[Pages H5943-H5968]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

OZONE STANDARDS IMPLEMENTATION ACT OF 2017

General Leave

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

{time} 1438

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 806) to facilitate efficient State implementation of ground-level
ozone standards, and for other purposes, with Mr. Reed in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) and the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Tonko) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 806, the Ozone Standards Implementation Act of
2017, is about ensuring effective implementation of our air quality
standards.
We have learned that timelines and procedures established almost 30
years ago can be counterproductive today, resulting in unnecessary
costs, regulatory delay, and economic uncertainty.
H.R. 806 ensures we will continue to deliver effective environmental
protections, with reforms that will also help expand economic
opportunity in communities around the Nation.
H.R. 806 removes barriers to the planning and permitting of new or
expanded manufacturing facilities and to related economic activity
essential for building out America's infrastructure.
The bill's reforms reflect practical improvements to the law
suggested by State and local regulators, who have confronted the
growing challenges of implementing multiple air quality standards under
multiple implementation plans and under tight statutory deadlines. As a
result, these challenges have increased, and it has become more
difficult for many areas to enable the economic expansion needed for
their communities. This bill takes several sensible steps to fix this
situation.
First, it extends the date for final designations for the 2015 ozone
standards to 2025. This allows States time to implement the 2008 ozone
standards and other measures to improve air quality. The provisions
align requirements for new source construction permitting with this
phased ozone schedule, which will reduce permitting delays and still
ensure the use of the best available emissions control technologies.
The provisions would require timely issuance of implementation
guidelines by EPA so States can plan effectively.
Second, the bill aligns the air quality standard setting with how the
process works in practice, and it ensures fuller information about
regulatory impacts. For example, it updates the mandatory review of air
quality standards to reflect past experience by extending the
requirement to 10 years, and preserves the EPA administrator's
discretion to issue revised standards earlier, if necessary. The bill
ensures the administrator, prior to revising an air quality standard,
obtains advice from the EPA's Independent Science Advisory Committee
about any adverse effects on jobs, welfare, and other economic impacts
related to implementing the standards.
Finally, the bill takes several steps to address some of the problems
communities face when working to meet the standards. For example, it
ensures that, for certain ozone and particulate matter nonattainment
areas, States are not required to include economically infeasible
measures in their plans; it ensures that States may seek relief with
respect to certain exceptional events, including droughts; and it
directs EPA to examine the impacts of foreign emissions on standards
compliance, ozone formation, and identify effective control strategies,
including ways to facilitate EPA review to avoid unnecessary penalties
for foreign emissions.

[[Page H5944]]

The bill also helps communities with most severe air quality
challenges that are doing the most to clean up their air by providing a
reasonable way to avoid burdensome and unnecessary sanctions, which
harm their ability to grow their economies and create jobs.

The provisions of H.R. 806 represent important steps to update the
Clean Air Act to reflect what we have learned over the past 25 years
since its last major revisions.
There is more work to be done to modernize environmental laws, but
ensuring orderly implementation of air quality standards is an
important place to start and essential in our environment and our
economy.
Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to support this important bill today,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I want to express my strong opposition to H.R. 806, the
Ozone Standards Implementation Act, which would undermine the Clean Air
Act and the decades of progress that we have made to improve our
Nation's public health and air quality.
This bill delays implementation of the 2015 ozone standards until
2025, extends the review cycle for all National Ambient Air Quality
Standards from 5 to 10 years, and authorizes the EPA administrator to
consider technological feasibility when establishing or revising a
NAAQS.
Today, we will hear that removing health and environmental
protections creates jobs, despite all the evidence that protecting
public health and growing the economy are not mutually exclusive.
Since its enactment, the Clean Air Act has reduced key air pollutants
by roughly 70 percent, while the United States economy has more than
tripled.
We will hear today that our country has made enough progress, and we
will hear claims that further progress will be extremely difficult, if
not impossible, but this bill's supporters may not tell us that the
American Lung Association's 2017 State of the Air report found that
nearly 4 in 10 people in the United States live in counties that have
unhealthful levels of either ozone or particle pollution. Delaying
EPA's more protective health standards will only serve to delay these
Americans' access to guaranteed clean air.

{time} 1445

I believe American ingenuity continues to be up to the task of
developing and deploying technologies that will protect our citizens.
History has shown again and again that meeting such basic health
protective standards is achievable. More importantly, advancing these
protections will make America more productive, more competitive, and
will improve quality of life and drive down public health costs tied to
asthma, heart disease, and even cancer.
We may hear today that standards change too frequently and EPA should
have more time to review and implement each standard. We will likely
not hear that EPA has discretion on these matters and is only tasked
with changing those standards if it will protect health.
Every year, more studies are completed. With each new study, we gain
an even better understanding of how ozone and other pollutants are
harming Americans' health. It is critical that these standards reflect
the latest available science.
What we are not likely to hear today is questioning of the large and
growing body of scientific and medical evidence that breathing air that
contains ozone and other criteria pollutants can cause serious health
effects.
Unfortunately, this bill would cast aside that scientific evidence in
favor of adding cost and technological feasibility considerations into
the standard setting process. The proposed changes to the Clean Air Act
will slow down, if not outright roll back, the progress we have made to
clean our air. This would be a giant mistake.
Healthier people means fewer sick days, fewer hospital visits, and
fewer premature deaths, all of which lead us to a more productive
society.
According to a peer-reviewed 2011 EPA study, in 2010 alone, the Clean
Air Act prevented over 160,000 premature deaths, 130,000 cases of heart
disease, 1.7 million asthma attacks, and a million more respiratory
illnesses. Many of those health benefits have helped our most
vulnerable populations, particularly our children.
Let's do this for our children. Let's not make it worse. Let's
improve our standards. That is why so many public health and medical
organizations and professionals have vocally opposed this bill every
step of the way.
The Clean Air Act keeps kids in school, adults at work and on the
job, and tens of thousands of Americans out of the emergency room each
and every year.
At a time when Republicans in Congress have been almost singularly
focused on ramming through legislation to repeal the Affordable Care
Act and rip healthcare away from tens of millions of Americans, this
bill adds insult to injury. Plain and simple, the bill before us today
would undermine the Clean Air Act as a safeguard of our public health
law, and I encourage each and every Member of the House to oppose it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Olson), the author of the legislation.
Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from the land of Lincoln
for the time to speak on this important bill this afternoon.
Mr. Chairman, I remember Houston in 1972, 45 years ago. Just like
today, we were the heart of America's energy and chemical industries.
But back then, there were far too many days I could not see downtown
from my home 25 miles away because of smog, ozone.
We have made amazing progress, Mr. Chairman. All of America has made
progress. Now it is rare when I can't see downtown from 40 miles away.
I am raising my family in the suburbs of Houston, Texas. I don't want
to see my hometown's air get any worse--or anyone else's, for that
matter.
I want that progress to continue. That is why this bipartisan bill,
H.R. 806, keeps us moving forward with more breathable, cleaner air.
Nothing in this bipartisan bill changes any air quality standard.
Nothing in this bill puts costs before science when EPA sets a new
standard.
I will say that again because there is a lot of misinformation out
there. This bill explicitly says that EPA can never ignore health data
and can never put money ahead of safety.
This commonsense bill is about listening to our job creators back
home. It is about giving local officials the tools they need to make
air rules work. It is about making sure that our communities aren't
penalized for pollution they can't control. It is about making sure
that, when EPA sets a standard, they have to put out the rules to
comply with that standard to our local communities at the exact same
time.
Mr. Chairman, this is commonsense, bipartisan legislation. I urge my
colleagues to support H.R. 806 so we can keep cleaning up America's air
while growing our economy.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I would just suggest that, when we move the
timeframe for accomplishment of our progress by 8 years out into the
future, we are stalling progress; and when we tamper with a review
every 5 years and make it 10, we are denying progress.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cardenas).
Mr. CARDENAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in opposition to
H.R. 806. I call it the ``Smog Is Back'' bill.
I was born and raised in the San Fernando Valley. As a boy, I was not
allowed to play outside due to smog alerts, and you couldn't see the
mountains just a few miles away. I have told my kids. They don't know
what a smog alert is. You get to see the mountains 365 days a year.
That is because we got smart about cutting pollution. We passed
commonsense regulations, and the impact was remarkable. Yet today, as I
stand here, this Congress is trying to strip those protections and take
us back to a dangerous time. It is not a joke, and this is shameful.
Just over a year ago, my first grandchild was born. It infuriates me
that he could grow up with the same restrictions that I had after we
have made so much progress. We should be making the world a better
place for our children and grandchildren.

