[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11069-11094]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               OZONE STANDARDS IMPLEMENTATION ACT OF 2017


                             General Leave

  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to 
include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 806.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 451 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 806.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed) to preside 
over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1438


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 806) to facilitate efficient State implementation of ground-level 
ozone standards, and for other purposes, with Mr. Reed in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) and the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Tonko) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 806, the Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 
2017, is about ensuring effective implementation of our air quality 
standards.
  We have learned that timelines and procedures established almost 30 
years ago can be counterproductive today, resulting in unnecessary 
costs, regulatory delay, and economic uncertainty.
  H.R. 806 ensures we will continue to deliver effective environmental 
protections, with reforms that will also help expand economic 
opportunity in communities around the Nation.
  H.R. 806 removes barriers to the planning and permitting of new or 
expanded manufacturing facilities and to related economic activity 
essential for building out America's infrastructure.
  The bill's reforms reflect practical improvements to the law 
suggested by State and local regulators, who have confronted the 
growing challenges of implementing multiple air quality standards under 
multiple implementation plans and under tight statutory deadlines. As a 
result, these challenges have increased, and it has become more 
difficult for many areas to enable the economic expansion needed for 
their communities. This bill takes several sensible steps to fix this 
situation.
  First, it extends the date for final designations for the 2015 ozone 
standards to 2025. This allows States time to implement the 2008 ozone 
standards and other measures to improve air quality. The provisions 
align requirements for new source construction permitting with this 
phased ozone schedule, which will reduce permitting delays and still 
ensure the use of the best available emissions control technologies. 
The provisions would require timely issuance of implementation 
guidelines by EPA so States can plan effectively.
  Second, the bill aligns the air quality standard setting with how the 
process works in practice, and it ensures fuller information about 
regulatory impacts. For example, it updates the mandatory review of air 
quality standards to reflect past experience by extending the 
requirement to 10 years, and preserves the EPA administrator's 
discretion to issue revised standards earlier, if necessary. The bill 
ensures the administrator, prior to revising an air quality standard, 
obtains advice from the EPA's Independent Science Advisory Committee 
about any adverse effects on jobs, welfare, and other economic impacts 
related to implementing the standards.
  Finally, the bill takes several steps to address some of the problems 
communities face when working to meet the standards. For example, it 
ensures that, for certain ozone and particulate matter nonattainment 
areas, States are not required to include economically infeasible 
measures in their plans; it ensures that States may seek relief with 
respect to certain exceptional events, including droughts; and it 
directs EPA to examine the impacts of foreign emissions on standards 
compliance, ozone formation, and identify effective control strategies, 
including ways to facilitate EPA review to avoid unnecessary penalties 
for foreign emissions.
  The bill also helps communities with most severe air quality 
challenges that are doing the most to clean up their air by providing a 
reasonable way to avoid burdensome and unnecessary sanctions, which 
harm their ability to grow their economies and create jobs.
  The provisions of H.R. 806 represent important steps to update the 
Clean Air Act to reflect what we have learned over the past 25 years 
since its last major revisions.
  There is more work to be done to modernize environmental laws, but 
ensuring orderly implementation of air quality standards is an 
important place to start and essential in our environment and our 
economy.
  Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to support this important bill today, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, I want to express my strong opposition to H.R. 806, the 
Ozone Standards Implementation Act, which would undermine the Clean Air 
Act and the decades of progress that we have made to improve our 
Nation's public health and air quality.
  This bill delays implementation of the 2015 ozone standards until 
2025, extends the review cycle for all National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards from 5 to 10 years, and authorizes the EPA administrator to 
consider technological feasibility when establishing or revising a 
NAAQS.
  Today, we will hear that removing health and environmental 
protections creates jobs, despite all the evidence that protecting 
public health and growing the economy are not mutually exclusive.
  Since its enactment, the Clean Air Act has reduced key air pollutants 
by roughly 70 percent, while the United States economy has more than 
tripled.
  We will hear today that our country has made enough progress, and we 
will hear claims that further progress will be extremely difficult, if 
not impossible, but this bill's supporters may not tell us that the 
American Lung Association's 2017 State of the Air report found that 
nearly 4 in 10 people in the United States live in counties that have 
unhealthful levels of either ozone or particle pollution. Delaying 
EPA's more protective health standards will only serve to delay these 
Americans' access to guaranteed clean air.

                              {time}  1445

  I believe American ingenuity continues to be up to the task of 
developing and deploying technologies that will protect our citizens. 
History has shown again and again that meeting such basic health 
protective standards is achievable. More importantly, advancing these 
protections will make America more productive, more competitive, and 
will improve quality of life and drive down public health costs tied to 
asthma, heart disease, and even cancer.
  We may hear today that standards change too frequently and EPA should 
have more time to review and implement each standard. We will likely 
not hear that EPA has discretion on these matters and is only tasked 
with changing those standards if it will protect health.
  Every year, more studies are completed. With each new study, we gain 
an even better understanding of how ozone and other pollutants are 
harming

[[Page 11070]]

Americans' health. It is critical that these standards reflect the 
latest available science.
  What we are not likely to hear today is questioning of the large and 
growing body of scientific and medical evidence that breathing air that 
contains ozone and other criteria pollutants can cause serious health 
effects.
  Unfortunately, this bill would cast aside that scientific evidence in 
favor of adding cost and technological feasibility considerations into 
the standard setting process. The proposed changes to the Clean Air Act 
will slow down, if not outright roll back, the progress we have made to 
clean our air. This would be a giant mistake.
  Healthier people means fewer sick days, fewer hospital visits, and 
fewer premature deaths, all of which lead us to a more productive 
society.
  According to a peer-reviewed 2011 EPA study, in 2010 alone, the Clean 
Air Act prevented over 160,000 premature deaths, 130,000 cases of heart 
disease, 1.7 million asthma attacks, and a million more respiratory 
illnesses. Many of those health benefits have helped our most 
vulnerable populations, particularly our children.
  Let's do this for our children. Let's not make it worse. Let's 
improve our standards. That is why so many public health and medical 
organizations and professionals have vocally opposed this bill every 
step of the way.
  The Clean Air Act keeps kids in school, adults at work and on the 
job, and tens of thousands of Americans out of the emergency room each 
and every year.
  At a time when Republicans in Congress have been almost singularly 
focused on ramming through legislation to repeal the Affordable Care 
Act and rip healthcare away from tens of millions of Americans, this 
bill adds insult to injury. Plain and simple, the bill before us today 
would undermine the Clean Air Act as a safeguard of our public health 
law, and I encourage each and every Member of the House to oppose it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Olson), the author of the legislation.
  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from the land of Lincoln 
for the time to speak on this important bill this afternoon.
  Mr. Chairman, I remember Houston in 1972, 45 years ago. Just like 
today, we were the heart of America's energy and chemical industries. 
But back then, there were far too many days I could not see downtown 
from my home 25 miles away because of smog, ozone.
  We have made amazing progress, Mr. Chairman. All of America has made 
progress. Now it is rare when I can't see downtown from 40 miles away. 
I am raising my family in the suburbs of Houston, Texas. I don't want 
to see my hometown's air get any worse--or anyone else's, for that 
matter.
  I want that progress to continue. That is why this bipartisan bill, 
H.R. 806, keeps us moving forward with more breathable, cleaner air.
  Nothing in this bipartisan bill changes any air quality standard. 
Nothing in this bill puts costs before science when EPA sets a new 
standard.
  I will say that again because there is a lot of misinformation out 
there. This bill explicitly says that EPA can never ignore health data 
and can never put money ahead of safety.
  This commonsense bill is about listening to our job creators back 
home. It is about giving local officials the tools they need to make 
air rules work. It is about making sure that our communities aren't 
penalized for pollution they can't control. It is about making sure 
that, when EPA sets a standard, they have to put out the rules to 
comply with that standard to our local communities at the exact same 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is commonsense, bipartisan legislation. I urge my 
colleagues to support H.R. 806 so we can keep cleaning up America's air 
while growing our economy.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I would just suggest that, when we move the 
timeframe for accomplishment of our progress by 8 years out into the 
future, we are stalling progress; and when we tamper with a review 
every 5 years and make it 10, we are denying progress.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cardenas).
  Mr. CARDENAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in opposition to 
H.R. 806. I call it the ``Smog Is Back'' bill.
  I was born and raised in the San Fernando Valley. As a boy, I was not 
allowed to play outside due to smog alerts, and you couldn't see the 
mountains just a few miles away. I have told my kids. They don't know 
what a smog alert is. You get to see the mountains 365 days a year.
  That is because we got smart about cutting pollution. We passed 
commonsense regulations, and the impact was remarkable. Yet today, as I 
stand here, this Congress is trying to strip those protections and take 
us back to a dangerous time. It is not a joke, and this is shameful.
  Just over a year ago, my first grandchild was born. It infuriates me 
that he could grow up with the same restrictions that I had after we 
have made so much progress. We should be making the world a better 
place for our children and grandchildren.
  Mr. Chairman, when it comes to smog, it is not good to go back to the 
future. It is just wrong. I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
legislation for the sake of all children.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology 
Committee.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Shimkus) for yielding me time, and I thank the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Olson) for sponsoring H.R. 806, the Ozone Standards 
Implementation Act of 2017. I appreciate the efforts of Chairman 
Walden, subcommittee Chairman Shimkus, and members of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee to reduce the regulatory burden on the American 
people and the economy.
  As chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, I have 
worked to ensure that EPA regulations are based on sound science. 
Specifically, the committee found that the 2015 ozone standards 
implemented by the previous administration were based on questionable 
science and would cost billions of dollars to implement. H.R. 806 is 
commonsense legislation that appropriately delays the implementation of 
these new standards, allowing States more time to work through 
compliance.
  This legislation also resets the time period for the next review of 
Clean Air Act regulations. This is necessary to provide the Agency with 
ample time to analyze the science and economic impact of new rules.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and 
reduce the regulatory burden on the American people and return the 
Agency to sound scientific rulemaking.
  Again, I appreciate Chairman Olson taking the initiative on this 
subject.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, we have just heard from two colleagues from 
Texas, and I want to remind all of my colleagues, our colleagues, that 
the State of Texas has over 1.5 million residents with asthma, 
including some 430,000 children. Weakening vital protections in the 
Clean Air Act would put their health at risk.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Castor).
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican's 
``Smoggy Skies Act'' that will gut America's landmark Clean Air Act.
  Since Congress passed the Clean Air Act almost 50 years ago, American 
progress on clean air has gone hand in hand with growth in jobs and 
businesses. But that is at risk under this bill today because polluters 
want to take shortcuts and shift the costs to hardworking American 
families and other businesses. Republicans are helping them get this 
done through this ``Smoggy Skies Act.''
  Coming from the State of Florida, I understand very well how air 
pollution

[[Page 11071]]

hurts jobs and economic growth. Americans everywhere, regardless of 
their ZIP Code, deserve an EPA and a Congress working to clean up air 
pollution, not boost polluter profits at our expense. In Florida, we 
probably would not be the tourist mecca that we are without the Clean 
Air Act.
  When you look across the globe at other countries and people are 
deciding, ``Where am I going to take my vacation? Where am I going to 
take my trip?'' they are very discerning about countries that do not 
have the same kind of consumer protections.
  I have seen, since the time I was a little girl, vast improvement in 
air quality back home in the Tampa Bay area, to the point of it used to 
be, in the early morning, you would walk outside and you could smell 
and taste it. Now we have very few days of smog and pollution.
  But still, Congress should protect the pocketbooks of American 
citizens, not the profits of polluters because we have pockets of real 
pollution problems all across America. Approximately 125 million 
Americans still live in areas with dangerous levels of air pollution.
  Air pollution costs our families money as smoggy skies aggravate 
asthma, COPD, bronchitis, lung disease, and the ability to work 
outside. Improving ozone standards can help avoid premature deaths, 
childhood asthma attacks, and missed school days.
  I encourage you all to google the New England Journal of Medicine 
study that came out at the end of last month that said dirty air is 
very costly and has a deadly impact on many Americans still, especially 
our older neighbors and younger people with asthma and other 
respiratory illnesses. It said air pollution hastens death in America.
  Harvard researchers determined that, after reviewing years of health 
records of more than 60 million Medicare beneficiaries in specific air 
quality levels, we are still in trouble. I took that as a direct 
warning to this Congress not to roll back the Clean Air Act and air 
pollution protections.
  The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to take a look at air quality 
every 5 years, but under this bill, nope, it will be every 10 years. So 
polluters win and citizens pay more.
  The Clean Air Act codifies a citizen's right to know when they are 
breathing dirty air, but under this bill, nope, citizens will not have 
a right to know. Again, the polluters win and citizens pay more.
  Just like Mr. Tonko said, America is the world leader in ingenuity, 
technology, and science, but not under this GOP bill. Polluters will 
win, science will lose, and citizens will pay more.
  This is a costly shame, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to highlight a few specific 
things.
  One is the standards established by the EPA remains unchanged. The 
real premise of this bill is the fact that, when the 2008 standards 
came out, it took the EPA 7 years to get to the guidelines for how 
local communities and businesses could comply. While that was 
occurring, they ratcheted down a new set of standards.
  So when we talk, this is really more about having our citizens and 
our communities be able to comply with the rules and regs before a new 
rule and reg gets in place.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Biggs).

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for 
yielding time to me today. I applaud Congressman Olson for introducing 
this very important legislation. I also thank Science Committee 
Chairman Lamar Smith for holding numerous hearings to fully examine the 
Environmental Protection Agency's National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards.
  Arizonans desperately need the reforms that Representative Olson has 
offered in his legislation. Unfortunately, my constituents in the East 
Valley of Maricopa County understand all too well the consequences of 
onerous EPA regulations.
  Arizona has high levels of background ozone in the atmosphere, 
meaning that, from the EPA's perspective, we are regularly above the 
attainment level. But instead of trying to fully understand my State's 
intricate needs or engaging in efforts to work with State officials to 
develop achievable plans and paths forward, the EPA has doubled down 
time after time with new standards that are impossible to meet.
  H.R. 806 will help States like mine create meaningful implementation 
plans by giving us more time to work with the Federal Government and 
stakeholders. It will also allow us more flexibility in how we meet new 
regulations. Good, commonsense bills like this one are needed to ensure 
that we do not overregulate in a way that severely disrupts our local 
economies for little or no benefit.
  As chairman of the Science Subcommittee on Environment, I once again 
applaud Representative Olson and thank my friend from Illinois, and I 
look forward to seeing this bill pass this Chamber.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, having just heard from the gentleman from 
Arizona, I want to remind my colleagues that the State of Arizona has 
over 660,000 residents with asthma, including some 175,000 children. 
Weakening vital protections in the Clean Air Act would put their health 
at risk.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan 
(Mrs. Dingell).
  Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 806, 
the Ozone Standards Implementation Act.
  For nearly 5 decades, the Clean Air Act has proven to reduce air 
pollution by establishing critical National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards to protect our public health and public welfare. This bill 
would drastically alter the Clean Air Act, putting everyone at risk by 
delaying the implementation of stronger air quality protections and 
extending the review period for setting future air pollution standards.
  If we choose not to put air quality and public health first today, we 
jeopardize and undermine our ability to live long and healthy lives 
tomorrow.
  When the EPA issued its final rule strengthening the National Ambient 
Air Quality Standards in 2015, this decision was based on the review of 
thousands of studies showing ozone's harmful effects.
  Ozone is a pollutant. If we do not take our responsibility serious to 
ensure every American has clean and healthy air to breathe, those with 
asthma will experience more attacks. We need to make sure that our 
children aren't developing chronic bronchitis and asthma; and we risk 
increased numbers of premature deaths across the country.
  Every American deserves clean air now. We cannot afford an almost 
decade-long delay of improved air pollution standards.
  According to the American Lung Association, nearly 4 in 10 people in 
the United States live in counties that have unhealthy levels of either 
ozone or particle pollution. More than 125 million Americans live in 
204 counties where they are exposed to concerning levels of air 
pollution in the form of either ozone or short-term or year-round 
levels of particles.
  While we have continued to make progress reducing ozone pollution, we 
have to further strengthen these standards in the name of public 
health. These standards are the cornerstone of the Clean Air Act.
  Additionally, the provisions in this bill would also affect future 
NAAQS reviews for criteria pollutants by extending the review time for 
5 to 10 years, compounding the negative public health impacts for 
generations.
  In Michigan, if we fail to lower our ground ozone pollution, our 
seniors with pulmonary disease, asthma, and diabetes will suffer. For 
our kids who want to explore the outdoors and experience all the Great 
Lakes have to offer, ozone pollution may increasingly trigger a variety 
of health problems, including chest pain, coughing, and throat 
irritation.
  Please, my colleagues, do not do this today. Think of the health of 
Americans.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, let me just remind my colleagues that--why

[[Page 11072]]

