tv U.S. House Meets for Legislative Business CSPAN July 18, 2017 1:59pm-4:00pm EDT
members will please be seated. he house will be in order. members, please be seated. he house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, last week we learned the terrible news that we had lost 16 of our very best and brightest, members of the united states marine corps and the united states navy when the plane they were traveling on crashed in mississippi. i stand here with my colleagues
who lost citizens of their district. in particular, the gentleman from mississippi, mr. palazzo, and the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones. this is, of course, a national tragedy, though. the gentleman from north carolina represents camp lejeune where six marines and one navy corps man was stationed. those include robert cox, staff sergeant william kundrat, sergeant jansen, sergeant leach, ergeant murray, sergeant s miman, ryan lowry, and i, of course, represent stewart air national guard base where nine marines were stationed who lost their lives in that terrible crash. in my time in congress i've had many opportunities to visit with the brave men and women who serve our country and who were
based at stewart national guard base and as you know they are truly american heroes. those we lost are as follows. major guillet, sergeant elliott, gunnery sergeant hopkins, johnson, joshua snowden, sergeant julian kaviian, sergeant levin, corporal baldiseri, corporal shaff. mr. speaker, on behalf of my colleagues standing behind me, all of our communities and our nation, i ask for a moment of silence for these 16 brave service members who made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom.
the speaker pro tempore: without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the question is on adoption of the resolution. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, on that i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning 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 commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
he house will be in order. the house will be in order. members are asked to be seated and take their conversation off the floor. he house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. cicilline: mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 2-a-1 of rule 9 i rise with mine tent to raise of privileges of the house of representatives. the form of the resolution is as follows. expressing the sense of the house of representatives that the president shall immediately disclose his tax return information to the house of representatives and the american people.
whereas -- the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. he house will be in order. the gentleman will suspend. he house will be in order. the gentleman is recognized. mr. cicilline: whereas, according to the tax history project, every president since gerald ford has disclosed his tax return information to the public. whereas the chairman of the committee on ways and means, joint committee on taxation, and the committee on finance have the authority to request the president's tax returns under section 6103 of the internal revenue service code of 1986. whereas pursuant to article 1, section 7, clause 1 of the constitution, often referred to as the origination clause, the house of representatives has the soul authority to initiate
legislation that raises revenue for the national government and the committee on ways and means is considering a comprehensive eform of the tax code. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. he house will be in order. the gentleman is recognized. mr. cicilline: whereas president donald j. trump holds interest or principal owner in 500 business entities, and the tax plan proposes to cut the corporate tax rate there 35% to 15%, applicable to many of these entities. whereas against the advice of ethics attorneys and the nonpartisan office of ethics. he's refused to divest himself of his businesses and placed his -- >> the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the gentleman is recognized. mr. cicilline: the president has refused to die vest his
ownership stake in his businesses has instead placed his assets in a trust which is run by his adult children and the president can withdraw profits from his trust at any time of his choosing from any of the companies he owns. whereas the director of the office of government ethics resigned on july 6, 2017, stating that, and i quote, there isn't much more i could accomplish at the office of government ethics given the current situation. oge's recent experiences have made it clear that the ethics programs need to be strengthened, end quote. >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. mr. cicilliney: whereas, according to media reports, analyzing president trump's leaked 2005 tax return had his own tax plan been in place, he would have paid an estimated 3.48% rate instead of a 24%
rate, gaining him $31.3 million in that year alone. whereas, without access to the president's tax returns, the american people cannot determine how much he will personally benefit from proposed changes to the tax code or from policy decisions he makes. nor account american people fully understand the financial interests and motivations of the president. whereas, in june, 2017, president trump filed an updated financial disclosure with the office of government ethics which showed that the president reported $37.2 million in income from the mar-a-lago resort between january, 2016, and april, 2017 where he hosted the president of china and from where he ordered missile strikes against syria. whereas, during the same time period, president trump reported $288 million in income from all of his golf courses, including
$19.7 million from his course in new jersey. whereas over the weekends of july 14, president trump sent out eight tweets promoting the u.s. women's open golf tournament which took place at his bedminister club. whereas mar-a-lago doubled its new member member fees to $200,000, immediately following the 2016 election and president trump personally benefits from scutch new member fee. whereas, disclosure of the president's tax returns would help those investigating russian interference in the 2016 election and assist them in bert understanding the president's financial ties to the russian federation, russian businesses, and russian individuals. whereas, in 2013, president trump said, and i quote, well, i have done a lot of business with the russians. they are smart and they are tough, end quote. and president trump's son, donald trump jr., told a news outlet in 2008, i quote, russians make up a pretty
disproportionate cross section of a lot of our assets, end quote. whereas president trump fired federal bureau of investigation director james comey, who was overseeing an investigation into ties and any collusion between the russian government and president trump's campaign. whereas, former director comey testified before the senate intelligence committee that president trump asked him to let go of any investigation into former national security advisor michael flynn's business ties to russia. whereas, president trump stated on may 11, 2017, that he had decided he was going to fire comey because of, quote, this russian thing. whereas, at the g-20 hamburg summit on july 7, 2017, president trump took a more than two-hour closed meeting with president putin after which he claimed that he strongly pressed president putin on russian interference in u.s. elections and that it is quote, time to move forward. whereas on june 9, 2016, then
candidate trump's son, donald trump jr., then trump campaign anager, paul mannaforth, and trump's son-in-law jared kushner, met with a person described as a russian government attorney and former russian military intelligence officer who promised to offer incriminating information about hillary clinton which had been collected as part of a russian government effort to assist president trump in his campaign for president. whereas the committee on ways and means has in the past used the authority under section 6103 of the internal revenue cofede 1986 in 2014 to make public the confidential tax information of 51 taxpayers. whereas the committee on ways and means has now voted three times, along party lines, to continue to conceal president trump's tax returns. whereas the house of representatives has now refused 10 times to act on president trump's tax returns.
