[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 143 (Thursday, November 20, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H8137-H8146]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROMOTING NEW MANUFACTURING ACT
General Leave
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to
include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 4795, Promoting New
Manufacturing Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 756 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. 4795.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 0914
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. 4795) to promote new manufacturing in the United States by
providing for greater transparency and timeliness in obtaining
necessary permits, and for other purposes, with Mr. Hultgren 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 Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) and the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, President Obama has made it very clear that if the U.S.
Congress does not pass legislation that he has said that is a priority
for his administration, that he intends to accomplish his goals by the
use of executive orders and through regulations. Today, with H.R. 4795,
we are here to address a specific problem caused by regulations coming
out of EPA relating to the Clean Air Act.
We know that announcements have been made for manufacturing
expansions in the United States amounting to about $135 billion. But we
also know that EPA has gone into a pattern of when they issue new
regulations, it takes them sometimes years to come up with guidances so
that State EPAs and manufacturing applicants for clean air permits will
know what is required to meet the new regulations. Because of the lack
of clarity and the time of meeting timely guidances, it creates great
confusion and uncertainty for the States and for the specific
manufacturing facilities trying to meet these requirements.
To give you an example, the last ozone rule that was adopted by the
EPA in 2008, the guidance for people trying to meet those requirements
of that regulation still have not been issued. So we find ourselves in
a situation where these new regulations are creating great obstacles to
economic growth in the United States, and I think all of us recognize
that economic growth has been quite stagnant for some time.
We have had many hearings on this issue, and we hear from people on a
regular basis that one of the reasons that they can't get new plants
built is because of the uncertainty, the lack of clarity, the lack of
guidance from the EPA when they come out with new regulations.
Anyone that follows EPA is quite aware that they are particularly
aggressive in new regulations. They have come out with new regulations
on the Clean Air Act on a regular basis for the last 4 years. And so
once again we find ourselves with lack of clarity, lack of guidance
from EPA.
This legislation, which was introduced by Mr. Scalise, simply says to
EPA, if you come out with a new regulation, simultaneously you must
provide the guidance for the States and the individual applicants who
will be required to obtain permits to build their manufacturing
facility. So that is what this bill is all about.
I think it is a commonsense piece of legislation, and obviously all
of us want to create new jobs. We have companies out there today with a
lot of cash who want to produce these, build these new plants, but
because of bureaucratic difficulties, lack of clarity, and lack of
guidance on a timely basis from the EPA, it makes it extremely
difficult to do.
So that is why we are here today to discuss this legislation. I think
it is very important that we adopt this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This has been a fascinating week in terms of the environment. We
started it with the President orchestrating one of the truly
groundbreaking breakthroughs in carbon emissions and getting the
Chinese, for the first time, to agree to limit their carbon emissions,
setting new standards for the United States.
Then this week, in the Congress, we basically have three bills that
are the equivalent of saying, through statute, to polluters, ``Smoke
'em if you got 'em.'' I mean, three bills that represent one of the
worst trifectas I have ever seen, and I come from horse racing country.
Yesterday we voted on a bill that, in the title, suggests that we are
somehow improving the science behind the environment, and basically
what it did was limit the ability of EPA to have scientists as part of
the decisionmaking process. Today we are discussing the so-called
Promoting New Manufacturing Act, and, as we heard from my good friend
from Kentucky, the goal of the legislation is to facilitate a
manufacturing renaissance in the United States by expediting air
permits for new facilities.
But the premise of the bill is very flawed: new manufacturing
facilities aren't being held back by clean air requirements; weakening
the Clean Air Act won't create jobs; and the specific provisions of
this bill will slow down permitting, not speed it up. In truth, this
bill is yet another Republican attempt to weaken the Clean Air Act
protections and attack EPA's authority to reduce harmful air pollution.
The Clean Air Act requires major new or expanding sources of air
pollution to obtain permits with pollution limits before the facilities
start construction. It is a lot easier and less costly to minimize air
pollution when you are designing and building a facility compared to
cleaning up existing facilities.
These pre-construction permits are based on a simple principle: a new
facility should not increase local air pollution above levels that are
safe to breathe. The bill before us violates this principle by creating
a permitting loophole, allowing new facilities to obtain permits under
old, less protective air quality standards unless EPA promulgates new
regulations or guidelines.
This provision is bad for existing manufacturing in the United
States. The permitting loophole would actually impose new costs on the
manufacturing sector rather than help it. The bill allows new
facilities to pollute more than their fair share, leaving the existing
manufacturers to make up the difference.
In areas struggling to clean up their air, like in my district in
Louisville, Kentucky, this effectively shifts the responsibility and
cost of pollution control to existing manufacturing facilities. This
provision does not make economic sense. Furthermore, in all of the
limited testimony pursuant to considering this bill, there was not one
company identified that actually said they would build a manufacturing
facility if they could do it under older guidelines.
I am kind of amused that the Republicans now want the EPA to issue
nationwide guidelines, when their ideology says States are better
prepared to deal with issues at their own level; and, in fact, States,
under the existing law, have done a very, very good job of creating
guidelines and strategies for meeting problems with pollution in their
jurisdiction.
[[Page H8138]]
So, for a wide variety of reasons, this bill doesn't accomplish what
its title suggests, and we urge its defeat.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I might say that during the time we had the hearing on this
legislation, we had several State representatives from the State EPA
come in and testify, and they all were talking about the absence of
timely implementation guidance from EPA produces a lack of clarity.
Both the Colorado, Arkansas, even the National Association of Clean
Air Agencies wrote a letter to EPA on September 4, 2013, complaining
about this.