Mr. Chairman, when it comes to smog, it is not good to go back to the

[[Page H5945]]

future. It is just wrong. I urge my colleagues to oppose this
legislation for the sake of all children.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology
Committee.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Shimkus) for yielding me time, and I thank the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Olson) for sponsoring H.R. 806, the Ozone Standards
Implementation Act of 2017. I appreciate the efforts of Chairman
Walden, subcommittee Chairman Shimkus, and members of the Energy and
Commerce Committee to reduce the regulatory burden on the American
people and the economy.
As chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, I have
worked to ensure that EPA regulations are based on sound science.
Specifically, the committee found that the 2015 ozone standards
implemented by the previous administration were based on questionable
science and would cost billions of dollars to implement. H.R. 806 is
commonsense legislation that appropriately delays the implementation of
these new standards, allowing States more time to work through
compliance.
This legislation also resets the time period for the next review of
Clean Air Act regulations. This is necessary to provide the Agency with
ample time to analyze the science and economic impact of new rules.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and
reduce the regulatory burden on the American people and return the
Agency to sound scientific rulemaking.
Again, I appreciate Chairman Olson taking the initiative on this
subject.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, we have just heard from two colleagues from
Texas, and I want to remind all of my colleagues, our colleagues, that
the State of Texas has over 1.5 million residents with asthma,
including some 430,000 children. Weakening vital protections in the
Clean Air Act would put their health at risk.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Castor).
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican's
``Smoggy Skies Act'' that will gut America's landmark Clean Air Act.
Since Congress passed the Clean Air Act almost 50 years ago, American
progress on clean air has gone hand in hand with growth in jobs and
businesses. But that is at risk under this bill today because polluters
want to take shortcuts and shift the costs to hardworking American
families and other businesses. Republicans are helping them get this
done through this ``Smoggy Skies Act.''
Coming from the State of Florida, I understand very well how air
pollution hurts jobs and economic growth. Americans everywhere,
regardless of their ZIP Code, deserve an EPA and a Congress working to
clean up air pollution, not boost polluter profits at our expense. In
Florida, we probably would not be the tourist mecca that we are without
the Clean Air Act.
When you look across the globe at other countries and people are
deciding, ``Where am I going to take my vacation? Where am I going to
take my trip?'' they are very discerning about countries that do not
have the same kind of consumer protections.
I have seen, since the time I was a little girl, vast improvement in
air quality back home in the Tampa Bay area, to the point of it used to
be, in the early morning, you would walk outside and you could smell
and taste it. Now we have very few days of smog and pollution.
But still, Congress should protect the pocketbooks of American
citizens, not the profits of polluters because we have pockets of real
pollution problems all across America. Approximately 125 million
Americans still live in areas with dangerous levels of air pollution.
Air pollution costs our families money as smoggy skies aggravate
asthma, COPD, bronchitis, lung disease, and the ability to work
outside. Improving ozone standards can help avoid premature deaths,
childhood asthma attacks, and missed school days.
I encourage you all to google the New England Journal of Medicine
study that came out at the end of last month that said dirty air is
very costly and has a deadly impact on many Americans still, especially
our older neighbors and younger people with asthma and other
respiratory illnesses. It said air pollution hastens death in America.
Harvard researchers determined that, after reviewing years of health
records of more than 60 million Medicare beneficiaries in specific air
quality levels, we are still in trouble. I took that as a direct
warning to this Congress not to roll back the Clean Air Act and air
pollution protections.
The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to take a look at air quality
every 5 years, but under this bill, nope, it will be every 10 years. So
polluters win and citizens pay more.
The Clean Air Act codifies a citizen's right to know when they are
breathing dirty air, but under this bill, nope, citizens will not have
a right to know. Again, the polluters win and citizens pay more.
Just like Mr. Tonko said, America is the world leader in ingenuity,
technology, and science, but not under this GOP bill. Polluters will
win, science will lose, and citizens will pay more.
This is a costly shame, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to highlight a few specific
things.
One is the standards established by the EPA remains unchanged. The
real premise of this bill is the fact that, when the 2008 standards
came out, it took the EPA 7 years to get to the guidelines for how
local communities and businesses could comply. While that was
occurring, they ratcheted down a new set of standards.
So when we talk, this is really more about having our citizens and
our communities be able to comply with the rules and regs before a new
rule and reg gets in place.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Biggs).

{time} 1500

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for
yielding time to me today. I applaud Congressman Olson for introducing
this very important legislation. I also thank Science Committee
Chairman Lamar Smith for holding numerous hearings to fully examine the
Environmental Protection Agency's National Ambient Air Quality
Standards.
Arizonans desperately need the reforms that Representative Olson has
offered in his legislation. Unfortunately, my constituents in the East
Valley of Maricopa County understand all too well the consequences of
onerous EPA regulations.
Arizona has high levels of background ozone in the atmosphere,
meaning that, from the EPA's perspective, we are regularly above the
attainment level. But instead of trying to fully understand my State's
intricate needs or engaging in efforts to work with State officials to
develop achievable plans and paths forward, the EPA has doubled down
time after time with new standards that are impossible to meet.
H.R. 806 will help States like mine create meaningful implementation
plans by giving us more time to work with the Federal Government and
stakeholders. It will also allow us more flexibility in how we meet new
regulations. Good, commonsense bills like this one are needed to ensure
that we do not overregulate in a way that severely disrupts our local
economies for little or no benefit.
As chairman of the Science Subcommittee on Environment, I once again
applaud Representative Olson and thank my friend from Illinois, and I
look forward to seeing this bill pass this Chamber.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, having just heard from the gentleman from
Arizona, I want to remind my colleagues that the State of Arizona has
over 660,000 residents with asthma, including some 175,000 children.
Weakening vital protections in the Clean Air Act would put their health
at risk.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan
(Mrs. Dingell).
Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 806,
the Ozone Standards Implementation Act.
For nearly 5 decades, the Clean Air Act has proven to reduce air
pollution by establishing critical National Ambient Air Quality
Standards to protect

[[Page H5946]]

our public health and public welfare. This bill would drastically alter
the Clean Air Act, putting everyone at risk by delaying the
implementation of stronger air quality protections and extending the
review period for setting future air pollution standards.
If we choose not to put air quality and public health first today, we
jeopardize and undermine our ability to live long and healthy lives
tomorrow.
When the EPA issued its final rule strengthening the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards in 2015, this decision was based on the review of
thousands of studies showing ozone's harmful effects.
Ozone is a pollutant. If we do not take our responsibility serious to
ensure every American has clean and healthy air to breathe, those with
asthma will experience more attacks. We need to make sure that our
children aren't developing chronic bronchitis and asthma; and we risk
increased numbers of premature deaths across the country.
Every American deserves clean air now. We cannot afford an almost
decade-long delay of improved air pollution standards.
According to the American Lung Association, nearly 4 in 10 people in
the United States live in counties that have unhealthy levels of either
ozone or particle pollution. More than 125 million Americans live in
204 counties where they are exposed to concerning levels of air
pollution in the form of either ozone or short-term or year-round
levels of particles.
While we have continued to make progress reducing ozone pollution, we
have to further strengthen these standards in the name of public
health. These standards are the cornerstone of the Clean Air Act.
Additionally, the provisions in this bill would also affect future
NAAQS reviews for criteria pollutants by extending the review time for
5 to 10 years, compounding the negative public health impacts for
generations.
In Michigan, if we fail to lower our ground ozone pollution, our
seniors with pulmonary disease, asthma, and diabetes will suffer. For
our kids who want to explore the outdoors and experience all the Great
Lakes have to offer, ozone pollution may increasingly trigger a variety
of health problems, including chest pain, coughing, and throat
irritation.
Please, my colleagues, do not do this today. Think of the health of
Americans.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, let me just remind my colleagues that--why
10 years? I mean, that is a good question.
When the 2008 standards came out, it took the administration 7 years,
to 2015, to tell people how to even implement the 2008 standards. Then,
3 months later, they say: Oh, no, we are going to have a new standard
set at 2015.
So this debate doesn't reduce or roll back. It says, let's let the
EPA establish standards and then give communities time to comply. That
is all this bill does.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia
(Mr. McKinley).
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, today the House will vote on a bill
addressing the ozone standards issued by the Obama administration.
Look, with the comments you have heard today, we all want clean air.
But America has made great strides already. Ozone is down by one-third
since 1980.
But the regulations imposed by President Obama in 2015 would cost the
economy billions of dollars each year and hamper job growth. In many
parts of the country, it is literally impossible to meet the new
standards due to the background levels of ozone.
Much of the country, as you just heard the chairman talk about, was
still trying to comply with the previous standard when, suddenly, a new
level was imposed. This has resulted in confusion and duplication.

