[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 121 (Tuesday, July 18, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H5927-H5935]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 806, OZONE STANDARDS IMPLEMENTATION
ACT OF 2017
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 451 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 451
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 806) to facilitate efficient State
implementation of ground-level ozone standards, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu
of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on Energy and Commerce now printed in the bill,
it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment
in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 115-26. That amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order
against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are
waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as 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 in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made
in order as original text. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
{time} 1230
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 451 provides for a
structured rule to consider a bill out of the Energy and Commerce
Committee pertaining to the Environmental Protection Agency's ozone
standards. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided
between the majority and the minority on the Energy and Commerce
Committee. The rule further makes in order six Democratic amendments
for consideration. Finally, the minority is afforded the customary
motion to recommit.
Under the Clean Air Act's National Ambient Air Quality Standards
program, the EPA is tasked with setting standards and regulations for
certain defined pollutants, including ground-level ozone, commonly
referred to as smog. The Environmental Protection Agency has set these
standards and adjusted when necessary in 1971, 1979, 1997, and 2008.
Since 1980, ozone levels have declined by 33 percent, according to
the EPA, thanks in large part to diligent State oversight of industries
and planning, along with weather patterns and outside temperatures,
which all contribute to ozone levels.
Ozone has been a particular issue in the north Texas area that I
represent, where hot summer days and prevailing southerly breezes cause
air quality issues that affect outdoor activities and may create health
concerns.
In 2015, the EPA proposed changing the 2008 ozone standards that had
not yet been fully implemented, despite nearly 700 national, State, and
local organizations and stakeholders requesting that the EPA allow the
2008 standards to be adopted before moving the goalposts on these
regulated parties. In fact, the EPA did not publish its implementation
regulations for the 2008 standards until March of 2015, nearly 7 years
after the standards had been issued, and then promptly that same year
decided to change the rules entirely.
The EPA ignored the request from stakeholders and moved ahead with
lowering the ozone standard, manipulating scientific findings in order
to justify the move. In fact, nearly two-thirds of the so-called
benefits that the EPA claimed would result from this new standard are
not based on ozone reductions at all, but instead on reductions from an
entirely different pollutant regulated under a different set of rules.
H.R. 806, the Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017, is an
important step toward focusing the EPA's efforts at science-based
regulating of the environment and a rejection of the politically
motivated actions of the previous 8 years.
The legislation phases in implementation of the 2008 and 2015 ozone
standards, extending the date for final designation for the 2015
standard to 2025, aligning the permitting requirements of the Clean Air
Act with the implementation schedule set by the EPA. This allows for a
thoughtful and methodical implementation process to proceed at the
State level to address the varied needs and nuances that exist in the
States based upon industry and based upon weather patterns.
[[Page H5928]]
The measured approach contained in H.R. 806 will allow States to
pursue cost-effective and practical implementation plans to enforce the
EPA's ozone standards. Further, it utilizes a process that will benefit
from the States' practical experiences at implementing previous ozone
standards.
Nothing in the legislation before the House today changes any
existing air quality standards or regulations. Let me say that again.
Nothing in the legislation before the House today changes any existing
air quality standards or regulations.
This legislation is focused solely on providing States and businesses
the proper tools, time, and flexibility to implement the EPA's
regulations most effectively. This is a goal we should all support.
According to the EPA's own analysis in 2015, the vast majority of
U.S. counties will meet the 2015 standards by 2025, the same timeframe
that the bill before us contemplates implementation.
H.R. 806 is important, however, because it gives States the
flexibility to focus on the most pressing environmental issues in each
individual State, rather than having the EPA dictate where resources
must be used regardless of need.
The Energy and Commerce Committee has been reviewing the issue of
finding the correct balance for ozone implementation for years and has
crafted legislation that reflects that measured approach.
In 2015, I wrote to the EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
expressing my concern over the EPA's expedited implementation of the
2015 standards despite concerns on how the ozone rules could affect
other pollutants, namely nitrogen oxide, which has been found to
actually increase inversely when ozone levels decrease. This increase
of nitrogen oxide is especially present in urban environments where
many at-risk populations live.
Given the many implementation questions surrounding EPA's political
decision to move forward with the 2015 standards, H.R. 806 is a prudent
and justified course that this government should be taking.
For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to support today's rule
and the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30
minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to both this rule and the
underlying bill. Instead of coming up with new thoughts or new ideas,
here we have another recycled and careless bill that has been through
this body before that takes away protections for our sick, for our
children, for pregnant women, and for the elderly. It is the wrong way
to go for our country.
This bill is called the Ozone Standards Implementation Act, but it is
actually a political stunt for a special interest, in this case the oil
and gas industry. It will hurt our air, our environment, and, frankly,
have a negative impact on the health of Americans. It will increase
healthcare costs at a time when healthcare costs are already too high.
We see that, the way the House Republicans are trying to jam through
the Affordable Care Act repeal, which I remind my friends passed here
in the House. It is only in the Senate where they are finally realizing
the error of their ways.
In Colorado, 500,000 people have benefited from the Affordable Care
Act, and the number of people without insurance has been cut in half
from 6.7 percent to 2.5 percent. Of course, it is not perfect, and I
hope that now is an opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to work
together, rather than Republicans seeking to go at it alone with a plan
that provides less people with healthcare rather than more.
The Affordable Care Act made sure that no one can be denied coverage
for a preexisting condition. That benefited over 750,000 people in
Colorado, including people with cancer and asthma, the rates of which
would both increase if this bill that we are discussing under this rule
were to become law. Yes, that is right. More people would suffer from
asthma and more people would suffer from cancer if this bill were to
pass.
This reckless Republican healthcare bill even eliminated the
Prevention and Public Health Fund at the end of fiscal year 2017,
slashing funding for the Centers for Disease Control by 12 percent,
singling out certain providers, like Planned Parenthood, from even
participating in the Medicaid program; preventing patients from
receiving preventative care services, like cancer screenings and STD
testing and contraceptive care from their provider of choice, often, in
many cases, the only provider in town.
So it is no surprise that we have yet another bill that would
increase healthcare costs before us, lead to more people having to pay
more for what they already have for healthcare.
And here we have a bill that is opposed by the American Lung
Association, the American Thoracic Society. They are all very strongly
opposed to this bill. It is why over 700 healthcare professionals
signed a letter in opposition to H.R. 806 dated July 17, 2017, which I
include in the Record.
July 17, 2017.
Dear Member of Congress: We, the undersigned physicians,
nurses, environmental health professionals and other health
professionals, urge you to protect our patients' and
communities' health from dangerous air pollution. Please
oppose any legislation or administrative actions that would
block, weaken or delay work to implement and enforce strong
safeguards for healthy air.
Our patients, families, and neighbors need healthy air to
breathe, particularly those who are at greater risk of
getting sick or dying prematurely due to air pollution,
including children, older adults, and people with asthma,
COPD, and heart disease.
Thanks to the Clean Air Act, the United States has made
enormous progress in cleaning up ozone and particle
pollution. The American Lung Association's 2017 ``State of
the Air'' report found that cities across the U.S. have made
continued improvement in reducing these pollutants, with many
reaching their lowest ozone levels yet. However, 125 million
people still live in areas where they are exposed to
unhealthy levels of air pollution.
Clean Air Act protections must continue to be implemented
and enforced to ensure that all Americans have healthy air to
breathe. In addition, evidence shows that climate change will
make it harder to clean up ozone and particle pollution. The
nation must reduce the carbon, methane, and other pollutants
that lead to warmer temperatures, and work to protect our
communities against the many health impacts of climate
change.
As health and medical professionals, we call upon you to
protect the health of our patients and our communities by
opposing measures that would block, weaken, or delay
protections under the Clean Air Act, or other protections
that reduce harmful air pollution and protect public health
from the impacts of climate change. Our communities are
counting on you.
Sincerely,
Alabama
Surya Bhatt, MD; Cindy Blackburn, RN; Ellen Buckner, PhD,
RN, CNE, AE-C; Mark Dransfield, MD; Linda Gibson-Young, PhD,
ARNP; Katherine Herndon, PharmD, BCPS; deNay Kirkpatrick,
DNP, Nurse Practitioner; Kathleen Lovlie, MD; Michael Lyerly,
MD; Marissa Natelson Love, MD; Jessica Nichols, RN, BSN;
Gabriela Oates, PhD; Ashley Thomas, MD; Paula Warren, MD.
