[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 90 (Wednesday, June 8, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H3517-H3537]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1415
               OZONE STANDARDS IMPLEMENTATION ACT OF 2016


                             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. 4775.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Newhouse). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 767 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. 4775.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jody B. Hice) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1415


                     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. 4775) to

[[Page H3518]]

facilitate efficient State implementation of ground-level ozone 
standards, and for other purposes, with Mr. Jody B. Hice of Georgia 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 
New York (Mr. Tonko) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, jobs, the economy, and public health all are 
very critical priorities for the American people. It is possible, in 
fact, to pursue policies that simultaneously protect all three of them. 
Today we have a balanced approach in the Ozone Standards Implementation 
Act, and it does exactly that.
  Addressing ozone levels has been one of the major successes of the 
1970 Clean Air Act. Across the country, ozone levels, in fact, have 
declined dramatically, having declined nearly one-third since 1980. The 
EPA's 2008 ozone standard would have continued that success by setting 
out a program to achieve further reductions for many years to come.
  But the EPA failed to finalize the implementing regs and guidance for 
the 2008 rule until just last year, and as a result, States are 
currently still in the process of implementing the rule. Although EPA 
had difficulty finalizing the 2008 regs, the Agency had no such 
problems coming up with a new ozone standard so unworkable for certain 
areas of the country that even the Agency itself concedes the 
technologies to fully implement and to comply still don't exist. And 
now, States are stuck with the impossible task of applying both 
standards concurrently.
  In my district in southwest Michigan, in Allegan County, you could, 
in fact, remove every piece of human activity--roads, barbecues, jobs, 
move everybody out--and the region still would be in nonattainment 
because of the ozone that is generated from Chicago, Milwaukee, and 
Gary, Indiana. The new standard would result in potentially hundreds of 
counties across the Midwest--certainly a good number of them in 
Michigan--that would be designated as nonattainment, resulting in fewer 
new businesses or expansions of existing ones, and even fewer major 
construction and other infrastructure projects.
  The threat of future nonattainment designation has a chilling effect 
and encourages employers to move someplace else, even out of the United 
States to relocate abroad. So it is essentially often a kiss of death 
for economic growth, and it comes at a time when our fragile economy 
can least afford it.
  This thoughtful solution, this bill, retains the 2008 standard--yes, 
it does--but it provides additional time for States to comply with the 
new standard until after the current one has been fully implemented. It 
is common sense. Under this bill, we will have in place a more 
streamlined and effective schedule to ensure continued improvements in 
air quality in the years ahead.
  The bill also has a number of sensible provisions to address 
practical implementation challenges that States face under the National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards program. It extends the mandatory review 
process from 5 years to a more workable 10, while allowing the EPA 
Administrator the discretion to review and revise standards earlier if 
circumstances warrant. It requires that EPA's implementing regs and 
guidance come out along with a new standard so that States and affected 
entities will have the direction that they need to comply.
  The good news is, under this bill, ozone levels continue their long-
term downward trend, and we can accomplish that goal without 
jeopardizing jobs.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, here we go again. We should be addressing our failing 
infrastructure, funding the National Institutes of Health or the 
Centers for Disease Control to control Zika, helping the people of 
Flint who were exposed to lead in the drinking water, investing in 
clean energy, mitigating the risks of climate change, and fulfilling 
our constitutional responsibility to fund our government. Instead of 
attending to the many important challenges we face, we are here to 
consider yet another bill that will undermine our Clean Air Act.
  Consideration of this bill is a waste of time. No wonder people 
across the country are frustrated and disappointed with Washington. We 
are not doing the things that will create opportunities to inspire our 
young people and fully employ everyone who wants and needs to work. 
Instead of doing something to improve public health and our 
environment, we are trying to undermine those dynamics.
  H.R. 4775 is a bill that will do nothing to further improve our air 
quality. It offers no assistance to State and local governments. It 
offers no assistance to businesses that want to do the right thing and 
find ways to improve our environmental and social performance of their 
operations.
  This bill creates new loopholes through which polluters will add 
toxic substances to our air and erode the substantial gains we have 
made in public health under the Clean Air Act.
  H.R. 4775 has taken many approaches to undermining the Clean Air Act: 
it doubles the NAAQS review cycle from 5 to 10 years, which will 
prevent standards from being set using the most up-to-date science; it 
delays the implementation of the 2015 ozone NAAQS up to 8 years; and it 
alters the criteria for establishing a NAAQS from one based solely on 
protecting public health to one that would include considerations of 
affordability and current technical feasibility. These are just a few 
among many harmful changes in this bill.
  That is why this bill has inspired such opposition. We have received 
letters of opposition signed by more than 130 environmental and public 
health organizations as well as a veto threat from the President's 
administration.
  There is nothing new here. Once again, we hear the false choice 
presented: jobs or clean air. But that is not the choice, and we have 
decades of experience with local and Federal policy to regulate air 
pollution as proof that we do not have to choose between being employed 
and being healthy.

  This false choice is even more absurd when you consider that there is 
one choice we must make every day about 20,000 times to stay alive: the 
choice to breathe. That is the average number of breaths that each 
adult takes every day of his or her life. Children, whose lungs are 
smaller average more breaths than that; and if you are exercising, that 
number will understandably be higher as well. That is a lot of 
exposure. So it is vitally important that the air we take in some 
20,000 times per day is as clean as possible.
  Ozone is extremely harmful. We have known this for about 70 years. We 
did not know the precise chemical nature of ozone back in 1947 when the 
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors established the Nation's first 
air pollution control program. Back then it was called smog. In the 
middle of a heat wave, the smog that formed over L.A. caused people's 
eyes to burn and a scraping sensation in their throats. It literally 
became painful to breathe.
  Although Los Angeles has long been recognized as a location with 
special challenges in air pollution due to geography and prevailing 
weather patterns, it is not the only city that experienced these 
problems. They were reported in other industrial cities as well.
  We have come a long way since that time, but we did not clean up the 
air significantly until we created an enforceable regulatory structure 
that applied a set of standards to both businesses and individuals.
  H.R. 4775 undermines the single most important criteria in the Clean 
Air Act: the mandate to set a standard that will allow every one of our 
citizens, no matter their age or location, to take 20,000 breaths of 
clean, safe air every day. We can certainly afford clean air. In fact, 
we must afford clean air. We have demonstrated time and time again that 
we can develop and deploy technologies that will achieve those ends.
  H.R. 4775 is a dangerous and unnecessary bill, and I oppose the bill. 
I urge my colleagues to reject this latest assault on public health and 
to support the further improvements of air quality for our 
constituents.

[[Page H3519]]

  Mr. Chair, I include in the Record, for the sake of this dialogue, 
the over 130 letters of opposition we have received.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
                                                     May 10, 2016.
       Dear Representative: Clean air is fundamental for good 
     health, and the Clean Air Act promises all Americans air that 
     is safe to breathe. The undersigned public health and medical 
     organizations urge you to oppose H.R. 4775, the so-called 
     ``Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2016.'' Despite the 
     clear scientific evidence of the need for greater protection 
     from ozone pollution, and the Clean Air Act's balanced 
     implementation timeline that provides states clear authority 
     and plenty of time to plan and then work to reduce pollution 
     to meet the updated standard, H.R. 4775 imposes additional 
     delays and sweeping changes that will threaten health, 
     particularly the health of children, seniors and people with 
     chronic disease.
       In contrast to what the bill's title implies, H.R. 4775 
     reaches far beyond implementation of the current ozone 
     standards. It also permanently weakens the Clean Air Act and 
     future air pollution health standards for all criteria 
     pollutants. Specifically, H.R. 4775 weakens implementation 
     and enforcement of all lifesaving air pollution health 
     standards including those for carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen 
     dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. It 
     would also permanently undermine the Clean Air Act as a 
     public health law.
       The Clean Air Act requires that the Environmental 
     Protection Agency review the science on the health impacts of 
     carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate 
     matter, and sulfur dioxide air pollutants every five years 
     and update these national ambient air quality standards 
     according to the current science. H.R. 4775 would lengthen 
     the review period of the air pollution health standards from 
     once every five years to once every ten years for all 
     criteria pollutants. As the science continues to evolve, EPA 
     and states should have the best and most current data inform 
     air pollution cleanup.
       New research shows additional impacts that air pollution 
     has on human health. For example, on March 29, 2016, a new 
     study, Particulate Matter Exposure and Preterm Birth: 
     Estimates of U.S. Attributable Burden and Economic Costs, was 
     published that shows particulate air pollution is linked to 
     nearly 16,000 preterm births per year. Under H.R. 4775, EPA 
     would have to wait as much as a decade to consider new 
     evidence when setting standards. Ten years is far too long to 
     wait to protect public health from levels of pollution that 
     the science shows are dangerous or for EPA to consider new 
     information.
       In the 2015 review of the ozone standard, EPA examined an 
     extensive body of scientific evidence demonstrating that 
     ozone inflames the lungs, causing asthma attacks, resulting 
     in emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and premature 
     deaths. A growing body of research indicates that ozone may 
     also lead to central nervous system harm and may harm 
     developing fetuses. In response to the evidence, EPA updated 
     the ozone standards. While many of our organizations called 
     for a more protective level, there is no doubt that the new 
     70 parts per billion standard provides greater health 
     protections compared to the previous standard.
       H.R. 4775 would delay implementation of these more 
     protective air pollution standards for at least eight years. 
     This means eight years of illnesses and premature deaths that 
     could have been avoided. Parents will not be told the truth 
     about pollution in their community and states and EPA will 
     not work to curb pollution to meet the new standards. The 
     public has a fundamental right to know when pollution in the 
     air they breathe or the water they drink threatens health, 
     and Congress must not add eight years of delay to health 
     protections and cleanup.
       H.R. 4775 would also permanently weaken implementation of 
     the 2015 and future ozone standards. It would reduce 
     requirements for areas with the most dangerous levels of 
     ozone. Areas classified as being in ``extreme nonattainment'' 
     of the standard would no longer need to build plans that 
     include additional contingency measures if their initial 
     plans fail to provide the expected pollution reductions. The 
     Clean Air Act prioritizes reducing air pollution to protect 
     the public's health, but H.R. 4775 opens a new opportunity 
     for communities to avoid cleaning up, irrespective of the 
     health impacts.
       Further, the bill would greatly expand the definition of an 
     exceptional event. Under the Clean Air Act, communities can 
     demonstrate to EPA that an exceptional event--such as a 
     wildfire--should not ``count'' in determining whether their 
     air quality meets the national standards. This bill would 
     recklessly expand the definition of exceptional events to 
     include high pollution days when the air is simply stagnant--
     the precise air pollution episodes the Clean Air Act was 
     designed to combat--and declare those bad air days as 
     ``exceptional.'' Changing the accounting rules will undermine 
     health protection and avoid pollution cleanup.
       Additionally, the bill would permanently weaken the Clean 
     Air Act. The Clean Air Act is one of our nation's premier 
     public health laws because it puts health first. The Act has 
     a two-step process: first, EPA considers scientific evidence 
     to decide how much air pollution is safe to breathe and sets 
     the standard that is requisite to protect public health with 
     an adequate margin of safety. Then, states work with EPA to 
     develop a plan to clean up air pollution to meet the 
     standard. Cost and feasibility are fully considered in the 
     second phase during implementation of the standard.
       This bill states that if EPA finds that ``a range of 
     levels'' of an air pollutant protect public health with an 
     adequate margin of safety, then EPA may consider 
     technological feasibility in choosing a limit within that 
     range. Further, the bill would interject implementation 
     considerations including adverse economic and energy effects 
     into the standard setting process. These changes will 
     permanently weaken the core health-based premise of the Clean 
     Air Act--protecting the public from known health effects of 
     air pollution with a margin of safety.
       H.R. 4775 is a sweeping attack on lifesaving standards that 
     protect public health from air pollution. This bill is an 
     extreme attempt to undermine our nation's clean air health 
     protections. Not only does it delay the long-overdue updated 
     ozone standards and weaken their implementation and 
     enforcement, it also permanently weakens the health 
     protections against many dangerous air pollutants and the 
     scientific basis of Clean Air Act standards.
       Please prioritize the health of your constituents and vote 
     NO on H.R. 4775.
           Sincerely,
         Allergy & Asthma Network, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy 
           Environments, American Academy of Pediatrics, American 
           College of Preventive Medicine, American Lung 
           Association, American Public Health Association, 
           American Thoracic Society, Asthma and Allergy 
           Foundation of America, Children's Environmental Health 
           Network, Health Care Without Harm, March of Dimes, 
           National Association of County & City Health Officials, 
           National Environmental Health Association, Physicians 
           for Social Responsibility, Public Health Institute, 
           Trust for America's Health.
                                  ____

                                                         League of


                                          Conservation Voters,

                                     Washington, DC, June 7, 2016.
     Re: Oppose H.R. 4775--Extreme Attack on Smog Protections & 
         the Clean Air Act.