The bill that is before us this afternoon provides a commonsense
approach. It delays the implementation, but, more importantly, it gives
the States flexibility to deal with this issue. It revises the
timeframe for changing standards from 5 years to 10 years. That is all.
It requires the EPA to consider--very important--the economic and
technical feasibility of the new standards.
So, Mr. Chairman, passing this bill today will remove a barrier to
economic growth while, at the same time, still protecting our
environment.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, having heard from my friend and colleague from
West Virginia, I want to remind my colleagues that the State of West
Virginia has 100,000 residents with asthma, including over 18,000
children. So it is weakening vital protections in the Clean Air Act
that would put these populations at risk.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Matsui).
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 806,
better known as the ``Smoggy Skies Act.''
Because of the Clean Air Act, families have safer air to breathe,
fewer emergency room visits, and healthier futures. The bill before us
today is a direct attack on that progress, delaying lifesaving
protections against ozone pollution.
H.R. 806 will be particularly devastating to children with asthma,
the elderly, and people with lung and heart disease. Dirty air remains
a public health hazard.
If this bill becomes law, we will be rolling back the Clean Air Act's
protections and successes and putting people's health at risk.
The Sacramento region in my district sits in California's Central
Valley, which traps pollution from other parts of the State. And
despite these challenges, we have fostered a strong partnership between
the Federal Government and Sacramento's local agencies to improve our
air quality. But in order for this progress to continue, the EPA must
set its clean air requirements at a level that truly protects public
health.
The bill before us today would block ozone protections and
permanently damage the Clean Air Act. Between this ``Smoggy Skies Act''
and TrumpCare, Republicans are waging an all-out assault on Americans'
health.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and protect the well-being
of future generations.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 806,
the Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017, introduced by my friend
and colleague, Pete Olson. This bill is necessary to shield States from
job-killing mandates and ozone levels proposed by the Obama
administration in October of 2015.
Most States are just beginning to adopt the 75 parts per billion
ozone standard proposed in 2008, as the EPA didn't announce
implementation guidance and a final rule until March 6 of 2015. Rather
than allowing time for that standard to be implemented, the Obama
administration moved the goalposts and unilaterally sought to
dramatically lower the ozone standard once again to 70 parts per
billion in October 2015.
Industry analysis projects that more than 950 different counties
throughout the country will immediately be in nonattainment under the
October 2015, 70 parts per billion standard. To make matters worse, the
70 parts per billion standard is not currently attainable in 9 of 10
counties in Arizona that measure ozone levels.
When pristine national parks like the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, and
Rocky Mountain are in danger of being in nonattainment under the
proposed Obama standard, there is a serious problem with the numbers.
The Chamber of Commerce has reported that counties classified as in
nonattainment can have important permits denied by the EPA and
important Federal highway and transportation projects suspended.
The Arizona Chamber Foundation and Prosper Foundation stated: ``The
EPA's new ozone standard of 70 parts per billion will virtually be
impossible for Arizona to meet due to Arizona's high level of
background, limited local sources, and unique geography. . . .
Implementation of the current rule in Arizona is not reasonable, based
in sound science, or achievable.''
Tri-State stated: ``In order to preserve our co-op-member owners
access to affordable and reliable electricity, Tri-State Generation and
Transmission Association wholeheartedly supports H.R. 806.''

[[Page H5947]]

The National Taxpayer Union stated: ``The costs are high for States
and localities, regardless of whether they achieve attainment . . .
jobs and investments will go elsewhere without more feasible,
predictable reforms that are present in H.R. 806.''
Even the Obama administration projected in 2010 the unrealistic
standard we are debating today would cost our economy between $19 to
$25 billion annually.
The previous administration also admitted it did not have a clear
plan for dealing with background ozone generated by factors outside a
State's control. This means the Obama EPA was literally attempting to
punish States for ozone pollution that is created in other States like
California, or in Mexico, or even China.
The October 2015 Obama ozone rule will force companies to close their
doors and kill countless jobs throughout the country if this bill is
not passed.
I thank the gentleman from Texas for sponsoring this much-needed
legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this
commonsense bill.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As I earlier stated, the State of Arizona has over 660,000 residents
with asthma, including 175,000 children; and I just question putting
their health at risk with this bill that moves us in the wrong
direction.
Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a number of supporting
documents. The first is a letter opposing the bill signed by the State
Attorneys General of New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware,
Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and the District of
Columbia, and the Acting Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection.

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

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

[[Page H5948]]

oppose the bill. Thank you for your attention to this
critical matter.
Sincerely,
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of New York, Lemuel
Srolovic, Chief, Environmental Protection Bureau, Michael J.
Myers, Assistant Attorney General, Environmental Protection
Bureau.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General of California, David A.
Zonana, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Jonathan Wiener,
Deputy Attorney General.
George Jepsen, Attorney General of Connecticut, Matthew I.
Levine, Kirsten S.P. Rigney, Scott N. Koschwitz, Assistant
Attorneys General, Office of the Attorney General.
Matthew P. Denn, Attorney General of Delaware, Ralph K.
Durstein, III, Valerie S. Edge, Deputy Attorneys General,
Delaware Department of Justice.
Lisa Madigan, Attorney General of Illinois, Matthew J.
Dunn, Gerald T. Karr, James P. Gignac, Assistant Attorneys
General, Environmental Enforcement Division.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General of Iowa, Jacob Larson,
Assistant Attorney General.
Brian Frosh, Attorney General of Maryland, Roberta R.
James, Assistant Attorney General.
Maura Healey, Attorney General of Massachusetts, Christophe
Courchesne, Chief, Carol Iancu, Assistant Attorneys General,
Environmental Protection Division, Office of the Attorney
General.
Hector Balderas, Attorney General of New Mexico, Bill
Grantham, Assistant Attorney General.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General of Oregon, Paul
Garrahan, Attorney-in-Charge, Natural Resources Section,
Oregon Department of Justice.
Josh Shapiro, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Office of
the Attorney General.
Patrick McDonnell, Acting Secretary, Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection.
Peter Kilmartin, Attorney General of Rhode Island, Gregory
S. Schultz, Assistant Attorney General.
Thomas J. Donovan, Jr., Attorney General of Vermont,
Nicholas F. Persampieri, Assistant Attorney General.
Mark Herring, Attorney General of Virginia, John W. Daniel,
II, Deputy Attorney General, Matthew L. Gooch, Assistant
Attorney General, Environmental Section.
Bob Ferguson, Attorney General of Washington, Katharine G.
Shirey, Assistant Attorney General.
Karl A. Racine, Attorney General for the District of
Columbia.

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

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

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

Introduction

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

Delaying public health benefits of the 2015 ozone NAAQS

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

[[Page H5949]]

Delaying public health benefits from reducing other criteria pollutants

Aside from ozone, provisions of this proposed bill would
affect future NAAQS reviews for all criteria pollutants, thus
compounding negative public health impacts. For example, the
bill would irresponsibly extend the NAAQS review time from
five years to ten for all criteria pollutants. Retaining the
five-year review schedule ensures that the Administrator
reviews the relevant state of the science while it is timely
and germane. Health science moves quickly; by the time one
NAAQS revision is reaching completion, other pertinent
clinical studies are being published.
This proposed bill weakens public health protection by
making cost and technological feasibility larger factors in
the establishment and implementation of NAAQS. The Supreme
Court has already upheld the notion that the consideration of
costs has no place in the setting of a NAAQS (Whitman v.
American Trucking Associations, Inc., 2001). Instead,
questions of technological and economic feasibility are
considered at the stage of implementing the NAAQS. For
example, the Act's nonattainment area classifications
recognize that areas with more difficult ozone pollution
problems require more time to comply. Unfortunately, Section
3(b) of the proposed bill would change the long-standing
practice of how an Administrator determines the NAAQS by
allowing him or her to analyze, as a secondary consideration,
the likely technological feasibility of a revised NAAQS.
Section 3(c) would expand CASAC's role to providing advice to
the Administrator on adverse economic effects (among others)
prior to the setting of the NAAQS. Taken together, these
proposed revisions would have the effect that NAAQS would no
longer be set at levels that are protective of public health
and welfare.
Finally, the proposed bill unnecessarily redefines ordinary
expected conditions as ``exceptional events'' that need not
be considered by a state in demonstrating attainment. The
intent of the ``extraordinary event'' exception is to allow a
state to discount NAAQS exceedances that result from one-
time, unpredictable, and uncontrollable events such as
wildfires. The proposal, however, would allow commonplace
conditions such as stagnant air masses and ``meteorological
event[s] involving high temperatures or lack of
precipitation'' to be considered exceptional. In their ozone
planning, states should anticipate these conditions, which
are expected to occur each year and promote the formation of
ozone when public health is at the greatest risk.
We also disagree with the proposal to allow sources to
avoid nonattainment new source review until release of the
implementation guidance. EPA's delay in issuing guidance
should not be an excuse to allow new sources in nonattainment
areas to contribute to further air quality degradation. In
addition, the bill's reduction of the time allotted for
states to formulate and submit attainment plans from the
current three years to one year reflects a misunderstanding
of the laborious process for developing these plans.