Alaska
Owen Hanley, MD; Charles Holyfield, RRT, Director,
Cardiopulmonary Services; Sheila Hurst, Tobacco Treatment
Specialist; Elaine Phillips, FNP; Melinda Rathkopf, MD; Jill
Valerius, MD, ABIHM, IFMCP, ATC.
Arizona
Michelle Dorsey, MD; Mark Mabry, RN; Marsha Presley, PhD.
Arkansas
Marsha Scullark, MPS.
California
Jennifer Abraham, MD; Felix Aguilar, MD, MPH; Ellen Aiken,
MD, MPH; Mark Andrade, RCP, RRT, AE-C; Devin Arias, MPH; Ed
Avol, Professor, Dept of Preventive Medicine; Ardel Ayala,
RRT; Julia Barnes, MPH, Community Engagement Manager; Laura
Barrera, RRT; John Basile, RRT; Bruce Bekkar, MD; Eugene
Belogorsky, MD; Simone Bennett, MD; Amir Berjis, MD; Robert
Bernstein, MD; Robert Blount, MD; Coletta Boone, RCP; Amy
Brendel, MD; Lisa Caine, RCP.
Donna Carr, MD; Cherise Charleswell, MPH; Jiu-Chivan Chen,
MD, MPH, ScD; Sharon Chinthrajah, MD; David T. Cooke, MD;
Pamela Dannenberg, RN, COHN-S, CAE; John Davis, RN, FNP-BC;
Sara DeLaney, RN, MSN, MPH; Athony DeRiggi, MD; Maria Diaz,
RN, BSN; Ralph DiLibero, MD; Jacquolyn Duerr, MPH; Marsha
Eptein, MD; Enza Esposito Nguyen, RN, MSN, ANP-BC; Shohreh
Farzan, PhD; Bennett Feinberg, MD; Amber Fitzsimmons, PT;
Catherine Forest, MD, MPH; Vanessa Garcia, RN, PHN; Frank
Gilliland, MD, PhD.
Robert M Gould, MD; Jim Grizzell, MBA, MA, MCHES(R), ACSM-
EP; Kevin Hamilton, RRT; Stephen Hansen, MD, FACP; Catherine
Harrison, RN, MPH; Marie Hoemke, RN, PHN, MPA, MA; Mark
Horton, MD; Mary
[[Page H5929]]
Hunsader, RN, MSN, CNS, AE-C; Harriet Ingram, RN, BS; Karen
Jakpor, MD, MPH; Martin Joye, MD; Magie Karla, RD; Lynn
Kersey, MA, MPH, CLE; Ellen Levine, PhD, MPH; Rita Lewis, RN,
PHN; Erica Lipanovich, PA-C; Shanna Livermore, MPH, MCHES;
Cynthia Mahoney, MD; Michael Maiman, MD; Atashi Mandal, MD;
Futernick Marc, MD.
Margie Matsui, RN, CRRN, COHN-S, FAAOHN; Rob McConnell, MD;
DeAnn McEwen, MSN, RN; Ellen McKnight, NP; Robert Meagher,
MD; Louis Menachof, MD; Deb Messina-Kleinman, MPH; Jennifer
Miller, PhD,; Anthony Molina, MD; Janice Murota, MD; Gretchen
Nelson, FNP; Wendy Oshima, Health professional; Frances
Owens, RRT; Sonal Patel, MD; David Pepper, MD; Tamanna
Rahman, MPH; Wendy Ring, MD, MPH; Brenda Rios, FNP; Linda
Rudolph, MD, MPH; Cindy Russell, MD.
Sunil Saini, MD; Hannah Shrieve-Lawler, MSN, RN, PHN, RYT;
Susan Smith, RRT, RCP; Rhonda Spencer-Hwang, DrPH, MPH; Sue
Stone, MD; Mary Anne Tablizo, MD; Neeta Thakur, MD; Duncan
Thomas, PhD, Professor; Laura Van Winkle, PhD; Jose Vempilly,
MD; Li-hsia Wang, MD, FAAP; Kinari Webb, MD; Ruggeri Wendy,
MD; Jan Wicklas, RCP; Shirley Windsor, RRT; Dan Woo, MPH,
Public Health Professional; Kuo Liang Yu, MD; Marcela Yu,
MD.
Colorado
Kimberly Boyd, NP; James Crooks, PhD, MS; V. Sean Mitchell,
RN, APRN-BC, CRNA, CPHIMS; Colleen Reid, MPH, PhD; Catherine
Thomasson, MD.
Connecticut
Helaine Bertsch, MD; Maritza Bond, MPH; Ruth Canovi, MPH;
Connie Dills, RRT; Sharon Escoffery, BS, Public Health;
Jonathan Fine, MD, Attending Pulmonologist; David Hill, MD,
FCCP; Anne Hulick, RN, MS, JD; Elizabeth Mirabile-Levens, MD;
Jonathan Noel, PhD, MPH; Jacinta O'Reilly, RN; Jennifer
Pennoyer, MD; William Pennoyer, MD; Jane Reardon, MSN, APRN;
Jodi Sherman, MD, Assistant Professor of Anesthesiology;
Jason Wright, MBA, ACHE.
Delaware
Timothy Gibbs, MPH, NPMc; Alan Greenglass, MD; Angela
Herman, RN, MS; Albert Rizzo, MD; Maria Weeks, School Nurse,
MSN, RN.
District of Columbia
Gail Drescher, MA, RRT, CTTS; Kenneth Rothbaum, MD;
Lorraine Spencer, RN.
Florida
Ankush Bansal, MD, FACP, SFHM, FABDA; Melanie De Souza, MD;
Charlotte Gliozzo, RRT; Brian Guerdat, MPH; Brenda Olsen, RN;
Walter Plaza, RRT; Paul Robinson, MD, PhD, FAAP, FACEP.
Georgia
Melissa Alperin, MPH; Callahan Angela, RN, BSN; Kathy
Barnes, RN; Mary Barrett, RN, BSN; Kathleen Cavallaro, MS,
MPH; Betty Daniels, PhD, RN; Morris Deedee, RN, BSN; Qazi
Farhana, LPN; Tuttle Jennifer, RN; Carol Martin, RN; Anne
Mellinger-Birdsong, MD, MPH; Debra Miller, LPN; Christina
Spurlock, LPN; Yolanda Whyte, MD.
Hawaii
Rhonda Hertwig, RN; Holly Kessler, MBA; Hali Robinett, MPH.
Idaho
Charlene Cariou, MHS, CHES; Robbie Leatham, BSN, RN.
Illinois
Nahiris Bahamon, MD; Marie Cabiya, MD; Cheryal Christion,
RN; Mary Gelder, MPH; Victoria Harris, BS, Community Health;
Mary Eileen Kloster, RN, MSN; Mukesh Narain, MPH; Kristin
Stephenson, RRT; Jeanne Zelten, APN, FNP-BC.
Indiana
Janet Erny, RRT; Erica Pedroza, MPH Candidate.
Iowa
Sally Ann Clausen, ARNP; Dawn Gentsch, MPH, MCHES, PCMH
CCE; Samra Hir, MPH; Sara Miller, BS; Mary Mincer Hansen,
PhD; Jeneane Moody, MPH; Wendy Ringgenberg, PhD, MPH,
Industrial Hygienist.
Kansas
Todd Brubaker, DO, FAAP; Robert Moser, MD, Public Health
Association President.
Kentucky
Marc Guest, MPH, MSW, CPH, CSW; Katlyn McGraw, MPH; Rose
Schneider, RN, BSN, MPH.
Louisiana
Laura Jones, FNP; Jamie Rogues, RN, APRN, MPA, MPH; Rebecca
Rothbaum, PsyD.
Maine
Brian Ahearn, RRT; Rebecca Boulos, MPH, PhD; Stephanie
Buzzell, CRT; Ivan Cardona, MD; Cynthia Carlton, CRT, RPFT;
Leora Cohen-McKeon, DO; Suzan Collins, BSRT, RRT; Douglas
Couper, MD, MACP; Scott Dyer, DO; Donald Endrizzi, MD; TJ
Farnum, RRT; Jennifer Friedman, MD; Robert Gould, RRT; Marvin
Grant, CRT; Diane Haskell, RRT; Norma Hay, RRT, AECC.