     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members, 
     the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) works to turn 
     environmental values into national priorities. Each year, LCV 
     publishes the National Environmental Scorecard, which details 
     the voting records of members of Congress on environmental 
     legislation. The Scorecard is distributed to LCV members, 
     concerned voters nationwide, and the media.
       LCV urges you to vote NO on H.R. 4775, the ``Ozone 
     Standards Implementation Act,'' a radical bill that 
     jeopardizes the health of the American people by undermining 
     the EPA's recently-updated standards for ozone pollution 
     (a.k.a. smog) and eviscerating a central pillar of the Clean 
     Air Act.
       The Clean Air Act was enacted with strong bipartisan 
     support and is based on the central premise that clean air 
     protections for dangerous pollutants like smog, soot, carbon 
     monoxide, sulfur dioxide and lead be based solely on the 
     best-available health science. The law's drafters structured 
     the law in this manner because Americans deserve to know if 
     their air is safe to breathe or not. For the first time ever, 
     H.R. 4775 would allow the EPA to consider factors unrelated 
     to health, like technical feasibility in the initial standard 
     setting process. States consider feasibility and cost when 
     they implement the standards. This system has worked 
     extremely well since 1970 as air quality has improved 
     dramatically while the economy has grown.
       The bill would also gut EPA's ozone standards, which were 
     updated last fall. H.R. 4775 would delay these vital health 
     protections by at least ten years and double the law's 
     current five-year review periods for updating ozone and all 
     national air quality standards allowing unhealthy air to 
     persist even longer. High ozone levels pose a significant 
     threat to our health, and are especially dangerous for 
     children, the elderly, and asthmatics.
       We urge you to REJECT H.R. 4775 and will strongly consider 
     including votes on this bill in the 2016 Scorecard. If you 
     need more information, please call my office and ask to speak 
     with a member of our Government Relations team.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Gene Karpinski,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                     June 7, 2016.
       Dear Senator/Representative: On behalf of our millions of 
     members, the undersigned 118 organizations urge you to oppose 
     the ``Ozone Standards Implementation Act'' (H.R. 4775, S. 
     2882). The innocuous-sounding name is misleading: this 
     legislation would actually systematically weaken the Clean 
     Air Act without a single improvement, undermine Americans' 
     46-year right to healthy air based on medical science, and 
     delay life-saving health standards already years overdue.
       This bill's vision of ``Ozone Standards Implementation'' 
     eliminates health benefits and the right to truly safe air 
     that Americans enjoy under today's law. First, the 
     legislation would delay for ten years the right

[[Page H3520]]

     to safer air quality, and even the simple right to know if 
     the air is safe to breathe. Corporations applying for air 
     pollution permits would be free to ignore new ground-level 
     ozone (aka smog) health standards during these additional ten 
     years. For the first time the largest sources of air 
     pollution would be allowed to exceed health standards. The 
     bill would also outright excuse the parts of the country 
     suffering the worst smog pollution from having backup plans 
     if they do not reduce pollution. The most polluted parts of 
     the country should not stop doing everything they can to 
     protect their citizens' health and environment by cleaning up 
     smog pollution.
       This bill is not content to merely weaken and delay 
     reductions in smog pollution. It also strikes at our core 
     right to clean air based on health and medical science. The 
     medically-based health standards that the law has been 
     founded on for 46 years instead could become a political 
     football weakened by polluter compliance costs. This could 
     well result in communities being exposed to unhealthy levels 
     of smog and soot and sulfur dioxide and even toxic lead 
     pollution. The bill would also double the law's five-year 
     review periods for recognizing the latest science and 
     updating health standards, which are already frequently years 
     late; this means in practice that unhealthy air would persist 
     for longer than ten years.
       The legislation also weakens implementation of current 
     clean air health standards. The bill expands exemptions for 
     ``exceptional events'' that are not counted towards 
     compliance with health standards for air quality, even when 
     air pollution levels are unsafe. This will mean more unsafe 
     air more often, with no responsibility to clean it up. 
     Requirements meant to ensure progress toward reducing smog 
     and soot pollution would shift from focusing on public health 
     and achievability to economic costs. Despite the bland name 
     ``Ozone Standards Implementation Act,'' this bill represents 
     an extreme attack on the most fundamental safeguards and 
     rights in the Clean Air Act.
       Since 1970, the Federal Clean Air Act has been organized 
     around one governing principle--that the EPA must set health 
     standards based on medical science for dangerous air 
     pollution, including smog, soot and lead, that protect all 
     Americans, with ``an adequate margin of safety'' for 
     vulnerable populations like children, the elderly and 
     asthmatics. This legislation eviscerates that principle and 
     protection. We urge you to oppose H.R. 4775 and S. 2882, to 
     protect our families and Americans' rights to clean air.
           Sincerely,
       350KC; 350 Loudoun; Alaska Community Action on Toxics; 
     Alton Area Cluster UCM (United Congregations of Metro-East); 
     Brentwood House California Latino Business Institute; Center 
     for Biological Diversity; Chesapeake Physicians for Social 
     Responsibility; Chicago Physicians for Social Responsibility; 
     Citizens for Clean Air; Clean Air Watch; Clean Water Action; 
     Cleveland Environmental Action Network; Climate Action 
     Alliance of the Valley; Connecticut League of Conservation 
     Voters; Conservation Voters for Idaho; Conservation Voters of 
     South Carolina; Dakota Resource Council; Earth Day Network; 
     Earthjustice.
       Earthworks; Environment Iowa; Environment America; 
     Environment Arizona; Environment California; Environment 
     Colorado; Environment Connecticut; Environment Florida; 
     Environment Georgia; Environment Illinois; Environment Maine; 
     Environment Maryland; Environment Massachusetts; Environment 
     Michigan; Environment Minnesota; Environment Missouri; 
     Environment Montana; Environment Nevada; Environment New 
     Hampshire; Environment New Jersey.
       Environment New Mexico; Environment North Carolina; 
     Environment Ohio; Environment Oregon; Environment Rhode 
     Island; Environment Texas; Environment Virginia; Environment 
     Washington; Environmental Defense Action Fund; Environmental 
     Entrepreneurs (E2); Environmental Law & Policy Center; 
     Ethical Society of St. Louis; Faith Alliance for Climate 
     Solutions; Florida Conservation Voters; Fort Collins 
     Sustainability Group; GreenLatinos; Health Care Without Harm; 
     Iowa Interfaith Power & Light; Jean-Michel Cousteau's Ocean 
     Futures Society; KyotoUSA.
       Labadie Environmental Organization (LEO); Latino Donor 
     Collaborative; League of Conservation Voters; League of Women 
     Voters; Maine Conservation Voters; Maryland League of 
     Conservation Voters; Michigan League of Conservation Voters; 
     Moms Clean Air Force; Montana Conservation Voters Education 
     Fund; Montana Environmental Information Center; National 
     Parks Conservation Association; Natural Resources Defense 
     Council; NC League of Conservation Voters; Nevada 
     Conservation League; New Mexico Environmental Law Center; New 
     York League of Conservation Voters; Northern Plains Resource 
     Council; OEC Action Fund; Ohio Organizing Collaborative, 
     Communities United for Responsible Energy; Oregon League of 
     Conservation Voters.
       Partnership for Policy Integrity; PennEnvironment; People 
     Demanding Action, Tucson Chapter; Physicians for Social 
     Responsibility; Physicians for Social Responsibility, Maine 
     Chapter; Physicians for Social Responsibility, Los Angeles 
     Chapter; Physicians for Social Responsibility, Arizona 
     Chapter; Physicians for Social Responsibility, SF Bay Area 
     Chapter; Physicians for Social Responsibility, Tennessee 
     Chapter; Physicians for Social Responsibility, Wisconsin 
     Chapter; Powder River Basin Resource Council; Public Citizen; 
     Public Citizen's Texas Office; RVA Interfaith Climate Justice 
     Team; Safe Climate Campaign; San Juan Citizens Alliance; 
     Sierra Club; Southern Environmental Law Center; Sustainable 
     Energy & Economic Development (SEED) Coalition; Texas 
     Campaign for the Environment.
       Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services; Texas League 
     of Conservation Voters; The Environmental Justice Center at 
     Chestnut Hills United Church; Trust for America's Health; 
     Union of Concerned Scientists; Utah Physicians for a Healthy 
     Environment; Valley Watch; Virginia Organizing; Virginia 
     Interfaith Power & Light; Voces Verdes; Voices for Progress; 
     Washington Conservation Voters; Western Colorado Congress; 
     Western Organization of Resource Councils; Wisconsin 
     Environmental Health Network; Wisconsin League of 
     Conservation Voters; Wisconsin Environment; Wyoming Outdoor 
     Council.

  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Olson), the vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Power.
  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, every time I talk about this bipartisan 
bill, I make sure to emphasize one point: I want clean air.
  I remember Houston in the 1970s. We could not see the downtown 
through the smog. We have made a lot of progress since then. The whole 
country has made a lot of progress since then. I want that progress to 
continue.
  Despite what some would have you believe, Mr. Chairman, this 
bipartisan bill is not about fundamentally changing the Clean Air Act. 
Nothing in this bipartisan bill changes any air quality standard or 
regulation. Nothing in this bipartisan bill puts cost before science 
when EPA sets a new standard.
  This bipartisan bill is about carefully thought-out, commonsense 
reforms. It is about listening to State regulators who actually had to 
make EPA's rules work for the people.
  The people I work for back home are full of common sense. Common 
sense says that EPA should put out guidance to follow a new rule at the 
same time they put out the rule.
  Folks in Texas 22 and across America are puzzled. What is wrong with 
EPA putting out a complete package of rules and regulations together 
instead of a rule first followed by regulations 7 years later? That is 
not common sense. That is a road to failure, a road we are going down 
right now.
  As Dr. Bryan Shaw, the top regulator for air quality in my home State 
of Texas, said, provisions in this bipartisan bill will ``allow States 
to focus their limited resources'' to implement EPA's previous ozone 
rule. We can continue to improve Texas air--and the air of every 
State--if we let our regulators do their jobs.
  I carefully wrote this bipartisan bill to include more common sense. 
Let EPA consider achievability when issuing a new rule. This is not a 
mandate.

                              {time}  1430

  I ask my opponents to read this bipartisan bill. Read the language. 
It clearly says the EPA may consider achievability when they set a new 
standard. This provision will never allow EPA to set an unhealthy 
standard. They can't use cost to ignore science.
  Let's bring common sense to the EPA and work together to help States 
improve air quality. Vote for this bill.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Castor).
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his 
leadership on energy and clean air policy for all of America.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4775. The Republican 
bill is a radical attempt to gut the Clean Air Act.
  The Clean Air Act has been one of our bedrock environmental laws for 
America since the 1970s. So for 50 years it has worked well to ensure 
that it protects our health while businesses thrive. It has made such a 
difference in our lives.
  I heard my good friend from Houston say he has seen the air cleaned 
up. The same is true in the Sunshine State of Florida. I remember those 
smoggy days in the late sixties and early seventies. I watched the 
impact of the Clean Air Act make it healthier for us to breathe, to 
grow up, to live healthy lives. All you have to do is look across the 
globe at China and India and the struggles they have with their economy 
because they are not able to control their pollution.

