do you find yourself surprised that the person you asked to testify came from such high places in the elected government? guest: the last time we had a center that was subpoenaed, i believe it was 1908. i believe it was a corporate scandal. it is rare to have somebody of this stature to come before, as a former senator, governor. again, there are a lot of questions and this is when both democrats and republicans want to ask some questions. host: since the financial meltdown in 2008, dodd-frank has been passed, beefing up of regulatory agencies. why do you think we, as a country, find ourselves in this

situation? what are we in this situation if safeguards have been put in place? guest: some of the question that the futures commodity will ask, if we have this in place, per their any red flags that came up? anything that would have set off any alarms. you can have all of the laws out there, but if somebody does not go in and ring the alarm, it does not matter if you have all the laws on the books. of course, others say that we cut the funding for the commodity commission, so therefore, there are two sides to this. you will hear from democrats, the funding has been cut. on the other side, you know folks should have done their job and cut the red flags on that.

host: you are also interested in the cftc's leadership. what are your questions there? the reports are that the senator had gone and lobbied to hold off on this particular rule. we will be asking questions about what sort of role was involved and the lobby to hold off on the rule, what we call the m.f. global rule. so we are going to be going into those questions. let the watchdog do its job. host: commodity futures trading commission is chaired by gary against letter, there was a column called 10 questions for john corzine. two had to do with gary gentzler. you had contact with the trading commission about whether the agency should adopt regulations

restricting use of client money to trade. these rules were not adopted until after the collapse of m.f. global. host: do you agree that's an area of inquiry? guest: without a doubt. we need to go into that also because there's nothing wrong with the lobbying. but if there was some way to prevent them coming in and using the connections you had and therefore there's a situation, the result was that the company ended up in bankruptcy, there were about 2,800 jobs lost so far. $1.2 billion of customers' accounts still missing. so certainly i think that's an

area that you are going to hear a lot of questioning from. host: let's get to some calls. beginning with miami. this is jennifer who is a democrat there. good morning, jennifer. caller: good morning. i'll make a comment and then a question. a question then comment. good morning. good morning, representative. guest: good morning. caller: i would like you to tell -- to answer this question. people lose their house that mr. corzine make with this company. host: how many people lost their money? guest: that we know right now, we are going to have about three different panels. first we are going to hear from joe summers, commissioner of the futures trading commission, james, which is the lead counsel for the trustee on the liquidation of this company, and second panel will be the former

senator. from there the third panelle is we are going to hear from different groups that have been impacted. we certainly want to hear from the customers, or the people that represent customers because at the end of the day we want to know what happened to the $1.2 billion and will there be enough assets to recover to repay those folks. small ranchers, small farmers, other folks that thought they were going and trying to set some prices in the commodities whether it's corn, oil, whatever the situation might be, they thought they were looking at something safe, but it turned out that instead of hedging there was speculation that moneys that were put in the european debt situation. host: it's a question mentions the board reportedly signed off on the trade. what does that raise for you the whole area of board oversight of a publicly traded company? guest: that means there might be some fiduciary responsibility

for those individuals if they signed off on that again the question is we are going to go back to one of my basic questions, they'll turn this into an investment bank and use their own capital to invest and set their bets on the european debt, that's one thing. but the customers' monny, co-mingle that together, that's where we are going to go in. whether it's the former senator or whether it was the board that's the area we need to go into. host: m.f. global was a brokerage house. so people gave them their money thinking it would be handled in a different way than tended up being. guest: into commodity, what we call the hedging. that is trying to set a price agreement for corn or this particular price, and you set it so there can be some stability in the future. but instead of the -- what we call hedging, they went into the speculation. and they -- corzine and the

folks wanted to move the commodity brokerage into an investment bank, then they should have used their own capital instead of using the customers. host: what they speculated on was european sovereign debt. guest: it's been very risky. host: next telephone call is from marvin, pennsylvania. this is andrew. aim going to move on las vegas. las vegas is a call from martin, independent, go ahead. caller: hi, there. listen, i can tell you clearly that they did not tell the customers that they were going to use their funds. matter of fact it's illegal for them because they are supposed to be customer segregated or secured funds. by both the f.t.c. regulars and others. as a matter of fact they tried to hide this. they put bets on the pure peaian sovereign debt where there was a

big argument. whether they should be shown in the balance sheet or not. and the government, u.s. government regulators were taking a position that they needed to show it on the balance sheet. corzine was trying to hide it by keeping it off the balance sheet. not even an issue for the customers, an issue for bond holders, people who own stock in the company will probably lose everything. the customers are first in line to get whatever's there. host: martin, yet for you if you were sitting on that panel and you had the chance to ask one question of senator corzine what, would it be? caller: i think i have a slightly different question. that i wouldn't ask him. the question that i think i'd like to pose to representative cuellar, maybe introduce the bill, is the way the compensation schemes are set up on wall street. it encourages this kind of gambling. i live in las vegas.

i can see gambling any time. when they take a leverage of twice that collapsed lehman brothers and corzine was quoted as saying we are going to ratchet up the risk in this company because they wanted to make a bigger profit. bigger profit meant more boneses and more salary for corzine than the top executives. so they roll the dice and gamble. if they win they get the big profits and boneses. if they lose, then they lose the stockholder's money and bondholder's money. they weren't supposed to go into the customer's money, that's a crime. and the question is, if we have these ongoing schemes, these compensation schemes, which reward risk taking, in other words they get the win and then the stockholders, bondholders, maybe customers get the loss, isn't there something that we can do to make them personally responsible? you want to gamble, fine, but

don't take the customer's money. if you want to gam many, mr. corzine, then understand that if you're going to do something wrong, if you're going to risk other people's money, we are coming after your house. host: thanks. guest: you are absolutely right. let's start again. the company, the m.f. global was a commodity brokerage company which means they would hedge on prices for corn, those type of commodities. something that would be safe. corzine and the other folks came in and they looked like they were trying to move it into more of an investment banking where they wanted to take certain risks. and again if they wanted to do that, they would have been held accountable by the stockholders and the people that invest it. what they did they brought in moneys from customers and they looked like they put a bet on the risky or should i say -- try not to be -- turned out to be

pretty risky, the european debt, we know what's happening over there. so therefore they lost that money. any time you co-mingle assets with customers' accounts, you are going to find yourself in trouble. i think this is what's going to happen. i don't want to judge it until we get all the facts. and everyone is looking at all this right now, but if you bring in the customer accounts, are you not supposed to do that, that's a problem. host: one answer, one question may be answered and that is former senator has apparently released his prepared testimony. so it looks like he will be testifying before the committee. and it's been posted to bloomberg news. can i share with you? guest: yes. host: corzine to tell panel he doesn't know where missing m.f. global millions are.

guest: basically my staff got this late last night was that the bottom line on that, that he did a good job. they know where it was going to be at. as you read a few minutes ago. and now understanding he'll go in, he might answer some questions, but a lot of the questions might get a little tricky for him, i think his counsel will ask him to plead the fifth. we'll find out in a couple hours. host: here's a tweet from freelancer on twitter. mr. corzine, she asks, going to jail, if missing m.f. cash not recovered? then adds, can't believe a millionaire who made his cash on

wall street didn't know. will you posit a letter whether there's a criminal investigation? guest: we'll leave that to the proper law enforcement officials to take whatever actions. that is not the role of congress. i will tell you that any time you have -- especially the time very sensitive of corporations, then i think you are going to probably be looking at investigation and see what happens. i can say in my mind what i think is going to happen, but i leave it up to the investigators. any time you mess around with customers' moneys, that's not good. host: ben in ohio sends this question by email. he writes, do you think it's time to let go of agriculture subs isdies? the states receiving the most agriculture subsidies have the lowest unemployment rates, and were less impacted by the housing mess. it would seem they no longer need this federal help in view of our budget crisis. guest: i sit on the ag committee and talk to a lot of ranchers and farmers. i got a lot of them in this

situation. the subsidies, when you look at the farm aid, out of the $3.5 trillion, the help for our farmers is less than half of 1%. about one quarter of one percent of the whole federal budget. are we going to see changes? yes, we are. i think the ranchers and farmers in the higher income levels, i think the ones struggling from day to day, they'll probably get assistance. the last thing i want to see is i certainly don't want to see us importing food as we import oil. because if you look across the countries in different parts of the world, the agriculture is the one that's subsidized by other countries. host: the agricultural committee today. 9:30 eastern time. can you watch live coverage on our website at c-span.org. we'll stream it live there and on television we'll have it scheduled later when we know what's happening in the house and senate today. live coverage online, c-span.org.

next is a call from west plains, nebraska. good morning, robin. you are on for the congressman. republican caller. caller: yes. congressman, i'd like to know why did m.f. global -- host: it was hard to understand your question. why did m.f. global do what? caller: pay bill clinton $50,000 a month for advisory. host: thanks. do you know whether or not the former president -- guest: i'm soarry, ma'am i i have no idea about that. i am not privy to that information. host: thanks for your call. next up, tyler, texas, don, independent. good morning. caller: yes, ma'am. i'd like to ask you a question and i'd like to ask c-span will make a pledge to me and the american people to ask congressman or senator or anybody else that comes up there, whether they be republican or they be democrat, where they get their money from.