Now, I would remind everyone, this bill does not do anything about
the science, trying to diminish the importance of science and coming
forth with new regulations. All it does is says that if EPA comes out
with a new regulation under the Clean Air Act, they must provide the
guidance to the States and to the entities who want to build new
plants.
I might also say that the American Chemistry Council, particularly,
raised this issue with us--and through their membership--of companies
trying to build new manufacturing plants and meeting great difficulty
because of the lack of clarity.
I might also say, all of us are very much concerned about climate
change, but I don't think America has to take a backseat to any other
country in the world. Our CO2 emissions are the lowest that
they have been in 20 years.
I might also say, we find ourselves today, because of regulations
from this administration, being one of the only countries in the world
where you cannot build a new coal-fired plant to produce electricity
because the technology is not available to meet the stringent emissions
standard unless you are going to spend huge sums of government money,
as they are in the Kemper plant in Mississippi.
By the way, the standard was set for that regulation, the emission
standard, based on the Kemper plant, which is still not in operation.
It is about 2 years overdue, is way over cost, and all the entities
involved in it said that kind of plant would never be built again
without huge government dollars involved.
We would like to get back to a situation in America where, on energy
projects, we use private money. I notice that Google recently was
involved in the Ivanpah Solar facility out west, one of the largest in
the world. They used a lot of government loans to build that plant, and
now Google and other companies are coming back to the government and
applying for grants to help pay off the loans.
So this is a commonsense piece of legislation. It does not change the
science; it simply provides additional clarity.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I thank my colleague from Kentucky for
yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4795. It was my hope to
resolve the issues of this bill during the committee. Unfortunately,
that was not the case.
H.R. 4795, the Promoting New Manufacturing Act, could be a solution
to a longstanding problem. The problem relates to Federal permitting,
in this case, New Source Review permits.
While the majority of permitting takes place at the State level, the
EPA plays a critical role in the permitting process. When EPA
promulgates a final National Ambient Air Quality Standard, called
NAAQS, States and industry must respond through implementation and
application, respectively.
EPA should work as quickly as possible to offer States guidance on
how to implement these new standards. Lack of guidance can lead to
significant permitting delays as industry is forced to submit
incomplete New Source Review applications.
While I will support the intent of the bill, I can't support the bill
itself. H.R. 4795 is ultimately a lengthy delay in the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards implementation; and then a NAAQS standard cannot
be implemented, and this bill does not reflect current negotiations
over that NAAQS implementation.
Until this point, the administration and the EPA have indicated a
willingness to work on this issue. Further, EPA has not proposed these
new National Ambient Air Quality Standards, so I see this bill as a
solution to a problem that doesn't yet exist.
I want EPA to be transparent and work with the industry, and H.R.
4795 does not support a collaborative working relationship.
Additionally, the New Source Review permitting and the construction
of new facilities are important to the economy, but we must also have a
balance between economic growth and the protection of public health.
The bill, unfortunately, does not strike that balance effectively, and,
for that reason, I am unable to vote in favor of it.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time offered by the
gentleman from Kentucky.
If experience has taught us anything over the past two decades, it is
that the Clean Air Act has been a success. New businesses have started,
the economy has grown, and the air is cleaner and, beyond that,
healthier for all of us.
{time} 0930
The adjustments to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards Act are
about a large body of research on the impacts of air pollutants on
human health and the environment. H.R. 4795 assumes we cannot continue
that record of success. The predictions of dire consequences to our
economy before and after Congress adopted the 1990 amendments to the
Clean Air Act have never materialized. We have, however, grown our
economy and have achieved cleaner, healthier air for everyone. So,
contrary to its title, this bill does nothing to promote manufacturing.
It is simply another of many attempts to undermine the Clean Air Act.
Instead of bringing this partisan bill to the floor--yet another bill
that has no chance of becoming law--we could be working together on
legislation that would reinvigorate our domestic manufacturing sector.
We could pass pending tax legislation or, better yet, tax reform, which
would provide the certainty, provide the fairness, and provide the
clarity that everyone needs and deserves. If it were enacted, this bill
before us would be more likely to cause confusion and legal challenges
than to generate new manufacturing jobs.
States develop comprehensive implementation plans that take account
of all possible pollution sources and balance the needs of all
stakeholders in the effort to achieve cleaner air. H.R. 4795 would
allow a new facility to operate under less strict air quality standards
than existing facilities if the EPA has not issued all final
regulations and guidance required for any type of facility that would
be covered by a newly established standard.
If the Agency would call a standard into question by issuing guidance
at a time after a regulation is finalized, why would the Agency ever do
that? Guidance is useful for the regulated community. As new or unique
situations arise, the Agency can work with applicants to find the most
appropriate and most cost-effective means for moving a project forward
under the law.
It seems to me that we want to simplify the regulatory process, not
complicate it, and to encourage communication and flexibility, not
stifle them. We should ensure that regulations are implemented fairly
and consistently, and we should facilitate communication and encourage
the Agency to work with regulated entities.
H.R. 4795 is going to result in greater confusion, more legal
challenges, and a less flexible regulatory process. H.R. 4795 will not
provide more jobs, and it will not deliver clean air. I reject the
notion that clean air and economic progress are incompatible. They
simply are not. H.R. 4795 is a bad bill, and I urge its defeat.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, it is now my great honor to yield such
time
[[Page H8139]]
as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), one of
the truly great champions of the environment who has ever served in
this body.
Mr. WAXMAN. I thank my colleague for those generous comments, and I
am pleased to be here today to express why this bill should not pass.
Mr. Chairman, the bill is called the Promoting New Manufacturing Act.
