Wool Authority; Colorado Wool
[[Page H8277]]
Growers Association; Council for Citizens Against Government
Waste; Dairy Farmers of America; Dairy Producers of New
Mexico.
Dairy Producers of Utah; Dairylea Cooperative; South East
Dairy Farmers Association; Stewards of the Sequoia; Florida
Cattlemen's Association; Florida Nursery, Growers and
Landscape Association; Georgia Agribusiness Council; Georgia
Cattlemen's Association; Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers
Association; Georgia Milk Producers; Georgia Pork Producers
Association; Georgia Poultry Federation; Georgia Watermelon
Association Idaho Cattle Association; Idaho Dairymen's
Association; Idaho Grain Producers Association; Idaho Pork
Producers Association; Idaho Potato Commission; Idaho Wool
Growers Association; Illinois Beef Association; Illinois Pork
Producers Association; Independent Cattlemen's Association of
Texas.
Indiana Beef Cattle Association Indiana Pork; Iowa
Cattlemen's Association; Iowa Pork Producers Association;
Kansas Livestock Association; Kansas Pork Association;
Kentucky Cattlemen's Association; Kentucky Pork Producers
Association; Let Freedom Ring; Livestock Marketing
Association; Louisiana Cattlemen's Association; Louisiana
Pork Producers Association; Maine Hog Growers Association;
Michigan Cattlemen's Association; Michigan Pork Producers
Association; Milk Producers Council; Minnesota Grain and Feed
Association; Minnesota Pork Producers Association; Minnesota
State Cattlemen's Association; Mississippi Cattlemen's
Association; Mississippi Pork Producers Association.
Missouri Cattlemen's Association; Missouri Corn Growers
Association; Missouri Pork Producers Association; Missouri
Poultry Federation; Montana Pork Producers Council; Montana
Stockgrowers Association; Montana Wool Growers Association;
National All-Jersey; National Association of Manufacturers;
National Cattlemen's Beef Association; National Chicken
Council; National Cotton Council; National Cotton Ginners
Association; National Council of Fanner Cooperatives;
National Federation of Independent Business; National Grain
and Feed Association; National Livestock Producers
Association; National Meat Association; National Milk
Producers Federation.
National Mining Association; National Oilseed Processors;
Association National Pork Producers Council; National Potato
Council; National Renderers Association; National Stone,
Sand, and Gravel Association; National Turkey Federation;
Nebraska Cattlemen's Association; Nebraska Grain and Feed
Association; Nebraska Pork Producers Council, Inc.; New
Hampshire Pork Producers Council; New Mexico Cattle Growers'
Association; New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau; New Mexico
Federal Lands Council; New Mexico Wool Growers, Inc.; New
York Producers Cooperative, Inc.; North Carolina Agribusiness
Council, Inc.; North Carolina Cattlemen's Association; North
Carolina Forestry Association; North Carolina Horse Council.
North Carolina Peanut Growers Association North Carolina
Pork Council; North Carolina Poultry Federation; North
Carolina Soybean Producers Association, Inc.; North Carolina
SweetPotato Commission; North Dakota Corn Growers
Association; North Dakota Pork Producers Council; Northeast
Ag and Feed Alliance; Northeast Dairy Farmers Cooperatives;
North Dakota Stockmen's Association; Ohio AgriBusiness
Association; Ohio Cattlemen's Association; Ohio Pork
Producers Council; Oklahoma Cattlemen's Association; Oklahoma
Poultry Federation; Oklahoma Pork Council; Oregon Pork
Producers Association; PennAg Industries Association;
Pennsylvania Pork Producers; Strategic Investment Program;
Public Lands Council.
Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association; Rocky
Mountain Agribusiness Association; Select Milk Producers;
Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council; South Carolina
Cattlemen's Association; South Carolina Pork Board; South
Dakota Agri-Business Association; South Dakota Association of
Cooperatives; South Dakota Cattlemen's Association; South
Dakota Dairy Producers; South Dakota Grain & Feed
Association; South Dakota Pork Producers Council; South
Dakota Soybean Association; South Dakota Stockgrowers
Association; South Dakota Wheat Inc.; Southern Cotton
Growers; Southern Crop Production Association; Southeast Milk
Inc.; Southeastern Livestock Network; Specialty Vehicle
Institute of America.
St. Albans Cooperative Creamery; Tennessee Cattlemen's
Association; Tennessee Pork Producers Association; Texas
Agricultural Cooperative Council; Texas and Southwestern
Cattle Raisers Association; Texas Association of Dairymen;
Texas Cattle Feeders Association; Texas Pork Producers
Association; The Blue Ribbon Coalition; The Fertilizer
Institute; Upstate Niagara Cooperative; USA Rice Federation;
U.S. Beet Sugar Association; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Utah
Cattlemen's Association; Utah Pork Producers Association.
Utah Wool Growers Association; Virginia Agribusiness
Council; Virginia Cattlemen's Association; Virginia Grain
Producers Association; Virginia Pork Industry Association;
Virginia Poultry Federation; Washington Cattle Feeders
Association; Washington Cattlemen's Association; Washington
Pork Producers; Western Business Roundtable; Western United
Dairymen; West Virginia Cattlemen's Association; Wisconsin
Dairy Business Association; Wisconsin Pork Producers; Wyoming
Pork Producers; Wyoming Stock Growers Association.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
leading Democrat on the Energy Committee, the ranking member, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
Mr. RUSH. I want to thank the ranking member for his outstanding
leadership and for yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this ill-conceived, nonsensical, and in all
ways awful bill, H.R. 1633, which could have a devastating effect on
the EPA's ability to enforce the Clean Air Act on the basis of both
procedural and substantive grounds.
Mr. Chairman, the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, scored this
bill and determined that it would cost $10 million in discretionary
spending over a 5-year period for the EPA to cover the cost of carrying
out changes to existing emission control standards, as well as other
activities to study the need and feasibility of modifying the EPA's
national monitoring network for particulate matter, as this bill
requires.
Since this $10 million is not appropriated anywhere in this bill,
this bill would directly violate the discretionary CutGo policy that
this majority, that my friends on the other side, voted for that they
put in place at the beginning of this Congress.
If we pass this bill, it will be the height of hypocrisy for this
atrocious bill to get through this House.
Additionally, Mr. Chairman, on the issue of substance, I oppose this
bill because it would dramatically weaken the Clean Air Act by
eliminating the EPA's ability to regulate particulate matter from a
broad range of sources, as well as jeopardize existing State and
Federal regulations that apply to fine and coarse particulate matter.
Although the title of this bill suggests that it only covers dust
from farms, this bill creates a whole new broad, new nonscientific
category of pollution called ``nuisance dust,'' which it would exempt
from the Clean Air Act completely. Nuisance dust would be exempted from
the Clean Air Act totally without any basis and science, no scientific
evidence whatsoever; and in doing so, this bill would do harm to the
public's health.
The bill would exempt from the Clean Air Act any particulate matter
pollution that is emitted from sources such as open-pit mines, mining
processing plants, sand and gravel mines, smelters, coal mines, coal-
processing plants, cement kilns, and waste and recovery facilities.
These very facilities emit fine particulates, coarse particulates,
arsenic, lead, mercury, cadmium, zinc, chromium, and other heavy
metals--all of which would fall under this bill's broad exemption from
the Clean Air Act.
Mr. Chairman, as the American Lung Association noted, under the
provisions of this bill, our country's most vulnerable populations--
poor people, people who depend on the EPA to protect them from the
harmful effects of coarse particulates will be most affected.
Children, teens, senior citizens, low-income people, people with
chronic lung disease such as asthma, chronic bronchitis, and emphysema
will be especially at risk of being sickened by coarse particulates if
this bill were to become law.
Additionally, people with other chronic diseases, such as diabetes,
cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, coronary artery disease,
and congestive heart failure, they will all be placed at greater risk
if this bill becomes law.
Mr. Chairman, as I've noted before, this bill is a solution in search
of a problem, and it does more harm than good. This bill should fail. I
oppose this bill.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I might say that during the debate on
this bill in committee, a lot was made of mining activities in rural
America, and I would just point out that there are 17 Federal laws that
mining operations must abide by. So we didn't feel like we needed to
provide additional protection in that area.
At this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Hurt), one of the prime sponsors of this legislation and
a protector of rural America.
Mr. HURT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
[[Page H8278]]
I'd first like to thank Chairmen Upton and Whitfield for this effort
and Representative Noem for her leadership and hard work on this
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Farm Dust
Regulation Prevention Act. This is a bipartisan bill that I am proud to
sponsor, along with Representatives Noem, Boswell, and Kissell, in
order to provide greater economic certainty to our rural communities in
central Virginia and south side Virginia and across this country.
Since January, this House has been laser focused on advancing
policies that will remove the Federal Government as a barrier to job
creation and steer us on a course toward economic recovery giving our
job creators the opportunity to hire and the confidence to expand. It
is with this in mind that we introduced this legislation.
In Virginia's Fifth District, my district, we have a proud heritage
in agriculture, manufacturing, Main Street businesses that create jobs
and have created jobs for thousands of Virginians. As I travel across
Virginia's rural Fifth District, I am constantly reminded by my
constituents of how government regulations threaten their businesses
and their very way of life. This is why the EPA's national standard for
fugitive dust is so troubling to the people that I represent. It is yet
another example of the vast expansion of the Federal Government, and it
is yet another example of the uncertainty that Washington continues to
impose upon our job creators and our rural communities.
{time} 1150
The effects of Federal Government overreach are both very real and
very tangible in the Fifth District and across this country.
This past year, I spoke with a small business owner in Southside,
Virginia, who was warned by a regulator about the amount of dust coming
from his property. He was told to take active measures to decrease the
dust coming from the dirt road leading into his sawmill.
This is the kind of unnecessary regulation that prevents businesses
and farmers from focusing on the needs of their customers. Where I'm
from, dust is not a nuisance. Rather, it is a necessary byproduct of
the hard work the farmers and businesses in my rural district perform
every day, and these farmers and businesses should not suffer losses in
production because of overbearing Federal regulations. These are the
people who are struggling to survive, to grow, and to create jobs
during this stalled economic recovery. These are the people who cannot
afford more costly and burdensome regulations handed down by
Washington.
While I applaud the EPA's apparent statement that it does not intend
to propose a more stringent standard for coarse particulate matter at
this time, I remain concerned about the uncertainty of future
rulemaking. This bill addresses that uncertainty by providing clarity
and stability for our job creators by replacing the current Federal
standard for naturally occurring dust in rural America. With
unemployment rates nearing 20 percent in some parts of my district, we
simply can't afford to perpetuate unnecessary regulations and
unnecessary uncertainty for the farmers and businesses in our rural
communities.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation so that we
may assure our farmers and businesses that naturally occurring dust
will not be subject to regulations by an ever-expanding Federal
Government.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
We are now debating on a very real piece of legislation that solves
an imaginary problem. The Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act purports
to address the fictitious threat that the Environmental Protection
Agency is out to destroy the family farm and countless jobs by
regulating the dust emitted by tractors and other farming equipment.
Never mind that EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has committed to
leaving the 1987 standard for large soot particles unchanged; and never
mind that EPA Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy essentially told
the Energy and Commerce Committee that EPA was about as likely to
regulate fairy dust as it was to regulate farm dust.
While hiding behind its stated purpose of addressing the made-up
threat of utter ruin to the family farm, this bill inflicts very real
harm. That is because it also blocks EPA from setting standards for the
dirty soot that gets spewed out of massive mines and smelters and
refineries and some chemical plants. It becomes, in fact, the
congressional version of Never Never Land--where the Republicans'
answer to the question ``when can we remove the poisons from the air
that we breathe?'' is ``never.''
