[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.''

                          ____________________