[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.

                          ____________________