do they have superpacts. and how does that affect their vote? host: thanks, don. you want to be first up with that? guest: i would be happy to go ahead and do that. i members of congress or senators have to reveal their contributions and how they spend those moneys the federal election commission, so all that information is available out there right now. you do have pacts and there's some pacts that do release that information. but if you remember there was a supreme court decision, basically said that certain moneys could not be put into some pacts, other facts where they don't have to reveal the sources. i'm one of those that i don't mind people getting into pacts but i want to know who has contributed instead of having something that's unknown. right now the supreme court has ruled that certain pacts get money and they can be without even releasing the money where

they came from. for members of congress and senators, all that information is online and you can look at that. and please say hello to my friends there tyler, texas. host: let me tell you more about our guest this morning. he represents in congress the 28th district, south central texas, southern san antonio, in addition to agriculture he serves on the homeland security committee in congress and is vice chair of the democratic hearing and policy committee. before coming to the u.s. house he was in the texas house. he served as texas secretary of state and in private life was -- u.s. customs server from 198 to 2000 specializing in import-export work. he has more degrees than any other member of congress. five advanced degrees. he has a b.s. from georgetown, ph.d. from the university of texas, an mba from texas a&m, and what do you do with all those degrees in congress? guest: it's one of those things. my father, my mom went only to

third and sixth grade education. i remember being the onlying -- i'm the oldest of eight, i used to say, we did not get the education because it put us out in the fields to work. they said you have to get an education. host: you proved them right. guest: we proved them right. host: next telephone call for the congressman is from san angelo, texas. this is cliff a republican there. cliff, good morning. you are on. caller: yes. good morning. i just -- a couple comments. this corzine issue obviously needs to be looked into. it's part and parcel, i think, left or right on the political spectrum, of what all of us are so upset about. but i just find it ironic , when if you part stalking about co-mingling funds, and president lyndon johnson, who started taking funds out of what was supposed to be a secure social

security fund, and this is our federal government, and putting it into operating funds or whatever other areas of government that never should have been co-mingled with, and then you have medicare which is fraudulent to some estimates of up to 30%, and there's no oversight. >> we'll break away from this with a reminder that m.f. global hearing is live now at c spafment.org. we expect the house to be back in in 10 minutes or so. we'll hear from republican leaders as the house conference has just broken up. >> we had a great conversation with our members about an agreement that we would move a bill that would extend and reform unemployment benefits, that would extend the payroll

tax cut, while preserving the social security trust fund, and would also include some of our jobs initiatives. essentially the keystone pipeline and boiler makt. -- mact. the president says the american people can't wait on jobs. guess what? we agree wholeheartedly with the president. the keystone pipeline project will create tens of thousands of jobs immediately. it has bipartisan support in the house and senate. it's pretty clear the president's decided to push this decision off for a year conveniently, until after his next election. well, the american people can't wait, as the president said. at a time when the american people are still asking the question, where are the jobs? i think this is a bipartisan proposal that the president ought to endorse. >> if the president is serious about his commitment to economic growth and jobs in this country, he'll sign this bill. this bill doesn't have everything in it that either side wants, for sure, but from

our perspective this represents a bill that does make some progress. it continues to change the culture of spending to one of savings here. this bill does ensure that we abide by the principle that we want people to keep more of their hard-earned money. and this bill does have some incremental steps towards continued efforts at economic growth. with the tax provisions in it for small business, with business expensing, accelerated depreciation. again the president is serious about his commitment to join us, to work together on the things we can agree on, then he'll sign this bill. >> we just came out of a very strong conference. one that we have been continuing listening to the american public. they want to be able to keep more of what they earn and protect social security. they want to be able to create jobs. and they want to be able to see washington work together with both parties. that is exactly what this bill does. if this president would stop putting politics ahead of people.

put people ahead of politics, he will actually pass this and support this bill. >> every month that the president has been in office, unemployment has been at, near, or above 9%. the president's economic policies have failed. we have not in this economy seen job creation. mr. president, we will have some of your ideas in this bill, but maybe it's time to try some of ours. do not veto this jobs bill. >> couple questions. >> in terms of support of the payroll tax bill, how many members you talked to were optimistic? do you think they are more on track? >> i think our members received the discussion very well. while i don't do vote totals, mr. mccarthy does, i feel confident about our ability to move ahead.

>> speaker boehner, is repatriation a part of this bill. >> mr. cantor and i agree on the issue of repatriateation and we agree that this is not the right place to do that. as much as we'd like to do it, the arena of the overall of our tax code is probably the best place to do it. >> how is this bill paid for? has that changed? >> no. when you see the pay-fors, the bill is fully paid for. fully offset. so that we are not jeopardizing the social security trust fund. we'll be moving it next week. >> is there any movement -- with the president not wanting the keystone pipeline. >> the keystone pipeline project will put tens of thousands of americans to work immediately. it has bipartisan support in the

house and senate. and as the prime minister of canada said yesterday, mr. harper, this is a no-brainer. thanks. >> house republican leaders following the breakup of the republican conference meeting talking about the payroll tax cut legislation that they discussed in conference. it looks as if, this was reported last week, that it would be considered the keystone x.l. pipeline will be part of the package that republicans offer at some point on the house floor. we expect the house to gavel back in in the next five minutes or so. when they return, a series of votes relating to a bill that would prohibit the e.p.a. from regulating farm dust. they debated the rule this morning. they'll come back and vote on that rule. and later general consideration of the bill, including eight amendments. a lot of things going on on capitol hill, including that conference meeting. the joint meeting of the

appropriators from the house and senate are meeting to talk about 2012 spending. c-span cameras will be covering that. we are also covering at this hour the hearing with attorney general eric holder testifying on the fast and furious gun operation. and that's on c-span3. and former new jersey governor and senator john corzine testifying on the collapse of m.f. global, that's online at c-span.org. you'll see those later in our schedule. again the house coming back. we expect within the next five to 10 minutes or so. while we wait for that we'll take you to the part of this morning's "washington journal" with news and views from our "washington journal" viewers. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] ny newspapers. let's give you a quick taste of it. we would like to get your calls on this topic in a few minutes

here. we will also show you some of the letters. "the wall street journal" front page here. host: that is "the wall street journal" this morning. "the washington post" made it the lead this morning.

rob stein wrote -- host: we will show you more articles. we will show you pro and con from editorial pages. we would like to hear from parents of young teens, and also, if there are young people watching, add to our

understanding of your thoughts t available without prescription for girls under the age of 17. here are some of the documents attached to this. kathleen sebelius' memo to the fda. here are the important lines, if we can get in close on the camera. she writes -- host: interestingly, on the fda website, the commissioner writes this -- "i reviewed and thoughtfully

consider the data, clinical information, and analysis provided." host: those are statements from the secretary and from the commissioner, showing their disagreement over this. of course, the secretary trumping the decision. let's begin with your phone calls. samuel is an independent in new

york. go ahead. caller: good morning. i think that is a good decision to overturn the fda. i cannot imagine a girl, a girl, 11, 12, 13, they can get pregnant. i cannot see them just having sex and then going to distort -- goingng this bipill to the store and getting this >> we'll break away take you live back to the house for a series of votes. n questions previously postponed. votes will be taken in the following order. ordering the previous question on h. resolution 487 by the yeas and nays. adoption of h.res. 487, if ordered. motion to suspend the rules on h.r. 1254 de novo.

approval of the journal de novo. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. the remainder of the votes in this series will be conducted as a five-minute vote. the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on house resolution 487 on which the yeas and nays were ordered and the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 96, house resolution 487, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 1633, to establish a temporary prohibition against revisiting any national ambient air quality standard applicable to coarse particulate matter, to limit federal regulation of nuisance dust in areas in which such dust is regulated under state, tribal or local law, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: and the question is on ordering the previous question. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 241. the nays are 173. the previous question is

ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor please signify by saying aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. polis: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: on that i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 249, the nays are 161.

the resolution is adopted. without objection a motion to reskr laid on the table -- reconsider is laid on the table. the unfished business is the question on suspending the rules, h.r. 1254 as amended. the clerk: union calendar number 196, h.r. 1254, a bill to amend the controlled substances act. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative -- >> mr. speaker. i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 317, the nays are 98. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. >> on that i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vout.

-- vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 312. the nays are 94. with one voting present. the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the

gentleman from michigan rise? mr. upton: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five lemming days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and insert material on h.r. 1633. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 487 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 1633. the chair appoints the gentleman from arkansas, mr. womack, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 1633 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to establish a temporary prohibition against revising any national ambient or air quality standards applicable to coarse particulate matter to limit regulation of nuisance

dust in areas where such dust is regulated under state, tribal, or local law, and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. upton, and the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. upton: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman virginia tech. mr. upton: mr. speaker, i ask we have order in the house. the chair: committee will be in order. would all members please take their conversations from the floor. clear the aisles, clear the well. the gentleman is recognized. mr. upton: mr. speaker, no question from the largest manufacturer to the smallest farmer ranch, not enough businesses are thriving in this economy. the recovery has been slow and weak. job growth has an anemic. continuous rollout of expensive new regulations has made it harder to get the economy back on track. and that's why the house

continues to approve bipartisan legislation addressing costly e.p.a. rules. and that is why i support this legislation, the farm dust regulation prevention act. this bill achieves two important goals. regulatory certainty in the short term, and common sense for rural america in the long term. the bill retains the current coarse particulate matter standard for one year, a position that administrator from e.p.a. has embraced with plans to propose maintaining the standard. it offers regulatory relief to rural america by recognizing states and local communities are better equipped to monitor and control farm dust. e.p.a. would no longer be in the business of regulating rural dust except in cases where it is not already regulated, and the benefits of e.p.a. regulation outweigh the cost. opponents of this bill insist that it's not necessary and that rural america has nothing to worry about. but the voices of rural america tell quite a different story.

listen to the american farm bureau federation and all of its state affiliates. listen to the national cattleman's beef association and over 185 other organizations who collectively represent a significant portion of the rural economy, including michigan and across the country. these organizations believe that this bill is necessary and so do i. the bill makes clear that the lead role in regulating nuisance dust should rest with state and local and tribal governments, not the e.p.a. this is a smart step for a lot of reasons. for one thing, state and local and tribal governments already address rural dust issues. for another, dust issues differ greatly from location to location and thus are not well suited to a one-size-fits-all federal approach. further these levels of government do a much better job than the federal e.p.a. when it comes to weighing both the cost and the benefits of various options and choosing a path that is cost-effective and achieves the greatest benefits.

finally, under this bill in the absence of state, local, and tribal regulation, e.p.a. may step in and regulate nuisance dust if the case for net benefits can be made for it. this bill is a commonsense bill that moves -- removes a regulatory threat to economic growth and prosperity across rural america. i urge all my colleagues to support it. i reserve the balance of my time. i might ask that i ask unanimous consent that the balance of my 28-some minutes be put under the control of the gentleman from kentucky, mr. witfield. the chair: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman virginia tech. mr. waxman: over the past year, republicans have brought to the floor one bill after another to weaken the clean air act and eliminate e.p.a. authority to protect public health from dangerous air pollution.

the house has passed bills that nullify e.p.a.'s rules on air pollution from incinerators, power plants, cement kilns and industrial boilers. but the bill before us today breaks new ground. it would block e.p.a. from taking an action that e.p.a. has no plan to take. this bill is called the farm dust regulation prevention act of 2011. well, that's a misleading title. e.p.a. currently does not regulate farm dust. they have no plans to regulate farm dust. e.p.a. administrator jackson told congress that she will propose no change to the current air quality standard for coarse particles which have been in place since the reagan administration. this bill belongs to the false advertising hall of fame. it is not really about farms at

all. its real effect is to exempt industrial mining operations and other large industries from regulation under the clean air act. and it threatens to overturn the particulate pollution standards that protect families in both rural and urban communities. section 3 of the bill exempts so-called nuisance dust from any regulation under the clean air act. it then defines nuisance dust incredibly broadly. the definition covers both coarse paragraph particular lats and deadly fine particulates. it covers paragraph particular lats from -- particulates from earth moving and activities typically conducted in rural areas which includes cement plants, smelters, coal processing plants, and other industrial activities that are

common. during the committee markups of this bill, the republicans amended the definition of so-called nuisance dust three times. this shows how poorly drafted and broadly worded the definition really is. but they voted down an amendment to clarify that the bill only applies to agriculture and dust. and another amendment to clarify that the bill does not apply to mining activities. they even voted down an amendment to preserve e.p.a.'s authority to regulate emissions of arsenic from copper mines and smelters. one supporter of the bill is the kinney congress copper which operates one of the largest open pit copper mines in the world. the company's mining activities are the single largest source of particulate pollution in utah and a big reason why the one million residents of salt lake county breathe unhealthy air.

this bill would exempt all particulate matter pollution from the kinnecock mine and other mines from the entire clean air act. let's be honest, the reason industrial mining operations are pushing this bill has nothing to do with protecting family farms. the bill would also make unenforcible the national air quality standards for both fine and coarse particulate pollution. particulate pollution causes aggravated asthma attacks, heart attacks, respiratory diseases, strokes, and premature death. reductions in particulate pollution under the clean air act account for some of the largest public health benefits produced by the act. gutting these standards would be radical and devastating. the american people support the clean air act. people want clean air. and over the past 40 years, the

clean air act has brought us dramatic air quality improvements. but house republicans are intent on undoing these achievements. in bill after bill from one industry after another, the house has voted to punch holes in the clean air act. it is for more toxic pollution, arsenic and lead pollution, more particulate pollution, and more nitrogen oxide pollution. in fact the house has voted 170 times to undermine our nation's environmental laws, over 60 of those votes were to dismantle the clean air act. i urge my colleagues to protect clean air and the health of all americans and oppose h.r. 1633. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from kentucky. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

american farmers, ranchers, and other rural businesses like many other sectors of our economy have faced an onslaught of e.p.a. regulation. mr. whitfield: 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. superfund reporting requirements. 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 e.p.a. oil spill prevention regulations. we have 2.2 million farms in america.

employing 1.8 million people. providing 5% of this nation's exports. and we need to do everything possible to make it easy for them to do business and still protect the economy. today we are going to consider h.r. 1633, the farm dust regulation prevention act of 2001. 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 co-sponsors. i now would like to particularly thank and commend the efforts of representative nome as well as representative boswell,

representative herd and robertive kissel for their tireless efforts on behalf of rural americans and this bill. now, 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, unpavegged roads, erget moving and other activities typically conducted in rural areas. in some ways it's ludicrous we're sitting here debating about e.p.a. regulating dust. and i might say that we have 197 organizations supporting this legislation. now, why do we need the bill? well, e.p.a. has been considering more costly, stringent pm-10 standards. it is true that the e.p.a.

administrator, lisa jackson, recently announced that she would not propose new regulations, that she would retain the current pm-10 standards. but the problem with that is, when they finalize the standard, it's uncertain whether e.p.a. will finalize a standard that imposes greater cost to rural businesses and we all know that many of the regulations and the e.p.a. 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 and i might also say, because the science does not support the regulation of coarse, rule dust, e.p.a. itself proposed in 2006 to exempt this dust from their national ambient air quality

standards. and the integrated science assessment for particulate matter at e.p.a. said for long-term effects of coarse particles there is next to no evidence in support of long-term health effects. so, i would urge all the members to support this legislation and i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, i'm pleased at this time to yield five minutes to our senior member on the committee, the former chairman of our committee, the gentleman from michigan, mr. dingell. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for five minutes. mr. dingell: mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. mr. dingell: mr. chairman, this is a magnificent solution to a nonexistent problem. it's made a lot of money for a lot of lobbyists and a lot of industrial polluters are going to enjoy this, hiding behind the supposed benefit that it's going to give to the farmers.

in a nutshell this legislation is not going to help the farmers. it's going to help the people who farm the farmers. and the end result is that when this nonsensecal bill gets over to -- nonsensical bill gets over to the courts, the courts are going to look at it and say just what in the name of common sense is the house trying to do with this legislation? nowhere in the clean air act is a word about nuisance dust but it's very proudly put here and in the legislation and lo and behold it also has something to do, supposedly, with some kind of action that e.p.a. is supposed to take. but diligent looking at the legislation doesn't reveal what that might be. the question here then is, we have a solution in search of a problem. but we've got a job crisis in our nation. crippling debt. excessive deficit. gasping and groping and inequality between the poor and the well to do is putting democracy at risk.

and when this country needs us to focus on serious problems like deficits and national debt, we are here busily scratching around to try and fit a solution on a problem that doesn't exist. the clean air act amendments of 1990 were the last major changes to the original clean air act of 1970. and unlike what we are piddling around with today, those legislations were needed. and they have served us well. and the congress held lengthy hearings and did a tremendous amount of work to understand what it was. 18 months or so of consideration of legislation led finally to its enactment and it has cleaned up the air for our people. the amendments of 1990 were truly bipartisan and only four of the 120 sponsors of this legislation are democrats.