[[Page H3521]]

  The great thing about the Clean Air Act is that it is based on 
science. It requires the EPA every 5 years to bring scientists together 
and do a health check, do a check on the air quality standards all 
across America. Then they can--they are not required to--say: we are 
going to improve the air quality standards. And then they leave it up 
to States and stakeholders at home to determine how best to control air 
pollution. It has been extraordinarily effective at cleaning the air.
  EPA has set air quality standards for six different pollutants: 
ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, lead, and 
particulate matter. Between 1980 and 2014, emissions of these six air 
pollutants dropped by 63 percent. During the same period, the Nation's 
gross domestic product increased by 147 percent, vehicle miles traveled 
increased by 97 percent, energy consumption increased by 26 percent, 
and the U.S. population increased by 41 percent. These emissions 
reductions have generated dramatic health effects. There is a balance 
in the law already.
  A recent peer-reviewed study says the Clean Air Act will save more 
than 230,000 lives and will prevent millions of cases of respiratory 
problems like asthma and other problems in 2020 alone. It will also 
enhance our national productivity by preventing 17 million lost 
workdays. These public health benefits translate into $2 trillion in 
monetized benefits to the economy.
  Again, from the Sunshine State's perspective, we have a booming 
tourist economy largely because we have clean water and clear air. 
Everyone wants to come to Florida. They are very discerning with their 
tourist dollars and where they are going to take a vacation. They look 
across the world, and one of the reasons people travel to America or 
you travel to the Sunshine State is because it is healthy and clean; 
and it is largely because of the Clean Air Act that we have been able 
to do that.
  So this bill is irresponsible because it will take us backwards. And 
let's talk a few specifics. The bill dramatically delays implementation 
of the 2015 ozone air quality standards by up to 8 years. It says to 
America: we are going to ignore the science, we are going to ignore the 
new standards that have been developed with thousands and thousands of 
comments, and we are going to ignore the fact that these improved 
standards will net benefits of up to $4.6 billion in 2025 alone.
  Second, the bill doubles the air quality standard review period for 
all criteria air pollutants to every 10 years. Currently, the Clean Air 
Act says: EPA, every 5 years, look at the best science. Now, this bill 
says to ignore the science. Again, we will wait 10 years.
  That is not smart and that is not helpful to our communities and our 
neighbors back home.
  The bill also gives new and expanded facilities amnesty from new air 
quality standards. And this is where I think my Republican friends are 
going to invite a lot of litigation.
  Before I came to Congress, I did a little bit of environmental law. 
Current existing industrial users and businesses will have to bear the 
burden because the new polluters will get a break--they will get 
amnesty--while our existing businesses will have to make up the 
difference. That is not smart, and I think that is going to create a 
lot of lawsuits.
  Prime Minister Narendra Modi from India was here today. One of his 
messages, besides what a great democracy America is and what a great 
democracy India is, is that we have to think about the future. And we 
can tap the American ingenuity and what we have already done to clean 
air and grow business at the same time.
  Other nations are realizing now what we have learned long ago: 
unregulated emission of dangerous air pollutants is unsustainable. The 
Clean Air Act has helped us make dramatic improvements in air quality 
over the past decades. Our economy has grown at the same time.
  So I would urge my colleagues, do not gut the Clean Air Act. Vote 
``no'' on H.R. 4775.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding and for his efforts on this very important legislation.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 4775, the Ozone Standards 
Implementation Act of 2016, so States will have the flexibility and 
tools to reasonably and effectively meet the new EPA ozone standards.
  Since the proposal of EPA's 2008 ozone standards, States have 
continually worked to implement air quality standards to comply with 
EPA's clean air requirements. However, EPA's implementation regulations 
for the 2008 standards were not published until March 6, 2015, and then 
the revised ozone standards were issued in October of 2015.
  States now face the prospect of simultaneously implementing two ozone 
standards at the same time. H.R. 4775 remedies this problem by creating 
a phase-in approach to the 2008 and 2015 ozone standards, extending the 
final designations under the 2015 standards to 2025.
  It would also make reforms to the National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards to provide flexibility and structure to actions taken to 
implementing and revising these standards. States should be given the 
flexibility to implement air quality standards in a way that is cost 
effective and efficient.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson) for introducing 
this bill. I also encourage my colleagues to support this legislation 
to ensure States are able to implement EPA ozone standards without 
harming their overall economy.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, H.R. 4775 would fundamentally and permanently weaken the 
Clean Air Act as well as future air pollution health standards for all 
criteria pollutants.

  Mr. Chair, H.R. 4775 would unacceptably delay implementation of the 
EPA's 2015 ozone standards for another 8 years, even though these 
standards haven't been updated since the Bush administration last did 
so in the year 2008.
  Additionally, Mr. Chair, this bill would also mandate that the EPA 
wait a decade before considering any new evidence regarding the health 
implications from ozone and other harmful pollutants, despite what the 
science may say in the interval.
  This drastic change to the Clean Air Act would prohibit the EPA from 
relying on the most current health-based scientific data when 
determining air pollutant standards.
  Mr. Chair, H.R. 4775 would also fundamentally change provisions of 
the Clean Air Act by imposing cost and technological feasibility 
considerations on the standard-setting process, even though the Clean 
Air Act clearly states that only medical and public health data should 
be used when setting clean air health standards.
  Mr. Chair, this radical change to the Nation's most historically 
important environmental law will lead to adverse consequences for both 
the public health and the resourcefulness of American companies and 
innovators.
  As the EPA's Acting Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and 
Radiation, Janet McCabe, noted in her recent testimony to the Energy 
and Power Subcommittee at a hearing entitled ``H.R. 4775, Ozone 
Standards Implementation Act'' just earlier this year in April: 
``Despite repeated assertions that achieving clean air was just not 
feasible, American ingenuity has consistently risen to the challenge 
and made our country the leader in both clean air and clean air 
technology.
  ``That approach,'' she went on to say, ``has been very successful for 
both the health of Americans and our economy.''
  Mr. Chair, what is missing in the arguments made by the majority 
against the Clean Air Act, as well as most other environmental 
protection laws, is the fact that these regulations have been 
extraordinarily beneficial not only to the American health, but also to 
the American economy.
  In almost every instance, Mr. Chair, whenever a new environmental 
regulation has been proposed, we have heard opponents label them as job 
killers, overly burdensome, harmful to the economy, the end of the 
American way of life as we know it. In practically every instance, 
those dire predictions have been proven to be unequivocally wrong, as 
these laws, Mr. Chair, have served to protect the public health as

[[Page H3522]]

well as to spur new advances in technology and in services that we can 
then export overseas.
  Mr. Chairman, undoubtedly, today's fight over the new ozone standard 
will follow this very same pattern. Instead of trying to stall the 2015 
ozone standards and prohibit the EPA from regularly updating the 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards, as H.R. 4775 would do, we in 
this Congress should be heeding the warnings of doctors and scientists 
of not acting quickly enough to protect the public health.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this awful bill, and I urge all of my 
colleagues to do the same.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta), who is a member of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, a cosponsor of this legislation, and a gentleman 
focused on energy issues.
  Mr. LATTA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4775, the Ozone 
Standards Implementation Act, of which I am a proud sponsor.
  I would like to focus, in particular, on what this bill really does 
for the timeline of implementing ozone standards. H.R. 4775 focuses on 
efficient implementation of ozone and other air quality requirements by 
making commonsense adjustments to facilitate how air quality standards 
are implemented, based on practical experience.
  Our legislation provides States with additional time to implement the 
2015 standards which is needed to fully implement the 2008 ozone 
standards, since EPA only issued the implementing regulations in 2015.
  Further, H.R. 4775 allows EPA time to develop the new implementing 
regulations and guidance needed for the 2015 standards, and also allows 
EPA to clear its existing backlog of hundreds of implementation plans 
relating to other existing standards.
  Clean air remains our priority, and this legislation does not change 
the recent new ozone standard of 70 parts per billion. It does not 
change of the standards set by the agency for any other criteria 
pollutants.
  Instead, it ensures that hundreds of counties are not unnecessarily 
subjected to additional regulatory burdens, paperwork requirements, and 
restrictions.
  EPA projects that, based on 2012-2014 data, over 240 counties with 
ozone monitors would violate the 2015 standards, but they are already 
on track to meet those standards by 2025. It makes no sense to sweep 
these counties into unnecessarily burdensome ``nonattainment'' 
regulatory regimes.
  EPA has estimated compliance costs for 2008 beginning in 2020 of $7.6 
billion to $8.8 billion annually. On top of these costs, EPA estimates 
compliance costs for the 2015 standards beginning in 2025, of $2 
billion annually, including $1.4 billion outside California, and $800 
million in California.
  However, EPA's own estimate may be too low, since they have admitted 
that in some places, most of or even all of the technology that will be 
needed to meet this rule has yet to be invented.
  What this legislation postpones is the diversion of State resources 
from the most pressing challenges to meet a standard that EPA projects 
will be met anyway through measures already on the books.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of H.R. 4775.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining on 
both sides?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 20 minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from Illinois has 13\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores), who is a member of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee and, I believe, a cosponsor of this legislation.
  Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Whitfield for allowing me 
to speak on behalf of this bill.
  As a coauthor of H.R. 4775, I rise to strongly urge my colleagues to 
support this bipartisan Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2016.
  Since 1980, our economy has more than tripled in growth, while ozone 
levels have gone down by 33 percent. The EPA predicts that ozone levels 
will continue to improve, particularly as the 75 parts per billion 
standard is fully implemented.
  Most importantly, the EPA states: ``The vast majority of U.S. 
counties will meet the 70 parts per billion standard by 2025 just with 
the rules and programs now in place or underway.''
  In March of 2015, the EPA released its implementation regulations on 
the delayed 2008 ozone standard of 75 percent per billion. Last 
October, just 7 months later, the EPA moved the goal posts with a new 
ozone standard of 70 parts per billion.
  Our States and communities now face the burden of spending scarce 
taxpayer resources to implement two different ozone standards at the 
same time.
  So what does this mean? It means that even though the EPA admits that 
air quality will improve, our States and counties now face a premature 
nonattainment designation, significantly limiting new job creation 
opportunities.
  Additional bureaucratic processes and unnecessary red tape will do 
nothing to protect public health; however, they will export jobs to 
countries like China with fewer regulations, while those countries send 
us their ozone emissions in return.
  H.R. 4775 includes a key harmonization provision from H.R. 4000, the 
bipartisan legislation I introduced last November.
  Section 2 of today's bill gives communities the needed time to meet 
the 70 parts per billion standard through 2025. It protects these areas 
from being subjected to unnecessary additional regulatory burdens and 
red tape, as these areas are already on track for compliance with both 
standards.
  We have also heard from our State regulators that the current 5-year 
review cycle timeline for National Ambient Air Quality Standards is 
overly ambitious and not attainable. This is proven by the fact that, 
since 1971, the EPA has taken an average of 10\1/2\ years to review the 
standard for ozone, not 5, as is currently in effect.
  Another provision I authored, section 3(a), modernizes the Clean Air 
Act by matching the mandatory review cycle with the actual timeline of 
previous EPA reviews; in other words, 10 years between reviews. This is 
a reasonable timeline in light of the Nation's dramatically improved 
air quality over the last three decades.
  Protecting both public health and the economy are bipartisan goals we 
all share, and the two are not mutually exclusive.
  I would like to thank Mr. Olson, Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Latta, Whip 
Scalise, and Leader McCarthy for their work on this important issue. I 
would also like to thank Chairman Upton and Chairman Whitfield for 
their efforts in shepherding this bill through the Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this commonsense bipartisan 
legislation.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly disagree with my friend from Texas.
  The proposed changes to the NAAQS review cycle would put lives at 
risk by permanently delaying updates to limits on not just ozone, but 
on every dangerous criteria air pollutant: carbon monoxide, lead, 
nitrogen oxides, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.
  Mr. Chairman, the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to review the 
science every 5 years and to update the standards when necessary to 
protect the public health.
  It is important to note that the EPA isn't required to update the 
NAAQS every 5 years, but to just review the science.
  The 2015 ozone standard, Mr. Chairman, reflects strong scientific 
evidence regarding the harmful effects of ozone on human health and the 
environment; including more than 1,000 new studies.
  Scientists, Mr. Chairman, are constantly researching the impacts that 
air pollution have on human health, and have consistently discovered 
that ozone, particle pollutants, and other types of air pollution 
covered by the Clean Air Act are, indeed, harmful in more ways and at 
lower concentration than previously understood.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill would ignore all this scientific work and 
evidence by