whereas the committee on the judiciary has failed to conduct an even basic oversight on the connections between the russian government anti-trump campaign. whereas, the committee on the judiciary has now voted twice along party lines to decline to request documents detailing the trump administration's die thais with russian officials. whereas, the house of representatives undermines its dignity and integrity of its immediate proceedings by continuing the cover-up of president trump's tax returns. now d. therefore, be it resolved that the house of representatives shall immediately request the tax return and return information of donald j. trump for tax years 2006 through 2015 as provided under section 61 o 3 of the internal revenue code of 1986, as well as the information with respect to the president's businesses of each business entity, disclosed by donald j. trump on his government office ethics form. specifically each corporation
and each partnership within the mean everything subchapter k of chapter 1 of the internal revenue code of 1986. whereas he's listed as an officer, director, or equivalent, or exercises working control. and number two, postpone consideration of tax reform legislation until the elected representatives of the american people in this house have obtained president trump's tax returns and return information to ascertain how any changes to the tax code might financially benefit the president. the speaker pro tempore: under rule 9, the resolution offered from the floor by a member other than the majority leader or minority leader as a question of the privileges of the house has immediate precedence only as a time designated by the chair within two legislative days after the resolution is properly noticed. spend pending that designation, the form of the resolution noticed by the gentleman from rhode island will appear in the record at this point. the chair will not at this point determine whether the resolution
constitutes a question of privilege. that determination will be made at the time designated for consideration of the resolution. mr. cicilline: thank you, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from michigan, mr. upton, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2786, as amended. on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 149, h.r. 2786, a bill to amend the federal power act with respect to the criteria and process to qualify as a qualifying conduit hydropower if acy. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning 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
affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, i, john sarbanes, am submitting my resignation from the committee on oversight and government reform effective immediately. it has been a privilege and honor to have served on the committee. signed sincerely, john p. sarbanes, member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resignation is accepted. for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? mr. crowley: mr. speaker, by direction of the democratic caucus, i offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate adoption -- consideration. consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 453, resolved, that the following named member be and is hereby elected to the following
standing committee of the house of representatives. one, committee on natural resources, mr. gomes. two, committee on oversight and government reform, mr. gomes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. mr. crowley: i thank the gentleman. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill h.r. 806. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 451 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 806. the chair appoints the gentleman from new york, mr. reed, to preside over the committee of the whole.
the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 806 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to facilitate efficient state implementation of ground-level ozone standards, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first -- the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus, and the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko, will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker -- mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. shimkus: mr. speaker, h.r. 806, the ozone standards implementation act of 2017 is about ensuring effective implementation of our air quality standards. we've 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, challenges -- 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 designation 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 the phased ozone schedule which will reduce permitting delays and still ensure the use of the best available mission control technologies. the provision will require timely issuance of guidelines for e.p.a. so states can plan effectively. the second, the bill aligns air quality standard settings with how the process works in practice and ensures full information about regulatory impacts. for example, it updates the mandatory view of air quality standards to reflect past experience by extending the requirement to 10 years and preserves the e.p.a.'s 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 e.p.a.'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 standard. for example, it ensures that for certain ozone and particulate matter, states are not required to include economically infeasible measures in their plan. it ensures that states may seek relief with respect to certain exceptional events including drought and it directs e.p.a. to examine the impacts of foreign emissions on standards compliance. ozone formation and identify effective control strategies includes ways to facilitate e.p.a. 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 clean air act to reflect what we have learned over the past 25 years since its last major revision.