In the play ``Peter Pan,'' Tinker Bell drinks poison that is intended
to kill Peter. She begins to die, but Peter Pan implores those in the
audience to just clap their hands if they really do believe in fairies,
and then maybe, just maybe, Tinker Bell won't die. All small children
in the audience then clap so hard their hands sting, and Tinker Bell
rises magically back to life.
With this bill, the Republicans are engaging in the very same sort of
fantasy. If we just believe EPA has launched a war on jobs, then it
must be so, and we must stop it. If we just believe that EPA officials
are lying about their secret, nonexistent plans to destroy the
livelihood of every farmer in America, then it must be so, and we must
stop it. If we just believe that eviscerating every environmental law
on the books will not lead to the real deaths of thousands of Americans
each and every year, then it must be so.
The Republican lost boys and girls are telling America that the only
way to revive the jobs fairy is to kill EPA. To pretend that the
deaths, the cancers and other illnesses that the Republican plan will
cause are imaginary, or a mere nuisance, really is the stuff of fairy
tales.
Let's get back to reality and solve real problems in this country.
Vote ``no'' on this very dangerous bill.
Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman from Massachusetts may view this as
being about Peter Pan and Tinker Bell and fairy dust, but we have 197
organizations representing rural America that consider it a real
problem.
At this time, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from West Virginia, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr.
McKinley.
Mr. McKINLEY. I rise today in support of H.R. 1633, the Farm Dust
bill.
Earlier this year, the House passed H.R. 2273, the bipartisan coal
ash legislation. Unfortunately, opponents of the Farm Dust bill believe
that nuisance dust in this bill might include fly ash. Therefore, an
amendment was offered and adopted to clarify that the definition of
``nuisance dust'' in the Farm Dust bill does not include coal ash or
other coal combustion residuals. The amendment makes it perfectly clear
that nuisance dust is not composed of any residuals from coal
combustion. Unfortunately, opponents of the Farm Dust bill are still,
apparently, unaware of the changes that have been made to the bill to
address their concerns.
Don't oppose the Farm Dust bill because you don't like fly ash. Let's
relieve one more threat to our agricultural community with the passage
of this bill. We should be striving to create more jobs, not putting up
more barriers with misinformation.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to an
important member of our committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Green).
(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I rise in opposition to H.R. 1633, the Farm
Dust Regulation Prevention Act of 2011.
I just heard it referred to as ``Tinker Bell,'' but I think this is
more like Alice in Wonderland legislation. It seeks to solve a problem
that's not there while dancing around a lot of our real problems that
we have to deal with in our country and particularly in this Congress.
This bill would prohibit the EPA from proposing, finalizing,
implementing, or enforcing any regulation revising the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards applicable to coarse particulate matter for 1
year from the date of enactment.
[[Page H8279]]
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson committed in an October 14, 2011,
letter that the EPA plans to propose keeping the PM10 National Ambient
Air Quality Standards as they are, with no change. These standards have
been in place since 1987.
When Gina McCarthy, the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
at the EPA, testified before our Energy and Power Subcommittee of the
full committee, she also confirmed that this bill is not necessary
since the administrator plans to propose retaining the current
standards that have been in place since 1987.
For this reason, I did not support H.R. 1633 when it came up for a
vote in our Energy and Commerce Committee, and I encourage my
colleagues to oppose it today. I've had very public disagreements with
the EPA on other regulations they are revising, but this bill is a
solution in search of a problem, and it is not a good use of our
congressional time. Taking up a bill that's not necessary hurts our
efforts to work with the EPA and to revise some of the standards the
EPA is setting that are real problems. That's why, Mr. Chairman, I urge
a ``no'' vote on this bill.
United States
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, Oct. 14, 2011.
Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Stabenow: Thank you for your inquiry on the
status of EPA's Review of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter. Particulate matter
includes fine particles (known as PM2.5) and coarse particles
(known as PM10). PM2.5 can come from fossil-fuel combustion,
including power plants and motor vehicles, and wildfires and
PM10 can come from construction and demolition activities,
industrial operations, wildfires, and dust from unpaved
roads. It is well established that particulate matter
emissions are linked to premature death and numerous adverse
health impacts.
We have been making steady progress in reducing emissions
of particulate matter--both fine and coarse--in this country
for more than two decades, improving the public health of
Americans while the economy has continued to grow.
It is important that a standard for particulate matter be
protective of the health of the public. Based on my
consideration of the scientific record, analysis provided by
EPA scientists, and advice from the Clean Air Science
Advisory Council, I am prepared to propose the retention--
with no revision--of the current PM10 standard and form when
it is sent to OMB for interagency review.
This rulemaking package will also consider the latest
scientific evidence and assessments for PM2.5. Again, thank
you for the inquiry. It is EPA's responsibility to protect
the health of all Americans--rural and urban--from known
pollutants, including particulate matter. Please feel free to
contact me if you have any questions, or your staff can
contact Arvin Ganesan, Associate Administrator for the Office
of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations at (202)
564-4741.
Sincerely,
Lisa P. Jackson.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr.
Pompeo), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. POMPEO. I thank the chairman for yielding.
This is a great day for rural America. H.R. 1633 is going to do what
we've been trying to do for a long time, during my entire 11 months in
the United States Congress, which is to provide just a little bit of
certainty for those folks who are out there trying to create jobs,
trying to create food for America, trying to do the things that we've
done in the rural parts of our country for so long.
The truth is the other side continues to say we are shooting the
fairy dust and talking about Tinker Bell. I can assure you that I'm not
amused. I can assure you that the 500 folks with whom I met just 2
weeks ago now at the Kansas Farm Bureau meeting were not amused either.
{time} 1200
We understand that the very real risk of Lisa Jackson and the
Environmental Protection Agency beginning to clamp down on farm dust
still exists. We worked in our committee diligently. There were some
valid concerns raised by the folks on the other side, and we
endeavored, Mr. Chairman, at every moment to try and meet those
concerns. We offered amendments. I offered an amendment in the nature
of a full substitute which tried to address some of the concerns that
the opposition expressed.
The truth is they just want to leave our farmers and our ranchers and
our agricultural community at the whim of the EPA. That's not the place
to put good, hardworking Americans who go out there every day trying to
do the right thing. The whims of the EPA we have seen all too often
present a real risk, a real risk of job destruction, a real risk of
higher costs for every consumer in America.
This is a wonderful piece of legislation. It will, for the first
time, get the EPA to move their hands away from the throats of our
farmers and agricultural communities, and I would urge every one of my
colleagues to support it.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the standard that's in place has been in
place since 1987 when Reagan was President. It has not been changed.
Suddenly there is a made-up fear that it's going to be changed and,
therefore, we have the legislation that's before us.
We hear a lot about certainty. If this bill goes through, the
certainty will be that there will be no regulation pf many industries
because EPA will no longer have jurisdiction. The other certainty is
that a lot of people are going to get very sick from some dangerous
pollutants.
At this time I wish to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
This bill is dangerous and its title is disingenuous. H.R. 1633 is
about much more than farm dust. Our colleague Mr. Shimkus acknowledged
that much in the Energy and Commerce Committee markup of this bill last
week when he said, ``It is called farm dust, but I am here for my open-
pit mines in southern Illinois.''
The bill allows major industrial polluters to emit unlimited amounts
of particulate matter in violation of the Clean Air Act. Mines, cement
plants, and coal processing plants could legally emit unlimited amounts
of dangerous chemicals into the air.
Let's be clear. The chemicals we are talking about are incredibly
dangerous. Arsenic overexposure leads to skin, bladder, liver, and lung
cancer. Lead exposure can damage the central nervous system, kidney,
and blood cells. Cadmium exposure leads to severe respiratory damage.
Zinc poisoning leads to kidney damage. Mercury pollution results in
cognitive deficiencies, especially in children. Those pollutants,
emitted from a range of nonfarm sources, could fall under the vague
definition of ``nuisance dust.''
It seems to me that this is a piece of legislation that is being
disguised as something as innocuous as farm dust, something that, as
has been pointed out, has been regulated for a very long time. This is
an effort to get around the legislation with a phony name, to get
around the effectiveness of the Environmental Protection Agency. And we
owe it to our constituents and our country to promote legislation that
will stimulate the economy, which our environmental bills do, and
protect and promote human health and the environment.
Our colleagues across the aisle have failed in that regard, and I
urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), a member of the Energy and
Commerce Committee.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I am amused, humored by the opposition, all
hailing from our greatest cities in the United States, urban areas.
I would like to read a note that I received from a rancher in
Nebraska and our Nebraska cattlemen representing those who are
affected:
The bill is needed to provide regulatory certainty to rural areas. We
applaud the recent statement from Administrator Jackson that EPA does
not intend to propose revisions to the current dust standard. The
reality is, however, that regulations often change from the proposal
stage of a rulemaking to the final. For example, in 1996, EPA proposed
to remove the PM10 24-hour standard altogether, only to bring it back
in the final rule. And in 2006, EPA proposed to exempt agriculture
dust, but that exemption also disappeared in the final rule. Second,
under the Clean Air Act, EPA must review this standard every 5 years.
That
[[Page H8280]]
means we could face the same challenges again in just 5 short years.
Also, citizen lawsuits could be brought that could result in a court
deciding farm dust should be regulated. H.R. 1633 is the only way to
provide regulatory certainty to farmers, ranchers, and rural residents.
Nuisance dust occurs naturally in rural areas. The type of ``nuisance
dust'' that this bill would exempt from Federal regulation occurs
naturally in rural areas, especially in arid and windy areas of the
Plains and western States. This dust does not stay in the air but falls
out quickly. Rural fugitive dust travels only a short distance from
emission point. It settles out of the air quickly because of its size,
making dust a localized issue. In fact, according to a study done by
Hoffnagle, rural dust will fall out of the air within a thousand meters
of its source.
This is not fairy dust or fables or tales to our folks in rural
America; this is real and they want certainty.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Gosar).
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Farm Dust
Regulation Prevention Act brought today by my friend and colleague,
Congresswoman Kristi Noem.
This good piece of legislation is a commonsense solution to a
bureaucratic problem that is causing concern among many Arizonans. It's
almost unfathomable to think that this legislation is necessary to
protect Arizona against Federal bureaucrats who want to regulate dust,
but here we are. That's exactly what the EPA is doing with its
overreaching policies, holding individuals and businesses accountable
for naturally occurring dust particles.
I stand here today to raise my voice against the unreasonable Federal
regulations which would allow simple haboobs, dust clouds, and wind
storms to pose an economic threat to the economic livelihood of farmers
in and around my district.
It is important to also note that this bill covers dust which has
been found to have no adverse human health effects.
Also notable among this bill's many supporters are the Arizona Farm
Bureau Federation, the Arizona Cattle Feeders' Association, the Arizona
Cattle Growers' Association, the Arizona Cotton Growers Association,
and the National Cattlemen's Association.
Again, I support this legislation and encourage you to pass this good
bill today.
Mr. WAXMAN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Burton).
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
With the economy the way it is, with unemployment very high, we don't
need more government regulations. More regulations strangle the private
sector and create more economic problems, and especially right now we
don't need more regulations.
The Obama administration continues to circumvent Congress to go
around us by passing more regulations, and the economy can't stand it.
We need to stop more regulations. Even the threat, even the threat of
more regulations must be stopped.
I mean, farm dust? Farm dust? Give me a break. We can't give these
bureaucrats more authority. We don't need to give this administration
or the bureaucracy more control over the lives of Americans.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Manzullo).
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I often hear complaints from farmers back
home about the numerous regulatory burdens placed on them by the
government. In fact, this whole past summer we worked with the farmers
who have been in a real brouhaha with the EPA concerning the runoff
from their stockyards, and even small ones at that.