Joseph Isgro, RRT; Meagan Kingman, DO; Jon Lewis, RRT;
Kathryn Marnix, RRT; Mark McAfee, RRT; Karen McDonald, RRT-
NPS, RPFT; Samantha Paradis, MPH, BSN, RN, CCRN; Marguerite
Pennoyer, MD; Paul Shapero, MD; Sean Shortall, RRT, RPFT;
Randi Stefanizci, RRT; Laura Van Dyke, LPN, AE-C; Rhonda
Vosmus, RRT, NPS, AE-C; Bryan Whalen, MPH Candidate; Richard
Yersan, RRT.
Maryland
Carissa Baker-Smith, MD, MPH; Cara Cook, MS, RN, AHN-BC;
Harvey Fernbach, MD, MPH; Yeimi Gagliardi, MA; Dee Goldstein,
RN; Irena Gorski, MPH; Meghan Hazer, MSLA, MPH; Kathryn
Helsabeck, MD; Katie Huffling, MS, RN, CNM; Lisa Jordan, PhD,
RN; Jana Kantor, MSPH Candidate; Megan Latshaw, PhD, MHS.
Ed Maibach, PhD, MPH; Gibran Mancus, MSN, RN, Doctoral
Student; Meredith McCormack, MD, MHS; Kimi Novak, RN; Claudia
Smith, PhD, MPH, RN; Rosemary Sokas, MD, MOH; Charlotte
Wallace, RN; Leana Wen, MD, MSc; Lois Wessel, CFNP; James
Yager, PhD, Professor of Environmental Health.
Massachusetts
Stephanie Chalupka, RN; Amy Collins, MD; Ronald Dorris, MD;
Christine Gadbois, DNP, RN-BC, APHN-BC; Donna Hawk, RRT, AE-
C, Pulmonary Rehab Clinician; Marie Lemoine, MSN, RN, RCP;
Joann Lindenmayer, DVM, MPH; Ann Ottalagana, Director of
Health Education; Hildred Pennoyer, MD; James Recht, MD;
Kathleen Rest, PhD, MPA; Brian Simonds, RRT; Craig Slatin,
ScD, MPH, Professor of Public Health; Coleen Toronto, PhD,
RN, Associate Professor; Francis Veale, MPH; Erika Veidis,
health Member Engagement & Outreach Coordinator; Sara
Zarzecki, MPH; Laura Zatz, MPH.
Michigan
Ranelle Brew, EdD, CHES; Mary Cornwell, MPH, CHES;
Elizabeth (Lisa) Del Buono, MD; Elizabeth Gray, MS, CCES,
CHWC; Kirsten Henry, Health Educator; Patricia Koman, MPP,
PhD; Shelby Miller, MPH; Matthew Mueller, DO, MPH.
Minnesota
Susan Nordin, MD; Teddie Potter, PhD, RN, FAAN; Becky
Sechrist, public health association President; Cherylee
Sherry, MCHES; Bruce Snyder, MD, FAAN; Kristin Verhoeven, RN.
Mississippi
Shana Boatner, RN, BSN; Martina Brown, RRT; Becky Champion,
RN; Bobbie Coleman, BSRC, Registered Respiratory Therapist;
Matthew Edwards, RN, MSN; Allyn Harris, MD; Kathy Haynes,
RRT-MPH AE-C; Kay Henry, MSN, RN; Erin Martinez, PharmD;
Brittney Mosley, MS; Tracy Nowlin, RRT.
Kendreka Pipes, CHES; Kimberly Roberts, RN, MS, CHES, CIC,
CHSP; Susan Russell, MSN, RN; Donald Starks, Health Educator;
John Studdard, MD; Alexander Vesa, RT(R); Lesa Waters, FNP;
LaNeidra Williams, RDH; Kimberly Wilson, RRT, Manager; Sharon
Wilson, RN; Catherine Woodyard, PhD, CHES.
Missouri
Sandra Boeckman, Executive Director; Dan Luebbert, REHS;
Robert Niezgoda, public health association President; Lynelle
Phillips, RN, MPH; Andrew Warlen, MPH.
Montana
Bradley Applegate, RN; Jeremy Archer, MD, MS, FAAP; Kelli
Avanzino, RN, MN; Dawn Baker, RN; Kate Berry, RN; Amanda
Bohrer, Tobacco Prevention Specialist; Lori Byron, MD; Emily
Colomeda, MPH, RN; Christine Deeble, ND; Lynette Duford, BS;
Abdallah Elias, MD; Kasey Harbine, MD; Daniel A. Harper, MD;
Pepper Henyon, MD.
Josy Jahnke, RN, BSN, PHN, AE-C; Marian Kummer, MD; Gregar
Lind, MD; Cheryl McMillan, RN, MS, Family Nurse Practitioner,
ret.; Heather Murray, RN; Melanie Reynolds, MPH; Paul Smith,
MD; Wanda White, RN; Lora Wier, RN; Megan Wilkie, RN, CLC;
Allison Young, MD, AAP; Michael Zacharisen, MD.
Nebraska
David Corbin, Emeritus professor, public health; Rudy
Lackner, MD.
Nevada
Sue McHugh, RN; John Packham, Director of Health Policy
Research.
New Hampshire
Jessica Gorhan, MPH; Marc Hiller, Professor of Public
Health (MPH, DrPH); Mary Olivier, RRT; Jenni Pelletier, RN,
BSN.
New Jersey
Janet Acosta-Hobschaidt, MPH, Health Educator; Kathleen
Black, PhD, MPH; Felesia Bowen, PhD, DNP, PNP; Michelle
Brill, MPH; Maria Feo, BSN, RN-BC, CTTS; Tamara Gallant, MPH,
MCHES; Christina Green, MPH Candidate; Michele Grodner, EdD,
CHES, Professor of Public Health; Katheryn Grote, BSN, RN,
OCN; Ruth Gubernick, PhD, MPH, HO, REHS; James Guevara, MD,
MPH; Suseela J, MPH, MD; Laura Kahn, MD.
Sean McCormick, PhD; Kevin McNally, MBA, public health
association; Amanda Medina-Forrester, MA, MPH, Cancer
Coalition Coordinator; Cornelius Mootoo, MS, BS, Secretary of
NJPHA; Tiffany Rivera, MA, DHA, MCHES; Elsie Sanchez, LPN;
Andrew Sansone, MPH Candidate; Christopher Speakman, RN;
Marianne Sullivan, DrPH, Associate Professor, Public Health;
Stanley Weiss, MD; Allison Zambon, MHS, MCHES.
New Mexico
Susan Baum, MD, MPH; Lee Brown, MD, Professor of Internal
Medicine; Mallery Downs, RN (ret.); Janet Popp, PT, MS;
Kristina Sowar, MD; Sharz Weeks, MPH; Leah Yngve, MSPH.
New York
Claire Barnett, MBA (health finance); Alexis Blavos, PhD,
MEd, MCHES; Alison
[[Page H5930]]
Braid, MPH Candidate; Margaret Collins, MS; Kavitha Das, BDS,
MPH, MS; Richard Dayton, REHS, Public Health Sanitarian;
Susan Difabio, RRT, CPFT; Liz D'Imperio, RRT; Monica
Dragoman, MD, MPH; Lawrence Galinkin, MD; Carolyn Galinkin,
Social Worker; Noah Greenspan, DPT, CCS, EMT-B; Patricia
Happel, DO; Kristen Harvey, MD; Meherunnisa Jobaida, Outreach
Specialist.
Julie Kleber, RN; Stacie Lampkin, PharmD; Nicole Lefkowitz,
MPH; Kathryn Leonard, MS, RD, CDN; Luis Marrero, MBA; Emily
Marte, BS, MPH Candidate; Mary Mastrianni, FNP; Peggy
McCarthy, MPH, CHES; Crystina Milici, PA-C; Maureen Miller,
MD, MPH; Wilma Mitey, MS, MPA; Acklema Mohammad, Urban Health
Plan; Emilio Morante, MPH, MSUP; Christina Olbrantz, MPH,
CPH; Milagros Pizarro, RN.
