[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11052-11061]
[From the U.S. 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.
  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

[[Page 11053]]

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.

[[Page 11054]]

       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 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,

[[Page 11055]]

     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 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

[[Page 11056]]

     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 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

[[Page 11057]]

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.

                                    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

[[Page 11058]]

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 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

[[Page 11059]]

     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 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

[[Page 11060]]

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.
  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.''

[[Page 11061]]

       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.

                          ____________________