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. i urge all members to support this important bill today, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. chair. i rise in opposition to the bill and yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. tonko: thank you. 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 after yant quality standards from five -- ambient quality standards years. m five to 10
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%, 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 four in 10 people in the united states live in counties that have unhealthy levels of either ozone or particle pollution. delaying e.p.a.'s more protective health standards will only serve to delay these americans access to guaranteed
clean air. 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 american 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 e.p.a. should have more time to review and implement each standard. well, we will likely not hear that e.p.a. has discretion on these matters and is only tasked with changing those standards if it will protect health. . with each new study we gain a better understanding of how ozone and other pollutants are harming americans' health.
it is critical that these standards reflect the latest, the latest available science. what we're 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 will scientific evidence in favor of adding cost and technology -- 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. means fewer hospital visits. and fewer premature deaths. all of which lead us to a more productive society. according to a peer review 2011 e.p.a. 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 million more respiratory illnesses. many of those health benefits have helped our most vulnerable population. particularly our children. let's do this for your 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 low focused on ramming through legislation to repeal the fact -- affordable care act and rip health care 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. with that, mr. chair, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. shimkus: i'd like to yield four minutes to the author of the legislation, congressman olson from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for four minutes. mr. olson: i thank my friend from the land of lincoln for 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 seen downtown from my home 25 miles away because of smog.
ozone. but we have made amazing ogress, mr. chairman, all of america has made progress. now it's a rare day i can't see downtown from 40 miles away. i'm 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 . and that's 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.
costs in this bill puts before science when e.p.a. sets a new standard. i will say that again because there is a lot of misinformation out there. this bill explicitly says that e.p.a. can never ignore health at and can never put money a safety. this commonsense bill is about listening to our job creators back home. it's about getting local -- giving local officials the tools they need to make air rules work. 's about making sure our community -- communities aren't penalized for pollution they can't proehl control. it's about making sure that the e.p.a. sets a standard, they
have to put out rules to comply with that standard for 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. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. chair. i would suggest when we move the framework of -- time frame for accomplishment of our progress by eight years out into furet, we're stalling progress. and when we tamper with a review every five years and make it 10, we're denying progress. i now yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. cardenas. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute.
mr. cardenas: 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's 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's 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 did after we made so much progress. we should be making the world a better place for our children and grandchildren. 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. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. shimkus: i yield two minutes to the chairman of the science committee, chairman smith. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i thank chairman shimkus, the gentleman from illinois, for yielding me time. i thank the gentleman from texas, congressman olson, for sponsoring h.r. 806, the ozone standards implementation act of 2017. and i appreciate the efforts of chairman walden, subcommittee chairman shim -- shimkus, and members of the committee to reduce the american burden on the american people and economy. as chairman of the science committee, i have worked to ensure that e.p.a. 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 common sense 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. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and reduce the regulatory burden on the american people and return the agency to sound scientific rule making. and again i appreciate chairman olson's taking the initiative on this subject. mr. chairman i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york. mr. tonko: we just heard from two colleagues from texas. 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. a weakening of the vital
protections in the clean air act would put their health at risk w that i would ask we yield four minutes to the gentlewoman from florida, miss cassor -- ms. castor. ms. castor: i thank my colleague for yeefplgt i rise in strong opposition to the republican 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 short cuts. and shift the cost to hardworking american families and other businesses. and 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 hurts jobs and economic growth. but americans everywhere,
regardless of their zip code, deserve an e.p.a. and a congress working to clean up air pollution and not boost the 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 protection. 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 -- 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. still congress should protect the pocketbooks of american citizens and not the profits of polluters, because we have pockets of real pollution --
problems across america. approximately 125 million americans still live in areas with dangerous levels of air pollution. air pollution costs our families money. smoggy skies aggravate asthma, copd, bronchitis, lounge lunge desee, and ability to work outside. improving standards could help prevent missed school days, asthma attacks, and others. i ask to you look at the new england journal of study that came out last month, dirty air is costly and has an impact on americans still, especially older neighbors and younger people with asthma and other respiratory illnesses. it said air pollution hastens death in america. the harvard researchers determined that after reviewing years of health records of more than 60 million medicare beneficiaries in sesk air quality levels, we're still in