Elvira Rella, MS; Luis Rodriguez, MD; E. Schachter, MD;
Emily Senay, MD, MPH; Perry Sheffield, MD; Linda Shookster,
MD; Jody Steinhardt, MPH, CHES; Gladys R Torres-Ortiz, PhD,
Clinical Psychologist; Ashley Umukoro, health plan Site
Director; Adrienne Wald, EdD, MBA, RN; Karen Warman, MD; Lucy
Weinstein, MD, MPH; Lauren Zajac, MD, MPH; Robert Zielinski,
MD.
North Carolina
Melanie Alvarado, RN, MSN; John Brice, MPH, MEd; Kayne
Darrell, RT (R) (M); James Donohue, MD; Beverly Foster, PhD,
MN, MPH, RN; Jeff Goldstein, President & CEO, health
foundation; Laura Kellogg, RN, AE-C; Rebecca King, DDS, MPH;
David Peden, MD; Laura Pridemore, MD; Cheryl Stroud, DVM,
PhD; David Tayloe, MD.
North Dakota
Deborah Swanson, RN; Maylynn Warne, MPH.
Ohio
Peggy Berry, PhD, RN, COHN-S; Rosemary Chaudry, PhD, MPH,
RN; Elizabeth Cutlip, RRT; Laura Distelhorst, CPN, RN; Joe
Ebel, RS, MS, MBA; Susan Gaffney, RRT; Lois Hall, MS; Carla
Hicks, RN, MBA; Lawrence Hill, DDS, MPH; John Kaufman, MPH;
Sumita Khatri, MD; Janet Leipheimer, BSN, MHHS, RN, LSN;
Nancy Moran, DVM, MPH; Chris Morford, BSN, RN, Licensed
School Nurse; Andreanna Pavan, MPH Candidate; Kimberly
Schaffler, BSN, RN, LSN.
Oklahoma
Effie Craven, MPH; Marny Dunlap, MD; Marisa New, OTR, MPH;
Mark Pogemiller, MD, FAAP.
Oregon
Benjamin Ashraf, MPH, CHES; Bruce Austin, DMD; James
Becraft, MPH; Kathy Blaustein, CPH; Candace Brink, Physical
Education Teacher; Alicia Dixon-Ibarra, PhD, MPH; Lan Doan,
MPH, CPH; Kelly Donnelly, Certified Personal Trainer; Carol
Elliott, BSN; Kurt Ferre, DDS; Layla Garrigues, PhD, RN;
Peter Geissert, MPH; John Hanson, MSN; Cameron Haun, CSCS;
Charles Haynie, MD; Augusta Herman, MPH; Robina Ingram-Rich,
RN, MS, MPH.
Selene Jaramillo, MS; Candice Jimenez, MPH; Gabriella
Korosi, RN, MN; Leslie Kowash, MPH Candidate; Anne Larson,
MPH; Patricia Neal, Council, FQHC; Jessica Nischik-Long, MPH/
Executive Director; Gena Peters, Health Outcomes Project
Coordinator; Jack Phillips, MPH, CPH; Jock Pribnow, MD, MPH;
Carol Reitz, RN; Dianne Robertson, nurse (ret.); Savanna
Santarpio, MPH; Julie Spackman, Certified Prevention
Specialist; Theodora Tsongas, PhD, MS; Tamara Vogel, MBA,
Administrator.
Pennsylvania
Robert Abood, MD; Saif Al Qatarneh, MD; Michael Babij,
Certified Peer Specialist; Jill Barnasevitch, RNC; Murylo
Batista, Research Assistant; Pamela Benton, RRT; Taseer
Bhatti, MS; Christine Brader, Patient Advocate; Deborah
Brown, CHES; Tyra Bryant-Stephens, MD; Monica Calvert, RDH,
BSDH, PHDHP; Lynn Carson, PhD, MCHES; Esther Chung, MD, MPH;
Nina Crayton, MSW, CTTS; Marlene D'Ambrosio, RN; Ellen M.
Dennis, RN, MSN, MSEd; Paula Di Gregory, CTTS/Tobacco
Treatment Specialist; Mark Dovey, MD; Lori Drozdis, MS, RN;
Alexandra Ernst, Public Health Evaluation Project Manager;
Mary Fabio, MD.
Jayme Ferry, LSW; Cecilia Fichter-DeSando, Prevention
Manager; Alexander Fiks, MD, MSCE; Thad Fornal, RDCS;
Clintonette Garrison, RRT; Teresa Giamboy, MSN, CRNP; Dawn
Gizzo, CRT; Stanley Godshall, MD; Maria Grandinetti, PhD, RN,
Associate Professor of Nursing; Thomas Gregory, DDS, PhD;
Melissa Groden, MS, HS-BCP; Susan Harshbarger, RN, MSN, TTS;
Kathryn Hartman, Supervisor; Brooke Heyman, MD; Lynn Heyman,
BS, RRT, CTTS-M; Cory Houck, Chief Nuclear Medicine
Technologist; Marilyn Howarth, MD, FACOEM; Kimberly Jones,
BSN, AE-C; Kayla Juba, public health organization Development
Coordinator; Ned Ketyer, MD, FAAP; Cynthia Kilbourn, MD.
Kira Kraiman, Certified Tobacco Training Specialist;
Madison Kramer, MPH (c); Geoffrey Kurland, MD, Professor of
Pediatrics; Laura Leaman, MD; Dion Lerman, MPH, Environmental
Health Programs Specialist; Robert Little, MD; Francine
Locke, Environmental Director; Laura Loggi, RRT; Shelley
Matt, RRT-NPS, CPFT; Andrea McGeary, MD; Thomas McKeon,
MPH(c); Rob Mitchell, MPH; Jane Nathanson, MD; Michelle
Niedermeier, PA, Environmental Health Program Coordinator;
Donna Novak, RN, DNP, CRNP; Lori Novitski, BS, RN; Mariam
O'Connell, RRT; Helen Papeika, RN; Amy Paul, Director of
Healthy Living; Alan Peterson, MD, MD; Mary Lou V. Phillips,
MSN, CRNP.
Noelle Prescott, MD; Vatsala Ramprasad, MD, Pediatric
Pulmonologist; Megan Roberts, MPH, Community Engagement
Program Manager; Tynesha Robinson, MSW; Eric Rothermel,
health Program Director; Erica Saylor, MPH; Alden Small, PhD;
Cheri Smith, CRNP; Keith Somers, MD; Jonathan Spahr, MD;
James Spicher, MD; Patricia Stewart, LPC; Darlene
Stockhausen, CSN, BSN, RN; Beth Thornton, RN; Walter Tsou,
MD, MPH; Caroline Williams, BA, CHES, CTTS; Margaret Wojnar,
MD, MEd; Cassandra Wood, tobacco Specialist; Joanne Wray, BS,
Prevention Specialist; Sylvia Young, RN, MSN, CSN.
Puerto Rico
Jorge L. Nina Espinosa, CPH.
Rhode Island
Wanda N. Bastista, CRT; Angela Butler, COPD Health Advocate
RRT-NPS, CPFT; Michelle Caetano, PharmD, BCACP, CDOE, CVDOE;
Christine Eisenhower, PharmD; James Ginda, MA, RRT, FAARC;
Linda Hogan, RRT; Linda Mendonca, MSN, RN, APHN-BC; Donna
Needham, RN, AE-C; Elizabeth O'Connor, RRT; Katherine Orr,
PharmD, Clinical Professor; Sandi Tomassi, RN; Donna Trinque,
RRT, AE-C, CPFT; Sylvia Weber, Clinical Nurse Specialist.
South Carolina
Tierney Gallagher, MA, health system Executive Projects
Director; Tiffany Mack, MPH, CHES.
South Dakota
Marilyn Aasen, RRT; Sandy Brown, RRT; Darcy Ellefson, RRT;
Bruce Feistner, RRT, Respiratory Care Program Director; Lori
Salonen, RRT.
Tennessee
Richard Crume, Environmental Engineer, QEP, CHCM.
Texas
Judy Alvarado, RN; Lynda Anderson, BSN, RN; Lauren Badgett,
MPH, RD, LD; Wendy Benedict, MHA; Diane Berry, PhD; Jean
Brender, PhD, RN; Pat Brooks, MEd, MS; Gloria Brown McNeil,
RN, BSN, MEd; Carla Campbell, MD, MS; Adelita Cantu, PhD, RN;
Catherine Cooksley, DrPH, Editor, public health journal;
Daniel Deane, MD; Betty Douzar, RN, Assistant Professor;
Robert Greene, MD, PhD; Adele Houghton, MPH; Elise Huebner,
MS, CPH, CIC.
