Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1633) to establish a temporary prohibition against revising 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.

For our hardworking stenographers, it's late into the evening, and we thank you for all the work that you do recording our words, many of which are worth listening to and having written down and some of which are probably not.

I want to thank my colleagues from across the aisle for bringing the issue

of securing our borders to our attention tonight and along with it the issue of immigration. I would just like to remind them that the current administration has done more in the last 2\1/2\ years to secure our borders than in the previous 8 years of the George W. Bush administration, putting more Border Patrol to work--significantly more--and also putting on the borders members of the National Guard. It remains a difficult and in very many places a very dangerous situation. Nonetheless, a great deal is being done.

I would also like to remind my colleagues from the Republican side that they control this House. When a certain piece of legislation came here with regard to appropriations, they actually proposed to cut the men and women that are there to protect the border. So I'm not quite sure I understood all of tonight's debate from their side. And also I would remind them that if immigration is such a big issue, they should bring a comprehensive immigration bill to this floor so that we have a rational immigration policy in the United States.

I guess it's easier to talk than it is to take action.

What I would like to spend tonight talking about is putting Americans back to work. Let's go back to work. This is one great country. We're America. We're the people that make things. We're the people that can do things. We're the people that want to go back to work. And this government wants to put people back to work.

About a month ago the President proposed the American Jobs Act, a very comprehensive program that would put Americans back to work. I want to spend this evening talking about the critical and the most important elements of that legislation that he has proposed. Unfortunately, our friends in the Senate--well, maybe they're not America's friends--they killed the American Jobs Act. When it came up for a vote this week, they chose to not allow it to come to a vote. They did one of their little filibuster routines over there, with every Republican voting against putting Americans back to work.

Now, I don't know exactly what they have in mind. I guess they would like the economy to stumble along with millions of Americans out of work. They couldn't possibly want that. They couldn't possibly want a situation where men and women are desperate for a job when there's an opportunity--and I'll explain in a few moments how many people will be able to go back to work if this American Jobs Act were actually to become law. But they voted not even to allow it to come to a vote. They did one of their little filibuster threats and every Republican lined up sufficient in number to block the bill from moving forward.

I must say two of my Democratic colleagues over there also voted on the wrong side of putting Americans back to work. But I'll let them explain that to their constituents.

So what is the American Jobs Act? Well, let's start with the foundation. The foundation of any economy is the infrastructure. It is that part of the structure of an economy that is the foundation. It is the transportation system. Infrastructure is the sanitation and the water systems and the modern communication systems.

In the President's American Jobs Act is $50 billion, in addition to what we're already spending, to build the bridges, to repair the roads, to add to the transportation systems--the light rail, the heavy rail, the Amtrak systems--to move Americans, and also to move modern communication systems. Fifty billion dollars.

What does that mean to my State of California? Well, it's $4 billion right off the top. It's 51,500 jobs that could begin the day after this House and the Senate sends to the President the American Jobs Act--$50 billion, 51,500 jobs for California, building the foundation of economic growth.

In addition to that, the President proposed a $10 billion capitalization of an infrastructure bank in which pension funds from around the Nation could then invest in that infrastructure bank--more money for those projects that are not earmarks, not political, but rather jobs and programs that are actually needed in communities, that have the ability to repay the loans that the infrastructure bank would make.

Let me just put up a couple of things here that really build an economy, and we will soon come to this issue of making it in America. But before I do, I just want to point out that these are the key elements in creating an economy.

We talked a moment ago about the infrastructure. It's down here at the bottom, not for any reason other than that's the foundation. So the infrastructure. The other thing that's in the American Jobs Act deals with this: education. Now, education is the most fundamental investment that any society must make if it's going to have future economic growth and social justice.

So what has the President proposed in the American Jobs Act for education? How about putting 280,000 teachers back to work the day after this bill passes this Congress and the Senate and is signed by the President; 280,000 teachers in the classrooms teaching our children, preparing them to compete in the world's economy; 280,000 teachers. For California, $3.6 billion and 37,000 teachers in the classroom immediately.

Now, my daughter is a teacher; my son-in-law is a teacher. Their class size went from 22 or 24 to 35, a very difficult situation for any teacher in the second grade to be able to adequately prepare those children. However, my daughter is a great teacher and she's hanging in there, but this is tough. This is a very, very difficult situation. What would it mean to her if there's one additional second grade teacher in her school? It would mean her classroom size would come down and her ability to bring those kids along faster would very, very much be in play. 280,000 teachers. So that's the education piece of it.

