Ed Whitfield

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

Mr. WHITFIELD. While I have a great deal of respect and admiration for the gentleman from Illinois, I am going to oppose this amendment. I would say, first of all, that this legislation does not change in any way the current EPA standard relating to particulate matter on coarse materials. His amendment would strike the provision in the bill addressing nuisance dust, keeping only that which prohibits a change to the existing PM10 standard for 1 year, which we agree with. But because it strikes section 3, which is the main part and the substantive part of this bill because it would eliminate our nuisance dust definition, I would respectfully oppose the amendment and urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold).

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman from Massachusetts may view this as being about Peter Pan and Tinker Bell and fairy dust, but we have 197 organizations representing rural America that consider it a real problem. At this time, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. McKinley.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem), who is a strong advocate for rural America and the creation of jobs in rural America.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I might say that during the debate on this bill in committee, a lot was made of mining activities in rural America, and I would just point out that there are 17 Federal laws that mining operations must abide by. So we didn't feel like we needed to provide additional protection in that area. At this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt), one of the prime sponsors of this legislation and a protector of rural America.

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. American farmers, ranchers, and other rural businesses, like many other sectors of our economy, have faced an onslaught of EPA regulations. Now, we all support the environment, but our economy is struggling today, and every regulation adds additional cost. The Congressional Research Service recently reported that agriculture has been facing new Clean Air Act greenhouse gas standards; engine emission standards; national ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulates; Clean Water Act permitting and other requirements; Superfund reporting requirements; and regulations for disclosure, permitting, and other regulatory requirements relating to the use of pesticides. And until recently, the dairy industry faced ambiguity about whether milk and milk containers would be subject to the EPA oil spill prevention regulations. We have 2.2 million farms in America employing 1.8 million people and providing 5 percent of this Nation's exports. We need to do everything possible to make it easy for them to do business and still protect the economy. Today we're going to consider H.R. 1633, the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act of 2011. At a time when rural economies are struggling, this bill provides certainty that farmers, ranchers, and other rural businesses will not be burdened with costly and unnecessary new dust regulations from Washington, D.C. As one might expect, a reasonable and commonsense measure like H.R. 1633 has garnered 120 bipartisan cosponsors. I would like to particularly thank and commend the efforts of Representative Kristi Noem, as well as Representative Leonard Boswell, Representative Robert Hurt, and Representative Larry Kissell for their tireless efforts on behalf of rural Americans and this bill. Our bill makes clear that the lead role in regulating so-called nuisance dust rests with State, local, and tribal governments. And the bill defines nuisance dust to include particulate matter generated primarily from natural sources, unpaved roads, earth moving, and other activities typically conducted in rural areas. In some ways, it's ludicrous we're sitting here debating about the EPA regulating dust. And I might say that we have 197 organizations supporting this legislation. Now, why do we need the bill? Well, EPA has been considering more costly, stringent PM10 standards. It is true that the EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson, recently announced that she would not propose new regulations, that she would retain the current PM10 standards. But the problem with that is, when they finalize a standard, it's uncertain whether EPA will finalize a standard that imposes greater costs to rural businesses. And we all know that many of the regulations and EPA environmental protections today are decided by the court system. So even though Lisa Jackson says she's not going to do anything, lawsuits can be filed requiring her to do certain things. So this legislation simply provides certainty. I might also say, because the science does not support the regulation of coarse rural dust, EPA itself proposed, in 2006, to exempt this dust from their national ambient air quality standards. And the integrated science assessment for particulate matter at EPA said, for long-term effects of coarse particles, there is next to no evidence in support of long-term health effects. I would urge all the Members to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Union County in the First Congressional District of Kentucky on their 200th Anniversary. This momentous occasion not only celebrates the rich history of Union County, but the many thousands of residents who over the years have made it a vibrant and thriving community. Union County was formed on January 15, 1811 and was likely named for the unanimous agreement of Henderson and Webster citizens to create a new county. Union County is rich in soil and farming is one of the industries that thrive in this part of Kentucky. Coal mining is also a large industry that continues to provide good jobs. During World War II, Camp Breckinridge Training Center was established near Morganfield and between 1942 and 1946 more than 30,000 infantry recruits were trained there. In 1965 the Earle C. Clements Job Corps Center, which teaches vocational courses, was established on eight hundred acres of the original camp land. The Job Corps Center provided a labor pool for Union County industries and is the second largest Job Corps center in the nation. Today, Union County attracts many tourists through U.S. 60, railroads, and a nine-foot navigation channel on the Ohio River. The county also hosts the annual Corn Festival and the Union County Fair. There are almost 16,000 people who are proud to call Union County their home. To commemorate the county's 200th anniversary, community leaders and residents of Union County have planned over 16 different events to educate Kentuckians about the history of Union County and celebrate its residents and culture. It is my privilege to represent Union County in the U.S. House of Representatives and I hope my colleagues in Congress will join me in celebrating this community and its residents.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Speaker, I claim time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Back in 2004, the D.C. Federal Court of Appeals, in a court decision, invalidated the 2004 Boiler MACT rules promulgated by EPA. In that court decision, EPA came to the court and said, We need additional time to come out with new Boiler MACT rules. So, in that court decision, EPA made the argument that they needed additional time to come forth with a more balanced approach on a Boiler MACT rule. Our legislation, H.R. 2250, does nothing that EPA did not ask the court to do as far as extending time. Our legislation is a balanced approach. Particularly at this time of a weakened economy and when our job unemployment rate is at 9.1 percent and when our economy continues to struggle, it is imperative that we have a balanced regulation that considers jobs--yes--but that also considers health care and the benefits of the regulation and the impact that that has on health care. We've had extensive hearings on this legislation. We've had representatives from hospitals. We've had representatives from universities, representatives from manufacturers, industrial users and others, and all of them almost universally have asked that we pass H.R. 2250 to provide a more balanced approach in these regulations. Testimony has shown that over 230,000 jobs are at risk if EPA moves forward with these regulations. So what we're proposing in our legislation is we give EPA 15 months to come forth with a new regulation. We then say that they need at least a minimum, that the industries and hospitals and schools need a minimum of 5 years to comply with those regulations. I will never forget the University of Notre Dame came and indicated that they had spent $20 million trying to comply with the old regulations, and now they're going to have to come forth with additional funds to comply with these new regulations. So all we're doing is we're protecting jobs. We're protecting the health care of the American people. We give the EPA 15 months to come forth with new rules, 5 years at a minimum to comply. For that reason, I think it's imperative that we adopt our legislation, and I would urge every Member to oppose this motion to recommit. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2250.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I move that the Committee do now rise.