10 years? I mean, that is a good question.
  When the 2008 standards came out, it took the administration 7 years, 
to 2015, to tell people how to even implement the 2008 standards. Then, 
3 months later, they say: Oh, no, we are going to have a new standard 
set at 2015.
  So this debate doesn't reduce or roll back. It says, let's let the 
EPA establish standards and then give communities time to comply. That 
is all this bill does.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia 
(Mr. McKinley).
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, today the House will vote on a bill 
addressing the ozone standards issued by the Obama administration.
  Look, with the comments you have heard today, we all want clean air. 
But America has made great strides already. Ozone is down by one-third 
since 1980.
  But the regulations imposed by President Obama in 2015 would cost the 
economy billions of dollars each year and hamper job growth. In many 
parts of the country, it is literally impossible to meet the new 
standards due to the background levels of ozone.
  Much of the country, as you just heard the chairman talk about, was 
still trying to comply with the previous standard when, suddenly, a new 
level was imposed. This has resulted in confusion and duplication.
  The bill that is before us this afternoon provides a commonsense 
approach. It delays the implementation, but, more importantly, it gives 
the States flexibility to deal with this issue. It revises the 
timeframe for changing standards from 5 years to 10 years. That is all. 
It requires the EPA to consider--very important--the economic and 
technical feasibility of the new standards.
  So, Mr. Chairman, passing this bill today will remove a barrier to 
economic growth while, at the same time, still protecting our 
environment.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, having heard from my friend and colleague from 
West Virginia, I want to remind my colleagues that the State of West 
Virginia has 100,000 residents with asthma, including over 18,000 
children. So it is weakening vital protections in the Clean Air Act 
that would put these populations at risk.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Matsui).
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 806, 
better known as the ``Smoggy Skies Act.''
  Because of the Clean Air Act, families have safer air to breathe, 
fewer emergency room visits, and healthier futures. The bill before us 
today is a direct attack on that progress, delaying lifesaving 
protections against ozone pollution.
  H.R. 806 will be particularly devastating to children with asthma, 
the elderly, and people with lung and heart disease. Dirty air remains 
a public health hazard.
  If this bill becomes law, we will be rolling back the Clean Air Act's 
protections and successes and putting people's health at risk.
  The Sacramento region in my district sits in California's Central 
Valley, which traps pollution from other parts of the State. And 
despite these challenges, we have fostered a strong partnership between 
the Federal Government and Sacramento's local agencies to improve our 
air quality. But in order for this progress to continue, the EPA must 
set its clean air requirements at a level that truly protects public 
health.
  The bill before us today would block ozone protections and 
permanently damage the Clean Air Act. Between this ``Smoggy Skies Act'' 
and TrumpCare, Republicans are waging an all-out assault on Americans' 
health.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and protect the well-being 
of future generations.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 806, 
the Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017, introduced by my friend 
and colleague, Pete Olson. This bill is necessary to shield States from 
job-killing mandates and ozone levels proposed by the Obama 
administration in October of 2015.
  Most States are just beginning to adopt the 75 parts per billion 
ozone standard proposed in 2008, as the EPA didn't announce 
implementation guidance and a final rule until March 6 of 2015. Rather 
than allowing time for that standard to be implemented, the Obama 
administration moved the goalposts and unilaterally sought to 
dramatically lower the ozone standard once again to 70 parts per 
billion in October 2015.
  Industry analysis projects that more than 950 different counties 
throughout the country will immediately be in nonattainment under the 
October 2015, 70 parts per billion standard. To make matters worse, the 
70 parts per billion standard is not currently attainable in 9 of 10 
counties in Arizona that measure ozone levels.
  When pristine national parks like the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, and 
Rocky Mountain are in danger of being in nonattainment under the 
proposed Obama standard, there is a serious problem with the numbers.
  The Chamber of Commerce has reported that counties classified as in 
nonattainment can have important permits denied by the EPA and 
important Federal highway and transportation projects suspended.
  The Arizona Chamber Foundation and Prosper Foundation stated: ``The 
EPA's new ozone standard of 70 parts per billion will virtually be 
impossible for Arizona to meet due to Arizona's high level of 
background, limited local sources, and unique geography. . . . 
Implementation of the current rule in Arizona is not reasonable, based 
in sound science, or achievable.''
  Tri-State stated: ``In order to preserve our co-op-member owners 
access to affordable and reliable electricity, Tri-State Generation and 
Transmission Association wholeheartedly supports H.R. 806.''
  The National Taxpayer Union stated: ``The costs are high for States 
and localities, regardless of whether they achieve attainment . . . 
jobs and investments will go elsewhere without more feasible, 
predictable reforms that are present in H.R. 806.''
  Even the Obama administration projected in 2010 the unrealistic 
standard we are debating today would cost our economy between $19 to 
$25 billion annually.
  The previous administration also admitted it did not have a clear 
plan for dealing with background ozone generated by factors outside a 
State's control. This means the Obama EPA was literally attempting to 
punish States for ozone pollution that is created in other States like 
California, or in Mexico, or even China.
  The October 2015 Obama ozone rule will force companies to close their 
doors and kill countless jobs throughout the country if this bill is 
not passed.
  I thank the gentleman from Texas for sponsoring this much-needed 
legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this 
commonsense bill.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As I earlier stated, the State of Arizona has over 660,000 residents 
with asthma, including 175,000 children; and I just question putting 
their health at risk with this bill that moves us in the wrong 
direction.
  Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a number of supporting 
documents. The first is a letter opposing the bill signed by the State 
Attorneys General of New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, 
Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, 
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and the District of 
Columbia, and the Acting Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of 
Environmental Protection.


[[Page 11073]]


                                                   April 26, 2017.
     Re Opposition to H.R. 806, Ozone Standards Implementation Act 
         of 2017.

     Hon. Greg Walden, Chairman,
     Hon. Frank Pallone, Ranking Member,
     Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Walden and Representative Pallone: We 
     write in opposition to H.R. 806, Ozone Standards 
     Implementation Act of 2017. This bill would not only delay 
     implementation of more protective ozone air quality 
     standards, but, more broadly, would undermine the mandate in 
     the Clean Air Act (Act) that the national ambient air quality 
     standards for ozone and other criteria pollutants be based on 
     up-to-date scientific evidence and focus solely on protecting 
     public health and welfare. As explained below, these measures 
     would be a significant step backward in combatting the 
     dangers of ozone and other criteria pollutants.
       Many of our states have struggled for decades with the 
     pervasive problem of ozone pollution. The scientific evidence 
     of harm to public health from ozone pollution is well 
     established, as are the economic consequences. At certain 
     concentration levels, ozone irritates the respiratory system, 
     causing coughing, wheezing, chest tightness and headaches. 
     People exposed to elevated levels of ozone suffer from lung 
     tissue damage, and aggravation of asthma, bronchitis, heart 
     disease, and emphysema. Children, older adults, people with 
     asthma or other lung diseases, and people who are active 
     outdoors are particularly susceptible to the harmful health 
     effects of ozone. Public health harms also exact an economic 
     toll. For example, increased hospital admissions on bad ozone 
     days increase health care costs borne by states and local 
     governments. Ozone pollution also harms public welfare by 
     damaging trees and reducing crop yields by interfering with 
     the ability of plants to produce and store food and making 
     them more susceptible to disease, insect pests, and other 
     stressors. Ozone can also inhibit the ability of plants and 
     trees to mitigate harms from climate change.
       To protect against these and other adverse impacts and ``to 
     promote the public health and welfare and the productive 
     capacity of its population,'' the Act aims ``to protect and 
     enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources.'' 42 
     U.S.C. Sec. 7401(b)(1). To achieve this goal, the Act 
     requires EPA to adopt primary standards for certain criteria 
     pollutants, such as ozone, at a level that protects public 
     health with an ``adequate margin of safety.'' 42 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 7409(b)(1). The Act also requires EPA to adopt secondary 
     standards at a level that protects the public welfare from 
     ``any known or anticipated adverse effects.'' 42 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 7409(b)(2). The Act mandates that EPA review the air 
     quality standards for each criteria pollutant every five 
     years and revise the standards as advances in science 
     warrant. As Justice Scalia explained for a unanimous Supreme 
     Court, EPA's review must set the primary and secondary 
     standards based on the scientific evidence, and may not 
     consider implementation costs or other economic consequences. 
     Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass'ns, 531 U.S. 457, 465 (2001). 
     Rather, implementation decisions are a matter for states, 
     which are empowered to evaluate the costs and co-benefits of 
     potential implementation strategies and determine, in light 
     of those costs and co-benefits, which strategies are most 
     suitable for them. See Union Elec. Corp. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 
     246, 266 (1976).
       To ensure that our residents and natural resources enjoy 
     the benefits of the clean air that the statute demands, our 
     offices have advocated in rulemakings and litigation that EPA 
     set standards that protect public health and welfare with an 
     adequate margin of safety, as the Act requires. E.g., 
     Mississippi v. EPA, 744 F.3d 1334 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (State 
     petitioners, including New York, California, Connecticut, 
     Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, 
     Oregon, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia, 
     successfully argued for remand of secondary ozone standards); 
     American Farm Bureau Fed. v. EPA, 559 F.3d 512 (D.C. Cir. 
     2009) (State petitioners and amici, including New York, 
     California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, 
     Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania Department of 
     Environmental Protection, Rhode Island, and the District of 
     Columbia, successfully argued for remand of primary fine 
     particulate matter standards); Murray Energy v. EPA (D.C. 
     Cir. 15-1385) (State amici., including California Air 
     Resources Board, Delaware Department of Natural Resources, 
     Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the 
     District of Columbia, filed a brief supporting the 2015 
     primary ozone standard against attempts to weaken it).
       The ozone rule promulgated by EPA in 2015 strengthened the 
     primary standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) to 70 ppb. 80 
     Fed. Reg. 65,292 (Oct. 26, 2015). This level was at the high 
     end (i.e., less stringent) of the 65-70 ppb range that EPA 
     proposed in 2014. EPA's independent science advisors, the 
     Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, cautioned that this 
     level may offer little margin of safety, particularly for 
     sensitive subpopulations. Therefore, in comments on the 
     proposal, several of our states urged EPA to adopt a primary 
     standard lower than 70 ppb to protect public health with an 
     adequate margin of safety. However, even tightening the 
     standard from 75 ppb to 70 ppb will result in important 
     public health benefits. For example, EPA conservatively 
     estimated that meeting the 70 ppb standard nationally (not 
     including California) will result in net annual public health 
     benefits of up to $4.5 billion starting in 2025. These 
     national benefits include preventing approximately: 316 to 
     660 premature deaths; 230,000 asthma attacks in children; 
     160,000 missed school days; 28,000 missed work days; 630 
     asthma-related emergency room visits; and 340 cases of acute 
     bronchitis in children.
       Under current law, states will develop and submit their own 
     plans to attain the 2015 standard by 2020 or 2021. But H.R. 
     806 would delay this deadline until October 2026 and delay 
     other similarly related deadlines, postponing even further 
     the life-saving benefits of attaining clean air. The bill 
     should be rejected on these grounds alone.
       In addition, H.R. 806 would undermine the protection of 
     health and welfare from the dangers of all criteria air 
     pollutants by weakening the national ambient air quality 
     standards process for updating standards based on the most 
     recent scientific evidence. Instead of requiring that 
     standards be reviewed--and as necessary, revised--every five 
     years based on the latest scientific evidence on the harms to 
     public health and welfare from exposure to criteria 
     pollutants, H.R. 806 would require updates only once a 
     decade.
       The bill would also eliminate the Act's requirement that 
     air quality standards be set solely based on adequate 
     protection of public health and welfare. Specifically, the 
     bill would authorize the EPA Administrator to also consider 
     ``likely technological feasibility'' in establishing primary 
     and secondary standards. This provision appears designed to 
     allow EPA to weaken standards nationwide if it thinks a 
     single area might be incapable of meeting them. But if that 
     were ever the case, the Act already provides relief 
     mechanisms for the affected area. In addition, the bill 
     undermines the Act's existing protections by creating a 
     loophole that allows EPA to treat hot or dry weather as an 
     ``exceptional event'' excusing an area's nonattainment.
       Finally, the bill appears to be based on a misunderstanding 
     of the Act's balance between federal and state authority. The 
     bill directs EPA to cherry-pick hypothetical state 
     implementation strategies and only evaluate their adverse 
     side-effects, and, potentially, use that evaluation to weaken 
     ambient air quality standards. But EPA cannot know at the 
     time it sets standards what strategies states will choose, or 
     how individual states will value their beneficial side-
     effects. Those considerations should remain separate from the 
     standard-setting process.
       In summary, ozone pollution remains a serious and 
     persistent problem for our nation, posing a particular risk 
     to the health of children, the elderly and the sick, as well 
     as individuals who spend time outdoors. Because H.R. 806 
     would represent a significant step backward in combatting 
     ozone and other dangerous criteria pollutants, we urge you to 
     oppose the bill. Thank you for your attention to this 
     critical matter.
           Sincerely,
       Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of New York, Lemuel 
     Srolovic, Chief, Environmental Protection Bureau, Michael J. 
     Myers, Assistant Attorney General, Environmental Protection 
     Bureau.
       Xavier Becerra, Attorney General of California, David A. 
     Zonana, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Jonathan Wiener, 
     Deputy Attorney General.
       George Jepsen, Attorney General of Connecticut, Matthew I. 
     Levine, Kirsten S.P. Rigney, Scott N. Koschwitz, Assistant 
     Attorneys General, Office of the Attorney General.
       Matthew P. Denn, Attorney General of Delaware, Ralph K. 
     Durstein, III, Valerie S. Edge, Deputy Attorneys General, 
     Delaware Department of Justice.
       Lisa Madigan, Attorney General of Illinois, Matthew J. 
     Dunn, Gerald T. Karr, James P. Gignac, Assistant Attorneys 
     General, Environmental Enforcement Division.
       Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General of Iowa, Jacob Larson, 
     Assistant Attorney General.
       Brian Frosh, Attorney General of Maryland, Roberta R. 
     James, Assistant Attorney General.
       Maura Healey, Attorney General of Massachusetts, Christophe 
     Courchesne, Chief, Carol Iancu, Assistant Attorneys General, 
     Environmental Protection Division, Office of the Attorney 
     General.
       Hector Balderas, Attorney General of New Mexico, Bill 
     Grantham, Assistant Attorney General.
       Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General of Oregon, Paul 
     Garrahan, Attorney-in-Charge, Natural Resources Section, 
     Oregon Department of Justice.
       Josh Shapiro, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Office of 
     the Attorney General.
       Patrick McDonnell, Acting Secretary, Pennsylvania 
     Department of Environmental Protection.
       Peter Kilmartin, Attorney General of Rhode Island, Gregory 
     S. Schultz, Assistant Attorney General.
       Thomas J. Donovan, Jr., Attorney General of Vermont, 
     Nicholas F. Persampieri, Assistant Attorney General.

[[Page 11074]]

       Mark Herring, Attorney General of Virginia, John W. Daniel, 
     II, Deputy Attorney General, Matthew L. Gooch, Assistant 
     Attorney General, Environmental Section.
       Bob Ferguson, Attorney General of Washington, Katharine G. 
     Shirey, Assistant Attorney General.
       Karl A. Racine, Attorney General for the District of 
     Columbia.

  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, the second document I include in the Record 
is a letter from the Commissioner of the New York State Department of 
Environmental Conservation, again, opposing the bill.

         Office of the Commissioner, New York State Department of 
           Environmental Conservation,
                                                       Albany, NY.
     Re H.R. 806, Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017.

     Hon. John Shimkus, Chairman,
     Subcommittee on the Environment, Committee on Energy and 
         Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Paul D. Tonko, Ranking Member,
     Subcommittee on the Environment, Committee on Energy and 
         Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Honorable Chair Shimkus and Representative Tonko: The 
     State of New York strongly opposes the ``Ozone Standards 
     Implementation Act of 2017,'' which will substantially harm 
     public health to the detriment of New Yorkers and residents 
     of many other states. The proposed bill would restrict the 
     efficacy of the Clean Air Act in a way that would delay 
     implementation of critical health-based standards for 
     protecting the public from harmful ground-level ozone and 
     other dangerous air pollutants. The result of this proposed 
     bill would be the significant postponement of health and 
     environmental benefits for nearly a decade, inevitably 
     resulting in increased illness and deaths from air pollution.


                              Introduction

       The Clean Air Act (``Act'') addresses the critically 
     important issue of protecting the health and welfare of all 
     Americans from excessive levels of air pollution. It 
     establishes a federal-state partnership under which EPA, 
     informed by established science, sets National Ambient Air 
     Quality Standards (NAAQS) at a level necessary to protect 
     public health, and states develop and implement plans for 
     achieving those standards. This collaborative process has 
     significantly reduced pollutant concentrations to the great 
     benefit of the public. Importantly, the process provided by 
     the sections 109 and 110 of the Act recognizes that air 
     pollution knows no boundaries and that air quality in many 
     states, including New York, is impacted by emissions from 
     sources located upwind.
       Section 109 of the Act ensures that implementation of the 
     Act is guided by established science; it charges the Clean 
     Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) with reviewing the 
     latest ``state of the science'' relating to public and 
     environmental health, and conveying its findings to the 
     Administrator. Based on that information, the Administrator 
     establishes the NAAQS at a level necessary to protect public 
     health within a reasonable margin of safety. Under Section 
     110 of the Act, States then develop plans to achieve air 
     quality that meets the standard in those areas that do not 
     meet the standard, known as ``nonattainment'' areas.
       In its latest review, CASAC determined that the existing 
     2008 ozone NAAQS was insufficiently protective of public 
     health, particularly for at-risk groups including children, 
     older adults, people of all ages who have lung diseases such 
     as asthma, and people who are active outdoors. Based on 
     CASAC's scientific findings, EPA determined that implementing 
     the 2015 ozone NAAQS would help prevent a range of harmful 
     health effects each year, including 320 to 660 premature 
     deaths; 230,000 asthma attacks in children; 160,000 days when 
     kids miss school; 28,000 missed work days; 630 asthma-related 
     emergency room visits; and 340 cases of acute bronchitis in 
     children. EPA has identified additional serious health 
     threats from ozone including cardiovascular disease (e.g., 
     heart attacks, strokes, heart disease, congestive heart 
     failure); potential harm to the central nervous system; and 
     potential reproductive and developmental harm. The health 
     benefits from meeting the 2015 ozone NAAQS exceed the costs 
     of controls by 2 to 4 times.
       Like many other states, New York strongly supported EPA's 
     strengthening of the ozone NAAQS in 2015. This support comes 
     even though New York faces a substantial burden of achieving 
     ozone attainment in the New York City metropolitan area. 
     This-burden, however, is outweighed by the need to address 
     the serious public health impacts. In New York City, 
     approximately 1 in 10 emergency room visits for asthma are 
     attributable to ozone pollution. Rather than seek to delay 
     its ozone attainment efforts, New York strives to bring the 
     New York City metropolitan area into attainment as 
     expeditiously as possible, in order to provide its residents 
     with cleaner and more healthful air to breathe.