[[Page H3523]]

doubling the review period from 5 years to 10 years, delaying the 
review of science and potentially necessary updates to the standard.
  Mr. Chairman, 10 years is too long to wait to protect public health 
from levels of ozone, particle pollution, and other pollutants that the 
science shows are, indeed, very, very, very dangerous.
  Delaying the EPA's review of the best medical science won't make 
outdated air pollution levels safe.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Hultgren). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself another 15 seconds.
  Delaying EPA's review of the best medical science won't make outdated 
air pollution levels safe, it will just lead to more Americans 
suffering from unhealthy air for longer periods of time.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber).
  Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
4775, the Ozone Standards Implementation Act, which I have cosponsored. 
I want to thank Congressman Olson, my good friend and fellow Texan, for 
introducing this important legislation.
  Last year, Mr. Chairman, the EPA finalized a costly new regulation to 
reduce ozone levels, even as States are only now beginning to implement 
the 2008 ozone standard. States will now have to deal with two 
regulations with overlapping implementation schedules. This is Federal 
bureaucracy at its finest, Mr. Chairman.
  Now that the EPA is moving full steam ahead on its regulatory freight 
train, in order to get States back on track, Congress must act to give 
them certainty. H.R. 4775 will phase in implementation of those ozone 
standards over a reasonable timeline.
  As ozone continues to fall to levels that reflect naturally occurring 
and even foreign-source ozone, we must also insist that the EPA report 
on how foreign pollution affects compliance with its overburdensome 
regulations. This legislation will do just that, Mr. Chairman.
  There is no denying that the EPA's regulations will be costly for the 
States and costly, in turn, for our economy. The lower ozone levels are 
mandated, the harder it is for economic development to occur. That's 
just the way it is, as Ted Poe would say.
  Communities across the country will be harmed, and low-income 
families, Mr. Chairman, are going to be harmed the most from this 
overburdensome regulation.
  It is perfectly reasonable for Congress to insist that this 
regulatory boondoggle is reined in. I urge all Members to support this 
important legislation. It is the right thing to do. You know I am 
right.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is left?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois has 10\1/4\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Kentucky has 15 minutes remaining.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to an extraordinary 
gentleman from the great State of New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), our fine 
leader on the Democratic side.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member of our 
subcommittee for his kind remarks.
  Once again, the House is considering a bill to undermine one of our 
most successful public health and environmental laws, the Clean Air 
Act. And clean air isn't a luxury, it is a necessity.
  Before the Clean Air Act became law 43 years ago, thousands of 
Americans experienced the consequences of unhealthy air, respiratory 
disease, severe asthma attacks, and premature deaths. This landmark 
legislation, for the first time, ensured that hazardous air pollution 
would be controlled.
  But in spite of the overwhelming evidence of the success of this law 
and its many vital public health benefits, the Clean Air Act continues 
to be a favorite target for my Republican colleagues. This bill, H.R. 
4775, is, unfortunately, the latest in an ongoing attempt to undermine 
the progress we have made on cleaning the air and protecting public 
health.
  The bill's sponsors claim their goal is to help States to implement 
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards set by the EPA, yet this 
bill fails to provide the one thing that would be most helpful to 
States in their efforts to implement air quality standards, and that is 
additional resources.
  In fact, Chairman Whitfield will be offering an amendment to the bill 
to ensure that EPA receives no additional funding to implement the 
provisions of this legislation, or any of the requirements under 
existing law.
  H.R. 4775 is not a package of minor changes to minor provisions of 
the Clean Air Act. These changes are radical revisions intended to roll 
back the progress we have made in public health. This bill alters the 
fundamental premise of the act, that standards should be set to ensure 
the air is safe and healthy to breathe.
  H.R. 4775 would bring economic costs, technological feasibility, and 
other non-risk factors into the standard-setting process.

                              {time}  1500

  These things are important, to be sure, and that is why they are 
already considered when the States develop their plans to achieve the 
health-based standards set by EPA, and that is appropriate. They 
should, however, never come into play in setting these standards.
  Let's just use technology as an example. Technology is always 
evolving. What is technologically feasible today does not define what 
is possible tomorrow. For example, air pollution from automobile 
emissions was recognized as a serious problem in southern California as 
early as 1959. At that time, there were no pollution-control devices 
for cars. Auto manufacturers said that it couldn't be done, the 
technology was impossible, and that even if it were possible, it would 
be far too expensive. But California passed laws requiring pollution 
control anyway.
  We all know the rest of the story: it was not impossible or 
prohibitively expensive. People still bought cars. And we have cleaner, 
more efficient cars today because regulation pushed technology forward. 
The only reason to make technological feasibility a factor in setting 
the standard is to avoid setting the standard, and that is the goal of 
the supporters of this legislation.
  The history of the Clean Air Act is one of great success: the economy 
has continued to grow; the air has gotten cleaner; and most 
importantly, public health has improved.
  So, Mr. Chairman, my Republican colleagues refuse to accept the fact 
that we can continue to improve the air, have a vibrant economy, and 
give everyone the opportunity for a long and healthy life. So I urge my 
colleagues to reject the false choice between jobs and clean air. The 
fact is that we can have both.
  H.R. 4775 is a dangerous bill, and I would urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on increased ozone pollution.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, we have no further speakers on our side 
of the aisle except for myself, and I think I have the right to close. 
I don't know if the gentleman from Illinois has additional speakers or 
if he would like to go at this time.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, supporters of this bill claim that EPA doesn't issue 
implementation rules and guidance quickly enough after updating a 
national ambient air quality standard. So this awful piece of 
legislation concludes that the solution is to sacrifice Americans' 
health--sacrifice our public health--by allowing facilities to ignore 
new air quality standards. But, Mr. Chairman, this would only allow 
these same facilities to pollute more while doing nothing to facilitate 
faster implementation of new NAAQS.
  The bill says that EPA must release implementing rules and guidance 
concurrently with a new standard, meaning, if EPA updates a national 
ambient air quality standard, that standard does not apply to new or 
expanding facilities unless and until EPA has issued implementation 
rules and guidance for the new standard.
  Mr. Chairman, witnesses have testified that concurrent guidance isn't 
always practical or even necessary. This provision presumes a problem 
that does not even exist. The Agency provides a wealth of tools 
already, Mr. Chairman, to assist States with air permits, and in many 
cases, States are fully capable of issuing permits without any new

[[Page H3524]]

guidance from EPA. Mr. Chairman, they have been doing this same thing 
for decades now.
  Most guidance evolves after a standard takes effect as States and 
industry raise questions that require EPA clarification. It is unclear, 
Mr. Chairman, how the Agency could provide guidance on solving problems 
before they even know what those problems are.
  Mr. Chairman, you are talking about a catch-22, and this creates an 
epic catch-22 for the Environmental Protection Agency.
  On the one hand, the EPA could hurry to issue guidance before hearing 
questions from States and industry. That guidance would necessarily be 
incomplete, as it won't even address issues that only emerge during the 
implementation process. An industry group, Mr. Chairman, that wanted to 
delay implementation of the new air quality standard could file a 
lawsuit saying that EPA's guidance wasn't sufficient.
  On the other hand, EPA could wait to issue more robust and helpful 
guidance, but in the meantime, facilities would be able to obtain 
permits under the old air quality standard. A company, Mr. Chairman, 
could build a facility that is allowed to pollute more than it would 
under current law.
  In both scenarios, Mr. Chairman, who wins? Not the American people. 
Who wins? The polluter wins, and our public health loses.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank our fellow legislators from the other 
side of the aisle for working with us on this legislation. One of the 
great things about the House of Representatives is we have the 
opportunity to come and talk on different sides of the issues. We can 
have different opinions, we can talk about it, disagree, and then try 
to move forward.
  Now, some of the speakers today, when we discussed this legislation, 
H.R. 4775, have described it as irresponsible, as a radical action to 
gut the Clean Air Act, to fundamentally weaken the Clean Air Act, and 
to undermine the Clean Air Act. I would say that that absolutely is not 
our intent.
  I think all of us living in America understand that we do, in this 
country, more than any other country in the world, work to ensure clean 
air for our constituents and our citizens. We don't have to take a 
backseat to anyone to make that statement.
  I might say that the criteria of pollutants, the six of them, the 
emissions have been reduced by a total of 63 percent--making up the 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards has been reduced by 63 percent, 
those emissions--since 1980.
  So we are committed to clean air. But many people do not realize 
that, today, 24 States, counties in 24 States and the District of 
Columbia do not even meet the requirement of the 2008 Ambient Air 
Quality Standards, which is 75 parts per billion. And we know that even 
though that standard was set in 2008, EPA did not come forth with the 
guidelines to help the States meet that standard until 2015--7 years 
later.
  Now they have come out with a new standard in 2015 saying that States 
must meet that in 2017. This legislation is brought to the floor in 
response to concerns by entities and individuals responsible in the 
States for implementing the Federal standards set by the Federal EPA, 
so that is why we are here.
  So what are we doing in this legislation? Let me just point out that 
I mentioned the 24 States, counties in 24 States and the District of 
Columbia are in noncompliance with the 2008 standard. Los Angeles is 
never going to be in compliance. San Joaquin Valley is probably never 
going to be in compliance, and many parts of the West are never going 
to be in compliance because of their geographical location and because 
of foreign emissions coming in from other countries.
  If you are in noncompliance, it has a drastic impact on your ability 
to create jobs and to bring in new industry because it is much more 
difficult to get a permit. So these over 270 counties in these 24 
States at a time when our job growth is stagnant are going to find it 
even more difficult to create jobs.
  Poverty also has a tremendous impact on people's health. Yes, we want 
clean air, but we want jobs so people can provide health care for their 
families and their children. So we need a balancing act here, and that 
is what this legislation is designed to do.
  Under existing law, EPA at the Federal level must, they are mandated 
to review the national air quality standard every 5 years. They can do 
it in 2 if they want to, or 3, but they must do it in 5. So, because we 
are now trying to implement the 2008 and the 2015 all at the same time 
in certain areas, all we are saying is, instead of mandating EPA to do 
it every 5, we mandate them to do it every 10. They can do it in 4 if 
they want to, or 3 or 2, but they must do it in 10. So is that 
irresponsible? Is that trying to gut the Clean Air Act?
  What are some other things we are doing here? We are also saying that 
we are authorizing--we are not mandating, but we are authorizing--the 
EPA Administrator to consider that technology is available to meet the 
new standard--not that it is required to, but it is authorized to. Is 
that unreasonable? Is that trying to gut the Clean Air Act?
  Then we are also saying, before EPA revises its National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards, that they must get the advice of the Agency's 
independent scientific advisory committee. Now they do that, but we are 
saying we also want you to do it to look at potential adverse effects 
relating to implementing a new standard as required by section 109 of 
the Clean Air Act.

                              {time}  1515

  So you have got this advisory body already there. We want you to talk 
to them and at least consider any adverse effects that may come from 
the new standard.
  And we also are saying--we have talked about this a lot already--if 
you issue a new standard, at the same time give the States the 
implementation and guidance so they know what to do to meet the new 
standard instead of being 7 years late, as they were on the 2008 
standard.
  And then we want to ensure that for certain ozone and particulate 
matter nonattainment areas--and I have already talked about the 
nonattainment areas of the 2008--that we do not require the States to 
include an economically infeasible measure to meet it. In other words, 
if it is going to be self-defeating, if it is going to be economically 
infeasible, you are in a nonattainment area, you don't have to do that.
  And then we want to ensure that States may seek relief with respect 
to certain exceptional events. For example, there are some areas of the 
country that are having their worst drought since the early 1800s, 
hundred-year droughts, and yet they can't get relief from EPA because 
of these exceptional events; and because of that, they are going to 
suffer in trying to bring in new jobs that create economic growth.
  And then, finally--and this makes a lot of sense to me--I want to 
quote a statement that was made by a regulator from Utah. He said that 
international emissions and transports, dirty pollution and air coming 
from outside America can, at times, account for up to 85 percent of the 
8-hour ambient ozone concentration in many Western States.
  Many areas in the West have little chance of identifying sufficient 
controls to achieve attainment because they are not causing it. So we 
are simply saying to EPA: Do a study so that we know what is being 
caused by other countries. That is what this bill is all about.
  I might say that we are doing this after we had four forums on the 
Clean Air Act, we had four hearings on the National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards and ozone. These suggestions were made not by Republican 
legislators per se, but by regulators responsible for meeting EPA 
standards back in their States. They came and said: Would you help us 
with this?
  So that is what we are attempting to do.
  It is not our intent to gut the Clean Air Act. We recognize how 
important it is. The importance of health care and clean air is a part 
of what America is all about.
  I urge our Members to pass this legislation. It is a commonsense 
approach to address concerns raised by people with the responsibility 
of meeting the standards required by the Federal EPA.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H3525]]

  

  Mr. TED LIEU of California. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to 
H.R. 4775, the Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2016.
  Protecting our air from dirty pollution should not be a partisan 
issue. We all want to breathe clean air. We all want our children to be 
able to play outside without risking an asthma attack due to high ozone 
levels.
  Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency finalized new ozone 
rules designed to protect the health of all Americans, particularly 
those communities which are at higher risk for smog. H.R. 4775 would 
delay this rule and critically undermine the Clean Air Act, 
jeopardizing Americans' health.
  In my home state of California, smog used to be so bad that people 
were not allowed to go outside. We have made a lot of progress since 
then, and the last smog alert in California occurred in 1997. H.R. 4775 
represents a step backward in our nation's fight for cleaner air, and I 
urge my colleagues to vote.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, the Ozone issue is extremely 
complicated.
  Many of our Members are probably not very familiar with the National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard, let alone the potential impact.
  In 1993, the Environmental Protection Agency faced a choice similar 
to that of 2016.
  After missing the 1988 and 1992 Ozone NAAQS review deadlines, the EPA 
settled a court decree that required a decision on whether the Agency 
would promulgate a new Ozone standard.
  The EPA stated the following:
  ``Based on applicable statutory requirements and the volume of 
material requiring careful evaluation, the EPA estimates that it would 
take 2 to 3 years to incorporate over a 1,000 new health studies into 
criteria documents.
  Given various legal constraints and the fact that EPA already missed 
deadlines for completion of Ozone review cycles, the Administrator 
concluded that the best course of action is to complete the current 
review based on the existing air standard and proceed as rapidly as 
possible with the next review.''
  In 2015, the Administrator stated at the Energy and Power 
subcommittee hearing, ``EPA examined thousands of scientific studies, 
including more than 1,000 new studies published since EPA last revised 
the standard.''
  Further, EPA, in the Ozone NAAQS proposal concluded, ``there are 
significant uncertainties regarding some of the studies the EPA did 
include regarding lowering the standard.''
  EPA acknowledged there are issues with the proposed standard stating, 
``Given alternative views of the currently available evidence and 
information expressed by some commenters, the EPA is taking comment on 
both the Administrator's proposed decision to revise the current 
primary O3 standard and the option of retaining that standard.''
  EPA must address the challenges and opportunities for improving our 
air quality and protecting human health. The process must remain 
health-based but cannot be set aside when it is politically convenient.
  Our industries are capable of meeting the requirements of Ozone NAAQS 
but not when the rules are changed or not enforced due to unknown 
criteria.
  I support the EPA's determination but I do think there is opportunity 
to address some of the challenges faced by both the Agency and other 
stakeholders.
  While I do not support the bill today, I look for opportunities to 
improve the process to promote the economy and public health.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
of amendment under the 5-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce, printed 
in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
shall be considered as read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 4775

       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 ``Ozone Standards 
     Implementation Act of 2016''.