Let's talk for a moment about the classroom itself. We know here in Congress, all 435 of us, we go back to our districts and we see our schools. The parents out there, they know their schools need to be renovated. They know that many of the bathrooms aren't working. They know the playgrounds are in disrepair. They know the paint is peeling and the roofs are leaking. In the President's bill, 35,000 schools across this Nation are going to be renovated--35,000 schools. In California, that amounts to 2,800 schools being rehabilitated and 36,000 jobs.

This is a big deal. If a kid takes pride in his school, he's going to be a better student. If a kid sees his school and it's in disrepair, bathrooms are not working, he could just lose interest. So let's give them a good environment in which to learn. And so the President has proposed $25 billion, 35,000 schools across this Nation. This is a big deal for education: teachers, better schools, renovation.

And for community colleges, there's also money in here for community colleges, $5 billion to upgrade the plant, the laboratories, the science facilities for community colleges across this Nation.

Let's go back to work. Let's put America back to work. Let's pass the American Jobs Act. The Senate, you haven't helped. In this House, in the House of Representatives, the Republican leadership refuses to even bring this bill up for a vote, even bring it to a hearing in any of the committees. They simply say ``no.'' So what's their solution? What's their solution for putting Americans back to work? Well, thus far it's been to cut budgets, to lay people off all across this Nation.

How is this going to get paid for? It's fully paid for. This is not going to be borrowed money. This is not going out and borrowing money to create jobs here in the United States, fundamental investments that we need to grow the economy. This American Jobs Act, just under $500 billion, is fully paid for. It's paid for by fairness. Finally, some fairness in our tax policies. No longer are the superrich in this Nation going to be able to skip out of their share of carrying the burden of America. No longer are we going to see situations in which the top 1 percent of America continue to acquire more and more wealth at the expense of the rest of this Nation.

The President and the Senate Democrats--and I credit them with this, positively credit them with this--have said, let's allow the millionaires to share in putting Americans back to work. They certainly have benefited significantly over these years. They will have their opportunity to pay their fair share and put Americans back to work.

Now, on tax policy, there's another thing here. Some are going to pay more. Those millionaires who have more than $1 million of annual income, yes, they will pay more. However, the working men and women of America, the 160 million working men and women in America are going to get a tax break. They're going to see one half of their payroll tax reduced, about $1,500 per person. This is a big deal. To have an extra $1,500 in your pocket, you'll be able to pay your mortgage, buy food for your kids, be able to go out, and maybe replace that refrigerator that's broken. 160 million Americans are going to get a tax break when their payroll tax is reduced.

Now, what about the businesses in America? We hear a lot of talk from our Republican friends about protecting small business. The American Jobs Act provides 98 percent of the businesses of America with a 50 percent reduction in their payroll tax, a 50 percent reduction in their payroll tax. What's more, in California, 710,000 businesses will see a 50 percent reduction in their payroll tax. That's a big deal. That's money that those businesses can then use to hire new workers.

And if they hire a new worker, guess what? The President has proposed that if they hire a long-term unemployed worker, they will have a $4,000 tax credit, a tax credit. That is money right off the bottom line that they don't have to pay to the government, a reduction in their taxes. And if they go out and they hire an injured veteran coming home from the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq, they will get another tax credit. And if they hire a long-term unemployed person, similarly, very strong incentives in this legislation for employers to hire the unemployed, to hire our heroes who are returning from the wars--some injured--giving an additional incentive to hire those people. And let's understand that they do come back with skills, not just skills in war, but skills in communication, skills in repairing machinery. These are vital skills that most businesses in the United States need.

So when we look at the American Jobs Act that the President brought here to this House with the speech, standing right there, a speech to the joint session, he said, Pass this law.

Let's go back to work. Let's go back to work, America. We are a strong, vibrant Nation. We're a Nation of workers. We're not a Nation of slackers. We're a Nation that wants to work. And what we need is a government that's willing to help American go back to work. And that's what the President has proposed in the American Jobs Act.

So where is the American Jobs Act? It died in the Senate early this week.

Did it die? I don't think so. Americans are rising up across this Nation. They are in the streets. We often talked about the ``Arab Street'' and the ``Arab Spring.''