        Delaying public health benefits of the 2015 ozone NAAQS

       The proposed legislation would harm public health by 
     delaying the implementation of the 2015 ozone NAAQS (and its 
     corresponding health benefits) for eight years and further 
     postponing any future standard for several years beyond when 
     they are necessary. Current law requires EPA to designate 
     states under the 2015 ozone NAAQS according to their 
     monitored air quality by October 2017, and states not meeting 
     the standards would have a number of years to reach 
     compliance proportional to the severity of their ozone 
     problems. However, this legislation would defer action so 
     that designations would not be made until October 2025, thus 
     postponing even the beginning of planning efforts until after 
     attainment would otherwise have been achieved under the 
     current structure of the Act. For New Yorkers and other 
     Americans, this would result in a substantial delay in their 
     ability to breathe clean and healthful air.
       Even worse, this proposed bill compounds this public health 
     harm by allowing the construction of new power plants and 
     factories without considering their impact on a region's 
     ability to achieve compliance with the NAAQS. Under current 
     law, such new and modified facilities located in areas 
     designated nonattainment are subject to a control technology 
     review under the Clean Air Act's nonattainment new source 
     review program, which requires a demonstration of control 
     technology that would consider the ``lowest achievable 
     emission rate,'' resulting in the most stringent emission 
     limit for a certain source class. This bill would eliminate 
     these new source reviews, which are critical for advancing a 
     nonattainment area toward NAAQS compliance.
       Together, these aspects of the legislation will have even 
     worse additional adverse impacts on states like New York that 
     are victimized by upwind air pollution. First, this 
     legislation will impair New York's relief from ozone 
     transport from upwind locations. EPA modeling indicates that 
     between 75% and 94% of the ozone in the New York City 
     metropolitan area comes from sources outside of New York. 
     Although New York will continue actions to reduce emission of 
     ozone precursors, it cannot achieve healthful ozone levels 
     without a substantial reduction in emissions from states 
     located upwind, which are responsible for most of New York's 
     ozone levels. Many of these states encompass areas that are 
     currently monitoring as nonattainment, and these areas would 
     have to achieve emission reductions under current law if 
     designated nonattainment. Postponing a nonattainment 
     designation for the New York City metropolitan area will have 
     the unacceptable effect of postponing the ``good neighbor'' 
     obligation of upwind areas to reduce their significant 
     contribution to New York's nonattainment until sometime after 
     the nonattainment designation.
       Moreover, postponing compliance with nonattainment New 
     Source Review in areas that would otherwise be designated as 
     nonattainment with the ozone NAAQS establishes an inequitable 
     outcome for New York and other states that have already been 
     designated nonattainment. Under this proposed bill, new 
     industrial facilities in areas currently designated 
     nonattainment with the 2008 ozone NAAQS or in the Ozone 
     Transport Region--including all of New York--will have to 
     comply with nonattainment NSR requirements, yet facilities 
     located in regions with comparable or worse air quality and 
     much higher emissions will not have to do so for a decade or 
     more. As such, states that would otherwise be designated 
     nonattainment would gain an unfair advantage in attracting 
     business development under this bill.


Delaying public health benefits from reducing other criteria pollutants

       Aside from ozone, provisions of this proposed bill would 
     affect future NAAQS reviews for all criteria pollutants, thus 
     compounding negative public health impacts. For example, the 
     bill would irresponsibly extend the NAAQS review time from 
     five years to ten for all criteria pollutants. Retaining the 
     five-year review schedule ensures that the Administrator 
     reviews the relevant state of the science while it is timely 
     and germane. Health science moves quickly; by the time one 
     NAAQS revision is reaching completion, other pertinent 
     clinical studies are being published.
       This proposed bill weakens public health protection by 
     making cost and technological feasibility larger factors in 
     the establishment and implementation of NAAQS. The Supreme 
     Court has already upheld the notion that the consideration of 
     costs has no place in the setting of a NAAQS (Whitman v. 
     American Trucking Associations, Inc., 2001). Instead, 
     questions of technological and economic feasibility are 
     considered at the stage of implementing the NAAQS. For 
     example, the Act's nonattainment area classifications 
     recognize that areas with more difficult ozone pollution 
     problems require more time to comply. Unfortunately, Section 
     3(b) of the proposed bill would change the long-standing 
     practice of how an Administrator determines the NAAQS by 
     allowing him or her to analyze, as a secondary consideration, 
     the likely technological feasibility of a revised NAAQS. 
     Section 3(c) would expand CASAC's role to providing advice to 
     the Administrator on adverse economic effects (among others) 
     prior to the setting of the NAAQS. Taken together, these 
     proposed revisions would have

[[Page 11075]]

     the effect that NAAQS would no longer be set at levels that 
     are protective of public health and welfare.
       Finally, the proposed bill unnecessarily redefines ordinary 
     expected conditions as ``exceptional events'' that need not 
     be considered by a state in demonstrating attainment. The 
     intent of the ``extraordinary event'' exception is to allow a 
     state to discount NAAQS exceedances that result from one-
     time, unpredictable, and uncontrollable events such as 
     wildfires. The proposal, however, would allow commonplace 
     conditions such as stagnant air masses and ``meteorological 
     event[s] involving high temperatures or lack of 
     precipitation'' to be considered exceptional. In their ozone 
     planning, states should anticipate these conditions, which 
     are expected to occur each year and promote the formation of 
     ozone when public health is at the greatest risk.
       We also disagree with the proposal to allow sources to 
     avoid nonattainment new source review until release of the 
     implementation guidance. EPA's delay in issuing guidance 
     should not be an excuse to allow new sources in nonattainment 
     areas to contribute to further air quality degradation. In 
     addition, the bill's reduction of the time allotted for 
     states to formulate and submit attainment plans from the 
     current three years to one year reflects a misunderstanding 
     of the laborious process for developing these plans.


                               Conclusion

       The Clean Air Act is a bipartisan success story. Citizens 
     across the country have benefited from the Act's clean air 
     requirements over the last few decades. People can breathe 
     easier due to the clean air standards that have resulted from 
     rigorous reviews that are guided by the latest scientific 
     evidence. Passage of this proposed bill would deprive the 
     American people of those benefits, worsen air quality and 
     harm public health substantially.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Basil Seggos.

  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, the third document I include in the Record 
is a letter signed by 15 medical and public health organizations, 
again, opposing the bill.

                                                    July 17, 2017.
       Dear Representative: Clean air is fundamental for good 
     health, and the Clean Air Act promises all Americans air that 
     is safe to breathe. The undersigned public health and medical 
     organizations urge you to oppose H.R. 806, the so-called 
     ``Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017.'' A more 
     fitting name for this legislation would be the ``Smoggy Skies 
     Act,'' as it delays lifesaving standards to reduce ozone 
     pollution, or smog, and permanently weakens the Clean Air 
     Act.
       Clear, up-to-date, scientific evidence documented the need 
     for greater protection from ozone pollution, and drove the 
     stronger limit on ozone that the U.S. Environmental 
     Protection Agency (EPA) finalized in 2015. To meet the 
     updated standard, the states have clear authority and plenty 
     of time to plan and then work to reduce pollution under the 
     Clean Air Act's long-established, balanced implementation 
     timeline. Despite those facts, the Smoggy Skies Act imposes 
     additional delays and sweeping changes that will threaten 
     health, particularly the health of children, seniors and 
     people with chronic disease.
       The Smoggy Skies Act also reaches far beyond implementation 
     of the current ozone standards. It permanently weakens the 
     Clean Air Act and future air pollution health standards for 
     all criteria pollutants. Specifically, the Smoggy Skies Act 
     weakens implementation and enforcement of all lifesaving air 
     pollution health standards, including those for carbon 
     monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, 
     and sulfur dioxide. It would also permanently undermine the 
     Clean Air Act as a public health law.
       The Clean Air Act requires that EPA review the science on 
     the health impacts of carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen 
     dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide air 
     pollutants every five years and update these national ambient 
     air quality standards according to the current science. The 
     Smoggy Skies Act would lengthen the review period of the air 
     pollution health standards from once every five years to once 
     every ten years for all criteria pollutants. As the science 
     continues to evolve, the public deserves that their 
     protections be based on the most up-to-date science, 
     certainly not a schedule that is twice as long as they 
     currently have under the law. The work that EPA and states do 
     to clean up air pollution should be based on the best and 
     most current science.
       Emerging research adds crucial information to our 
     understanding of the impacts that air pollution has on human 
     health, and EPA should not have to wait a decade to 
     incorporate it. For example, on March 29, 2016, a newly 
     published study, Particulate Matter Exposure and Preterm 
     Birth: Estimates of U.S. Attributable Burden and Economic 
     Costs showed new information linking particulate air 
     pollution to nearly 16,000 preterm births per year. Under the 
     Smoggy Skies Act, EPA would have to wait as much as a decade 
     to consider such new evidence when setting standards. Ten 
     years is far too long to wait to protect public health from 
     levels of pollution that the science shows are dangerous or 
     for EPA to consider new information.
       In the 2015 review of the ozone standard, EPA examined an 
     extensive body of scientific evidence demonstrating that 
     ozone inflames the lungs, causing asthma attacks and 
     resulting in emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and 
     premature deaths. A growing body of research indicates that 
     ozone may also lead to central nervous system harm and may 
     harm developing fetuses. In response to the evidence, EPA 
     updated the ozone standards. While many of our organizations 
     called for a more protective level, there is no doubt that 
     the updated, 70 parts per billion standard provides greater 
     health protections compared to the previous standard.
       The Smoggy Skies Act would delay implementation of these 
     more protective air pollution standards for at least eight 
     years. This means eight years of illnesses and premature 
     deaths that could have been avoided. Parents will not be told 
     the truth about pollution in their community and states and 
     EPA will not work to curb pollution to meet the new 
     standards. The public has a fundamental right to know when 
     pollution in the air they breathe or the water they drink 
     threatens health, and Congress must not add eight years of 
     delay to health protections and cleanup.
       Furthermore, the American public overwhelmingly supports 
     upholding these more protective limits on ozone. A 2017 poll 
     found that by a 2-to-1 margin, Americans believe Congress 
     should leave EPA's updated standards in place, showing clear 
     public opposition to the Smoggy Skies Act.
       The Smoggy Skies Act would also permanently weaken 
     implementation of the 2015 and future ozone standards. The 
     Act would delay implementation to a date when the evidence 
     shows that most states would meet the standard with cleanup 
     measures already in place. It would also reduce requirements 
     for areas with the most dangerous levels of ozone. Areas 
     classified as being in ``extreme nonattainment'' of the 
     standard would no longer need to write plans that include 
     additional contingency measures if their initial plans fail 
     to provide the expected pollution reductions. The Clean Air 
     Act prioritizes reducing air pollution to protect the 
     public's health, but the Smoggy Skies Act opens a new 
     opportunity for communities to avoid cleaning up, 
     irrespective of the health impacts.
       Further, the bill would greatly expand the definition of an 
     exceptional event. Under the Clean Air Act, communities can 
     demonstrate to EPA that an exceptional event, such as a 
     wildfire, should not ``count'' in determining whether their 
     air quality meets the national standards. This bill would 
     recklessly expand the definition of exceptional events to 
     include high pollution days when the air is simply stagnant--
     the precise air pollution episodes the Clean Air Act was 
     designed to combat--and declare those bad air days as 
     ``exceptional.'' Changing the accounting rules will undermine 
     health protection and avoid pollution cleanup.
       Additionally, the bill would permanently weaken the Clean 
     Air Act. The Clean Air Act is one of our nation's premier 
     public health laws because it puts health first. The Act has 
     a two-step process: first, EPA considers scientific evidence 
     to decide how much air pollution is safe to breathe and sets 
     the standard that is requisite to protect public health with 
     an adequate margin of safety. Then, states work with EPA to 
     develop a plan to clean up air pollution to meet the 
     standard. Cost and feasibility are fully considered in the 
     second phase during implementation of the standard.
       This bill states that if EPA finds that ``a range of 
     levels'' of an air pollutant protect public health with an 
     adequate margin of safety, then EPA may consider 
     technological feasibility in choosing a limit within that 
     range. Further, the bill would interject implementation 
     considerations, including projections of adverse economic and 
     energy effects, into the standard setting process. These 
     changes will permanently weaken the core health-based premise 
     of the Clean Air Act--protecting the public from known health 
     effects of air pollution with a margin of safety.
       These changes would reverse the intention of the Clean Air 
     Act explicitly included by its bipartisan authors in 
     Congress: that basing the standard on the protection of 
     public health would push technology to develop new tools and 
     techniques to reduce emissions. They understood that pushing 
     the cleanup technology to meet the urgent need to protect 
     health would help to expand job development and growth. They 
     were correct, as the emission control industry today has 
     helped the nation meet stronger standards in creative, cost-
     effective ways.
       The text also explicitly states that the Smoggy Skies Act 
     does not authorize any additional funds to be appropriated to 
     EPA for its work carrying out the bill's provisions. Forcing 
     EPA to perform the additional work of implementing this bill 
     with no additional resources could put the agency's current, 
     lifesaving work at further risk.
       Finally, an amendment adopted in committee would eliminate 
     key enforcement

[[Page 11076]]

     provisions under the Clean Air Act. As amended, the bill 
     could perpetuate poor air quality in communities with the 
     highest pollution levels indefinitely. The provision waives 
     the obligation for states with areas heavily polluted by 
     ozone or particulate matter to write effective plans to 
     attain the health standards. Currently, if an area with 
     unhealthy air fails to write an adequate plan to meet air 
     pollution standards, EPA can impose sanctions. Because that 
     enforcement provision exists, EPA has almost never needed to 
     use it--states wrote effective plans. As amended, the Smoggy 
     Skies Act would bar EPA from using this key enforcement tool 
     for especially polluted areas, essentially eliminating the 
     obligation for states to write a meaningful pollution cleanup 
     plan that can demonstrate meeting the health standards.
       The Smoggy Skies Act is a sweeping attack on lifesaving 
     standards that protect public health from air pollution. This 
     bill is an extreme attempt to undermine our nation's proven 
     clean air health protections. Not only does it delay the 
     long-overdue updated ozone standards and weaken their 
     implementation and enforcement, it also permanently weakens 
     the health protections against many dangerous air pollutants 
     and the scientific basis of Clean Air Act standards.
       Please prioritize the health of your constituents and vote 
     NO on the Smoggy Skies Act.
           Sincerely,
     Allergy & Asthma Network
     Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments
     American Academy of Pediatrics
     American Lung Association
     American Public Health Association
     American Thoracic Society
     Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America
     Center for Climate Change and Health
     Children's Environmental Health Network
     Health Care Without Harm
     National Association of County & City Health Officials
     National Environmental Health Association
     National Medical Association
     Physicians for Social Responsibility
     Trust for America's Health.

  Mr. TONKO. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I include a letter signed by 121 
environmental and other groups opposing the bill.