     SEC. 2. FACILITATING STATE IMPLEMENTATION OF EXISTING OZONE 
                   STANDARDS.

       (a) Designations.--
       (1) Designation submission.--Not later than October 26, 
     2024, notwithstanding the deadline specified in paragraph 
     (1)(A) of section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7407(d)), the Governor of each State shall designate in 
     accordance with such section 107(d) all areas (or portions 
     thereof) of the Governor's State as attainment, 
     nonattainment, or unclassifiable with respect to the 2015 
     ozone standards.
       (2) Designation promulgation.--Not later than October 26, 
     2025, notwithstanding the deadline specified in paragraph 
     (1)(B) of section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7407(d)), the Administrator shall promulgate final 
     designations under such section 107(d) for all areas in all 
     States with respect to the 2015 ozone standards, including 
     any modifications to the designations submitted under 
     paragraph (1).
       (3) State implementation plans.--Not later than October 26, 
     2026, notwithstanding the deadline specified in section 
     110(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(1)), each 
     State shall submit the plan required by such section 
     110(a)(1) for the 2015 ozone standards.
       (b) Certain Preconstruction Permits.--
       (1) In general.--The 2015 ozone standards shall not apply 
     to the review and disposition of a preconstruction permit 
     application if--
       (A) the Administrator or the State, local, or tribal 
     permitting authority, as applicable, determines the 
     application to be complete on or before the date of 
     promulgation of the final designation of the area involved 
     under subsection (a)(2); or
       (B) the Administrator or the State, local, or tribal 
     permitting authority, as applicable, publishes a public 
     notice of a preliminary determination or draft permit for the 
     application before the date that is 60 days after the date of 
     promulgation of the final designation of the area involved 
     under subsection (a)(2).
       (2) Rules of construction.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed to--
       (A) eliminate the obligation of a preconstruction permit 
     applicant to install best available control technology and 
     lowest achievable emission rate technology, as applicable; or
       (B) 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 
     national ambient air quality standards.

     SEC. 3. FACILITATING STATE IMPLEMENTATION OF NATIONAL AMBIENT 
                   AIR QUALITY STANDARDS.

       (a) Timeline for Review of National Ambient Air Quality 
     Standards.--
       (1) 10-year cycle for all criteria air pollutants.--
     Paragraphs (1) and (2)(B) of section 109(d) of the Clean Air 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 7409(d)) are amended by striking ``five-year 
     intervals'' each place it appears and inserting ``10-year 
     intervals''.
       (2) Cycle for next review of ozone criteria and 
     standards.--Notwithstanding section 109(d) of the Clean Air 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 7409(d)), the Administrator shall not--
       (A) complete, before October 26, 2025, any review of the 
     criteria for ozone published under section 108 of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 7408) or the national ambient air quality standard 
     for ozone promulgated under section 109 of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7409); or
       (B) propose, before such date, any revisions to such 
     criteria or standard.
       (b) Consideration of Technological Feasibility.--Section 
     109(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7409(b)(1)) is 
     amended by inserting after the first sentence the following: 
     ``If the Administrator, in consultation with the independent 
     scientific review committee appointed under subsection (d), 
     finds that a range of levels of air quality for an air 
     pollutant are requisite to protect public health with an 
     adequate margin of safety, as described in the preceding 
     sentence, the Administrator may consider, as a secondary 
     consideration, likely technological feasibility in 
     establishing and revising the national primary ambient air 
     quality standard for such pollutant.''.
       (c) Consideration of Adverse Public Health, Welfare, 
     Social, Economic, or Energy Effects.--Section 109(d)(2) of 
     the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7409(d)(2)) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(D) Prior to establishing or revising a national ambient 
     air quality standard, the Administrator shall request, and 
     such committee shall provide, advice under subparagraph 
     (C)(iv) regarding any adverse public health, welfare, social, 
     economic, or energy effects which may result from various 
     strategies for attainment and maintenance of such national 
     ambient air quality standard.''.
       (d) Timely Issuance of Implementing Regulations and 
     Guidance.--Section 109 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7409) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Timely Issuance of Implementing Regulations and 
     Guidance.--
       ``(1) In general.--In publishing any final rule 
     establishing or revising a national ambient air quality 
     standard, the Administrator shall, as the Administrator 
     determines necessary 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.
       ``(2) 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 Administrator 
     has published such final regulations and guidance.
       ``(3) Rules of construction.--
       ``(A) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to 
     preclude the Administrator from issuing regulations and 
     guidance to assist States, permitting authorities, and permit 
     applicants in implementing a national ambient air quality 
     standard subsequent to publishing regulations and guidance 
     for such standard under paragraph (1).
       ``(B) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to 
     eliminate the obligation of a preconstruction permit 
     applicant to install best available control technology and 
     lowest achievable emission rate technology, as applicable.
       ``(C) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to 
     limit the authority of a State, local, or

[[Page H3526]]

     tribal permitting authority to impose more stringent 
     emissions requirements pursuant to State, local, or tribal 
     law than national ambient air quality standards.
       ``(4) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) The term `best available control technology' has the 
     meaning given to that term in section 169(3).
       ``(B) The term `lowest achievable emission rate' has the 
     meaning given to that term in section 171(3).
       ``(C) The term `preconstruction permit'--
       ``(i) means a permit that is required under this title for 
     the construction or modification of a stationary source; and
       ``(ii) includes any such permit issued by the Environmental 
     Protection Agency or a State, local, or tribal permitting 
     authority.''.
       (e) Contingency Measures for Extreme Ozone Nonattainment 
     Areas.--Section 172(c)(9) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7502(c)(9)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 
     ``Notwithstanding the preceding sentences and any other 
     provision of this Act, such measures shall not be required 
     for any nonattainment area for ozone classified as an Extreme 
     Area.''.
       (f) Plan Submissions and Requirements for Ozone 
     Nonattainment Areas.--Section 182 of the Clean Air Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7511a) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(1)(A)(ii)(III), by inserting ``and 
     economic feasibility'' after ``technological achievability'';
       (2) in subsection (c)(2)(B)(ii), by inserting ``and 
     economic feasibility'' after ``technological achievability'';
       (3) in subsection (e), in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1)--
       (A) by striking ``The provisions of clause (ii) of 
     subsection (c)(2)(B) (relating to reductions of less than 3 
     percent), the provisions of paragaphs'' and inserting ``The 
     provisions of paragraphs''; and
       (B) by striking ``, and the provisions of clause (ii) of 
     subsection (b)(1)(A) (relating to reductions of less than 15 
     percent)''; and
       (4) in paragraph (5) of subsection (e), by striking ``, if 
     the State demonstrates to the satisfaction of the 
     Administrator that--'' and all that follows through the end 
     of the paragraph and inserting a period.
       (g) Plan Revisions for Milestones for Particulate Matter 
     Nonattainment Areas.--Section 189(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 7513a(c)(1)) is amended by inserting ``, which 
     take into account technological achievability and economic 
     feasibility,'' before ``and which demonstrate reasonable 
     further progress''.
       (h) Exceptional Events.--Section 319(b)(1)(B) of the Clean 
     Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7619(b)(1)(B)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (i)--
       (A) by striking ``(i) stagnation of air masses or'' and 
     inserting ``(i)(I) ordinarily occurring stagnation of air 
     masses or (II)''; and
       (B) by inserting ``or'' after the semicolon;
       (2) by striking clause (ii); and
       (3) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (ii).
       (i) Report on Emissions Emanating From Outside the United 
     States.--Not later than 24 months after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation with States, 
     shall submit to the Congress a report on--
       (1) the extent to which foreign sources of air pollution, 
     including emissions from sources located outside North 
     America, impact--
       (A) designations of areas (or portions thereof) as 
     nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable under section 
     107(d) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7407(d)); and
       (B) attainment and maintenance of national ambient air 
     quality standards;
       (2) the Environmental Protection Agency's procedures and 
     timelines for disposing of petitions submitted pursuant to 
     section 179B(b) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7509a(b));
       (3) the total number of petitions received by the Agency 
     pursuant to such section 179B(b), and for each such petition 
     the date initially submitted and the date of final 
     disposition by the Agency; and
       (4) whether the Administrator recommends any statutory 
     changes to facilitate the more efficient review and 
     disposition of petitions submitted pursuant to such section 
     179B(b).
       (j) Study on Ozone Formation.--
       (1) Study.--The Administrator, in consultation with States 
     and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
     shall conduct a study on the atmospheric formation of ozone 
     and effective control strategies, including--
       (A) the relative contribution of man-made and naturally 
     occurring nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, and 
     other pollutants in ozone formation in urban and rural areas, 
     and the most cost-effective control strategies to reduce 
     ozone; and
       (B) the science of wintertime ozone formation, including 
     photochemical modeling of wintertime ozone formation, and 
     approaches to cost-effectively reduce wintertime ozone 
     levels.
       (2) Peer review.--The Administrator shall have the study 
     peer reviewed by an independent panel of experts in 
     accordance with the requirements applicable to a highly 
     influential scientific assessment.
       (3) Report.--The Administrator shall submit to Congress a 
     report describing the results of the study, including the 
     findings of the peer review panel.
       (4) Regulations and guidance.--The Administrator shall 
     incorporate the results of the study, including the findings 
     of the peer review panel, into any Federal rules and guidance 
     implementing the 2015 ozone standards.

     SEC. 4. 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) Highly influential scientific assessment.--The term 
     ``highly influential scientific assessment'' means a highly 
     influential scientific assessment as defined in the 
     publication of the Office of Management and Budget entitled 
     ``Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review'' (70 
     Fed. Reg. 2664 (January 14, 2005)).
       (4) Lowest achievable emission rate.--The term ``lowest 
     achievable emission rate'' has the meaning given to that term 
     in section 171(3) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7501(3)).
       (5) National ambient air quality standard.--The term 
     ``national ambient air quality standard'' means a national 
     ambient air quality standard promulgated under section 109 of 
     the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7409).
       (6) Preconstruction permit.--The term ``preconstruction 
     permit''--
       (A) means a permit that is required under title I of the 
     Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) for the construction 
     or modification of a stationary source; and
       (B) includes any such permit issued by the Environmental 
     Protection Agency or a State, local, or tribal permitting 
     authority.
       (7) 2015 ozone standards.--The term ``2015 ozone 
     standards'' means the national ambient air quality standards 
     for ozone published in the Federal Register on October 26, 
     2015 (80 Fed. Reg. 65292).

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in House 
Report 114-607. 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. Whitfield

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in House Report 114-607.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. 5. NO ADDITIONAL FUNDS AUTHORIZED.