Conclusion

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

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

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

[[Page H5950]]

range. Further, the bill would interject implementation
considerations, including projections of adverse economic and
energy effects, into the standard setting process. These
changes will permanently weaken the core health-based premise
of the Clean Air Act--protecting the public from known health
effects of air pollution with a margin of safety.
These changes would reverse the intention of the Clean Air
Act explicitly included by its bipartisan authors in
Congress: that basing the standard on the protection of
public health would push technology to develop new tools and
techniques to reduce emissions. They understood that pushing
the cleanup technology to meet the urgent need to protect
health would help to expand job development and growth. They
were correct, as the emission control industry today has
helped the nation meet stronger standards in creative, cost-
effective ways.
The text also explicitly states that the Smoggy Skies Act
does not authorize any additional funds to be appropriated to
EPA for its work carrying out the bill's provisions. Forcing
EPA to perform the additional work of implementing this bill
with no additional resources could put the agency's current,
lifesaving work at further risk.
Finally, an amendment adopted in committee would eliminate
key enforcement provisions under the Clean Air Act. As
amended, the bill could perpetuate poor air quality in
communities with the highest pollution levels indefinitely.
The provision waives the obligation for states with areas
heavily polluted by ozone or particulate matter to write
effective plans to attain the health standards. Currently, if
an area with unhealthy air fails to write an adequate plan to
meet air pollution standards, EPA can impose sanctions.
Because that enforcement provision exists, EPA has almost
never needed to use it--states wrote effective plans. As
amended, the Smoggy Skies Act would bar EPA from using this
key enforcement tool for especially polluted areas,
essentially eliminating the obligation for states to write a
meaningful pollution cleanup plan that can demonstrate
meeting the health standards.
The Smoggy Skies Act is a sweeping attack on lifesaving
standards that protect public health from air pollution. This
bill is an extreme attempt to undermine our nation's proven
clean air health protections. Not only does it delay the
long-overdue updated ozone standards and weaken their
implementation and enforcement, it also permanently weakens
the health protections against many dangerous air pollutants
and the scientific basis of Clean Air Act standards.
Please prioritize the health of your constituents and vote
NO on the Smoggy Skies Act.
Sincerely,
Allergy & Asthma Network
Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Lung Association
American Public Health Association
American Thoracic Society
Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America
Center for Climate Change and Health
Children's Environmental Health Network
Health Care Without Harm
National Association of County & City Health Officials
National Environmental Health Association
National Medical Association
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Trust for America's Health.

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

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

[[Page H5951]]

{time} 1515

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chair, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chair, for the folks who might be watching this today, I think it
is important to understand that bad ozone causes a whole lot of health
problems--things like making it difficult to breathe deeply. It can
aggravate your emphysema. It can cause a sore and scratchy throat. It
can aggravate lung diseases like asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis. And
it is actually associated with asthma attacks, as I mentioned, and it
can cause very serious obstructive pulmonary disease. It is a bad
thing, it is dangerous, and it hurts people.
In the Obama administration, we tried to pass some standards to say
that companies that emit the polluting substances have to comply with
certain air standards to make sure that people don't suffer these nasty
health effects.
What is going on today with H.R. 806 is that the Republicans are
going to say: No, they don't have to implement right away. They have
got a lot more time, years, before they actually have to comply with
these air standards.
So what they are saying is that industries that pollute don't have to
take the measures that they would need to take that will cost them
money--yes, they will--in order to protect the public's health. They
are saying that their money and the profits of their shareholders are
more important than the lungs of our kids.
You are going to hear them say all this stuff about jobs, jobs.
Please. This is not about jobs. This is about money. This is about
profitability from polluting industries that don't want to spend the
money to protect the public's health. That is what this is about. That
is what we are talking about.
They always say: You can have a job, or you can breathe, but you
can't do both. That is what our friends say. You can breathe, but then
you won't have a job; or you can have a job, but then you can't
breathe.
The fact is, they want to send us to work with gas masks on, and it
is wrong. We as a people deserve to breathe. Our kids deserve to
breathe. Our seniors deserve to breathe. If it costs a company a little
bit more to make sure the air that we have is breathable, then they
should spend that money. I believe that they should, because when you
look at the health costs on the other side, they are astronomical. What
does it cost to lose a loved one dying from an asthma attack or
bronchitis or obstructive pulmonary disease? What does it cost a family
in terms of not just treasure but heartache when they have their loved
ones hooked up to a bunch of machines and wires because they are
undergoing a respiratory attack? That is the cost. That is the true
cost that we have to consider, Mr. Chair.
The real cost here is not this mythical jobs thing that they say. The
real cost they are talking about is profitability, but the true cost to
society is our health. Do you really want to see missed days of school,
missed days of work? Do you really want to see more people incurring
medical bills because of the failure of industry to protect our health
when they are taking that stuff that they are spitting out of their
smokestacks and putting it into the sky that we all have to breathe?
Mr. Chair, it is time to say ``no'' to H.R. 806. No.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Bridenstine). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, let me just remind folks that what is
going on here is that we have a 2008 standard that we were told 7 years
afterwards: Here is how you comply.
That same year, we get new standards saying: Oh, no, no, no. You have
got new standards lower than what it took us 7 years to define.
That is really the debate. We are not eliminating standards, we are
not rolling back standards, we are just saying: Give us a break. Give
us time to comply with the 2008 standards before you even force down
the 2015 standards. Nothing in this bill rolls back either of those
standards.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from South Carolina
(Mr. Sanford).
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague from Illinois for his
hard work, and I thank Mr. Olson for his hard work. They have worked, I
think, tirelessly and in an awfully well-intended way to craft a
balance between the different competing points of view on this whole
issue of ozone.
I know that he is concerned about people's health. I know that he is
concerned about the environment. But on this particular issue, I am
going to respectfully disagree and agree with my Democratic colleagues
to say that I think that the time to act is now, because at some point
there becomes the question: If not now, then when? At some point, delay
moves to the point of obstruction of moving forward on an idea that has
had its different wrinkles, in fairness to my colleague from Illinois.
But at some point, you have to act.
Given the fact that people's health does hang in the balance, given
the fact that there are another 2,000 cases a day of asthma that are
protracted, we need to have a bias for action. I think it is a time for
action.
I think it is reasonable. Moving from 75 to 70 parts per billion is
not exactly a gargantuan change, given what is at play with regard to
health. And finally, simply, I believe it fits with the conservative
philosophy that I believe in. The conservative philosophy says that my
rights end when they begin to infringe upon yours.
This notion of privatizing gain and offsetting costs to the public is
something I think we always have to watch out for when we talk about
this notion of free markets and having them truly work.
I, as a boy, grew up down the creek from a place called Campbell
Creek, and there was a chemical plant that ended up dumping some stuff
in the creek. It turned out not to be so good. It made a lasting
impression on me as a boy. They were externalizing their costs, but
they were internalizing their profits.

Mr. Chair, I think we need to be true to that theme whether we are
talking about air or water or anything else. I think that this bill
fits under that larger description. For that reason, I do say, with all
due respect for the hard work that has been done, that it is time to
act on this particular bill.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, two points on the review and the standards.
Certainly not every review would require a change in standards, and I
think that needs to be made clear here. When we talk about the
difficulty of having to respond or achieve the standards that have been
established and then they go stronger, well, on your way to 70 parts
per billion, you are going to be moving through 75 parts per billion as
you reduce those particulates that get emitted into our air. It is only
logical that you could move along and continue to improve those
standards.
This is about maintaining a quality of life, enhancing a quality of
life, cutting into, for public health policy purposes, the devastating
impacts of air pollutants and their relation to our public health.
Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Barragan).
Ms. BARRAGAN. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to the ``Smoggy
Skies Act,'' a bill that would effectively gut the Clean Water Act.
I represent one of the most heavily polluted districts in California.
As a matter of fact, sometimes kids in my district walk around with
inhalers around their necks.
When I was a kid, my father had a home next to the freeway, and I
first thought it was a great place to live because it was conveniently
by the freeway, and what I later learned about air pollution and smog
and the ozone layer, I knew it was not a good thing. When I see kids in
my district walk around with inhalers, it just breaks my heart.
Every day, many of my constituents, people of color and low income,
are surrounded by oil refineries, major highways, and industrial
activities. These activities generate ozone pollution, the key
ingredient for smog. It is dangerous. It is deadly.
Since 1970, the Clean Air Act has reduced the ozone in our air,
protecting Americans against health problems, including asthma and
heart attacks, shortness of breath, low birth weight, and premature
death. Clean air is a good investment. The benefits of a

[[Page H5952]]

healthy environment pay off in worker productivity and longevity.
Unhealthy people can't work or go to school, which is also a problem in
my district where only 10 percent of students go on to college.
Oftentimes, it is a cycle. They are outside, they breathe in the
dirty air, they get sick, they have asthma, they have to go to the
doctor, and they miss school. That is only contributing to the low
graduation rates that we are seeing happen in my district.
Smog is not only harmful to health, I think it is harmful especially
in young children, in our seniors, and in some of our most vulnerable
communities.
Over a third of the U.S. population lives in areas with unhealthy
ozone levels--areas that would have to clean up the air under the new
and improved 2015 ozone standards.
The ``Smoggy Skies Act'' is the latest in a series of congressional
attempts to gut the Clean Air Act and block or delay lifesaving
standards and protection.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 806, the
``Smoggy Skies Act.''
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority leader of the House.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time
and for his work.
Mr. Chair, when you drive up north through and past my district in
California, you go through some amazing places--Sequoia National Park,
Kings Canyon, then right on over to Yosemite. These are beautiful
places. American treasures. You don't have to go far off the road to
feel like you are remote and completely surrounded by the peacefulness
of nature.
I have had my troubles with the EPA--regulatory cap and trade, waters
of the U.S. rule. They are a couple that come to mind. But I do think
and believe there is a purpose to ozone standards that clean up our air
and make our communities healthier.
Yet the latest ozone and particulate matter regulations are so severe
and divorced from reality that even the national parks like Sequoia,
Kings Canyon, and Yosemite may not be clean enough. If such pristine
nature isn't clean, nothing can be.
The problem is that the EPA sets new standards before we reach the
old ones, and even before we have the technology to reach the new
standards, the only result will be failure.
California's Central Valley faces many disadvantages with air
quality. We have prevailing winds from the north to send us pollution
from San Francisco, and because of our topography, it traps it all in.
But we have made some amazing progress. Good days, when ozone isn't a
problem, are up 144 percent since 2002. Unhealthy ones are down over 75
percent in the same period. You see similar trends in particulate
matter as well.
But no matter how much better we make our air, we cannot catch up to
reach the latest unrealistic EPA hurdles. The head of the San Joaquin
Valley Air Pollution Control District said that, to do so, we would
have to stop all fossil fuel combustion in the Central Valley. If we
don't do that, don't stop all industry, stop building, stop businesses,
and even stop driving our cars, you know what will happen? We will be
punished, and we will be fined for where we live.
Now, something obviously has to change because these regulations are
not rooted in reality. In this legislation, Mr. Chair, Congressman Pete
Olson's Ozone Standards Implementation Act, we don't get rid of ozone
or particulate matter standards, we don't even oppose raising our
standards when we use our technology and abilities to improve. What we
do is make sure that the standards are set with a specific level for a
set time so that the EPA cannot come back and change the goalpost every
few years.
What we do is make sure that the EPA actually determines whether
something is technologically possible when setting new attainment
deadlines. What we do is make sure we aren't penalized for all things
affecting our air that we can't control.

