Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PLAY
VALUABLE ROLES IN ENSURING THAT
AMERICANS BREATHE CLEAN AND
HEALTHY AIR.
I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT
MY AMENDMENT AND I RESERVE THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLELADY'S TIME
IS RESERVED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA.
I CLAIM TIME IN OPPOSITION.
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
I THANK THE CHAIRMAN.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD ALLOW THE
E.P.A. TO OVERRIDE THE STATE AND
LOCAL REGULATIONS AND THEREBY
GUT THE PURPOSE OF THIS BILL.
LET'S REMEMBER WHAT THE
COMMONSENSE PURPOSE OF THIS BILL
IS, THERE'S NOTHING RADICAL AT
ALL ABOUT THIS BILL.
AND IN FACT IN SECTION 3 THIS
BILL PROTECTS PUBLIC HEALTH.
IT PROTECTS PUBLIC HEALTH BY
RELYING ON THE STATE AND LOCAL
REGULATORS WHO ARE BEST EQUIPPED
TO MAKE JUDGMENTS ABOUT
NATURALLY OCCURRING DUST.
AND DOES NOTHING, DOES
NOTHING AT ALL TO AFFECT THE
PARTICULATE MATTER STANDARD.
AND I THINK THAT THAT'S
IMPORTANT TO NOTE IN AS MUCH AS
IT SEEMS THAT THE OPPOSITION
SEEMS TO WANT TO FORGET THAT.
LET'S REMEMBER THE ULTIMATE
PURPOSE OF THIS BILL AND THAT IS
TO PROTECT THE FARMER AND THE
RURAL BUSINESSES FROM
OVERREACHING FEDERAL REGULATION
THAT CAUSES UNCERTAINTY AND IT
CAUSES JOB LOSS.
HOWEVER, THE E.P.A. AND THE
OPPOSITION TALKS ABOUT THE MYTH.
THEY SAY THERE'S MORE LIKELY
THAT THE E.P.A. WOULD REGULATE
FAIRY DUST.
THEY SAY THAT THIS IS A SOLUTION
IN SEARCH OF A PROBLEM.
BUT OUR FARMERS KNOW BETTER, OUR
RURAL BUSINESS OWNERS KNOW
BETTER.
THEY KNOW BETTER BECAUSE THEY'RE
ABLE AND HAVE LOOKED AT THE
PROPOSED REGULATIONS AND THE
PROPOSALS FROM THE E.P.A. STAFF
THAT'S DATED BACK IN APRIL IN
WHICH THEY PROPOSE LOOKING AT --
AND REVISING THE PM-10 STANDARD.
THEY ALSO HAVE SEEN THE LETTER
THAT WAS SENT TO MY OFFICE IN
MAY OF THIS YEAR IN WHICH MRS.
MCCARTHY, THE ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR, MAKES IT CLEAR
THAT AGRICULTURE AND
AGRICULTURAL DUST AND DUST
COMING OFF OF ROADS IS
ABSOLUTELY WITHIN THE LARGER --
LARGER VIEW OF THESE STANDARDS.
THAT'S WHAT OUR FARMERS KNOW.
EXPERIENCE.
THEY KNOW WHAT THEY HAVE ENDURED
OVER THE YEARS, OVER THE DECADES
OF WHAT COMES OUT OF WASHINGTON
EVERYDAY LIFE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THEIR TRACK
RECORD, YOU CAN ONLY SEE WHY
THERE IS UNCERTAINTY AND WHY
THEY BELIEVE THIS IS A VERY,
VERY REAL THREAT.
I AM PROUD TO BE ABLE TO TRAVEL
ACROSS MY RURAL DISTRICT IN
SOUTHSIDE VIRGINIA AND CENTRAL
VIRGINIA AND TALK TO FARMERS.
IN AUGUST I SAT DOWN WITH A
GROUP OF FARMERS.
AND ONE OF THE FARMERS THAT WAS
THERE IS A PEACH FARMER, A FRUIT
AND HE SAID TO ME, HE SAID, YOU
KNOW, MR. HURT, HE SAID, ON MY
FARM, WHERIFY FAMILY'S BEEN FOR
GENERATIONS, GROWING PEACHES TO
FOR OUR CUSTOMERS, HE SAYS, I'M
REGULATED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.
THE F.D.A.
TRANSPORTATION.
THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS, THE
E.P.A. AND THE LIST GOES ON WHEN
YOU ADD THE STATE AND LOCAL
REGULATORS.
HE SAYS, I'M REGULATED BY ALL OF
THOSE DIFFERENT AGENCIES, MOST
OF THEM FEDERAL AGENCIES, AND
ALL I'M TRYING TO DO IS GROW A
PEACH.
HOW HARD CAN IT BE?
AND I THINK WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE
COMMONSENSE PURPOSE OF THIS BILL
YOU WILL SEE THAT THIS AMENDMENT
WOULD GUT IT AND IT IS FOR THAT
REASON THAT I WOULD URGE MY
COLLEAGUES TO VOTE AGAINST THIS
AMENDMENT.
THANK YOU.
DOES THE GENTLEMAN
YIELD BACK HIS TIME?
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLELADY FROM THE ***
REMAINING.
I'D LIKE TO
ADD THAT MY AMENDMENT DOES NOT
TAKE AWAY ANY AUTHORITY FROM THE
GOVERNMENTS, IT JUST ENSURES
THAT THEY SET STANDARDS THAT ARE
BASED ON THE PROTECTION OF THE
PUBLIC HEALTH AND WITH THAT I
YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
THE GENTLELADY YIELDS
BACK THE BALANCE OF HER TIME.
THE QUESTION IS ON THE AMENDMENT
OFFERED BY THE GENTLELADY FROM
THE *** ISLANDS.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR, THE
NOES HAVE IT.
I ASK FOR A
ROLL CALL VOTE.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 6
OF RULE 18, FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
WILL BE POSTPONED.
IT IS NOW IN ORDER TO CONSIDER
AMENDMENT NUMBER 3 PRINTED IN
HOUSE REPORT 112-317.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM ARKANSAS SEEK
RECOGNITION?
MR. SPEAKER, I
HAVE AN AMENDMENT AT THE DESK.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 3
PRINTED IN HOUSE REPORT 112-317
OFFERED BY MR. CRAWFORD OF
ARKANSAS.
PURSUANT TO HOUSE
RESOLUTION 487, THE GENTLEMAN
FROM ARKANSAS, MR. CRAWFORD, AND
A MEMBER OPPOSED WILL EACH
CONTROL FIVE MINUTES.
SPEAKER.
MY AMENDMENT IS VERY
STRAIGHTFORWARD AND I BELIEVE IT
WILL HELP PROVIDE THE PROPER
COMMUNICATION WITH THE E.P.A.
WHEN THEY GO TO WRITE AIR
QUALITY STANDARDS FOR
PARTICULATE MATTER.
THE LEGISLATION BEING CONSIDERED
TODAY EXCLUDES NUISANCE DUST
FROM THE E.P.A. REGULATORY NET
BUT THE BILL PROVIDES AN
EXEMPTION IF THE E.P.A.
DETERMINES THAT THE ECONOMIC
BENEFITS OF REGULATING DUST
OUTWEIGH THE COST.
MY AMENDMENT WOULD SIMPLY DIRECT
THE E.P.A. TO CONSULT WITH THE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE IN
MAKING ITS DETERMINATION.
AS A MEMBER OF THE AG COMMITTEE
I'VE HEARD TESTIMONY FROM BOTH
THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND
THE E.P.A. ADMINISTRATOR ON HOW
THEIR RESPECTIVE AGENCIES
PROPOSE AND WRITE REGULATIONS.
A PROBLEM BECAME APPARENT TO ME
TO COMMUNICATE.
NEITHER AGENCY COULD GIVE ME A
SUFFICIENT EXPLANATION OF THE
PROTOCOL FOR INTERAGENCY
COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE E.P.A.
AND THE USDA.
THEIR RESPONSES WERE
BUREAUCRATIC AND VAGUE.
I FIND THIS TROUBLING BECAUSE IF
YOU ASK THE FARMERS AND RANCHERS
IN MY ARKANSAS DISTRICT ABOUT
THE GREATEST THREAT TO THEIR
OPERATIONS THEY ALWAYS RESPOND
WITH THREE LETTERS, E.P.A.
I DON'T THINK THEIR RESPONSE
WOULD BE THE SAME IF BOTH
AGENCIES WORKED TOGETHER MORE
OFTEN.
PERHAPS THE BEST EXAMPLE OF THE
RIGHT HAND NOT KNOWING WHAT THE
LEFT HAND IS DOING OCCURRED THIS
PAST SUMMER WHEN THE PRESIDENT
WAS IN HIS HOME STATE OF
ILLINOIS FOR A TOWN HALL EVENT.
ONE FARMER ASKED THE PRESIDENT
WHY THE E.P.A. WAS TARGETING NEW
REGULATIONS AT FARMERS AFTER A
DIFFICULT GROWING SEASON THROUGH
THE MIDWEST AND MIDSOUTH THIS
YEAR.