We would all want to do that--what a nice title--but the bill does not
live up to the title.
The bill does not do anything to promote manufacturing, and it does
not do anything to improve the permitting process for new and expanding
facilities, but it does weaken air quality protections. It allows more
pollution, and it threatens public health. Now, let me explain why I
reached that conclusion.
The Clean Air Act requires a new or an expanding source of air
pollution to obtain permits with pollution limits before the facility
starts construction. These pre-construction permits ensure that a new
or an expanded facility will not increase local air pollution to levels
that violate National Ambient Air Quality Standards, which are based on
public health.
When the EPA issues a new, more protective air quality standard to
reflect the latest science, permit applicants have to meet the new
standard and show their emissions will not increase the amount of
pollution that will then end up harming public health. This bill, H.R.
4795, creates a loophole in this process.
The bill says that, if it is a new or an expanding facility, they can
apply for a permit based on the old air quality standard, which is not
adequate to protect the public health, unless, they say, the EPA has
been able to jump over a new procedural hurdle that they set with this
legislation requiring new regulations on permitting. In effect, this
bill could give new sources of pollution amnesty from new air quality
standards. This amnesty provision could have serious, real-world
consequences. The amnesty provision would force the States and the EPA
to issue permits for facilities that pollute more than they would under
current law. In fact, this bill would allow new facilities to degrade
air quality to levels that are not safe to breathe.
This loophole is also bad for business because, if you are not
getting the reductions from new sources, you are going to have to get
those reductions from existing sources. It is shifting the burden from
the new sources onto existing facilities. It raises pollution control
costs overall because the whole doctrine under the Clean Air Act, which
has long been recognized, is that it is generally far more efficient
and cost-effective to build pollution controls into a facility upfront
rather than adding them later, but this bill does the opposite.
When we had our hearing, Representative Dingell asked the Secretary
of the Department of Natural Resources from the State of Delaware
whether creating this loophole in the Clean Air Act would do anything
to expedite permitting at his agency. He responded with a categorical
``no.''
The California Air Resources Board argues this bill would actually
slow the permitting process.
It wrote:
Waiting for the U.S. EPA to develop guidance will result in
unnecessary delays and public health risks because permitting
agencies appear to be barred from issuing permits consistent
with the new, more health-protective air quality standards
until the U.S. EPA provides guidance.
If we really want to expedite the permitting process, we should give
the EPA and the State and local agencies more resources. This bill does
not add a single penny more to the EPA or to State and local permitting
agencies to hire more staff to review and process these permits. That
is what the agencies need.
States don't need more loopholes. They don't need more lectures about
so-called ``red tape.'' They need more money and more people, but
instead of providing these resources, House Republicans have voted
repeatedly to slash funding for environmental protection. Punching
holes in the Clean Air Act won't help these cash-strapped agencies work
any faster, but it will make the air dirtier. For that reason, I urge
my colleagues to join me in opposing this legislation.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining on
both sides?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) has 23 minutes
remaining, and the other gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth) has
16\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Stutzman), who has been a real leader on this issue.
Mr. STUTZMAN. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his work on
this particular issue that is really important to the Third District in
Indiana.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Promoting New
Manufacturing Act.
For too long, the Obama economy has remained weak, and the American
worker has suffered the consequences. Too many people are struggling to
find work and to provide for their families. They want to know when
things are finally going to pick up.
We in Congress have a responsibility to help create an economic
environment that allows individuals to succeed and businesses to grow,
and we can achieve that kind of success by cutting back on job-killing
regulations, by removing bureaucratic red tape, and by increasing
transparency. That is what this bill today is all about.
As a Representative from Indiana, I understand that a strong
manufacturing industry is absolutely critical to our national and local
economies. The Third Congressional District, the place that I call
home, is one of the top manufacturing districts in the entire country.
This bill will not only bring new opportunities to Hoosier families but
to families all across America.
Strengthening our manufacturing industry should not be a partisan
issue, and, today, we have an opportunity to stand together and support
legislation that will help create jobs and move our economy in the
right direction.
I would like to thank Whip Scalise, Chairman Upton, and the members
of the Committee on Energy and Commerce for their hard work on this
issue, and I would urge my colleagues to support this particular
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, finally, I would say that some of the top issues that I
hear from folks as I travel across the district back home in northeast
Indiana are those of regulations and the effect of Washington, D.C.,
bureaucracy and red tape. The impact that it is having on jobs in
Indiana and across the country is hurting, and they need relief.
Again, I would definitely urge my colleagues to support this
particular legislation. Let's start taking the boot off of the American
economy, and let's let it and its families succeed.
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Before I close my side of the argument, I would like to take this
opportunity, once again, to thank my colleague Mr. Waxman for his
incredible service to this body and to the country over the last
several decades.
One of the first things I did when I was elected to Congress in 2006
was to call Mr. Waxman to ask if I could serve under his leadership on
the Oversight and Government Reform Committee because I respected him
so much. He has been a phenomenal mentor to me, as he has been to
hundreds of other Members of Congress over the years, and I think the
country owes him a great debt of gratitude.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say, in the spirit of his championing
of the environment, what we have seen again this week, not just with
this bill but with the two other bills in the last 2 days, is kind of a
``wolf in sheep's clothing'' approach to the environment--dressing
legislation up with very, very nice-sounding titles that essentially do
exactly the opposite of what they are intending to do.