10 amendments were considered in the committee but only one democratic amendment was adopted. the final adoption of the legislation occurred strictly along partisan line. it should be anyone's clearly finding that this is not compromised legislation. supporters insist the legislation is necessary due to uncertainty regarding e.p.a. action. there is no uncertainty here. the republican author of a similar senate bill, a former secretary of agriculture, takes a different position. in one of his weekly columns, the senate sponsor stated, i ask only from party from e.p.a. and this week administrator jackson finally provided it. it's obvious to our friends in the senate and from the e.p.a. administrator itself that e.p.a. will not implement stricter

regulations. even newspapers in the sponsor's home state have questioned the logic of this legislation. the sioux fals leader wrote that the bill -- falls leader wrote that the bill is fighting against a made-up problem and it's time for the sponsor to let the phantom issue of dust regulation settle. the "dakotan" gave a thumbs-down signal on the bill. in which they say it is unnecessary. the two local papers wish that those who would sponsor this legislation would stop trying to stir the fear of farmers and ranchers and instead spend time fighting real problems rather than those which are imaginary. this bill does not help the farmers and ranchers. it helps the people who farm the farmers and a fine collection of well-to-do lobbyists down on k

street who are profiting mightily on selling a nonsensical legislation which wastes the time of congress and does nothing for the farmers or the ranchers or the economy or the jobs. and so i hope that the house will reject these half-baked bills that are poorly written, contain no solutions, deal with no problems, help no one and that the two parties can sit down and find real, important, reasoned compromises to real problems. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: mr. chairman, at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentlelady from south dakota who is a strong advocate for rural america and the creation of jobs in rural america. the chair: the gentlelady from south dakota is recognized for three minutes. nomenome thank you, thank you,

mr. chairman, -- mrs. nome: thank you, mr. chairman. i did this to bring certainty, regulatory certainty, to farmers and ranchers across this country. farmers and ranchers have been working on this issue for a long time. we look forward to passing it off the house floor today. it's not a partisan issue, i introduced this with my colleagues, mr. boswell and mr. kissel, and 121 of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle are co-sponsors. the clean air act is a worthy goal. but it's not a perfect law and it does have unintended consequences. my bill would improve the current statute. it also makes permanent what the administrator has said which is that she said she did not intend to regulate farm dust. well, the south dakota farm bureau president said, quote, if we don't deal with this issue today, it's going to be right back here five years from now. unquote. i'd like to reiterate why this

bill is necessary. first, farm dust is already regulated. it is not a myth. it's very real to all of my constituents. we heard testimony from farmers and the hearing and committee that they're currently being regulated as a result of the e.p.a. standards. regulation of farm dust is a problem today and will only continue to be a problem into the future if we do not pass this bill. if my colleagues will take the time to read the bill they'll notice that this bill doesn't eliminate any regulation. it simply leaves the regulation of rural dust to the states and to the local communities who best understand how to manage what is happening in their own backyards. you know, too often bureaucrats in washington, d.c., who have never stepped foot on a farm or lived in rural america try to impose a one-size-fits-all approach to regulation. let's be realistic. dust in rural america is not the same as dust in urban areas. it's a -- it's common sense that dust from a dirt road is different than soot from a car

and it's common sense that she -- that they should be streeted -- treated differently. i would ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to consider this piece of legislation very carefully. even if you're not from a rural area, this is still an important piece of legislation to all of us who rely on farmers to feed our families. you don't have to take my word for it. i have a letter right here of over 190 different organizations supporting this bill and its passage. many of these organizations are local businesses and agriculture groups within all of our districts. they represent thousands and thousands of people across the country. mr. chairman, i ask that unanimous consent that this letter would be submitted for the record. the chair: without objection. mrs. noem: and let's not forget that we all reap the benefits of the success of our ag producers through safe, nutritious and affordable food. let's not burden our communities with overbearing regulations. let's pass this commonsense legislation, provide farmers, ranchers and local businesses with the certainty that they need in an already volatile

industry. i urge all my colleagues to join me in support of rural america and vote yes on h.r. 1633 and, mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent that my written statement be submitted for the record as well. the chair: the request is covered by general leave. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, at this time i'm pleased to yield to the leading democrat on the energy committee, the ranking member, the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush, for five minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. rush: i want to thank you, mr. speaker. and i want to thank the ranking member for his outstanding leadership and for yielding time to me. mr. speaker, i oppose this ill-conceived, nonsensical and always awful bill, h.r. 1633, which could have a devastating effect on the e.p.a.'s ability to enforce the clean air act on

the basis of most procedural and substantive grounds. mr. speaker, the c.b.o., congressional budget office, scored this bill and determined that it would cost $10 million in discretionary spending over a five-year period for the e.p.a. to cover the costs of car arerying out changes to an existing mission control standards, as long as other activities to study the need and feasibility of modifying the e.p.a.'s national monitoring net wurk -- network for particulate matter as this bill requires. since this $10 million is not appropriated anywhere in this bill, this bill would directly violate the discretionary cut-go d -- cut-go policy that this

majority, my friends on the other side, voted for, that they put in place at the beginning of this congress. if we pass this bill it would mean the height of hypocrisy for this atrocious bill to get through this house. additionally, mr. speaker, on the issue of substance, i oppose this bill because it would dramatically weaken the clean air act by eliminating the e.p.a.'s ability to regulate particulate matter from a broad range of sources as well as jeopardize existing state and federal regulations that apply to find and enforce particulate matter. although the title of this bill suggests that it only covers dust from farms, this bill

creates a whole new, broad, new, nonscientific category of solutions called, and i quote, nuisance dust, which will exempt from the clean air act completely nuisance dust will be exempted from the clean air act totally, without any basis in science, no scientific evidence whatsoever and that this bill would not do any harm to the public's health. . the bill will exempt from the clean air act any particulate matter pollution that is emanating from sources such as open pit mines, mining proses ising -- processing plants, sand and gravel mines, smelters, coal mines, coal processing plants,

cement kilns, and waste and recovery facilities. these facilities, arsenic, lead, mercury, zinc, chromium, and other heavy metals which of which would fall under this bill's broad exemption from the clean air act. mr. speaker, as the american farm association noted,nd the provisions of this bill our country's most vulnerable population, poor people, people who depend on the e.p.a. to protect them from the harmful effect of coarse particulates, will be most affected. children, teens, senior citizens

, low-income people, people fighting lung disease such as asthma, bronchitis, and ememif a zeema -- an emphysema will be at risk if this bill were to become law. additionally people with other chronic diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, coronary artery disease, and congestive heart failure, they would all be placed at greater risk if this bill becomes law. mr. speaker, as was noted before, this bill is a solution in search of a problem. it does more harm than good. this bill should fail. i oppose this bill. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: 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'd like to recognize the gentleman from virginia, mr. hurt, one of the prime sponsors of this legislation and protector of rural america, recognize him for three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for three minutes. mr. hurt: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i'd first like to thank chairman upton and whitfield for their support in this efforts and representative noem for her leadership and hard work on this legislation. mr. chairman, i rise today in strong support of the farm dust regulation prevention act. this is a bipartisan bill that i'm proud to sponsor along with representatives noem, boswell, kissell, in order to provide greater economic certainty to our rural communities in central virginia and southside virginia and across this country. since january, this house has

been laser focused on advancing policies that will remove the federal government as a barrier to job creation and steer us on a correspond toward economic recover i. giving our job creators the opportunity to hire and confidence to expand. it is with this in mind we introduced this legislation. in virginia's fifth district, my district, we have a proud heritage in agriculture, manufacturing, main street businesses that create jobs and have created jobs for thousands of virginians. as i travel across virginia's rural fifth district, i'm constantly reminded by my constituents of how government regulations threat yield back the balance of my time their businesses and very way of life. this is why the e.p.a.'s national standard for fugitive dust is so troubling to the people i represent. it is yet another example of the vast expansion of the federal government and it is yet another example of the uncertainty that washington continues to impose upon our job creators and our rural communities. the effects of federal government overreach are both

very real and very tangible in the fifth district and across this country. this past year i spoke with a small business owner in southside virginia who was warned by a regulator about the amount of dust coming from his property. and he was told to take active measures to decrease the dust coming from the dirt road leading in to his sawmill. this is the kind of unnecessary regulation that prevents businesses and farmers from focusing on the needs of their customers. where i'm from dust is not a nuisance. rather it is a necessary byproduct of the hard work the farmers and businesses in my rural district perform every day. and these farmers and businesses should not suffer loss in production because of overbearing federal regulations. these are the people who are struggling to survive, to grow, and create jobs during this stalled economic recovery. and these are the people who cannot afford more costly and burdensome regulations handed down by washington. while i applaud the e.p.a.'s apparent statement that it does not intend to propose a more

stringent standard for coarse particulate matter at this time, i remain concerned about the uncertainty of current and future rule making. this bill addresses that by providing clarity and stability for our job creators and by replacing the current federal standard for naturally occurring dust in rural america. with unemployment rates nearing 20% in some parts of my district, we simply can't afford to perpetuate unnecessary regulations and unnecessary uncertainty for the farmers and businesses in our rural communities. i strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation so that we may assure our farmers and business that is naturally occurring dust will not be subject to regulations by an ever expanding federal government. i thank the chair. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, i'm pleased at this time to yield to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, five minutes. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for how many minutes?

five minutes. the gentleman is recognized. mr. markey: i thank the gentleman. we are now debating on a very real piece of legislation that solves an imaginary problem. the farm dust regulation prevention act purports to address the fictitious threat that the environmental protection agency is out to destroy the family farm and countless jobs by regulating the dust emitted by tractors and other farming equipment. never mind that e.p.a. administrator, lisa jackson, has committed to leaving the 1987 standard for paragraph particularals unchanged. -- particles unchanged. and never mind the assistant administrator essentially told the energy and commerce committee that e.p.a. was about as likely to regulate fairy dust as it was to regulate farm dust. while hiding behind its stated

purpose of addressing the made up threat of utter ruin to the family farm, this bill inflicts very real harm. that is because it also blocks the e.p.a. from setting standards for the dirty soot that gets spewed out of massive mines and smelters and refineries and some chemical plants. it becomes, in fact, the congressional version of, never-never land where the republicans' answer to the question when can we remove the poisons from the air that we breathe, their answer is never. in the play peter pan, tinker bell drinks poison intended to kill peter. she begins to die but peter pan implores the audience to just clap their hands if they really do believe in fairies and then maybe, just maybe tinker bell won't die. every small child in the

audience then collapse so hard their hands sting and tinker bell rises magically back to life. with this bill republicans are engaging in the very same sort of fantasy. if we just believe that e.p.a. has launched a war on jobs, then it must be so. and we must stop it. if we just believe that e.p.a. officials are lying about their secret nonexistent plans to destroy the livelihood of every farmer in america, then it must be so. and we must stop it. if we just believe that eviscerating every environmental law on the books will not lead to the real deaths of thousands of americans each and every year, then it must be so. the republican lost boys and girls are telling america that the only way to revive the jobs fairy is to kill the e.p.a.

