Bobby Rush

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, on March 7 through March 10, 2017, circumstances beyond my control necessitated my absence from the House and I, therefore, am requesting a leave of absence.

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, on February 27 through March 2, 2017, circumstances beyond my control necessitated my absence from the House and I, therefore, am requesting a leave of absence.

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, on February 13 through 16, 2017, circumstances beyond my control necessitated my absence from the House and I, therefore, am requesting a leave of absence from the House.

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, on February 6 and 7, 2017, circumstances beyond my control necessitated my absence from the House and I, therefore, am requesting a leave of absence from the House.

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, on January 3 to January 6, January 9 to January 10, and on January 13, 2017, circumstances beyond my control necessitated my absence from the House and I, therefore, missed votes. I expect my absence to continue through February 3, 2017 and therefore am requesting a leave of absence from the House.

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 1217, the bipartisan expanded background checks legislation, in honor of the memory of Gladys Tordil, a victim of gun violence who never received a moment of silence on the House floor.

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. I am opposed in its current form.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, H.R. 4775 would fundamentally and permanently weaken the Clean Air Act as well as future air pollution health standards for all criteria pollutants. Mr. Chair, H.R. 4775 would unacceptably delay implementation of the EPA's 2015 ozone standards for another 8 years, even though these standards haven't been updated since the Bush administration last did so in the year 2008. Additionally, Mr. Chair, this bill would also mandate that the EPA wait a decade before considering any new evidence regarding the health implications from ozone and other harmful pollutants, despite what the science may say in the interval. This drastic change to the Clean Air Act would prohibit the EPA from relying on the most current health-based scientific data when determining air pollutant standards. Mr. Chair, H.R. 4775 would also fundamentally change provisions of the Clean Air Act by imposing cost and technological feasibility considerations on the standard-setting process, even though the Clean Air Act clearly states that only medical and public health data should be used when setting clean air health standards. Mr. Chair, this radical change to the Nation's most historically important environmental law will lead to adverse consequences for both the public health and the resourcefulness of American companies and innovators. As the EPA's Acting Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation, Janet McCabe, noted in her recent testimony to the Energy and Power Subcommittee at a hearing entitled ``H.R. 4775, Ozone Standards Implementation Act'' just earlier this year in April: ``Despite repeated assertions that achieving clean air was just not feasible, American ingenuity has consistently risen to the challenge and made our country the leader in both clean air and clean air technology. ``That approach,'' she went on to say, ``has been very successful for both the health of Americans and our economy.'' Mr. Chair, what is missing in the arguments made by the majority against the Clean Air Act, as well as most other environmental protection laws, is the fact that these regulations have been extraordinarily beneficial not only to the American health, but also to the American economy. In almost every instance, Mr. Chair, whenever a new environmental regulation has been proposed, we have heard opponents label them as job killers, overly burdensome, harmful to the economy, the end of the American way of life as we know it. In practically every instance, those dire predictions have been proven to be unequivocally wrong, as these laws, Mr. Chair, have served to protect the public health as well as to spur new advances in technology and in services that we can then export overseas. Mr. Chairman, undoubtedly, today's fight over the new ozone standard will follow this very same pattern. Instead of trying to stall the 2015 ozone standards and prohibit the EPA from regularly updating the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, as H.R. 4775 would do, we in this Congress should be heeding the warnings of doctors and scientists of not acting quickly enough to protect the public health. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this awful bill, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I strongly disagree with my friend from Texas. The proposed changes to the NAAQS review cycle would put lives at risk by permanently delaying updates to limits on not just ozone, but on every dangerous criteria air pollutant: carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen oxides, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. Mr. Chairman, the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to review the science every 5 years and to update the standards when necessary to protect the public health. It is important to note that the EPA isn't required to update the NAAQS every 5 years, but to just review the science. The 2015 ozone standard, Mr. Chairman, reflects strong scientific evidence regarding the harmful effects of ozone on human health and the environment; including more than 1,000 new studies. Scientists, Mr. Chairman, are constantly researching the impacts that air pollution have on human health, and have consistently discovered that ozone, particle pollutants, and other types of air pollution covered by the Clean Air Act are, indeed, harmful in more ways and at lower concentration than previously understood. Mr. Chairman, this bill would ignore all this scientific work and evidence by doubling the review period from 5 years to 10 years, delaying the review of science and potentially necessary updates to the standard. Mr. Chairman, 10 years is too long to wait to protect public health from levels of ozone, particle pollution, and other pollutants that the science shows are, indeed, very, very, very dangerous. Delaying the EPA's review of the best medical science won't make outdated air pollution levels safe.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself another 15 seconds. Delaying EPA's review of the best medical science won't make outdated air pollution levels safe, it will just lead to more Americans suffering from unhealthy air for longer periods of time. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is left?