Well, this is the ``Autumn in America,'' and Americans are back in the street and they are demanding jobs. They're demanding fairness in their tax policy. They're demanding that Wall Street bankers get with the program of putting Americans back to work. Stop playing your games and all of your derivatives. Stop all of those computerized trading games and make the loans, make the loans to American businesses. That's what the people in the streets are saying. They want fairness in this system. They want a job. They want to be able to get an education, and they want this government to do the kinds of things that the President has proposed in the American Jobs Act: education, teachers in the classroom, renovating the schools, building the infrastructure, putting this Nation back on its feet. That's what we can do, and that's what we must do.

Let's take a look at the other things that are necessary if America is going to make it. If America's going to make it, we must, once again, make it in America. Make it in America. This Nation is still, even though we have lost more than half of our manufacturing jobs in the last 25 years--that's right. In this Nation of manufacturers, in this Nation where we once built the armaments of the world, where we once built the cars of the world, where we once built the great earthmovers, in this Nation that once was the strongest manufacturing Nation in the world, we have lost half of the manufacturing jobs.

How did that happen? It happened with tax laws that encouraged American corporations to go global, to offshore American jobs and get a tax break.

You heard me right. American tax policy, until last December, gave American corporations a tax break for every job they shipped offshore. Before the Democrats lost the House of Representatives in January of this year, we passed a law that repealed those tax benefits. More than $12 billion returned to the United States Treasury, taken out of the hands of American corporations that were shifting jobs overseas--$12 billion. Not one, not one Republican voted to end that tax break.

Let's understand. There's a very different way in which we look at how to make it in America. End the tax breaks that allow corporations to shift jobs offshore.

Trade policy. My view, today is a sad day in American trade policy. Today this House, and yesterday the Senate, passed three trade bills. They were called ``free trade.'' They were certainly not fair trade, in my estimation. Those trade bills are going to cause a loss of American jobs no matter how you look it, and I'll tell you what the proof is.

No sooner had those three trade bills passed out of this House than a fourth bill came up. You know what the fourth bill was? It's called the Trade Adjustment Act, providing a substantial amount of money, billions of dollars for those workers that lose their jobs as a result of the three trade bills that passed this House today.

Do you get it? What's going on here?

You're telling me these are going to create jobs, and then you turn around not more than 50 seconds later and pass a bill that provides unemployment benefits and educational benefits for the very same workers that lose their jobs as a result of those fair trade acts? Excuse me--free trade, not fair trade.

Anyway, trade's an important issue. This Nation has opened its doors to the world. You send your stuff here and we'll buy it. And the doors around the world only opened a little tiny bit. It's not fair.

Nonetheless, the President will sign it and we'll go on our way.

We talked about tax policy.

Let me talk about one more thing here that's really important. Here we go. I think I'll leave that up there. Again, it's tax policy. I suspect most of you have been offered an opportunity to buy photovoltaic solar systems for your roof, generate your own electricity. And I suspect many Americans have seen the big wind turbines and these wind farms going round and round generating electricity.

This is really important energy policy for this Nation. It is extremely important that we move to these renewable energy sources. However, it is part of the American energy policy to encourage investments in solar and wind and biofuels and other kinds of renewable energy, and we do that in a variety of ways. We do that by loan guarantees. We do that with direct subsidies. We do that with tax credits. All of those are our tax money being used to encourage the appropriate and correct energy policy.

However, there's one thing missing. Where are those pieces of equipment made? Where is our tax money going? Where is it going? Is it going to American-made solar panels, American-made wind turbines, or is it going to solar panels that are made in China or Germany, Korea? Where are those solar panels made, and where is that gigantic wind turbine made with blades that are 300 feet across? Are those made in America? Our tax money is being used to buy it.

This is my legislation, House Resolution 487. It says this: If you're going to use our American tax money, your tax money, my tax money, the American tax money, if you're going to use that tax money to subsidize the purchase of a solar panel, a wind turbine, a bio-electric system, then that tax money's going to be used to buy American-made equipment. We're going to make it in America when we use our tax money to buy American-made equipment. That's what this bill does. And I think we ought to be passing this, along with the American Jobs Act.

If we're going to go out and spend $50 billion on infrastructure, then it ought

to be American-made concrete. That ought to be American-made steel on those bridges. It ought to be American-made, and we can make it in America if we have the right policies in place.

A couple of more things.

Any of you buy gasoline? Any Americans out there buying diesel fuel for their trucks or their pickups or cars? When you do, you're paying a tax. It's the excise tax on fuel. A little over, what is it, about 16 cents, 18 cents for gasoline and 24.5 cents, 25 cents for diesel fuel. So every gallon you're paying a tax.