Kristyn Ingram, MD; Cassandra Johnson, MPH Candidate; Cindy
Kilborn, MPH; Wei-Chen Lee, PhD; Debra McCullough, DNP;
Witold Migala, PhD, MPH, BA; Celeste Monforton, DrPH, MPH;
Rhea Olegario, MPH, CHES; Sherdeana Owens, DDS; Mindy Price,
MPH; Hernan Reyes, MD; Darlene Rhodes, MS, Gerontology; Ruth
Stewart, MS, RN; James Swan, PhD, Professor of Applied
Gerontology; Garrett Whitney, MA.
Utah
Kwynn Gonzalez-Pons, MPH, CPH.
Vermont
Alex Crimmin, Health Education Coordinator; Brian Flynn,
ScD; Heidi Gortakowski, MPH; David Kaminsky, MD; Benjamin
Littenberg, MD; Theodore Marcy, MD, MPH, Professor Emeritus
of Medicine; Richard Valentinetti, MPH.
Virginia
Samantha Ahdoot, MD; Laura Anderko, PhD RN; Matthew Burke,
MD, FAAFP; Agnes Burkhard, PhD, RN, APHN-BC; Gail Bush, BS,
RRT-NPS, CPFT; Renee Eaton, MS, MS, LAT, ATC; Janet Eddy, MD;
Gary Ewart, MHS; Robert Leek, MHA; Gail Mates, Public Health
Spokesperson; Sarah Parnapy Jawaid, PharmD; Jerome Paulson,
MD, Professor Emeritus; Leon Vinci, DHA, MPH, DAAS; Homan
Wai, MD, FACP.
Washington
Gay Goodman, PhD, DABT; Catherine Karr, MD, PhD; Gretchen
Kaufman, DVM; Kathleen Lovgren, MPH; Tim Takaro, MD, MPH, MS;
Robert Truckner, MD, MPH.
West Virginia
Robin Altobello, health Program Manager; Taylor Daugherty,
Cancer Information Specialist; Laura Ferguson, RN, MSN, FNP-
BC; Carlton ``Sonny'' Hoskinson, RPh; Ashley McDaniel, RN;
Jessica Randolph, RN; Rhonda Sheridan, RRT.
Wisconsin
David Allain, RRT-NPS; William Backes, BS, RRT; Christine
Bierer, RRT; Robert Brown, RRT, RPFT, FAARC; Sarah Brundidge,
RRT; Lisa Crandall, APNP; Lindsay Deinhammer, BSN, RN; Alyssa
Dittner, RRT; Rhonda Duerst, RRT-NPS; Jill Francis Donisi, RT
Student; Elizabeth Gore, MD; Kimberly Granger, RN, MSN, FNP-
C; Kristen Grimes, MAOM, MCHES; Nathan Houstin, RRT; Jodi
Jaeger, BS-RRT, Manager, Respiratory Care Service; Michael
Jaeger, MD.
Peggy Joyner, RRT; Trina Kaiser, BSN, RN, School Nurse;
Raquel Larson, RN; Jessica LeClair, RN, Public Health Nurse;
Todd Mahr, MD; Michelle Mercure, CHES; Michele Meszaros,
CPNP, APNP; Sara Motisi-Olah, RN; Elizabeth Neary, MD; Adam
Nelson, RRT; Stephanie Nelson, RRT; Trisha Neuser, RN; Jackie
Noha, RN; Kristine Ostrander, RRT, Director Respiratory Care
Services; Sima Ramratnam, MD, MPH; Chris Rasch, Health Center
Administration.
Grasieli Reis, RRT; Kathleen Roebber, RN; Elizabeth
Scheuing, RRT; Michelle Schliesman, Respiratory Therapist;
Rhonda Skolaski, Respiratory Therapist; Brenda
[[Page H5931]]
Steele, RRT, RPSGT; James Stout, RRT; Richard Strauss, MD;
Amanda Tazelaar, RRT-ACCS; Angela Troxell, RRT; Larry Walter,
RRT; David Warren, RRT; Laurel White, BS, RRT-NPS; Pamela
Wilson, MD; Rhonda Yngsdal-Krenz, RRT; Lynn Zaspel, RN, BSN,
NCSN.
Wyoming
Susan Riesch, PhD, RN, FAAN, Professor Emerita (Nursing);
Ricardo Soto, PhD, DABT, MBA.
-Mr. POLIS. In part, it says: ``We, the undersigned physicians,
nurses . . .''--et cetera--``. . . oppose any legislation . . .''--to--
``. . . weaken or delay work to . . . enforce strong safeguards for
healthy air.''
They are from nearly every State, Mr. Speaker. And looking at this, I
see red states, and I see blue states, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana,
Mississippi, and that is because this is science we are talking about
here.
This bill will increase healthcare costs. That is the economic side.
The human side is it will lead to suffering and even death. That is why
it is important to stop this bill now by stopping this rule from
passing.
Not only will this bill harm millions of Americans, but, in addition,
they have offered it under a way to limit amendments and ideas that
Republicans and Democrats had offered. This rule does allow several
amendments, one of which is mine, and we will discuss that later, but
it doesn't allow for amendments from Democrats and Republicans. They
only made in order 6 of the 11 amendments, including germane amendments
that were submitted to be debated.
For instance, why wasn't Mr. Cooper's amendment, which clarified that
State implementation plans can incorporate local land use policies,
allowed any debate on the floor?
All Members with amendments should be given the opportunity to bring
them to the full House and get a fair up-or-down vote on the merits of
their amendment. That is how we craft better legislation, and that is
how we fix bills, Mr. Speaker.
I assure you, this bill needs to be fixed, because all it does is it
repackages a bunch of bills that make our air dirtier and our health
worse and healthcare more costly, all bills that we have seen here over
the last several years, bringing them all together in sort of a
Frankenstein bill where you assemble all these horrible body parts from
different bills, each of which is bad, creating a huge monster that
will kill people and increase healthcare costs for every American.
Instead of trying to weaken the Clean Air Act, putting Americans'
health at risk, which is what this bill does, we should be talking
about the way to close loopholes that exist in our Clean Air Act; to
make our air cleaner, not dirtier; reduce asthma and cancer, not
increase asthma and cancer.
That is why I am glad that my amendment was made in order. My
amendment is based off of the BREATHE Act, which I introduced with
several of my colleagues earlier this year. It would close the oil and
gas industry's loophole to the Clean Air Act's aggregation requirement.
We will be discussing that in more detail later today, but, very
simply, when you have small sites for oil and gas extraction, they
don't have to aggregate their pollution, even though in the aggregate,
when you have 20,000 wells in a county, cumulatively it can release a
large amount of air pollutants, even more than a larger power plant.
This amendment would simply hold all sources of emission to the same
standard for the impact on the Nation's air quality. I hope that my
amendment will be adopted, it is common sense, so we can improve the
Clean Air Act rather than eviscerate it.
This bill takes apart a law that is one of the most successful in the
history of our country in protecting our most vulnerable and
strengthening our economy. A stronger economy means less sick days from
work, it means less hospital visits, it means less premature deaths.
This bill will increase all of those, sick days, hospital visits, and
premature deaths, because it takes away protections for our clean air.
I am proud to say that between 1980 and 2014, emissions of six air
pollutants controlled by the Clean Air Act have dropped 63 percent. We
should be proud of that. While those six toxic pollutants dropped 63
percent, our gross domestic product increased 147 percent, vehicle
miles traveled increased 97 percent, energy consumption increased 26
percent, our population grew by 41 percent. That shows over the last
several decades how we can have clean air, a healthy population, and a
strong economy--not one at the expense of another.
These emission standards have already generated dramatic public
health benefits. A recent peer-reviewed study estimates that the Clean
Air Act will save more than 230,000 lives, prevent millions of cases of
respiratory problems in 2020 alone. It also enhances our national
productivity by preventing 17 million lost workdays. These public
health benefits translate into $2 trillion in monetized benefits to the
economy.
If this bill were to be scored by that metric, this bill would cost
$2 trillion by eviscerating the protections we have in the Clean Air
Act, but instead of maintaining and strengthening these important life-
saving laws, instead, they are delaying the implementation of the ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards set by scientists, an update
that is long overdue and has economic benefits of $4.5 billion annually
in 2025 alone. This bill would suspend that, which are particularly
important for the pregnant, for the elderly, for those who suffer from
asthma.