                                                   March 21, 2017.
       Dear Senator/Representative, on behalf of our millions of 
     members, the undersigned 121 organizations urge you to oppose 
     the ``Ozone Standards Implementation Act'' (H.R. 806, S. 
     263). The innocuous-sounding name is misleading: this 
     legislation would actually systematically weaken the Clean 
     Air Act without a single improvement, undermine Americans' 
     46-year right to healthy air based on medical science, and 
     delay life-saving health standards already years overdue.
       This bill's vision of ``Ozone Standards Implementation'' 
     eliminates health benefits and the right to truly safe air 
     that Americans enjoy under today's law. First, the 
     legislation would delay for ten years the right to safer air 
     quality, and even the simple right to know if the air is safe 
     to breathe. Corporations applying for air pollution permits 
     would be free to ignore new ground-level ozone (aka smog) 
     health standards during these additional ten years. For the 
     first time the largest sources of air pollution would be 
     allowed to exceed health standards. The bill would also 
     outright excuse the parts of the country suffering the worst 
     smog pollution from having backup plans if they do not reduce 
     pollution. The most polluted parts of the country should not 
     stop doing everything they can to protect their citizens' 
     health and environment by cleaning up smog pollution.
       This bill is not content to merely weaken and delay 
     reductions in smog pollution. It also strikes at our core 
     right to clean air based on health and medical science. The 
     medically-based health standards that the law has been 
     founded on for 46 years instead could become a political 
     football weakened by polluter compliance costs. This could 
     well result in communities being exposed to unhealthy levels 
     of smog and soot and sulfur dioxide and even toxic lead 
     pollution. The bill would also double the law's five-year 
     review periods for recognizing the latest science and 
     updating health standards, which are already frequently years 
     late; this means in practice that unhealthy air would persist 
     for longer than ten years.
       The legislation also weakens implementation of current 
     clean air health standards. The bill expands exemptions for 
     ``exceptional events'' that are not counted towards 
     compliance with health standards for air quality, even when 
     air pollution levels are unsafe. This will mean more unsafe 
     air more often, with no responsibility to clean it up. 
     Requirements meant to ensure progress toward reducing smog 
     and soot pollution would shift from focusing on public health 
     and achievability to economic costs. Despite the bland name 
     ``Ozone Standards Implementation Act,'' this bill represents 
     an extreme attack on the most fundamental safeguards and 
     rights in the Clean Air Act.
       Since 1970, the Federal Clean Air Act has been organized 
     around one governing principle--that the EPA must set health 
     standards based on medical science for dangerous air 
     pollution, including smog, soot and lead, that protect all 
     Americans, with ``an adequate margin of safety'' for 
     vulnerable populations like children, the elderly and 
     asthmatics. This legislation eviscerates that principle and 
     protection. We urge you to oppose H.R. 806 and S. 263, to 
     protect our families and Americans' rights to clean air.
           Sincerely,
       350KC; 350 Loudoun; Alaska Community Action on Toxics; 
     Alton Area Cluster UCM (United Congregations of Metro-East); 
     Brentwood House; California Latino Business Institute; Center 
     for Biological Diversity; Central Valley Air Quality (CVAQ) 
     Coalition; Chesapeake Physicians for Social Responsibility; 
     Chicago Physicians for Social Responsibility.
       Citizens for Clean Air; Clean Air Watch; Clean Water 
     Action; Cleveland Environmental Action Network; Climate 
     Action Alliance of the Valley; Connecticut League of 
     Conservation Voters; Conservation Voters for Idaho; 
     Conservation Voters of South Carolina; Dakota Resource 
     Council; Earth Day Network; Earthjustice; Earthworks; 
     Environment Iowa; Environment America.
       Environment Arizona; Environment California; Environment 
     Colorado; Environment Connecticut; Environment Florida; 
     Environment Georgia; Environment Illinois; Environment Maine; 
     Environment Maryland; Environment Massachusetts; Environment 
     Michigan; Environment Minnesota; Environment Missouri; 
     Environment Montana; Environment Nevada; Environment New 
     Hampshire; Environment New Jersey; Environment New Mexico; 
     Environment North Carolina.
       Environment Ohio; Environment Oregon; Environment Rhode 
     Island; Environment Texas; Environment Virginia; Environment 
     Washington; Environmental Defense Action Fund; Environmental 
     Entrepreneurs (E2); Environmental Law & Policy Center; 
     Ethical Society of St. Louis; Faith Alliance for Climate 
     Solutions; Florida Conservation Voters; Fort Collins 
     Sustainability Group; Gasp; GreenLatinos.
       Health Care Without Harm; Iowa Interfaith Power & Light; 
     Jean-Michel Cousteau's Ocean Futures Society; KyotoUSA; 
     Labadie Environmental Organization (LEO); Latino Donor 
     Collaborative; League of Conservation Voters; League of Women 
     Voters; Maine Conservation Voters; Maryland League of 
     Conservation Voters; Michigan League of Conservation Voters; 
     Moms Clean Air Force; Montana Conservation Voters Education 
     Fund.
       Montana Environmental Information Center; National Parks 
     Conservation Association; Natural Resources Defense Council; 
     NC League of Conservation Voters; Nevada Conservation League; 
     New Mexico Environmental Law Center; New York League of 
     Conservation Voters; Northern Plains Resource Council; OEC 
     Action Fund; Ohio Organizing Collaborative, Communities 
     United for Responsible Energy; Oregon League of Conservation 
     Voters; Partnership for Policy Integrity; PennEnvironment.
       People Demanding Action, Tucson Chapter; Physicians for 
     Social Responsibility; Physicians for Social Responsibility, 
     Maine Chapter; Physicians for Social Responsibility, Los 
     Angeles Chapter; Physicians for Social Responsibility, 
     Arizona Chapter; Physicians for Social Responsibility, SF Bay 
     Area Chapter; Physicians for Social Responsibility, Tennessee 
     Chapter; Physicians for Social Responsibility, Wisconsin 
     Chapter; Powder River Basin Resource Council; Public Citizen; 
     Public Citizen's Texas Office; RVA Interfaith Climate Justice 
     Team; Safe Climate Campaign; San Juan Citizens Alliance; 
     Sierra Club.
       Southern Environmental Law Center; Texas Campaign for the 
     Environment; Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services; 
     Texas League of Conservation Voters; The Environmental 
     Justice Center at Chestnut Hills United Church; Trust for 
     America's Health; Union of Concerned Scientists; Utah 
     Physicians for a Healthy Environment; Valley Watch; Virginia 
     Organizing; Virginia Interfaith Power & Light; Voces Verdes; 
     Voices for Progress; Washington Conservation Voters; WE ACT 
     for Environmental Justice; Western Colorado Congress; Western 
     Organization of Resource Councils; Wisconsin Environmental 
     Health Network; Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters; 
     Wisconsin Environment; Wyoming Outdoor Council.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chair, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, for the folks who might be watching this today, I think it 
is important to understand that bad ozone causes a whole lot of health 
problems--things like making it difficult to breathe deeply. It can 
aggravate your emphysema. It can cause a sore and scratchy throat. It 
can aggravate lung diseases like asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis. And 
it is actually associated with asthma attacks, as I mentioned, and it 
can cause very serious

[[Page 11077]]

obstructive pulmonary disease. It is a bad thing, it is dangerous, and 
it hurts people.
  In the Obama administration, we tried to pass some standards to say 
that companies that emit the polluting substances have to comply with 
certain air standards to make sure that people don't suffer these nasty 
health effects.
  What is going on today with H.R. 806 is that the Republicans are 
going to say: No, they don't have to implement right away. They have 
got a lot more time, years, before they actually have to comply with 
these air standards.
  So what they are saying is that industries that pollute don't have to 
take the measures that they would need to take that will cost them 
money--yes, they will--in order to protect the public's health. They 
are saying that their money and the profits of their shareholders are 
more important than the lungs of our kids.
  You are going to hear them say all this stuff about jobs, jobs. 
Please. This is not about jobs. This is about money. This is about 
profitability from polluting industries that don't want to spend the 
money to protect the public's health. That is what this is about. That 
is what we are talking about.
  They always say: You can have a job, or you can breathe, but you 
can't do both. That is what our friends say. You can breathe, but then 
you won't have a job; or you can have a job, but then you can't 
breathe.
  The fact is, they want to send us to work with gas masks on, and it 
is wrong. We as a people deserve to breathe. Our kids deserve to 
breathe. Our seniors deserve to breathe. If it costs a company a little 
bit more to make sure the air that we have is breathable, then they 
should spend that money. I believe that they should, because when you 
look at the health costs on the other side, they are astronomical. What 
does it cost to lose a loved one dying from an asthma attack or 
bronchitis or obstructive pulmonary disease? What does it cost a family 
in terms of not just treasure but heartache when they have their loved 
ones hooked up to a bunch of machines and wires because they are 
undergoing a respiratory attack? That is the cost. That is the true 
cost that we have to consider, Mr. Chair.
  The real cost here is not this mythical jobs thing that they say. The 
real cost they are talking about is profitability, but the true cost to 
society is our health. Do you really want to see missed days of school, 
missed days of work? Do you really want to see more people incurring 
medical bills because of the failure of industry to protect our health 
when they are taking that stuff that they are spitting out of their 
smokestacks and putting it into the sky that we all have to breathe?
  Mr. Chair, it is time to say ``no'' to H.R. 806. No.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Bridenstine). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, let me just remind folks that what is 
going on here is that we have a 2008 standard that we were told 7 years 
afterwards: Here is how you comply.
  That same year, we get new standards saying: Oh, no, no, no. You have 
got new standards lower than what it took us 7 years to define.
  That is really the debate. We are not eliminating standards, we are 
not rolling back standards, we are just saying: Give us a break. Give 
us time to comply with the 2008 standards before you even force down 
the 2015 standards. Nothing in this bill rolls back either of those 
standards.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from South Carolina 
(Mr. Sanford).
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague from Illinois for his 
hard work, and I thank Mr. Olson for his hard work. They have worked, I 
think, tirelessly and in an awfully well-intended way to craft a 
balance between the different competing points of view on this whole 
issue of ozone.
  I know that he is concerned about people's health. I know that he is 
concerned about the environment. But on this particular issue, I am 
going to respectfully disagree and agree with my Democratic colleagues 
to say that I think that the time to act is now, because at some point 
there becomes the question: If not now, then when? At some point, delay 
moves to the point of obstruction of moving forward on an idea that has 
had its different wrinkles, in fairness to my colleague from Illinois. 
But at some point, you have to act.
  Given the fact that people's health does hang in the balance, given 
the fact that there are another 2,000 cases a day of asthma that are 
protracted, we need to have a bias for action. I think it is a time for 
action.
  I think it is reasonable. Moving from 75 to 70 parts per billion is 
not exactly a gargantuan change, given what is at play with regard to 
health. And finally, simply, I believe it fits with the conservative 
philosophy that I believe in. The conservative philosophy says that my 
rights end when they begin to infringe upon yours.
  This notion of privatizing gain and offsetting costs to the public is 
something I think we always have to watch out for when we talk about 
this notion of free markets and having them truly work.
  I, as a boy, grew up down the creek from a place called Campbell 
Creek, and there was a chemical plant that ended up dumping some stuff 
in the creek. It turned out not to be so good. It made a lasting 
impression on me as a boy. They were externalizing their costs, but 
they were internalizing their profits.
  Mr. Chair, I think we need to be true to that theme whether we are 
talking about air or water or anything else. I think that this bill 
fits under that larger description. For that reason, I do say, with all 
due respect for the hard work that has been done, that it is time to 
act on this particular bill.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, two points on the review and the standards. 
Certainly not every review would require a change in standards, and I 
think that needs to be made clear here. When we talk about the 
difficulty of having to respond or achieve the standards that have been 
established and then they go stronger, well, on your way to 70 parts 
per billion, you are going to be moving through 75 parts per billion as 
you reduce those particulates that get emitted into our air. It is only 
logical that you could move along and continue to improve those 
standards.
  This is about maintaining a quality of life, enhancing a quality of 
life, cutting into, for public health policy purposes, the devastating 
impacts of air pollutants and their relation to our public health.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Barragan).
  Ms. BARRAGAN. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to the ``Smoggy 
Skies Act,'' a bill that would effectively gut the Clean Water Act.
  I represent one of the most heavily polluted districts in California. 
As a matter of fact, sometimes kids in my district walk around with 
inhalers around their necks.
  When I was a kid, my father had a home next to the freeway, and I 
first thought it was a great place to live because it was conveniently 
by the freeway, and what I later learned about air pollution and smog 
and the ozone layer, I knew it was not a good thing. When I see kids in 
my district walk around with inhalers, it just breaks my heart.
  Every day, many of my constituents, people of color and low income, 
are surrounded by oil refineries, major highways, and industrial 
activities. These activities generate ozone pollution, the key 
ingredient for smog. It is dangerous. It is deadly.
  Since 1970, the Clean Air Act has reduced the ozone in our air, 
protecting Americans against health problems, including asthma and 
heart attacks, shortness of breath, low birth weight, and premature 
death. Clean air is a good investment. The benefits of a healthy 
environment pay off in worker productivity and longevity. Unhealthy 
people can't work or go to school, which is also a problem in my 
district where only 10 percent of students go on to college.
  Oftentimes, it is a cycle. They are outside, they breathe in the 
dirty air, they get sick, they have asthma, they have to go to the 
doctor, and they miss

[[Page 11078]]

school. That is only contributing to the low graduation rates that we 
are seeing happen in my district.
  Smog is not only harmful to health, I think it is harmful especially 
in young children, in our seniors, and in some of our most vulnerable 
communities.
  Over a third of the U.S. population lives in areas with unhealthy 
ozone levels--areas that would have to clean up the air under the new 
and improved 2015 ozone standards.
  The ``Smoggy Skies Act'' is the latest in a series of congressional 
attempts to gut the Clean Air Act and block or delay lifesaving 
standards and protection.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 806, the 
``Smoggy Skies Act.''
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority leader of the House.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time 
and for his work.
  Mr. Chair, when you drive up north through and past my district in 
California, you go through some amazing places--Sequoia National Park, 
Kings Canyon, then right on over to Yosemite. These are beautiful 
places. American treasures. You don't have to go far off the road to 
feel like you are remote and completely surrounded by the peacefulness 
of nature.
  I have had my troubles with the EPA--regulatory cap and trade, waters 
of the U.S. rule. They are a couple that come to mind. But I do think 
and believe there is a purpose to ozone standards that clean up our air 
and make our communities healthier.
  Yet the latest ozone and particulate matter regulations are so severe 
and divorced from reality that even the national parks like Sequoia, 
Kings Canyon, and Yosemite may not be clean enough. If such pristine 
nature isn't clean, nothing can be.
  The problem is that the EPA sets new standards before we reach the 
old ones, and even before we have the technology to reach the new 
standards, the only result will be failure.
  California's Central Valley faces many disadvantages with air 
quality. We have prevailing winds from the north to send us pollution 
from San Francisco, and because of our topography, it traps it all in. 
But we have made some amazing progress. Good days, when ozone isn't a 
problem, are up 144 percent since 2002. Unhealthy ones are down over 75 
percent in the same period. You see similar trends in particulate 
matter as well.
  But no matter how much better we make our air, we cannot catch up to 
reach the latest unrealistic EPA hurdles. The head of the San Joaquin 
Valley Air Pollution Control District said that, to do so, we would 
have to stop all fossil fuel combustion in the Central Valley. If we 
don't do that, don't stop all industry, stop building, stop businesses, 
and even stop driving our cars, you know what will happen? We will be 
punished, and we will be fined for where we live.
  Now, something obviously has to change because these regulations are 
not rooted in reality. In this legislation, Mr. Chair, Congressman Pete 
Olson's Ozone Standards Implementation Act, we don't get rid of ozone 
or particulate matter standards, we don't even oppose raising our 
standards when we use our technology and abilities to improve. What we 
do is make sure that the standards are set with a specific level for a 
set time so that the EPA cannot come back and change the goalpost every 
few years.
  What we do is make sure that the EPA actually determines whether 
something is technologically possible when setting new attainment 
deadlines. What we do is make sure we aren't penalized for all things 
affecting our air that we can't control.

                              {time}  1530

  We made sure that this legislation accomplished these goals without 
rolling back the protections for our communities or without backsliding 
on meeting current EPA standards in the Central Valley.
  In the end, we must have clean air, but we have to be smart with this 
and set achievable and fixed goals our communities can meet. Building 
on our success, the people of our district and across America can 
continue to have cleaner air tomorrow than we do today.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chair, I want to remind my colleagues, having just heard from a 
Californian, that California has nearly 3 million residents with 
asthma, including 650,000 children. Why on Earth would we want to put 
them at further risk by going backward? I suggest that we keep that in 
mind as we vote on this measure.
  I heard the comment made about unachievable or unrealistic standards. 
Well, how is it that we have been making progress through the years? We 
have been growing jobs, and we have been cleaning the air. How is it 
that that was deemed unrealistic and unachievable?
  Mr. Chairman, I believe in the pioneer spirit of this great country. 
I believe in her intellect. I believe in the passion to do the right 
thing. And I think that will continue to motivate us as we listen to 
scientists who tell us about the standards that we ought to achieve.
  On our way to 75 parts per billion, we know that it is continued 
progress if we achieve 70; and if we listen to the Clean Air Scientific 
Advisory Committee, they will tell us that the air, for safety, with 
the safety factor, we should be closer to 60. So we have much more room 
for progress, and we have the technological wizardry to make that 
happen. Our children and generations unborn are counting on us.
  As has been stated many times over today, this is a move in a 
backward direction. We are concerned on this side of the aisle about 
H.R. 806. We need to know that the standards that are out there are 
achievable, that those standards drive technological improvement.
  We can grow the economy and clean the air. They are not mutually 
exclusive. In fact, we have proven that they are inclusive.
  Mr. Chair, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this effort of 
opposition to H.R. 806. It is, as many have called it, an effort that 
will continue to hold back progress.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I would first of all like to thank my colleague from New York who 
serves as the ranking member of the committee. We have done some good 
work together that we look forward to bringing to the floor in a more 
amicable setting. Obviously, this one is not. I wish it could have 
been, but so the public policy world goes.
  Let me, in my remaining time, highlight some of the organizations 
that are supporting our action. Through the committee process, we had 
the Farm Bureau, the American Petroleum Institute, the American Fuel & 
Petrochemical Manufacturers, the Portland Cement Association, National 
Association of Manufacturers, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce express 
the need to reform and modernize the Clean air Act in order to 
encourage economic growth and job creation, because we understand that 
what has, also, a major impact on health and welfare is our citizens 
having good-paying jobs.
  There is a focus on what we are trying to do as Republicans through 
the legislative process, and we want to reduce the tax burdens, to ease 
the regulatory burdens, and to create jobs so that all of our citizens 
are able to achieve their economic goals and aspirations.
  We also received a letter today that I include in the Record from 
over 145 organizations and over close to 20 State chambers of commerce.