{time} 1530

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

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

[[Page H5953]]

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

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

[[Page H5954]]

In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, printed in the bill, it shall be
in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment
under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 115-26. That amendment
in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:

H.R. 806

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

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

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

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

(a) Timeline for Review of National Ambient Air Quality
Standards.--
(1) Ten-year cycle for all criteria air pollutants.--
Paragraphs (1) and (2)(B) of section 109(d) of the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. 7409(d)) are amended by striking ``five-year
intervals'' each place it appears and inserting ``10-year
intervals''.
(2) Cycle for next review of ozone criteria and
standards.--Notwithstanding section 109(d) of the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. 7409(d)), the Administrator shall not--
(A) complete, before October 26, 2025, any review of the
criteria for ozone published under section 108 of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 7408) or the national ambient air quality standard
for ozone promulgated under section 109 of such Act (42
U.S.C. 7409); or
(B) propose, before such date, any revisions to such
criteria or standard.
(b) Consideration of Technological Feasibility.--Section
109(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7409(b)(1)) is
amended by inserting after the first sentence the following:
``If the Administrator, in consultation with the independent
scientific review committee appointed under subsection (d),
finds that a range of levels of air quality for an air
pollutant are requisite to protect public health with an
adequate margin of safety, as described in the preceding
sentence, the Administrator may consider, as a secondary
consideration, likely technological feasibility in
establishing and revising the national primary ambient air
quality standard for such pollutant.''.
(c) Consideration of Adverse Public Health, Welfare,
Social, Economic, or Energy Effects.--Section 109(d)(2) of
the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7409(d)(2)) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(D) Prior to establishing or revising a national ambient
air quality standard, the Administrator shall request, and
such committee shall provide, advice under subparagraph
(C)(iv) regarding any adverse public health, welfare, social,
economic, or energy effects which may result from various
strategies for attainment and maintenance of such national
ambient air quality standard.''.
(d) Timely Issuance of Implementing Regulations and
Guidance.--Section 109 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7409)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Timely Issuance of Implementing Regulations and
Guidance.--
``(1) In general.--In publishing any final rule
establishing or revising a national ambient air quality
standard, the Administrator shall, as the Administrator
determines necessary to assist States, permitting
authorities, and permit applicants, concurrently publish
regulations and guidance for implementing the standard,
including information relating to submission and
consideration of a preconstruction permit application under
the new or revised standard.
``(2) Applicability of standard to preconstruction
permitting.--If the Administrator fails to publish final
regulations and guidance that include information relating to
submission and consideration of a preconstruction permit
application under a new or revised national ambient air
quality standard concurrently with such standard, then such
standard shall not apply to the review and disposition of a
preconstruction permit application until the Administrator
has published such final regulations and guidance.
``(3) Rules of construction.--
``(A) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to
preclude the Administrator from issuing regulations and
guidance to assist States, permitting authorities, and permit
applicants in implementing a national ambient air quality
standard subsequent to publishing regulations and guidance
for such standard under paragraph (1).
``(B) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to
eliminate the obligation of a preconstruction permit
applicant to install best available control technology and
lowest achievable emission rate technology, as applicable.
``(C) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to
limit the authority of a State, local, or Tribal permitting
authority to impose more stringent emissions requirements
pursuant to State, local, or Tribal law than national ambient
air quality standards.
``(4) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) The term `best available control technology' has the
meaning given to that term in section 169(3).
``(B) The term `lowest achievable emission rate' has the
meaning given to that term in section 171(3).
``(C) The term `preconstruction permit'--
``(i) means a permit that is required under this title for
the construction or modification of a stationary source; and
``(ii) includes any such permit issued by the Environmental
Protection Agency or a State, local, or Tribal permitting
authority.''.
(e) Contingency Measures for Extreme Ozone Nonattainment
Areas.--Section 172(c)(9) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7502(c)(9)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Notwithstanding the preceding sentences and any other
provision of this Act, such measures shall not be required
for any nonattainment area for ozone classified as an Extreme
Area.''.
(f) Plan Submissions and Requirements for Ozone
Nonattainment Areas.--Section 182 of the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7511a) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(1)(A)(ii)(III), by inserting ``and
economic feasibility'' after ``technological achievability'';
(2) in subsection (c)(2)(B)(ii), by inserting ``and
economic feasibility'' after ``technological achievability'';
(3) in subsection (e), in the matter preceding paragraph
(1)--
(A) by striking ``The provisions of clause (ii) of
subsection (c)(2)(B) (relating to reductions of less than 3
percent), the provisions of paragaphs'' and inserting ``The
provisions of paragraphs''; and
(B) by striking ``, and the provisions of clause (ii) of
subsection (b)(1)(A) (relating to reductions of less than 15
percent)''; and
(4) in paragraph (5) of subsection (e), by striking ``, if
the State demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
Administrator that--'' and all that follows through the end
of the paragraph and inserting a period.
(g) Plan Revisions for Milestones for Particulate Matter
Nonattainment Areas.--Section 189(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act
(42 U.S.C. 7513a(c)(1)) is amended by inserting ``, which
take into account technological achievability and economic
feasibility,'' before ``and which demonstrate reasonable
further progress''.
(h) Exceptional Events.--Section 319(b)(1)(B) of the Clean
Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7619(b)(1)(B)) is amended--
(1) in clause (i)--
(A) by striking ``(i) stagnation of air masses or'' and
inserting ``(i)(I) ordinarily occurring stagnation of air
masses or (II)''; and
(B) by inserting ``or'' after the semicolon;
(2) by striking clause (ii); and
(3) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (ii).
(i) Report on Emissions Emanating From Outside the United
States.--Not later than 24 months after the date of enactment
of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation with States,
shall submit to the Congress a report on--
(1) the extent to which foreign sources of air pollution,
including emissions from sources located outside North
America, impact--
(A) designations of areas (or portions thereof) as
nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable under section
107(d) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7407(d)); and
(B) attainment and maintenance of national ambient air
quality standards;
(2) the Environmental Protection Agency's procedures and
timelines for disposing of petitions submitted pursuant to
section 179B(b) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7509a(b));
(3) the total number of petitions received by the Agency
pursuant to such section 179B(b), and for each such petition
the date initially submitted and the date of final
disposition by the Agency; and

[[Page H5955]]

(4) whether the Administrator recommends any statutory
changes to facilitate the more efficient review and
disposition of petitions submitted pursuant to such section
179B(b).
(j) Study on Ozone Formation.--
(1) Study.--The Administrator, in consultation with States
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
shall conduct a study on the atmospheric formation of ozone
and effective control strategies, including--
(A) the relative contribution of man-made and naturally
occurring nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, and
other pollutants in ozone formation in urban and rural areas,
including during wildfires, and the most cost-effective
control strategies to reduce ozone; and
(B) the science of wintertime ozone formation, including
photochemical modeling of wintertime ozone formation, and
approaches to cost-effectively reduce wintertime ozone
levels.
(2) Peer review.--The Administrator shall have the study
peer reviewed by an independent panel of experts in
accordance with the requirements applicable to a highly
influential scientific assessment.
(3) Report.--The Administrator shall submit to Congress a
report describing the results of the study, including the
findings of the peer review panel.
(4) Regulations and guidance.--The Administrator shall
incorporate the results of the study, including the findings
of the peer review panel, into any Federal rules and guidance
implementing the 2015 ozone standards.

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

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

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

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

SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

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

SEC. 6. NO ADDITIONAL FUNDS AUTHORIZED.