This bill, far from promoting manufacturing, will make it much more
difficult for the EPA to set rules, and in the process, it will not
accomplish anything in encouraging manufacturing. I don't know of one
businessperson who would say, ``I am going to build a plant that I,
otherwise, would not build because I get to build it under old
pollution rules.'' Most businesspeople are very forward looking. They
look for opportunities not to exploit the environment. They look for
opportunities to
[[Page H8140]]
make money because they have a vision. Virtually every good
businessperson I know these days understands that building facilities
that have the latest technologies and the cleanest technologies is the
way to make money and to make sound business decisions.
For all of those reasons, as Mr. Waxman laid out in very clear terms,
this bill does not promote manufacturing. It will do, actually, the
opposite, so we urge the defeat of the legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
In closing, I might say that I certainly agree that the owners of
these manufacturing plants do not want to build new plants while using
old rules. They want to use the best technology, but they want clear
guidance from the EPA about what it should be because, when they don't
have that, they find themselves involved with lawsuits with all sorts
of environmental groups on a regular basis.
I might also say that there are many reports out there relating to
manufacturing--I am just going to read from a few--that state that one
of the key factors for investor confidence is a timely and efficient
permitting process that is matched to current technologies.
Ken Weiss, global managing partner for Environmental Resources
Management, which has extensive experience in the permitting process,
testified:
We routinely advise clients that obtaining a PSD permit can
take anywhere from 1 to 3 years and that a minimum of 12 to
18 months need to be allowed in the project schedule.
{time} 0945
The President, himself, acknowledged in his latest State of the Union
speech this year that projects were being delayed and that there is a
need to ``cut red tape'' to get factories built. And that is what this
legislation is about. We are not telling EPA what the regulations
should be. We are not telling EPA to disregard science. We are simply
telling EPA, with all of their expertise, that when they issue the new
regulation, that they provide clear guidance for the States and the
companies and the individuals and the entities that want to build these
new plants with new technology. That is what this legislation is all
about.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chair, America is on the verge of becoming an energy
superpower. Not only do we possess more energy than any other country,
but we are capable of using that energy to accomplish great things.
Perhaps most important of all to manufacturing states like Michigan,
we can use our energy advantage to reverse the gradual decline in
American manufacturing that has been going on for decades and create a
real resurgence in the years ahead. The Promoting New Manufacturing Act
will help us achieve that goal and continues our efforts to build the
Architecture of Abundance.
The U.S. has all the ingredients to strengthen our domestic
manufacturing dominance. We have the affordable energy supply to run
our factories, especially our growing abundance of natural gas. We have
private investors willing to invest billions of dollars on new projects
in America. We have a workforce that is second to none but many of whom
need jobs. And we have the technical knowledge to build manufacturing
facilities that are the cleanest and most efficient in the world. All
we need is a regulatory process that will allow it to happen.
We all know about Keystone XL, which despite our best efforts, is
still caught up in red tape. I wish I could say that bureaucratic
nightmare is an isolated incident, but sadly, it isn't. Potential
future manufacturing facilities face a similar regulatory maze that can
delay projects for years on end or stop them outright.
We want to be a world leader in manufacturing, not in red tape. I am
glad the President identified the potential of new American
manufacturing in his State of the Union address, and acknowledged that
there is red tape that needs to be cleared away. Passage of H.R. 4795
will help make this goal a reality.
The Promoting New Manufacturing Act is a good starting point. We know
changes to National Ambient Air Quality Standards are on the horizon,
which will ultimately have an impact on how much of this manufacturing
renaissance we can actually get permitted into existence. This bill
takes some very sensible steps toward a more transparent and timely
process for air permits under EPA's New Source Review program. It
increases transparency by making more information publicly available on
these permit applications, and gives the states and permit applicants
the critical information they need to ensure that when it comes to air
quality standards, future implementation rules and guidance documents
are developed, proposed, and finalized in a timely manner.
I hope that we can all agree that the current regulatory process
leaves room for improvement. I urge my colleagues to support our
pending manufacturing renaissance and to support this constructive
legislation.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 4795
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 ``Promoting New Manufacturing
Act''.
SEC. 2. BUILDING AND MANUFACTURING PROJECTS DASHBOARD.
(a) In General.--The Administrator shall, with respect to
fiscal year 2008 and each subsequent fiscal year, publish in
a readily accessible location on the Environmental Protection
Agency's public Website the Agency's estimate of the
following:
(1) The total number of preconstruction permits issued
during the fiscal year.
(2) The percentage of such preconstruction permits issued
within one year after the date of filing of a completed
application.
(3) The average length of time for the Agency's
Environmental Appeals Board to issue a final decision on
petitions appealing decisions to grant or deny a
preconstruction permit application.
(b) Initial Publication; Updates.--The Administrator
shall--
(1) make the publication required by subsection (a) for
fiscal years 2008 through 2013 not later than 60 days after
the date of enactment of this Act; and
(2) update such publication not less than annually.
(c) Sources of Information.--In carrying out this section:
(1) With respect to information to be published for fiscal
years 2008 through 2013, the Environmental Protection
Agency's estimates shall be based on information that is in
the Agency's possession as of the date of enactment of this
Act, including information in the RACT/BACT/LAER
Clearinghouse database.
(2) With respect to information to be published for any
fiscal year, nothing in the section compels the Environmental
Protection Agency to seek or collect any information in
addition to the information that is voluntarily provided by
States and local air agencies for the RACT/BACT/LAER
Clearinghouse database.
SEC. 3. TIMELY ISSUANCE OF REGULATIONS AND GUIDANCE TO
ADDRESS NEW OR REVISED NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR
QUALITY STANDARDS IN PRECONSTRUCTION
PERMITTING.
(a) In General.--In publishing any final rule establishing
or revising a national ambient air quality standard, the
Administrator shall, as the Administrator determines
necessary and appropriate to assist States, permitting
authorities, and permit applicants, concurrently publish
regulations and guidance for implementing the standard,
including information relating to submission and
consideration of a preconstruction permit application under
the new or revised standard.