trouble. and 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 e.p.a. to take a look at air quality every five years. but under this bill, nope, it will be every 10 years. so polluters win and citizens pay more. you know, this clean air act codifies a citizens' 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 g.o.p. 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. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields. the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. chairman. before i yield to my colleague
from arizona, i would just highlight a few specific things. one is the standards established by the e.p.a. remain unchanged. the real premise of this bill is the fact that when the 2008 standards came out, it took the e.p.a. seven years to get to the guidelines for how local communities and business 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. with that i yield two minutes to my colleague from arizona. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for two minutes. >> mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman from illinois for yielding. and i applaud congressman olson for introducing this very important legislation. i also thank science committee
chairman, congressman 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 this legislation. unfortunately, my constituents in the east valley of maricopa county understand all too well the consequences of onerous e.p.a. regulations. mr. bigs: -- mr. biggs: arizona has high levels of background ozone in the atmosphere. from the e.p.a.'s perspective we're 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 pass forward, e.p.a. has doubled down time after time with new standards that are impossible to meet. . h.r. 06 will help states like mine create tissue create
meaningful plans by giving us more time to work with stake holders. it will also give us more flexibility in how we meet new regulations. good, commonsense bills like this one are needed to be sure we do not overregulate in ways that severely disrupt ours local economies for little or no benefit. i once again applaud representative olson and thank my friend from illinois and look forward to seing this bill pass this chamber. yield back the balance. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? or do you reserve? >> i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to remind my colleagues that the state of arizona has over 660,000 residents with asthma, including 175,000 children. mr. tonko: weakening vital protections in the clean air act
would put their health at risk. with that i ask this we yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from michigan, mrs. dingell. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. dingell: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 806, the ozone standards implementation act. for nearly five 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 every 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 to put air quality and public health first today, we -- 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 e.p.a. issued its final rule strengthening the national ambient air quality stan tards 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 seriously to ensure every american has clean and healthy air to breathe so those with asthma will experience -- will not experience more attacks, we need to mike 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 decades--- almost decade-long the lay of improved air pollution standards. according to the american lung
association, nearly four in 10 people in the united states live in counties that have unhealthy, unhealthy levels of either ozorn or particulate 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 continue to make progress in reducing 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 reviews for criteria pollutants by extending the review time from five to 10 years, compounding the negative public health impact for
generations. in michigan, if we fail to lower our ground ozone pollution, our seniors will -- 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 trig aerovariety of health problems, including chest pain, coughing and throat irritation. please , my colleague, do not do this today. think of the health of americans. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. tonko: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. before i yield to my colleague from west virginia, let me remind my colleagues that -- why 10 years? mr. shimkus: that's a good question. when the 2008 standards came out, it took the administration seven year, to 2015, to tell people how to even implement the
2008 standards. three months later, they say, oh, no, we're going to have a new standard snet 2015. is this debate doesn't reduce or roll back, it says, let's let the e.p.a. establish stan tards and then give communities time to comply. that's all this bill does. the i yield now to gentleman from west virginia, mr. mckinley. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mckinley: thank you, mr. chairman, mr. speaker. today the house will vote on a bill addressing the ozone stan tards addressed by the o-- obama administration. with the comments you've heard today, we all want clean air. america has made great strides already. ozone is down by a third since 1980. but the regulations imposed by president obe ma in 2015 would cost the economy billions of dollars each year in a -- and
hamper job growth. in many parts of the country, it's 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 is 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's 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 a time frame for changing standards from five years to 10 years. that's all. it rears e.p.a. to consider, very important, to consider the economic and technical feasibility of the new standards. so mr. speaker, passing this bill today will remove a barrier to economic growth and at the
same time, still protect our environment. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia yields. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. shimkus: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. tonko: 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. would next ask that we yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from california, ms. matsui. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. mat see wee: thank you very much -- ms. matsui: thank you very much and i thank my colleague for yielding. i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 806, better known as the
soggy size act. because of the clean air act, families have cleaner air to breathe, fewer emergency room visits and healthier futures. the bill before us today is a direct attack on that progress, delaying life-saving protections against ozone pollution. h.r. 806 would be particularly devastating to children with asthma. -- 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 sitz in california's central valley. which traps pollution from other part os they have 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 process to -- progress to continue, the e.p.a. 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 aen -- an all-out assault on americans' health. i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and protect the well being of future generations. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california yields back, the gentleman from new york. mr. tonko: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. shimkus: i would like to yield three minutes to my colleague from arizona, mr. gosar. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. -- gosar: i i