{time} 1210
These are life-threatening types of regulations to continuing their
farming. And now we come up with another one, this one on dust.
EPA is in the process of reviewing its dust standards. In 2009, EPA
said farm dust ``likely is not safe'' and could cut the allowable dust
levels in half. Because of the furor this has created, the EPA said
last October they would not regulate farm dust. First they said they
would regulate it; now they said they won't regulate it. So to codify
this understanding or these contradictory statements by the EPA, I'm
sure that all of my colleagues will have no problem in voting for this
bill.
H.R. 1633 will prevent the EPA from imposing new Federal regulations
on naturally-occurring dust in rural America. It will allow States and
localities to regulate farm dust as they see fit based on sound
science. Farmers in Illinois already struggle to comply with current
standards. If Washington imposes another one-size-fits-all solution to
farm dust, this could mean even more unemployment in rural areas
throughout Illinois and the Nation.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1633.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Rush).
Mr. RUSH. I want to thank the ranking member for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I want to share with the Members of this body the
administration's position on this particular bill that is under
discussion right now. This is a Statement of Administration Policy:
``The administration strongly opposes H.R. 1633. As drafted, this
bill would create serious problems for implementing Clean Air Act
public health protections that have been in place for years while
adding uncertainty for businesses and States. The bill, therefore, goes
far beyond its stated intent of prohibiting the EPA from tightening
national standards for coarse particles, which the administration has
repeatedly explained that it has no intention of doing.''
It goes on to say: ``This ambiguously written bill would create high
levels of regulatory uncertainty regarding emission control
requirements that have been in place for years. Specifically, the
bill's exclusion from the entire CAA of a new class of air pollutants
called `nuisance dust,' an imprecise and scientifically undefined term,
could be used to roll back existing public health protection limiting
pollution from mining operations, industrial activities, and possibly
other sources.
``The bill also raises serious issues about whether the EPA could
continue to implement the existing health-based fine and coarse
particle programs, which play a vital, ongoing role in preventing
adverse health effects of air pollution, including premature deaths,
childhood asthma attacks, and other respiratory problems.''
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. RUSH. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
``This administration remains committed to commonsense approaches to
improving air quality across the country and preserving the
competitiveness of every economic sector. Because H.R. 1633 is not only
unnecessary, but also could have significant adverse public health
consequences, the administration strongly opposes this bill.
``If H.R. 1633 were presented to the President, his senior advisers
would recommend that he veto this bill.''
Why are we wasting our time on this nuisance which is nonsense?
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Farenthold).
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much.
I rise today in disgust with the dust. The regulations the
Environmental Protection Agency are proposing to regulate, coarse
particulate matter, what you and I know as dust, is ridiculous. It's
indicative of what is wrong in Washington, D.C. with the regulatory
framework that has gone wild. This just defies common sense. You cannot
farm without kicking up dust.
I was raised on the farms and ranches in south Texas. As we drive to
tend the cattle herds, till the fields, or check out what's going on,
there's no way to do it without dust. This opens the door to massive
regulations. First we start with the farmer. Where's the EPA going to
be next, checking under my
[[Page H8281]]
bed for dust bunnies, putting on a white glove, running their fingers
across the top of my doors, or making sure my car is adequately washed?
The EPA's regulation on this is the height of government overreach,
the height of a waste of time, the height of a waste of money, and a
perfect example of what is wrong with Washington.
We've got to stop this type of crazy government regulation so we can
get people back to work, we can get jobs on track, and we can keep our
farmers feeding our country and the world.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The unemployment rate in this country is close to 9 percent, and
we're not doing anything about that problem. The deficit is a real
threat to our economy, and the Republicans nearly made us default on
our debts because they wouldn't go along with a real deficit reduction
bill. We are looking at sequestrations of our national budget for the
military, and our Secretary of Defense says that could be a threat to
the Nation. And that sequestration will take place because the
Republicans wouldn't allow the so-called supercommittee to do its job.
I want to read from an editorial in the Sioux Falls ArgusLeader:
``There are important issues at the Federal level right now that will
have direct impact on our State--the dwindling funding for the Lewis
and Clark water project and the fight to maintain our State's Medicare
reimbursements through the Frontier States Provision . . . These are
real issues . . . So it's disappointing to see [this] fight against a
made-up problem like the potential for farm dust regulations by the
Environmental Protection Agency.
When the EPA announced it would not pursue anything along these lines
and they had no intention to do it, the Senate sponsor of this same
bill declared victory and he pulled back on his companion bill for the
other body. The Republicans ought to declare victory and allow us to
deal with the real problems in this country, not this made-up threat
that they want to help protect us from. I urge Members to vote against
this bill.''
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I have been told that we have no further
speakers; so if the gentleman from California would like to close, then
I would follow him.
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, we certainly do appreciate this
discussion on this important bill. I can tell you that rural America
does consider this to be a real problem. The gentleman from California
mentioned, correctly so, that we're operating under 1987 particulate
matter standards. In 1997 and in 2006, the EPA went back to review that
standard. They made a determination at that time that they would not
take further action, but they were sued. Litigation ensued, and every 5
years the EPA is required by the Clean Air Act to look at this.
{time} 1220
We know there are going to be further lawsuits. And so that's why we
think it's absolutely mandatory that Congress assert itself and set out
the policy that we do not want EPA regulating the dust on farms and
ranches in America.
I might also add that in the letter we received from the board of
supervisors of the county of Imperial in Arizona, they said the
original rule that EPA had covered farms of 40 acres or more, which is
97 percent of all farmland in the Valley. EPA is now insisting that
that be changed to all farms of 10 acres or more. And for what purpose?
It seems clear that there's absolutely no justification for imposing
requirements that would have a negative impact on the economy and the
employment in Imperial County when the rules and controls would not
change the ability of the county to meet the standards on the few high
particulate matter days that are caused by exceptional events.
So, in closing, I would simply say we view this as a real problem.
Congress needs to assert itself and set a definitive policy on this
issue. I would urge all Members to support this legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chair, I am proud to support yet another jobs
bill put forth by House Republicans to empower small business owners
and eliminate burdensome Washington regulations that prevent job
creation and hinder economic growth. This bill prevents the EPA from
issuing new dust regulations. Additionally, it gives states the
flexibility to address any rural dust issues rather than the federal
government.
During this debate we have heard a lot about the need to protect our
air quality and the need to ensure clean air for future generations. As
the grandson of a farmer, I know the value and importance agriculture
producers place on protecting the soil and water they use to grow
quality food to feed the country. I would argue there are no greater
stewards of the land than farmers, and that additional rules on these
hard-working Americans to regulate rural dust are not only unnecessary,
they can be detrimental.
In this time of record unemployment, Washington should be on the side
of job creators and family farmers, not on their backs. We should
support smart regulations that instill confidence in job creators, not
abusive red tape that only leads to closed farms and longer
unemployment lines.
You don't have to take my word for it though. Just listen to some of
my constituents:
Mr. Cummins of Canton writes, ``Their proposed regulations on milk
spills or dust . . . would create undue hardships and be economically
unfeasible to attain.''
Mr. Johnson of Mineola writes, ``I feel like the government is
passing a law, regulation, unfunded mandate at the drop of a hat these
days. [. . .] farmers controlling dust, dairy farmers documenting and
controlling milk spills, telling me what kind of light bulb to buy . .
. what kind of health care I must have, it is just never ending these
days.''
The Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act is the 35th jobs bill
produced by the House Republican Plan for America's Job Creators to
restore the freedom and confidence our private sector needs to grow
again.
After today, with this bill, there will be 27 House-passed bipartisan
jobs bills stacked like cordwood on the doorstep of the Democrat-
controlled Senate.
As America weathers through the Obama Economy and the worst jobs
climate since the Great Depression, I urge my colleagues to support our
nation's farmers and ranchers and pass this jobs bill.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chair, I rise as a cosponsor and strong supporter of
the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act (H.R. 1633). I want to express
my appreciation to the gentlelady from South Dakota, Congresswoman
Noem, for her strong leadership on this issue. As a family farmer and
sponsor of this legislation, Congresswoman Noem is keenly aware of the
devastating effects Environmental Protection Agency regulations can
have on our Nation's farmers.
For those who are unfamiliar with farm dust, it is quite simply the
everyday dirt and dust present in rural America on fields and country
roads. It occurs naturally from dry weather or wind blowing across wide
open spaces. Or it can be caused by the act of farming--tilling-up the
land or harvesting crops. If you come from rural areas like my home
district in Eastern Indiana, you know that farm dust is a part of daily
life, and if you make a living on a farm, you probably have never even
given farm dust a second thought. But, the EPA, despite the fact that
rural farm dust has not been shown to pose a significant health
concern, has done nothing to clarify the difference between rural farm
dust and harmful pollutants that are common in urban areas. This
legislation differentiates farm dust from these harmful air pollutants
and gives family farms the certainty of knowing the federal government
will not regulate their windblown soil.
Mr. Chair, the EPA needs to leave farmers alone and let them get
about the business of farming. The Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act
will go a long way in securing the long-term stability of family farms
and rural businesses. It would limit the EPA's regulation of this
naturally occurring dust by giving state and local governments the
ability to address the issue, and it would delay any new National
Ambient Air Quality Standards issued by the EPA for one year.
In this difficult economy, family farms must be protected from
burdensome, costly federal redtape. The EPA has no business regulating
the dirt kicked-up on the farms and back roads of rural Indiana, and I
urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, today, my Republican colleagues missed an
opportunity to pass targeted, nonpartisan legislation to protect
farmers and small businesses from unnecessary federal regulation.
There is widespread and bipartisan agreement that ``farm dust,'' dust
produced during activities on farms and ranches, should not be
regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean
Air Act. The EPA doesn't want to regulate it. And Members of Congress
do not want the EPA to regulate it, myself included.
But instead of writing legislation to codify a simple ban on
regulating farm dust--legislation that would have won my support and
the
[[Page H8282]]
support of most of my Democratic colleagues--the Majority wrote a bill
creating major loopholes in the Clean Air Act that would have
significant consequences for public health and the environment.
H.R. 1633 imposes a blanket, one-year moratorium on any regulation
updating the national ambient air quality standards applicable to all
coarse particulate matter, which includes: fly ash, diesel soot,
asbestos, arsenic, lead, mercury, and heavy metals.
None of these harmful toxins are defined as farm dust. Yet, this far-
reaching bill would prohibit EPA from protecting American families from
these harmful toxins for at least a year.
H.R. 1633 would also exempt major industrial activities, including
open-pit mining and aluminum smelters, from EPA's review. Again,
arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, nickel, and mercury--all particulates
emitted from mines and industrial activities--would be exempt from
federal oversight, even though they have nothing to do with ``farm
dust.''
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not regulate farm
dust. The EPA has no plans to start regulating farm dust. And, if the
EPA ever proposed regulations for farm dust, I would vociferously
oppose them and sponsor legislation to prevent their implementation.
But that's not the bill before the House today. The bill before the
House today is a distraction from the most pressing issue facing our
country and economy: jobs, jobs, and jobs.
Mr. Chair, I support a ban on regulating farm dust. That's common
sense. But I do not support creating Clean Air Act loopholes for big
industry under the guise of helping small farmers and businesses. I am
voting no on H.R. 1633.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, farm dust is not regulated by the EPA, and
EPA Administrator Jackson has clearly stated that the EPA has no plans
to regulate farm dust in the future--which makes the Farm Dust
Regulation Prevention Act a solution in search of a problem.
