[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19234-19239]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1633, FARM DUST REGULATION 
                         PREVENTION ACT OF 2011

  Mr. WEBSTER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 487 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 487

       Resolved, That at any time after the 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. 1633) to establish a temporary prohibition 
     against revising any national ambient air quality standard 
     applicable to coarse particulate matter, to limit Federal 
     regulation of nuisance dust in areas in which such dust is 
     regulated under State, tribal, or local law, and for other 
     purposes. 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. It shall 
     be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
     of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy 
     and

[[Page 19235]]

     Commerce now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the committee 
     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 committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute. 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 Florida is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to my colleague 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. WEBSTER. Madam 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 Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and 
the underlying bill. House Resolution 487 provides for a structured 
rule for consideration of House Resolution 1633, the Farm Dust 
Regulation Prevention Act.
  The rule makes 8 of the 11 amendments submitted to the Rules 
Committee in order, a majority of which are Democrat amendments, in 
order to have robust debate here on the floor of the House of 
Representatives.
  H.R. 1633 passed out of the Energy and Commerce Committee with 
bipartisan support after proceeding through the committee process under 
regular order. A subcommittee hearing was followed by a subcommittee 
markup, and then a markup was held by the full committee, which passed 
the bill with bipartisan support.
  The Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act is quite simple. It seeks 
regulatory certainty in the short term and a regulatory, commonsense 
approach in the long term. Specifically, this legislation does two 
things. First, in the short term, the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention 
Act would temporarily prohibit the EPA from issuing a new coarse 
particulate matter standard for 1 year.
  H.R. 1633 does not prohibit EPA from issuing a revised standard for 
coarse particulate matter after this 1-year timeout. Coarse particulate 
matter, or PM10, is also known by a much more common name: 
dust.
  Second, in the longer term, this legislation would limit future EPA 
regulation of nuisance dust to areas where it is not already regulated 
by State or local government, where it causes substantial adverse 
effects, and where the benefits of the EPA stepping in would outweigh 
the costs.
  Nuisance dust is particulate matter that is generated primarily from 
natural sources, dirt roads, earth moving, or other common farm 
activities. Nuisance dust is pieces of plants plowed up during tilling, 
soil disturbed by the movement of livestock or bits of rock kicked up 
by a truck driving down a dirt road. The definition specifically 
precludes combustion emissions, coal combustion residues and 
radioactive particulate matter from mining operations.
  H.R. 1633 does not eliminate EPA's authority to step in if local or 
State regulatory efforts fall short of what is needed to adequately 
protect the public. The bill would allow EPA to step in and regulate 
``nuisance dust'' in areas where States and localities do not do so, if 
it substantially hurts the public health, and if benefits of applying 
these standards outweigh the cost.