THE PRESIDENT POINTED TO
SECRETARY VILSACK FOR BACKUP AND
ASKED THE FARMER TO EXPLAIN THE
SPECIFIC REGULATIONS.
THE FARMER CITED RULES THAT
WOULD BE CRIPPLING TO THE AG
COMMUNITY INCLUDING REGULATING
PRESIDENT OBAMA DEFIANTLY
DISMISSED THE QUESTION BY
SAYING, QUOTE, DON'T ALWAYS
BELIEVE WHAT YOU HEAR.
HE LATER TOLD THE CROWD, IF YOU
EVER HAVE A QUESTION AS TO
WHETHER IT'S GOING TO MAKE IT
HARDER FOR YOU TO FARM, CONTACT
USDA.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE
PRESIDENT DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT'S
E.P.A. NOT THE DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE THAT WAS THE SOURCE
OF THIS MAN'S FRUSTRATIONS.
YET THE -- IF THE PRESIDENT
DOESN'T REALIZE THAT THE E.P.A.
IS COMING DOWN *** OUR
NATION'S FARMERS AND RANCHERS
THEN WHY WOULD THE AGENCY ITSELF
FIND IT NECESSARY TO CONSIDER
AGRICULTURE IN PROPOSING
REGULATIONS?
CLEARLY IT DOES NOT.
MY AMENDMENT WOULD ENSURE THAT
THE E.P.A., THE DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE WORK TOGETHER IF THE
E.P.A. SEEKS TO FURTHER
REGULATION THE AGRICULTURE
INDUSTRY IN THE FUTURE.
THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
UNDERSTANDS THE ECONOMIC
WELL-BEING OF OUR NATION'S
FARMERS AND RANCHERS BETTER THAN
ANY OTHER AGENCY AND SHOULD HAVE
A DEGREE OF INPUT WHENEVER THE
E.P.A. WRITES RULES THAT
DIRECTLY IMPACT FARMERS AND
RANCHERS.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD BE A SMALL
BUT IMPORTANT STEP IN THAT
DIRECTION.
AND WITH THAT, MR. SPEAKER, I
YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
MEERM MR. SPEAKER, I
ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT I BE
ABLE TO CONTROL THE TIME THAT
WOULD BE ALLOTTED TO THOSE IN
OPPOSITION.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED.
FOR FIVE MINUTES.
MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS
BILL IS -- THE CRAWFORD
AMENDMENT SIMPLY REQUIRES E.P.A.
TO CONSULT WITH THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE BEFORE MAKING ANY
DETERMINATION ABOUT THE HEALTH
THREAT POSED BY POLLUTION IN AN
AREA AS WELL AS THE COST AND
BENEFITS OF TAKING ACTION.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THE DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE HAS MUCH TO
CONTRIBUTE IN TERMS OF THE
HEALTH THREATS, BUT THE BILL IS
SO OBJECTIONABLE ALREADY, IT IS
HARD TO ARGUE THAT THIS
AMENDMENT MAKES IT DECERTAINABLY
WORSE.
IT'S A DROP IN A VERY LARGE
BUCKET.
FOR THAT REASON I WILL NOT
OPPOSE THIS AMENDMENT AND WE'RE
WILLING TO ACCEPT IT.
BUT I STILL AM IN OPPOSITION TO
THE BILL.
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE QUESTION IS ON THE AMENDMENT
OFFERED BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR, THE
AYES HAVE IT.
THE AMENDMENT IS AGREED TO.
IT IS NOW IN ORDER TO CONSIDER
AMENDMENT NUMBER 4 PRINTED IN
HOUSE REPORT 112-317.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
SEEK RECOGNITION?
I HAVE AN AMENDMENT
AT THE DESK.
THE CLERK WILL
DESIGNATE THE AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 4
OFFERED BY MR. MARKEY OF
MASSACHUSETTS.
PURSUANT TO HOUSE
RESOLUTION 48 7, THE GENTLEMAN
FROM MASSACHUSETTS, MR. MARKY,
AND A MEMBER OPPOSED EACH WILL
CONTROL FIVE MINUTES.
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MASSACHUSETTS.
I YIELD MYSELF TWO
MINUTES.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED.
IN THIS LEGISLATION
THE REPUBLICAN MAJORITY EXEMPTS
ALL SO-CALLED NUISANCE DUST FROM
THE PROTECTIVE AIR QUALITY
STANDARDS FOR COARSE PARTICLE OR
SOOT POLLUTION UNDER THE CLEAN
AIR ACT.
REPUBLICANS HAVE DEFINED
NUISANCE DUST TO INCLUDE
PARTICULATE MATTER THAT IS
GENERATED FROM EARTH MOVING OR
OTHER ACTIVITIES THAT ARE
TYPICALLY CONDUCTED IN RURAL
AREAS.
THIS LEGISLATION'S BROAD
DEFINITION MEANS A BILL WHICH IS
SUPPOSED TO BE ALL ABOUT
TRACTORS AND FARMS IS ACTUALLY
ABOUT BARRING E.P.A. FROM
REGULATING THE TOXIC SOOT THAT
COMES OUT OF MINES, SMELTERS,
CHEMICAL PLANTS.
AND THAT'S BECAUSE ALL OF THESE
MATERIALS COME FROM EARTH
MOVING, NATURAL MATERIALS
ACTIVITIES THAT TAKE PLACE IN
RURAL AREAS.
NOW, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE
MAJORITY BUT WHEN MOST PEOPLE
HEAR THE WORD NUISANCE THEY
THINK OF THINGS LIKE HONKING,
THEM.
DON'T THINK OF POISON.
BY PREVENTING E.P.A. FROM
REGULATING THE TOXIC SOOT
SPEWING OUT OF MINING
OPERATIONS, SMELTERS, CHEMICAL
FACILITIES AN CONSTRUCTION
SITES, REPUBLICANS HAVE
APPARENTLY DECIDED THAT
POISONOUS CHEMICALS SUCH AS
ARSENIC, LEAD AND MERCURY ARE
MERE NUISANCES.
THIS FALSE ADVERTISING IS NOT A
TOTAL SURPRISE.
WE HAVE HEARD FROM REPUBLICAN
WITNESSES IN THE PAST WHO IN
DEFENSE OF THE MOST POLLUTING
INDUSTRIES HAVE UNWILLINGLY
OFFERED UP THE ABSURD.
IN FACT, IN THE LAST CONGRESS,
AT A HEARING I CHAIRED, THE
REPUBLICAN WITNESS SAID HE WOULD
BE HAPPY TO SPRINKLE
ARSENIC-LACED COAL ASH ON HIS
CEREAL.
IT TURNS OUT THAT THE REPUBLICAN
WITNESS IS NOT ALONE IN HIS
SUGGESTION TO USE ARSENIC AS A
DIETARY SUPPLEMENT.
ARSENIC, WHICH IS A MAJOR
COMPONENT OF MINING ACTIVITIES,
WAS FAMOUSLY USED TO POISON AND
KILL A NUMBER OF PROMINENT
PEOPLE THROUGHOUT HISTORY,
INCLUDING IN A POLE ON, KING
GEORGE IIU -- NAPOLEON, KING
GEORGE III AND THE EMPEROR OF
IN THE 19TH CENTURY -- THAT THE
POINT I WOULD LIKE TO RESERVE
THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEBRASKA.
OPPOSITION.
I THANK THE CHAIRMAN AND
APPRECIATE THE GENTLEMAN FROM
BOSTON'S ARGUMENTS HERE ABOUT
THE FACT THAT -- OR SUGGESTING
THAT THIS BILL SOMEHOW EXEMPTS
ARSENIC AND ALL THESE POISONS
AND THE REALITY IS, IT DOES NOT.
IT'S AN UNNECESSARY AMENDMENT,
IT, ONE, IS TO MAKE A POINT THAT
I THINK IS INFLATED.
THE REALITY IS EMISSIONS OF
ARSENIC ABOVE THE STANDARD WOULD
STILL BE IN VIOLATION OF A
E.P.A. RULES.
THE ALSO THEN EXIST IF YOU'RE
MOVE THE GOAL POST TO
A ZERO PARTICULATE, THEN WE'VE
GOT A DIFFERENT ISSUE HERE.
NOW, THE DUST THAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT FROM AGRICULTURAL
ACTIVITIES, PLOWING,
HARVESTING, DRIVING ON ROADS,
IN OUR OWN DEFINITION SAYS THAT
IT CONSISTS PRIMARILY OF SOIL
AND OTHER NATURAL AND
BIOLOGICAL MATERIALS.
SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO ADOPT A
NEW STANDARD, TOTALLY DIFFERENT
THAN CURRENT STANDARDS THAT THE
E.P.A. ON SUCH ISSUES LIKE
ARSENIC, THE REALITY IN RURAL
AMERICA IS A NATURAL PART OF
OUR SOIL AND WHEN DUST WOULD
KICK UP AND BLOW IT WILL BE AT
A PARTICULATE LEVEL BELOW WHAT
THE STANDARDS ARE AND WE'RE
JUST TRYING TO SAY, LOOK, THE
REALITY IS THE E.P.A. EVEN SAYS
THAT AT THE EXTREMELY MINOR
LEVEL OF PARTICULATES THAT
WOULD BE INHERENT IN TOPSOIL
WIND
OR FARMING ACTIVITIES IS NOT A
HEALTH RISK.
IN FACT, ONE OF THE AUTHORS OF
THE E.P.A.'S MOST RECENT
INTEGRATED SCIENCE ASSESSMENT
FOR PARTICULATE MATTER ISSUED
IN 2010 TESTIFIED BEFORE OUR
COMMITTEE AND STATED, QUOTE,
FOR LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF COARSE
PARTICULATES THERE IS NEXT TO
NO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF
LONG-TERM HEALTH AFFECTS.
AND IN RURAL AMERICA, IN
NEBRASKA, WE CAN SHOW YOU
REAL-LIFE EXAMPLES.
IN RURAL AMERICA THEY HAVE THE
HIGHEST HEALTH STANDARDS AND
LONGEVITY OF LIFE AND HEALTH.
SO WITH THAT I WILL LET THE
GENTLEMAN CLOSE ON HIS
AMENDMENT AND YIELD BACK TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASSACHUSETTS.
I YIELD MYSELF THE
BALANCE OF THE TIME.
RECOGNIZED.
IN THE 19TH
CENTURY, MERCURY, ANOTHER
COMMON MINING WASTE, WAS USED
AS A CURE-ALL FOR TWO THINGS
AND OTHER AILMENTS.
TURNS OUT THE MERCURY IS ALSO
IS HIGHLY TOXIC.
IT CAUSES SEVERE IMPACTS ON THE
BRAIN, AND THROUGHOUT HISTORY
HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS THE
POISON BEHIND MANY OTHER
NOTABLE ILLNESSES AND DEATHS IN
THE HISTORY OF OUR PLANET.
BY DEFINING NUISANCE DUST THIS
WAY, THE REPUBLICANS ARE
ESSENTIALLY PROVIDING THE
MINING INDUSTRY WITH THE
HOLIDAY GIFT OF POLLUTION.
INSTEAD OF GOALS, THE
REPUBLICANS ARE BEARING GIFTS
OF ARSENIC AND MERCURY FOR
THE SO-CALLED NUISANCE DUST
DOESN'T INCLUDE POISONOUS
ARSENIC OR OTHER HEAVY METALS
ARE HAZARDOUS TO HUMAN
HEALTH BECAUSE CANCER IS NOT A
NUISANCE.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CHILD'S
BRAIN IS NOT A NUISANCE.
YET, THE REPUBLICANS WOULD
TREAT THESE CONDITIONS AS A
NUISANCE RATHER THAN AS MEDICAL
CAN T.S.A. ROW FEES FOR THE
FAMILIAR -- CATASTROPHES FOR
THE FAMILIES OF AMERICA.
SO LET'S BE CLEAR WHAT THIS
BILL IS ALL ABOUT.
THIS IS ANOTHER ATTEMPT BY THE
REPUBLICANS TO PROTECT BIG COAL
BY CREATING ANOTHER LOOPHOLE TO
AVOID THE CLEAN AIR ACT SO THAT
FAMILIES DON'T HAVE TO WORRY
THAT THEIR CHILDREN ARE
INHALING THESE DANGEROUS
MATERIALS, THE ARSENIC, THE
LEAD, THE MERCURY THAT THEY ARE
PETRO FIND ARE GOING TO HAVE --
PETROIFIED ARE GOING TO HAVE A
LONG-TERM AFFECT ON THEIR
CHILD'S DEVELOPMENT.
THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT.
AND THE COAL INDUSTRY IS SAYING
NO.
THE REPUBLICANS ARE USING THE
GUISE OF SOME FARM DUST, CLOUD
OF CONFUSION TO MASK WHAT
THEY'RE REALLY TRYING TO DO
WHICH IS TO ALLOW THE COAL
INDUSTRY TO SEND THIS LEAD,
THIS MERCURY, THIS ARSENIC UP
INTO THE AIR AND INTO THE LUNGS
OF CHILDREN ACROSS OUR COUNTRY,
ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT ARE SO
YOUNG THAT WE KNOW IT HAS AN
IMPACT ON THEIR DEVELOPMENT.
ESPECIALLY OF THEIR BRAIN.
SO I URGE AN AYE VOTE ON THIS
AMENDMENT, AND I DON'T THINK
THERE CAN BE A MORE IMPORTANT
AMENDMENT THAT WE ARE GOING TO
VOTE ON IN THIS CONGRESS, AND I
YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE QUESTION IS ON THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MASSACHUSETTS.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR,
THE NOES HAVE IT.
YEAS AND NAYS.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 6
OF RULE 18, FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
ON THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MASSACHUSETTS
WILL BE POSTPONED.
IT IS NOW IN ORDER TO CONSIDER
AMENDMENT NUMBER 5 PRINTED IN
HOUSE REPORT 112-317.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
RECOGNITION?
MR. CHAIRMAN, I
HAVE AN AMENDMENT AT THE DESK.
CLERK.
AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 5
OFFERED BY MR. WAXMAN OF
CALIFORNIA.
PURSUANT TO HOUSE
RESOLUTION 487, THE GENTLEMAN
FROM CALIFORNIA, MR. WAXMAN,
AND A MEMBER OPPOSED, EACH WILL
CONTROL FIVE MINUTES.
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
THIS BILL IS
SWITCH.
THE TITLE SAYS IT'S ABOUT FARM
DUST, BUT IN REALITY IT WOULD
EXEMPT AIR POLLUTION FROM A
NUMBER OF INDUSTRIAL SOURCES
FROM THE ENTIRE CLEAN AIR ACT,
INCLUDING MINES.
THE BILL DEFINES NUISANCE DUST
TO INCLUDE PARTICULATE MATTER
AND CONSISTS PRIMARILY OF
NATURAL MATERIALS THAT'S
GENERATED FROM EARTH MOVING.
SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT
DEFINITION, IT WOULD ALLOW
EXEMPTION FROM THE REQUIREMENT
OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT FROM
THIS IS AN EGREGIOUS OVERREACH
THAT WOULD ALLOW MINES TO
RELEASE PARTICULATE MATTER INTO
THE AIR WITHOUT ANY CONTROLS.
THE UTAH COPPER MINE SERVES A
PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHY THIS IS
A PROBLEM.
IT OPERATES ONE OF THE LARGEST
OPEN PIT COPPER MINES IN THE
WORLD IN UTAH.
THE MINE IS EVEN VISIBLE FROM
SPACE.
EVERY DAY THEY MINE ABOUT
ORE,
30,000 TONS OF WASTE ROCK FROM
THE MINE.
THE OPERATIONS IS THE SINGLE
LARGEST SOURCE OF PARTICULATE
MATERIAL IN UTAH.
THIS MINE IS HAVING -- THE MINE
IS HAVING A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ON AIR QUALITY, EVEN WITH THE
POLLUTION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS
IN PLACE.
THERE IS SIMPLY NO REASON,
THEREFORE, TO SAY WE ARE GOING
TO TAKE CARE OF THE ISSUE BY
EXEMPTING THESE MINES FROM
REGULATION UNDER THE CLEAN AIR
ACT.
AND THAT IS WHAT THIS BILL
WOULD DO.
IT WOULD EXEMPT ALL PARTICLE
POLLUTION FROM THE MINE'S
ACTIVITIES FROM THE ENTIRE
CLEAN AIR ACT.
THAT MINE IS NOW MEETING THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE CLEAN AIR
ACT.
THEY'RE DOING WHAT THEY NEED TO
DO TO STOP THE HARM FROM THE
POLLUTION FROM THAT MINE.
IF WE ADOPT THIS BILL, IT WOULD
ALLOW THEM TO REFRAIN FROM
DOING ANYTHING BUT JUST SIMPLY
POLLUTION FORWARD.
THESE MINING OPERATIONS
KINNECOCH AND OTHERS, WOULD
HAVE COARSE PARTICULATE MATTER
AND YET UNDER THIS BILL THEY
WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM
REGULATION.
SO MY AMENDMENT SIMPLY
CLARIFIES THAT THIS BILL DOES
NOT APPLY TO PARTICLE POLLUTION
FROM ANY MINING ACTIVITIES.
THE SCIENCE SHOWS THAT COARSE
AND FINE PARTICLE POLLUTION,
REGARDLESS OF THE SOURCE, CAN
TRIGGER ASTHMA ATTACKS, HEART
ATTACKS, STROKE AND PREMATURE
DEATHS AND THAT'S WHY I OPPOSE
EXEMPTING THIS FROM THE CLEAN
AIR ACT AND THAT'S WHY I OPPOSE
THE BILL.