mr. gosar: i thank the chairman. i rise in support of this bill, introduced by my friend and colleague pete olson. this bill is necessary to shold states from job-killing mandates and ozone levels proposed by the obama administration in 2015. states are just beginning to adopt the 75 parts per billion standard proposed in 2008 as the e.p.a. didn't announce implementation guidance until march 6 of 2015. rather than allowing time for that standard to be implemented, the obama administration moved the goal post and unilaterally sought to dramatically lower the ozone standard to 70 part pers billion in october, 2015. industry analysis projects that more than 950 different counties throughout the country will immediately be at nonattainment under the october 15 70 part pers billion standard. to make matters worse, the 70 parts per billion standard is
not attainable in nine of 10 counties in arizona. when pristine national parks like the brand canyon, yosemite and others are in danger of being under nonattainment under the proposed standard, there's a serious problem with the numbers. the chamber of commerce has reported that counties classified as nonattainment can have important permits denied by the e.p.a. and important projects suspended this earizona chamber foundation stated, the e.p.a.'s new ozone standard of 70 part pers billion will virtually be impossible for arizona to meet due to arizona's like level of background, local sources and geography. it's not reasonable based on sound science or achieveable. tristate stated, in order to preserve our co-op member's access to reliable and affordable electricity, we whole
heartedly support h.r. 806. the national taxpayer union stated, the kansases are high for states and localities regardless of whether they achieve attainment. jobs and investments will go elsewhere without more feasible, predictable reforms than are present in h.r. 806. even the obama administration projected in 2010 the unrealistic standard would cost our economy between $19 billion and $25 billion annually. the administration did not have a clear plan for background ozone generated by factors outside the state's control. they were attempting to punish states for ozone pollution created in other states like california, mexico or even china. the october, 2015, obama ozone rule will force companies to closer that doors and kill countless jobs throughout the country if this bill is not passed. i thank the gentleman for sponsoring this much-needed legislation an urge my
colleagues to vote in support of this commonsense bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. shimkus: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. tonko: 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. i also ask that we enter into the record a number ofing to be yumets, supporting documents a letter, first or posing 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 sec retear of the pennsylvania department of environmental protection. that would be the first document that i ask be entered into the record. the second is a letter from the
commissioner of the new york state department of environmental conservation again opposing the bill. the third is a letter signed by 15 medical and public health organizations, again or posing the bill. and finally a letter signed by 121 environmental and other groups opposing the bill. the speaker pro tempore: all will be considered under general leave. mr. tonko: mr. tonko: i yield to the entleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, for three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ellsworth: for the folks who -- mr. ellison: for the folks who might be watching, bad ozone causes a whole lot of health problems, making it difficult to bron e deeply and cause white is and is associated with thma attacks as it can cause
obstructtive pulmonary disease. it's a bad thing, it's dangerous and 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's 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 lot more time, years, before they have to comply with these air standards. so what they're 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. their money is more important than the lungs of our kids. they are saying this is 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. this is what we're talking about. they always say you can have a job and you can breathe, but you can't do both. you can breathe but you can have a job. they want to send us to work with gas masks on and it's wrong. we as a people deserve to breathe. our seniors deserve to breathe. and if it costs a company a little bit more to make sure the air that we have is breatheable, 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 bron kite is?
what does it family when they have a loved one hooked up to machines because they are undergoing a respiratory attack. that is the true cost that we have to consider, mr. speaker. the real cost here -- 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 want to see more people incurring medical bills because of the failure of industry to protect our health when they are taking that step are spitting out of their smokestacks? ime to say no to h.r. 806. mr. tonko: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. shimkus: before i yield, let
me remind folks what's going on here is that we have a 2008 standard that we were told seven years afterwards that here is how you comply. that same year, we get new standards saying no. no. no. you have new standards. that's really the debate. we are not eliminating the standards or rolling back standards, we're just saying, give us a break. give us time to comply with the 2008 standards before you force down 2015 standards and nothing rolls back either of those standards. i yield two minutes to my friend from south carolina. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sanford: i thank my colleague from illinois. they have worked tirelessly in a
way to craft a balance between the competing points of view of this whole issue of ozone. i know he is concerned about people's health and concerned about the environment. but on this particular issue, i respectfully disagree and agree with my democratic colleagues because the time to act is now. at some point it becomes a question of not now, when? delay moves to the point of obstruction moving forward on an idea that has had its different wrinkles in fairness to my colleague from illinois. but you have to act. people's health does weigh in the balance and 2,000 cases a day of asthma that we need to have a bias for action. it's a time for action. i think it's reasonable. billionrom 75 parts per is not a huge change. and finally, simply, i believe
it sits with the conservative philosophy that i believe in. my rights end when they begin to infringe upon yours. this notion of privatizing gain and offsetting costs to the public is something we always have to watch out when we talk about this notion of free markets and having them truly work. as a boy, i grew up down the creek from a place called campbell creek and there was a chemical plant that externalizing their costs and internalizing their profits. we need to be true to that theme whether talking about air, water or anything else. and this bill fits under that larger description. for that reason, with all due respect, it is time to act on this particular bill. and i yield become. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: i reserve.