                              {time}  0920

  So in summary, if it isn't regulated, it would harm public health, 
and the benefit of regulation would outweigh the cost of regulation. 
The EPA could, and presumably would, fill that void.
  While EPA Administrator Jackson has announced that she does not plan 
on changing the standard, EPA has been actively considering a revised, 
more costly and stringent standard as part of the review process. The 
same review process increased the stringency of that standard in 1996 
and most recently in 2006. Prior to the administrator's announcement, 
EPA's staff had recommended further changes to the standard.
  Despite Administrator Jackson's statement, there is nothing currently 
on the books preventing the EPA from adopting a stricter regulation. 
Further, as we all know, the environmental lobby could force a more 
stringent standard regardless of what the EPA announces, finalizes, or 
proposes through legal action.
  This legislation provides ironclad certainty to farmers, ranchers, 
small business owners that farm dust would stay off the EPA's to-do 
list for at least another year. For that very reason, farming, 
agricultural and rural small business organizations of all shapes and 
sizes have put their steadfast support behind this legislation. To 
them, certainty means the ability to grow their business by creating 
jobs in their communities, feeding every American, and providing for 
their families through the sale of the fruits of their labors.
  The agricultural community and, more largely, rural America is 
critical to economic growth and job creation. The agricultural sector 
alone supports 1.8 million American jobs and represents 5 percent of 
our Nation's total exports. The Obama administration has acknowledged 
the importance of economic health for rural America. In fact, the 
President's White House Rural Council has claimed that rural America is 
``central to the economic health and prosperity of our Nation.''
  Unfortunately, it is often rural communities, particularly those in 
the western United States, that suffer from the highest rates of 
unemployment and are least equipped to bear the burden of additional 
costs stemming from Washington.
  So once again, Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the 
underlying legislation. The relevant committee of jurisdiction has 
worked to provide us with a bipartisan bill which, at its core, quite 
simply offers regulatory certainty in the short term and commonsense 
regularity relief in the long.
  This bill is not a cure-all, but is a step in the right direction. 
While a small step, it is a commonsense approach to fixing what's wrong 
in Washington, D.C. It's a step that many in Congress on both sides of 
the aisle seem ready and willing to take.
  As I mentioned, the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act passed out of 
subcommittee and full committee with bipartisan support. The bill has 
over 100 bipartisan cosponsors. Companion legislation in the Senate 
also enjoys that same bipartisan support.
  Let's ensure rural businesses and American farmers that at least for 
1 more year they can cross dust off the list of the potential 
bureaucratic burdens passed down from Washington.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes ``on the rule and ``yes'' on 
the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill.
  Today, there are very serious challenges facing our country, facing 
rural America, suburban America, and urban America. In the next 3 
weeks, Congress

[[Page 19236]]

has to address the payroll tax cut issue, or there will be an enormous 
tax increase, over $1,000 per family, to the American middle class. 
This Congress has to pass a budget or the government will shut down. 
This Congress has to address a number of other expiring tax 
provisions--all in the next 3 weeks.
  This is real work to do, real work that needs to be done for the 
American middle class, the American people, for farmers, for 
businessmen and -women, and for workers.
  And yet today, this body is not taking on real work. Instead, we're 
addressing an illusory problem, a fake problem rather than a real one. 
My colleague from Florida mentioned the specter of someone somehow 
regulating the dust kicked up by a truck on a dirt road. I don't think 
there's a single Member of this body that wants to regulate the dust 
that's kicked up by a truck on a dirt road. The EPA certainly doesn't. 
The farmers don't want us to. Members of Congress don't want us to.
  So what are we exactly talking about? Instead of addressing the 
serious problems that are facing the Nation, we're talking about a bill 
that satisfies talking points, has a few unintended consequences, which 
I'll get into in my remarks, and ignores the real problems of today.
  This bill before us claims to block the EPA from implementing a rule 
that doesn't even exist, hasn't even been thought up, and is opposed by 
the head of the EPA. That's right. We've got millions of unemployed 
Americans, a massive tax increase looming, and yet here we have a bill 
to stop the EPA from doing something it's not doing.
  EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson just told Congress specifically that 
they have no intention of doing a rule in this area because the 
existing rules passed during the Reagan administration are adequate.
  So instead of worrying about a non-existent farm dust rule, maybe we 
should pass a regulatory ban on blowing smoke, because that's exactly 
what Congress is doing with this bill here today.
  Not only does this bill seek to address a non-existent problem, Madam 
Speaker, but it also has a number of unintended consequences. The new 
loopholes it creates in the mining and other sectors will have severe 
public health and environmental impacts. Now, there will be a number of 
amendments that have been allowed under this rule that will go into a 
discussion and tailoring of this bill to hopefully roll back some of 
these unintended consequences, but what this bill does, rather than 
solve a problem, is create a slew of new problems which we would need 
to address.
  This bill is chock full of exemptions for major industries. It allows 
for more arsenic and lead pollution from industrial sources, with dire 
consequences for health and well-being. It disables the ambient air 
quality standards within the Air Quality Act. This bill won't help 
farmers at all because it won't fend off any onerous regulation because 
none of the regulations that are being contemplated are even being 
thought of by anybody in the EPA.
  Interestingly, what this bill will do is it allows the release of 
more pollution from industrial sources like open-pit mining, coal-
processing facilities, cement kilns and smelters. This has nothing to 
do with the family farms that you're going to hear people talk about 
debating this bill.
  That's why this bill's main supporters are not farmers, but they're 
the mining industry. In fact, this bill has gained vocal support from 
the National Mining Association; and one of the biggest groups 
representing farmers, the National Farmers Union, has said this bill 
isn't necessary. In fact, in October, National Farmers Union president 
Roger Jackson said, ``The National Farmers Union is pleased to see EPA 
Administrator Jackson provide final clarification for Members of 
Congress and the agriculture community that the agency does not have 
plans to regulate farm dust.''
  He went on, ``Lately, there has been considerable anxiety within the 
farming community that EPA is going to regulate dust on farms. We hope 
this action finally puts to rest the misinformation regarding dust 
regulation and eases the minds of farmers and ranchers across the 
country.''
  Yet, instead of letting sleeping dogs lie and quelling the ridiculous 
rumors that somebody plans to regulate dust kicked up from cars on dirt 
roads, here we have Members of this body reinvigorating and giving 
credibility to these false rumors, scaring the hardworking farmers of 
America into thinking somehow government is about to regulate something 
that no one is purporting to regulate.
  Furthermore, during committee consideration of this bill, an 
amendment by Congressman Butterfield would have explicitly limited this 
bill to agriculture, which is what the proponents of this bill purport 
it to be about. And yet the majority voted down that amendment, sending 
a clear message that this bill is not about farmers.
  Let us see this bill for what it really is--another effort to attack 
the EPA and prevent the EPA from implementing the Clean Air Act under 
its commonsense rules to protect our public health.
  It's time to get serious with the business of the House, to take on 
the real tasks that we have of expanding the payroll tax cut, passing a 
budget, and stop making up problems and making up solutions that cause 
more problems than they purport to solve. We've already got enough 
problems that this Congress and this country need to work on. Let's get 
to work.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WEBSTER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, it is my honor to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
  Ms. BALDWIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  Madam Speaker, the bill before us today is entitled the Farm Dust 
Regulation Prevention Act of 2011.
  I want to make something very clear. If we were here today voting on 
a bill that actually stopped farm dust from being regulated by the EPA, 
I would support it. Agriculture is hugely important to my home State of 
Wisconsin, and the thought of regulating farm dust on a Federal level 
is simply ridiculous. However, there is no attempt by the EPA to 
regulate farm dust. Administrator Lisa Jackson said that the EPA has no 
intention of regulating farm dust.