AT A MINIMUM, IF WE ADOPT THIS
AMENDMENT, WE WILL ENSURE THAT
THE BILL IS TRUE TO ITS NAME.
THE FARM DUST REGULATION
PREVENTION ACT.
LARGE INDUSTRIAL MINES AND
GRAVEL MINING OPERATIONS
SHOULDN'T GET A FREE PASS TO
POLLUTE UNDER THE CLEVER
PRETENSE OF BEING INVOLVED WITH
FARMERS.
AND I WOULD URGE MY COLLEAGUES
TO SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT,
EXEMPTING THE MINE OPERATIONS
FROM COVERAGE UNDER THIS BILL
AND MAKING SURE THE BILL ONLY
COVERS THE COARSE PARTICULATES
FROM FARMING OPERATIONS.
TIME.
IS RESERVED.
THE GENTLELADY FROM WASHINGTON.
SPEAKER.
JUST TO LET ME CLARIFY, THE
PURPOSE OF THIS LEGISLATION,
H.R. 1633, IS TO EXEMPT RURAL
DUST FROM COSTLY AND
UNNECESSARY FEDERAL REGULATION.
IT DOESN'T DO ANYTHING TO
EXEMPT ANY KIND OF FACILITY,
SOURCE OR MINE FROM
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION.
THE PLACE
I REPRESENT IS ONE OF THE
TOUGHEST WORLD TO MINE.
MINING AND AGRICULTURAL DUST IS
COMPREHENSIBLELY REGULATED BY
MANY, MANY
FEDERAL STATUTES CURRENTLY IN
PLACE.
INCLUDING THE SERVICE MINING
AND CONTROL RECLAMATION ACT,
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY ACT,
RECOVERY ACT, CLEAN WATER ACT,
FEDERAL LAND POLICY AND
MANAGEMENT ACT, THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT AND
MANY OTHERS.
THIS INCLUDES REGULATION BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR OF DUST
FROM WIND EROSION AND VEHICLE
TRAFFIC ASSOCIATED WITH MINES.
STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES
WILL STILL HAVE FULL AUTHORITY
TO IMPOSE NUISANCE DUST
CONTROLS AND RURAL AMERICA
NEEDS CERTAINTY THAT THEY WON'T
BE SECOND GUESSED BY THE E.P.A.
I URGE A NO ON THIS AMENDMENT.
AND BOTTOM LINE, IF YOU STOP
STORY HERE.
A FORY OF TWO PATHS FORWARD.
ONE PATH HAS -- A STORY OF TWO
PATHS FORWARD.
ONE PATH THAT WILL BRING JOB
THIS COUNTRY.
THE SECOND PATH HAS BROUGHT AND
WILL CONTINUE TO BRING ECONOMIC
STAGNATION TO OUR NATION.
IS THAT THE
ADMINISTRATION SEEMS TO
CONTINUE TO ADVOCATE FOR THE
SECOND PATH.
OF COURSE, I'M TALKING ABOUT
THE PATH OF E.P.A.
OVERREGULATION THAT CONTINUES
TO PUT A STRANGLEHOLD ON
IN THIS COUNTRY.
THE NEXT PHASE OF THE E.P.A.'S
PATH IS AMERICA'S FARMLAND.
WHETHER YOU'RE WORKING IN THE
FIELD, HERDING CATTLE OR
DRIVING DOWN A DIRT ROAD, THE
E.P.A. WANTS TO REGULATE THE
DUST YOU PICK UP.
THE FARM DUST REGULATION
PREVENTION ACT OF 2011 WILL
ENSURE THIS PATH IS STOPPED BY
PROHIBITING THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF A STRICTER P.M.T. STANDARD
FOR ONE YEAR AND EXEMPTING
NUISANCE DUST, LIKE FARM DUST,
REGULATION.
I APPLAUD MY COLLEAGUES,
REPRESENTATIVES NOEM AND HURT,
FOR INTRODUCING THIS IMPORTANT
LEGISLATION.
I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT
IT AND WOULD LIKE TO RESERVE
THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLELADY'S
TIME IS RESERVED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
MR. CHAIRMAN, FARM
DUST IS NOT THE SAME THING AS
POLLUTION FROM A MINE.
AND MY AMENDMENT WOULD EXCLUDE
POLLUTION FROM A MINE AS PART
OF THIS LEGISLATION SO THAT IT
COULD STAY UNDER E.P.A.
REGULATION UNDER THE CLEAN AIR
ACT AS IT IS TODAY.
THERE'S NO REASON TO GIVE THE
MINING OPERATIONS WHETHER THEY
ARE IN RURAL OR URBAN AREAS A
PASS, NOT TO EVEN MEET THE
REQUIREMENTS TO PROTECT THE
PUBLIC FROM UNSAFE POLLUTANTS
THAT COULD CAUSE HEALTH --
ADVERSE HEALTH IMPACTS.
I URGE ADOPTION OF THE
AMENDMENT AND YIELD BACK THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
BACK HIS TIME.
THE GENTLELADY FROM WASHINGTON.
MS. MCMORRIS ROGER R.S.C. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH.
I'D LIKE TO -- MRS. MCMORRIS
RODGERS: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I'D LIKE TO YIELD TO THE CHAIR
OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE.
RECOGNIZED.
THIS IS A LITTLE
OFF TOPIC.
WE HAVE A YOUNG MAN THAT SERVED
THE ENERGY AND COMMERCE
COMMITTEE AND TO ME PERSONALLY
FOR MANY YEARS, DID AN
OUTSTANDING JOB.
HIS NAME IS JEFF MORTIER AND
TOMORROW IS HIS LAST DAY AS AN
EMPLOYEE FOR THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, AND I JUST
WANT TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY
TO THANK HIM FOR THE GREAT JOB
THAT HE DID AND TO WISH HIM THE
VERY BEST IN HIS NEW ENDEAVOR
AND YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF
MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
THE QUESTION IS ON THE
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR,
THE AYES HAVE IT.
I ASK FOR A
RECORDED VOTE.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 6
OF RULE 18, FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
ON THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA WILL
IT IS NOW IN ORDER TO CONSIDER
AMENDMENT NUMBER 6.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
RECOGNITION?
AT THE DESK.
THE CLERK WILL
REPORT THE AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 6
PRINTED IN HOUSE REPORT 112-317
OFFERED BY MR. FLAKE OF
ARIZONA.
PURSUANT TO HOUSE
RESOLUTION 487, THE GENTLEMAN
FROM ARIZONA, MR. FLAKE, AND A
MEMBER OPPOSED, EACH WILL
CONTROL FIVE MINUTES.
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM ARIZONA.
CHAIRMAN.
WHILE THE CLEAN AIR ACT
OBVIOUSLY SERVES THE USEFUL
PURPOSE, ALL TOO OFTEN STATES
AND LOCALITIES ARE TIED UP IN
KNOTS JUST TRYING TO COMPLY
WITH PROVISIONS OF IT WHILE THE
RULES PROMULGATED IN RESPONSE
TO THE LAW OR AMENDMENTS TO THE
LAW JUST WEREN'T WELL THOUGHT
OUT.
AND IN THIS REGARD IN 2005
CONGRESS AMENDED THE CLEAN AIR
ACT SO STATES AND LOCALITIES
COULD GET OFF THE REGULATORY
HOOK FOR SO-CALLED EXCEPTIONAL
EVENTS, DUST EVENTS, EVENTS
THEY CANNOT CONTROL BUT IMPACT
AIR QUALITY.
IN 2007, THE E.P.A. ADOPTED THE
EXCEPTIONAL EVENT RULE
IMPLEMENTING CONGRESS'
AMENDMENT TO THE CLEAN AIR ACT,
BUT THIS RULE HAS PROVEN
FLAWED, COSTLY AND
INCONSISTENTLY IMPLEMENTED.
LET ME GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT
TALKING ABOUT HERE.
THIS IS A PHOTOGRAPH OF ONE OF
THE EVENTS THAT HAPPENED JUST
THIS YEAR IN THE PHOENIX AREA,
PHOENIX METROPOLITAN AREA.
THIS WAS CAUSED BY THE MONSOON.
THE MONSOON COMES ALONG AND WHEN
IT ROLLS ALONG FLAT GROUND IT
TEND TO PICK UP EVERY LOOSE BIT
OF DUST OR DIRT THAT'S THERE AND
IT CAUSES AN EVENT LIKE THIS.
OBVIOUSLY THIS IS NOT SOMETHING
THAT THE STATE OR THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS CAN CONTROL.
YET WE ARE FORCED TO GO THEN TO
THE E.P.A. AND BEG FOR AN
EXCEPTION TO THE CHEAP AIR ACT.
AND IT'S PROVEN EXTREMELY COSTLY
WHEN WE HAVE TO DO IT OVER AND
I RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
CALIFORNIA.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO SPEAK ON
THIS AMENDMENT.
RECOGNIZED.