to pretend that the deaths, cancers, and other illnesses that the republican plan will cause are imaginary, or a mere nuisance really is the stuff of fairy tales. let us get back to reality and solve real problems in this country. vote no on this very dangerous bill. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: the gentleman from massachusetts may view this as 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'd like to yield to the gentleman from west virginia, a member of the energy and commerce committee, mr. mckinley, for 1 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentleman from west virginia is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. mckinley: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today in support of h.r. 1633, the farm dust bill. earlier this year the house passed h.r. 2273, the bipartisan

coal ash legislation. unfortunately opponents of the farm dust bill believe that nuisance dust in this bill might include fly ash. therefore an amendment was offered and adopted to clarify that the definition of nuisance dust in the farm dust bill does not include coal ash or other compusston residuals. the amendment makes it perfectly clear that nuisance dust is not comprised of any residuals from coal combustion. unfortunately, opponents of the farm dust bill are still apparently unaware of the changes that have been made to the bill to address their concerns. don't oppose the farm dust bill because you don't like fly ash. let's relieve one more threat to our agricultural community with passage of this bill. we should be striving to create more jobs not putting up more

barriers with misinformation. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, i'm pleased to yield to an important member of our committee, the gentleman from texas, mr. green, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. mr. green: i rise in opposition to h.r. 1633, the farm dust regulation act of 2011. i know i just heard it referred to as tinker bell, but i think this is more like shall shall shall alice in wonderland legislation. it solves a problem that's not there while cansing around real problems we have to deal with in this country and congress. this bill would prohibit the e.p.a. from proposing, finalizing, or enforcing any regulation revising the national ambient air quality standards for coarse particulate matter

one year from the enactment. the e.p.a. administrator committed in an october 14, 2011 letter, that the e.p.a. plans to propose keeping the national ambient air standard as it is with no change. this standard's been in place since 1987. i have a letter with me i'd like to request permission to insert into the record, mr. speaker, from the -- lisa jackson, theard mrtor. the chair: the request is covered under general leave. mr. green: thank you. when the assistant administrator for air and radiation at e.p.a. testified before our energy and power subcommittee of the full committee, she also confirmed that this bill is not necessary since the administrator plans to propose retaining the current standards since 1987. for this reason that's why i do not support h.r. 1633 when it's up for a vote -- when it came up for a vote in our energy and commerce committee, and i encourage my colleagues to oppose it today. i have very public disagreements with the e.p.a. on other

regulation that is are revising. but this bill is a solution in search of a problem and not a good use of our congressional time. taking up a bill that's not necessary hurts our efforts to work with e.p.a. and revise some of the standards the e.p.a. is doing that are real problems. and that's why, mr. speaker, i urge a no vote on this bill. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: at this time i yield two minutes to the gentleman from kansas, mr. pompeo, a member of the energy and commerce committee. the chair: the gentleman from kansas is recognized for two minutes. mr. pompeo: thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you for yielding to me. it's a great day for rural america. h.r. 1633 is going to do what we have been trying to do for a long time here. my entire 11 months in the united states congress, provide just a little bit of certainty for those folks who are out there trying to create jobs, trying to create food for america, trying to do the things that we have done in the rural parts ever our country for so long. -- of our country for so long. we are shooting the fairy dust

and talking about tinker bell. i can assure you that i'm not amused. i can assure you that the 500 folks who i met with just two weeks ago now at the kansas farm bureau meeting were not amused, either. we understand that the very real risk of lisa jackson and the environmental protection agency beginning to clamp down on farm dust still exists. we worked in our committee diligently, there were valid concerns raised by folks on the other side, and we endeavored, mr. chairman, at every moment to try to meet those concerns. we offered amendments. i offered an amendment in the nature of a full substitute which tried to address some of the concerns that the opposition expressed. . they just want to leave our agricultural community at the whims of the e.p.a. that's not the place to put good, hardworking americans who are out there every day trying to do the right thing. the whims of the e.p.a. we have seen all too often present real risk, real risk of job

destruction, real risk of higher costs for every consumer in america. this is a wonderful piece of legislation. it will for the first time get the e.p.a. to move their hands away from the throats of our farmers and agricultural communities and i would urge every one one of my colleagues to support it. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, the standard that's in place has been in place since 1987 when reagan was president. it has not been changed. suddenly there's a made-up fears that going to be changed. -- made-up fear that it's going to be changed and therefore we have the legislation that's before us. we hear a lot about certainty. if this bill goes through, the certainty will be that there will be no regulation because e.p.a. will no longer have jurisdiction. the other certainty is that a lot of people are going to get very sick from some dangerous pollutants. at this time i wish to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from illinois, ms. schakowsky.

the chair: the gentlelady from illinois is recognized for two minutes. ms. schakowsky: i thank the gentleman for yielding. this bill is dangerous and its title is disingenuous. h.r. 1633 is about much more than farm dust. our colleague, mr. shimkus, acknowledged that in the energy and commerce committee markup of this bill last week. when he said, quote, it is called farm dust but i am here for my open-pit minds in southern illinois, unquote. the bill allows major industrial polluters to omit unlimited amounts of particulate matter in violation of the clean air act. mines, cement plants and coal processing plants could legally emit unlimited amounts of dangerous chemicals into the air. let's be clear. the chemicals we are talking about are incredibly dangerous. arsenic overexposure leads to skin, bladder, liver and lung cornerbacks cancer. lead exposure can damage the central nervous system, kidney and blood cells.

zinc poisoning leads to kidney damage. mercury pollution results in cognitive deficiencies, especially in children. those pollutants emitted from a range of nonfarm sources could fall under the vague definition of nuisance dust. seems to me that this is a piece of legislation that is being disguised as something innocuous as farm dust, something that has been pointed out has been regulated for a very long time. this is an earth effort to get around -- an effort to get around the legislation with a phony name, to get around the effectiveness of the environmental protection agency and we owe it to our constituents and our country to promote legislation that will stimulate the economy, which our environmental bills do. and protect and promote human health and the environment. our colleagues across the aisle have failed in that regard and i

urge a no vote. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: mr. chairman, may i inquire how much time is remaining on -- the chair: the gentleman has 12 1/2 minutes remaining. the side in opposition has seven minutes remaining. mr. whitfield: at this time i yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from nebraska, mr. terry, a member of the energy and commerce committee. the chair: the gentleman from nebraska is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. terry: mr. chairman, i'm amused, humored by the opposition. all hailing from our greatest cities in the united states. urban areas. so let me -- i'd like to read a note that i received from a rancher in nebraska. and our nebraska cattlemen, representing those who are affected. the bill is needed to provide regulatory certainty to rural areas. we applaud the recent statement from administrator jackson that

e.p.a. does not intend to propose revisions to the current dust standard. the reality is, however, that regulations often change from the proposed -- proposal stage of rule making to final. for example, in 1996 e.p.a. proposed to remove the pm-10 24-hour standard altogether only to bring it back in the final rule and in 2006 e.p.a. proposed to exempt agriculture dust but that exemption also disappeared in the final rule. second, under the clean air act e.p.a. must review this standard every five years. that means we could face the same dust challenge again in just five short years. also, citizen lawsuits could be brought that could result in a court deciding farm dust should be regulated. h.r. 1633 is the only way to provide regulatory certainty to farmers. nuisance dust occurs naturally

in rural areas. this type of nuisance dust that is in this bill would exempt federal regulations, occurs naturally in rural areas, especially in windy areas of plains in western states. this dust does not stay in the air but falls out quickly. rural fugitive dust travels only a short distance from emission point. it settles out of the air quickly because of its size, making dust a localized issue. in fact, according to a study done by someone, rural dust will fall out of the air within 1,000 meters of its source. this is not fairy dust or fables or tales to our folks in rural america. this is real and they want certainty. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, we continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman

reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: at this time i'd like to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. gosar: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the farm dust regulations preventive act brought today by my friend and colleague, congresswoman kristi noem. this good piece of legislation is a commonsense solution to a bureaucratic problem that is causing concern among many arizonans. it's almost unfathomable to think that this legislation is necessary to protect arizona against federal bureaucrats who want to regulate dust, but here we are. that's exactly what the e.p.a. is doing with its overreaching policies, holding individuals and businesses accountable for naturally occurring dust particles. i stand here today to raise my voice against the unreasonable federal regulations which would allow simp dust clouds and windstorms to pose a threat to the economic livelihood of farmers in and around my

district. it is important to also note that this bill covers dust which has been found to have no adverse human health effects. also notable among this bill's many supports are the arizona farm bureau federation, the arizona cattle feeders association, the arizona cattle growers association, the arizona cotton growers association, and the national caddleman's association. i support this legislation and encourage you to pass this good bill today. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, we continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: that the time i'd like to yield two minutes to -- at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from indiana, mr. burton. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. burton: i thank the gentleman for yielding. with the economy the way it is, with unemployment very high, we don't need more government regulations. more regulations strangle the private sector and create more economic problems. especially right now we don't need more regs.