the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. tonko: 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. and 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 moving to 75 parts per billion as you reduce those that emits into the air. you continue to improve those standards. this is about maintaining a quality of life cutting into public policy purposes, cutting into the devastating impacts of air pollutants and their relation to our public health. i would ask, mr. chair, we now acknowledge for three minutes, where i yield to the the
ms. ewoman from california barragan. ms. barragan: i rise in opposition to this bill that would gut the clean air 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 next. when i was a kid, my father had a home next to the freeway and first thought it was a great place to live because it was near the freeway and what i learned about smog, pollution, i knew it wasn't a good thing. when i see kids walk around with inhalers, it just breaks my heart. and 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's dangerous. it's 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 rates and pry mature deaths. the benefits of healthy environment pays off in worker productivity. unhealthy people can't work or go to school, which is a problem in my district. only 10% of students going to college and oftentimes it's a cycle. outside, they breathe in the dirty air and get sick and they have to go to the doctor and miss school and that is only contributing to the low graduation rates that we are seeing happen in my district. smog is not only harmful to health, but it's harmful especially in young children, in our seniors and 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 and delay lifesaving standards and protections. vote no on h.r. 806, the smoggy skies act. the chair: the gentlewoman from california yields back. the gentleman from new york. mr. tonko: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. shimkus: i yield one minute to the majority leader of the house, kevin mccarthy from california. the chair: the majority leader is recognized. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding and for his work. mr. speaker, when you drive up north through and past my district in california, you go
through some amazing places, see coya national park, kings canyon and over to yosemite. these are beautiful places. american treasures. you don't have to go far off the road to feel like you're remote and completely surrounded by the peacefulness of nature. now, i have had my troubles with the e.p.a. regulatory cap and trade, waters of the u.s. rule, they come to mind. but i do think and believe there is a purpose to ozone standards and clean up our air and make our communities healthier. yet, the latest ozone and particular ate matter regulations are so severe and divorced from reality that national parks may not be clean
enough. and such pristine nature isn't clean, nothing can be. the problem is is that the e.p.a. sets new standards before we reach the old one. and even before we have the technology to reach the new standard, the only result will be is failure. now, california's central valley faces many disadvantages with air quality. we have prevailing winds from the north that sends 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% since 2002. now unhealthy ones are down over 75% in the same period. you see, the similar trends in
the matter as well. no how much better we make our air, we cannot catch up to reach the latest unrealistic e.p.a. hurdle. the head of the san joaquin air pollution control district said, to do so, we 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 will be fined the way we live. now, something obviously has to change, because these regulations are not rooted in reality. in this legislation, mr. peaker, congressman pete olson ozone standards implementation act, we don't give rid of ozone standards and don't even oppose
raising our standards. when we use our technology and abilities to improve. but what we do do is make sure that the standards are set at the specific level for a set time so that the e.p.a. can come back and change and cannot change the goalpost every few years. what we do is to make sure that the e.p.a. 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. and we made sure that this legislation accomplished these goals without rolling back the protections for our communities or without backsiding meeting our current e.p.a. standards in the central valley. in the end, we must have clean air. but we have to be smart about 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. i yield back. the chair: the majority yields back. the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. chair. i want to remind my colleagues having just heard from a californian, california has three million residents with asthma including 650,000 children, why on earth do we want to put them at further risk by going backward. i suggest we keep that in mind as we vote on this measure. i heard the comment made about unachievable or unrealistic standard, so how is it we have been making progress, we are going jobs and cleaning the air.
how was that deemed unrealistic and unachievable. i believe in the pine nearing spirit and i believe in the intellect and passion to do the right thing and that will motivate us as we listen to scientists to tell us about the standards we ought to achieve on the way to 75 parts per billion, we know it's continued progress if we achieve 70 and if we listen to the clean air science advisory committee, they will tell us with the safety factor, we should be closer to 60. we have much more room for wid ss and we have the which ardry to make that happen. and with that, i reserve. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from illinois.
mr. shimkus: i have no further speakers and have the right to close. mr. tonko: we have no further speakers so if you want, we'll close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. tonko: as has been stated this is a move in the backward direction. we're concerned on this side of the aisle about h.r. 806. we need to know that the standards that are out there are achieveable, that those standards drive technological improvement, we can grow the economy and clean the air, they're not mutually exclusive. in fact we've proven that they're inclusive. i would encourage all 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. and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york yields back. the gentleman from illinois is recognized for a closing statement.
mr. shimkus: i yield myself the balance of the time. i would like to thank my colleague if new york who serves as ranking member of the committee, we have done some good work together, 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. from the committee process we had the farm bureau, the american petroleum institute, portland cement association, national association of manufacturers, u.s. chamber of commerce, these organizations cite the need to reform and modernize the clean air act in order to encourage economic growth and job creation because we understand that what's also a major impact in the health and welfare are our citizens having good paying jobs. there's a focus of what we're
trying to do as republicans through the legislative process and we want to reduce the tax burden, ease regulatory burdens and create jobs is that all our citizens are able to achieve their economic goals ands a pittsburgh penguinses. we also received a letter today that i ask unanimous consent to submit into the record. t is by over 145 organizations d over close to 20 state chambers of commerce and if i may, in the middle paragraph, it says, we have sig can 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 impact. the new ozone standards were
promulgated in october of 2015, only months after states reseed their final guidance for the environmental protection agency on how to implement the 2008 ozone standards. mr. speaker, i couldn't state it any better than that. this is not a rolling back of regulations. this is identifying the fact that 2008 standards were implemented, it took seven years to do the implementation guidelines, and when those guidelines came out, three months after that, the federal government, through the e.p.a., said we're going to now ratchet it down five more parts per billion. which leaves the people who are troying to comply. other benefits of the bill is addressing the fact that you could be in the remotest part of fall against the e.p.a. and ozone standards based on nothing you can do.