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

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

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Castor of Florida

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

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 451, the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Castor) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chair, my amendment seeks to ensure that
American families aren't forced to pick up the costs of air pollution
that should be rightfully borne by polluters. My amendment seeks to
protect kids across America, our older neighbors, and the most
vulnerable to smog and dirty air.
My amendment says that the Republicans' ``Smoggy Skies Act'' will not
take effect if the EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee finds
negative impacts on individuals with asthma, bronchitis, COPD, and
other health conditions, particularly in children and our older
neighbors, pregnant women, folks who work outdoors, and those in
working-class communities.
Mr. Chairman, Americans value their health and they value America's
landmark Clean Air Act. Earlier this year, the American Lung
Association released a new poll showing that 61 percent of all
Americans support stronger smog standards and clearly oppose this
dirty-air policy.
Harold P. Wimmer, national president and CEO of the American Lung
Association, said: ``More than half of all Americans breathe polluted
air, putting them at risk of asthma attacks, respiratory infections,
and premature death.''
The public wants clean, healthy air. It is no surprise that American
voters strongly support maintaining safeguards to protect their health
from the dangers of ozone pollution.
I have seen great improvement in the air quality over my lifetime
back home in Tampa, Florida. We have heard in front of our committee
and heard from folks through social media, from Democrats and
Republicans here today, how much they value clean air and how much
progress we have seen. Yet, according to the Florida KIDS COUNT Data
book, in 2016, asthma emergency department visits reached over 48,000
in my State, and hospitalizations are in the thousands and thousands.
That takes a toll, and it is very costly. Florida is not alone. This
affects all Americans.
Mr. Chairman, you might have heard during general debate that I
referenced a new, very important study that came out at in the month of
June in the New England Journal of Medicine. Here is a press report
that summarizes the study.
The title of the story is: ``U.S. Air Pollution Still Kills Thousands
Every Year, Study Concludes.
``The air Americans breathe has been getting cleaner for decades.
``But air pollution is still killing thousands in the U.S. every
year. . . .

[[Page H5956]]

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

{time} 1545

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

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Tonko

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

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

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 451, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Tonko) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, my amendment strikes subsection (b) of section
3, which would allow the EPA to consider technological feasibility when
determining what level of pollution is safe.
Health-based standards are the cornerstone of the Clean Air Act--
health-based. The EPA sets NAAQS at levels sufficient to protect the
public health, essentially, the level of ambient air pollution that is
safe to breathe.
While costs are not considered in establishing these standards, costs
can be--and are considered--in developing plans to achieve the
necessary pollution reductions to meet the standards.
Unfortunately, H.R. 806, as currently drafted, would change the
longstanding criteria for establishing an air quality standard from one
that is based solely on protecting public health to one that includes a
consideration of the technological feasibility. This issue has been
long debated and settled by Congress.
Since passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970, including the 1990 Clean
Air Act Amendments, Congress has excluded technological feasibility
considerations from standard setting to ensure that public health--and
public health alone--would determine the standards for air quality.
In 1970, on the passage of the Clean Air Act, Senator Ed Muskie from
Maine said: ``The first responsibility of Congress is not the making of
technological or economic judgments--or even to be limited by what is
or appears to be technologically or economically infeasible. Our
responsibility is to establish what the public interest requires to
protect the health of persons. This may mean that people and industries
will be asked to do what seems to be impossible at present time. But if
health is to be protected, these challenges must be met.''
For approaching five decades, that has been the guiding tenet of the
Clean Air Act: what is in the betterment of public health.
Guided by this principle, our Nation has experienced a 70 percent
reduction in key air pollutants while tripling the size of the economy.
I believe that a great deal of this success can be credited to
American innovation. Despite assertions that achieving clean air was
not feasible, American ingenuity has consistently risen

[[Page H5957]]

to the challenge and made our country the leader in both clean air and
clean air technology.
Unquestionably, these standards have driven innovation, creating a
thriving domestic pollution control industry.
So I ask my colleagues who are in favor of this measure: What is it
about a can-do attitude that you don't get? Why is it that you have a
lack of trust in the power of American ingenuity?
Had these standards not been ambitious and focused solely on public
health, we may still be relying upon the technology from the 1970s and
breathing the poor air quality from that era along with it.
Available technologies cannot and should not determine what we can
have in terms of clean air. Let's have the scientific and medical
experts guide us, and I have confidence that our engineers and
innovators will find that way. The history of those protections that we
enjoy has been to set ambitious, but achievable, goals. We have
achieved those goals, and we have much cleaner air to show for it.
Let's not roll back this process.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, Texans like me believe that facts are
little, persistent things. With all due respect to my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle, apparently, facts are annoying little things.
Here are the facts about section 3(b) of my bill:
Section 3(b) states that if the EPA Administrator, in consultation
with the EPA's independent scientific advisory committee, finds a range
of levels of air quality that are needed to protect public health with
an adequate margin of safety, then ``the Administrator may . . . ''--
the Administrator may, not shall, not must, may--``as a secondary
consideration, likely technological feasibility in establishing and
revising the national primary ambient air quality standard for this
pollutant.''
Again, it clearly says may, not shall, not must, but may.
H.R. 806 does not change the Clean Air Act's requirement that
standards be based on the protection of public health. Again, H.R. 806
does not change the Clean Air Act's requirement that standards be based
on the protection of public health. This bill simply clarifies that the
EPA Administrator has the discretion to consider technological
feasibility when choosing among a range of levels identified and
supported by science as protective of public health.
This is a clarification for all future Administrators--Democrat or
Republican--that Congress considers technical feasibility to be a
reasonable part of the decisionmaking process with policy choices.
These policy choices must be made among a range of scientifically valid
options.
Again, facts are little, persistent things, and these are the facts
about section 3(b) of H.R. 806.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I think the insertion of discretion of the
Administrator at the EPA as to the technological and economical
availability, achievable qualities being inserted into this bill tells
me--my interpretation is that the Administrator may not--the
Administrator may not, may not--side with the residents--with the
people of this country and their right to breathe clean air.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Beyer

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

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

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 451, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Beyer) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike the language that
weakens the definition of exceptional events for air quality monitoring
data. We know that air quality monitoring data is incredibly important
and that Americans value clean air.
I am a businessman, and it is axiomatic that we can't manage what we
can't measure.
Just last month, The New England Journal of Medicine published a
study that showed long-term exposure to air pollution increases
mortality for all Americans, but particularly those that are self-
identified as racial minorities or people with low incomes.
That is why the EPA is responsible for setting the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards, or NAAQS, for outdoor--ambient--air to protect
our public health and the environment.
When States and the EPA identify areas that do not meet the
standards, States prepare their own plans specifying how they will
reach attainment in those areas.
States are currently allowed to exclude monitoring data for periods
affected by exceptional events--exceptional events like forest fires or
unusual weather conditions, volcanos or seismic activities. They can
exclude this data from the measurements used to make designation
decisions. This is appropriate and it makes sense.
I think volcanos are exceptional. But this bill changes the
exceptions provision in dangerous ways. It changes the definition of
what qualifies as exceptional. Instead of exceptional, call it routine.
Stagnant air, high temperature, or a lack of precipitation are not
exceptional events, but they would be considered exceptional by this
bill.
We live in Washington, D.C., with a record number of days of high
temperatures this summer already. But this fact shouldn't exempt D.C.
from keeping accurate NAAQS data.
Pretending that a heat wave is exceptional or that bad air quality is
not harmful to people's health doesn't make it so. Climate change,
global warming, and more frequent heat waves are likely to be the
reality of our Earth today. So weakening this definition means that, by
default, over time, States will never need to be in compliance with the
NAAQS. They can say it is an exceptional event.
So, frustratingly, by weakening this definition of exceptional
events, we nullify the standards altogether.
None of us wants to see the disastrous smog events--think of China
and India--erupt here in America. So by supporting this amendment, we
keep our commitment to the American people to support clean air. We
shouldn't weaken our definition of exceptional events to incorporate
everyday air occurrences like heat waves.
If this provision becomes law, it can mean more asthma attacks,
cardiovascular and respiratory harm, emergency visits, and even early
deaths from ozone pollution. So please support my amendment. It is
important that if we have standards that they actually mean something.
Exceptional is defined as unusual. Exceptional does not mean typical.
Let's keep it that way.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, under the Clean Air Act, section 319
provides relief to areas that violate National Ambient Air Quality
Standards due to unusual or naturally occurring events as that they
cannot control.
Section 3(h) would add--and I would argue strengthens the
definition--droughts and extraordinary stagnation to the act's
definition of an exceptional event.
Let me give you an example. In 2012, there was a major drought in the
Midwest. Now, I am from corn country, and

[[Page H5958]]

we don't irrigate our corn because we have got great soil, and we have
got weather conditions for most of the years that provide plentiful
rain for that to happen. But that didn't happen in 2012. It was an
extraordinary event. It was a drought.
Now the question is posed: Should we punish the communities for an
extraordinary event; i.e., a drought that is out of the control of any
human being?
It is an ``extraordinary event.'' This language would provide
reasonable relief for States in this condition, particularly those in
the Western United States for, as I said, events beyond their control.
Nothing in H.R. 806 does away with the detailed statutory
requirements under section 319(h) of the Clean Air Act for
demonstrating ``an exceptional event.'' Nor does anything in the bill
do away with the detailed regulatory procedures and guidelines that the
EPA has laid out for demonstrating exceptional events or the
requirements to measure air quality or to make that air quality data
available to the public.