(b) Applicability of Standard to Preconstruction
Permitting.--If the Administrator fails to publish final
regulations and guidance that include information relating to
submission and consideration of a preconstruction permit
application under a new or revised national ambient air
quality standard concurrently with such standard, then such
standard shall not apply to the review and disposition of a
preconstruction permit application until the Agency has
published such final regulations and guidance.
(c) Rules of Construction.--
(1) After publishing regulations and guidance for
implementing national ambient air quality standards under
subsection (a), nothing in this section shall preclude the
Environmental Protection Agency from issuing subsequent
regulations or guidance to assist States and facilities in
implementing such standards.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to eliminate
the obligation of a preconstruction permit applicant to
install best available control technology and lowest
achievable emissions rate technology, as applicable.
SEC. 4. REPORT TO CONGRESS ON ACTIONS TO EXPEDITE REVIEW OF
PRECONSTRUCTION PERMITS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the
Administrator shall submit to Congress a report--
(1) identifying the activities being undertaken by the
Environmental Protection Agency to increase the efficiency of
the preconstruction permitting process;
(2) identifying the specific reasons for delays in
issuing--
(A) preconstruction permits required under part C of the
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7470 et seq.) beyond the one-year
statutory deadline mandated by section 165(c) of the Clean
Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7475(c)); or
[[Page H8141]]
(B) preconstruction permits required under part D of the
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7501 et seq.) beyond the one-year
period beginning on the date on which the permit application
is determined to be complete;
(3) describing how the Agency is resolving delays in making
completeness determinations for preconstruction permit
applications;
(4) describing how the Agency is resolving processing
delays for preconstruction permits, including any increases
in communication with State and local permitting authorities;
and
(5) summarizing and responding to public comments
concerning the report received under subsection (b).
(b) Public Comment.--Before submitting each report required
by subsection (a), the Administrator shall publish a draft
report on the Website of the Environmental Protection Agency
and provide the public with a period of at least 30 days to
submit comments on the draft report.
(c) Sources of Information.--Nothing in this section
compels the Environmental Protection Agency to seek or
collect any information in addition to the information that
is voluntarily provided by States and local air agencies for
the RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse database.
SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(2) Best available control technology.--The term ``best
available control technology'' has the meaning given to that
term in section 169(3) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7479(3)).
(3) Lowest achievable emissions rate.--The term ``lowest
achievable emissions rate'' has the meaning given to that
term in section 171(3) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7501(3)).
(4) Major emitting facility; major stationary source.--The
terms ``major emitting facility'' and ``major stationary
source'' have the meaning given to those terms in section
302(j) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7602(j)).
(5) National ambient air quality standard.--The term
``national ambient air quality standard'' means a national
ambient air quality standard for an air pollutant under
section 109 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7409) that is
finalized on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
(6) Preconstruction permit.--The term ``preconstruction
permit''--
(A) means a permit that is required under part C or D of
title I of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7470 et seq.) for the
construction or modification of a major emitting facility or
major stationary source; and
(B) includes any such permit issued by the Environmental
Protection Agency or a State, local, or tribal permitting
authority.
(7) RACT/BACT/LAER clearinghouse database.--The term
``RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse database'' means the central
database of air pollution technology information that is
posted on the Environmental Protection Agency's Website.
The CHAIR. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those
printed in part C of House Report 113-626. 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. Waxman
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in
part C of House Report 113-626.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of my colleague from
California (Mr. McNerney), 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 3(b), strike ``If the Administrator fails'' and
insert
(1) Standard not applicable.--Except as provided in
paragraph (2), if the Administrator fails
At the end of section 3(b), add the following:
(2) Standard applicable.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply
with respect to review and disposition of a preconstruction
permit application by a Federal, State, local, or tribal
permitting authority if such authority determines that
application of such paragraph is likely to--
(A) increase air pollution that harms human health and the
environment;
(B) slow issuance of final preconstruction permits;
(C) increase regulatory uncertainty;
(D) foster additional litigation;
(E) shift the burden of pollution control from new sources
to existing sources of pollution, including small businesses;
or
(F) increase the overall cost of achieving the new or
revised national ambient air quality standard in the
applicable area.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 756, 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, subsection 3(b) creates a loophole in the
Clean Air Act that allows new facilities to meet old air quality
standards. This means more pollution will enter the air, and it will be
harder to clean up. When one facility is allowed to pollute more, other
facilities in the area will have to invest more to reduce their
emissions. That is not fair. That is not good for the economy. This
loophole harms public health, burdens existing facilities, and creates
regulatory uncertainty.
If one is unwilling to remove the loophole from the bill entirely,
then we should at the very least give State and local permitting
authorities the opportunity to opt out, and that is what this amendment
does.
We know States have concerns about this provision. We heard strong
concerns from the State of Delaware at the hearing on this bill. In my
own State of California, the California Air Resources Board wrote to
the committee last week to express their serious concerns about this
legislation, and this provision in particular. CARB wrote that ``the
provisions proposed in this bill would not increase efficiency, would
result in additional delays in permitting, and would pose increased
public health risks.''
They, in other words, made two key points. First of all, CARB
explained that States don't need EPA guidance to issue permits under a
new air quality standard. They said, ``For decades, permitting
authorities have successfully implemented their programs in response to
every new standard U.S. EPA has promulgated. In fact, permitting
agencies have historically been the advisers to U.S. EPA on the
guidance that it ultimately issues.'' They point out that the bill
effectively requires EPA to issue `` `one size fits all' permit
guidance that could not realistically take into account the uniqueness
of every jurisdiction.''