Where's that tax money go? It goes to build your highways, to repair your highways. It goes to build your bridges. It goes to buy trains, locomotives for Amtrak. It goes to buy light rails for San Diego, heavy rail or transit systems for Washington, DC.

That's where the money goes. And we need it. We need that money to be spent on our basic transportation systems, whether they are the rails, the concrete for the highways or the steel for the bridges, or for the buses and trains that we travel in. However, is that money being used to purchase American-made concrete and American-made steel for the bridges? Is it used to buy American-made buses, American-made trains, locomotives and light rail systems? Not always. But if my legislation, H.R. 613, becomes law, it will be American made; and, once again, we will make it in America because we're using our tax money to buy American-made equipment.

We can put Americans back to work, and we must put Americans back to work. We can do these things. We can use our government in coordination and cooperation with the private sector to build this Nation once again, to build the infrastructure of this Nation, to educate our children, to do the research that's necessary for tomorrow's innovation. We can do this. We can use our tax money wisely to buy American-made equipment, American-made buses and steel. We can do it.

But we need good laws to do it. We need wise laws to do it. We need to not just abandon the American worker and say there's nothing that can be done, government has to get out of the way, just back up and let it go. It doesn't happen that way. We wish it did, but it doesn't happen that way. There are no economists out there that are saying, continue to cut government spending and somehow there will be jobs created. If you cut that spending now, then you're going to lay people off.

Surely we have to deal with the deficit, and that's going to take 5 to 10 years to do that. So what we need to do now, in a balanced way, with the American Jobs Act, is to put people back to work, to let those who have prospered so much, those who have made out so well in this economy, the top 1 percent, those whose annual income is $1 million or more, in fairness, in equity, in what is right for this Nation, let them share the burden. Let them help the 99 percent that have been struggling these many, many years. Let them help with their taxes. They can afford it. They're not going to go belly up, they're not going to be hurting, and they're not going to be out in the street homeless. They're going to continue to do very, very well.

Fairness demands, as the President has proposed and as the Democrats in the Senate have proposed, that the millionaires, those whose annual adjusted gross income is more than $1 million, that they pay a little extra, that they contribute to the future of this Nation. And in doing so, the American Jobs Act that the President has proposed could become law, not increasing the deficit, but, in fact, reducing the deficit by giving Americans the work, by restarting the great engine of the American economy and by making it in America once again. That's where our future lies, and that's where we must go.

So, as we go about the debates this week, as we talk about those things that are before us, let us think about making it in America, let us find ways to use the wisdom of 535 Members of Congress and the Senate and the administration to reflect the wisdom of the American public. Use our tax money here at home. Put Americans back to work, educate, create a fair and equitable tax system. We can do it. We have no choice but to do it.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Over the past year, Republicans have brought to the floor one bill after another to weaken the Clean Air Act and eliminate EPA authority to protect public health from dangerous air pollution. The House has passed bills to nullify EPA'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 EPA from taking an action that EPA has no plan to take.

This bill is called the ``Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act of 2011.'' Well, that's a misleading title. EPA currently does not regulate farm dust and they have no plans to regulate farm dust. EPA 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 in 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 three 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 particulates and deadly fine particulates. It covers particulates from earth moving-- which means industrial mining operations--and from activities typically conducted in rural areas, which include cement plants, smelters, coal processing plants, and other industrial activities that are common in rural areas.

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 agricultural dust and another amendment to clarify that the bill does not apply to mining activities. They even voted down an amendment to preserve EPA's authority to regulate emissions of arsenic from copper mines and smelters.

One supporter of this bill is Kennecott 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 1 million residents of Salt Lake County breathe unhealthy air. This bill would exempt all particulate matter pollution from the Kennecott mine and all 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 unenforceable 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, for one industry after another, the House has voted to punch holes in the Clean Air Act. It has voted for more weather-altering carbon pollution, more toxic mercury pollution, more arsenic and lead pollution, more particulate matter pollution, more sulfur dioxide 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.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to our senior member on the committee and former chairman of our committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the leading Democrat on the Energy Committee, the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to an important member of our committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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 is a 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 pf many industries because EPA 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 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

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

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The unemployment rate in this country is close to 9 percent, and we're not 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, and our Secretary of Defense says that could be a threat to the Nation. And that sequestration will take place because the Republicans wouldn't allow the so-called supercommittee to do its job.

I want to read from an editorial in the Sioux Falls ArgusLeader:

``There are important issues at the Federal level right now that will have direct impact on our State--the dwindling funding for the Lewis and Clark water project and the fight to maintain our State's Medicare reimbursements through the Frontier States Provision . . . These are real issues . . . So it's disappointing to see [this] fight against a made-up problem like the potential for farm dust regulations by the Environmental Protection Agency.