25 million Americans suffer from asthma, 7 million of whom are
children. For many, the condition lasts a lifetime and sometimes can be
life-threatening. In 2014, about 4,000 people died due to an asthma
attack. The connection between air quality and asthma is extremely well
documented and incontrovertible, and it shouldn't be understated.
Clean air is an integral part of quality of life, and we shouldn't be
tearing down protections that simply allow kids or the elderly to go
outside, kids to play outside on a playground in a neighborhood,
without worrying about respiratory problems or asthma.
Another problematic provision of this Frankenstein bill is that it
changes the criteria for establishing a NAAQS from one that is based
solely on protecting public health to one that includes consideration
of technology.
{time} 1245
Now, that is the core of the Clean Air Act and necessary to protect
public health. The NAAQS determine what level of air pollution is
``safe'' to breath. That is just a matter of fact. What is safe is
safe, what is not safe is unsafe. Scientists need to determine that.
This change would allow polluters to override scientists and is
analogous to a doctor making a diagnosis based on how much a test cost.
I don't want my doctor telling me I don't have condition X or Y
because I might have a high cost to treat. I don't think anybody else
does, either. We demand, and we deserve, safe air. We should be safe
breathing the air in our country, period.
The problems go on and on with this bill. I will stop there for now
because the Republicans have wasted enough time even bringing this
Frankenstein bill to the floor that cobbles together a number of other
terrible bills that they have already passed.
Let's move forward with making our air cleaner, not dirtier; with
reducing cancer and asthma, not increasing them; and with reducing
healthcare costs, not increasing them. This bill is the wrong
direction.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, I want to reference a letter that I sent on May 23,
2014, to Dr. Christopher Frey, who was then the chairman of the EPA
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee.
The letter reads:
``I understand that, due in part to recommendations by the Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee, EPA's new draft Health Risk and Exposure
Assessment for Ozone concludes that''--I am quoting from the EPA here--
`` `mortality from short- and long-term ozone exposures and respiratory
hospitalization risk is not greatly affected by meeting lower
standards.' ''
Again, that is from the EPA draft of the Health Risk and Exposure
Assessment for Ozone, from May of 2014.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the letter.
[[Page H5932]]
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
May 23, 2014.
Dr. H. Christopher Frey,
Chair, EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee,
Distinguished University Professor, Department of Civil,
Construction, and Environmental Engineering, North
Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Dear Dr. Frey: In January 2015, pursuant to a court imposed
deadline, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
expected to propose revisions to the current National Ambient
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone set in 2008. The
agency's proposed revisions may well represent the most
costly standards the agency has ever sought to impose on the
U.S. economy. The Administrator's judgments about the
adequacy of the standard and any such proposed revisions
accordingly will be subject to close Congressional oversight
and scrutiny. A critical question will concern whether the
Administrator has fully and clearly evaluated the risk
reduction estimates associated with the standard and proposed
alternatives.
The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee's (CASAC) by
statute serves to review the information supporting EPA's
assessment of the existing NAAQS for ozone and to help assure
that EPA conducts a full and objective evaluation of risks
and risk tradeoffs in its proposals. In the context of this
review, given the potential costs and impacts of any revision
to the current standard, I believe it is critically important
that such risks and risk tradeoffs are fully evaluated.
Presently, EPA appears to be moving forward without fully
addressing important risk tradeoff questions regarding the
impact of emissions reductions of nitrogen oxides
(NOX), which CASAC has also been reviewing, on
ozone concentrations. I write today to draw your attention to
concerns that have been raised that EPA has not fully
evaluated the risk reduction outcomes identified in the
agency's risk assessments used for the upcoming proposed
rule.
I understand that, due in part to recommendations by CASAC,
EPA's new draft Health Risk and Exposure Assessment for Ozone
(HREA) concludes that ``mortality from short- and long-term
[ozone] exposures and respiratory hospitalization risk is not
greatly affected by meeting lower standards.'' According to
the HREA, this is due in part to the fact that further
reductions in nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions will
actually increase ozone levels on low concentration days in
urban areas where at-risk populations live.
For instance, in modeling a 50 percent reduction in
NOX emissions from existing levels, the HREA found
that April-to-October ozone exposures actually increased for
large percentages of exposed populations in several major
urban areas where at-risk populations are likely to live,
including New York, Detroit, Los Angeles, and Chicago. In
other words, even though reducing NOX emissions
may yield direct benefits by reducing NOX related
health effects, they may also lead to increased ozone
levels--the issue under review by the CASAC Ozone Review
Panel.
If EPA is correct to assume that all ozone exposures should
be of concern, any increases in ozone exposure throughout the
year are important to assess. However, testimony submitted to
CASAC this past March notes that EPA's analysis likely
underestimates the potential for increases in ozone exposures
because the agency does not evaluate the effect of
NOX emission reductions on ozone levels throughout
the full year. Specifically, EPA's analysis of
epidemiologically-based short-term mortality and morbidity
risks fails to consider the likely increases in ozone levels
during the cooler months of the year when NOX
emissions are reduced. This March testimony reported that
such a full year-round analysis of the impact of
NOX emission reductions in urban Philadelphia
resulted in increases in total ozone exposures.
The EPA's analysis itself notes that wintertime increases
in ozone ``were significant in 11 out of the 15 areas''
evaluated when nationwide NOX emissions were cut
``almost in half,'' but fails to address how increases in
wintertime ozone levels from further NOX
reductions will affect the proposed health benefits of
meeting a lower ozone standard. Potential changes in
wintertime ozone levels also pose a problem for EPA's
assessment of mortality risks from long-term exposure to
ozone.
In light of these shortcomings in analysis, we ask that you
recommend that EPA conduct a full year-round analysis of the
effect of further NOX emission reductions on the
epidemiologically-based, short-term mortality and morbidity
health benefits front meeting a lower ozone standard. This
should be done in a manner that clearly distinguishes between
exposure changes projected for urban, suburban, and rural
portions of each of the Urban Study Areas. In addition, EPA
should provide a discussion of the limitations of projecting
future mortality risks from long-term exposure given that the
epidemiological study used did not account for potential
differences in wintertime ozone levels.
Finally, I understand that transcripts of your public
proceedings may not always be preserved for future public
access and review. If this is the case, I ask that you ensure
that CASAC preserve a full transcript or recording of the
telephone conference and related public deliberations for
future public access and review.
Thank you for your attention to this request.
Sincerely,
Michael C. Burgess, M.D.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend from Colorado for
his leadership on this important issue.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this dirty air
legislation. The House majority is, once again, substituting political
ideology for sound science. Make no mistake: this is social Darwinism,
at its worst, and a blueprint to make America sick again.
The intent of the Clean Air Act and its amendments couldn't be
clearer: public health and science should drive public policy. And
safe, breathable air must be our paramount goal.
Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is required to review the public
health impacts of carbon monoxide, lead, ozone, particulate matter, and
sulphur dioxide every 5 years and update national air standards. The
bill before us would roll that back and delay new standards for a
decade. We cannot wait another decade, nor should we.
We know the health impacts of increased smog: greater incidence of
asthma, acute bronchitis in children, and, in some cases, premature
death. In Fairfax County, where I live, 23,023 children could be at
risk of another asthma attack due to poor air quality, and 136,327
adults over the age of 65 are at risk for a medical emergency.
I come from local government, where we actually had to put into place
regional programs to reduce smog. This wasn't a theological or
ideological assignment for us. It was practical. And let me show you
the progress we made because of this legislation, the Clean Air Act and
its amendments.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, in 1996, this region--the national capital
region--had more than 60 orange ozone days, ozone layers that were
hazardous to health, warnings given to people. Last year, we had 6,
one-tenth of that number. And that is because of the Clean Air Act and
its amendments.
Rather than dismantling these protections, we should provide States
and localities the resources to continue on the progress we have made.
Instead, the Trump budget would slash EPA funding by a third. That is
not a plan for healthy communities. It is not a way to make America
great.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this assault on public
health and sound science.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter that was sent by
Representative Joe Barton, who was then the ranking member on the
Energy and Commerce Committee, and myself, as the ranking member of the
Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, June 11, 2010, asking for
the economic data that the EPA was supposed to provide regarding their
proposed rule changes back in 2010.