CARB also explained that in regions with severe air quality issues,
barring the States from issuing permits consistent with new, more
health-protective air quality standards will ``result in unnecessary
delays and public health risks.'' CARB highlighted that ``this is
particularly an issue for vulnerable and already overburdened
populations, such as in disadvantaged communities.''
All of California's San Joaquin Valley is in extreme non-attainment
for air quality standards. This bill threatens the flexibility needed
by the regional air pollution control district, the flexibility that
has led to 2013 being the cleanest year on record in this region. This
bill would take a step backward in that progress.
Let's not make State air pollution regulators' jobs harder by
constraining their flexibility and imposing counterproductive
requirements. At least let's give them a choice.
The amendment simply says, if a Federal, State, local, or tribal
agency determines that adopting this loophole will increase air
pollution that harms human health, slow issuance of permits, increase
regulatory uncertainty, create new regulation, shift the burden of
pollution control to small businesses and other existing facilities, or
increase the cost of achieving breathable air, then that agency may opt
out. The agency does not have to issue a permit that exempts a new
facility from meeting protective air quality standards.
If you don't think the bill's Clean Air Act loophole will cause these
problems, then States wouldn't opt out, and you shouldn't object to
this amendment. But just in case the States we have heard from are
correct, let's provide a safety hatch to make sure that we aren't
harming public health and making air pollution permitting more
difficult.
I have heard my colleagues, especially on the Republican side of the
aisle, say over and over again, We don't need one size fits all. We
need to let localities make some of these determinations. And I agree,
in this case particularly, that if they see, given their circumstances,
a reason why they don't want to follow this new regime that would be
created by this legislation, let them opt out. Let them decide at the
local level how to proceed.
[[Page H8142]]
For that reason, I urge passage of the amendment and yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chair, this amendment basically would eliminate
section 3(b), or make it applicable in a different way of the
legislation, which really would defeat the whole purpose of this bill.
As I said in the beginning, this is very simple. We are not telling
EPA what the regulations should be. We are not telling EPA not to use
science. We are simply telling EPA, when you come out with a new
regulation, you must provide the guidance for the States and for the
entities that are trying to build new plants to create jobs in America.
So this amendment would simply change that process.
All of us understand and recognize the great contribution that has
been made by the Clean Air Act, but yet anytime we try to come up and
we try to amend the Clean Air Act, it is almost like we are touching
the Holy Grail.
Things change over time. As I said, the EPA has been so aggressive
with so many regulations, they are not providing the guidance for
clarity so that entities can invest dollars to create jobs. Obviously
we want to balance a good, clean environment, but we also want a
healthy economy. That is what this legislation is designed to do.
And with as much admiration and respect that I have for the gentlemen
from California, Mr. Waxman and Mr. McNerney, I do oppose this
amendment and ask that the Members not adopt it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. Waxman).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WAXMAN. 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.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Whitfield
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in
part C of House Report 113-626.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I offer my amendment.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 6, after line 10, insert the following:
(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the
authority of a State, local, or tribal permitting authority
to impose more stringent emissions requirements pursuant to
State, local, or tribal law than Federal national ambient air
quality standards established by the Environmental Protection
Agency.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 756, the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chair, as I have said repeatedly, the intent of
this bill is to ensure that when the EPA issues new air quality
standards, the Agency provides timely guidance about how to comply with
the new standards in the permitting process.
Now, at the hearings that we have had and in individual discussion
with other Members, people have argued that section 3(b) of this bill
would prevent a State or local permitting authority that wanted to
impose the new standards, even in the absence of EPA implementing
regulations and guidance, from doing so. So that was not the intent of
the bill, and this amendment clarifies that.
So if you have a State like California or even Delaware, which are
the two that I can think of, that would like to go on and impose the
new standard without the guidance, then this amendment ensures that
they have the opportunity to do that. So that is what this amendment
does. It is simply a clarification.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I
am not opposed to the amendment.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from California is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the reason I qualified it is because I see
no reason to oppose the amendment. It is not objectionable. But it
doesn't actually fix the bill's four problems.
Subsection 3(b) of the bill gives new sources amnesty from compliance
with a new or revised air quality standard until EPA issues rules and
guidance on the implementation of the air quality standard.
The provision effectively creates two classes of sources. New sources
would be permitted under the outdated and less protected air standard,
but existing sources would be permitted under the updated, more
protective standards. This amendment doesn't affect this requirement in
any way.
The Whitfield amendment says that States can set their own more
stringent air quality standards under State law. I don't disagree with
that. Section 116 of the Clean Air Act already gives the States the
right to adopt more stringent air quality standards. It has been in the
Clean Air Act for decades. That is fine as far as it goes, but it
doesn't address our concern with subsection 3(b).
If my colleagues are in favor of State flexibility, they should
either oppose the underlying bill entirely or support the State opt-out
amendment. The Whitfield amendment does not provide them any relief
from the loophole and procedural burden envisioned under the bill.
I don't object to this amendment as it doesn't make the bill worse.
It doesn't make it worse, but it doesn't make it better. I would urge
my colleagues to oppose the bill, even if this amendment is adopted.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Collins of Georgia). The gentleman from
Kentucky has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chair, I would just remind everyone that even if
EPA fails to do its job, the bill makes clear that nothing relieves new
facilities of their obligations to install the best available control
technology in attainment areas and the lowest available emissions rate
technology in non-attainment areas.