       No additional funds are authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out the requirements of this Act and the amendments 
     made by this Act. Such requirements shall be carried out 
     using amounts otherwise authorized.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 767, 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. Chairman, H.R. 4775, as I said, requires the EPA 
to develop two studies and reports to submit to Congress. I talked 
about that in my closing statement. My amendment is relating to those 
studies.
  The first is a study of the impacts of foreign emissions on the 
ability of States in America to meet new ozone standards. The second 
study relates to ozone formation and the effective control strategies 
for that.
  These studies will assist EPA and State regulators in better 
understanding background ozone and implementing ozone standards. In its 
estimate for H.R. 4775--as you know, we must always consider cost--the 
Congressional Budget Office estimated a cost of $2 million associated 
with the development of these studies.
  My amendment would clarify that no additional funds are authorized by 
this legislation. Developing the studies required by this bill is part 
of EPA's job and can be covered by the Agency's existing budget.
  I might point out that the President's clean energy plan, which was 
implemented by EPA, never passed the House of Representatives, never 
passed the U.S. Senate, and was never even considered by the United 
States Congress. Yet, EPA issued that clean energy plan without any 
additional appropriations. I can tell you, it cost millions of dollars 
to do it.
  This small amount to come up to reprogram funding within EPA to 
require these studies I do not believe is much of a burden on EPA. 
EPA's budget for regulatory activity is over $2 billion annually. These 
are analyses EPA should have already been undertaking as part of its 
existing responsibilities.
  This amendment simply says we are not appropriating additional money. 
EPA can reprogram some of the $2 billion that it already has to develop

[[Page H3527]]

these studies and provide useful information to the States and other 
agencies.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Budget Office identified an 
additional $2 million that will be needed to conduct the duplicative 
study required by this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, that is the reason we are actually seeing this 
amendment. It is a Republican classic trick. It is a trick, Mr. 
Chairman. My colleague from Kentucky--who I respect and honor 
tremendously--knows that although this bill will require additional 
resources to implement, this amendment ensures that no new resources 
will be provided. It is a trick, Mr. Chairman.
  My Republican colleagues have voted time and time again to cut the 
EPA's budget, but that just places greater burdens on States since 
about one-third of EPA's budget is distributed to the States in grants 
and other types of assistance. They will say on the other side that the 
goal is efficiency and that EPA must learn to do more with less. But, 
Mr. Chairman--another part of the trick--their real goal is to have EPA 
do less, rather than more with less. They just want them to do even 
less.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, that just removes the environmental cop from the 
beat. Polluters benefit, but our constituents don't benefit. And, 
ultimately, Mr. Chairman, all of us Americans will pay the enormous 
price.
  Much of the permitting and much of the preparation of implementation 
plans done under the Clean Air Act is done by the States. One of the 
complaints that we have heard is that EPA is not providing sufficient 
guidance early enough in the process to assist States in meeting their 
obligations under the law, and that States want and need assistance.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, this amendment doesn't do anything to address 
that concern. In fact, it will only make a dire situation even more 
dire. The public expects EPA to protect their health and the 
environment. Resources, Mr. Chairman, are required to fulfill that 
expectation and that mandate.
  Public health is worth paying for. It is much more cost effective to 
prevent health problems than it is to cure those very same problems. 
And make no mistake, the Clean Air Act is, indeed, a public health law. 
We save billions and billions of dollars in medical expenses due to 
asthma-related emergency room visits and other respiratory and cardiac 
illness. We save billions and billions in lost sick time at work, 
school, and other productive activities. And, most important, Mr. 
Chairman, let us not forget that the Clean Air Act saves lives. We 
enable people to be healthier and more productive.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson).
  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. It is real simple. 
This says to the EPA: Do your job. Do your job.
  EPA admits half of the ozone in America comes from ``uncontrolled 
sources,'' ``uncontrolled sources.'' That means sources we can't 
control. Sources like ozone from China, like ozone in my home State 
from Mexico, like ozone coming from annual crop burnings, like ozone 
coming across the Atlantic from Sub-Saharan Africa sandstorms, like 
ozone coming from all over the world.
  This past Christmas, my wife and I went to the Grand Canyon--
beautiful. It has an ozone problem. They have a sign there that says:

       Most of the Grand Canyon air pollutants come from distant 
     sources ignoring human boundaries.

  All this amendment says is: EPA, do your job. Do the research to find 
out where this is coming from and don't penalize Americans for 
something they can't control.
  I support this amendment.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. 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 question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  1530


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Rush

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 114-607.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 7, lines 24 and 25, strike ``If the Administrator 
     fails'' and insert the following:
       ``(A) Standard not applicable.--Except as provided in 
     subparagraph (B), if the Administrator fails
       Page 8, after line 8, add the following:
       ``(B) Standard applicable.--Subparagraph (A) 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 subparagraph is likely 
     to--
       ``(i) increase air pollution that harms human health and 
     the environment;
       ``(ii) slow issuance of final preconstruction permits;
       ``(iii) increase regulatory uncertainty;
       ``(iv) foster additional litigation;
       ``(v) shift the burden of pollution control from new 
     sources to existing sources of pollution, including small 
     businesses; or
       ``(vi) increase the overall cost of achieving the new or 
     revised national ambient air quality standard in the 
     applicable area.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 767, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Rush) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chair, my list of concerns with H.R. 4775 are many, but 
one of the main issues I have with this legislation is that it would 
permanently weaken the Clean Air Act as well as future air pollution 
health standards for all criteria pollutants.
  In fact, Mr. Chair, in addition to delaying scientifically based 
health standards and harming the public interest, this bill may also 
have unintended consequences for the very industries that the majority 
is trying to help. If enacted, this bill may actually slow down the 
issuance of preconstruction permits, increase regulatory uncertainty, 
lead to additional lawsuits, and shift the burden of pollution control 
from new sources to existing ones, potentially hurting small 
businesses.
  Mr. Chair, section 3(d) requires the EPA to issue rules and guidance 
for implementing new or revised National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
``concurrently'' when issuing the new standard. Otherwise, under this 
legislation, expanding facilities would only have to comply with the 
outdated standards, allowing some facilities to pollute more than their 
fair share. This bill, Mr. Chair, would also unfairly shift the burden 
and the cost of cleaning up pollution to existing facilities, and it 
would only serve to slow down the preconstruction permitting process.
  My amendment, Mr. Chair, seeks to address many of the problems that 
may result from this bill, both intentionally and unintentionally. The 
Rush amendment would strike the section that exempts preconstruction 
permit applications from complying with new or revised National Ambient 
Air Quality Standards if guidelines are not published concurrently with 
those regulations.
  Specifically, the amendment simply states that section 3(d) shall not 
apply with respect to the review and disposition of a preconstruction 
permit application by a Federal, State, local, or tribal permitting 
authority if such authority determines that the application of such 
subparagraph is likely to increase air pollution that harms human 
health and the environment; to slow the issuance of final 
preconstruction permits; to increase regulatory uncertainty; to foster 
additional litigation; to shift the burden of pollution control from 
new sources to existing sources of pollution, including small 
businesses; or to increase the

[[Page H3528]]

overall cost of achieving the new or revised National Ambient Air 
Quality Standard in the applicable area.
  Mr. Chair, the new standard that the EPA recently issued already 
represents a measured approach that seeks to balance both public health 
impacts as well as the rule's overall cost benefit, even though this is 
not a requirement of the Clean Air Act. On the other hand, Mr. Chair, 
H.R. 4775 represents the exact opposite of a measured approach as it 
seeks to tip the scales in favor of industry over public health.
  Mr. Chair, this amendment will help to prevent some of the adverse 
consequences of this bill from going into effect whether they be 
intended or unintended, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chair, the intent of this bill is to end the nightmare 
scenario we are going through right now by which the EPA issues 
regulations 7 years after it announces a new rule, and it piles on a 
new regulation 6 months later. But don't take my word with regard to 
the problems that it causes in America; listen to the States.
  Teresa Marks, Arkansas' Department of Environmental Quality, July 31, 
2012:

       Five years may not allow enough time for new technology or 
     science to be fully developed. With more time between review 
     processes, the States could have adequate time to develop 
     proper SIPs and meet Federal deadlines.

  Martha Rudolph, Colorado's Department of Public Health and 
Environment, July 23, 2012:

       This ambitious schedule for evaluating and promulgating 
     NAAQS revisions every 5 years has created an inefficient 
     planning process.

  I saved the best for last.
  Michael Krancer, Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental 
Protection, November 29, 2012:

       The development of the NAAQS on an interval of 5 years, 
     section 109(d)(1), has created significant resource burdens 
     for both the EPA and the States. Furthermore, the cascading 
     standards can create confusion for the public actions 
     because, as the State's EPA continues to work on SIP 
     revisions and the determination of attainment for one 
     standard with the ozone, the air quality index is based on 
     another. NAAQS review intervals should be lengthened to 10 
     years.

  Section 3(d) of this bill provides that a new rule or a revised 
standard shall not apply to pending permit applications until the 
Agency has published regulations and guidance about how to implement 
the new standards in the permitting process.
  If a State, local, or tribal permitting authority wants to impose 
more stringent standards with respect to a particular preconstruction 
permit application, nothing in H.R. 4775 prevents it from doing so. 
This amendment allows the EPA to escape its responsibility for issuing 
timely guidance. We should ensure the EPA has to take timely action. I 
urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Pallone

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in House Report 114-607.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 6, strike lines 9 through 20, strike subsection (b) 
     (relating to consideration of technological feasiblity) and 
     redesignate the subsequent subsections accordingly.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 767, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, my amendment is straightforward, and it fixes 
one of the most egregious provisions in the bill: the consideration of 
technological feasibility in the NAAQS-setting process. The bill's 
approach would make feasibility a factor in the scientific decision 
about how much pollution is safe for a child to breathe without 
experiencing an asthma attack.
  Requiring the EPA to consider technological feasibility when setting 
an air quality standard is a dangerous precedent that ignores the 
history of the Clean Air Act. Frankly, it is not even necessary. Since 
1970, the Clean Air Act has had several key features that have helped 
make it one of the most successful environmental laws in our country. 
The law's science-based, health-protective standards keep our eye on 
the prize, which is healthy air for everyone. Cooperative federalism 
allows the EPA to set the clean air goals and States to then decide how 
best to achieve them.
  The Clean Air Act uses regulatory standards, like the National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards, to drive technological innovation in 
pollution controls. The act recognizes that it is usually less costly 
to simply dump pollution rather than to clean it up, so businesses 
generally don't control pollution absent regulatory requirements.
  We know from decades of experience that the Clean Air Act drives 
innovations in pollution controls that then become the industry 
standard. Once an air pollution standard is in place, industry gets to 
work to meet it, and, along the way, we develop more effective and less 
expensive pollution control technologies. Not only is our air cleaner, 
but we also export tens of millions of dollars of pollution control 
equipment all over the world. We have seen that happen over and over 
again.
  Mr. Chair, section 3(b) ignores this fact and rejects an approach 
that has been successful for over four decades; so my amendment would 
restore current law, preserving the NAAQS as purely health-based 
standards and leaving the consideration of costs and feasibility to the 
States. If you truly believe that this bill is not an attack on the 
Clean Air Act and its critical public health protection, then 
supporting my amendment should not be a problem.
  In closing, almost every time the EPA proposes a significant new 
requirement, opponents tell us it can't be done, that it is going to 
cost too much, or that it will destroy our economy. The Republicans are 
once again raising the false specter of job losses and high economic 
costs to try to block the implementation of stronger ozone standards. 
These doomsday claims about the costs of clean air are nothing new. The 
history of the Clean Air Act is a history of exaggerated claims by 
industry that have never come true.
  Section 3(b) is just the latest in a string of reckless legislative 
attacks on these purely health-based air quality standards, which could 
unravel the entire framework of the Clean Air Act. It ignores decades 
of experience in cleaning up air pollution, and it is an extreme and, 
in my opinion, irresponsible proposal that would put the health of all 
Americans at risk. I urge the adoption of my amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chair, for the Members who are thinking about voting 
for this amendment, I will simply say: Read the bill.
  Section 3(b) states that, if the EPA Administrator, in consultation 
with the EPA's independent scientific advisory committee, finds a range 
of levels of air quality that protect public health with an adequate 
margin of safety, then--and only then--``the Administrator may consider 
as secondary consideration likely technological feasibility in 
establishing and revising the national primary ambient air quality 
standard for this pollutant.''
  It reads ``may,'' not ``must,'' not ``shall''--but ``may.''
  H.R. 4775 does not change the Clean Air Act's requirement that 
standards be based on public health. This is a clarification for future 
administrations that Congress considers technical feasibility to be a 
reasonable part of the decisionmaking process when policy

[[Page H3529]]

choices must be made among a range of scientifically valid options.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have listened to what the gentleman has said. It seems to me that 
he is essentially making an argument as to why we don't need this 
change. If he is saying that the underlying bill--the current law, the 
current statute--allows for the consideration of technological 
feasibility and if we know that the Clean Air Act has essentially 
worked in protecting the environment and in putting health as a 
priority with these other issues as simply being something that can be 
considered and, as I said, is considered when the States actually 
decide how to carry out the law, then I do not understand why he finds 
it necessary to change the law, say, with regard to this issue.