Unfortunately, today's legislation is more than just a mere waste of
time. Under the guise of protecting farmers from non-existent
regulation, H.R. 1633 would define and then exempt a completely new
category of particle pollution from the entire Clean Air Act, except
under very narrow circumstances. This new exempt category of particle
pollution would include both coarse and fine particles from sources
that have nothing to do with farming--including particulate matter from
mining and other industrial operations like smelters, cement kilns and
coal-processing facilities. Whether this consequence is intended or
simply the result of sloppy drafting, this legislation should be
roundly rejected.
Mr. Chair, with barely a week left on this year's congressional
calendar, we simply don't have the time to waste on imaginary problems.
The challenges our constituents face are real, and the hour is late. We
need to focus on growing the economy, reducing our debt and getting
people back to work before we adjourn for the year.
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 1633, the Farm Dust
Regulation Prevention Act.
As a farmer, and an original cosponsor of this legislation, I
appreciate the opportunity to this discuss this bill and speak in
support of its common sense approach to rural dust regulations.
I have traveled the rural parts of my district and I have farmed my
own fields. I know that when I'm harvesting my crops in the combine
that I'm going to stir up some dust. Whether I am planting, tiling, or
transferring crop to the grain bin, I cannot control the fact that
there will be dust.
A one size fits all approach to regulating particulate matter, does
not take into consideration that there are many sources of dust.
This legislation allows the flexibility for our states and
municipalities to manage dust in rural areas, so that local residents
and workers can determine which types may be harmful, and what is
simply the result of hardworking Americans of doing their jobs.
Our farmers, ranchers, and rural business leaders are facing the same
economic uncertainties as the rest of the country and they cannot
afford additional, costly regulations on dust.
Particularly, those producers who are in areas where natural
disasters have created new challenges for tilling soil that has been
harmed by drought, fire and flood. For these individuals, many of the
challenges remain unknown. Additional regulations will only increase
their burdens and limit their ability to return to their job and
contribute to the economy of rural America.
I know that Administrator Jackson has stated that the agency plans to
maintain current standards. I thank her for that. I appreciate her
intention to work with Congress and our farmers and ranchers.
However, her statement alone does not protect the farm operations
across our nation and it does not prevent this body from legislating on
behalf of our producers.
This legislation provides the protections needed for rural Americans
to continue to do their day to day work without the threat of new
regulation interfering with their mission to grow safe, plentiful, and
affordable food for our nation.
We all have a vested interest to ensure that farmers and ranchers can
provide for their families and all Americans.
I encourage my colleagues to support his legislation
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce, printed in the
bill, shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of
amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:
H.R. 1633
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Farm Dust Regulation
Prevention Act of 2011''.
SEC. 2. TEMPORARY PROHIBITION AGAINST REVISING ANY NATIONAL
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARD APPLICABLE TO
COARSE PARTICULATE MATTER.
Before the date that is one year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency may not propose, finalize, implement, or
enforce any regulation revising the national primary ambient
air quality standard or the national secondary ambient air
quality standard applicable to particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter greater than 2.5 micrometers under
section 109 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7409).
SEC. 3. NUISANCE DUST.
Part A of title I of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 132. REGULATION OF NUISANCE DUST PRIMARILY BY STATE,
TRIBAL, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.
``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b),
this Act does not apply to, and references in this Act to
particulate matter are deemed to exclude, nuisance dust.
``(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) does not apply with
respect to any geographic area in which nuisance dust is not
regulated under State, tribal, or local law insofar as the
Administrator finds that--
``(1) nuisance dust (or any subcategory of nuisance dust)
causes substantial adverse public health and welfare effects
at ambient concentrations; and
``(2) the benefits of applying standards and other
requirements of this Act to nuisance dust (or such
subcategory of nuisance dust) outweigh the costs (including
local and regional economic and employment impacts) of
applying such standards and other requirements to nuisance
dust (or such subcategory).
``(c) Definition.--In this section--
``(1) the term `nuisance dust' means particulate matter
that--
``(A) is generated primarily from natural sources, unpaved
roads, agricultural activities, earth moving, or other
activities typically conducted in rural areas;
``(B) consists primarily of soil, other natural or
biological materials, or some combination thereof;
``(C) is not emitted directly into the ambient air from
combustion, such as exhaust from combustion engines and
emissions from stationary combustion processes; and
``(D) is not comprised of residuals from the combustion of
coal; and
``(2) the term `nuisance dust' does not include radioactive
particulate matter produced from uranium mining or
processing.''.
The CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in House Report 112-
317. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in
the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered
read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Rush
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in
House Report 112-317.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
In section 2, strike ``applicable to particulate matter
with an aerodynamic diameter greater than 2.5 micrometers''
and insert ``for PM10''.
At the end of section 2, add the following: ``Nothing in
this Act precludes the Administrator from proposing,
finalizing, implementing, or enforcing the national primary
ambient air quality standard or the national
[[Page H8283]]
secondary ambient air quality standard for
PM2.5.''.
Strike section 3.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 487, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Rush) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, if the premise of this bill is to simply
provide regulatory certainty to rural farmers and reiterate what
Administrator Jackson has already publicly stated--that EPA would not
alter the Bush-era standards for coarse particulate matter--then the
Rush amendment would satisfy that objective.
During the subcommittee hearing on H.R. 1633, we heard testimony from
the bill's sponsor that the intent of this legislation was to address
the regulatory uncertainty over ``farm dust.'' However, during that
same hearing, we heard testimony from the Assistant Administrator of
the Office of Air and Radiation, Gina McCarthy, where she expressed a
serious concern over the ambiguous language in the bill and the overly
broad impact it could have on existing Clean Air Act programs.
Mr. Chairman, the Rush amendment would remove the ambiguity and
provide clarity to the bill's intent so that we can keep in place
standards to protect our Nation's most vulnerable populations. At the
end of section 2, my amendment would add the following: ``Nothing in
this Act precludes the Administrator from proposing, finalizing,
implementing, or enforcing the national primary ambient air quality
standard or the national secondary air quality standard for PM2.5.''
Additionally, because there is such widespread suspicion that the real
intent of this bill is to roll back existing Clean Air Act protections,
my amendment would strike section 3 altogether, which contains the most
overly ambiguous and excessively broad provisions of the bill. In
section 3, the bill's exclusion for particulate matter from combustion
would not exclude particulate pollution from sources such as open-pit
mines, mining processing plants, sand and gravel mines, smelters, coal
mines, coal-processing plants, cement kilns, and waste and recovery
facilities.
Mrs. McCarthy raised serious concerns about the effect of this bill
on existing health-based standards due to the fact that the term
``nuisance dust'' is not a scientifically-defined term, and it would be
very difficult to incorporate into a scientifically-based program. As
Mrs. McCarthy noted, ``Coarse particles have been linked to a variety
of adverse health effects, including hospitals visits related to
cardiovascular and respiratory disease, and premature death. While the
body of scientific evidence is much more limited for coarse PM than for
fine particles, the agency's review of the studies indicate that short-
term exposures to coarse particles remain a concern.''
Mr. Chairman, the Rush amendment would provide regulatory certainty
to rural farmers while also protecting our Nation's most vulnerable
population, including our children, our senior citizens, people with
low incomes, and people with chronic lung disease such as asthma,
chronic bronchitis, and emphysema.
I urge all my colleagues to support my amendment.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. While I have a great deal of respect and admiration
for the gentleman from Illinois, I am going to oppose this amendment.
I would say, first of all, that this legislation does not change in
any way the current EPA standard relating to particulate matter on
coarse materials. His amendment would strike the provision in the bill
addressing nuisance dust, keeping only that which prohibits a change to
the existing PM10 standard for 1 year, which we agree with. But because
it strikes section 3, which is the main part and the substantive part
of this bill because it would eliminate our nuisance dust definition, I
would respectfully oppose the amendment and urge all Members to vote
``no'' on the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois will be postponed.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mrs. Christensen
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in
House Report 112-317.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
In section 132(b) of the Clean Air Act, as proposed to be
added by section 3 of the bill, after ``is not regulated
under State, tribal, or local law'' insert ``at a level
requisite to protect public health (as determined by the
Administrator),''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 487, the gentlewoman from the
Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands.
{time} 1230
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
This bill stands as an effort to dramatically weaken the Clean Air
Act and delay implementation of vital public health protections against
toxic particles.
The adverse health effects of particulate matter are serious and have
been well documented. Thousands of studies published over the last 9
years make a much stronger case for the regulation of fine particles
and indicate that the current standards must be revisited in order to
ensure the public health is protected.
The major health effects of fine particulate matter include reduced
lung function, cough, wheezing, missed school days due to respiratory
symptoms, increased use of asthma medication, strokes, emergency room
visits, hospital admissions, lung cancer, and premature death--at
levels well below the current national air quality standards.
This bill, H.R. 1633, eliminates EPA's authority to control so-called
``nuisance dust'' except in a very narrow set of circumstances.
First, the Administrator must find that nuisance dust causes
substantial adverse public health and welfare effects.
Second, even if the Administrator determines that nuisance dust
causes substantial harm, she must also find that the benefits of
regulating nuisance dust outweigh the cost, including impacts on
employment. This approach upends the way EPA has been setting health-
based air pollution standards for 40 years.
The Clean Air Act requires EPA to set each air quality standard based
purely on science and medical evidence showing the health effects of
exposure to the pollutant. The standard basically identifies the level
of pollution that is safe to breathe. The Clean Air Act also requires
EPA to set the standard with an adequate margin of safety to account
for uncertainty and protect sensitive subpopulations, such as children
with asthma. Essentially, this bill would require EPA to determine the
level of air pollution that is safe to breathe based on the costs of
control, not the medical evidence.
Third, under this bill, the Administrator only has this limited
authority in areas where State, local or tribal governments are not
regulating nuisance dust. But the bill provides no minimum standard of
protection, no Federal floor. That means that even the most minimal
State or local requirement is sufficient to bar EPA action on anything
that falls under the definition of nuisance dust.
It is absurd, Mr. Chairman, to claim that any State or local dust
regulation, no matter how minimal, would be sufficient to protect the
public health. We tried to address air pollution only on the State and
local level throughout the 1960s. It did not work. Companies blocked
cleaner air protections by threatening to leave for other States with
weaker standards.
This widely acknowledged failure produced overwhelming support for
the
[[Page H8284]]
cooperative federalism approach embodied in the Clean Air Act since
1970. Under this approach, the Federal Government sets minimum uniform
standards to protect health, and States and localities then decide how
to achieve those standards.
Since 1970, every American has had the same basic right to clean and
healthy air. My amendment simply preserves those rights. It ensures
that the residents of every State and locality are afforded a baseline
level of protection against particle pollution. My amendment says that
if the State, local, or tribal laws are not sufficient to protect
public health from exposure to dangerous particle pollution, then EPA
has the authority under the Clean Air Act to step in and take action to
reduce that pollution.
This bill tries to turn back the clock to a time when State and local
air pollution laws weren't strong enough to protect public health.
Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. Let's learn
our history and recognize that both States and the Federal Government
play valuable roles in ensuring that Americans breathe clean and
healthy air.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. HURT. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HURT. I thank the Chairman.
This amendment would allow the EPA to override the State and local
regulations and thereby gut the purpose of this bill.
Let's remember what the commonsense purpose of this bill is. There's
nothing radical at all about this bill. In fact, in section 3 this bill
protects public health. It protects public health by relying on the
State and local regulators who are best equipped to make judgments
about naturally occurring dust. And it does nothing at all to affect
the particulate matter 2.5 standard. I think that's important to note
inasmuch as it seems that the opposition seems to want to forget that.
Let's remember the ultimate purpose of this bill, and that is to
protect the farmer and the rural businesses from overreaching Federal
regulation that causes uncertainty and it causes job loss.