                              {time}  0930

  The Republican Senate sponsor of this bill, former Secretary of 
Agriculture Mike Johanns, states that the EPA has provided 
``unequivocal assurance that it won't attempt to regulate farm dust.''
  This legislation is not about farm dust. Instead, this bill creates a 
new category of pollution called ``nuisance dust'' and exempts it from 
the Clean Air Act entirely. To be clear, ``nuisance dust'' is a made-up 
term that has no basis in established science.
  Under this legislation, particulate pollution from open-pit mines, 
mine processing plants, sand mines, lead smelters, and cement kilns 
would be exempt from the Clean Air Act. These facilities emit coarse 
and fine particulates--arsenic, lead, mercury, and other toxic 
substances.
  Now, I don't know about you, Madam Speaker, but this doesn't sound 
like ``farm dust'' to me.
  I agree with my colleague Congressman John Dingell, who said, ``This 
is a solution in search of a problem.'' During the Energy and Commerce 
Committee markup, the majority showed us that this bill isn't about 
farm dust at all; it's about hacking another hole in the Clean Air Act 
and about stoking the fears of rural Americans and farmers for cheap 
political points.
  Americans are so sick of these political games. They want jobs, not 
fear mongering and baseless accusations. We shouldn't be wasting our 
time and theirs dealing with myths. We have real problems that need 
real solutions.
  We should be extending the payroll tax relief for hardworking 
American families. We should be passing a transportation bill that puts 
Americans back to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges. We 
should be extending unemployment insurance to millions of Americans who 
are still out,