{time} 1600

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

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Polis

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

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

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

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

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 451, the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Polis) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, since the Republicans are talking about a bill that makes
the Clean Air Act work better, even though, in many ways, that is the
opposite of what the bill does, I have offered an amendment that will
actually do that. It will make the Clean Air Act work better to keep
our air clean so we can breathe more freely, reduce asthma rates, and
reduce cancer rates.
My amendment would very simply close a very glaring loophole that our
current Clean Air Act has--a loophole that every day harms the
freshness of the air and the health of my constituents in my State and
so many others across the country.
My amendment, which is based off of legislation that I have
introduced, along with many other cosponsors, four times, including in
this Congress, called the BREATHE Act, would close the oil and gas
industry's loophole to the Clean Air Act's aggregation requirement.
Currently, oil and gas operations, like the one here, are completely
exempt from the aggregation requirement in the Clean Air Act. Under the
aggregation requirement, small air pollution sources that cumulatively
reduce as much air pollution as major sources, like a power plant, are
actually rounded out entirely of the protections of the Clean Air Act.
Oil and gas is exempt, and they shouldn't be.
While one site like this has emissions that are significant, you can
imagine having 20,000 of these in one county, which we do in my home
State of Colorado, and that cannot conceivably be rounded down to zero.
That is the equivalent of several large power plants. We should look at
them in the aggregate, where they are close to one another
geographically.
The aggregation requirement is actually intended to protect the
public from small air pollution sources that might individually seem
innocuous, but cumulatively account for large volumes of toxic
substances that are put in the air.
We have areas of Wyoming and northern Colorado that have worse air
quality than Los Angeles, not because of one or two or ten extraction
sites, but because of tens of thousands within an immediate vicinity.
The oil and gas industry currently does not have to aggregate or pull
together its small air pollution sources. They round them down to zero.
Rounding one or two down to zero is not an issue. Rounding 20,000 in
one county down to zero leads to dirtier air, higher asthma, higher
cancer rates.
If we round down every fracking pad to zero in an area where there
are 100 of them, zero times 100 is still zero. But if we multiply a
small amount of pollutants times 100, that can equal a great deal of
pollutants, not to mention times 1,000, times 10,000. This provides a
more holistic fix to make sure that our air is clean.
My amendment also adds hydrogen sulfide to the Clean Air Act's
Federal List of Hazardous Air Pollutants, which was originally on the
list but was, in my opinion, wrongly removed by Congress. The Clean Air
Act completely exempts hydrogen sulfide from the list, even though
hydrogen sulfide

[[Page H5959]]

already has been scientifically associated as the cause of a number of
health issues, including nausea; vomiting; headaches; and irritation of
the eyes, nose, and throat.
Hydrogen sulfide often may be released from well heads, pumps,
piping, storage tanks, and flaring, which is what we are seeing here.
In fact, 15 to 20 percent of all natural gas wells emit hydrogen
sulfide, even though control technologies are inexpensive and are
already deployed to curtail those hydrogen sulfide emissions.
This amendment ensures our oil and gas industry takes the measures
that we need to avoid the release of hydrogen sulfide into communities
by adding hydrogen sulfide to the List of Hazardous Air Pollutants and
by listing oil and gas wells as a source of hydrogen sulfide.
My amendment simply makes the Clean Air Act work better. You can't
round something significant down to zero, when you have a lot of them
concentrated in a particular area. Of course, there is an impact on air
quality from 1,000 or 10,000 wells that operate in one county.
Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on my amendment,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Tipton). The gentleman from Illinois is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, the subject of H.R. 806 is criteria
pollutants and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards program, not
the hazardous air pollutants programs, which my colleague is referring
to.
These two programs are addressed under different sections of the
Clean Air Act. The whole title is Clean Air Act, but you have one
section here dealing with national ambient air quality, and then you
have another section on hazardous air aspects, which is what my
colleague is trying to address. Criteria pollutants are addressed under
section 107 and 110 and part C and D of title 1 of the Clean Air Act,
while hazardous air pollutants fall under section 12.
This amendment, moreover, is wholly unrelated to the purpose of H.R.
806, which is to provide State regulators with additional time and
flexibility, as we have heard throughout this debate, to implement
ozone and other standards for criteria pollutants.
H.R. 806 makes process-related reforms to address practical
implementation challenges identified by State regulators. This
amendment would make substantive changes relating specifically to
regulation of the oil and gas sector.
This amendment would make significant changes to the Clean Air Act
that did not receive any Energy and Commerce Committee consideration
during the markup of this bill.
The amendment would also circumvent the established regulatory
process for listing new hazardous air pollutants set forth under the
Clean Air Act.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, I would like to point out that the Rules
Committee granted the necessary waivers to allow this amendment to be
considered, as they often do, and this amendment was also considered in
a similar bill last session. That is because it is relevant to the
subject matter at hand. The Rules Committee often waives those
requirements.
This bill, as he pointed out, does two different things, both
appearing in different sections of the Clean Air Act.
My amendment will, very simply, make sure that oil and gas operators
play by the same rules as other industries. It doesn't mean that
flaring won't occur. It will, and it does. For those of us who live in
and around fracking, that is a fact of life. What it means is, whereas,
you have the argument the industry has made that if you have one or two
of these sites and you round the profile of emissions down to zero,
just simply doesn't hold water when you have 1,000 or 10,000 active
wells in a very limited area. We can't round that down to zero. It is
simple math. The profile of emissions from that site is greater than
several large power plants, if you have 10,000 wells.
Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, to my colleague from Colorado, sitting in
with the Rules Committee yesterday, the question was asked: Would you
accept this amendment or would you not? I said: I appreciate my
colleagues on the Rules Committee. They will do the due diligence in
agreeing which amendment comes to the floor or not.
So it is good to see the Rules Committee has so much comradery and
comity that they would allow someone from the committee to offer an
amendment on the bill, but I still have to object because it splits
this bill and tries to bring in air issues that are in the hazardous
air program and jam it into this one where, basically, what we are
trying to do is send a signal and allow communities to meet the 2008
standards before a new 2015 standard gets placed upon them 3 months
after they do the implementing guidelines.
It is really a process, a bill that makes it easier for people to
comply. It really helps EPA more easily be able to evaluate the data
and move us forward to a cleaner environment.
Mr. Chair, I reluctantly hold my position that we should vote against
the Polis amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. McNerney

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

Strike section 6.

{time} 1615

This is surely unreasonable. In the case of H.R. 806, it will
continue to obstruct the EPA's ability to advance and improve our
Nation's air and water quality. My congressional district has extremely
poor air quality, which has caused a variety of health issues for my
constituents.
This bill does weaken the Clean Air Act. Specifically, it targets the
implementation and enforcement of air pollution health standards. It
also negatively impacts the budget for programs necessary to ensure
that Americans can breathe clean air.
This bill is in stark opposition to the public's overwhelming support
of the Clean Air Act. According to the Center for American Progress,
the Trump administration's EPA budget, which cuts more than $2 billion
from the Agency's budget, shifts the cost of implementing clean air
standards to the States. All of these cuts would be harmful to the
649,000 children and more than 2 million adults with asthma living in
California.
Every State agency that testified before the Energy and Commerce
Subcommittee on the Environment stated

[[Page H5960]]

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

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

This amendment is unnecessary. I urge my colleagues to oppose it, and
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chair, how much time is remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 1 minute
remaining, and the gentleman from Texas has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleague and friend from
Texas pointing out that we have counties in San Joaquin Valley that
have extreme ozone problems, but to ask to do more with less is not
reasonable. It is the DERA grants given to the counties from the EPA's
budget that have allowed the agencies to have the 80 percent reduction
in air pollution.
So taking that money away is not going to help. It is going to make
matters worse. Our agencies aren't going to be able to do the things
that they have been able to do, and they are not going to be able to
continue those things. So I think saying that we can't put more money
into air pollution reduction is not the answer. We need to be able to
spend money to do this.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, this bill ensures that EPA has the money to
help the San Joaquin Valley and every part of America that is
nonattainment for ozone with the funds they need as quickly as
possible. EPA will be more and more and more efficient. I urge
opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. McNerney

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

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

SEC. 2. AIR AND HEALTH QUALITY EMPOWERMENT ZONES.