However, the EPA and the opposition talked about the myth. They say
that it's more likely that the EPA would regulate fairy dust. They say
that this is a solution in search of a problem. But our farmers know
better; our rural business owners know better. They know better because
they have looked at the proposed regulations and the proposals from the
EPA staff that was dated back in April in which they proposed looking
at and revising the PM10 standard. They also have seen the letter that
was sent to my office in May of this year in which Ms. McCarthy, the
assistant administrator, makes it clear that agricultural dust and dust
coming off of roads is absolutely within the larger view of these
standards. That's what our farmers know.
But most of all, they know their experience. They know what they have
endured over the years--over the decades--of what comes out of
Washington and how it affects their everyday life. If you look at their
track record, you can only see why there is uncertainty and why they
believe this is a very, very real threat.
I am proud to be able to travel across my rural district in south
side Virginia and central Virginia and talk to farmers. In August, I
sat down with a group of farmers in Nelson and Albemarle Counties. One
of the farmers that was there is a peach farmer, a fruit grower. He
said to me, Mr. Hurt, on my farm, where my family has been for
generations growing peaches for our customers, I'm regulated by the
Department of Labor, the Department of Agriculture, the FDA, the IRS,
the Department of Transportation, the Corps of Engineers, the EPA--and
the list goes on when you add the State and local regulators. He said,
I'm regulated by all those different agencies, most of them Federal
agencies; and all I'm trying to do is grow a peach. How hard can it be?
And I think when you look at the commonsense purpose of this bill,
you will see that this amendment would gut it. It is for that reason
that I would urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands has 30 seconds
remaining.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I would just like to add that my amendment does not
really take away any authority from the State, local, and tribal
governments; it just ensures that they set standards that are based on
the protection of the public health.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Crawford
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in
House Report 112-317.
Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
In section 132(b) of the Clean Air Act, as proposed to be
added by section 3 of the bill, after ``insofar as the
Administrator'' insert ``, in consultation with the Secretary
of Agriculture,''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 487, the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Crawford) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas.
Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very straightforward, and
I believe it will help provide the proper amount of interagency
communication with the EPA when they go to write air quality standards
for particulate matter.
The legislation being considered today excludes nuisance dust from
the EPA regulatory net, but the bill provides an exemption if the EPA
determines that the economic benefits of regulating dust outweigh the
cost. My amendment would simply direct the EPA to consult with the
Department of Agriculture in making this determination.
As a member of the Ag Committee, I've heard testimony from both the
Secretary of Agriculture and the EPA Administrator on how their
respective agencies propose and write regulations. A problem that
became apparent to me is that the two agencies don't even seem to
communicate. Neither agency could give me a sufficient explanation of
the protocol for interagency communication between the EPA and the
USDA. Their responses were bureaucratic and vague.
I find this troubling because if you ask the farmers and ranchers in
my Arkansas district about the greatest threat to their operations,
they always respond with three letters: EPA. I don't think their
response would be the same if both agencies worked together more often.
{time} 1240
Perhaps the best example of the right hand not knowing what the left
hand is doing occurred this past summer when the President was in his
home State of Illinois for a town hall event. One farmer asked the
President why the EPA was targeting new regulations at farmers after a
difficult growing season through the Midwest and Midsouth this year.
The President pointed to Ag Secretary Vilsack for backup and asked the
farmer to explain the specific regulations.
The farmer cited rules that would be crippling to the ag community,
including regulating farm dust. President Obama defiantly dismissed the
question by saying, ``Don't always believe what you hear.'' He later
told the crowd: If you ever have a question as to whether it's going to
make it harder for you to farm, contact USDA.
It seems to me that the President didn't understand that it's the
EPA, not the Department of Agriculture, that was the source of this
man's frustration. If the President doesn't realize
[[Page H8285]]
that the EPA is coming down hard on our Nation's farmers and ranchers,
then why would the agency, itself, find it necessary to consider
agriculture in proposing regulations? Clearly, it does not.
My amendment would ensure that the EPA and the Department of
Agriculture work together if the EPA seeks to further regulate the
agriculture industry in the future. The Department of Agriculture
understands the economic well-being of our Nation's farmers and
ranchers better than any other agency and should have a degree of input
whenever the EPA writes rules that directly impact farmers and
ranchers.
This amendment would be a small but important step in that direction.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to
control the time that would be allotted to those in opposition.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
California is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the Crawford amendment simply requires EPA
to consult with the Secretary of Agriculture before making any
determination about the health threat posed by pollution in an area, as
well as the costs and benefits of taking action.
I don't know that the Department of Agriculture has much to
contribute in terms of the health threats; but the bill is so
objectionable already, it's hard to argue that this amendment makes it
discernibly worse. It's a drop in a very large bucket.
For that reason, I will not oppose this amendment. We're willing to
accept it, but I still am in opposition to the bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Markey
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in
House Report 112-317.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
In section 132(c) of the Clean Air Act, as proposed to be
added by section 3 of the bill, strike ``and'' at the end of
paragraph (1), strike the period at the end of paragraph (2)
and insert ``; and'', and add at the end the following
paragraph:
``(3) the term `nuisance dust' does not include particulate
matter containing arsenic or other heavy metals that are
hazardous to human health.''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 487, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself 2 minutes.
In this legislation, the Republican majority exempts all so-called
nuisance dust from the protective air quality standards for coarse
particle or soot pollution under the Clean Air Act.
Republicans have defined ``nuisance dust'' to include particulate
matter that is generated from ``earth moving or other activities that
are typically conducted in rural areas.'' This legislation's broad
definition means a bill which is supposed to be all about tractors and
farms is actually about barring EPA from regulating the toxic soot that
comes out of mines, smelters, chemical plants. And that's because all
of these materials come from earth moving, natural materials, or
activities that take place in rural areas.
Now, I don't know about the majority, but when most people hear the
word ``nuisance'' they think of things like honking horns,
telemarketers, and buzzing flies. They don't think of poison. By
preventing EPA from regulating the toxic soot spewing out of mining
operations, smelters, chemical facilities, and construction sites,
Republicans have apparently decided that poisonous chemicals such as
arsenic, lead, and mercury are mere nuisances.
This false advertising is not a total surprise. We have heard from
Republican witnesses in the past who, in defense of the most polluting
industries, have unwillingly offered up the absurd. In fact, in the
last Congress, at a hearing I chaired, the Republican witness said he
would be happy to sprinkle arsenic-laced coal ash on his cereal.
It turns out that the Republican witness is not alone in his
suggestion to use arsenic as a dietary supplement. Arsenic, which is a
major component of mining activities, was famously used to poison and
kill a number of prominent people throughout history, including
Napoleon, King George III, and the Emperor of China.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. TERRY. I thank the chairman and appreciate the gentleman from
Boston's arguments here suggesting that this bill somehow exempts
arsenic and all these poisons. The reality is it does not. It's an
unnecessary amendment. It, one, is to make a point that I think is
inflated.
The reality is emissions of arsenic above the standard would still be
in violation of EPA rules. The reality also exists then, if you're
going to move the goalpost to a zero particulate, then we've got a
different issue here.
Now, the dust that we're talking about from agricultural activities--
plowing, harvesting, driving on roads--in our own definition says that
consists primarily of soil and other natural and biological materials.
So, if you're going to adopt a new standard totally different than
current standards at the EPA on such issues as arsenic, the reality in
rural America is that it is a natural part of our soil, and when dust
would kick up and blow, it will be at a particulate level below what
the standards are.
We're just trying to say, look, the reality is the EPA even says that
at the extremely minor level of particulates that would be inherent in
topsoil that could be kicked up by wind or farming activities is not a
health risk. In fact, one of the authors of the EPA's most recent
integrated science assessment for particulate matter issued in 2010
testified before our committee and stated, ``For long-term effects of
coarse particulates, there is next to no evidence in support of long-
term health effects.''
In rural America, in Nebraska, we can show you real-life examples. In
rural America, they have the highest health standards and longevity of
life and health.
So with that, I will let the gentleman close on his amendment and
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
In the 19th century, mercury, another common mining waste, was used
as a cure-all for toothaches and other ailments. It turns out that the
mercury is also highly toxic. It causes severe impacts on the brain
and, throughout history, has been identified as the poison behind many
other notable illnesses and deaths in the history of our planet.
By defining nuisance dust this way, the Republicans are, essentially,
providing the mining industry with the holiday gift of pollution.
Instead of gold and frankincense and myrrh, the Republicans are bearing
gifts of arsenic and lead and mercury for every family in our country.
My amendment simply states that so-called nuisance dust doesn't
include poisonous arsenic or other heavy metals that are hazardous to
human health, because cancer is not a nuisance. The development of a
child's brain is not a nuisance. Yet the Republicans would treat these
conditions as a nuisance rather than as medical catastrophes for the
families of America.
So let's be clear what this bill is all about. This is another
attempt by the Republicans to protect Big Coal by creating another
loophole to avoid the Clean Air Act so that families don't have to
worry that their children are inhaling these dangerous materials, the
arsenic, the lead, the mercury that they are petrified are going to
have a negative long-term impact on their children's development.
{time} 1250
That's what this is all about, bottom line. And the coal industry is
saying ``no.'' The Republicans are using the guise of some farm dust
cloud of confusion to mask what they're really trying to do, which is
to allow the coal industry to continue to send this lead,
[[Page H8286]]
this mercury, this arsenic up into the air and into the lungs of
children across our country, especially those that are so young that we
know it has an impact on their development, especially of their brain.
So I urge an ``aye'' vote on this amendment, and I don't think there
can be a more important amendment that we're going to vote upon in this
Congress.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts will be
postponed.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Waxman
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in
House Report 112-317.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
In section 132(c) of the Clean Air Act, as proposed to be
added by section 3 of the bill, strike ``and'' at the end of
paragraph (1), strike the period at the end of paragraph (2)
and insert ``; and'', and add at the end the following
paragraph:
``(3) the term `nuisance dust' does not include any
particulate matter produced from mining activities.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 487, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The supporters of this bill said they're simply trying to exempt
harmless dirt from farms and ranches from regulation under the Clean
Air Act. That simply is not the case. This bill is nothing more than a
bait-and-switch. The title says it's about farm dust, but in reality,
it would exempt air pollution from a number of industrial sources from
the entire Clean Air Act, including mines.
The bill defines ``nuisance dust'' to include particulate matter,
that consists primarily of natural materials generated from sources
that include ``earth moving.'' So when you look at that definition, it
would allow mines to be exempted from the requirements of the Clean Air
Act. This is an egregious overreach that would allow mines to release
particulate matter into the air without any controls.
The Kennecott, Utah, Copper Mine serves as a perfect example of why
this is such a problem. Kennecott Copper operates one of the largest
open-pit copper mines in the world, in Utah. The mine is even visible
from space.
Every day, they mine about 150,000 tons of copper ore and 330,000
tons of waste rock from the Bingham Canyon mine. Kennecott's operations
are the single largest source of particulate pollution in Utah.
The mine is having a significant impact on air quality, even with the
pollution control requirements in place. There is simply no reason,
therefore, to say well, we're going to address farm dust by exempting
this mine from regulation under the Clean Air Act. And that is what
this bill would do. It would exempt all particle pollution from the
mine's activities from the entire Clean Air Act.
That mine is now subject to the requirements of the Clean Air Act.
They're doing what they need to do to control pollution from that mine.
If we adopt this bill, it would allow them to refrain from doing
anything other than just simply spewing the pollution.
These mining operations, Kennecott and others, can have a significant
impact. They emit large quantities of both fine and coarse particulate
matter. Yet under this bill, they would be exempt from regulation.
So my amendment simply clarifies that this bill does not apply to
particle pollution from any mining activities.