                                                    July 18, 2017.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Chuck Schumer,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Speaker Ryan, and Minority 
     Leaders

[[Page 11079]]

     Schumer and Pelosi: The undersigned, which represent a 
     diverse group of industries from across the country, write to 
     express our strong support for H.R. 806 and S. 263, the 
     ``Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017.'' This 
     legislation provides a common-sense approach for implementing 
     national ambient air quality standards, recognizes ongoing 
     state efforts to improve air quality through a reasonable 
     implementation schedule for the 2015 ozone standards, 
     streamlines the air permitting process for businesses to 
     expand operations and create jobs, and includes other reforms 
     that bring more regulatory certainty to federal air quality 
     standards. Additionally, the undersigned support language 
     including certain elements of H.R. 806 and S. 263 included in 
     the Fiscal Year 2018 Interior, Environment and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations bill.
       We have significant concerns that the 2015 ozone standards 
     overlap with existing state plans to implement the 2008 ozone 
     standards, leading to duplicative and wasteful implementation 
     schedules, and unnecessary and severe economic impacts. The 
     new ozone standards were promulgated in October 2015, only 
     months after states received their final guidance from the 
     Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on how to implement the 
     2008 ozone standards. This delay was the result of the Obama 
     administration's decision to halt work on the 2008 ozone 
     standards during a 2010-2011 reconsideration period. The EPA, 
     however, did not account for this self-imposed delay when 
     issuing the 2015 ozone standards, thereby imposing 
     duplicative costs and burdens of implementing multiple 
     standards simultaneously. This is particularly wasteful as 
     the EPA itself projects that nearly the entire country would 
     attain the 2015 ozone standards simply by being provided an 
     opportunity to fully implement already-planned measures like 
     their state implementation plans for the 2008 ozone 
     standards. Local economies also face severe impacts, as 
     analysis of data indicates that the 2015 ozone standards 
     could expand nonattainment to more than 950 counties if 
     planned reductions are not allowed time to take effect, 
     subjecting large parts of the country to costly nonattainment 
     control requirements.
       Notwithstanding concerns expressed by thousands of elected 
     officials, state agencies, businesses, community groups, and 
     other stakeholders, the EPA issued the 2015 ozone standards 
     without addressing the overlap with the 2008 ozone standards 
     and the enormous impacts that dual implementation would have 
     on limited state resources, permitting, and the economy. It 
     is now up to Congress to address these issues, and that is 
     why we support H.R. 806 and S. 263. By better aligning the 
     2015 ozone standards with the 2008 ozone standards and their 
     associated emissions reductions, H.R. 806 and S. 263 will 
     help prevent unnecessary nonattainment designations and cost 
     burdens, without sacrificing environmental protection. The 
     legislation's permitting relief and other reforms are also an 
     important step towards national ambient air quality standards 
     that balance environmental protection and economic 
     development.
       In sum, H.R. 806 and S. 263 and the related appropriations 
     language provide a common-sense plan that maintains continued 
     air quality improvement without unnecessarily straining state 
     and local economic resources.
       We strongly encourage Congress to act quickly on this 
     critical legislation.
       Alabama Petroleum Council; Alaska Chamber; Alliance of 
     Automobile Manufacturers; Alliance of Wyoming Manufacturers; 
     Aluminum Association; American Chemistry Council; American 
     Coatings Association; American Coke and Coal Chemicals 
     Institute; American Farm Bureau Federation; American Forest & 
     Paper Association; American Fuel & Petrochemical 
     Manufacturers; American Iron and Steel Institute; American 
     Petroleum Institute; American Road & Transportation Builders 
     Association (ARTBA); American Wood Council; Anderson Area 
     Chamber of Commerce; Apache Junction Chamber of Commerce; API 
     New York; API Ohio; API South Carolina.
       Ardagh Group, Glass North America; Arizona Chamber of 
     Commerce and Industry; Arizona Mining Association; Arkansas 
     Petroleum Council; Ascension Chamber of Commerce; Associated 
     Petroleum Industries of Michigan; Associated Petroleum 
     Industries of Pennsylvania; Association of American 
     Railroads; Baton Rouge Area Chamber; Buckeye Valley Chamber 
     of Commerce; Carefree Cave Creek Chamber of Commerce; Cedar 
     City Area Chamber of Commerce; Chandler Chamber of Commerce; 
     Chemical Industry Council of California; Chemical Industry 
     Council of Illinois; Chemistry Council of New Jersey; 
     Colorado Association of Commerce & Industry; Colorado Oil & 
     Gas Association; Colorado Petroleum Association; Colorado 
     Petroleum Council.
       Colorado Wyoming Petroleum Marketers Association; 
     Connecticut Petroleum Council; Consumer Energy Alliance; 
     Consumer Specialty Products Association; Council of 
     Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO); CVR Energy, Inc.; Delaware 
     Petroleum Council; East Valley Chambers of Commerce Alliance; 
     Fashion Jewelry & Accessories Trade Association; Flexible 
     Packaging Association; Florida Petroleum Council; Fountain 
     Hills Chamber of Commerce; Georgia Chemistry Council; Georgia 
     Petroleum Council; Gilbert Chamber of Commerce; Glass 
     Packaging Institute (GPI); Global Cold Chain Alliance; GPA 
     Midstream Association; Grand Rapids Area Chamber of Commerce; 
     Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce.
       Greater Baton Rouge Industry Alliance, Inc.; Greater 
     Cheyenne Chamber of Commerce; Greater Coachella Valley 
     Chamber of Commerce; Greater Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce; 
     Greater North Dakota Chamber of Commerce; Greater Phoenix 
     Chamber of Commerce; Greater Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce; 
     Illinois Petroleum Council; Independent Petroleum Association 
     of America; Indiana Petroleum Council; Industrial Energy 
     Consumers of America (IECA); Industrial Environmental 
     Association; Industrial Minerals Association--North America; 
     Institute of Makers of Explosives; Institute of Shortening 
     and Edible Oils; Iowa Association of Business and Industry; 
     Kansas Petroleum Council; Kentucky Association of 
     Manufacturers; Kentucky Chamber of Commerce; Kentucky 
     Chemical Industry Council.
       Lodi District Chamber of Commerce; Louisiana Association of 
     Business and Industry; Louisiana Chemical Association; 
     Manufacture Alabama; Maryland Petroleum Council; 
     Massachusetts Petroleum Council; Mesa Chamber of Commerce; 
     Michigan Chemistry Council; Minnesota Petroleum Council; 
     Missouri Petroleum Council; National Asphalt Pavement 
     Association; National Association of Chemical Distributors; 
     National Association of Manufacturers; National Cotton 
     Council; National Council of Farmer Cooperatives; National 
     Lime Association; National Mining Association; National 
     Oilseed Processors Association; National Tooling and 
     Machining Association; Nebraska Chamber of Commerce and 
     Industry.
       New Jersey Petroleum Council; New Mexico Association of 
     Commerce & Industry; New York State Chemistry Council; North 
     American Die Casting Association; North Carolina Petroleum 
     Council; North Orange County Chamber; Ohio Chamber of 
     Commerce; Ohio Chemistry Technology Council; Oklahoma State 
     Chamber; Oregon Women In Timber; Owens Illinois, Inc.; Oxnard 
     Chamber of Commerce; Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and 
     Industry; Petroleum Marketers Association of America; 
     Portland Cement Association; Precision Machined Products 
     Association; Precision Metalforming Association; Queen Creek 
     Chamber of Commerce; Rancho Cordova Chamber of Commerce; Roof 
     Coatings Manufacturers Association (RCMA).
       Salt Lake Chamber; San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership; 
     Scottsdale Area Chamber of Commerce; South Carolina Chamber 
     of Commerce; South Carolina Manufacturers Alliance; Tempe 
     Chamber of Commerce; Tennessee Chamber of Commerce & 
     Industry; Tennessee Petroleum Council; Texas Association of 
     Manufacturers; Texas Oil and Gas Association; The Fertilizer 
     Institute; Treated Wood Council; Truck and Engine 
     Manufacturers Association; Tucson Metro Chamber; Tulsa 
     Regional Chamber; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Utah Petroleum 
     Association; Virginia Chamber of Commerce; Virginia Petroleum 
     Council; West Baton Rouge Chamber of Commerce.
       West Virginia Chamber of Commerce; West Virginia 
     Manufacturers Association; West Virginia Petroleum Council; 
     Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce; Wisconsin Petroleum 
     Council; Wyoming Petroleum Marketers Association; Yuma County 
     Chamber of Commerce.

  Mr. SHIMKUS. If I may, in the middle paragraph it says: ``We have 
significant concerns that the 2015 ozone standards overlap with 
existing State plans to implement the 2008 ozone standards, leading to 
duplicative and wasteful implementation schedules, and unnecessary and 
severe economic impacts. The new ozone standards were promulgated in 
October of 2015, only months after States received their final guidance 
from the Environmental Protection Agency on how to implement the 2008 
ozone standards.''
  Mr. Chairman, I couldn't say it any better than that. This is not, as 
I have said a couple of times, a rolling back of our regulations. This 
is identifying the fact that 2008 standards were implemented. It took 7 
years to do the implementation guidelines, and when those guidelines 
came out 3 months after that, the Federal Government, through the EPA 
said, oh, we are going to now ratchet it down 5 more parts per billion, 
which leads you to believe that people are trying to comply.
  Other benefits of this bill address the fact that you could be in the 
remotest parts of the country and fall against the EPA and ozone 
standards based upon nothing that you can do. We have communities that 
are trying to comply, are doing great work, but they are receiving 
emissions outside of their control. Plus, they will be penalized for 
that.
  So we look forward to continued debates. I know that there have been

[[Page 11080]]

amendments offered that we will consider.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, printed in the bill, it shall be 
in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
under the 5-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.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                                H.R. 806

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Ozone Standards 
     Implementation Act of 2017''.

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

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

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

       (a) Timeline for Review of National Ambient Air Quality 
     Standards.--
       (1) Ten-year cycle for all criteria air pollutants.--
     Paragraphs (1) and (2)(B) of section 109(d) of the Clean Air 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 7409(d)) are amended by striking ``five-year 
     intervals'' each place it appears and inserting ``10-year 
     intervals''.
       (2) Cycle for next review of ozone criteria and 
     standards.--Notwithstanding section 109(d) of the Clean Air 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 7409(d)), the Administrator shall not--
       (A) complete, before October 26, 2025, any review of the 
     criteria for ozone published under section 108 of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 7408) or the national ambient air quality standard 
     for ozone promulgated under section 109 of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7409); or
       (B) propose, before such date, any revisions to such 
     criteria or standard.
       (b) Consideration of Technological Feasibility.--Section 
     109(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7409(b)(1)) is 
     amended by inserting after the first sentence the following: 
     ``If the Administrator, in consultation with the independent 
     scientific review committee appointed under subsection (d), 
     finds that a range of levels of air quality for an air 
     pollutant are requisite to protect public health with an 
     adequate margin of safety, as described in the preceding 
     sentence, the Administrator may consider, as a secondary 
     consideration, likely technological feasibility in 
     establishing and revising the national primary ambient air 
     quality standard for such pollutant.''.
       (c) Consideration of Adverse Public Health, Welfare, 
     Social, Economic, or Energy Effects.--Section 109(d)(2) of 
     the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7409(d)(2)) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(D) Prior to establishing or revising a national ambient 
     air quality standard, the Administrator shall request, and 
     such committee shall provide, advice under subparagraph 
     (C)(iv) regarding any adverse public health, welfare, social, 
     economic, or energy effects which may result from various 
     strategies for attainment and maintenance of such national 
     ambient air quality standard.''.
       (d) Timely Issuance of Implementing Regulations and 
     Guidance.--Section 109 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7409) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Timely Issuance of Implementing Regulations and 
     Guidance.--
       ``(1) In general.--In publishing any final rule 
     establishing or revising a national ambient air quality 
     standard, the Administrator shall, as the Administrator 
     determines necessary to assist States, permitting 
     authorities, and permit applicants, concurrently publish 
     regulations and guidance for implementing the standard, 
     including information relating to submission and 
     consideration of a preconstruction permit application under 
     the new or revised standard.
       ``(2) Applicability of standard to preconstruction 
     permitting.--If the Administrator fails to publish final 
     regulations and guidance that include information relating to 
     submission and consideration of a preconstruction permit 
     application under a new or revised national ambient air 
     quality standard concurrently with such standard, then such 
     standard shall not apply to the review and disposition of a 
     preconstruction permit application until the Administrator 
     has published such final regulations and guidance.
       ``(3) Rules of construction.--
       ``(A) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to 
     preclude the Administrator from issuing regulations and 
     guidance to assist States, permitting authorities, and permit 
     applicants in implementing a national ambient air quality 
     standard subsequent to publishing regulations and guidance 
     for such standard under paragraph (1).
       ``(B) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to 
     eliminate the obligation of a preconstruction permit 
     applicant to install best available control technology and 
     lowest achievable emission rate technology, as applicable.
       ``(C) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to 
     limit the authority of a State, local, or Tribal permitting 
     authority to impose more stringent emissions requirements 
     pursuant to State, local, or Tribal law than national ambient 
     air quality standards.
       ``(4) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) The term `best available control technology' has the 
     meaning given to that term in section 169(3).
       ``(B) The term `lowest achievable emission rate' has the 
     meaning given to that term in section 171(3).
       ``(C) The term `preconstruction permit'--
       ``(i) means a permit that is required under this title for 
     the construction or modification of a stationary source; and
       ``(ii) includes any such permit issued by the Environmental 
     Protection Agency or a State, local, or Tribal permitting 
     authority.''.
       (e) Contingency Measures for Extreme Ozone Nonattainment 
     Areas.--Section 172(c)(9) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7502(c)(9)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 
     ``Notwithstanding the preceding sentences and any other 
     provision of this Act, such measures shall not be required 
     for any nonattainment area for ozone classified as an Extreme 
     Area.''.
       (f) Plan Submissions and Requirements for Ozone 
     Nonattainment Areas.--Section 182 of the Clean Air Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7511a) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(1)(A)(ii)(III), by inserting ``and 
     economic feasibility'' after ``technological achievability'';
       (2) in subsection (c)(2)(B)(ii), by inserting ``and 
     economic feasibility'' after ``technological achievability'';
       (3) in subsection (e), in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1)--
       (A) by striking ``The provisions of clause (ii) of 
     subsection (c)(2)(B) (relating to reductions of less than 3 
     percent), the provisions of paragaphs'' and inserting ``The 
     provisions of paragraphs''; and
       (B) by striking ``, and the provisions of clause (ii) of 
     subsection (b)(1)(A) (relating to reductions of less than 15 
     percent)''; and
       (4) in paragraph (5) of subsection (e), by striking ``, if 
     the State demonstrates to the satisfaction of the 
     Administrator that--'' and all that follows through the end 
     of the paragraph and inserting a period.
       (g) Plan Revisions for Milestones for Particulate Matter 
     Nonattainment Areas.--Section 189(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 7513a(c)(1)) is amended by inserting ``, which 
     take into account technological achievability and economic 
     feasibility,'' before ``and which demonstrate reasonable 
     further progress''.
       (h) Exceptional Events.--Section 319(b)(1)(B) of the Clean 
     Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7619(b)(1)(B)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (i)--
       (A) by striking ``(i) stagnation of air masses or'' and 
     inserting ``(i)(I) ordinarily occurring stagnation of air 
     masses or (II)''; and
       (B) by inserting ``or'' after the semicolon;
       (2) by striking clause (ii); and
       (3) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (ii).
       (i) Report on Emissions Emanating From Outside the United 
     States.--Not later than 24

[[Page 11081]]

     months after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Administrator, in consultation with States, shall submit to 
     the Congress a report on--
       (1) the extent to which foreign sources of air pollution, 
     including emissions from sources located outside North 
     America, impact--
       (A) designations of areas (or portions thereof) as 
     nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable under section 
     107(d) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7407(d)); and
       (B) attainment and maintenance of national ambient air 
     quality standards;
       (2) the Environmental Protection Agency's procedures and 
     timelines for disposing of petitions submitted pursuant to 
     section 179B(b) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7509a(b));
       (3) the total number of petitions received by the Agency 
     pursuant to such section 179B(b), and for each such petition 
     the date initially submitted and the date of final 
     disposition by the Agency; and
       (4) whether the Administrator recommends any statutory 
     changes to facilitate the more efficient review and 
     disposition of petitions submitted pursuant to such section 
     179B(b).
       (j) Study on Ozone Formation.--
       (1) Study.--The Administrator, in consultation with States 
     and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
     shall conduct a study on the atmospheric formation of ozone 
     and effective control strategies, including--
       (A) the relative contribution of man-made and naturally 
     occurring nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, and 
     other pollutants in ozone formation in urban and rural areas, 
     including during wildfires, and the most cost-effective 
     control strategies to reduce ozone; and
       (B) the science of wintertime ozone formation, including 
     photochemical modeling of wintertime ozone formation, and 
     approaches to cost-effectively reduce wintertime ozone 
     levels.
       (2) Peer review.--The Administrator shall have the study 
     peer reviewed by an independent panel of experts in 
     accordance with the requirements applicable to a highly 
     influential scientific assessment.
       (3) Report.--The Administrator shall submit to Congress a 
     report describing the results of the study, including the 
     findings of the peer review panel.
       (4) Regulations and guidance.--The Administrator shall 
     incorporate the results of the study, including the findings 
     of the peer review panel, into any Federal rules and guidance 
     implementing the 2015 ozone standards.