I WANTED TO SAY TO
THE GENTLEMAN THAT I THINK HIS
AMENDMENT MAKES A GREAT DEAL OF
SENSE.
IT COMPLIES WITH WHAT I THINK
E.P.A. OUGHT TO DO UNDER THESE
EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND WE
ARE PREPARED TO ACCEPT HIS
AMENDMENT.
Y50E8D BACK HIS TIME?
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
ARIZONA.
GENTLEMAN.
MORE.
IF YOU CAN PUT THAT PICTURE BACK
UP WHILE WE ARE SPEAKING HERE.
JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA HOW
PREVALENT THE PROBLEM IS, IN
ARIZONA THE MAAG HAS SAID THERE
ARE ABOUT 100 EXCEEDENCES OF
STANDARD THIS YEAR, ALL BUT ONE,
ALL BUT ONE WAS FROM AN
EXCEPTIONAL EVENT.
DUST STORMS THAT OCCUR
NATURALLY.
AND SO WHAT HAPPENS THEN IS
STATE AND LOCALITIES HAVE TO GO
TO THE E.P.A. AND BEG FOR AN
EXCEPTION TO THE RULE.
IN SOME CASES JUST FOR AN
EXAMPLE IF YOU TAKE ALL OF THE
EVENTS IN 2011, THE ASSOCIATION
OF GOVERNMENTS HAS ESTIMATED
THAT IT WILL COST OVER $1
MILLION, $1 MILLION TO JUST
ARGUE AND PUT TOGETHER THE
PAPERWORK TO GO TO THE E.P.A.
AND SAY THIS WAS A BIG MONSOON
THAT CAUSED THIS.
IT WAS AN EXCEPTIONAL EVENT.
IN THE END THEY MAY RULE IN OUR
FAVOR BUT THE COST OF ACTUALLY
GOING THROUGH IT, IT'S NOT JUST
MIRACOPA COUNTY.
THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY THEY HAVE
NOTED THAT THE PAPERWORK FOR
JUST ONE HIGH WIND EXCEPTIONAL
EVENT TAKES MORE THAN 400 STAFF
HOURS TO PREPARE, TO GOT TO THE
E.P.A.
400 STAFF HOURS FOR ONE
EXCEPTIONAL EVENT LIKE THIS.
TO GO AND SAY THIS SHOULDN'T
COUNT AGAINST OUR AIR QUALITY OR
ACCOUNT AGAINST US IN TERMS OF
NEW REGULATIONS THAT WILL BE
IMPOSED AND COST UPON US.
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT AMENDMENT.
IT'S NOT JUST AN ACADEMIC
QUESTION.
I'M GLAD THAT ALL SIDES
RECOGNIZE THIS.
I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FROM
CALIFORNIA FOR ACCEPTING THE
I WISH TO YIELD TIME TO THE
IS SPONSOR OF THE
BILL ITSELF.
I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I AM A
CO-SPONSOR OF THE BILL, THE
UNDERLYING BILL, UPON WHICH THIS
AMENDMENT WILL BE ATTACHED, AND
I SUPPORT IT.
I THANK HER FOR HER DOINGED WORK
AT BRINGING THIS FORWARD.
THE GENTLELADY FROM
SOUTH DAKOTA VIRGINIA TECH.
MISS --
I --
THIS WOULD HAVE A
SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT THE
E.P.A. SHOULD EXCLUDE
EXCEPTIONAL EVENTS.
THEY WOULD GIVE US A CONSISTENT
AND TRANSPARENT MANNER FOR
DEALING WITH THESE EVENTS, AND
CERTAINLY RURAL AMERICA AND
OTHER PARTS OF AMERICA NEED THE
CERTAINTY THAT THE REGULATION IS
NOT TRIGGERED BY NATURAL EVENTS
THAT ARE OUT OF CONTROL.
THAT.
I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
GENTLELADY.
THE E.P.A. DOES RECOGNIZE THERE
IS A PROBLEM HERE AND THEY ARE
WORKING TO CORRECT IT.
IT'S JUST TAKING A LONG TIME.
IN
WE HAVE HAD THREE, FOUR YEARS
SINCE THAT TIME AND EVERY YEAR
IT COSTS STATES AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
JUST TO SEEK EXCEPTIONS WITH
THESE EXCEPTIONAL EVENTS.
SO I -- THIS LANGUAGE, THIS
AMENDMENT SIMPLY ENCOURAGES THE
E.P.A. TO MOVE FOR QUICKLY.
AND THAT CONGRESS STANDS READY
TO HELP THEM TO FASHION A NEW
THESE EXCEPTIONAL EVENTS.
WITH THAT I URGE SUPPORT FOR THE
AMENDMENT AND YIELD BACK THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM ARIZONA.
SO MANY AS ARE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR, THE
THE AMENDMENT IS AGREED TO.
IT'S NOW IN ORDER TO CONSIDER
AMENDMENT NUMBER 7 PRINTED IN
HOUSE REPORT 112-317.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM ILLINOIS SEEK
RECOGNITION?
I HAVE AN AMENDMENT
AT THE DESK.
DESIGNATE THE AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 7,
PRINTED IN HOUSE REPORT NUMBER
112-317, OFFERED BY MR. SCHOCK
OF ILLINOIS.
PURSUANT TO HOUSE
RESOLUTION 487, THE GENTLEMAN
FROM ILLINOIS, MR. SCHOCK, AND A
MEMBER OPPOSED, EACH WILL
CONTROL FIVE MINUTES.
THE CHAIR NOW RECOGNIZES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM ILLINOIS.
I RISE TODAY TO
OFFER AN AMENDMENT WITH MY GOOD
FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE,
CONGRESSWOMAN SHELLEY MOORE
CAPITO OF WEST VIRGINIA.
OUR AMENDMENT IS SIMPLE AND
SPRORD.
IT REQUIRES -- STRAIGHTFORWARD.
IT REQUIRES THE EP TAUPE
CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF NEW
AGRICULTURAL JOBS AND THE
ECONOMY BEFORE ISSUING NEW RULES
AND REGULATIONS.
SIMILAR AMENDMENT TO THE CLEAN
WATER COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM ACT
PASSED THIS HOUSE IN JULY, AND
IT ENJOYED BROAD BIPARTISAN
SUPPORT.
MY AMENDMENT TODAY SAYS THAT IF
JOBS IN THE ECONOMIC WELL-BEING
OF FARMERS WOULD BE NEGATIVELY
IMPACTED, THAT THE E.P.A. WILL
BE REQUIRED TO HOLD PUBLIC
HEARINGS IN THE IMPACTED STATE.
IT WOULD ALSO REQUIRE THE E.P.A.
TO NOTIFY THE STATE'S GOVERNOR,
LEGISLATURE, AND CONGRESSIONAL
DISTRICT.
AND IT WOULD REQUIRE THAT THE
E.P.A. POST THEIR ANALYSIS OF
THE NEGATIVE JOB IMPACT ON THEIR
WEBSITE, REQUEST THE SECRETARY
OF AGRICULTURE TO DO THE SAME,
AND REQUEST THE GOVERNOR OF THAT
STATE TO POST THAT SIMILAR
ANALYSIS ON THE STATE CAPITAL
WEBSITE.
I DON'T BELIEVE THIS IS TOO MUCH
TO ASK.
WE ARE SIMPLY ASKING FOR THE
E.P.A. TO CALCULATE THE NUMBER
OF JOBS LOST AND THE ECONOMIC
IMPACT ON THE AGRICULTURAL
WOULD DO SUCH.
IF THEIR CALCULATION TURNS OUT
TO BE DETRIMENTAL, WE WANT THE
E.P.A. TO LET OUR NATION'S
FARMERS KNOW BEFORE THEY
IMPLEMENT ADDITIONAL RED TAPE.
WE EXPECT THE BUREAUCRATS IN THE
E.P.A. HERE IN WASHINGTON, D.C.,
TO GO OUT TO THE REAL WORLD AND
UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT OF THE
RULES THAT THEY ARE
IMPLEMENTING, THAT THEY ARE
SUGGESTING, AND THAT HAVE A REAL
EFFECT ON FARMERS WHO ARE TRYING
TO RUN THEIR OPERATIONS ACROSS
AMERICA.
THEY ARE HELPING TO FEED THE
WORLD'S POPULATION.
THIS PAST WEEKEND THE ILLINOIS
FARM BUREAU IN MY HOME STATE HAD
THEIR ANNUAL MEETING AND THEY
CONDUCT ADD SURVEY OF THE
THOUSANDS OF FARMERS WHO
PARTICIPATED AT THAT CONVENTION.
THEY ASKED THEM AN OPEN-ENDED
QUESTION -- WHAT POSED THE
BIGGEST THREAT TO THEIR FUTURE
PROFITABLITY AS FAMILIAR
THEIR ANSWER?
WAS AN INPUT COSTS.
LOWER COMMODITY PRICES.
LAND PRICES.
COMMODITY PRICE SWINGS.