the obama administration continues to circumvent congress, to go around us, by passing more regulations and the economy can't stand it. we need to stop more regulations, even the threat, even the threat of more regulations must be stopped. i mean, farm dust, farm dust? give me a break. we can't give these bureaucrats more authority. we don't need to give this administration or the bureaucracy more control over the lives of americans. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california continue to reserve? mr. waxman: mr. chairman, i'd like to inquire how many speakers there are on the other side of the aisle? mr. whitfield: i believe we have maybe a couple, two or three left. and that's it. mr. waxman: we'll continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: at this time i would yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr.

manzullo. mr. manzullo: mr. speaker, i often hear complaints from farmers back home about the numerous regulatory burdens placed on them by the government. in fact, this whole past summer we worked with farmers who had been in a real bruhaha with the e.p.a., concerning the runoff from their stockyards and even small ones at that. life-threatening types of regulations to continuing their farming. and now we come up with another one. this one on dust. in 2009 the e.p.a. said farm dust, quote, likely is not safe, end of quote, and could cut the allowable dust levels in half. because of the furrer created the e.p.a. -- furor created the e.p.a. said last october they would not regulate farm dust. first they said they would regulate it, now they said they won't.

so to codify this understanding toward these contradictory statements by the e.p.a., i'm sure that all of my colleagues will have no problem in voting for this bill. h.r. 1633 will prevent the e.p.a. from imposing new federal regulations on natural-occurring dust in rural america. it allows states and locates to regulate farm dust as they see fit, based on sound science. farmers in illinois already struggle to comply with current standards. if washington imposes another one-size-fits-all solution to dust, this could mean even more unemployment in rural areas throughout illinois and the nation. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 1633 and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. rush: i want to thank the ranking member for yielding. mr. speaker, i want to share with the members of this body

the administration's position on this particular bill that we're under the session right now. this is a statement of administration's policy and quote, the administration strongly opposes h.r. 1633. as drafted this bill will create serious problems for implementing the clean air act, public health protections that have been in place for years, while adding uncertainty for businesses and states. we therefore go far beyond its intent of prohibiting the e.p.a. from setting national standards for coarse particles which the administration has repeatedly explained that it has no intention of doing. it goes on to say, just as

vigorously this bill would create high levels of regulatory uncertainty regarding emission control requirements that have been in place for years. specifically the bill's exposure from the entire c.a.a. of a new class of air pollutants called nuisance dust and improvised, to rule back protections, mining operations, industrial standards and possibly other sources the. the bill also raises sheers issues about -- raises serious issues about whether the e.p.a. can continue to implement coarse particle kl programs which play a vital ongoing role in preventing adverse health effects of air pollution

including child asthma and other respiratory diseases. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. rush: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the administration remains committed to commonsense provisions to improve air quality across this country. h.r. 1633 is not only unnecessary but could also have significant adverse public health consequences. the administration strongly opposes this bill. h.r. 1633, the president would recommend that he veto this bill. why are we wasting the -- our time on this nuisance which is nonsense? thank you, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr.

farenthold. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. farenthold: thank you very much. i rise today in disgust with the dust. the regulations of the environmental protection agency are proposing to regulate coarse particulate matter, what you and i know is dust, is ridiculous. it's indicative of what is wrong in washington, d.c., with the regulatory framework that has gone wild. this just defies common sense. you cannot farm without kicking up dust. i was raised on the farms and ranches in south texas. as we drive to tend the cattle herds, till the fields or check out what's going on, there's no way to do it without dust. this opens the door to massive regulations. first we start with the farmer, where does the e.p.a. going to be next? checking under my bed for dust bunies? putting on a white glove, running their fingers across the top of my doors or making sure my car is adequately washed? the e.p.a.'s regulations on this are the height of government overreach, the height of a waste of time, the height of waste of

money and a perfect example of what is wrong with washington. we have got to stop this type of crazy government regulation so we can get people back to work. we can get jobs on track, we can keep our farmers seeding our country and the world. thank you very much. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, the unemployment rate in this country is close to 9% and without doing anything about that problem, the deficit is a real threat to our economy and the republicans nearly made us default on our debts because they wouldn't go along with a real deficit reduction bill. . we are looking at sequestrations of our national budget for the military, which our secretary of defense says could be a threat to the nation. and that sequestration will take place because republicans

wouldn't allow the so-called supercommittee to do its job. i want to read an article, there are important issues at the federal level right now that will have a direct impact on our state. the dwindling funding for the louis and clark water project, the fight for our state's medicare reimbursement that frontier states provisions, these are real issues and i mention real issues. so it's disappointing to see this fight against a man-made problem like the potential for farm dust regulations by the e.p.a. when the e.p.a. announced they would not pursue anything along these lines and they have no attention to do it, the senate sponsor of this same bill declared victory, and he pulled back on his companion bill for the other body.

the republicans ought to declare victory and allow us to deal with the real problems in this country, not this madeup threat that they want to help protect us from. i reserve the time we have whatever time we may have. i urge members to vote against this bill and we'll see how much more debate there is on the other side of the aisle. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: mr. chairman, i've been told that we have no further speakers, so if the gentleman from california would like to close, then i'll follow him. mr. waxman: we're ready to yield back our time. we'll yield back our time -- the chair: does the gentleman yield back his time, the gentleman from california? mr. whitfield: i want to make a statement in closing. if you want to speak again, mr. waxman. mr. waxman: we'll reserve. mr. whitfield: don't i have the right to close?

the speaker pro tempore: correct. mr. whitfield: go ahead and close. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from california yield back his time? mr. waxman: if the gentleman from kentucky has the right to close, i will yield back our time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: well, thank you very much. we certainly do appreciate this discussion on this important bill. i can tell you that rural does consider this to be a real problem. the gentleman from california mentioned correctly so that we're operating under 1987 particulate matter standards. in 1997 and 2006 the e.p.a. went back to review that standard, and they made a determination at that time that they would not take further action but they were sued, litigation ensued and every five years e.p.a. is required

by the clean air act to look at this. and we know there are going to be further lawsuits, and so that's why we think it's absolutely mandatory that congress assert itself and set out the policy that we do not want e.p.a. regulating the dust on farms and ranches in america. i might also add that in a letter we received from the board of supervisors, the county of imperial in arizona, under the existing standards that e.p.a. is operating under, they said the original rule that e.p.a. had covered farms of 40 acres or more which is 97% of all farmland in the valley. e.p.a. is now insisting that that be changed to all farms of 10 acres or more. and for what purpose? it seems clear that there's

absolutely no justification for imposing requirements that would have a negative impact on the economy and the employment in imperial county when the rules and controls would not change the ability of the county to meet the standards on the few high particulate matter days that are caused by exceptional events. so in closing, i would simply say we view this is a real problem. congress needs to assert itself and set a definitive policy on this issue, and i would urge all members to support this legislation and would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on energy and commerce printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in house report 112-317, each such

amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as 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. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-317. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. rush: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: clerk. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-317 offered by mr. rush of illinois. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 487, the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. rush: mr. speaker, if the premise of this bill is to simply provide regulatory certainty to rural farmers and reiterate what administrator jackson has already publicly stated, that the e.p.a. would

not alter the bush-era standards for coarse particulate matter, then the rush amendment would satisfy that objective. during the subcommittee hearing on h.r. 1633, we heard testimony from the bill's sponsor that the intent of this legislation was to address the regulatory uncertainty over, quote, farm dust, end of quote. however, during that same hearing, we heard testimony from the assistant administrator of the office of air and radiation, jane mccarthy. she expressed serious concern over the language in the bill and the overly broad impact it could have on existing clean

air act programs. mr. speaker, the rush amendment would remove the ambiguity and provide clarity to the bill's intent so we can keep in place standards to protect our nation's most vulnerable population. at the end of section 2, my amendment would add the following -- nothing in this act precludes the administrator from proposing, finalizing, implementing or enforcing the national primary ambient air quality standard or the national secondary air quality standard for pm-2.35, end of quote. because there is such

widespread suspicion, then the real intent of this bill is to roll back existing clean air protections, my amendment would strike section 3 altogether which contains the most overliam big with us and excess -- overly ambiguous and excessive language. it would not exclude particulate pollution from sources such as mining processing plants, rail mines, filters, coal mines, coal processing plants, kiln and waste and recovery facilities. mrs. mccarthy raised serious concerns about the effect of this mill on existing -- bill

on existing health-based standards -- is not a scientifically defined term and it will be very difficult to incorporate assigned into a scientifically based program. as mrs. mccarthy noted, coarse materials have been linked to a variety of adverse health effects, including hospital visits relating to cardiovascular and respiratory disease and premature deaths. while the scientific evidence is much more limited for coarse p.m., the agency's review of the studies indicate that short-term exposure to coarse particulates remain a concern. end of quote. mr. speaker, the rush amendment will provide regulatory

certainty to rural farmers while also protecting our nation's most vulnerable population, including our children, our senior citizens, people with low income and people with lung does such as asthma, chronic bronchitis and emphysema. mr. speaker, i urge all my colleagues to support my amendment and with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: mr. chairman, while i have great deal of respect and admiration to the gentleman from illinois, i am going to oppose this amendment. i would say, first of all, this legislation does not change in any way the current e.p.a. 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 pm-10 standard for one year which we agree with.