we have places trying to comply, doing great work, but they are receive egg missions outside of their control, plus they will be penalized for that. we look forward to continued debates. i know there's been amendments offered that we will consider and with that, i thank you for the time and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman's unanimous consent request will be considered under general leave. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. the chair: in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on energy an commerce printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rule committees prints 115-26. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. no amendment to the 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 be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in house report 115-229. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 115-229 offered by ms. castor of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 451, the gentlewoman from florida, ms. castor, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the
-- the man from florida chair recognizes the gentlewoman from florida. ms. castor: thank you, mr. chairman. 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 ds across america, our older neighbor, and the most vulnerable to smog and dirty air. my amendment says that the republican smoggy skies act will not take effect if the e.p.a. clean air scientific advisory committee finds negative impact on individuals with asthma, bronchitis, copd and other health conditions, particularly in children and our older neighbors, pregnant women, folks that 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% of all americans support stronger smog standards and clearly oppose this dirty air policy. let me read you a quote. more than half of all americans breathe polluted air, putting attacks,ssk of asthma repro-- respiratory infections and early death, said the president and c.e.o. of the american lung association. 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. now i've seen great improvement in the air quality over my lifetime. back home in tampa, florida. we've heard in front of our committee, we've heard from folks through social media, from
democrats and republicans here today, how much they value clean air and how much progress we've seen. and yet, according to the florida kids count data book , in 2016, asthma emergency department visits reached over 48,000 in my state. hospitalizations are in the thousands and thousands. that takes its toll. it's very costly. florida is not alone. this affects all americans. now 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's a press report that summarizes the report. the title of the story, 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. but we are now providing bulletproof evidence that we are breathing harmful air, says francesca domenici a professor of biostatistics at harvard who led the study. our air is contaminated. she and her colleagues set out to do the most comprehensive study to date, assessing the toll air pollution takes on american lives. they used data from federal air monitoring stations as well as satellites to compile a detailed picture of air pollution down to individual zip codes. then they -- they then analyzed the impact of very low levels of 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 one microgram per cubic
meter of air below current standards. she said it's very strong, compelling evidence that currently, the safety standards currently, the safety standards are not safe enough. yet republicans want to take us backwards. they're going to side with polluters over the health of american families. and i think that's 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 back -- bring about disastrous health and economic damage to the folks i represent back home in florida but all across the country. let's be clear. ozone or smog is a corrosive gas that forms when emissions from smokestacks and tail pipes cook in the heat and sunlight. it triggers asthma and other respiratory elnesses, it's very expensive, and it is not fair for republicans to let polluters
off the hook and shift costs to hardworking american families if you believe many clean air in our great country, support my amendment. if you believe in environmental protection based on science, support my amendment. if you want to stand with american families over polluters who seek short cuts, support the castor amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. chairman. to speak in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate my colleague, i don't question her passion and perception n of her about what we're doing but again, as i've said in general dea 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 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's the base expremise of this amendment -- basic premise. this amendment would allow the advisory panel to nullify one of the central provisions of the bill, which allows the states to fully implement ea the eight standards for which the e.p.a. only issued implementing regulations in 2015 before turning to 2015. so e.p.a. says, meet the 2008 standards, delay, delay, delay, don't know how to do it new york guidelines. 2015 comes, they say, meet the 2008 standards, oh, three months later, oh, but now we got 2015 standards we want you to comply with. that's basic premise of this bifment ozone air quality will continue to improve under h.r. 806. regard this -- regarding the 2015 standards, this is the e.p.a., 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 under way. the bill ensures hundreds of counties are on track to meeting the 2015 standards and can come into compliance without being subjected to additional regulatory burdens, 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 and the state finds that such a condition exists in section 2. owhere does the bill to authorize states to duplicate paperwork. 1980, ozone levels have declined 32% and as we talk about it in the environmental process, the low-hanging fruit gets picked,
it gets more difficult to lower the standards. so with the reduction of 32% by 1980, the e.p.a. projects air quality and i quote will continue to improve over the next decade as additional reductions in ozone preoccursors from power plants, motor vehicles and other sources are realized. nothing in the pending bill prevents air quality from being realized. i urge a no vote and i yield become. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. ms. castor: mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote. charlte the gentlewoman has asked for a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from florida will be postponed.