I would also say that while my amendment allows those States who want
to go on and implement the new regulation without the guidance, they
can do that; but on the other hand, our legislation is designed to
protect those States and those entities who find that they are unable
to interpret the new regulation. And because of that uncertainty, it
has been the experience of many companies, when they build new
facilities with technology under new regulations, they end up being
sued over it frequently.
So this legislation is about common sense. This amendment allows
those States that want to implement the stricter standard, they have
the ability to do that. I would urge the adoption of this amendment and
the passage of this bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1000
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim 1 minute
just for clarification for the Record.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Whitfield mentioned that the National
Association of Clean Air Agencies would like timely implementation
guidance. That is true. But just yesterday, they wrote a letter making
clear they oppose this bill.
I insert in the Record the letter that came under the signature of S.
William Becker, National Association of Clean Air Agencies.
National Association of
Clean Air Agencies,
Washington, DC, November 19, 2014.
Hon. Ed Whitfield,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Power, Committee on
Energy and Commerce, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Whitfield: At a hearing before the House
Rules Committee earlier this week, you spoke in support of
H.R. 4795, the Promoting New Manufacturing Act. In your
testimony, you seemed to imply that the National Association
of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) favors passage of this
legislation.
I am writing to clarify that NACAA has never expressed
support for H.R. 4795. Although we appreciate the Committee's
desire
[[Page H8143]]
to encourage the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
issue implementation guidance for new and revised National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in a timely manner, we
do not believe that public health should be sacrificed in
promoting that goal.
Many of our members are very concerned by the provision in
Section 3 of the bill that would allow facilities seeking
pre-construction permits to conduct air quality analyses
based on outdated air quality standards, should EPA fail to
issue implementation guidance concurrently with the
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. They believe this
would likely cause substantial adverse health impacts and
undermine public confidence in permitting programs that were
designed to protect public health. In addition, agencies have
expressed concern that the bill could cause unnecessary
regulatory uncertainty, as well as unfairly shift the burden
of reducing emissions to existing facilities, where it is far
less cost-effective to do so.
Accordingly, NACAA cannot support this legislation. If you
have any questions, feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
S. William Becker.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Waxman
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the unfinished
business is the demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 1 printed
in part C of House Report 113-626 by the gentleman from California (Mr.
Waxman) 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 Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183,
noes 225, not voting 26, as follows:
[Roll No. 529]
AYES--183
Adams
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gibson
Grayson
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--225
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--26
Bachus
Campbell
Cassidy
Clay
Clyburn
Culberson
Dingell
Duckworth
Fincher
Fortenberry
Green, Al
Hall
Hinojosa
Holt
Horsford
Matheson
McCarthy (NY)
McKeon
Nadler
Negrete McLeod
Pastor (AZ)
Poe (TX)
Richmond
Rush
Smith (WA)
Wagner
{time} 1030
Mr. MEADOWS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. CARSON of Indiana changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 529 I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. FINCHER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 529, had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''
The Acting CHAIR. There being no further amendments, the Committee
rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Thompson of Pennsylvania) having assumed the chair, Mr. Collins of
Georgia, Acting 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. 4795) to promote new manufacturing in the
United States by providing for greater transparency and timeliness in
obtaining necessary permits, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to
House Resolution 756, he 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.
The question is on the amendment.
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. KUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Collins of Georgia). Is the gentlewoman
opposed to the bill?
Ms. KUSTER. I am opposed in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
[[Page H8144]]
The Clerk read as follows:
Ms. Kuster moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4795 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 section 3, add the following new subsections:
(d) Protecting Children and Seniors From Exposure to
Dangerous Air Pollutants.--Subsection (b) shall not apply
with respect to the review and disposition of a
preconstruction permit application if--
(1) the new or revised national ambient air quality
standard protects children and seniors from exposure to
dangerous air pollutants, including any air pollutant that
causes cancer; and
(2) the preconstruction permit application is for a source
that is located within 5 miles of a school, day care
facility, hospital, or nursing home.
(e) Protecting Small Businesses and American Jobs.--
Subsection (b) shall not apply with respect to the review and
disposition of a preconstruction permit application for a
source if subjecting the source to the existing national
ambient air quality standard would result in higher costs or
job losses for small businesses that--
(1) are subject to the new or revised national ambient air
quality standard; and
(2) are located in the State or nonattainment area
involved.
Ms. KUSTER (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
to dispense with the reading of the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New Hampshire?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New Hampshire is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. KUSTER. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill,
which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted,
the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended.
Mr. Speaker, we can all agree on the importance of revitalizing the
American manufacturing sector. We need to work across the aisle,
Republicans and Democrats, to support manufacturing workers and
businesses, so that more products across this planet can be stamped
``Made In America.'' That is why I am a proud supporter of the Make It
In America agenda.
We need to pass this agenda which will help more businesses
manufacture goods in America, so more families can make it in America.
For example, we need to work with the Senate to permanently extend the
research and development tax credit. This tax credit will help
companies like Airmar in Milford, New Hampshire, a world leader in
ultrasonic sensor technology.
We need to expand Trade Adjustment Assistance and invest in workforce
development, like the $2.5 million Department of Labor grant recently
awarded to Nashua Community College. This funding will help teach
students the skills needed for advanced manufacturing careers, so that
a graduate with a 2-year associate degree can leave school and walk
into a good job that pays $45,000 a year.
We need to pass long-term reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank,
to help companies like Boyle Energy in Concord, New Hampshire, ship
American-made products around the world.
These are the policies that will promote new manufacturing jobs, and
they deserve bipartisan support. Unfortunately, the bill before us
today is not a commonsense bipartisan proposal for strengthening
manufacturing; instead, it would tie the hands of our public health
officials and make it harder to advance lifesaving rules to protect our
air and our lungs from pollution.