NO, THEIR ANSWER WAS
OVERWHELMINGLY GOVERNMENT
REGULATION.
DALE, A FARMER FROM
JACKSONVILLE, ILLINOIS, TOLD ME,
AND I QUOTE, THE THOUGHT OF THE
E.P.A. CONTINUING TO PLACE MORE
REGULATION ON MY FARMING
OPERATION IS UNFOUNDED.
MY FAMILY PRIDES ITSELF ON BEING
ENVIRONMENTALLY STEWARDS OF OUR
PROPERTY AND MAKING OUR FARM
BETTER FOR THE NEXT GENERATION.
WE DO IT BETTER HERE THAN ANY
OTHER PLACE IN THE WORLD.
JAMIE ANOTHER FARMER FROM MY
DISTRICT TOLD ME, THAT QUOTE,
THE E.P.A. OVERREGULATION HAS
THE POTENTIAL TO SHUT US DOWN.
WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO FARM WITH
MODERN EQUIPMENT, LIVESTOCK,
WALK ACROSS THE FIELD, AND
CREATE DUST WHEN IT'S DRY OUT.
WE NEED TO TAKE REGULATORS OUT
TO OUR FARMS AND PERSONALLY SHOW
THEM THERE IS NO WAY AROUND DUST
OR DIRT.
IT'S JUST A PART OF THE NATURAL
ENVIRONMENT.
LET'S LET DALE, JAMIE, AND OTHER
FARMERS IN OUR COUNTRY CONTINUE
TO DO WHAT THEY DO BEST AND LET
THE E.P.A. BUREAUCRATS
UNDERSTAND FIRST BEFORE THEY
IMPLEMENT ANY RULE WHAT KIND OF
EFFECT, IF ANY, IT WILL HAVE
NEGATIVELY ON JOBS AND THE
I URGE A YES VOTE AND I RESERVE
THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
I RISE IN OPPOSITION
TO THE AMENDMENT.
SEEK TIME IN OPPOSITION.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE
SEVERAL CONCERNS ABOUT THIS
AMENDMENT.
WHICH SEEMS TO IGNORE THE
REALITY OF HOW AGENCIES
COMMUNICATE ALONG WITH THE WELL
ESTABLISHED PROCESS FOR HOW
E.P.A. PROPOSES AND FINALIZES A
RULE.
FIRST OF ALL THIS AMENDMENT
REQUIRES E.P.A. TO CONDUCT
ADDITIONAL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS FOR
A BROAD RANGE OF AGENCY ACTIONS
THAT COULD AFFECT AGRICULTURE.
INCLUDING GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS AND
POLICY STATEMENTS.
REQUIRING AN EXPENSIVE AND TIME
CONSUMING DETAILED ECONOMIC
ANALYSIS FOR EVERY POLICY
STATEMENT MAKES NO SENSE.
SECONDLY, THIS AMENDMENT SINGLES
OUT ONE FAVORED SECTOR FOR
SPECIAL TREATMENT.
WHY SHOULD WE HAVE AN ENTIRELY
DIFFERENT RULE MAKING PROCESS IN
PLACE FOR AGRICULTURE?
IF THE REPUBLICANS ARE CONCERNED
ABOUT THE RULE MAKING PROCESS,
THEN THEY SHOULD WORK WITH US ON
A BIPARTISAN BASIS TO IMPROVE
THE WAY RULES ARE ADOPTED FOR
ALL SECTORS.
NOT JUST ONE.
THIS AMENDMENT ALSO ISN'T
NECESSARY.
E.P.A. ALREADY HAS TO EVALUATE
THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF EACH
RULE TO SATISFY REQUIREMENTS IN
NUMEROUS STATUTES.
WHEN ISSUING A RULE, E.P.A. HAS
TO COMPLY WITH THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT,
THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT, THE
REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT, THE
SMALL BUSINESS REGULATORY
ENFORCEMENT, FAIRNESS ACT, THE
UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT,
SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES,
EXECUTIVE ORDERS ON REGULATORY
PLANNING AND REVIEW,
REQUIREMENTS OF THE OFFICE OF
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, AND
OTHERS.
A MINUTE AGO WE ACCEPTED AN
AMENDMENT, THE GENTLEMAN FROM
ARIZONA, MR. FLAKE, THAT CALLED
ON E.P.A. NOT TO HAVE A
BURDENSOME PROCESS WHEN THEY
WOULD GRANT THE EXCEPTIONAL
EVENTS ISSUED FOR NOT TO COUNT A
VIOLATION WHEN IT WAS AN
EXCEPTIONAL EVENT THAT CAUSED
THE PROBLEM.
HE ARGUED WE DIDN'T NEED ALL
THAT BURDENSOME REGULATION TO
GET TO THAT RESULT.
THIS ADDITIONAL BURDENSOME
REGULATION IS UNNECESSARY.
ACCORDING TO THE G.A.O., THESE
REQUIREMENTS ARE CLEARLY
VOLUMINOUS AND REQUIRE A RANGE
-- WIDE RANGE OF PROCEDURAL
CONSULT AT THISIVE AND
ANALYTICAL ACTION ON THE PART OF
THE AGENCIES, END QUOTE.
THIS AMENDMENT APPEARS TO IGNORE
THE WELL ESTABLISHED PROCESS AND
INSTEAD WOULD ADD ANOTHER
BURDENSOME LAYER TO THE ALREADY
LENGTHY REVIEW.
IT SERVES NO PURPOSE.
IT BOGS DOWN THE AGENCY.
IT CREATES MORE BUREAUCRACY.
IT COSTS MORE MONEY.
IT DOES NOT ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING.
AND INSOFAR AS IT ACCOMPLISHES
ANYTHING, IT JUST STALLS THE
AGENCY FROM ACTING IN ONLY ONE
AREA, FOR AGRICULTURE.
I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO OPPOSE
THIS AMENDMENT AS WELL AS OPPOSE
THE UNDERLYING BILL.
I RESERVE WHATEVER TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
IS RESERVED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM ILLINOIS.
CAN I INQUIRE HOW
MUCH TIME REMAINS?
THE GENTLEMAN HAS 1
1/2 MINUTES REMAINING.
THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN.
I WOULD RESPOND TO MY FRIEND
FROM CALIFORNIA WITH A COUPLE OF
POINTS.
FIRST OF ALL WE DID HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY A SIMILAR
RULE TO THE ENTIRE BUREAUCRACY.
WE PASSED THAT YESTERDAY.
IT'S CALLED THE REINS ACT.
BUT WITH REGARD TO SPECIFICALLY
POINTING OUT AGENCY BY AGENCY, A
SIMILAR AMENDMENT PASSED EARLIER
THIS YEAR TO THE CLEAN WATER
BILL, A CLEAN WATER ACT, THAT
HAS BIPARTISAN SUPPORT AND I
CERTAINLY WOULD HOPE THAT THIS
AMENDMENT WOULD AS WELL.
FINALLY TO THE CONCERN ABOUT
EXPENSE, I CAN'T IMAGINE WHAT'S
MORE EXPENSIVE THAN PUTTING
AMERICANS OUT OF WORK.
I CAN'T THINK OF WHAT'S MORE
EXPENSIVE THAN ASKING THE
AMERICAN FARMERS TO COME UP WITH
MORE CASH AND MORE EXPENSES
BECAUSE OF BUREAUCRATS' NEW
RULES IN WASHINGTON, D.C.
AND FINALLY, THIS DOES NOT
CONTRIBUTE THE AGENCY FROM DOING
ANYTHING.
IT JUST REQUIRES THE AGENCY TO
KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING AND THE
IMPACT ON JOBS.
AND THAT TO BE KNOWN BY THE
FARMERS, THE STATES,
CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION, AND
E.P.A.
WITH THAT I YIELD A MINUTE TO MY
FRIEND FROM COLORADO, MR.
GARDNER.
I THANK THE
GENTLEMAN FROM ILLINOIS FOR THIS
IT'S IRONIC THE OPPOSITION TO
THIS AMENDMENT CHARACTERIZES THE
AMENDMENT AS A BURDEN.
HOWEVER THE BURDEN BEING PLACED
I WOULD SUGGEST IF IT'S A BURDEN
AT ALL IS ON THE E.P.A.
THE E.P.A. WHO ACTUALLY HAS TO
TAKE A LOOK AT WHETHER OR NOT
THIS IS IMPACTING JOBS BEFORE
THE REGULATION IS PROMULGATED.
WE DID SOMETHING AROUND THIS
PLACE THAT TAKES THE BURDEN OFF
THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND MAKES
GOVERNMENT TO DO THEIR JOB TO
MAKE SURE THEY ARE NOT HURTING
JOBS IN PRIVATE INDUSTRY.
YOU KNOW THIS IS AN AMENDMENT
THAT MAKES ABSOLUTELY COMMON
SENSE.
ABSOLUTE COMMON SENSE TO LOOK
BEFORE YOU LEAP.
TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND THE
IMPACTS OF A REGULATION BEFORE
YOU ISSUE IT.