[[Page 19237]]

pounding the pavement day in and day out, trying to find work.
  Republicans need to stop stoking the fears of farmers and rural 
Americans and get back to fixing the real crisis facing our country--
the jobs crisis.
  Mr. WEBSTER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will 
offer an amendment to the rule to require that we vote on an 
unemployment benefit extension and that we vote on a payroll tax 
holiday extension for next year before we leave for the holidays.
  I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. I want to thank my friend and colleague for 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to extend 
unemployment benefits now.
  It is amazing that we have time to debate this farm dust bill. We are 
polluting our air, but we don't have time to create jobs or to help 
people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. It is 
our moral obligation to give just a little bit of hope, a little bit of 
justice to help people survive these cold, difficult, hard times.
  During this holiday season, I ask each and every one of you to take a 
deep, hard look within and ask yourselves: Is this how I wish to treat 
my mother? my father? my sister? my brother? my son? my daughter or my 
neighbor?
  The unemployed lost their jobs through no fault of their own. They 
don't want handouts. They want jobs. This small amount of money is just 
enough to squeeze by while they continue to look for jobs. Help them. 
Please help them keep roofs over their heads, shoes on their feet, food 
on their tables, and heat in their homes.
  Madam Speaker, this is the least we can do. It is the right thing to 
do. It is the fair thing to do. Fairness cannot wait. Give them just a 
little bit of hope in the name of those elected to serve them. Let's 
come together. Let's put politics aside and just get it done. Vote 
``no'' on this rule, and extend unemployment insurance here and now.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  That's a good reason as to why we should pass this bill. The real 
cure for unemployment is employment. If we can remove the uncertainty 
from the marketplace for farmers and for those in other places in this 
country through limited regulation--good regulation but not by 
overburdening the businesses and the job creators of this country--then 
we will have the opportunity to solve that problem, to solve it by 
hiring people.
  I am hoping that this bill will pass. In knowing that it probably 
will pass in the House, I hope the Senate takes it up and the President 
signs it, and I hope we end up with less regulation in an area where 
many, many jobs could be created and where certainty could be provided 
if we would only pass this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I don't see how this bill would create any jobs, because 
it's purporting to undo regulations that don't exist and that aren't 
going to exist. So, obviously, if somebody at the EPA were to get the 
idea to start regulating farm dust, we would probably act to undo those 
regulations, which might help create jobs. Yet nobody is doing that, so 
this bill does absolutely nothing.
  I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. There is a lot of mourning among the comedians of this 
country that Herman Cain has left the field, but I think the Republican 
caucus is now stepping in to give the comedians things to laugh at.
  This bill is about dust. This is dust to throw in the American 
people's eyes so they won't see what's going on here. We're going home 
a day early. Why aren't we staying here tomorrow? Because they haven't 
got anything to do or they can't figure out how to do it. I don't know 
which it is.
  In fact, we have never put out a jobs bill from this House now in 11 
months of the Republican majority, who said jobs are the issue. Boy, 
we've got to get jobs. They haven't produced a single job in 11 months 
off this floor. They're letting the unemployment extension expire. 
Beginning in January, 5 million Americans are not going to get benefits 
from the unemployment insurance because the Republicans have to throw 
dust in the people's eyes so that they won't see. But they know. 
They're not stupid.
  The American people can see through this game. They know we're going 
home because you can't get your act together. You run this House and 
you can't put a bill out here to extend unemployment benefits. Now, I 
understand that the unemployment bill is an issue, but you can't extend 
the payroll.
  Madam Speaker, what's wrong with the Republicans that they can't get 
their act together to somehow extend the reduction in the payroll tax?
  That's going to take a thousand bucks out of every middle class 
person's pocket in the next year--but what are we talking about today? 
Dust. Ah, dust. I can just see it on Jon Stewart--or maybe it will be 
Sean Hannity. I don't know which it will be.
  The fact is that this Congress has been a do-nothing Congress on the 
issues that affect the American people. The middle class is getting 
clobbered, and you're talking about dust.
  It reminds me of this business we went through, this manufactured 
stuff, about raising the debt limit. It was such an awful thing, so we 
created this committee that was going to cut $1.2 trillion. That was 
magician talk. You don't want to talk about raising the debt limit. You 
want to talk about this committee that did nothing because the six 
members on the Republican side who came to that committee said from the 
very start that they would not raise taxes, that they would not look at 
revenue.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