The science shows that coarse and fine particle pollution, regardless
of the source, can trigger asthma attacks, heart attacks, stroke, and
premature death. That's why I oppose exempting favored sources of this
pollution from the Clean Air Act, and that's why I oppose the bill.
But at a minimum if we adopt this amendment, we would ensure that the
bill is true to its name--the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act.
Large industrial open-pit mines and gravel mining operations shouldn't
get a free pass to pollute under the clever pretense of being involved
with farms.
I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment removing mine
operations from coverage under this bill and making sure the bill only
covers farming operations.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Just to let me clarify, the purpose of this legislation, H.R. 1633,
is to exempt rural dust from costly and unnecessary Federal regulation.
It doesn't do anything to exempt any kind of facility, source, or mine
from environmental regulation. The northeastern part of Washington
State, which I represent, is one of the toughest places in the world to
mine. This bill isn't going to change that. Mining and agricultural
dust is comprehensively regulated by State agencies and many, many
Federal statutes currently in place, including the Surface Mining and
Control Reclamation Act, Federal Mine Safety and Health Act, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, Clean Water Act, Federal Land Policy and
Management Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and many others.
This includes regulation by the Department of Interior of dust from
wind erosion and vehicle traffic associated with mines. State and local
authorities will still have full authority to impose nuisance dust
controls, and rural America needs certainty that they won't be second-
guessed by the EPA.
I urge a ``no'' on this amendment.
Bottom line, if you stop and think about it, there's a story here, a
story of two paths forward. One path has the potential to bring
economic growth, jobs, and energy independence to this country; the
second path has brought and will continue to bring economic stagnation
to our Nation.
The irony is that the administration seems to continue to advocate
for the second path. And of course I'm talking about the path of EPA
overregulation that continues to put a stranglehold on businesses and
economic growth in this country.
The next phase of the EPA's path is America's farmland. Whether
you're working in the field herding cattle or driving down a dirt road,
the EPA wants to regulate the dust you pick up.
The Farm Dust Regulation Protection Act of 2011 will ensure that this
path is stopped by prohibiting the implementation of a stricter PMT
standard for 1 year and exempting nuisance dust, like farm dust, from
any future PMT regulation.
I applaud my colleagues, Representatives Noem and Hurt, for
introducing this important legislation. I urge my colleagues to support
it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, farm dust is not the same thing as
pollution from a mine. My amendment would exclude pollution from a mine
from this legislation so that it stays under EPA regulation under the
Clean Air Act, as it is today. There is no reason to give mining
operations, whether they're in rural or in urban areas, a pass so that
they need not even meet requirements to protect the public from unsafe
pollutants that could cause adverse health impacts.
I urge the adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. I would like to yield the balance of my time
to the chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, this is a little off topic. We have a
young man who served the Energy and Commerce Committee and me
personally for many years and did an outstanding job. His name is Jeff
Mortier. Tomorrow is his last day as an employee of the House of
Representatives. I just want to take this opportunity to thank him for
the great job that he did and to wish him the very best in his new
endeavor.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. Waxman).
[[Page H8287]]
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from California will be
postponed.
{time} 1300
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Flake
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed in
House Report 112-317.
Mr. FLAKE. I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
SEC. 4. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of the Congress that the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency should implement an
approach to excluding so-called ``exceptional events'', or
events that are not reasonably controllable or preventable,
from determinations of whether an area is in compliance with
any national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) applicable
to coarse particulate matter that--
(1) maximizes transparency and predictability for States,
tribes, and local governments; and
(2) minimizes the regulatory and cost burdens States,
tribes, and local governments bear in excluding such events.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 487, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
While the Clean Air Act obviously serves a useful purpose, all too
often States and localities are tied up in knots in just trying to
comply with the provisions of it in which the rules that were
promulgated in response to the law, or amendments to the law, just
weren't well thought out.
In this regard, in 2005 Congress amended the Clean Air Act so States
and localities could get off the regulatory hook for so-called
``exceptional events''--dust events--events that they cannot control
but that impact air quality. In 2007, the EPA adopted the Exceptional
Event Rule, implementing Congress' amendment to the Clean Air Act; but
this rule has proven flawed, costly, and inconsistently implemented.
Let me give you an idea of what we're talking about here. Here is a
picture. It's an actual photograph of one of the events that happened
just this year in the Phoenix metropolitan area which was caused by a
monsoon.
The monsoon comes along. When it rolls along flat ground, it tends to
pick up every loose bit of dust or dirt that's there, and it causes an
event like this. Obviously, this is not something that the State or
local government can control; yet we're forced to go then to the EPA
and beg for an exception to the Clean Air Act, which has proven to be
extremely costly when we have to do it over and over again.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to speak on this
amendment.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from California is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. WAXMAN. I wanted to say to the gentleman from Arizona that I
think his amendment makes a great deal of sense. It complies with what,
I think, the EPA ought to do under these exceptional circumstances, and
we are prepared to accept his amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman from California.
Mr. Chairman, just to give you an idea of how prevalent the problem
is, I'll just summarize a little more. In Arizona, the Maricopa
Association of Governments, or MAG, has said that there have been about
100 events that have exceeded the PM10 standard this year. All but one
was from an exceptional event--dust storms that occurred naturally.
What happens then is States and localities, as I said, have to go to
the EPA and beg for an exception to the rule. In some cases, just for
an example, if you take all of the events in 2011, the Maricopa
Association of Governments is estimating it will cost over $1 million
to just argue and put together the paperwork to go to the EPA and say,
This was a big monsoon that caused this. It was an exceptional event.
In the end, the EPA may rule in our favor, but it is the cost of
actually going through it.
This is not just in Maricopa County. It's not just in Arizona. In the
San Joaquin Valley, I believe it has noted that the paperwork for just
one high-wind exceptional event takes more than 400 staff hours to
prepare in order to go to the EPA. It takes 400 staff hours for one
exceptional event like this to go and say, This shouldn't count against
our air quality or count against us in terms of new regulations and
costs that will be imposed on us.
I am a cosponsor of the underlying bill to which this amendment will
be attached, and I support it. This is an important amendment. It is
not just an academic question, and I'm glad that all sides recognize
this. So I thank the gentleman from California for accepting the
amendment.
I now wish to yield time to the sponsor of the bill, the gentlewoman
from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem). I thank her for her dogged work in
bringing this forward.
Mrs. NOEM. I rise in support of the amendment that the gentleman from
Arizona has brought to the floor.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would add a sense of Congress to this
piece of legislation that the EPA should approach and exclude
exceptional events and have a provision such as this. It would give us
a consistent and a transparent manner for dealing with these events.
Certainly, rural America and other parts of America need the certainty
that the regulation is not triggered by natural events that are out of
our control.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentlelady.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the EPA does recognize there is a
problem here, and they are working to correct it. It's just taking a
long time. The rule was promulgated in 2007. We've had 3 or 4 years
since that time, and every year it costs States and local governments
millions of dollars just to seek exceptions with these exceptional
events. The language in this amendment simply encourages the EPA to
move more quickly, and Congress stands ready to help them to fashion a
new rule that will truly account for these exceptional events.
With that, I urge support for the amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Schock
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed in
House Report 112-317.
Mr. SCHOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
SEC. 4. IMPACTS OF EPA REGULATORY ACTIVITY ON EMPLOYMENT AND
ECONOMIC ACTIVITY IN THE AGRICULTURE COMMUNITY.
(a) Analysis of Impacts of Actions on Employment and
Economic Activity in the Agriculture Community.--
(1) Analysis.--Before taking a covered action, the
Administrator shall analyze the impact, disaggregated by
State, of the covered action on--
(A) employment levels in the agriculture industry; and
(B) agricultural economic activity, including estimated job
losses and decreased economic activity related to
agriculture.
(2) Economic models.--
(A) In general.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the
Administrator shall utilize the best available economic
models.
(B) Annual gao report.--Not later than December 31 of each
year, the Comptroller General of the United States shall
submit to Congress a report on the economic models used by
the Administrator to carry out this subsection.
(3) Availability of information.--With respect to any
covered action, the Administrator shall--
(A) post the analysis under paragraph (1) as a link on the
main page of the public Internet Web site of the
Environmental Protection Agency;
(B) request the Secretary of Agriculture to post the
analysis under paragraph (1) as a link on the main page of
the public Internet Web site of the Department of
Agriculture; and
[[Page H8288]]
(C) request that the Governor of any State experiencing
more than a de minimis negative impact post such analysis in
the Capitol of such State.
(b) Public Hearings.--
(1) In general.--If the Administrator concludes under
subsection (a)(1) that a covered action will have more than a
de minimis negative impact on agricultural employment levels
or agricultural economic activity in a State, the
Administrator shall hold a public hearing in each such State
at least 30 days prior to the effective date of the covered
action.
(2) Time, location, and selection.--A public hearing
required under paragraph (1) shall be held at a convenient
time and location for impacted residents. In selecting a
location for such a public hearing, the Administrator shall
give priority to locations in the State that will experience
the greatest number of job losses.
(c) Notification.--If the Administrator concludes under
subsection (a)(1) that a covered action will have more than a
de minimis negative impact on agricultural employment levels
or agricultural economic activity in any State, the
Administrator shall give notice of such impact to the State's
Congressional delegation, Governor, and Legislature at least
45 days before the effective date of the covered action.
(d) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions apply:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(2) Covered action.--The term ``covered action'' means any
of the following actions taken by the Administrator under the
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) relating to
agriculture and the national primary ambient air quality
standard or the national secondary ambient air quality
standard for particulate matter:
(A) Issuing a regulation, policy statement, guidance,
response to a petition, or other requirement.
(B) Implementing a new or substantially altered program.
(3) More than a de minimis negative impact.--The term
``more than a de minimis negative impact'' means the
following:
(A) With respect to employment levels, a loss of more than
100 jobs related to the agriculture industry. Any offsetting
job gains that result from the hypothetical creation of new
jobs through new technologies or government employment may
not be used in the job loss calculation.
(B) With respect to economic activity, a decrease in
agricultural economic activity of more than $1,000,000 over
any calendar year. Any offsetting economic activity that
results from the hypothetical creation of new economic
activity through new technologies or government employment
may not be used in the economic activity calculation.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 487, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Schock) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. SCHOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today to offer an amendment with my good friend and colleague,
Mrs. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia.
Our amendment is simple. It requires the EPA to consider the impact
of new agriculture jobs and the economy before issuing new rules and
regulations. A similar amendment to the Clean Water Cooperative
Federalism Act passed this House in July, and it enjoyed broad
bipartisan support.
My amendment today says if jobs and the economic well-being of
farmers would be negatively impacted, the EPA will be required to hold
public hearings in the impacted State. It would also require the EPA to
notify the State's Governor, legislature, and congressional delegation.
It would also require that the EPA post its analysis of the negative
job impact on its Web site, request the Secretary of Agriculture to do
the same, and request the Governor of that State to post similar
analysis on the State capital's Web site.
I don't believe this is too much to ask. We are simply asking the EPA
to calculate the number of jobs lost and the economic impact on the
agricultural community with a new rule that would do such. If its
calculation turns out to be detrimental, we want the EPA to let our
Nation's farmers know before it implements additional red tape and new
regulations.
We expect the bureaucrats in the EPA here in Washington, D.C. to go
out into the real world and understand the impact of the rules that
they are implementing, that they are suggesting, and that have a real
effect on farmers who are trying to run their operations across America
and are helping to feed the world's population.
This past weekend, the Illinois Farm Bureau, in my home State, had
its annual meeting. It conducted a survey of the thousands of farmers
who participated in that convention, and it asked them an open-ended
question:
What posed the biggest threat to their future profitability as family
farmers? Was it input costs? lower commodity prices? land prices?
commodity price swings?