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

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

(ii) describes--

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

(iii) identifies--

(I) the amount of State, local, and private resources that
will be available for carrying out the strategic plan; and

[[Page H5961]]

(II) the private and public partnerships to be used (which
may include participation by, and cooperation with,
institutions of higher education, medical centers, and other
private and public entities) in carrying out the strategic
plan;

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

SEC. 3. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

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

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 451, the gentleman
from California (Mr. McNerney) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 806 does have a couple of provisions that would be
helpful to the air district in my region to avoid economic sanctions
for failing to meet certain standards when very specific criteria are
met. However, the underlying bill, as a whole, is completely
unacceptable and has been called the most irresponsible attack on the
Clean Air Act health standards ever introduced.
The Clean Air Act works. It saves lives. It has improved the
environment. I am privileged to represent a portion of the San Joaquin
Valley which, as was pointed out in the prior amendment, has extreme
ozone problems.
We produce more than half of the Nation's fruits, nuts, and
vegetables. Unfortunately, the valley has recently been rebounding from
an economic downturn and is continually hurt by poor air quality.
Action is needed.
This amendment seeks to address the serious health issues that are a
direct result of the poor air quality in the San Joaquin Valley and
other regions that are most at risk. The amendment provides a grant
program for areas that are in nonattainment of PM 2.5, extreme
nonattainment of ambient air quality standards, and those with high
rates of asthma and unemployment. It requires a dollar-for-dollar
matching from the districts receiving the grant.
California has 7 of the top 10 most polluted metropolitan areas and
11 of the worst 25 nationwide. There are millions of people at risk in
the valley and south coast due to high levels of PM 2.5 and ozone,
including children, seniors, and those with chronic illnesses. San
Joaquin Valley counties received F grades for their air quality by the
American Lung Association.
Our kids deserve to be healthy, attend school, and live in a clean
air environment. Studies have shown that high-quality air standards
would prevent thousands of premature deaths in the valley and that it
would work to prevent heart attacks, emergency room visits, and missed
school- and workdays.
One study estimated that in the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale area,
about 2.9 million people missed work or schooldays and were otherwise
negatively affected from conducting normal activities due to poor air
quality.
Valley children miss hundreds of thousands of days of school each
year, and about one in five living in the valley has asthma. Illnesses
related to poor air quality cost the valley billions, annually.
H.R. 806 will be a step backward. That is why I have offered this
substitute amendment that would allow the EPA to target and work with
our Nation's most affected regions, like those in the valley and the
south coast. This is about addressing our environment, the air we
breathe, and helping those most at risk.
At the same time, California has been cleaning the air. Its economy
has continued to grow. In 2016, California's nonfarm employment
increased by 2.6 percent, compared to 1.7 percent nationwide. In 2009,
California's clean energy industry created $2.7 billion and employed
123,000 people. By 2020, we expect it to grow to over $140 billion with
345,000 employed. California's success is proof that H.R. 806 is
unnecessary.
I urge adoption of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleague for his
impassioned discussion, especially of his area. We all have a lot of
friends here. It is hard for the public to believe I am on both sides
of the aisle, so it

[[Page H5962]]

saddens me to have to speak in opposition to this amendment.
This is doing, similarly, what I had to address with Congressman
Polis in that it is taking a bill in which we are trying to streamline
the processes and then somehow creating a grant program out of the
money. I don't know where this money is coming from, whether it is
coming from the supposed savings from nonimplementation.
But as my colleague from Texas mentioned, the process, as you
followed through the committee, is to say: How do you force people who
are just told how to comply with 2008 standards, how do you then turn
around and give them 2015 standards when they were just told how to
comply 3 months prior?
And so what we have tried to do in this piece of legislation is to
say let's allow people to move forward on 2008 while making sure that
the 2015 standards occur with a deadline of 2025. That is the basic
premise.
And it also addresses the issue of, and I know, there are parts of
the country where they can do all that they can do and they are not
going to meet the standards because of what is being imported from
other regions, maybe, in your case, from Asia or from San Francisco or
those areas. So how do you end up punishing an area when they are doing
everything that they humanly can do?
There is some great, obviously, statistics that you have shared of
the success in that region, although they are still stressed under the
current standards.

{time} 1630

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

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 115-229 on
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 1 by Ms. Castor of Florida.
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Tonko of New York.
Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Beyer of Virginia.
Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Polis of Colorado.
Amendment No. 5 by Mr. McNerney of California.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Castor of Florida

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

Recorded Vote

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

[Roll No. 385]

AYES--194

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

[[Page H5963]]

Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--232

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

NOT VOTING--7

Cummings
Granger
Labrador
Napolitano
Pelosi
Ratcliffe
Scalise

{time} 1704

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

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Tonko

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

Recorded Vote

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

[Roll No. 386]

AYES--182

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

NOES--241

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

NOT VOTING--10

Beatty
Cummings
DesJarlais
Granger
Kaptur
Labrador
Napolitano
Pelosi
Ratcliffe
Scalise

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1708

So the amendment was rejected.

[[Page H5964]]

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Beyer

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

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 387]

AYES--191

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

NOES--235

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

NOT VOTING--7

Beatty
Cummings
Granger
Labrador
Napolitano
Scalise
Smith (WA)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1712

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

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Polis

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

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 388]

AYES--186

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

NOES--242

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black

[[Page H5965]]

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

NOT VOTING--5

Cummings
Granger
Labrador
Napolitano
Scalise

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1716

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

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. McNerney

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

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 389]

AYES--190

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

NOES--236

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

NOT VOTING--7

Cummings
Granger
Joyce (OH)
Labrador
Napolitano
Pelosi
Scalise

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1720

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Hultgren) having assumed the chair, Mr. Womack, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state

[[Page H5966]]

of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under
consideration the bill (H.R. 806) to facilitate efficient State
implementation of ground-level ozone standards, and for other purposes,
and, pursuant to House Resolution 451, he reported the bill back to the
House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit

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

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

SEC. 7. LIMITATION.

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

Mr. CARTWRIGHT (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent to dispense with the reading.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is
recognized for 5 minutes
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, the Ozone Act, or perhaps more
accurately, the ``Smoggy Skies Act,'' will put our communities at risk
and dangerously harm public health. The delays and exemptions in this
act are unprecedented. They will cut critical portions of the Clean Air
Act to the detriment of our Nation and our people's health.
This motion to recommit is simple. If the Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee, which is an independent group of nationally
recognized experts, if they believe that this act will increase asthma
attacks, increase emergency room visits, increase pre-term births,
increase impaired fetal growth, lead to an increased risk of heart
attack, stroke, premature death, then the act will not go into effect.
Now I ask, what is more important or fundamental as the
representatives of the people than to ensure that our actions do not
bring harm to the American people? How can we go home to our
constituents and look a mother in the eye and say we voted for
something that could make her child sick? How can we visit a school if
we voted for something that could spike rates of asthma?
We originally passed the bipartisan Clean Air Act to protect the
health of our people. As we vote to partially dismantle it today, at
least we should ensure scientists certify that we are doing no harm to
the American people.
Some of my colleagues may vote against this motion to recommit
because they already know this act will have a devastating impact on
the American people's health. Plain and simple, ozone is a pollutant.
It is the leading component of smog. It causes chest pain, shortness of
breath, respiratory infections, asthma attacks, acute bronchitis, and
even premature death.
Smog is linked to 16,000 preterm births per year. Exposure to ozone
in the womb and in childhood causes permanent lung damage. The new
ozone standards could prevent 230,000 childhood asthma attacks per
year. Delaying implementation of the new ozone standards will only
sentence more and more children to lifelong lung disease.
When setting the new ozone standards, the EPA used the best available
science and reviewed hundreds of studies on the negative health effects
of ozone. One conclusion was clear: the current standards do not
protect the American people.
My Republican colleagues here recently passed legislation that would
have taken healthcare away from 22 million people. Now we are
considering a bill that would make our Nation sicker, a bill that would
hurt our most vulnerable: babies, infants, schoolchildren, the elderly.
For good reasons, this bill is opposed by the American Academy of
Pediatrics, the American Heart Association, the American Lung
Association, the American Public Health Association, the National
Association of County and City Health Officials, and many, many more.
These experts know that this bill is nothing more than a recipe for
increased sickness and more suffering.
We know that people are being harmed by ozone. We have a duty to our
citizens to raise the bar and protect their health. This is the
people's House. We are here to protect the people. We are here to fight
for the most vulnerable among us and not to represent special
interests. We need to be the body to promote health, not take away
healthcare. We need to fight for kids, not make them sick. We need to
clean our air, not protect polluters.
Mr. Speaker, support this amendment and make sure this bill is not
the health catastrophe all the experts know that it is.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues and friends, I appreciate
the debate. Those who followed it here, just a couple of points.
The question is: Why are we here today?
In 2008, the EPA established ozone standards, and then it took the
EPA 7 years to tell communities how to comply with those 2008
standards. It is the truth. I am just telling you the truth.
Three months later, after they told the communities how to comply,
they said: Now we are going to give you 2015 standards.
That is why we are here. We are just here trying to say that if the
EPA is going to establish standards, then they ought to say: We are
going to give you the guidelines on how to comply now, not 7 years
later.
So what this bill does is allow communities to meet the 2008
standards. It doesn't roll back any standards. It says meet the 2008
standards. In fact, we don't even say roll back the 2015 standards. We
just say, give the communities time to comply with the 2015 standards.
This motion is a distraction. Let's reject it, and move to pass the
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.

=========================== NOTE ===========================

July 18, 2017, on page H5966, the following appeared: objection,
the previous question is ordered.

The online version has been corrected to read: objection, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.

========================= END NOTE =========================

There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

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

[Roll No. 390]

AYES--191

Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blum
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici

[[Page H5967]]

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

NOES--235

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

NOT VOTING--7

Cummings
Granger
Labrador
Napolitano
Ruppersberger
Scalise
Welch

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

{time} 1736

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

Recorded Vote

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

[Roll No. 391]

AYES--229

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

NOES--199

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

[[Page H5968]]

Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Mast
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Poliquin
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Reichert
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sanford
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Stefanik
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--5

Cummings
Granger
Labrador
Napolitano
Scalise

{time} 1743

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

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

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

____________________