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to an extraordinary gentleman from the great State of New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), our fine leader on the Democratic side.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, supporters of this bill claim that EPA doesn't issue implementation rules and guidance quickly enough after updating a national ambient air quality standard. So this awful piece of legislation concludes that the solution is to sacrifice Americans' health--sacrifice our public health--by allowing facilities to ignore new air quality standards. But, Mr. Chairman, this would only allow these same facilities to pollute more while doing nothing to facilitate faster implementation of new NAAQS. The bill says that EPA must release implementing rules and guidance concurrently with a new standard, meaning, if EPA updates a national ambient air quality standard, that standard does not apply to new or expanding facilities unless and until EPA has issued implementation rules and guidance for the new standard. Mr. Chairman, witnesses have testified that concurrent guidance isn't always practical or even necessary. This provision presumes a problem that does not even exist. The Agency provides a wealth of tools already, Mr. Chairman, to assist States with air permits, and in many cases, States are fully capable of issuing permits without any new guidance from EPA. Mr. Chairman, they have been doing this same thing for decades now. Most guidance evolves after a standard takes effect as States and industry raise questions that require EPA clarification. It is unclear, Mr. Chairman, how the Agency could provide guidance on solving problems before they even know what those problems are. Mr. Chairman, you are talking about a catch-22, and this creates an epic catch-22 for the Environmental Protection Agency. On the one hand, the EPA could hurry to issue guidance before hearing questions from States and industry. That guidance would necessarily be incomplete, as it won't even address issues that only emerge during the implementation process. An industry group, Mr. Chairman, that wanted to delay implementation of the new air quality standard could file a lawsuit saying that EPA's guidance wasn't sufficient. On the other hand, EPA could wait to issue more robust and helpful guidance, but in the meantime, facilities would be able to obtain permits under the old air quality standard. A company, Mr. Chairman, could build a facility that is allowed to pollute more than it would under current law. In both scenarios, Mr. Chairman, who wins? Not the American people. Who wins? The polluter wins, and our public health loses. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Budget Office identified an additional $2 million that will be needed to conduct the duplicative study required by this bill. Mr. Chairman, that is the reason we are actually seeing this amendment. It is a Republican classic trick. It is a trick, Mr. Chairman. My colleague from Kentucky--who I respect and honor tremendously--knows that although this bill will require additional resources to implement, this amendment ensures that no new resources will be provided. It is a trick, Mr. Chairman. My Republican colleagues have voted time and time again to cut the EPA's budget, but that just places greater burdens on States since about one-third of EPA's budget is distributed to the States in grants and other types of assistance. They will say on the other side that the goal is efficiency and that EPA must learn to do more with less. But, Mr. Chairman--another part of the trick--their real goal is to have EPA do less, rather than more with less. They just want them to do even less. Well, Mr. Chairman, that just removes the environmental cop from the beat. Polluters benefit, but our constituents don't benefit. And, ultimately, Mr. Chairman, all of us Americans will pay the enormous price. Much of the permitting and much of the preparation of implementation plans done under the Clean Air Act is done by the States. One of the complaints that we have heard is that EPA is not providing sufficient guidance early enough in the process to assist States in meeting their obligations under the law, and that States want and need assistance. Well, Mr. Chairman, this amendment doesn't do anything to address that concern. In fact, it will only make a dire situation even more dire. The public expects EPA to protect their health and the environment. Resources, Mr. Chairman, are required to fulfill that expectation and that mandate. Public health is worth paying for. It is much more cost effective to prevent health problems than it is to cure those very same problems. And make no mistake, the Clean Air Act is, indeed, a public health law. We save billions and billions of dollars in medical expenses due to asthma-related emergency room visits and other respiratory and cardiac illness. We save billions and billions in lost sick time at work, school, and other productive activities. And, most important, Mr. Chairman, let us not forget that the Clean Air Act saves lives. We enable people to be healthier and more productive. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chair, my list of concerns with H.R. 4775 are many, but one of the main issues I have with this legislation is that it would permanently weaken the Clean Air Act as well as future air pollution health standards for all criteria pollutants. In fact, Mr. Chair, in addition to delaying scientifically based health standards and harming the public interest, this bill may also have unintended consequences for the very industries that the majority is trying to help. If enacted, this bill may actually slow down the issuance of preconstruction permits, increase regulatory uncertainty, lead to additional lawsuits, and shift the burden of pollution control from new sources to existing ones, potentially hurting small businesses. Mr. Chair, section 3(d) requires the EPA to issue rules and guidance for implementing new or revised National Ambient Air Quality Standards ``concurrently'' when issuing the new standard. Otherwise, under this legislation, expanding facilities would only have to comply with the outdated standards, allowing some facilities to pollute