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC, June 11, 2010.
Hon. Lisa Jackson,
Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.
Dear Administrator Jackson: While the President has
repeatedly stated that job creation and economic growth are
his top priorities, in the environmental arena it appears the
Administration is allowing ideology to trump objective
science and sound public policy, and is issuing new rules
that will significantly impede economic development and
growth throughout the United States, In particular, we are
concerned that the Administration, through the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), is promulgating a whole host of
unworkable, multi-billion dollar environmental regulations
without fully considering all available scientific
information, and without regard to, the realistic compliance
costs, job impacts, or the ability of states, municipalities
and/or businesses to implement the new regulations.
In the past we have expressed very serious concerns about
the Administration's global warming regulations and EPA's
process for developing its endangerment finding, the agency's
highly expedited issuance of that finding, and the agency's
reliance on the scientific assessments of outside groups,
including the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), without a
[[Page H5933]]
careful and critical examination of their conclusions and
findings. Further, we have significant concerns about the
potentially hundreds of billions of dollars or more in
compliance costs that are triggered by the finding, the over
6 million entities that may ultimately be subject to complex
new permitting requirements, potential enforcement actions,
fines and penalties, and threats of citizen suits and other
third-party litigation. EPA itself has acknowledged that the
stationary source permitting requirements triggered by the
endangerment finding are totally unworkable, and that it
would be administratively impossible for EPA and states to
administer those new requirements, or for employers and
businesses to comply.
We write today regarding another set of multi-billion
dollar regulations proposed by the Obama Administration which
also appear to be extraordinarily expensive and unworkable.
Specifically, in January 2010, EPA proposed new National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone,
the main component of smog. NAAQS ozone standards have been
revised a number of times over the past several decades,
including in 1997 when EPA set an 8-hour ``primary'' ozone
standard, as well as an identical ``secondary'' standard, to
a level of 0.08 parts per million (ppm), or effectively 0.084
ppm. While EPA significantly strengthened that standard in
2008 to a level of 0.075 ppm, in January 2010 this
Administration took the unprecedented step of setting aside
the 2008 standards, and proposing its own alternative
standards based on the prior administrative record and a
``provisional assessment,'' and without conducting a full
review of the currently available scientific and technical
information. EPA is now proposing a new primary ozone
standard within the range of 0.060-0.070 ppm, as well as a
distinct cumulative, seasonal secondary standard within the
range of 7-15 ppm-hours. EPA has also proposed an accelerated
implementation schedule.
We are very concerned about the proposed standards, not
only because there appear to be questions about the
development of the proposed standards, but also because EPA
estimates that the costs would range from $19 billion to $90
billion annually, or nearly a trillion dollars over ten
years. Moreover, it appears, based on EPA's own ozone maps
and estimates, that most counties in the country could
violate the standards, particularly if EPA chooses to set the
standard at the lower end of the proposed range. Further, it
also appears many areas of the country, including rural and
remote areas, could never be in attainment because the
standards are so low that they may exceed natural background
ozone levels, or ozone levels due to foreign emissions from
Asian or other sources.
We understand EPA plans to finalize the proposed ozone
standards by August 31, 2010. Before EPA finalizes such
standards, we believe your agency should provide the Congress
with fuller information about the EPA's process for
developing and proposing the new standards, the counties or
municipalities expected to be in violation, whether the new
standards can realistically be implemented by areas that have
higher ozone levels due to natural background ozone levels or
foreign emissions, and the potential restrictions that the
new standards will place on future economic growth and
development for non-attainment areas.
We request your responses to the following questions within
two weeks of the date of this letter:
1. Under Sections 108 and 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA),
EPA is authorized to set NAAQS for certain criteria
pollutants, including ozone, and the Act sets out specific
procedures for revising those standards.
a. In proposing the new standards, why isn't EPA conducting
a full analysis of all available data, including more recent
data?
b. In proposing the standards, why isn't EPA following the
express procedures set forth in Section 109 of the CAA?
2. Under the Clinton Administration's 1997 ozone standards:
a. What types of measures have been required by state and
local governments to come into compliance with those
standards?
b. What were the estimated costs for compliance with the
1997 standards and how do those compare with estimated costs
for the proposed new standards?
c. What analysis, if any, did EPA conduct relating to the
potential impacts on employment of the 1997 standards?
d. What were EPA's projections with regard to attainment of
the 1997 standards, and approximately how many counties in
the United States have still not been able to come into
compliance?
e. What are the primary reasons for the inability of these
counties to come into compliance?
3. Under the Obama Administration's proposed ozone
standards, we understand that EPA projects, based on 2006-
2008 data, that of the 675 counties that currently monitor
ozone levels, 515 counties (76%) would violate a 0.070 ppm
standard, and 650 counties (96%) would violate a 0.060 ppm
standard.
a. Please identify the 515 counties that would violate a
0.070 ppm standard, and the expected time needed for
attainment.
b. Please identify the additional 135 counties that would
violate a 0.060 ppm standard, and the expected time needed
for attainment.
4. According to the attached map from EPA's Clean Air
Status Trends Network (CASTNET) 2008 Annual Report, it
appears many areas of the country that do not currently have
ozone monitors would also be likely to violate the new smog
standards, including in very rural and remote areas.
a. How many counties don't currently have ozone monitors?
b. Based on CASTNET data and any other data EPA may have
regarding ozone levels in non-monitored counties, how many
additional counties could be in violation of EPA's proposed
ozone standards if a monitor were present? Please identify
those counties using the CASTNET data and any other data
available, and the expected time needed for attainment.
c. Would there be areas with monitored air quality that
attain the proposed standards but that might nevertheless be
considered to be in ``nonattainment'' because they are in a
Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA) in which
one monitor or more exceeds the proposed standards?
5. According to the EPA Fact Sheet for the Obama
Administration's proposed ozone standards, the implementation
costs range from $19 to $90 billion annually while EPA
projects the value of the health benefits would range from
$13 to $100 billion per year.
a. What are the primary studies EPA is relying upon in the
development of its health benefits estimates? What are the
major uncertainties in those studies that could affect the
estimates?
b. How many of the health-based studies included in the
criteria document for the proposed ozone standards were based
on statistically significant evidence compared to those
studies that were not?
c. How many of the new health-based studies included in the
provisional assessment for the proposed ozone standards were
based on statistically significant evidence compared to those
studies that were not?
d. Can EPA provide any assurances that the value of the
health benefits will outweigh the implementation costs?
6. Under the Obama Administration's proposed ozone
standards, what control requirements, including offsets,
transportation planning measure or other measures, may apply
to nonattainment areas?
a. It appears the proposed standards would create a
significant number of new nonattainment areas in the Western
United States. How would nonattainment in rural or remote
Western states and tribal lands be addressed?
b. In the event that an area fails to attain any new
standards by the applicable date, what would be the potential
consequences, including any sanctions or penalties?
c. What will happen to states or localities that cannot
come into compliance with the proposed standards because of a
lack of economically or technically feasible technology
necessary to attain compliance?
d. What will happen to states or localities that have
natural background ozone levels, and/or ozone levels due to
transport from outside the United States, that are currently
close to or exceed the new standards?
i. Will such areas be designated as being in nonattainment?
ii. Will EPA require states or localities to attain
standards lower than concentrations below the non-
controllable background levels?
7. Given, as EPA recognizes, that there would be many new
nonattainment areas, does EPA believe it is realistic to
require states to provide recommendations to EPA by January
7, 2011? Is it reasonable to require State Implementation
Plans by December 2013?
a. If EPA believes these deadlines are realistic, please
explain the basis for that conclusion.
8. Does EPA anticipate requiring separate planning
requirements for a seasonable secondary standard if one is
adopted as proposed? How does EPA plan to implement this type
of secondary standard?
9. Has EPA prepared any analyses of the potential
employment impacts of the proposed standards on specific
sectors of the economy, including the manufacturing and
construction sectors? If yes, please provide copies of such
analyses.
10. Has EPA prepared any analyses of the potential
relocation of production facilities outside the United States
as a result of implementation of the proposed standards? If
yes, please provide copies of such analyses.
11. Has EPA prepared any analyses of the potential impacts
of the proposed standards on small businesses? If yes, please
provide copies of such analyses.