No. Their answer, overwhelmingly, was government regulation.
Dale Hadden, who is a farmer from Jacksonville, Illinois, recently
told me: ``The thought of the EPA continuing to place more regulations
on my farming operation is unfounded. My family prides itself on being
environmental stewards and making our farm better for the next
generation. We do it better here than in any other place in the
world.''
Jamie Schaffer, another farmer from my district, in Princeville,
Illinois, told me:
``The EPA over-regulation has the potential to shut us down. We
wouldn't be able to farm with modern equipment. Livestock walks across
the field and creates dust when it's dry out. We need to take
regulators out to our farms and personally show them there's no way
around dust or dirt. It's just a natural part of the environment.''
Let's let Dale, Jamie, and other farmers in our country continue to
do what they do best. Let the EPA bureaucrats understand first, before
they implement a new rule, what kind of effect, if any, it will have
negatively on jobs and the economy throughout our country.
I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WAXMAN. I have several concerns about this amendment, which seems
to ignore the reality of how agencies communicate, along with the well-
established process for how EPA proposes and finalizes a rule.
First of all, this amendment requires the EPA to conduct additional
economic analyses for a broad range of agency actions that could affect
agriculture, including guidance documents and policy statements.
{time} 1310
Requiring an expensive and time-consuming detailed economic analysis
for every policy statement makes no sense.
Secondly, this amendment singles out one favored sector for special
treatment. Why should we have an entirely different rulemaking process
in place for agriculture? If the Republicans are concerned about the
rulemaking process, then they should work with us on a bipartisan basis
to improve the way rules are adopted for all sectors, not just one.
This amendment also isn't necessary. EPA already has to evaluate the
costs and benefits of each rule to satisfy requirements and numerous
statutes. When issuing a rule, EPA has to comply with the
Administrative Procedure Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, specific environmental
statutes, Executive orders on regulatory planning and review
requirements of the Office of Management and Budget, and others.
A few minutes ago, we accepted an amendment from the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake) that called on EPA not to have a burdensome process
when they grant a state flexibility in handling an exceptional event
that caused a violation, and he argued we didn't need a burdensome
process to get to that result.
This additional burdensome process imposed by this amendment is also
unnecessary. According to the GAO, the requirements already in place
are quote, ``clearly voluminous and require a wide range of procedural,
consultative, and analytical action on the part of the agencies.''
This amendment appears to ignore this well-established process and,
instead, would add another burdensome layer to the already lengthy
review. It serves no purpose. It bogs down the agency. It creates more
bureaucracy. It costs more money. It does not accomplish anything. And
insofar as it accomplishes anything, it just stalls the agency from
acting in only one area--agriculture.
[[Page H8289]]
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment as well as oppose the
underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHOCK. May I inquire as to how much time remains?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. SCHOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would respond to my friend from California with a couple points.
First of all, we did have the opportunity to apply a similar rule to
the entire bureaucracy. We passed that yesterday. It's called the REINS
Act.
But with regard to specifically pointing out agency by agency, a
similar amendment passed earlier this year to the clean water bill, the
Clean Water Act, that had bipartisan support, and I would certainly
hope that this amendment would as well.
To the concern about expense, I can't imagine what's more expensive
than putting Americans out of work. I can't think of what's more
expensive than asking American farmers to come up with more cash and
more expenses because of bureaucrats' new rules in Washington, D.C.
Finally, this does not prohibit the agency from doing anything. It
just requires the agency to know what they're doing, the impact on
jobs, and that to be known by the farmers, the State, the congressional
delegation, and certainly the bureaucrats at the EPA.
With that, I yield 1 minute to my friend from Colorado (Mr. Gardner).
Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for this amendment.
It's ironic that the opposition to this amendment characterizes the
amendment as a burden. However, the burden being placed, I would
suggest, if it's a burden at all, is on the EPA, the EPA who actually
has to take a look at whether or not this is impacting jobs before the
regulation is promulgated.
How about that? We actually do something around this place that takes
a burden off the private sector and makes government do their job to
make sure they're not hurting jobs in private industry.
You know, this is an amendment that makes absolute common sense, to
look before you leap, to make sure that you understand the impacts of a
regulation before you issue it, and that's why I support this
amendment.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Illinois has expired.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the EPA goes through an incredible analysis
now, the costs and the benefits and all the other considerations. It's
appropriate. To add another review of regulations at EPA is to require
paralysis by analysis, and perhaps that's the objective of the
amendment.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schock) has said he can't imagine
anything more expensive than what this regulation might do to farmers.
Well, I'll tell you something that's more expensive: Tax breaks for
zillionaires, billionaires, and millionaires is a lot more expensive
than requiring EPA to do even more.
Let's not burden the agency with reviews only for one sector that add
nothing to the analysis that they already achieved before they adopt
any regulation. And these regulations that are already in effect now
are not costing jobs.
This whole bill is supposed to prevent regulations that had not even
been adopted. And we're not losing jobs because of that. We're losing
jobs because our economy is not functioning, because we don't have a
willingness by the Republicans to stimulate this economy, get people
back to work and get jobs for those who need them.
I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Schock).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Al Green of Texas
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed in
House Report 112-317.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following section:
SEC. 4. REPORT ON EFFECT ON JOBS.
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
shall transmit to Congress a report estimating the increase
or decrease in the number of jobs in the United States that
will occur as a result of the enactment of this Act
(including the amendment to the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401
et seq.) made by section 3 of this Act).
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 487, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Al Green) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
There has been much debate as to whether this bill will create or
save jobs. There is much speculation based on whether this bill will
create or save jobs. When you have few facts, you, generally speaking,
can have much speculation. This amendment addresses speculation.
There is some sense in this country that our approval rating is low
in Congress because of much speculation. Speculation can breed
distrust. Speculation can lead to fact-free debate, a term my good
friend, Emanuel Cleaver, Representative from Missouri, uses--fact-free
debate.
This amendment can help us eliminate fact-free debate. This amendment
contains less than 100 words, and it addresses the elimination of fact-
free debate. It reads:
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this act, the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall transmit to
Congress a report estimating the increase or decrease in the number of
jobs in the United States that will occur as a result of the enactment
of this act.
This amendment eliminates fact-free debates and speculation. So if
you really want to eliminate fact-free debates and speculation, then
you should support this amendment.
If you believe that this bill really does create or save jobs, then
you should support this amendment.
If you believe that Carlisle is right, that no lie can live forever,
and this will eliminate the possibility of things being done with
malice aforethought, you should support this amendment.
If you believe that William Cullen Bryant is right, that truth, when
crushed to Earth, can rise again, you should support this amendment,
because this amendment will help us to repeal what the truth is.
If you believe that fact-free debates ought to be eliminated, you
ought to support this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARDNER. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The question I have on that--I understand the confusion about jobs in
the EPA. I think there is a great deal of confusion when it comes to
whether or not the EPA is considering jobs in their analysis.
The administration has issued an Executive order. We have actually,
through the Energy and Commerce Committee, held a number of hearings on
the Executive order that says, hey, you need to take a look at the
impact on jobs when a regulation is promulgated.
We have had testimony from various officials at the EPA talking about
whether or not they look at jobs.
{time} 1320
There seems to be a great deal of confusion at the EPA about whether
they actually care about jobs. But the problem is we ought to take a
look at those jobs before the regulation is issued. That's exactly what
the amendment did that we just passed by Mr. Schock. Addressing jobs,
clearly, is not the expertise of the EPA. In fact, just ask assistant
administrator Mathy Stanislaus, who came before our committee and
testified that, indeed, when they issued a regulation, they didn't take
a look at the jobs impact, even though about 30 seconds before in his
statement he said that they did take a look at the impact on jobs.
[[Page H8290]]
To the extent the EPA does comment on the jobs impact of its
regulatory agenda, it has been widely criticized for understanding the
potential for job losses, or for even making farfetched claims that the
regulations create jobs. At one time we had a hearing with Gina
McCarthy, assistant administrator of the EPA, who testified for every
$1 million in regulations, it creates 1.5 jobs; 1.5 jobs for every $1
million in cost of a regulation. That's their idea of a job-creating
idea or activity.
State, local, and tribal governments will be able to enforce their
own dust regulations in a way that makes sense for local conditions,
including on jobs and the economy.
We don't need to spend money on a study to know that avoiding
overregulation will benefit the economy. Avoiding overregulation will
benefit the economy. Regulations--1.5 jobs for every $1 million. That's
the kind of math that my constituents, many constituents across this
country, simply don't understand.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have?
The CHAIR. The gentleman has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Thank you.
It is an opinion, well stated, and I appreciate the opinion that has
been well stated. However, the best way to ascertain whether jobs are
being created or eliminated is to utilize empirical evidence, empirical
evidence developed after the fact as opposed to before the actual
implementation of the bill.
If you believe, and I believe your heart's in the right place, if you
believe that this is an opportunity for us to dispel any myths, to
dispel any speculation, then let's have a study done after the bill has
passed and after there has been some time for implementation.
I'm willing to extend the time. I'm willing to have GAO do the study.
My heart's in the right place. I want us to have proof positive that
this bill does or does not eliminate jobs. I want to eliminate the
speculation.
I believe I have enough time left to engage my friend in a colloquy.
How much time do I have, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIR. The gentleman has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. I yield to my friend from Colorado.
Mr. GARDNER. Thank you very much for the time and consideration.
Again, we did adopt an amendment that actually takes a look at the
regulation before it's offered.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Reclaiming my time for just a moment, you say
before. You see, empirical evidence under the scientific method is best
acquired after you have the actual evidence. So what you would do is
utilize speculation to come to a conclusion and then call that a fact.
This would eliminate speculation.
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. GARDNER. I think I know that if I stub my toe, it's going to hurt
before I do it. We ought to be able to check out whether or not it's
going to cost jobs before we do it.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Reclaiming my time, the question is whether
you will actually have the opportunity to hurt your toe, as you put it.
There is no need to avoid things that don't exist. Let us get the
actual raw empirical evidence and use that to draw our conclusions as
to whether this bill creates or saves jobs.
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman.
The empirical evidence that I go on comes from the groups in Colorado
that know this issue the best--the farmers and ranchers that I
represent. Here's just a listing of a few of the organizations that
support this bill as it stands.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Reclaiming my time, because supporting
something is not empirical evidence as to whether or not it will do a
certain thing. I respect all who are supporting it.
By the way, I don't disrespect you. I believe your heart is in the
right place. What I'm trying to get you to see is if you utilize the
scientific method, you will get your empirical evidence after you have
given this an opportunity to be enacted.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Again, I would just like to continue with a list of overwhelming
support from those in my district that believe this will, indeed, cost
jobs. We've adopted an amendment that says hey, let's take a look at it
before it goes into effect. The Colorado agriculture organizations,
including the Colorado Association of Wheat Growers, the Colorado
Cattlemen's Association, the Colorado Corn Growers, the Colorado Lamb
Council, the Colorado Livestock Association, the Colorado Pork
Producers Council, the Colorado Potato Administrative Committee, the
Colorado Sheep and Wool Authority, the Colorado Wool Growers Authority,
and the Colorado Farm Bureau, these are organizations that will work
each and every day under this regulation. And perhaps the EPA says hey,
you know what, we're not going to do this right now, but they are very
concerned.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GARDNER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. With all due respect, the world is larger than
Colorado, and there are other States and other organizations.
Mr. GARDNER. Reclaiming my time, I understand there are some big
concerns from Boston, there are concerns in Houston, and there are some
concerns in Los Angeles; but, I can tell you in rural Colorado, in
rural America, there are grave concerns that there are many people in
this body that think their concerns over farm dust are nothing more
than concerns over pixie dust.