                              {time}  1545

  It seems to me that the argument you are making, which is that this 
is already something that can be considered but is not a priority--
health being the priority--would negate the very need for the 
legislation and support the amendment that I am putting forward.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Gosar

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in House Report 114-607.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 13, line 1, after ``rural areas,'' insert ``including 
     during wildfires,''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 767, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a commonsense 
amendment that will ensure that the study on ozone formation in the 
underlying bill analyzes the relative contribution from wildfires.
  The National Interagency Coordination Center reported this year that 
we set a new record in terms of total acreage burned from wildfires 
with more than 10.1 million acres going up in smoke. This significant 
increase is not the result of more wildfires, as the nonpartisan 
Congressional Research Service reported last month that ``the number of 
wildfires has stayed about the same over the last 30 years, but the 
number of acres burned annually has increased by nearly double the 
acreage burned in the 1990s.''
  Timber removal is down 80 percent over the last 30 years and acreage 
has burned up. There is a direct correlation between thinning our 
forest and overall forest health. As a medical professional for over 25 
years, I know firsthand that preventive care is a much cheaper and 
effective treatment as opposed to dealing with an illness or disease 
after it has already been diagnosed. Let's not forget the old adage 
that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
  Unfortunately, the Federal Government has failed to employ such a 
strategy when it comes to our Nation's forests and continues to spend 
billions of dollars on the back end of suppression activities.
  The CRS reports that the top 5 years with the largest wildfire 
acreage burned since 1960 all occurred between 2006 and 2015. In 
Arizona, we have seen the tragic results of this agency's 
misprioritization firsthand, as the five largest fires in Arizona's 
history occurred between 2002 and 2011.
  Data released from NASA a few years ago concluded that one 
catastrophic wildfire can emit more carbon emissions in a few days than 
total vehicle emissions in an entire State over the course of a year.
  My commonsense amendment simply seeks to determine the overall 
contribution to ozone formation from wildfires. We should all want to 
have this information and know the extent to which ozone formation from 
wildfire emissions occurs.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of the underlying bill and applaud 
Representative Olson, Chairman Upton, and my other colleagues who are 
actively involved with moving this much-needed legislation forward.
  Most States are just beginning to adopt the 2008 ozone standards as 
the EPA didn't announce the implementation guidance and a final rule 
until March 6, 2015. Rather than allowing time for those standards to 
be implemented, the EPA moved the goalposts and is seeking to 
unilaterally implement a regulation that has been projected to be the 
most expensive mandate in our Nation's history.
  The Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry recently reported that 
``the EPA's new ozone standard of 70 parts per billion will be 
virtually impossible for Arizona to meet due to Arizona's high levels 
of background, limited local sources, and unique geography'' and that 
``implementation of the current rule in Arizona is not reasonable, 
based in sound science, or achievable.''
  Again, my amendment simply ensures that the study on ozone formation 
in the underlying bill analyzes the relative contribution from 
wildfires. Chairman Upton supports my amendment, and I wholeheartedly 
support the underlying bill.
  I ask my colleagues to do the same and support my amendment and H.R. 
4775.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, on its face, Mr. Gosar's amendment seems 
innocuous enough, having EPA also consider the contribution of 
wildfires in the bill's required study on ozone formation, wintertime 
ozone formation, and control strategies. But in reality, this study is 
a wolf in sheep's clothing. So adding further criteria, as this 
amendment would do, only makes it worse.
  First, many of the aspects of this proposed study are already covered 
by EPA's integrated science assessment. Integrated science assessments 
are reports that represent concise evaluations and synthesis of the 
most policy-relevant science for reviewing National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards. Essentially, these assessments form the scientific 
foundation for the review of the NAAQ Standards. All integrated science 
assessments are vetted through a rigorous peer-review process, 
including review by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and 
public comment periods.
  Furthermore, the EPA is already doing a comprehensive review of 
wildfires and ozone, so additional study of this issue is not 
necessary, in my opinion.
  But this study is more than a duplication of work already being done, 
Mr. Chairman. The bill would inject costs into this scientific review 
process by requiring the assessment of cost-effective control 
strategies to reduce ozone. While this is certainly worthy as an issue 
to review, EPA's scientific assessments are the wrong venue for such a 
discussion.
  Requiring EPA to do additional assessments of cost-effective control 
strategies would, of course, pull the Agency's limited staff and 
resources away from the public health priorities of implementing and 
reviewing the NAAQ Standards in a timely manner outlined in the Clean 
Air Act. When viewed in connection with the other provisions of this 
bill, like the requirement that implementing regulations and guidance 
must be issued concurrently with an air quality standard for 
preconstruction permits, expanding this study would only serve to 
further delay implementation of the 2015 ozone standard.
  The 2015 ozone NAAQS update is long overdue, and the bill before us 
doesn't need any further procedural hoops for

[[Page H3530]]

EPA to jump through before a more protective ozone standard can be put 
into effect.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, once again, this three-word amendment simply 
ensures that the study on ozone formation in the underlying bill 
analyzes the relative contribution from wildfires. Just simply that.
  This is something that I would hope would be analyzed anyway under 
the language in the underlying bill, but I felt the need to clarify so 
as to ensure such analysis occurs.
  Data released from NASA a few years ago concluded that one 
catastrophic wildfire can emit more carbon emissions in a few days than 
total vehicle emissions in an entire State over the course of a year. 
We should all want to have this information and know the extent to 
which ozone formation from wildfire emissions occurs. The science is 
science, the whole science, nothing less, nothing more.
  I ask everybody to vote for this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Polis

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in House Report 114-607.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       After section 3, insert the following sections:

     SEC. 4. REPEAL OF EXEMPTION FOR AGGREGATION OF EMISSIONS FROM 
                   OIL AND GAS SOURCES.

       Section 112(n) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(n)) is 
     amended by striking paragraph (4).

     SEC. 5. HYDROGEN SULFIDE AS A HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT.

       The Administrator shall--
       (1) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, issue a final rule adding hydrogen sulfide to the 
     list of hazardous air pollutants under section 112(b) of the 
     Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(b)); and
       (2) not later than 365 days after a final rule under 
     paragraph (1) is issued, revise the list under section 112(c) 
     of such Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(c)) to include categories and 
     subcategories of major sources and area sources of hydrogen 
     sulfide, including oil and gas wells.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 767, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Polis) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, since this bill is supposed to be about 
making the Clean Air Act work better, I have offered an amendment--that 
is identical to a bill with 64 cosponsors that I coauthored--to close a 
very glaring loophole in the law that frankly harms the air in my 
State, across the Mountain West, and indeed across the country.
  My amendment, which is based off legislation I first introduced in 
2011 and have introduced three times, including this Congress, is 
called the BREATHE Act. Essentially it is very simple. It would close 
the oil and gas industry's loophole to the Clean Air Act's aggregation 
requirement. Currently, oil and gas operators are exempt from the 
aggregation requirements in the Clean Air Act.
  What the aggregation requirement does, it is small air pollution 
sources that cumulatively release as much air pollution as a major 
source, are supposed to be required to curb pollution by installing the 
maximum achievable control technology. But oil and gas is exempt, not 
for any policy reason, but simply because oil and gas has a lot of 
influence here in Washington, D.C.
  This directly affects the air quality in my district. Take a county 
like Weld County, Colorado. There are over 20,000 operating fracking 
wells. Any one of those has a very small emissions profile. But in the 
aggregate, when you start talking about 1,000, 5,000, 10,000, it looks 
a lot more like multiple emissions-spewing factories or other highly 
pollutive activity. And yet they are completely exempt from being 
aggregated.
  So essentially, they are rounded to down to zero, each one of them, 
which is fine if there is one or three or five of them. But if you have 
20,000 of them, it is a gross abuse of the intent of the Clean Air Act 
to round it down to zero.
  My amendment would also add hydrogen sulfide to the Clean Air Act's 
Federal list of hazardous air pollutants. It was originally on the 
list. Unfortunately, it was later removed.
  The Clean Air Act currently exempts hydrogen sulfide from the Federal 
list of hazardous air pollutants, even though it is well-documented 
that hydrogen sulfide has been associated with a wide range of health 
issues, such as nausea, vomiting, headaches, irritation of eyes, nose, 
throat, and asthma.
  Often, it is released from wellheads, pumps, and piping during the 
separation process, from storage tanks, and from flaring. In fact, 15 
percent to 25 percent of the natural gas wells in the U.S. emit 
hydrogen sulfide, even though, I would point out, control technologies 
are inexpensive and readily available to curb hydrogen sulfide 
emissions. All we ask is that those are looked at as part of that.
  My amendment has broad support with 64 Members that have added their 
names as cosponsors. I am grateful this was allowed under the bill.
  My amendment will simply hold oil and gas operators accountable for 
their impact on our Nation's air quality, as every industry should be. 
They shouldn't play by special rules. They should play by the same 
rules under the Clean Air Act as every industry.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, we all have a great deal of respect for 
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) and know that he focuses on 
these particular issues and is quite familiar with them.
  The reason that we are opposing this amendment is that his amendment 
would make changes to section 112 of the Clean Air Act by adding, 
specifically, hydrogen sulfide as a hazardous air pollutant.
  Now, there is a well-established regulatory process for listing new 
hazardous air pollutants set forth in the Clean Air Act, section 112.
  The underlying legislation, H.R. 4775, really is dealing only with 
sections 107 to 110 and part C and D of title I of the Clean Air Act. 
And we are not doing anything with section 112, nor have we had any 
hearings in the Energy and Commerce Committee on adding hydrogen 
sulfide as a hazardous air pollutant. On the other hand, we have had 
four hearings about ambient air quality standards. We have had four 
forums on the Clear Air Act relating to ambient air quality standards.
  So for that reason, the fact that there is an established way to add, 
we would respectfully oppose this amendment and ask the other Members 
to oppose it at this time. We would welcome the opportunity to work 
with Mr. Polis in letting the Energy and Commerce Committee do it in a 
regular manner.
  I oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the Polis amendment. It 
is common sense, and it certainly improves the bill in the way that Mr. 
Polis set forth.
  I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  So again, with great respect to the gentleman from Kentucky, this is 
the first opportunity we have had since I first introduced the bill in 
2011 where the Clean Air Act has been brought to the floor and opened 
and allowed to have this amendment and discussion. I personally would 
have been thrilled if we would have been able to have a hearing in the 
intervening years. Of course, should this not prevail, I would be happy 
to continue to work to pursue a hearing in this area.
  Because frankly, again, when you have 20,000 wells in a limited area, 
you can't round each one down to zero. Separately, we have the issue of 
hydrogen sulfide. Both are very important issues.

[[Page H3531]]

Of course, we want to further the discussion.
  I personally am thrilled again on behalf of the 64 Members that are 
already cosponsors of this bill that at least we have the time to 
debate this on the floor in a way that it is germane to a bill that we 
are considering in opening up the Clean Air Act.

                              {time}  1600

  Certainly I am appreciative of the process the committee has in 
place. Again, should this not prevail, I would be happy to continue to 
work with the committee to help deal with these small-site aggregations 
in a way where they are no longer rounded down to zero if, in fact, 
they are found scientifically to have a tangible cumulative effect, 
just like we have the aggregation of every other type of industrial 
activity except for those that are particular to oil and gas.
  I would encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the bill to simply 
make sure that oil and gas operators play by the same rules with regard 
to their impact on air quality as any other industry, as well as adding 
hydrogen sulfide to the list of hazardous air pollutants and listing, 
of course, oil and gas wells as one of the major sources of hydrogen 
sulfide, as they certainly are in my neck of the woods.
  I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Norton

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in House Report 114-607.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. 5. LIMITATION.