                              {time}  0940

  Mr. McDERMOTT. In my view, if you're serious, you sit down and you 
talk about everything. The last 3 weeks of that committee, they never 
even met. That was dust in people's eyes.
  Get them to talk about a commission. We had all this talk about a 
commission. Are they going to do this, are they going to do that, 
what's going to happen? In fact, everybody around here knew it was a 
lot of baloney from the start, and that's what this is today, more 
baloney.
  You know, Yogi Berra, who is one of my favorite philosophers, said, 
this is deja vu all over again. We did this last Christmas, we didn't 
extend the benefits, and we're doing it again this year.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Yes, Yogi Berra, it ain't over till it's over. We've got time.
  We have a plan. House Republicans have a plan. It's down here on this 
card. We have a plan, a jobs plan. Twenty-five of those issues have 
already passed this House and they went to the Senate. And where are 
they? I don't know. They're there. They're ready to be acted on.
  Let me just give one. The union labor in this country rallied around 
that bill a couple of days ago and said we want to build the pipeline. 
It's tens of thousands of jobs. Many of the Democrats opposed that, and 
yes, it's thousands and thousands of jobs. Is it a job creator? 
Absolutely.
  Do we have a plan? We have a plan, and that's just one of the 25 
that's waiting in the Senate for action. We need to have action there. 
We have a plan. We have job plans, this is it, and we're ready to move 
this country forward, get our economy rolling again, creating jobs, and 
making this economy better for everyone in America.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, we have no remaining speakers on our side. 
I would like to inquire if the gentleman has any remaining speakers.
  Mr. WEBSTER. I am prepared to close.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume, Madam Speaker.

[[Page 19238]]