If the EPA withholds any documents or information in
response to this letter, please provide a Vaughn Index or log
of the withheld items. The index should list the applicable
question number, a description of the withheld item
(including date of the item), the nature of the privilege or
legal basis for the withholding, and a legal citation for the
withholding claim.
Should you have any questions, please contact Minority
Committee staff.
Sincerely,
Joe Barton,
Ranking Member.
Michael Burgess,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, President Trump campaigned on the promise of job
creation; however, his budget paints a starkly
[[Page H5934]]
different and darker picture. It cuts job training programs by 39
percent. It would lead to massive job losses with its cuts. In this
body, we talk a little about jobs, but we are 7 months into the 115th
Congress and have failed to pass any major jobs bill.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that I have an amendment in my hand
that will generate thousands of American jobs.
When we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to
the rule to bring up Representative DeFazio's bipartisan bill, H.R.
2510, the Water Quality Protection and Job Creation Act. The bill will
create thousands of new American jobs through increased investment in
our Nation's wastewater infrastructure.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Issa). Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the distinguished ranking member of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for
his initiative here to actually create some jobs.
Mr. Speaker, the premise of the legislation before us today is that
if we allow more pollution--particularly ozone pollution, which is very
detrimental to the health of asthmatics; I mean, bad for the health of
everyday Americans, but particularly to the 25 million asthmatics,
seniors, and others--the premise is that by polluting the air more with
ozone, we will create jobs.
Now, actually, I have got to agree with the Republicans on this. They
will create more jobs by polluting the air. Pulmonary specialists will
be very busy. And then, oh, the inhaler manufacturers. There has been
some great press about the inhaler manufacturers in the last year,
where they are quadrupling and sextupling the price to price gouge
people. Well, they are going to have a heyday. In fact, I believe they
have endorsed this legislation.
And then we are going to have a whole new group of people working on
the streets in America. It is going to be a whole new entrepreneurial
class. There are actually people in Beijing doing this now. The air is
so polluted in Beijing that on many days they say: Don't go outside.
But, I mean, you have to go outside sometimes, you have to go to the
grocery store, or you have to go to work. They now have a very large
industry of street vendors who sell oxygen; so, as you are about to
collapse on the street in Beijing, someone will sell you a good whiff
of oxygen for whatever they charge for it. We are going to bring that
industry to America. So this bill does have phenomenal potential to
create a whole new bunch of jobs with oxygen street vendors and then,
of course, the pulmonary specialists, the inhaler manufacturers, and
others.
The President actually, as a candidate, said that he would triple the
amount of money that would be spent on clean water State revolving
funds; he would triple it. Now, interestingly enough, the Congressional
Budget Office came out with an analysis yesterday of the President's
proposed budgets over the next 10 years, which theoretically is going
to increase investment and infrastructure. And they said: Actually, not
so much. Actually, in fact, his cuts basically would lead to a
reduction in investment in clean water and a reduction in investment in
ground transportation.
So, instead of tripling the investment and putting many people to
work, the President, actually, is going to cut investment in clean
water in his proposed budget. Now, I know he didn't write the budget.
You know, he has got this rightwing guy running the CBO--Mulvaney,
founder of the Freedom Caucus. But Trump is somewhat responsible for a
budget that has his name on it, even if he didn't write it, even if he
didn't know what was in it, and even if he doesn't know that it
contradicts promises he made as a candidate, which he is not going to
deliver as President.
But, that said, I want to help the President out here. So, this bill
simply delivers on the President's promise to triple the amount of
investment to $25 billion.
Now, do we need it? Heck, yeah, we need it. According to the American
Society of Civil Engineers' 2017 infrastructure report card, America's
wastewater treatment systems got a grade of D-plus--not too good. And
there is a backlog of more than $40 billion in clean water
infrastructure.
The Federal Government needs to become an honest partner with our
cities, counties, and others, who have needs to invest in their
wastewater systems. We did it before when we cleaned up our rivers back
in the sixties, seventies, and eighties with the Clean Air Act, and we
need to do it again. We need the Federal partnership. We need this
investment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. DeFAZIO. And the other good thing is, if we were to spend that
money, according to the National Utility Contractors Association, every
billion dollars--just $1 billion--invested in our Nation's water
infrastructure creates, or sustains, 27,000 jobs. So do the math. The
President can do math. He is a businessman. That would be 540,000 jobs
if we delivered on the President's promise to make significant new
investments with Federal partnership in clean water in America.
So, we can put together health, cleaning up the environment, and
jobs, as opposed to the Republican bill, which deteriorates health,
deteriorates the environment and protections, and won't create any
jobs.
Just one quick quote here: ``The Clean Water State Revolving Fund is
a perfect example of the type of program that should be reauthorized
because it creates jobs while benefiting the environment, and is an
efficient return on taxpayer investment.''
That is from the Oregon Water Resources Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I will conclude as we proceed to this absurdity of
saying, by deteriorating health, we will create jobs.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that the gentleman would reference the cost
of asthma inhalers. It was, after all, two Congresses ago where the
Environmental Protection Agency actually outlawed the manufacture and
sale of over-the-counter asthma inhalers and took them away from those
of us who suffer from that disease. And, indeed, losing that over-the-
counter option for an over-the-counter epinephrine inhaler for the
treatment of asthma as a rescue inhaler, we have, indeed, seen the cost
of prescription inhalers quadruple over that time frame.
So, in many ways, as an asthma patient, I hold the EPA directly
responsible for my inability to get an inexpensive over-the-counter
rescue inhaler. And for many asthma patients, who may find themselves
caught short, that means a trip to the emergency room and, probably, a
$1,200 or $1,500 event that otherwise could have been solved by a
Primatene inhaler that sold two for $16.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Well, I know my friend actually has a bill on the topic of the asthma
inhalers, and I can tell you, if this bill becomes law, we will need
all the asthma inhalers we can get, so I think your bill will have to
go through.
I would like to inquire of the gentleman why your asthma inhaler bill
isn't included in this package, since we will need to sell more asthma
inhalers if the rest of the bill goes through?
Mr. BURGESS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POLIS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BURGESS. The reason is because the manufacture of over-the-
counter epinephrine inhalers has been prohibited by the EPA and the
Food and Drug Administration.
Mr. POLIS. Did the gentleman consider offering that as an amendment
to this bill, your other bill, to allow the sale of those asthma
inhalers?
Mr. BURGESS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POLIS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
[[Page H5935]]
Mr. BURGESS. Number one, it is not germane, and it is more
complicated now because the Food and Drug Administration has gotten
involved in the process. I wish it were straightforward. It is
something I continue to work on.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, our Rules Committee can
waive germaneness. But it would be an appropriate bill to include, as
Mr. DeFazio pointed out, ironically, there are some jobs that this bill
will create: people selling oxygen on the street, pulmonologists, and,
yes, asthma inhalers because more people will suffer from asthma, and
kids with asthma won't be able to spend as much quality time outside if
this bill were to become law.
Instead of continuing this kind of work that raises healthcare costs,
and increases asthma and cancer, we should be focusing on issues that
create jobs we want. We don't want the air to be so bad that there is
somebody selling oxygen canisters on the street.
{time} 1300
We want jobs in renewable energy and making our air cleaner, in new
forms of energy efficiency and bringing down people's utility bills
because we use less energy. That is what excites people and that is
what is good for our air.
Instead of focusing on those kinds of needs or, God forbid, shrinking
the deficit or halting the handout of subsidies to special interests,
they are talking about ideas here like this, that further diminish our
standing as a world leader and further diminish what makes America
special and our quality of life.
I hope all Members look in the mirror and think about our health, the
health of our children, the health of our elderly relatives, and those
most at risk. And we ask: How would this bill affect them?
The answer is obvious. It only serves to hurt them. It only serves to
make people sicker. It only serves to increase costs, destroy economic
value, and create additional risk for our environment.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule
and the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of an
important piece of environmental legislation to protect the lives and
health of all Americans while providing smart tools to the States to
implement the EPA's standards.
I thank my fellow Texan, Pete Olson, for his work on this
legislation, which I know affects his district in the Houston area as
much as it does mine in the Dallas-Fort Worth region.
I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on today's rule and to
support the underlying bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 451 Offered by Mr. Polis
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
2510) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
authorize appropriations for State water pollution control
revolving funds, and for other purposes. The first reading of
the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order
against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the
Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to
no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day
the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of
business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the
Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 2510.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________