       If the Administrator, in consultation with the Clean Air 
     Scientific Advisory Committee, finds that application of any 
     provision of this Act could harm human health or the 
     environment, this Act and the amendments made thereby shall 
     cease to apply.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 767, the gentlewoman 
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, I rise to offer an amendment to the Ozone Standards 
Implementation Act of 2016 that would ensure that the environment and 
human health aspects are protected. The amendment states that if the 
EPA Administrator, in consultation with the Clean Air Scientific 
Advisory Committee, finds that application of any provision of this act 
could harm human health or the environment, the Ozone Standards 
Implementation Act shall cease to apply.
  The Ozone Standards Implementation Act puts our children, 
communities, and environment at extreme risk simply to benefit private 
corporations rather than to look at what the act could do to people. It 
weakens implementation and enforcement of the Clean Air Act's essential 
air pollution health standards, further delays reductions in smog 
pollution, and expands the very definition of ``exceptional events'' to 
include high pollution days when communities exclude certain extreme 
events, like wildfires, in determining whether their air quality meets 
national standards. The bill also takes health and medical science out 
of the process.
  My amendment ensures that we will fulfill the purpose of the Clean 
Air Act and continue the progress we have made over the past 46 years. 
One fact pointed out by the Statement of Administration Policy is that 
the ``emissions of key pollutants have decreased by nearly 70 percent 
while the economy has tripled in size.'' This proves that we can both 
improve the environment and still grow our domestic economy.
  Right now, just to cite my own district as an example, 17,000 
children in the District of Columbia have pediatric asthma and over 
115,000 children and teens in the District are at risk of health 
implications from smog. Our health and future depend on the Clean Air 
Act, but the Ozone Standards Implementation Act will put us right back 
where we were before 1970.
  I urge the adoption of my amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, since 1980, ozone levels have decreased by 
33 percent, and EPA projects air quality ``will continue to improve 
over the next decade as additional reductions in ozone precursors from 
power plants, motor vehicles, and other sources are realized.''
  Nothing in this bill changes any existing air quality standards or 
prevents these improvements to air quality from being realized.
  This amendment, however, would allow the EPA, in consultation with 
CASAC, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, to invalidate the 
entire bill. Why we would give CASAC this power is beyond me because 
they haven't done a good job with ozone.
  Under the Clean Air Act, CASAC is required to provide advice to the 
Agency about the potential adverse effects of implementing new air 
quality standards. Section 109(d)(2)(C)(iv) expressly requires CASAC to 
``advise the Administrator of any adverse public health, welfare, 
social, economic, or energy effects which may result from various 
strategies for attainment and maintenance of such national ambient air 
quality standards.'' Despite this provision, CASAC has not provided 
that advice.
  In May of 2015, the Government Accountability Office issued a report 
indicating that CASAC has never provided that advice because EPA has 
never requested that advice, and that EPA has no plans to ask CASAC to 
provide advice on potential adverse effects. In a recent survey, 80 
percent of State air agencies said that such advice would be helpful to 
their agency.
  H.R. 4775 will ensure that such advice is provided and also ensure 
that States have the time and regulatory tools they need to comply with 
new ozone rules and other air quality standards.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, part of the problem is, perhaps, that EPA 
has never requested this particular advice from CASAC. My amendment 
would make it clear that Congress wants the EPA to do so. Yes, I made 
clear that there had been improvements in air quality, despite the fact 
that our own industry, our own economic growth has tripled. Would 
anybody say that we are now where we want to be?
  We do not want, at this point of progress, to countermand the 
progress we have made. We should be building on that progress. No one, 
I think, in the world today--and certainly in the United States--would 
say we have finally reached where we want to be. The improvements are 
not nearly enough. We need to go much more rapidly. We certainly don't 
need to be retrograde at this point in history when the whole world now 
is looking at this very issue and seeking to improve.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, I will offer a quote from the San Joaquin 
Valley Air Pollution Control District executive director. He said these 
words before our committee: ``H.R. 4775, in my opinion, provides for 
much-needed streamlining of the implementation of the Clean Air Act. It 
does not roll back anything that is already in the Clean Air Act in the 
form of protections for public health, safeguarding public health, and 
it does nothing to roll back any of the progress that has been made, 
and it will not impede or slow down our progress as we move forward to 
reduce air pollution and improve public health.''
  This amendment trashes that statement.

[[Page H3532]]

  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, we should all be grateful to the authors of 
the Clean Air Act for the progress we have achieved. The way to express 
our gratitude is to use an occasion like this to expand, not to 
retract, that act.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia will be postponed.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 114-607 on 
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Whitfield of Kentucky.
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Rush of Illinois.
  Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Pallone of New Jersey.
  Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Polis of Colorado.
  Amendment No. 6 by Ms. Norton of the District of Columbia.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Whitfield

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Mr. Whitfield) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 236, 
noes 170, not voting 27, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 276]

                               AYES--236

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--170

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--27

     Black
     Cardenas
     Clark (MA)
     Duffy
     Ellmers (NC)
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Franks (AZ)
     Gosar
     Hahn
     Hardy
     Herrera Beutler
     Jeffries
     Lieu, Ted
     Nadler
     Payne
     Rice (NY)
     Roby
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scott, David
     Sires
     Smith (NE)
     Takai
     Walters, Mimi
     Waters, Maxine

                              {time}  1632

  Mr. LANGEVIN and Ms. JACKSON LEE changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 276 I was unavoidably detained. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Rush

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Rush) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 171, 
noes 235, not voting 27, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 277]

                               AYES--171

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps

[[Page H3533]]


     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Gibson
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--235

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Garamendi
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--27

     Black
     Cardenas
     Cramer
     Duffy
     Ellmers (NC)
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Franks (AZ)
     Hahn
     Hardy
     Herrera Beutler
     Hurt (VA)
     Jeffries
     Lieu, Ted
     Nadler
     Payne
     Roe (TN)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sires
     Stutzman
     Takai
     Tiberi
     Wagner
     Walters, Mimi
     Waters, Maxine


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1636

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. HURT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I was not present for rollcall vote 
No. 277 on the Rush of Illinois Amendment No. 2 on H.R. 4775. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``no.''


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Pallone

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Pallone) 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 Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 169, 
noes 242, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 278]

                               AYES--169

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--242

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk

[[Page H3534]]


     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Black
     Cardenas
     Duffy
     Ellmers (NC)
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Franks (AZ)
     Hahn
     Hardy
     Herrera Beutler
     Jeffries
     Lieu, Ted
     Nadler
     Payne
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sires
     Takai
     Walters, Mimi
     Waters, Maxine
     Westmoreland


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1640

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Polis

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Polis) 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 Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 160, 
noes 251, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 279]

                               AYES--160

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Gutierrez
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--251

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carson (IN)
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Veasey
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Black
     Cardenas
     Duffy
     Ellmers (NC)
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Franks (AZ)
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hardy
     Herrera Beutler
     Jeffries
     Lieu, Ted
     Nadler
     Payne
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sires
     Takai
     Walters, Mimi
     Waters, Maxine


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1644

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 amendment no. 6 offered by ms. norton

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) 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 Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 171, 
noes 239, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 280]

                               AYES--171

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette

[[Page H3535]]


     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--239

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Black
     Cardenas
     Duffy
     Ellmers (NC)
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Franks (AZ)
     Hahn
     Hardy
     Herrera Beutler
     Jeffries
     Johnson (OH)
     Lieu, Ted
     Nadler
     Payne
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sires
     Takai
     Walters, Mimi
     Waters, Maxine
     Young (AK)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1647

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Womack) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hultgren, 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. 4775) to 
facilitate efficient State implementation of ground-level ozone 
standards, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 
767, 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.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
  If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. RUSH. I am opposed in its current form.
  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the motion 
to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Rush moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4775 to the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith, with the following 
     amendment:
       Page 5, after line 11, insert the following:
       (c) Limitation.--If the Administrator, in consultation with 
     the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, finds that 
     application of subsection (a) could increase the incidence of 
     asthma attacks, respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease, 
     stroke, heart attacks, babies born with low birth weight and 
     impaired fetal growth, neurological damage, premature 
     mortality, or other serious harms to human health, especially 
     for vulnerable populations such as pregnant women, children, 
     the elderly, outdoor workers, and low income communities, 
     then this section shall cease to apply.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RUSH. 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, it appears that the Republican Party has truly fallen in 
line behind its standard-bearer, Donald Trump, and is content to put 
industry profits over the public interest. Mr. Speaker, the art of the 
deal should not mean putting corporate welfare over the public well-
being.
  Mr. Speaker, our agreement is nonnegotiable. Protecting the public 
health is absolutely why we are here in this Congress today.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4775 is a disastrous bill that will put our most 
vulnerable citizens, including the elderly, the young, pregnant women, 
and low-income communities, at substantial risk.
  This bill unacceptably delays implementation of EPA's 2015 ozone 
standards for another 8 years, while also delaying any new evidence 
regarding the health implications from ozone and other harmful 
pollutants for at least a decade, despite what the science may say in 
the interval.
  In fact, under this legislation, not only will States be exempt from 
complying with the 2015 standards until 2016, but parents--our 
parents--and our loved ones, Mr. Speaker, will not even be informed if 
their communities were in violation of clean air standards until the 
year 2025.
  Mr. Speaker, I can think of no benefit to the public interest of 
denying citizens information directly tied to their health and to their 
well-being.
  The research, Mr. Speaker, informs us that breathing in dirty 
pollutants

[[Page H3536]]

such as ozone, carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, and 
other dirty pollutants can lead to a host of problems, including 
asthma, inflammation of the lungs, respiratory disease, and even 
premature death.
  Yet, Mr. Speaker, despite all of the scientific research, this bill 
will stall the new ozone standards, permanently weaken the Clean Air 
Act, and hamstring EPA's ability to regulate these harmful 
contaminants, both now and in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, in order to address some of the deficiencies found in 
this bill, I am offering an amendment that would nullify sections from 
taking effect if they may result in adverse public health impacts.
  This amendment simply states that section 2(a) would cease to apply 
if the EPA Administrator, in consultation with the Clean Air Scientific 
Advisory Committee, finds that it could increase health problems, 
including asthma attacks, respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease, 
stroke, heart attacks, babies with low birth weight and impaired fetal 
growth, neurological damage, premature mortality, or other serious 
harms to human health, especially for America's most vulnerable 
populations such as pregnant women, children, the elderly, outdoor 
workers, and low-income communities.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a commonsense and compassionate amendment that 
seeks to put the interests of the public health above the profits of 
industry, and I urge all my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of a point of 
order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The reservation of the point of order is 
withdrawn.
  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I want healthy air. Everyone here in this 
Chamber wants healthy air. Every American wants healthy air.
  Where I live in the greater Houston area, we have struggled with air 
quality, but we are making great progress. In fact, communities all 
across America have cut ozone levels by one-third in the last few 
decades. That progress must continue, and that is why this bill is not 
about blocking the path forward on clean air.
  As a top air official in California said about H.R. 4775: ``It does 
not roll back anything that is already in the Clean Air Act in the form 
of protections for public health . . . it will not slow down our 
progress as we move forward to reduce air pollution and improve public 
health.''
  There has never been a regulator in this country who wants to drag 
their feet on clean air. Our States have said for years that they face 
real challenges under current law. Addressing those real challenges is 
what this bill is all about.

                              {time}  1700

  That is why we need H.R. 4775. It gives our local officials the tools 
they need to make the Clean Air Act work. It tackles the challenges of 
States being asked to implement overlapping regulations.
  H.R. 4775 will let EPA consider whether its rules are achievable, but 
never putting cost ahead of public health when setting a new standard.
  H.R. 4775 will make sure that clean air rules are implemented fairly, 
and that communities like mine and yours aren't penalized for emissions 
they can't control.
  In 2008, the Bush administration put out lower ozone standards. In 
2015, the Obama administration finally put out rules for 2008 
standards. America lost 7 years of cleaner air. And then, in late 2015, 
the Obama administration put out even lower standards.
  Are we going to lose 7 more years of cleaner air?
  Albert Einstein said that the definition of insanity is doing the 
same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Let's 
not repeat the last 7 years of ozone insanity.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit. Give 
our local communities the ozone sanity they crave and deserve. Vote 
``yes'' for final passage.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 5-
minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a 5-minute 
vote on the passage of the bill, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 173, 
noes 239, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 281]

                               AYES--173

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blum
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     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
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--239

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry

[[Page H3537]]


     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Black
     Cardenas
     Duffy
     Ellmers (NC)
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Hahn
     Hardy
     Herrera Beutler
     Jeffries
     Lieu, Ted
     Nadler
     Payne
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sires
     Takai
     Walters, Mimi
     Waters, Maxine
     Woodall

                              {time}  1707

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234, 
nays 177, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 282]

                               YEAS--234

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--177

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pocan
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stefanik
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Black
     Cardenas
     Duffy
     Ellmers (NC)
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Hahn
     Hardy
     Herrera Beutler
     Hultgren
     Jeffries
     Lieu, Ted
     Nadler
     Payne
     Pingree
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sires
     Takai
     Walters, Mimi
     Waters, Maxine

                              {time}  1714

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. HARDY. Mr. Speaker, rollcall No. 273--I would have voted ``yes.'' 
Rollcall No. 274--I would have voted ``yes.'' Rollcall No. 275--I would 
have voted ``yes.'' Rollcall No. 276--I would have voted ``yes.'' 
Rollcall No. 277--I would have voted ``no.'' Rollcall No. 278--I would 
have voted ``no.'' Rollcall No. 279--I would have voted ``no.'' 
Rollcall No. 280--I would have voted ``no.'' Rollcall No. 281--I would 
have voted ``no.'' Rollcall No. 282--I would have voted ``yes.''

                          ____________________