but because it strikes section 3, which is the main part and substance 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. the chair: does the gentleman yield back his time? mr. whitfield: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. rush: mr. speaker, i ask for a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in

house report 112-317. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. waxman: i am offering this amendment, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: is the gentleman the designee for the gentlelady from the virgin islands? mr. waxman: yes, i am the designee to offer this amendment. mr. chairman, it's not necessary. because the author of the amendment is here and i would have her -- i think it will be more appropriate for her to offer the amendment which i strongly support. the chair: does the gentlelady offer the amendment? mrs. christensen: yes. the chair: clerk. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-317 offered by mrs. christensen of the virgin islands. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 387, the gentlelady from the virgin islands, mrs. christensen, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from the virgin islands.

mrs. christensen: thank you, mr. chairman. this bill will dramatically weaken the clean air act and delay public health protections against particulate matter. it is serious and has been well documented. thousands of studies published over the last nine years make a stronger case of fine particles and indicate that the current standard must be revisited in order to ensure that the public health is protected. the mainly health effects of fine particular matter include reduced lung function, missed school days due to respiratory systems, increased use of asthma medications, strokes, emergency room visits, hospital admissions, lung cancer and premature death. at levels well below the current national air quality standards. this bill, h.r. 1633, eliminates e.p.a.'s authority to control so-called nuisance dust accept

in a very narrow -- except in a very narrow set of circumstances. first thed a minute straighter must find -- first the administrator must find that it causes effects. second, if the administrator determines that nuisance dust causes substantial harm, she must also find that the benefits of regulating nuisance dust outweigh the costs, including aspects of unemployment. this approach upends the way e.p.a. has been setting health-based air pollution standards for 40 years. the clean air act requires e.p.a. to set each air quality standard based purely on science and medical evidence showing the health effects of exposure to the pollutants. the standard basically identifies the level of pollution that's safe to breathe, the clean air act also requires e.p.a. to set the standard with an adequate margin of safety to account for uncertainty and protect sensitive subpopulations such as children with asthma.

essentially this bill would require e.p.a. to determine the level of air pollution that is safe to breathe based on costs of control, not medical evidence. third, under this bill the administrator only has this listed authority in areas where states, local or tribal governments are not regulating nuisance dust. but the bill provides no minimum standard of protection, no federal floor. that means that even the most minimal state or local requirement is sufficient to bar e.p.a. action on anything that falls under the definition of nuisance dust. it's -- mr. chairman, to claim that any state or local dust regulation, no matter how minimal, would be sufficient to protect the public health. we've tried to address air pollution only on the state and local level throughout the 1960's. it did not work. companies blocked cleaner air

protections by threatening to leave for other states with weaker standards. this widely acknowledged failure produced overwhelming support for the cooperative federalism approach embodied in the clean air act since 1970. under this approach, the federal government sets minimum uniform standards to protect health and states and locates then decide how to achieve those standards. since 1970 every american has had the same basic right to clean and healthy air. my amendment simply preserves those rights. it ensures that the resident of every state and locate are afforded a baseline level of protection against particle pollution. my amendment says that if the state, local or tribal laws are not sufficient to protect public health from exposure to dangerous particle pollution, then e.p.a. has the authority under the clean air act to step in and take action to reduce

that pollution. this bill tries to turn back the clock, the to a time when the state and local air pollution laws weren't strong enough to protect public health. those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. let's learn our history and recognize that both states and the federal government play valuable roles in ensuring that americans breathe clean and healthy air. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady's time is reserved. the gentleman from virginia. >> i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank the chairman. this amendment would allow the e.p.a. to override the state and local regulations and thereby gut the purpose of this bill. let's remember what the commonsense purpose of this bill is, there's nothing radical at all about this bill. and in fact in section 3 this bill protects public health. it protects public health by relying on the state and local

regulators who are best equipped to make judgments about naturally occurring dust. mr. hurt: and does nothing, does nothing at all to affect the particulate matter standard. and i think that that's important to note in as much as it seems that the opposition seems to want to forget that. let's remember the ultimate purpose of this bill and that is to protect the farmer and the rural businesses from overreaching federal regulation that causes uncertainty and it causes job loss. however, the e.p.a. and the opposition talks about the myth. they say there's more likely that the e.p.a. would regulate fairy dust. they say that this is a solution in search of a problem. but our farmers know better, our rural business owners know better. they know better because they're able and have looked at the proposed regulations and the proposals from the e.p.a. staff that's dated back in april in

which they propose looking at -- and revising the pm-10 standard. they also have seen the letter that was sent to my office in may of this year in which mrs. mccarthy, the assistant administrator, makes it clear that agriculture and agricultural dust and dust coming off of roads is absolutely within the larger -- larger view of these standards. that's what our farmers know. but most of all they know their experience. they know what they have endured over the years, over the decades of what comes out of washington and how it effects their everyday life. if you look at their track record, you can only see why there is uncertainty and why they believe this is a very, very real threat. i am proud to be able to travel across my rural district in southside virginia and central

virginia and talk to farmers. in august i sat down with a group of farmers. and one of the farmers that was there is a peach farmer, a fruit grower. and he said to me, he said, you know, mr. hurt, he said, on my farm, wherify family's been for generations, growing peaches to for our customers, he says, i'm regulated by the department of labor. the department of agriculture. the f.d.a. the i.r.s., department of transportation. the corps of engineers, the e.p.a. and the list goes on when you add the state and local regulators. he says, i'm regulated by all of those different agencies, most of them federal agencies, and all i'm trying to do is grow a peach. how hard can it be? and i think when you look at the commonsense purpose of this bill you will see that this amendment would gut it and it is for that reason that i would urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. thank you. the chair: does the gentleman

yield back his time? mr. hurt: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from the virgin islands has 30 seconds remaining. mrs. christensen: i'd like to add that my amendment does not take away any authority from the state, local and tribal governments, it just ensures that they set standards that are based on the protection of the public health and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from the virgin islands. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mrs. christensen: i ask for a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-317. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? mr. crawford: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-317 offered by mr. crawford of arkansas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 487, the gentleman from arkansas, mr. crawford, and

a member opposed will each control five minutes. mr. crawford: thank you, mr. speaker. my amendment is very straightforward and i believe it will help provide the proper amount of interagency communication with the e.p.a. when they go to write air quality standards for particulate matter. the legislation being considered today excludes nuisance dust from the e.p.a. regulatory net but the bill provides an exemption if the e.p.a. determines that the economic benefits of regulating dust outweigh the cost. my amendment would simply direct the e.p.a. to consult with the department of agriculture in making its determination. as a member of the ag committee i've heard testimony from both the secretary of agriculture and the e.p.a. administrator on how their respective agencies propose and write regulations. a problem became apparent to me that the two agencies don't seem to communicate. neither agency could give me a sufficient explanation of the protocol for interagency communication between the e.p.a. and the usda. their responses were bureaucratic and vague. i find this troubling because if you ask the farmers and ranchers in my arkansas district about the greatest threat to their operations they always respond

with three letters, e.p.a. i don't think their response would be the same if both agencies worked together more often. perhaps the best example of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing occurred this past summer when the president was in his home state of illinois for a town hall event. one farmer asked the president why the e.p.a. was targeting new regulations at farmers after a difficult growing season through the midwest and midsouth this year. the president pointed to secretary vilsack for backup and asked the farmer to explain the specific regulations. the farmer cited rules that would be crippling to the ag community including regulating farm dust. president obama defiantly dismissed the question by saying, quote, don't always believe what you hear. he later told the crowd, if you ever have a question as to whether it's going to make it harder for you to farm, contact usda. it seems to me that the president didn't understand it's e.p.a. not the department of agriculture that was the source of this man's frustrations. yet the -- if the president doesn't realize that the e.p.a. is coming down hard on our nation's farmers and ranchers then why would the agency itself find it necessary to consider

agriculture in proposing regulations? clearly it does not. my amendment would ensure that the e.p.a., the department of agriculture work together if the e.p.a. seeks to further regulation the agriculture industry in the future. the department of agriculture understands the economic well-being of our nation's farmers and ranchers better than any other agency and should have a degree of input whenever the e.p.a. writes rules that directly impact farmers and ranchers. this amendment would be a small but important step in that direction. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: meerm mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that i be able to control the time that would be allotted to those in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. for five minutes. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, this bill is -- the crawford amendment simply requires e.p.a. to consult with the secretary of agriculture before making any determination about the health threat posed by pollution in an area as well as the cost and benefits of taking action. i don't know that the department of agriculture has much to contribute in terms of the