it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 in house report 115-229. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. tonko: mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 115-229 offered by mr. tonko of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 451, the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. tonko: my amendment strikes an amendment which allows e.p.a. to determine what level of pollution is safe. house-based standards are the cornstone of the clean air act. to . is sufficient enough protect the public health. he level of ambient air to breathe. costs can be considered and are
considered in developing plans to achieve the necessary pollution reduction to meet the standards. unfortunately, h.r. 806 as currently drafted would change the long standing criteria for establishing an air quality standard from one that is bassed solely on protecting public health than one that considers the technological feasibility. this has been settled by congress. since passage of the clean air clean 970 and the 1990 air act amendments congress has excluded standards to standard setting to ensure that public health and public health alone would determine the standards of air quality. in 1970, on the passage of the clean air act, senator muskey of maine said, the first responsibility of congress said it's not 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. people and industries will be asked to do what seems impossible. but if health is to be protected, these challenges must be met, and i close quote. we are approaching five decades, that has been the clean air act. what's in the betterment of public health and guided by this principle our nation has experienced a 70% reduction in key air pollutants while trimming the size of its economy. the great deal of this success can be credited to american innovation. despite assertions that clean air was not feasible, ingenuity has risen to the challenge and made our country in clean air and clean air technology. these standards have driven
novation, driving a domestic industry. what is it about a can-do attitude that you don't get? and 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 be relying on the technology from the 1970's 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. i have confidence that our engineers and innovators will find that way. the history of those protections that we've enjoyed have been set and achievable and we have achieved those goals and we have much cleaner air to show for it and let's not roll back this progress. with that, i reserve.
the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. olson: i would like to speak in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. believe : mr. chairman that there are little persist at the present time things. my colleagues on this 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 if the e.p.a. administrator in consultation with e.p.a.'s independent scientific advisory committee then andange of levels quote, the administrator may -- the administrator may, the
administrator may, not shall, a must, may, as consideration consider technological feasibility in establishing primary ambient quality standards. it clearly says may, not shall, not must, but may. h.r. 806 does not change the clean air standards. again, section 806 does not change the clean air act's requirement that is based on the protection of public health. has ill simply clarifies the discretion to consider technological feasibility when choosing among a range of a level identified and supported
by science as protective of public health. democrat or republican, that congress considers feasibility to be a reasonable part of the decision making process with policy choices and must be made among a range of scientifically valid op sons. -- options. facts are little persistent things and this is section 3-b. i urge a no vote on this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentleman from new york has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. tonko: the insertion of discretion of the administrator at e.p.a. as to the neck nolingically and economically 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. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. mr. tonko: mr. chair, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman asks for a recorded vote, punt to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report 115-229. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek
recognition? mr. beyer: mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 115-229 offered by mr. beyer of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 451, the gentleman from virginia, mr. beyer and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. beyer: my amendment would strike the language that weakens the definition of exceptional events for air quality monitoring data and we know that air quality data is important in that americans value clean air. this last essman and month new england journal of medicine published a study that long-term exposure to air pollution increases mortality for all americans and those who are self-identified as racial minorities or people with low incomes. that's why the e.p.a. is responsible for setting the
national ambient standards for outdoor ambient air to protect our public health and environment. when states do not meet the standards, states have their own plans. states are currently allowed to exclude monitoring data for periods affected by exceptional events, like forest fires or unusual weather conditions, volcanos or seismic activities. they can exclude this data to make decisions. this is appropriate and makes sense. volcanos are exceptional. but this bill changes the provision in dangerous ways. it changes the definition of what qualifies as exceptional. stagnant air, lack of precipitation are not exceptional events but they would be considered exceptional. we live in washington, d.c.,, a
record high number of record temperatures, this shouldn't keep them from keeping exceptional data. d climate change, global warming, more frequent heat of s are a likely reality our earth today. weakening this definition means that states will never need to be in the compliance with the naaqs standards. by weakening this standard, we nullify the standards all together. none of us want to see the smog events like china and india. so by supporting this amendment we keep our amendment to the american people to support clean air. we shouldn't weaken to incorporate every day occurances like heat waves.
this provision becomes law, it could mean more respiratory harm, emergency room visits and early deaths. so please support my amendment. it's important that if we have standards that they actually mean something. exceptional is to find unusual. exceptional does not mean typical. let's keep it that way. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. shimkus: to speak in opposition of the amendment. section 319 provides relief to areas that violate national ambient air quality standards due to natural and occurring events. section 38 would add and i would argue, strengthens the definition, would add droughts and extraordinary stagnation to the act's definition of an exceptional event. 2012 was a major drought in the midwest.
now i'm from corn country. and we don't irrigate our corn because we've got great soil and we've got weather conditions for ost of the years that provides plentiful rain. but that didn't happen in 2012, it was an extraordinary event and it was a drought. now the question is posed should we punish the communities for an extraordinary event, i.e. a drought that's out of the ontrol of any of human beings? 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 requirement events