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. I want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee for offering this amendment. He always does a great job of articulating his position on these issues, some of which are pretty complicated. In this amendment, he would add illness-related work absences to the considerations when EPA is setting the compliance deadline. And of course that's one of the main purposes of H.R. 2250, to allow additional time for universities, hospitals, and industries in complying with these rather complicated Boiler MACT rules. And in the legislation, we set out six or seven specific items that EPA must consider in setting the compliance deadline. They do have to set it no sooner than within 5 years, but the EPA administrator has additional time after that. And the section of the bill that I'm talking about identifies specific issues relevant to a facility's ability to comply and simply ensures that in setting these compliance dates, plant- focused considerations are taken into account. Now, EPA already has the responsibility for considering health impacts in setting its standards. And its unclear exactly how this amendment would be implemented different from what the act already requires the EPA to do. So I'm going to respectfully oppose the amendment and ask that it be defeated. However, if we end up having a vote on this and if it is defeated, either by voice vote or by record vote, if we are successful in getting this into a conference with the Senate, I would specifically make the commitment to the gentleman from Tennessee that I would work with him sincerely in trying to address his concern. And I might say that we've had a lot of amendments, and this is, I guess, the only time we said we would really be willing to do that. I know you're trying to address an issue that's of concern to you. And while I oppose the amendment here, if we are successful in getting to conference, I'd look forward to working with the gentlemen at that time. For that reason, I would formally, at this time, oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Would the gentlelady repeat what she is suggesting?

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, let me just ask a parliamentary inquiry here. What is the parliamentary procedure if we were to attempt to do something like that?

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. WHITFIELD. In addition to that, if we come back later and strike the last word, we would get another 5 minutes if we desire to do so. Is that correct?

Mr. WHITFIELD. I want to thank the gentleman from California for raising this issue. So, to make sure I understand, if our respected colleagues offer an amendment on that side and take 5 minutes to explain their amendment, then someone on our side can claim time in opposition, and we would get 5 minutes; is that correct?