AND THAT'S WHY I SUPPORT THIS
HOUSE AMENDMENT.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
MUCH TIME DO I HAVE?
MINUTES REMAINING.
MR. CHAIRMAN, THE
E.P.A. GOES THROUGH AN
INCREDIBLE ANALYSIS NOW, THE
COST AND BENEFITS, AND ALL THE
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS.
IT'S APPROPRIATE.
TO ADD ANOTHER REVIEW OF
REGULATIONS AT E.P.A. IS TO
REQUIRE PARALYSIS BY ANALYSIS
AND PERHAPS THAT'S THE OBJECTIVE
OF THE AMENDMENT.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM ILLINOIS, MR.
HAS INDICATED HE CAN'T
IMAGINE ANY MORE EXPENSIVE THAN
WHAT THIS REGULATION MIGHT DO TO
FARMERS.
WELL, I'LL TELL YOU SOMETHING
THAT'S MORE EXPENSIVE, TAX
BREAKS FOR STILLAIRES AND
BILLIONAIRES AND MILLIONAIRES IS
A LOT MORE EXPENSIVE THAN WHAT
REQUIRING E.P.A. TO DO EVEN
LET'S NOT BURDEN THE AGENCY
WITH REVIEWS ONLY FOR ONE
SECTOR THAT ADDS NOTHING TO THE
ANALYSIS THAT THEY ALREADY
ACHIEVE BEFORE THEY ADOPT ANY
REGULATION.
AND THESE REGULATIONS THAT ARE
COSTING JOBS.
THIS WHOLE BILL IS SUPPOSED TO
PREVENT REGULATIONS THAT ISN'T
ADOPTED.
WE'RE NOT LOSING JOBS BECAUSE
OF THAT.
WE'RE LOSING JOBS BECAUSE OUR
ECONOMY IS NOT FUNCTIONING,
BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A
WILLINGNESS BY THE REPUBLICANS
TO STIMULATE THIS ECONOMY, GET
PEOPLE BACK TO WORK AND GET OUR
-- GET JOBS FOR THOSE WHO NEED
THEM.
I OPPOSE THIS AMENDMENT AND
YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE QUESTION IS ON THE
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM ILLINOIS.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
THE AYES HAVE IT.
THE AMENDMENT IS AGREED TO.
IT IS NOW IN ORDER TO CONSIDER
AMENDMENT NUMBER 8 PRINTED IN
HOUSE REPORT 112-317.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
RECOGNITION?
I HAVE AN AMENDMENT
AT THE DESK.
CLERK.
-- THE CLERK WILL DESIGNATE THE
AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 8
PRINTED IN HOUSE REPORT 112-317
OFFERED BY MR. AL GREEN OF
TEXAS.
RESOLUTION 487, THE GENTLEMAN
FROM TEXAS, MR. AL GREEN, AND A
MEMBER OPPOSED, EACH WILL
CONTROL FIVE MINUTES.
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS.
I THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN.
I YIELD MYSELF SUCH TIME AS I
MAY CONSUME.
RECOGNIZED.
THANK YOU.
THERE HAS BEEN MUCH DEBATE AS
TO WHETHER THIS BILL WILL
CREATE OR SAVE JOBS.
THERE IS MUCH SPECULATION BASED
ON WHETHER THIS BILL WILL
CREATE OR SAVE JOBS.
WHEN YOU HAVE FEW FACTS, YOU
GENERALLY SPEAKING CAN HAVE
MUCH SPECULATION.
THIS AMENDMENT ADDRESSES
SPECULATION.
THERE IS SOME SENSE IN THIS
COUNTRY THAT OUR APPROVAL
RATING IS LOW IN CONGRESS
BECAUSE OF MUCH SPECULATION.
SPECULATION CAN BREED DISTRUST.
SPECULATION CAN LEAD TO
FACT-FREE DEBATES, A TERM
INSIDE GOOD FRIEND, EMANUEL
CLEAVER, REPRESENTATIVE FROM
MISSOURI, USES.
FACT-FREE DEBATES.
THIS AMENDMENT CAN HELP US
ELIMINATE FACT-FREE DEBATES.
THIS AMENDMENT CONTAINS LESS
THAN 100 WORDS, AND IT
ADDRESSES THE ELIMINATION OF
FACT-FREE DEBATES.
NOT LATER THAN 180
DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF
ENACTMENT OF THIS ACT THE
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SHALL TRANSMIT TO CONGRESS A
REPORT ESTIMATING THE INCREASED
OR DECREASED IN THE NUMBER OF
JOBS IN THE UNITED STATES THAT
WILL OCCUR AS A RESULT OF THE
ENACTMENT OF THIS ACT.
THIS AMENDMENT ELIMINATES
FACT-FREE DEBATES AND
SPECULATION.
SO IF YOU REALLY WANT TO
ELIMINATE FACT-FREE DEBATES AND
SPECULATION, THEN YOU SHOULD
SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT.
IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THIS BILL
REALLY DOES CREATE OR SAVE
JOBS, THEN YOU SHOULD SUPPORT
THIS AMENDMENT.
IF YOU BELIEVE THAT CARLISLE IS
RIGHT, THAT NO LIFE CAN LIVE
FOREVER, AND THIS ELIMINATES
MALL ACE AFORETHOUGHT, THEN YOU
SHOULD VOTE FOR THIS AMENDMENT.
IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRYANT IS
RIGHT, THAT TRUTH CRUSHED IS
RISE GIVE, THEN VOTE FOR THIS
AMENDMENT.
IF YOU BELIEVE THAT FACT-FREE
DEBATES OUGHT TO BE ELIMINATED,
YOU ARE TO SUPPORT THIS
AMENDMENT.
I RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
IS RESERVED.
DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM
COLORADO SEEK TIME IN
OPPOSITION?
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
I UNDERSTAND THE
CONFUSION ABOUT JOBS AND THE
E.P.A.
I THINK THERE IS A GREAT DEAL
OF CONFUSION WHEN IT COMES TO
WHETHER OR NOT THE E.P.A. IS
CONSIDERING JOBS IN THEIR
ANALYSIS.
THE ADMINISTRATION HAS ISSUED
AN EXECUTIVE ORDER.
THROUGH THE ENERGY AND COMMERCE
COMMITTEE HELD A NUMBER OF
HEARINGS ON THE EXECUTIVE ORDER
THAT SAYS, HEY, YOU NEED TO
TAKE A LOOK AT THE IMPACT OF
JOBS WHEN REGULATION IS
PROMULGATED.
WE HAD TESTIMONY FROM PAIR YUSS
OFFICIALS AT THE E.P.A. WHETHER
OR NOT THEY LOOK AT -- VARIOUS
OFFICIALS AT THE E.P.A. WHETHER
OR NOT THEY LOOK AT JOBS.
THERE IS CONCERN WHETHER OR NOT
THEY CARE ABOUT JOBS.
THE PROBLEM IS WE NEED TO TAKE
A LOOK AT THOSE JOBS BEFORE THE
REGULATION IS ISSUED.
THAT'S THE AMENDMENT WE PASSED
BY MR. SCHOCK.
ADDRESSING JOBS CLEARLY IS NOT
THE AUTHORITY OR THE -- EXCUSE
ME -- THE EXPERTISE OF THE
E.P.A.
IN FACT, JUST ASK ASSISTANT
ADMINISTER MATTHEW STANISLAS,
THEY DIDN'T TAKE A LOOK AT
30 SECONDS IN HIS STATEMENT
BEFORE HE SAID THEY DID TAKE A
LOOK AT THE IMPACT ON JOBS.
TO THE EXTENT THAT E.P.A. DOES
INCLUDE THE JOBS IMPACT, IT HAS
BEEN WIDELY CRITICIZED FOR
MAKING FAR-FETCHED CLAIMS THAT
REGULATIONS CREATE JOBS.
WE HAD A HEARING WITH GINA
MCCARTHY WHO TESTIFIED THAT FOR
EVERY REGULATION, $1 MILLION IN
REGULATIONS IT CREATES 1.5
JOBS.
JOBS FOR EVERY $1 MILLION
IN COST OF REGULATIONS.
THAT'S THEIR IDEA OF A
JOB-CREATING IDEA.
WE DON'T NEED TO SPEND MONEY ON
A STUDY TO KNOW THAT AVOIDING
OVERREGULATION WILL BENEFIT THE
ECONOMY.
AVOIDING OVERREGULATION WILL
BENEFIT THE ECONOMY.
REGULATIONS, 1.5 JOBS FOR EVERY
$1 MILLION, THAT'S THE KIND OF
MATH THAT MY CONSTITUENTS, MANY
CONSTITUENTS ACROSS THIS
UNDERSTAND.
I RESERVE MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS.
HOW MUCH TIME DO I
HAVE?
THE GENTLEMAN HAS 2
1/2 MINUTES REMAINING.
IT IS AN OPINION
WELL STATED AND I APPRECIATE
THE OPINION WELL STATED.