     SEC. 4. APPLICABILITY OF SANCTIONS AND FEES IF EMISSIONS 
                   BEYOND CONTROL.

       The Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) is amended by 
     inserting after section 179B the following new section:

     ``SEC. 179C. APPLICABILITY OF SANCTIONS AND FEES IF EMISSIONS 
                   BEYOND CONTROL.

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this Act, with respect to any nonattainment area that is 
     classified under section 181 as severe or extreme for ozone 
     or under section 188 as serious for particulate matter, no 
     sanction or fee under section 179 or 185 shall apply with 
     respect to a State (or a local government or source therein) 
     on the basis of a deficiency described in section 179(a), or 
     the State's failure to attain a national ambient air quality 
     standard for ozone or particulate matter by the applicable 
     attainment date, if the State demonstrates that the State 
     would have avoided such deficiency or attained such standard 
     but for one or more of the following:
       ``(1) Emissions emanating from outside the nonattainment 
     area.
       ``(2) Emissions from an exceptional event (as defined in 
     section 319(b)(1)).
       ``(3) Emissions from mobile sources to the extent the State 
     demonstrates that--
       ``(A) such emissions are beyond the control of the State to 
     reduce or eliminate; and
       ``(B) the State is fully implementing such measures as are 
     within the authority of the State to control emissions from 
     the mobile sources.
       ``(b) No Effect on Underlying Standards.--The 
     inapplicability of sanctions or fees with respect to a State 
     pursuant to subsection (a) does not affect the obligation of 
     the State (and local governments and sources therein) under 
     other provisions of this Act to establish and implement 
     measures to attain a national ambient air quality standard 
     for ozone or particulate matter.
       ``(c) Periodic Renewal of Demonstration.--For subsection 
     (a) to continue to apply with respect to a State or local 
     government (or source therein), the State involved shall 
     renew the demonstration required by subsection (a) at least 
     once every 5 years.''.

     SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
       (2) Best available control technology.--The term ``best 
     available control technology'' has the meaning given to that 
     term in section 169(3) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7479(3)).
       (3) Highly influential scientific assessment.--The term 
     ``highly influential scientific assessment'' means a highly 
     influential scientific assessment as defined in the 
     publication of the Office of Management and Budget entitled 
     ``Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review'' (70 
     Fed. Reg. 2664 (January 14, 2005)).
       (4) Lowest achievable emission rate.--The term ``lowest 
     achievable emission rate'' has the meaning given to that term 
     in section 171(3) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7501(3)).
       (5) National ambient air quality standard.--The term 
     ``national ambient air quality standard'' means a national 
     ambient air quality standard promulgated under section 109 of 
     the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7409).
       (6) Preconstruction permit.--The term ``preconstruction 
     permit''--
       (A) means a permit that is required under title I of the 
     Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) for the construction 
     or modification of a stationary source; and
       (B) includes any such permit issued by the Environmental 
     Protection Agency or a State, local, or Tribal permitting 
     authority.
       (7) 2015 ozone standards.--The term ``2015 ozone 
     standards'' means the national ambient air quality standards 
     for ozone published in the Federal Register on October 26, 
     2015 (80 Fed. Reg. 65292).

     SEC. 6. NO ADDITIONAL FUNDS AUTHORIZED.

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

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in House Report 115-
229. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered 
read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally 
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
of the question.


            Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Castor of Florida

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in House Report 115-229.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       At the end of section 2, add the following new subsection:
       (c) Limitation.--This section shall not apply if the Clean 
     Air Scientific Advisory Committee finds that application of 
     subsection (a) could increase (especially for vulnerable 
     populations such as children, seniors, pregnant women, 
     outdoor workers, and minority and low-income communities) any 
     of the following:
       (1) Asthma attacks.
       (2) Hospitalization and emergency room visits for those 
     with respiratory disease or cardiovascular disease.
       (3) The risk of preterm birth, babies born with low birth 
     weight, or impaired fetal growth.
       (4) The risk of heart attacks, stroke, or premature death.
       (5) Reproductive, developmental, or other serious harms to 
     human health.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 451, the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Castor) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chair, my amendment seeks to ensure that 
American families aren't forced to pick up the costs of air pollution 
that should be rightfully borne by polluters. My amendment seeks to 
protect kids across America, our older neighbors, and the most 
vulnerable to smog and dirty air.
  My amendment says that the Republicans' ``Smoggy Skies Act'' will not 
take effect if the EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee finds 
negative impacts on individuals with asthma, bronchitis, COPD, and 
other health conditions, particularly in children and our older 
neighbors, pregnant women, folks who work outdoors, and those in 
working-class communities.
  Mr. Chairman, Americans value their health and they value America's 
landmark Clean Air Act. Earlier this year, the American Lung 
Association released a new poll showing that 61 percent of all 
Americans support stronger smog standards and clearly oppose this 
dirty-air policy.
  Harold P. Wimmer, national president and CEO of the American Lung 
Association, said: ``More than half of all Americans breathe polluted 
air, putting them at risk of asthma attacks, respiratory infections, 
and premature death.''
  The public wants clean, healthy air. It is no surprise that American 
voters strongly support maintaining safeguards to protect their health 
from the dangers of ozone pollution.

[[Page 11082]]