health threats, but the bill is so objectionable already, it is hard to argue that this amendment makes it decertainably worse. it's a drop in a very large bucket. for that reason i will not oppose this amendment and we're willing to accept it. but i still am in opposition to the bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arkansas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in house report 112-317. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. markey: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 offered by mr. markey of massachusetts. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 48 7, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. marky, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i yield myself two minutes. at this time.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. markey: in this legislation the republican majority exempts all so-called nuisance dust from the protective air quality standards for coarse particle or soot pollution under the clean air act. republicans have defined nuisance dust to include particulate matter that is generated from earth moving or other activities that are typically conducted in rural areas. this legislation's broad definition means a bill which is supposed to be all about tractors and farms is actually about barring e.p.a. from regulating the toxic soot that comes out of mines, smelters, chemical plants. and that's because all of these materials come from earth moving, natural materials activities that take place in rural areas. now, i don't know about the majority but when most people hear the word nuisance they think of things like honking,

telemarketters and buzzing flies them. don't think of poison. by preventing e.p.a. from regulating the toxic soot spewing out of mining operations, smelters, chemical facilities an construction sites, republicans have apparently decided that poisonous chemicals such as arsenic, lead and mercury are mere nuisances. this false advertising is not a total surprise. we have heard from republican witnesses in the past who in defense of the most polluting industries have unwillingly offered up the absurd. in fact, in the last congress, at a hearing i chaired, the republican witness said he would be happy to sprinkle arsenic-laced coal ash on his cereal. it turns out that the republican witness is not alone in his suggestion to use arsenic as a dietary supplement. arsenic, which is a major component of mining activities, was famously used to poison and kill a number of prominent people throughout history,

including in a pole on, king george iiu -- napoleon, king george iii and the emperor of china. in the 19th century -- that the point i would like to reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from nebraska. mr. terry: i claim the time in opposition. i thank the chairman and appreciate the gentleman from boston's arguments here about the fact that -- or suggesting that this bill somehow exempts arsenic and all these poisons and the reality is, it does not. it's an unnecessary amendment, it, one, is to make a point that i think is inflated. the reality is emissions of arsenic above the standard would still be in violation of a

e.p.a. rules. the also then exist if you're going to move the goal post to a zero particulate, then we've got a different issue here. now, the dust that we're talking about from agricultural activities, plowing, harvesting, driving on roads, in our own definition says that it consists primarily of soil and other natural and biological materials. so if you're going to adopt a new standard, totally different than current standards that the e.p.a. on such issues like arsenic, the reality in rural america is a natural part of our soil and when dust would kick up and blow it will be at a particulate level below what the standards are and we're just trying to say, look, the

reality is the e.p.a. even says that at the extremely minor level of particulates that would be inherent in topsoil that could be kicked up by wind or farming activities is not a health risk. in fact, one of the authors of the e.p.a.'s most recent integrated science assessment for particulate matter issued in 2010 testified before our committee and stated, quote, for long-term effects of coarse particulates there is next to no evidence in support of long-term health affects. and in rural america, in nebraska, we can show you real-life examples. in rural america they have the highest health standards and longevity of life and health. so with that i will let the gentleman close on his

amendment and yield back time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. markey: in the 19th century, mercury, another common mining waste, was used as a cure-all for two things and other ailments. turns out the mercury is also is highly toxic. it causes severe impacts on the brain, and throughout history has been identified as the poison behind many other notable illnesses and deaths in the history of our planet. by defining nuisance dust this way, the republicans are essentially providing the mining industry with the holiday gift of pollution. instead of goals, the republicans are bearing gifts of arsenic and mercury for

every american. the so-called nuisance dust doesn't include poisonous arsenic or other heavy metals that are hazardous to human health because cancer is not a nuisance. the development of a child's brain is not a nuisance. yet, the republicans would treat these conditions as a nuisance rather than as medical can t.s.a. row fees for the familiar -- catastrophes for the families of america. so let's be clear what this bill is all about. this is another attempt by the republicans to protect big coal by creating another loophole to avoid the clean air act so that families don't have to worry that their children are inhaling these dangerous materials, the arsenic, the

lead, the mercury that they are petro find are going to have -- petroified are going to have a long-term affect on their child's development. that's what this is all about. bottom line. and the coal industry is saying no. the republicans are using the guise of some farm dust, cloud of confusion to mask what they're really trying to do which is to allow the coal industry to send this lead, this mercury, this arsenic up into the air and into the lungs of children across our country, especially those that are so young that we know it has an impact on their development. especially of their brain. so i urge an aye vote on this amendment, and i don't think there can be a more important amendment that we are going to vote on in this congress, and i

yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. markey: on that i ask the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in house report 112-317. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. waxman: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: clerk. -- the clerk will designate the amendment. the chair: amendment number 5 offered by mr. waxman of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 487, the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, and a member opposed, each will

control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: this bill is nothing more than a bait and switch. the title says it's about farm dust, but in reality it would exempt air pollution from a number of industrial sources from the entire clean air act, including mines. the bill defines nuisance dust to include particulate matter and consists primarily of natural materials that's generated from earth moving. so when you look at that definition, it would allow exemption from the requirement of the clean air act from mines. this is an egregious overreach that would allow mines to release particulate matter into the air without any controls. the utah copper mine serves a perfect example of why this is a problem. it operates one of the largest open pit copper mines in the

world in utah. the mine is even visible from space. every day they mine about 150,000 tons of copper ore, 30,000 tons of waste rock from the mine. the operations is the single largest source of particulate material in utah. this mine is having -- the mine is having a significant impact on air quality, even with the pollution control requirements in place. there is simply no reason, therefore, to say we are going to take care of the issue by exempting these mines from regulation under the clean air act. and that is what this bill would do. it would exempt all particle pollution from the mine's activities from the entire clean air act. that mine is now meeting the requirements of the clean air act. they're doing what they need to do to stop the harm from the

pollution from that mine. if we adopt this bill, it would allow them to refrain from doing anything but just simply spew the pollution forward. these mining operations kinnecoch and others, would have coarse particulate matter and yet under this bill they would be exempt from regulation. so my amendment simply clarifies that this bill does not apply to particle pollution from any mining activities. the science shows that coarse and fine particle pollution, regardless of the source, can trigger asthma attacks, heart attacks, stroke and premature deaths and that's why i oppose exempting this from the clean air act and that's why i oppose the bill. at a minimum, if we adopt this

amendment, we will ensure that the bill is true to its name. the farm dust regulation prevention act. large industrial mines and gravel mining operations shouldn't get a free pass to pollute under the clever pretense of being involved with farmers. and i would urge my colleagues to support this amendment, exempting the mine operations from coverage under this bill and making sure the bill only covers the coarse particulates from farming operations. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentlelady from washington. ms. noem: thank you, mr. speaker. just to let me clarify, the purpose of this legislation, h.r. 1633, is to exempt rural dust from costly and unnecessary federal regulation. it doesn't do anything to exempt any kind of facility, source or mine from environmental regulation. ms. herrera beutler: the place

i represent is one of the toughest world to mine. mining and agricultural dust is comprehensiblely regulated by state agencies and many, many federal statutes currently in place. including the service mining and control reclamation act, federal mine safety act, recovery act, clean water act, federal land policy and management act, the national environmental policy act and many others. this includes regulation by the department of interior of dust from wind erosion and vehicle traffic associated with mines. state and local authorities will still have full authority to impose nuisance dust controls and rural america needs certainty that they won't be second guessed by the e.p.a. i urge a no on this amendment. and bottom line, if you stop and think about it, there's a story here. a fory of two paths forward.

one path has -- a story of two paths forward. one path that will bring job and economic independence to this country. the second path has brought and will continue to bring economic stagnation to our nation. the irony is that the administration seems to continue to advocate for the second path. of course, i'm talking about the path of e.p.a. overregulation that continues to put a stranglehold on businesses and economic growth in this country. the next phase of the e.p.a.'s path is america's farmland. whether you're working in the field, herding cattle or driving down a dirt road, the e.p.a. wants to regulate the dust you pick up. the farm dust regulation prevention act of 2011 will ensure this path is stopped by prohibiting the implementation of a stricter p.m.t. standard for one year and exempting nuisance dust, like farm dust, from any future p.m.t. regulation.

i applaud my colleagues, representatives noem and hurt, for introducing this important legislation. i urge my colleagues to support it and would like to reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady's time is reserved. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, farm dust is not the same thing as pollution from a mine. and my amendment would exclude pollution from a mine as part of this legislation so that it could stay under e.p.a. regulation under the clean air act as it is today. there's no reason to give the mining operations whether they are in rural or urban areas a pass, not to even meet the requirements to protect the public from unsafe pollutants that could cause health -- adverse health impacts. i urge adoption of the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentlelady from washington. ms. mcmorris roger r.s.c. thank you very much. i'd like to -- mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you very much.

i'd like to yield to the chair of the subcommittee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. whitfield: this is a little off topic. we have a young man that served the energy and commerce committee and to me personally for many years, did an outstanding job. his name is jeff mortier and tomorrow is his last day as an employee for the house of representatives, and i just want to take this opportunity to thank him for the great job that he did and to wish him the very best in his new endeavor and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. waxman: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 6