HOWEVER, THE BEST WAY TO
ASCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT JOBS
ARE BEING CREATED OR ELIMINATED
IS TO UTILIZE IMPURECAL
EVIDENCE DEVELOPED AFTER --
COMBURECAL EVIDENCE DEVELOPED
AFTER THE -- IMPERICAL EVIDENCE
DEVELOPED AFTER THE FACT RATHER
THAN BEFORE.
IF YOU BELIEVE, AND I BELIEVE
YOUR HEARTS ARE IN THE RIGHT
PLACE, IF YOU BELIEVE THIS IS
AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISPEL ANY
MYTHS, TO DISPEL ANY
SPECULATION, THEN LET'S HAVE A
STUDY DONE AFTER THE BILL HAS
PASSED AND AFTER THERE HAS BEEN
SOME TIME FOR IMPLEMENTATION.
I'M WILLING TO EXTEND THE TIME.
STUDY.
-- G.A.O. TO DO THE STUDY.
MY HEART'S IN THE RIGHT PLACE.
I WANT US TO HAVE PROOF
POSITIVE THAT THIS BILL DOES OR
DOES NOT ELIMINATE JOBS.
I WANT TO ELIMINATE THE
SPECULATION, AND I BELIEVE I
HAVE ENOUGH TIME LEFT TO YIELD
SOME TO MY FRIEND -- HOW MUCH
DO I HAVE LEFT, MR. SPEAKER?
THE GENTLEMAN HAS 1
1/2 MINUTES.
I WOULD ENGAGE IN A
COLLOQUY WITH MY FRIEND.
I WOULD YIELD TO YOU TO --
THANK YOU VERY
MUCH FOR THE TIME AND
CONSIDERATION.
AGAIN, WE DID ADOPT AN
AMENDMENT THAT DOES TAKE A LOOK
AT THE REGULATION BEFORE IT'S
OFFERED.
IF I MAY RECLAIM
TIME.
YOU SEE, COMBURECAL EVIDENCE
UNDER THE SCIENTIFIC --
IMPERICAL EVIDENCE UNDER THE
SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS BEST
REQUIRED AFTER YOU HAVE THE
EVIDENCE.
YOU UTILIZE SPECULATION TO COME
TO A CONCLUSION AND THEN CALL
THAT A FACT.
THIS WOULD ELIMINATE
SPECULATION.
I WOULD YIELD BACK.
THANK YOU.
I KNOW IF I STUB MY TOE IT WILL
HURT BEFORE I DO IT.
WE OUGHT TO CHECK OUT WHETHER
OR NOT IT WILL COST JOBS BEFORE
I DO IT.
RECLAIMING MY TIME.
THE QUESTION IS WILL YOU'LL
ACTUALLY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY
TO HURT YOUR TOE, AS YOU PUT
IT.
THERE IS NO NEED TO AVOID
THINGS THAT DON'T EXIST.
LET US GET THE ACTUAL
IMPERICAL, RAW EVIDENCE TO USE
THAT IN ORDER TO DRAW OUR
CONCLUSIONS ON WHETHER OR NOT
THIS BILL CREATES OR SAVE JOBS.
THE GROUPS IN
COLORADO KNOW THIS ISSUE THE
BEST, THE FARMERS AND RANCHERS
WHO KNOW THIS THE BEST.
EXCUSE ME.
RECLAIMING MY TIME.
BECAUSE SUPPORTING SOMETHING IS
NOT IMPERICAL EVIDENCE AS TO
WHETHER OR NOT IT WILL DO A
CERTAIN THING.
IT.
BY THE WAY, I DON'T DISRESPECT
YOU.
RIGHT PLACE.
WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET YOU TO
SEE IS IF YOU UTILIZE THE
SCIENTIFIC METHOD YOU WILL GET
YOUR IMPERICAL EVIDENCE AFTER
YOU HAVE GIVEN THIS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO BE ENACTED.
HAS EXPIRED.
THANK YOU.
HAS EXPIRED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM COLORADO.
I'D LIKE TO
CONTINUE WITH THE LIST WITH THE
OVERWHELMING SUPPORT OF THOSE
IN MY DISTRICT THAT BELIEVE
THIS WILL INDEED COST JOBS.
WE ADOPTED AN AMENDMENT THAT
SAYS, HEY, LET'S LOOK AT IT
BEFORE IT GOS INTO EFFECT.
THE -- GOES INTO EFFECT.
THE COLORADO ASSOCIATION OF
WHEAT GROWERS, THE COLORADO
CATTLE ASSOCIATION, THE
COLORADO LAMB COUNCIL, THE
COLORADO LIVESTOCK ASSOCIATION,
THE COLORADO SHEEP AND WOOL
AUTHORITY, THE COLORADO WOOL
GROWERS AUTHORITY AND THE
COLORADO FARM BURE E.
THEY WILL WORK EACH AND EVERY
DAY UNDER THIS REGULATION.
THE E.P.A. SAYS, HEY, WE ARE
NOT GOING TO DO THIS RIGHT NOW.
THEY ARE VERY CONCERNED --
YIELD?
I WILL YIELD.
WITH ALL DUE
RESPECT, THE WORLD IS LARGER
THAN COLORADO.
I UNDERSTAND THERE
ARE CONCERNS FROM BOSTON.
THERE ARE SOME CONCERNS IN
HOUSTON.
THERE ARE SOME CONCERNS IN LOS
BUT I CAN TELL YOU IN RURAL
COLORADO, IN RURAL AMERICA
THERE ARE GRAVE CONCERNS THAT
THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE IN THIS
BODY THAT THINK THEIR CONCERNS
OVER FARM DUST ARE NOTHING MORE
THAN CONCERNS OVER PIXIE DUST.
WILL THE GENTLEMAN
YIELD?
I THINK WE CAN GO
ON VOTING FOR THIS.
IF YOU HAVE TIME.
WE HAVE A ROCK CRUSHING COMPANY
IN MY DISTRICT.
MATTER.
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS A
WELL.
TIME.
AND THE GENTLEMAN WILL --
TIME.
AND THE GENTLEMAN WILL KNOW
THAT THEY'LL ENFORCE THEIR OWN
DUST REGULATIONS ACCORDING TO
THEIR OWN LOCAL CONDITIONS.
I WILL JUST OPPOSE THIS
I BELIEVE WE WILL GET ON TO THE
UNDERLYING BILL AND ADOPT THE
UNDERLYING BILL SO WE CAN MOVE
FORWARD CREATING JOBS, MAKING
SURE WE ARE NOT KILLING JOBS
AND DO WHAT'S RIGHT FOR THIS
ECONOMY.
I YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
THE QUESTION IS ON THE
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR,
THE NOES HAVE IT.
THE AMENDMENT IS NOT AGREED TO.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I
REQUEST A RECORDED VOTE.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 6
OF RULE 18, FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
ON THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS WILL BE
POSTPONED.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 6 OF RULE
18, PROCEEDINGS WILL NOW RESUME
ON THOSE AMENDMENTS PRINTED IN
HOUSE REPORT 112-317 ON WHICH
POSTPONED IN THE FOLLOWING
ORDER -- AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 BY
MR. RUSH OF ILLINOIS, AMENDMENT
NUMBER 2 OFFERED BY MRS.
CHRISTENSEN OF THE ***
ISLANDS, AMENDMENT NUMBER 4 BY
MR. MARKEY OF MASSACHUSETTS,
5 BY MR.
WAXMAN OF CALIFORNIA.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 8 BY MR. GREEN
OF TEXAS.
THE UNFINISHED BUSINESS IS THE
REQUEST OF A RECORDED VOTE ON
AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 PRINTED IN
HOUSE REPORT 112-317 BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM ILLINOIS, MR.
WISH, ON WHICH FURTHER PROCEED
-- RUSH, ON WHICH FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS WERE POSTPONED AND
ON WHICH THE NOES PREVAILED BY
VOICE VOTE.
THE CLERK WILL REDESIGNATE THE
AMENDMENT NUMBER 1
PRINTED IN HOUSE REPORT 112-317
OFFERED BY MR. RUSH OF
A RECORDED VOTE HAS
BEEN REQUESTED.
THOSE IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST
FOR A RECORDED VOTE WILL RISE
AND BE COUNTED.
A SUFFICIENT NUMBER HAVING
ARISEN, A RECORDED VOTE IS
ORDERED.
MEMBERS WILL RECORD THEIR VOTES
BY ELECTRONIC DEVICE.
THIS IS A 15-MINUTE VOTE.
[CAPTIONING MADE POSSIBLE BY
INSTITUTE, INC., IN COOPERATION
WITH THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.
ANY USE OF THE CLOSED-CAPTIONED
COVERAGE OF THE HOUSE
PROCEEDINGS FOR POLITICAL OR
EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED BY THE
REPRESENTATIVES.]
YEAS ARE 150.
THE NAYS ARE 255.
THE AMENDMENT IS NOT ADOPTED.