  I have seen great improvement in the air quality over my lifetime 
back home in Tampa, Florida. We have heard in front of our committee 
and heard from folks through social media, from Democrats and 
Republicans here today, how much they value clean air and how much 
progress we have seen. Yet, according to the Florida KIDS COUNT Data 
book, in 2016, asthma emergency department visits reached over 48,000 
in my State, and hospitalizations are in the thousands and thousands. 
That takes a toll, and it is very costly. Florida is not alone. This 
affects all Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, you might have heard during general debate that I 
referenced a new, very important study that came out at in the month of 
June in the New England Journal of Medicine. Here is a press report 
that summarizes the study.
  The title of the story is: ``U.S. Air Pollution Still Kills Thousands 
Every Year, Study Concludes.
  ``The air Americans breathe has been getting cleaner for decades.
  ``But air pollution is still killing thousands in the U.S. every 
year. . . .
  ```We are now providing bullet-proof evidence that we are breathing 
harmful air,' says Francesca Dominici, a professor of biostatistics at 
the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, who led the study. `Our 
air is contaminated.'
  ``Dominici and her colleagues set out to do the most comprehensive 
study to date assessing the toll that air pollution takes on American 
lives.
  ``The researchers used data from Federal air monitoring stations as 
well as satellites to compile a detailed picture of air pollution down 
to individual ZIP Codes. They then analyzed the impact of very low 
levels of air pollution on mortality, using data from 60 million 
Medicare patients from 2000 to 2012.''
  They said: ``About 12,000 lives could be saved each year . . . by 
cutting the level of fine particulate matter nationwide by just 1 
microgram per cubic meter of air below current standards.
  Dominici said: ```It's very strong, compelling evidence that, 
currently, the safety standards are not safe enough.'''
  And yet, Republicans want to take us backwards. They are going to 
side with polluters over the health of American families, and I think 
that is wrong.
  The proposed rollbacks by the Trump administration and this 
Republican Congress are simply a costly, dirty air policy. Repealing 
clean air rules will bring about disastrous health and economic damage 
to not only the folks I represent back home in Florida, but all across 
the country.
  So let's be clear. Ozone, or smog, is a corrosive gas that forms when 
emissions from smokestacks and tailpipes cook in the heat and sunlight. 
It triggers asthma and other respiratory illnesses. It is very 
expensive. It is not fair for Republicans to let polluters off the hook 
and shift costs to hardworking American families.
  So if you believe in clean air in our great country, support my 
amendment. If you believe environmental protection based on science, 
support my amendment. If you want to stand with American families over 
polluters who seek shortcuts, support the Castor amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague, and I don't 
question her passion and her evaluation of her perception about what we 
are doing.
  But again, as I have said in general debate, nothing in this bill 
rolls back the 2008 standards; nothing rolls back the 2015 standards. 
The attempt is to say: Why is it so difficult to believe that we should 
meet the 2008 standards and give our communities time to do that before 
we throw on them a new 2015 standard? So that is the basic premise.
  This amendment would allow the advisory panel to nullify one of the 
central provisions of the bill, section 2(a), which allows States to 
fully implement the 2008 ozone standards for which EPA only issued the 
implementing regulations in 2015 before turning to 2015.
  So EPA says meet the 2008 standards. Delay, delay, delay; don't know 
how to do it; no guidelines. 2015 comes, they say meet the 2008 
standards; 3 months later, oh, but now we have got 2015 standards we 
want you to comply with. That is the basic premise of this bill.

                              {time}  1545

  Ozone air quality will continue to improve under H.R. 806. Regarding 
the 2015 standards, the EPA projects the vast majority of U.S. counties 
will meet the 2015 ozone standards by 2025 just with the rules and 
programs now in place or underway.
  The bill ensures hundreds of counties are on track to meeting the 
2015 standards, and that can come into compliance without being 
subjected to additional regulatory burdens, paper requirements, or 
restrictions, which will not do anything to improve public health.
  The bill also does not limit States from imposing more stringent 
emission requirements if a State finds that such a condition exists in 
section 2. Nowhere does the bill authorize States to increase their 
emissions. This is not about continuing to improve air quality in a 
manner that doesn't require the States to duplicate paperwork 
requirements.
  Since 1980, ozone levels have declined 32 percent, and as we talk 
about in the environmental process, the low-hanging fruit has been 
picked. It gets more and more difficult as you start reducing the 
standards time, effort, energy, and technology.
  So with the reduction of 32 percent by 1980, the EPA projects air 
quality ``will continue to improve over the next decade as additional 
reductions in ozone precursors from power plants, motor vehicles, and 
other sources are realized.''
  Nothing in the pending bill prevents these improvements to air 
quality from being realized.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Tonko

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 115-229.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike subsection (b) of section 3 (relating to 
     consideration of technological feasibility) and make such 
     conforming changes as may be necessary.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 451, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Tonko) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, my amendment strikes subsection (b) of section 
3, which would allow the EPA to consider technological feasibility when 
determining what level of pollution is safe.
  Health-based standards are the cornerstone of the Clean Air Act--
health-based. The EPA sets NAAQS at levels sufficient to protect the 
public health, essentially, the level of ambient air pollution that is 
safe to breathe.
  While costs are not considered in establishing these standards, costs 
can be--and are considered--in developing plans to achieve the 
necessary pollution reductions to meet the standards.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 806, as currently drafted, would change the 
longstanding criteria for establishing an air quality standard from one 
that is based solely

[[Page 11083]]

on protecting public health to one that includes a consideration of the 
technological feasibility. This issue has been long debated and settled 
by Congress.
  Since passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970, including the 1990 Clean 
Air Act Amendments, Congress has excluded technological feasibility 
considerations from standard setting to ensure that public health--and 
public health alone--would determine the standards for air quality.
  In 1970, on the passage of the Clean Air Act, Senator Ed Muskie from 
Maine said: ``The first responsibility of Congress is not the making of 
technological or economic judgments--or even to be limited by what is 
or appears to be technologically or economically infeasible. Our 
responsibility is to establish what the public interest requires to 
protect the health of persons. This may mean that people and industries 
will be asked to do what seems to be impossible at present time. But if 
health is to be protected, these challenges must be met.''
  For approaching five decades, that has been the guiding tenet of the 
Clean Air Act: what is in the betterment of public health.
  Guided by this principle, our Nation has experienced a 70 percent 
reduction in key air pollutants while tripling the size of the economy.
  I believe that a great deal of this success can be credited to 
American innovation. Despite assertions that achieving clean air was 
not feasible, American ingenuity has consistently risen to the 
challenge and made our country the leader in both clean air and clean 
air technology.
  Unquestionably, these standards have driven innovation, creating a 
thriving domestic pollution control industry.
  So I ask my colleagues who are in favor of this measure: What is it 
about a can-do attitude that you don't get? Why is it that you have a 
lack of trust in the power of American ingenuity?
  Had these standards not been ambitious and focused solely on public 
health, we may still be relying upon the technology from the 1970s and 
breathing the poor air quality from that era along with it.
  Available technologies cannot and should not determine what we can 
have in terms of clean air. Let's have the scientific and medical 
experts guide us, and I have confidence that our engineers and 
innovators will find that way. The history of those protections that we 
enjoy has been to set ambitious, but achievable, goals. We have 
achieved those goals, and we have much cleaner air to show for it. 
Let's not roll back this process.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, Texans like me believe that facts are 
little, persistent things. With all due respect to my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle, apparently, facts are annoying little things. 
Here are the facts about section 3(b) of my bill:
  Section 3(b) states that if the EPA Administrator, in consultation 
with the EPA's independent scientific advisory committee, finds a range 
of levels of air quality that are needed to protect public health with 
an adequate margin of safety, then ``the Administrator may . . .''--the 
Administrator may, not shall, not must, may--``as a secondary 
consideration, likely technological feasibility in establishing and 
revising the national primary ambient air quality standard for this 
pollutant.''
  Again, it clearly says may, not shall, not must, but may.
  H.R. 806 does not change the Clean Air Act's requirement that 
standards be based on the protection of public health. Again, H.R. 806 
does not change the Clean Air Act's requirement that standards be based 
on the protection of public health. This bill simply clarifies that the 
EPA Administrator has the discretion to consider technological 
feasibility when choosing among a range of levels identified and 
supported by science as protective of public health.
  This is a clarification for all future Administrators--Democrat or 
Republican--that Congress considers technical feasibility to be a 
reasonable part of the decisionmaking process with policy choices. 
These policy choices must be made among a range of scientifically valid 
options.
  Again, facts are little, persistent things, and these are the facts 
about section 3(b) of H.R. 806.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I think the insertion of discretion of the 
Administrator at the EPA as to the technological and economical 
availability, achievable qualities being inserted into this bill tells 
me--my interpretation is that the Administrator may not--the 
Administrator may not, may not--side with the residents--with the 
people of this country and their right to breathe clean air.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Beyer

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in House Report 115-229.
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike subsection (h) of section 3 (relating to exceptional 
     events).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 451, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Beyer) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike the language that 
weakens the definition of exceptional events for air quality monitoring 
data. We know that air quality monitoring data is incredibly important 
and that Americans value clean air.
  I am a businessman, and it is axiomatic that we can't manage what we 
can't measure.
  Just last month, The New England Journal of Medicine published a 
study that showed long-term exposure to air pollution increases 
mortality for all Americans, but particularly those that are self-
identified as racial minorities or people with low incomes.
  That is why the EPA is responsible for setting the National Ambient 
Air Quality Standards, or NAAQS, for outdoor--ambient--air to protect 
our public health and the environment.
  When States and the EPA identify areas that do not meet the 
standards, States prepare their own plans specifying how they will 
reach attainment in those areas.
  States are currently allowed to exclude monitoring data for periods 
affected by exceptional events--exceptional events like forest fires or 
unusual weather conditions, volcanos or seismic activities. They can 
exclude this data from the measurements used to make designation 
decisions. This is appropriate and it makes sense.
  I think volcanos are exceptional. But this bill changes the 
exceptions provision in dangerous ways. It changes the definition of 
what qualifies as exceptional. Instead of exceptional, call it routine. 
Stagnant air, high temperature, or a lack of precipitation are not 
exceptional events, but they would be considered exceptional by this 
bill.
  We live in Washington, D.C., with a record number of days of high 
temperatures this summer already. But this fact shouldn't exempt D.C. 
from keeping accurate NAAQS data.
  Pretending that a heat wave is exceptional or that bad air quality is 
not harmful to people's health doesn't make it so. Climate change, 
global warming, and more frequent heat

[[Page 11084]]

waves are likely to be the reality of our Earth today. So weakening 
this definition means that, by default, over time, States will never 
need to be in compliance with the NAAQS. They can say it is an 
exceptional event.
  So, frustratingly, by weakening this definition of exceptional 
events, we nullify the standards altogether.
  None of us wants to see the disastrous smog events--think of China 
and India--erupt here in America. So by supporting this amendment, we 
keep our commitment to the American people to support clean air. We 
shouldn't weaken our definition of exceptional events to incorporate 
everyday air occurrences like heat waves.
  If this provision becomes law, it can mean more asthma attacks, 
cardiovascular and respiratory harm, emergency visits, and even early 
deaths from ozone pollution. So please support my amendment. It is 
important that if we have standards that they actually mean something. 
Exceptional is defined as unusual. Exceptional does not mean typical. 
Let's keep it that way.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, under the Clean Air Act, section 319 
provides relief to areas that violate National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards due to unusual or naturally occurring events as that they 
cannot control.
  Section 3(h) would add--and I would argue strengthens the 
definition--droughts and extraordinary stagnation to the act's 
definition of an exceptional event.
  Let me give you an example. In 2012, there was a major drought in the 
Midwest. Now, I am from corn country, and we don't irrigate our corn 
because we have got great soil, and we have got weather conditions for 
most of the years that provide plentiful rain for that to happen. But 
that didn't happen in 2012. It was an extraordinary event. It was a 
drought.
  Now the question is posed: Should we punish the communities for an 
extraordinary event; i.e., a drought that is out of the control of any 
human being?
  It is an ``extraordinary event.'' This language would provide 
reasonable relief for States in this condition, particularly those in 
the Western United States for, as I said, events beyond their control.
  Nothing in H.R. 806 does away with the detailed statutory 
requirements under section 319(h) of the Clean Air Act for 
demonstrating ``an exceptional event.'' Nor does anything in the bill 
do away with the detailed regulatory procedures and guidelines that the 
EPA has laid out for demonstrating exceptional events or the 
requirements to measure air quality or to make that air quality data 
available to the public.

                              {time}  1600

  This provision simply ensures citizens in areas experiencing unusual 
or natural occurring events beyond their control do not become subject 
to penalties or sanctions under the Clean Air Act as a result of those 
events.
  Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the perspective on 
corn. As someone who very much respects American agriculture, the worst 
thing is to have a drought.
  Around here, climate change is pretty controversial. We seem to 
slowly be moving in the recognition that it is real, whether we believe 
that it is caused by man or not. However, one of the things that we see 
around the world with climate change is the ever-increasing frequency 
of droughts.
  The existing language in the original bill says that droughts and 
lack of precipitation are not considered exceptional events. Certainly, 
if they weren't exceptional before, they are going to be even less 
exceptional as we move into the future.
  I appreciated the debate on the last amendment from my friend, Mr. 
Tonko, where he talked about the EPA Administrator saying: May, may, 
may. Well, this is a case where the last thing we want to do is make 
something like a drought a typical event. It is not going to be 
exceptional in the years to come.
  So, let's preserve these. The EPA Administrator will always have an 
opportunity in the case of a drought once every 100 years to say that 
is, in fact, exceptional.
  Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague. Again, he was 
on the floor when I talked about the great work I do with subcommittee 
members. Obviously, this is part of the debate where we are agreeing to 
disagree.
  I will just say that air quality standards are put in place so that 
there are things that we can effect and we can deal with through mobile 
emissions, as you would probably know about, as stationary sources.
  Exceptional events, such as droughts, are out of our control. That is 
why we think it should be placed into the language. We do believe it 
strengthens the provision of the law, doesn't weaken it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Polis

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in House Report 115-229.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Redesignate sections 5 and 6 as sections 6 and 7, 
     respectively.
       Insert after section 4 the following:

     SEC. 5. BRINGING REDUCTIONS TO ENERGY'S AIRBORNE TOXIC HEALTH 
                   EFFECTS.

       (a) Repeal of Exemption for Aggregation of Emissions From 
     Oil and Gas Sources.--Section 112(n) of the Clean Air Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7412(n)) is amended by striking paragraph (4).
       (b) Hydrogen Sulfide as a Hazardous Air Pollutant.--The 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall--
       (1) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, issue a final rule adding hydrogen sulfide to the 
     list of hazardous air pollutants under section 112(b) of the 
     Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(b)); and
       (2) not later than 365 days after a final rule under 
     paragraph (1) is issued, revise the list under section 112(c) 
     of such Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(c)) to include categories and 
     subcategories of major sources and area sources of hydrogen 
     sulfide, including oil and gas wells.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 451, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Polis) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, since the Republicans are talking about a bill that makes 
the Clean Air Act work better, even though, in many ways, that is the 
opposite of what the bill does, I have offered an amendment that will 
actually do that. It will make the Clean Air Act work better to keep 
our air clean so we can breathe more freely, reduce asthma rates, and 
reduce cancer rates.
  My amendment would very simply close a very glaring loophole that our 
current Clean Air Act has--a loophole that every day harms the 
freshness of the air and the health of my constituents in my State and 
so many others across the country.
  My amendment, which is based off of legislation that I have 
introduced, along with many other cosponsors, four times, including in 
this Congress, called the BREATHE Act, would close the oil and gas 
industry's loophole to the Clean Air Act's aggregation requirement.
  Currently, oil and gas operations, like the one here, are completely 
exempt from the aggregation requirement in the Clean Air Act. Under the

[[Page 11085]]

aggregation requirement, small air pollution sources that cumulatively 
reduce as much air pollution as major sources, like a power plant, are 
actually rounded out entirely of the protections of the Clean Air Act. 
Oil and gas is exempt, and they shouldn't be.
  While one site like this has emissions that are significant, you can 
imagine having 20,000 of these in one county, which we do in my home 
State of Colorado, and that cannot conceivably be rounded down to zero. 
That is the equivalent of several large power plants. We should look at 
them in the aggregate, where they are close to one another 
geographically.
  The aggregation requirement is actually intended to protect the 
public from small air pollution sources that might individually seem 
innocuous, but cumulatively account for large volumes of toxic 
substances that are put in the air.
  We have areas of Wyoming and northern Colorado that have worse air 
quality than Los Angeles, not because of one or two or ten extraction 
sites, but because of tens of thousands within an immediate vicinity.
  The oil and gas industry currently does not have to aggregate or pull 
together its small air pollution sources. They round them down to zero. 
Rounding one or two down to zero is not an issue. Rounding 20,000 in 
one county down to zero leads to dirtier air, higher asthma, higher 
cancer rates.
  If we round down every fracking pad to zero in an area where there 
are 100 of them, zero times 100 is still zero. But if we multiply a 
small amount of pollutants times 100, that can equal a great deal of 
pollutants, not to mention times 1,000, times 10,000. This provides a 
more holistic fix to make sure that our air is clean.
  My amendment also adds hydrogen sulfide to the Clean Air Act's 
Federal List of Hazardous Air Pollutants, which was originally on the 
list but was, in my opinion, wrongly removed by Congress. The Clean Air 
Act completely exempts hydrogen sulfide from the list, even though 
hydrogen sulfide already has been scientifically associated as the 
cause of a number of health issues, including nausea; vomiting; 
headaches; and irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat.
  Hydrogen sulfide often may be released from well heads, pumps, 
piping, storage tanks, and flaring, which is what we are seeing here. 
In fact, 15 to 20 percent of all natural gas wells emit hydrogen 
sulfide, even though control technologies are inexpensive and are 
already deployed to curtail those hydrogen sulfide emissions.
  This amendment ensures our oil and gas industry takes the measures 
that we need to avoid the release of hydrogen sulfide into communities 
by adding hydrogen sulfide to the List of Hazardous Air Pollutants and 
by listing oil and gas wells as a source of hydrogen sulfide.
  My amendment simply makes the Clean Air Act work better. You can't 
round something significant down to zero, when you have a lot of them 
concentrated in a particular area. Of course, there is an impact on air 
quality from 1,000 or 10,000 wells that operate in one county.
  Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on my amendment, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Tipton). The gentleman from Illinois is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, the subject of H.R. 806 is criteria 
pollutants and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards program, not 
the hazardous air pollutants programs, which my colleague is referring 
to.
  These two programs are addressed under different sections of the 
Clean Air Act. The whole title is Clean Air Act, but you have one 
section here dealing with national ambient air quality, and then you 
have another section on hazardous air aspects, which is what my 
colleague is trying to address. Criteria pollutants are addressed under 
section 107 and 110 and part C and D of title 1 of the Clean Air Act, 
while hazardous air pollutants fall under section 12.
  This amendment, moreover, is wholly unrelated to the purpose of H.R. 
806, which is to provide State regulators with additional time and 
flexibility, as we have heard throughout this debate, to implement 
ozone and other standards for criteria pollutants.
  H.R. 806 makes process-related reforms to address practical 
implementation challenges identified by State regulators. This 
amendment would make substantive changes relating specifically to 
regulation of the oil and gas sector.
  This amendment would make significant changes to the Clean Air Act 
that did not receive any Energy and Commerce Committee consideration 
during the markup of this bill.
  The amendment would also circumvent the established regulatory 
process for listing new hazardous air pollutants set forth under the 
Clean Air Act.
  Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, I would like to point out that the Rules 
Committee granted the necessary waivers to allow this amendment to be 
considered, as they often do, and this amendment was also considered in 
a similar bill last session. That is because it is relevant to the 
subject matter at hand. The Rules Committee often waives those 
requirements.
  This bill, as he pointed out, does two different things, both 
appearing in different sections of the Clean Air Act.
  My amendment will, very simply, make sure that oil and gas operators 
play by the same rules as other industries. It doesn't mean that 
flaring won't occur. It will, and it does. For those of us who live in 
and around fracking, that is a fact of life. What it means is, whereas, 
you have the argument the industry has made that if you have one or two 
of these sites and you round the profile of emissions down to zero, 
just simply doesn't hold water when you have 1,000 or 10,000 active 
wells in a very limited area. We can't round that down to zero. It is 
simple math. The profile of emissions from that site is greater than 
several large power plants, if you have 10,000 wells.
  Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, to my colleague from Colorado, sitting in 
with the Rules Committee yesterday, the question was asked: Would you 
accept this amendment or would you not? I said: I appreciate my 
colleagues on the Rules Committee. They will do the due diligence in 
agreeing which amendment comes to the floor or not.
  So it is good to see the Rules Committee has so much comradery and 
comity that they would allow someone from the committee to offer an 
amendment on the bill, but I still have to object because it splits 
this bill and tries to bring in air issues that are in the hazardous 
air program and jam it into this one where, basically, what we are 
trying to do is send a signal and allow communities to meet the 2008 
standards before a new 2015 standard gets placed upon them 3 months 
after they do the implementing guidelines.
  It is really a process, a bill that makes it easier for people to 
comply. It really helps EPA more easily be able to evaluate the data 
and move us forward to a cleaner environment.
  Mr. Chair, I reluctantly hold my position that we should vote against 
the Polis amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. McNerney

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in House Report 115-229.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

[[Page 11086]]

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike section 6.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 451, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McNerney) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an easy amendment to argue because it makes so 
much sense.
  I am going to ask to strike section 6 of the bill. Let me read that 
section: ``No additional funds are authorized to be appropriated to 
carry out the requirements of this Act and the amendments made by this 
Act. Such requirements shall be carried out using amounts otherwise 
authorized.''
  In other words, they are going to be carried out without any funds.
  Mr. Chairman, I am going to move forward here and make the statement 
that the administration and House Republicans continue to add to the 
EPA's workload while cutting funding and hampering State and local 
agencies from providing the resources needed to protect public health.

                              {time}  1615

  This is surely unreasonable. In the case of H.R. 806, it will 
continue to obstruct the EPA's ability to advance and improve our 
Nation's air and water quality. My congressional district has extremely 
poor air quality, which has caused a variety of health issues for my 
constituents.
  This bill does weaken the Clean Air Act. Specifically, it targets the 
implementation and enforcement of air pollution health standards. It 
also negatively impacts the budget for programs necessary to ensure 
that Americans can breathe clean air.
  This bill is in stark opposition to the public's overwhelming support 
of the Clean Air Act. According to the Center for American Progress, 
the Trump administration's EPA budget, which cuts more than $2 billion 
from the Agency's budget, shifts the cost of implementing clean air 
standards to the States. All of these cuts would be harmful to the 
649,000 children and more than 2 million adults with asthma living in 
California.
  Every State agency that testified before the Energy and Commerce 
Subcommittee on the Environment stated that more, not less, money is 
needed and that the Clean Air Act was working to protect the public's 
health and safety.
  I represent one of the worst air quality regions in the Nation, the 
San Joaquin Valley, and yet the San Joaquin Valley air district has 
been a leader in utilizing EPA grants and expertise to achieve 
emissions reductions from mobile sources, showing that this funding is 
beneficial. The valley continues to set emission levels to record lows 
and has reduced air pollution by over 80 percent. This data proves that 
the Clean Air Act works and creates a better standard of living for all 
Americans.
  The American Lung Association issued a State of the Air report for 
2017 in the State of California. Most of its 28 counties received an F 
for air quality. We should be striving for better air quality.
  Grants like the EPA's Targeted Air Shed Grants and Diesel Emission 
Reductions Act help thousands of agriculture, trucking, and other 
businesses acquire low-emitting tractors, trucks, and other equipment. 
This funding generates jobs and manufacturing here in the United 
States. These Federal funds have a great track record of benefiting our 
region, and it is a good investment.
  EPA estimates that for every dollar spent on DERA, more than $20 in 
health benefits are generated. That is $20 of health benefits for every 
dollar invested. All 50 States have these programs.
  I also want to highlight how this bill, combined with other efforts 
by the Trump administration, will continue to negatively impact air 
quality and public health.
  Our States have made tremendous progress and a significant investment 
toward addressing climate change and public health. However, the Ozone 
Standards Implementation Act would take a step backward, destroying 
much of the progress, leading to a greater harm to public health and 
our economy.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chair, first of all, I appreciate my colleagues's 
challenge back in the San Joaquin Valley. It is a very tough place with 
ozone.
  Fresno County is extreme for ozone, the San Joaquin Valley; Kern 