more than their fair share. This bill, Mr. Chair, would also unfairly shift the burden and the cost of cleaning up pollution to existing facilities, and it would only serve to slow down the preconstruction permitting process. My amendment, Mr. Chair, seeks to address many of the problems that may result from this bill, both intentionally and unintentionally. The Rush amendment would strike the section that exempts preconstruction permit applications from complying with new or revised National Ambient Air Quality Standards if guidelines are not published concurrently with those regulations. Specifically, the amendment simply states that section 3(d) shall not apply with respect to the review and disposition of a preconstruction permit application by a Federal, State, local, or tribal permitting authority if such authority determines that the application of such subparagraph is likely to increase air pollution that harms human health and the environment; to slow the issuance of final preconstruction permits; to increase regulatory uncertainty; to foster additional litigation; to shift the burden of pollution control from new sources to existing sources of pollution, including small businesses; or to increase the overall cost of achieving the new or revised National Ambient Air Quality Standard in the applicable area. Mr. Chair, the new standard that the EPA recently issued already represents a measured approach that seeks to balance both public health impacts as well as the rule's overall cost benefit, even though this is not a requirement of the Clean Air Act. On the other hand, Mr. Chair, H.R. 4775 represents the exact opposite of a measured approach as it seeks to tip the scales in favor of industry over public health. Mr. Chair, this amendment will help to prevent some of the adverse consequences of this bill from going into effect whether they be intended or unintended, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended. Mr. Speaker, it appears that the Republican Party has truly fallen in line behind its standard-bearer, Donald Trump, and is content to put industry profits over the public interest. Mr. Speaker, the art of the deal should not mean putting corporate welfare over the public well- being. Mr. Speaker, our agreement is nonnegotiable. Protecting the public health is absolutely why we are here in this Congress today. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4775 is a disastrous bill that will put our most vulnerable citizens, including the elderly, the young, pregnant women, and low-income communities, at substantial risk. This bill unacceptably delays implementation of EPA's 2015 ozone standards for another 8 years, while also delaying any new evidence regarding the health implications from ozone and other harmful pollutants for at least a decade, despite what the science may say in the interval. In fact, under this legislation, not only will States be exempt from complying with the 2015 standards until 2016, but parents--our parents--and our loved ones, Mr. Speaker, will not even be informed if their communities were in violation of clean air standards until the year 2025. Mr. Speaker, I can think of no benefit to the public interest of denying citizens information directly tied to their health and to their well-being. The research, Mr. Speaker, informs us that breathing in dirty pollutants such as ozone, carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, and other dirty pollutants can lead to a host of problems, including asthma, inflammation of the lungs, respiratory disease, and even premature death. Yet, Mr. Speaker, despite all of the scientific research, this bill will stall the new ozone standards, permanently weaken the Clean Air Act, and hamstring EPA's ability to regulate these harmful contaminants, both now and in the future. Mr. Speaker, in order to address some of the deficiencies found in this bill, I am offering an amendment that would nullify sections from taking effect if they may result in adverse public health impacts. This amendment simply states that section 2(a) would cease to apply if the EPA Administrator, in consultation with the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, finds that it could increase health problems, including asthma attacks, respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease, stroke, heart attacks, babies with low birth weight and impaired fetal growth, neurological damage, premature mortality, or other serious harms to human health, especially for America's most vulnerable populations such as pregnant women, children, the elderly, outdoor workers, and low-income communities. Mr. Speaker, this is a commonsense and compassionate amendment that seeks to put the interests of the public health above the profits of industry, and I urge all my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge some of my colleagues who worked together diligently with my office to draft this bipartisan PIPES Act that will help to modernize and secure our Nation's vast network of energy pipeline infrastructure. Specifically, Mr. Speaker, I recognize my colleagues from the Energy and Commerce Committee, including Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Pallone, as well as Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge my colleagues from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, including Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio, as well as Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee Chairman Denham and Ranking Member Capuano, the fine gentleman from Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan piece of legislation improves safety by closing gaps in Federal standards and improving protection of coastal areas, including the Great Lakes. Additionally, this bill will enhance the quality and timeliness of Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration rulemakings, promote better use of data and technology to improve pipeline safety, and leverage Federal and State pipeline safety resources to assist State and local communities. Mr. Speaker, this is a fine piece of bipartisan legislation, and I am honored and privileged to stand before the House and ask all of my colleagues to support this outstanding bipartisan piece of legislation.