  We get it and the American people get it. Just because you repeat 
something enough times doesn't make it true.
  What businesses need in this country is long-term certainty and 
predictability, a fair playing field with clear rules for all. And yet 
here we are with a bill like this creating more uncertainty by 
introducing ambiguously drafted bills and new ambiguously drafted 
standards that skew the rules in favor of some and against others, 
making it tougher and tougher for small business, entrepreneurs, and 
innovators who don't have teams of lobbyists in Washington, D.C., 
monitoring every bit of legislation to get by and succeed.
  The American people understand it wasn't the Environmental Protection 
Agency that caused this recession, that caused this economic mess we're 
in, and the economic recovery won't come through creating loopholes in 
public health laws.
  If we are serious about helping farmers, there's plenty that we could 
be doing. But increasing industrial pollution for mining and coal 
processing isn't something that farmers in my district and across 
Colorado have asked me to do.
  Farmers are concerned about many real-life challenges. Farmers are 
concerned that their kids can't get financing to go carry on the family 
business because the startup and liability costs are too high. Farmers 
are concerned about the estate tax.
  Farmers are concerned about getting sued by Monsanto because their 
crops were contaminated by Roundup Ready pollen. Farmers are concerned 
about rapid swings in commodity prices because of instability in the 
market. Political brinksmanship and gridlock create market instability, 
and bills that create corporate handouts, loopholes, and more 
uncertainty like this one aren't helping farmers, they're hurting 
farmers, and they aren't helping the rest of the country either.
  In addition to ignoring the needs of farmers, this bill ignores our 
national debt. In fact, it ignores our own House protocols to pay for 
things. Oddly enough, not regulating this nonexistent regulation isn't 
cheap. Because of the bureaucratic changes that would ensue from this 
bill, the nonpartisan CBO has scored this bill as costing the Federal 
Government $10 million. So this bill violates the Republican rule for 
discretionary authorizations.
  In fact, while the majority has pledged to adhere to spending limits 
on all indirect spending bills by including offsetting language, this 
bill includes no offsetting language, which is particularly grating 
because this bill doesn't actually do anything besides create more 
Federal bureaucrats.
  Madam Speaker, with only one committee hearing and a quick vote, this 
bill shouldn't be before us on the floor today. We have real work to 
do. We need a good-faith effort to get to the bottom of the real issues 
that affect this country and caused the recession, and help the middle 
class. This bill is not aimed at doing anything for farmers. It's not 
even aimed at a real problem.
  I urge my colleagues to follow the House CutGo guidelines, to table 
this bill and focus on the real problems we should be working on. We 
all must stop pretending the answer to this country's problems is 
giving handouts and loopholes to those with the most lobbyists here in 
Washington, D.C.
  As I mentioned earlier, Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous 
question, I will offer an amendment to the rule.
  I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the 
Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on 
the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and 
defeat the previous question so that we can do the right thing for 
working families and the millions of people looking for a job and vote 
on an unemployment extension and a payroll tax holiday and extension 
before we leave for next year, 3 more weeks.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  This bill provides for ample open debate, allowing for the colleagues 
here on this floor and across the aisle, both on our side and theirs, 
to offer amendments to this bill.
  The underlying bill isn't particularly controversial. As a matter of 
fact, it's rather simple. This bill has no effect on direct spending. 
It does not appropriate any money or have any new appropriation in it 
at all. This bill creates no new programs. It has nothing to do with 
CutGo or pay-as-you-go, either way. It doesn't do either.
  In the end, I can't imagine 186 different groups being so stirred up 
in this country to write and to call and to ask for this legislation, 
groups like the National Corn Growers Association and the Sheep Growers 
Association and the Association of Cooperatives and the Farm Bureaus 
across this country and the American Soybean Association and many, many 
more getting stirred up about nothing?
  No, that argument is heifer dust. It is. This argument is real, it's 
true, and it's right, and it's absolutely just like what's happening in 
EPA in many other areas.
  The underlying bill, as I said, is quite simple. It provides much-
needed certainty in the short term for agricultural, ranching, and 
rural businesses by hitting pause on the EPA's runaway regulatory 
machine for just one measure for just 1 year.
  H.R. 1633 simply says that now is not the time to thrust yet another 
burdensome, costly and, in EPA's own judgment, unnecessary regulation 
on rural job creators. In the long term, it offers regulatory relief to 
rural America by acknowledging that States and local communities are 
better suited to manage dust in their own communities and thus grant 
them the flexibility to do so.
  It's particularly offensive because it's like the old cookie-cutter 
approach that Washington uses, the same program that's good for Ocoee, 
Florida, is good for Butte, Montana, and inner-city New York, and it's 
wrong. We ought to get rid of the cookie-cutter approach and go back to 
local communities and State governments and let them solve their 
problems, as opposed to one-size-fits-all Federal Government.
  Given the state of the economy, given the EPA administrator's own 
comments about the lack of need to further regulate farm dust, given 
the dearth of scientific evidence that says that this is a danger, 
there is some sort of danger from farm dust, this legislation 
represents a commonsense effort to create an environment for job 
creation that all Members should support. It gives farmers, ranchers, 
and other rural small business owners the certainty, at least when it 
comes to dust, that costly regulations would not shackle their ability 
to focus on growing their business, providing for their families, and 
creating much needed jobs in rural America.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of the rule and 
passage of the underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:


            An amendment to H. Res. 487 offered by Mr. Polis

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Not later than December 16, 2011, the House of 
     Representatives shall vote on passage of a bill to extend the 
     payroll tax holiday beyond 2011, the title of which is as 
     follows: `Payroll Tax Holiday Extension Act of 2011.'.
       Sec. 3. Not later than December 16, 2011, the House of 
     Representatives shall vote on passage of a bill to provide 
     for the continuation of unemployment benefits, the title of 
     which is as follows: `Emergency Unemployment Compensation 
     Extension Act of 2011.'.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by the 
     Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     110th and 111th Congresses.)

        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

[[Page 19239]]

     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, 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.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will 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. WEBSTER. Madam 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. Madam 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.

                          ____________________