County is extreme for ozone, the San Joaquin Valley; Kings County is 
extreme for ozone, the San Joaquin Valley; Madera County is extreme for 
ozone, the San Joaquin Valley; Merced County is extreme for ozone, the 
San Joaquin Valley; San Joaquin County is extreme for ozone, the San 
Joaquin Valley; Stanislaus County is extreme for ozone, the San Joaquin 
Valley; Tulare County is extreme for ozone, the San Joaquin Valley. 
That is a tough problem for your own district in the San Joaquin 
Valley, but your amendment does not fix this problem in any way.
  Under this bill, the amount of resources that EPA needs to review 
proposed nonattainment designations and approving complex State 
implementation plans under 2015 ozone standards will be greatly 
reduced. EPA will do more with less. Therefore, EPA will be able to 
carry out the new requirements of this bill within existing 
authorizations, helping out the San Joaquin Valley.
  This amendment is unnecessary because the bill will reduce the 
implementation costs by eliminating redundant and overlapping Federal 
regulatory requirements. Less red tape means lower implementation 
costs.
  States testified that the bill will reduce the cost of EPA in their 
existing ozone programs while continuing to improve air quality and 
reduce ozone emissions. Our States have an excellent track record for 
cost-effective emission reductions over the last several decades.
  The State of Maine sums up the point of this bill exactly, and they 
have very little ozone problems. The director of Maine's Bureau of Air 
Quality testified before our committee:

       The changes, as proposed, in H.R. 806 to delay final 
     designations under the 2015 standard until 2025 and to extend 
     the timeframe for standard review from 5 to every 10 years, 
     including concurrently published clearly defined implementing 
     regulations, would allow the due process to be followed and 
     fulfilled. This would more effectively and efficiently 
     utilize Federal, State, and individual facility resources to 
     establish a standard and work for the improvement of air 
     quality and the protection of the people of our Nation.

  This amendment is unnecessary. I urge my colleagues to oppose it, and 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chair, how much time is remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 1 minute 
remaining, and the gentleman from Texas has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleague and friend from 
Texas pointing out that we have counties in San Joaquin Valley that 
have extreme ozone problems, but to ask to do more with less is not 
reasonable. It is the DERA grants given to the counties from the EPA's 
budget that have allowed the agencies to have the 80 percent reduction 
in air pollution.
  So taking that money away is not going to help. It is going to make 
matters worse. Our agencies aren't going to be able to do the things 
that they have been able to do, and they are not going to be able to 
continue those things. So I think saying that we can't put more money 
into air pollution reduction is not the answer. We need to be able to 
spend money to do this.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, this bill ensures that EPA has the money to 
help the San Joaquin Valley and every part of America that is 
nonattainment for ozone with the funds they need as quickly as 
possible. EPA will be more

[[Page 11087]]

and more and more efficient. I urge opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. McNerney

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in House Report 115-229.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Air and Health Quality 
     Empowerment Zone Designation Act of 2017''.

     SEC. 2. AIR AND HEALTH QUALITY EMPOWERMENT ZONES.

       (a) Designation of Air and Health Quality Empowerment 
     Zones.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator may designate an area as 
     an air and health quality empowerment zone if--
       (A) the air pollution control district or other local 
     governmental entity authorized to regulate air quality for 
     the area submits an application under paragraph (2) 
     nominating the area for such designation; and
       (B) the Administrator determines that--
       (i) the information in the application is reasonably 
     accurate; and
       (ii) the nominated area satisfies the eligibility criteria 
     described in paragraph (3).
       (2) Nomination.--To nominate an area for designation under 
     paragraph (1), the air pollution control district or other 
     local governmental entity authorized to regulate air quality 
     for the area shall submit to the Administrator an application 
     that--
       (A) demonstrates that the nominated area satisfies the 
     eligibility criteria described in paragraph (3); and
       (B) includes a strategic plan that--
       (i) is designed for--

       (I) addressing air quality challenges and achieving 
     attainment of air quality standards in the area; and
       (II) improving the health of the population in the area;

       (ii) describes--

       (I) the process by which the district or local governmental 
     entity is a full partner in the process of developing and 
     implementing the strategic plan; and
       (II) the extent to which local institutions and 
     organizations have contributed to the planning process;

       (iii) identifies--

       (I) the amount of State, local, and private resources that 
     will be available for carrying out the strategic plan; and
       (II) the private and public partnerships to be used (which 
     may include participation by, and cooperation with, 
     institutions of higher education, medical centers, and other 
     private and public entities) in carrying out the strategic 
     plan;

       (iv) identifies the funding requested under any Federal 
     program in support of the strategic plan;
       (v) identifies baselines, methods, and benchmarks for 
     measuring the success of the strategic plan; and
       (vi) includes such other information as may be required by 
     the Administrator; and
       (C) provides written assurances satisfactory to the 
     Administrator that the strategic plan will be implemented.
       (3) Eligibility criteria.--To be eligible for designation 
     under paragraph (1), an area must meet all of the following 
     criteria:
       (A) Nonattainment.--The area has been designated as being--
       (i) in extreme nonattainment of the national ambient air 
     quality standard for ozone; and
       (ii) in nonattainment of the national ambient air quality 
     standard for PM2.5.
       (B) Unique sources.--The area had--
       (i) emissions of oxides of nitrogen from farm equipment of 
     at least 30 tons per day in calendar year 2011;
       (ii) emissions of volatile organic compounds from farming 
     operations of at least 3 tons per day in calendar year 2010; 
     or
       (iii) emissions of oxides of nitrogen from sources governed 
     primarily through international law of at least 50 tons per 
     day in calendar year 2010.
       (C) Air quality-related health effects.--As of the date of 
     designation, the area meets or exceeds the national average 
     per capita incidence of asthma.
       (D) Economic impact.--As of the date of designation, the 
     area experiences unemployment rates higher than the national 
     average.
       (E) Matching funds.--The air pollution control district or 
     other local governmental entity submitting the strategic plan 
     under paragraph (2) for the area agrees that it will make 
     available (directly or through contributions from the State 
     or other public or private entities) non-Federal 
     contributions toward the activities to be carried out under 
     the strategic plan in an amount equal to $1 for each $1 of 
     Federal funds provided for such activities. Such non-Federal 
     matching funds may be in cash or in-kind, fairly evaluated, 
     including plant, equipment, or services.
       (4) Period of designation.--A designation under paragraph 
     (1) shall remain in effect during the period beginning on the 
     date of the designation and ending on the earlier of--
       (A) the last day of the tenth calendar year ending after 
     the date of the designation; or
       (B) the date on which the Administrator revokes the 
     designation.
       (5) Revocation of designation.--The Administrator may 
     revoke the designation under paragraph (1) of an area if the 
     Administrator determines that--
       (A) the area is in attainment with the national ambient air 
     quality standards for PM2.5 and ozone; or
       (B) the air pollution control district or other local 
     governmental entity submitting the strategic plan under 
     paragraph (2) for the area is not complying substantially 
     with, or fails to make progress in achieving the goals of, 
     such strategic plan.
       (b) Grants for Air and Health Quality Empowerment Zones.--
       (1) In general.--For the purpose described in paragraph 
     (2), the Administrator may award one or more grants to the 
     air pollution control district or local governmental entity 
     submitting the application under subsection (a)(2) on behalf 
     of each air and health quality empowerment zone designated 
     under subsection (a)(1).
       (2) Use of grants.--A recipient of a grant under paragraph 
     (1) shall use the grant solely for the purpose of carrying 
     out the strategic plan submitted by the recipient under 
     subsection (a)(2).
       (3) Amount of grants.--The amount awarded under this 
     subsection with respect to a designated air and health 
     quality empowerment zone shall be determined by the 
     Administrator based upon a review of--
       (A) the information contained in the application for the 
     zone under subsection (a)(2); and
       (B) the needs set forth in the application for those 
     anticipated to benefit from the strategic plan submitted for 
     the zone.
       (4) Timing of grants.--To the extent and in the amount of 
     appropriations made available in advance, the Administrator 
     shall--
       (A) award a grant under this subsection with respect to 
     each air and health quality empowerment zone on the date of 
     designation of the zone under subsection (a)(1); and
       (B) make the grant funds available to the grantee on the 
     first day of the first fiscal year that begins after the date 
     of such designation.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
       (2) PM2.5.--The term ``PM2.5'' means 
     particulate matter with a diameter that does not exceed 2.5 
     micrometers.

     SEC. 3. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       Not later than 5 years after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency--
       (1) shall submit a report to the Congress on the impact of 
     this Act; and
       (2) may include in such report a description of the impact 
     of this Act in regard to--
       (A) the reduction of particulate matter and nitrogen oxides 
     emissions;
       (B) the reduction of asthma rates and other health 
     indicators; and
       (C) economic indicators.
         Amend the title so as to read: ``A bill to provide for 
     the designation of, and the award of grant with respect to, 
     air and health quality empowerment zones.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 451, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McNerney) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 806 does have a couple of provisions that would be 
helpful to the air district in my region to avoid economic sanctions 
for failing to meet certain standards when very specific criteria are 
met. However, the underlying bill, as a whole, is completely 
unacceptable and has been called the most irresponsible attack on the 
Clean Air Act health standards ever introduced.
  The Clean Air Act works. It saves lives. It has improved the 
environment. I am privileged to represent a portion of the San Joaquin 
Valley which, as was pointed out in the prior amendment, has extreme 
ozone problems.

[[Page 11088]]

  We produce more than half of the Nation's fruits, nuts, and 
vegetables. Unfortunately, the valley has recently been rebounding from 
an economic downturn and is continually hurt by poor air quality. 
Action is needed.
  This amendment seeks to address the serious health issues that are a 
direct result of the poor air quality in the San Joaquin Valley and 
other regions that are most at risk. The amendment provides a grant 
program for areas that are in nonattainment of PM 2.5, extreme 
nonattainment of ambient air quality standards, and those with high 
rates of asthma and unemployment. It requires a dollar-for-dollar 
matching from the districts receiving the grant.
  California has 7 of the top 10 most polluted metropolitan areas and 
11 of the worst 25 nationwide. There are millions of people at risk in 
the valley and south coast due to high levels of PM 2.5 and ozone, 
including children, seniors, and those with chronic illnesses. San 
Joaquin Valley counties received F grades for their air quality by the 
American Lung Association.
  Our kids deserve to be healthy, attend school, and live in a clean 
air environment. Studies have shown that high-quality air standards 
would prevent thousands of premature deaths in the valley and that it 
would work to prevent heart attacks, emergency room visits, and missed 
school- and workdays.
  One study estimated that in the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale area, 
about 2.9 million people missed work or schooldays and were otherwise 
negatively affected from conducting normal activities due to poor air 
quality.
  Valley children miss hundreds of thousands of days of school each 
year, and about one in five living in the valley has asthma. Illnesses 
related to poor air quality cost the valley billions, annually.
  H.R. 806 will be a step backward. That is why I have offered this 
substitute amendment that would allow the EPA to target and work with 
our Nation's most affected regions, like those in the valley and the 
south coast. This is about addressing our environment, the air we 
breathe, and helping those most at risk.
  At the same time, California has been cleaning the air. Its economy 
has continued to grow. In 2016, California's nonfarm employment 
increased by 2.6 percent, compared to 1.7 percent nationwide. In 2009, 
California's clean energy industry created $2.7 billion and employed 
123,000 people. By 2020, we expect it to grow to over $140 billion with 
345,000 employed. California's success is proof that H.R. 806 is 
unnecessary.
  I urge adoption of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleague for his 
impassioned discussion, especially of his area. We all have a lot of 
friends here. It is hard for the public to believe I am on both sides 
of the aisle, so it saddens me to have to speak in opposition to this 
amendment.
  This is doing, similarly, what I had to address with Congressman 
Polis in that it is taking a bill in which we are trying to streamline 
the processes and then somehow creating a grant program out of the 
money. I don't know where this money is coming from, whether it is 
coming from the supposed savings from nonimplementation.
  But as my colleague from Texas mentioned, the process, as you 
followed through the committee, is to say: How do you force people who 
are just told how to comply with 2008 standards, how do you then turn 
around and give them 2015 standards when they were just told how to 
comply 3 months prior?
  And so what we have tried to do in this piece of legislation is to 
say let's allow people to move forward on 2008 while making sure that 
the 2015 standards occur with a deadline of 2025. That is the basic 
premise.
  And it also addresses the issue of, and I know, there are parts of 
the country where they can do all that they can do and they are not 
going to meet the standards because of what is being imported from 
other regions, maybe, in your case, from Asia or from San Francisco or 
those areas. So how do you end up punishing an area when they are doing 
everything that they humanly can do?
  There is some great, obviously, statistics that you have shared of 
the success in that region, although they are still stressed under the 
current standards.

                              {time}  1630

  So your amendment would eliminate the widely supported reforms in 
this bill. And I read, and we will have submitted for the Record, the 
145-plus organizations that support it, plus the five or ten that we 
addressed earlier from the markup, and then really kind of apply only 
to a few parts of the country versus the entire country as a whole.
  Across the Nation, States and communities struggle to implement these 
standards, and we are trying to streamline that process. This amendment 
would deprive communities across the Nation of the benefits of H.R. 
806. It would reduce red tape, relief from the sanctions and penalties 
for emissions that are outside their control, as I said earlier, and 
streamline the implementation of the standards.
  Mr. Chair, I appreciate my friend and colleague. I know it is a tough 
environment we are trying to address, especially some of those 
concerns.
  Mr. Chair, I still urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chair, how much time is remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chair, clearly everybody wants clean air, and I 
don't doubt that for a second, and I appreciate the effort that is 
being made to streamline the implementation of clean air. But my 
questions are: Is this going to be a message bill? Or is this something 
we are actually going to get signed into law?
  And my answer rhetorically is that if you want to get something 
signed into law, you really have to work on both sides of the aisle.
  Now, there are a couple provisions in the bill that I think are 
completely objectionable. There may be room for compromise. The 10-year 
extension seems out of bounds to me. Technology moves much faster than 
10 years. The idea that technical achievability can be taken into 
account really does lose sight of the important aspect of the Clean Air 
Act, which is that we want to protect people's health.
  So among other things, if you want to actually get something done, if 
you want to actually work across the aisle and get something that we 
may get signed into law, work with us. Otherwise, I am going to have to 
put forward this amendment that replaces the ozone 805 and replaces it 
with something that actually works.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I agree with my colleague that this 
doesn't rise to the standard of the other bills that we will be 
bringing in a bipartisan manner, and we kind of raised that initially 
at the beginning. And it is, I think, to both of our losses.
  But having said that, my colleague, Congressman Olson, the author of 
the bill, did get a couple Democrats to sponsor the primary piece of 
legislation, and there is a Senate companion bill, S. 263, which we 
hope will be passed by the Senate. So we are a little more optimistic 
that this can get over the finish line than Mr. McNerney might be, but, 
again, we will continue to work together where we can work together, 
and respectfully disagree when we have disagreements.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).
  The amendment was rejected.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments

[[Page 11089]]

printed in House Report 115-229 on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Ms. Castor of Florida.
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Tonko of New York.
  Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Beyer of Virginia.
  Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Polis of Colorado.
  Amendment No. 5 by Mr. McNerney of California.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


            Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Castor of Florida

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 15-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 194, 
noes 232, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 385]

                               AYES--194

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Mast
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Reichert
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--232

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Reed
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Cummings
     Granger
     Labrador
     Napolitano
     Pelosi
     Ratcliffe
     Scalise

                              {time}  1704

  Messrs. MARSHALL, PERRY, PALMER, MOONEY of West Virginia, Mrs. 
McMORRIS RODGERS, and Mr. DUFFY changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Messrs. BUTTERFIELD, SCHRADER, POLIS, and HOYER changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                   Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Tonko

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


                              Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182, 
noes 241, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 386]

                               AYES--182

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Bera
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Faso
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Mast

[[Page 11090]]


     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--241

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cleaver
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Ellison
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gottheimer
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Beatty
     Cummings
     DesJarlais
     Granger
     Kaptur
     Labrador
     Napolitano
     Pelosi
     Ratcliffe
     Scalise


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1708

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


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Beyer

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 191, 
noes 235, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 387]

                               AYES--191

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     Dent
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Mast
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Soto
     Speier
     Stefanik
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--235

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     O'Halleran
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Roskam
     Ross

[[Page 11091]]


     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Beatty
     Cummings
     Granger
     Labrador
     Napolitano
     Scalise
     Smith (WA)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1712

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


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Polis

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 186, 
noes 242, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 388]

                               AYES--186

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--242

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Veasey
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Cummings
     Granger
     Labrador
     Napolitano
     Scalise


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1716

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


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. McNerney

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 190, 
noes 236, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 389]

                               AYES--190

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal

[[Page 11092]]


     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--236

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Cummings
     Granger
     Joyce (OH)
     Labrador
     Napolitano
     Pelosi
     Scalise


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1720

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hultgren) having assumed the chair, Mr. Womack, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 806) to 
facilitate efficient State implementation of ground-level ozone 
standards, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 
451, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted 
in the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. I am opposed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Cartwright moves to recommit the bill H.R. 806 to the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith, with the following 
     amendment:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. 7. LIMITATION.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall not 
     apply if the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, in 
     consultation with the Director of the Congressional Budget 
     Office, finds that application of this Act and the amendments 
     made by this Act could increase, with respect to Americans 
     without access to affordable, comprehensive health insurance, 
     any of the following health impacts:
       (1) Asthma attacks.
       (2) Hospitalizations or emergency room visits for those 
     with respiratory or cardiovascular disease.
       (3) The risk of preterm birth, babies born with low birth 
     weight, or impaired fetal growth.
       (4) The risk of heart attacks, stroke, or premature death.
       (5) Reproductive, developmental, or other serious harms to 
     human health.

  Mr. CARTWRIGHT (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to dispense with the reading.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is 
recognized for 5 minutes
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, the Ozone Act, or perhaps more 
accurately, the ``Smoggy Skies Act,'' will put our communities at risk 
and dangerously harm public health. The delays and exemptions in this 
act are unprecedented. They will cut critical portions of the Clean Air 
Act to the detriment of our Nation and our people's health.
  This motion to recommit is simple. If the Clean Air Scientific 
Advisory Committee, which is an independent group of nationally 
recognized experts, if they believe that this act will increase asthma 
attacks, increase emergency room visits, increase pre-term births, 
increase impaired fetal growth, lead to an increased risk of heart 
attack, stroke, premature death, then the act will not go into effect.
  Now I ask, what is more important or fundamental as the 
representatives of the people than to ensure that our actions do not 
bring harm to the American people? How can we go home to our 
constituents and look a mother in the eye and say we voted for 
something that could make her child sick? How can we visit a school if 
we voted for something that could spike rates of asthma?
  We originally passed the bipartisan Clean Air Act to protect the 
health of our people. As we vote to partially dismantle it today, at 
least we should ensure scientists certify that we are doing no harm to 
the American people.
  Some of my colleagues may vote against this motion to recommit 
because they already know this act will have a devastating impact on 
the

[[Page 11093]]

American people's health. Plain and simple, ozone is a pollutant. It is 
the leading component of smog. It causes chest pain, shortness of 
breath, respiratory infections, asthma attacks, acute bronchitis, and 
even premature death.
  Smog is linked to 16,000 preterm births per year. Exposure to ozone 
in the womb and in childhood causes permanent lung damage. The new 
ozone standards could prevent 230,000 childhood asthma attacks per 
year. Delaying implementation of the new ozone standards will only 
sentence more and more children to lifelong lung disease.
  When setting the new ozone standards, the EPA used the best available 
science and reviewed hundreds of studies on the negative health effects 
of ozone. One conclusion was clear: the current standards do not 
protect the American people.
  My Republican colleagues here recently passed legislation that would 
have taken healthcare away from 22 million people. Now we are 
considering a bill that would make our Nation sicker, a bill that would 
hurt our most vulnerable: babies, infants, schoolchildren, the elderly.
  For good reasons, this bill is opposed by the American Academy of 
Pediatrics, the American Heart Association, the American Lung 
Association, the American Public Health Association, the National 
Association of County and City Health Officials, and many, many more. 
These experts know that this bill is nothing more than a recipe for 
increased sickness and more suffering.
  We know that people are being harmed by ozone. We have a duty to our 
citizens to raise the bar and protect their health. This is the 
people's House. We are here to protect the people. We are here to fight 
for the most vulnerable among us and not to represent special 
interests. We need to be the body to promote health, not take away 
healthcare. We need to fight for kids, not make them sick. We need to 
clean our air, not protect polluters.
  Mr. Speaker, support this amendment and make sure this bill is not 
the health catastrophe all the experts know that it is.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues and friends, I appreciate 
the debate. Those who followed it here, just a couple of points.
  The question is: Why are we here today?
  In 2008, the EPA established ozone standards, and then it took the 
EPA 7 years to tell communities how to comply with those 2008 
standards. It is the truth. I am just telling you the truth.
  Three months later, after they told the communities how to comply, 
they said: Now we are going to give you 2015 standards.
  That is why we are here. We are just here trying to say that if the 
EPA is going to establish standards, then they ought to say: We are 
going to give you the guidelines on how to comply now, not 7 years 
later.
  So what this bill does is allow communities to meet the 2008 
standards. It doesn't roll back any standards. It says meet the 2008 
standards. In fact, we don't even say roll back the 2015 standards. We 
just say, give the communities time to comply with the 2015 standards.
  This motion is a distraction. Let's reject it, and move to pass the 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 191, 
noes 235, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 390]

                               AYES--191

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blum
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--235

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross

[[Page 11094]]


     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Cummings
     Granger
     Labrador
     Napolitano
     Ruppersberger
     Scalise
     Welch


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1736

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 229, 
noes 199, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 391]

                               AYES--229

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--199

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Faso
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Mast
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Reichert
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Stefanik
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Cummings
     Granger
     Labrador
     Napolitano
     Scalise

                              {time}  1743

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


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I was absent during rollcall votes No. 
385, No. 386, No. 387, No. 388, No. 389, No. 390, and No. 391 due to my 
spouses's health situation in California. Had I been present, I would 
have voted ``yea'' on the Castor Amendment. I would have also voted 
``yea'' on the Tonko Amendment. I would have also voted ``yea'' on the 
Beyer Amendment. I would have also voted ``yea'' on the Polis 
Amendment. I would have also voted ``yea'' on the McNerney Amendment 5. 
I would have also voted ``yea'' on the Democratic Motion to Recommit 
H.R. 806. I would have also voted ``nay'' on the Final Passage of H.R. 
806--Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017.

                          ____________________