I would just close with this argument.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GARDNER. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. In my city we have a rock-crushing company. It
yields dust, particulate matter. That is something that is a concern to
rural people as well.
Mr. GARDNER. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman will recognize that
State, local, and tribal governments will be able to enforce their own
dust regulations according to local conditions. So I understand where
you're coming from. I would just oppose this amendment. I believe that
we need to get on to the underlying bill and adopt the underlying bill
so that we can move forward, creating jobs, making sure that we're not
killing jobs, and do what's right for this country when it comes to our
economy.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Al Green).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will be postponed.
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now
resume on those amendments printed in House Report 112-317 on which
further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Rush of Illinois.
Amendment No. 2 by Mrs. Christensen of the Virgin Islands.
Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Markey of Massachusetts.
Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Waxman of California.
Amendment No. 8 by Mr. Al Green of Texas.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Rush
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
[[Page H8291]]
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 150,
noes 255, not voting 28, as follows:
[Roll No. 906]
AYES--150
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Napolitano
Neal
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--255
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hochul
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Noem
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--28
Bachmann
Becerra
Bilirakis
Campbell
Castor (FL)
Coble
Davis (IL)
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Engel
Fudge
Giffords
Granger
Hinchey
Jackson (IL)
Labrador
McKeon
Miller, George
Myrick
Nadler
Neugebauer
Nugent
Olver
Owens
Paul
Rahall
Ryan (OH)
Smith (WA)
{time} 1351
Messrs. SCHWEIKERT, ALTMIRE, GRIFFIN of Arkansas and SULLIVAN changed
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. GRIJALVA and Ms. SPEIER changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chair, earlier today I was unavoidably detained and
missed rollcall vote 906. If present, I would have voted ``aye'' on
rollcall vote 906.
Stated against:
Mr. DOLD. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 906 I was unavoidably detained.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mrs. Christensen
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands
(Mrs. Christensen) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 159,
noes 250, not voting 24, as follows:
[Roll No. 907]
AYES--159
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Napolitano
Neal
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reyes
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--250
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
[[Page H8292]]
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Richardson
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--24
Amodei
Bachmann
Campbell
Cardoza
Castor (FL)
Coble
Davis (IL)
Diaz-Balart
Forbes
Franks (AZ)
Fudge
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Hinchey
Jackson (IL)
LaTourette
Miller, George
Myrick
Nadler
Neugebauer
Olver
Owens
Paul
Rahall
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1355
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Markey
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Markey) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 165,
noes 249, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 908]
AYES--165
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Napolitano
Neal
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--249
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--19
Bachmann
Boustany
Campbell
Castor (FL)
Coble
Davis (IL)
Diaz-Balart
Fudge
Giffords
Hinchey
Hirono
Jackson (IL)
Miller (FL)
Miller, George
Myrick
Nadler
Olver
Paul
Rahall
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1358
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 908, had I been
present, I would have voted ``no.''
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Waxman
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 158,
noes 257, not voting 18, as follows:
[[Page H8293]]
[Roll No. 909]
AYES--158
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--257
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hochul
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--18
Bachmann
Campbell
Castor (FL)
Coble
Davis (IL)
Diaz-Balart
Fudge
Garrett
Giffords
Hinchey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Miller, George
Myrick
Nadler
Paul
Rahall
Tierney
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1402
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 909 which is on
the Waxman Amendment to the bill H.R. 1633, I was detained with
official matters pertaining to my office and failed to make the vote.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Al Green of Texas
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 170,
noes 247, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 910]
AYES--170
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Dicks
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Frank (MA)
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Renacci
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--247
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
DesJarlais
Dingell
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
[[Page H8294]]
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Loebsack
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--16
Bachmann
Campbell
Castor (FL)
Coble
Davis (IL)
Diaz-Balart
Fudge
Giffords
Hinchey
Jackson (IL)
Miller, George
Myrick
Nadler
Paul
Rahall
Speier
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1405
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIR. The question is on the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Woodall) having assumed the chair, Mr. Womack, Chair of the Committee
of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1633) to
establish a temporary prohibition against revising any national ambient
air quality standard applicable to coarse particulate matter, to limit
Federal regulation of nuisance dust in areas in which such dust is
regulated under State, tribal, or local law, and for other purposes,
and, pursuant to House Resolution 487, reported the bill back to the
House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Ms. DeGETTE. Yes, sir, most definitely I am.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Ms. DeGette moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1633 to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith, with the following
amendment:
At the end of the bill, add the following section:
SEC. 4. PROTECTING THE PUBLIC FROM TOXIC DUST THAT CAUSES
CANCER AND BRAIN DAMAGE.
Nothing in this Act or the amendment made by this Act shall
prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency from proposing, finalizing, implementing, or enforcing
any regulation promulgated under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7401 et seq.) relating to emissions in particulate form of
cadmium, lead, or asbestos, including vermiculite asbestos
released from mining activities and asbestos released from
demolition and renovation activities.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Colorado is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Ms. DeGETTE. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Really? Really, Mr. Speaker?
With 1 week left in the legislative session, we've spent an entire
day debating about a bill that does not address an existing problem;
and with the continuing resolution expiring 1 week from tomorrow, we're
not working on an appropriations bill to keep our government operating?
We're not here today voting on an extenders bill that would extend the
payroll tax cut for middle Americans just as the economy begins to
recover?
Really?
We're not voting on extending unemployment benefits to help
struggling families stay afloat while they continue to look for work?
Really, Mr. Speaker?
And once again, we're not doing one thing today to put Americans back
to work?
Unfortunately, as ridiculous as today's effort has been, the
consequences of the bill are no laughing matter. The truth is the EPA
does not currently regulate farm dust. This bill would prevent a
regulation that doesn't actually exist from overseeing something
undefined.
{time} 1410
Also, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has said unequivocally that she
does not intend to regulate farm dust in the future.
But to add insult to injury, the consequences of this proposed
solution could be devastating. The bill that came out of the Energy and
Commerce Committee could be interpreted broadly to limit existing and
future Clean Air Act public health protections for different
pollutants.
This final amendment that I offer today offers us the chance to
protect our children and our grandchildren from asbestos, lead,
cadmium, and other toxic air pollutants. I want to be clear: this is
the final amendment to the bill; and even though I'd like to, it will
not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, it would
then be voted on at final passage, as amended.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to adopt this bill, we should make
sure that we don't inadvertently roll back EPA rules relating to toxic
dust containing cadmium, lead, and asbestos. This should be something
all of us can agree on. Currently, the bill exempts particulate matter
from regulation under the Clean Air Act if it is natural material,
commonly produced in rural areas, and is not produced by combustion.
Asbestos is a natural material. Activities involving asbestos are
considered typical in rural areas, and asbestos emissions from mining
and demolition do not involve combustion. Unfortunately, asbestos is
also a known carcinogen.
What would happen if we exempted asbestos from the Clean Air Act?
We already know. To see the realities of asbestos, a natural
material, we could simply ask the rural families of Libby, Montana.
In 2009 the Environmental Protection Agency declared a public health
emergency in Libby after decades of asbestos exposure from local mines.
Even though the vermiculite asbestos mine closed in 1990, the EPA
believes that current conditions continue to present significant
ongoing threats to public health. There remain significantly higher
rates of asbestos-related disease in Libby compared with the national
average.
Too bad the managers of the mine told their workers that the dust
they inhaled daily was just ``nuisance dust'' and would have no
permanent effects.
H.R. 1633 would also exempt lead and cadmium particulate emissions
from the Clean Air Act. Because lead and cadmium are natural materials,
activities involving lead and cadmium, such as cement kilns and
smelters, are typical in rural areas; and activities at cement kilns
and smelters produce lead and cadmium without combustion.
[[Page H8295]]
Sounds safe; right?
Unfortunately, cadmium is a known human carcinogen. Exposure to
cadmium may cause lung, kidney, prostate, and bladder cancer.
Lead is a potent neurotoxin. Infants and young children are
especially sensitive to even low levels of lead, which may contribute
to behavioral problems like learning deficits and lower IQs.
Is that what this distinguished body really wants to do, actively
take steps to cause behavioral problems, learning deficiencies and
lower IQs in our Nation's rural children?
Mr. Speaker, this entire session of Congress has felt to many of us
like a trip into Alice's Wonderland. While our Nation struggles with a
devastating economy, we do nothing about jobs or about getting
Americans back to work. Instead, we repeatedly fall down the rabbit
hole of extreme legislation. Now, with this so-called Farm Dust
Regulation Prevention Act, it seems that we're even having tea with the
Cheshire Cat.
To paraphrase our friend, the Cheshire Cat: We're all mad here. I'm
mad. You're mad. You must be mad or you wouldn't have come here.
Sadly, for the American people, H.R. 1633 simply underscores the
madness of this body right now. It's a mad solution to an imaginary
problem.
Vote ``no.''
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I claim time in opposition to the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. American farmers, ranchers and other rural businesses,
like many other sectors of this economy, have faced an onslaught of EPA
regulations--regulations that are costly and that make it more
difficult to create jobs in America at a time when America needs jobs.
The Congressional Research Service recently reported that agriculture
alone has been facing new Clean Air Act greenhouse gas standards;
engine emission standards; National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
ozone and particulates; Clean Water Act permitting and other
requirements; Superfund reporting requirements; and regulations for
disclosure, permitting and other regulatory requirements related to the
use of pesticides.
There are 2.2 million farms in America. There are 1.8 million people
employed by those farms. Those farms provide 5 percent of the exports
from America, and they provide $154 billion to our economy.
This legislation that we have on the floor today has the support of
120 Democrats and Republicans, and we have over 197 organizations
representing rural America that support this legislation. The bill is
very simple. It does not change any of the existing EPA regulations. It
just says that the EPA cannot change its PM10 standard for coarse
material earlier than 1 year after the enactment of this legislation,
and it defines and exempts nuisance dust.
So why do we need this bill? People are saying that Lisa Jackson has
said she is not going to regulate PM10.
That is true. She has said that. Yet we know that many of the
environmental decisions in America today are made by people and groups
and entities that file lawsuits against the EPA. Every time that has
happened recently, the EPA has run and entered into a consent decree,
and then it has paid the legal fees for the entity that has brought the
lawsuit, which is exactly what we are afraid is going to happen in this
instance. In this way, we can pass this legislation and make certain
that local governments, State governments, and tribal governments will
decide this issue of nuisance dust.
Now, some people have said, Oh, my God, this dust is so dangerous to
one's health, and it includes all sorts of substances.
I might remind everyone that one of the authors of the EPA's most
recent Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter testified
before our committee. He said, as to the long-term effects of coarse
particles, there is not one shred of evidence in support of long-term
health effects.
This is a commonsense piece of legislation. It protects jobs in
America, and it protects our exports. So I would urge everyone to vote
against the motion to recommit.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 166,
noes 252, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 911]
AYES--166
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--252
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
[[Page H8296]]
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--15
Bachmann
Campbell
Castor (FL)
Coble
Davis (IL)
Diaz-Balart
Fudge
Giffords
Hinchey
Jackson (IL)
Miller, George
Myrick
Nadler
Paul
Rahall
{time} 1436
Ms. HAYWORTH changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 268,
noes 150, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 912]
AYES--268
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hochul
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Loretta
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--150
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--15
Bachmann
Campbell
Castor (FL)
Coble
Davis (IL)
Diaz-Balart
Fudge
Giffords
Hinchey
Jackson (IL)
Miller, George
Myrick
Nadler
Paul
Rahall
{time} 1444
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas and Mr. HOYER changed their vote from
``aye'' to no.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________