That is why I am offering my motion, which would provide two
exemptions from this bill. First, my motion would exempt rules that
protect children and seniors from cancer-causing pollution within 5
miles of a school or nursing home, and second, my motion would protect
small businesses from any job losses or increased costs resulting from
this bill.
Whether you support or oppose the underlying bill, every Member of
this body should be able to vote to protect the health of children and
seniors and to protect small businesses.
I urge support for my motion. I urge my colleagues to move on from
these partisan proposals and instead work to find bipartisan ways to
strengthen American manufacturing without putting our air quality or
public health at risk.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit because I strongly support American manufacturing, and that is
what our bill is about. It is about getting Americans back to work.
Our friends on the other side of the aisle want to talk about
protecting seniors. The biggest threat we hear about seniors right now
is the President's health care law that cut hundreds of billions of
dollars out of the Medicare program.
Why don't you work with us to repeal that law and replace it with
reforms that actually strengthen Medicare and help seniors? That would
be a really good place to start.
Now, let's talk about jobs, Mr. Speaker, because that is the focus of
this bill, and this is a bipartisan piece of legislation. What we are
trying to do is actually support some of the things the President
himself has talked about.
The President said that he wants to cut red tape. Do you know what
this bill does, Mr. Speaker? It cuts red tape.
The President says he wants to be the most transparent President
ever. We would actually like to help him fulfill that promise. In our
bill, we actually require transparency from the EPA to actually start
proving what they are saying that they want to do with actual science.
If you look at what has been holding back our economy, so many States
will tell you, when they are trying to issue permits, it is agencies
like the EPA that are holding back their ability to create jobs and
issue permits that would result in higher air quality standards.
Ironically, the motion to recommit that they are bringing forward
would actually make it harder to implement higher air quality
standards.
We have had testimony in committee, Mr. Speaker, from companies that
have told us that they are right now delayed by years, in some cases,
in the permitting process to build new or better plants to create
thousands of jobs in America because the EPA will come up with rules
and guidelines; yet they won't even show States or industry groups how
they can achieve this in the real world.
There is this parallel universe, Mr. Speaker. You have got the EPA
coming out time and time again with rules and regulations that cannot
be implemented in the real world, and then you have got people that are
trying to create jobs in America saying, ``The biggest thing holding us
back from creating good American jobs is these crazy radical rules
coming out by the EPA and other agencies like it.''
Mr. Speaker, we have got a choice to make, here in this Chamber and
across this country. The President says he wants to create jobs; yet he
comes out with rules with those agencies like the EPA that are the
biggest impediment to us creating jobs in America.
The President says he wants to be transparent, and yet he refuses to
be transparent, and a bill, like our bill here today, says he has to be
transparent. Show us how you are expediting the permitting process. He
talks about that. It is time to walk the walk.
He says he actually wants to remove that red tape. Well, do you know
what, Mr. Speaker? In our bill, we hold the President to his promise by
removing that red tape.
We ask ourselves today: Do we want to get our economy moving again? I
say ``yes.'' Do we want to cut the red tape the President promises but
doesn't deliver? I say, ``Yes. Let's cut that red tape.''
Do we want to get our economy moving again? I say, ``Let's create
those jobs, get our economy moving again, and get these radical
agencies that are slowing down job growth in our country out of the
way.''
Let's vote down this motion to recommit, pass the underlying
bipartisan bill, and get the economy moving again.
With that, 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.
[[Page H8145]]
Recorded Vote
Ms. KUSTER. 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.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189,
noes 223, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 530]
AYES--189
Adams
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--223
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--22
Bachus
Campbell
Cassidy
Costa
Dingell
Duckworth
Fincher
Fortenberry
Gardner
Green, Al
Hall
Hinojosa
Holt
King (IA)
Matheson
McCarthy (NY)
McKeon
Nadler
Negrete McLeod
Poe (TX)
Richmond
Smith (WA)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1050
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FINCHER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 530 had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''
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 ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 238,
noes 172, not voting 24, as follows:
[Roll No. 531]
AYES--238
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Delaney
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallego
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Waters
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOES--172
Adams
Barber
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
[[Page H8146]]
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waxman
Welch
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--24
Bachus
Campbell
Cassidy
Costa
DeSantis
Dingell
Duckworth
Fincher
Fortenberry
Gardner
Green, Al
Hall
Hinojosa
Holt
Matheson
McCarthy (NY)
McKeon
Nadler
Negrete McLeod
Poe (TX)
Richmond
Smith (WA)
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1058
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. FINCHER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 531, had I been present, I
would have voted ``yes.''
Personal Explanation
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I missed the following
votes:
Waxman/McNerney Amendment. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yes'' on this bill.
Democratic Motion to Recommit H.R. 4795. Had I been present, I would
have voted ``yes'' on this bill.
H.R. 4795--Promoting New Manufacturing Act. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``no'' on this bill.
Personal Explanation
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent
during November 19-20, 2014. If I were present, I would have voted on
the following:
Wednesday, November 19, 2014: rollcall No. 526, Kennedy of
Massachusetts Part B Amendment No. 2--``yea;'' rollcall No. 527, On
motion to recommit with instructions--``yea;'' rollcall No. 528, H.R.
4012 Secret Science Reform Act of 2014--``nay.''
Thursday, November 20, 2014: rollcall No. 529, Waxman of California
Part C Amendment No. 1--``yea;'' rollcall No. 530, On motion to
recommit with instructions--``yea;'' rollcall No. 531, H.R. 4795
Promoting New Manufacturing Act--``nay.''
____________________