When the EPA announced it would not pursue anything along these lines and they had no intention 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 made-up threat that they want to help protect us from. I urge Members to vote against this bill.''

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to control the time that would be allotted to those in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, the Crawford amendment simply requires EPA 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 costs 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's hard to argue that this amendment makes it discernibly worse. It's a drop in a very large bucket.

For that reason, I will not oppose this amendment. We're willing to accept it, but I still am in opposition to the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The supporters of this bill said they're simply trying to exempt harmless dirt from farms and ranches from regulation under the Clean Air Act. That simply is not the case. 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, that consists primarily of natural materials generated from sources that include ``earth moving.'' So when you look at that definition, it would allow mines to be exempted from the requirements of the Clean Air Act. This is an egregious overreach that would allow mines to release particulate matter into the air without any controls.

The Kennecott, Utah, Copper Mine serves as a perfect example of why this is such a problem. Kennecott Copper 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 and 330,000 tons of waste rock from the Bingham Canyon mine. Kennecott's operations are the single largest source of particulate pollution in Utah.

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 well, we're going to address farm dust by exempting this mine 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 subject to the requirements of the Clean Air Act. They're doing what they need to do to control pollution from that mine. If we adopt this bill, it would allow them to refrain from doing anything other than just simply spewing the pollution.

These mining operations, Kennecott and others, can have a significant impact. They emit large quantities of both fine and coarse particulate matter. 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 death. That's why I oppose exempting favored sources of this pollution from the Clean Air Act, and that's why I oppose the bill.

But at a minimum if we adopt this amendment, we would ensure that the bill is true to its name--the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act. Large industrial open-pit mines and gravel mining operations shouldn't get a free pass to pollute under the clever pretense of being involved with farms.

I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment removing mine operations from coverage under this bill and making sure the bill only covers farming operations.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, farm dust is not the same thing as pollution from a mine. My amendment would exclude pollution from a mine from this legislation so that it stays under EPA regulation under the Clean Air Act, as it is today. There is no reason to give mining operations, whether they're in rural or in urban areas, a pass so that they need not even meet requirements to protect the public from unsafe pollutants that could cause adverse health impacts.

I urge the adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to speak on this amendment.

I wanted to say to the gentleman from Arizona that I think his amendment makes a great deal of sense. It complies with what, I think, the EPA ought to do under these exceptional circumstances, and we are prepared to accept his amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I have several concerns about this amendment, which seems to ignore the reality of how agencies communicate, along with the well- established process for how EPA proposes and finalizes a rule.

First of all, this amendment requires the EPA to conduct additional economic analyses for a broad range of agency actions that could affect agriculture, including guidance documents and policy statements.

Requiring an expensive and time-consuming detailed economic analysis for every policy statement makes no sense.

Secondly, this amendment singles out one favored sector for special treatment. Why should we have an entirely different rulemaking process in place for agriculture? If the Republicans are concerned about the rulemaking process, then they should work with us on a bipartisan basis to improve the way rules are adopted for all sectors, not just one.

This amendment also isn't necessary. EPA already has to evaluate the costs and benefits of each rule to satisfy requirements and numerous statutes. When issuing a rule, EPA has to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, specific environmental statutes, Executive orders on regulatory planning and review requirements of the Office of Management and Budget, and others.

A few minutes ago, we accepted an amendment from the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) that called on EPA not to have a burdensome process when they grant a state flexibility in handling an exceptional event that caused a violation, and he argued we didn't need a burdensome process to get to that result.

This additional burdensome process imposed by this amendment is also unnecessary. According to the GAO, the requirements already in place are quote, ``clearly voluminous and require a wide range of procedural, consultative, and analytical action on the part of the agencies.''

This amendment appears to ignore this well-established process and, instead, would add another burdensome layer to the already lengthy review. It serves no purpose. It bogs down the agency. It creates more bureaucracy. It costs more money. It does not accomplish anything. And insofar as it accomplishes anything, it just stalls the agency from acting in only one area--agriculture.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment as well as oppose the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have?

Mr. Chairman, the EPA goes through an incredible analysis now, the costs and the benefits and all the other considerations. It's appropriate. To add another review of regulations at EPA is to require paralysis by analysis, and perhaps that's the objective of the amendment.

The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schock) has said he can't imagine anything more expensive than what this regulation might do to farmers. Well, I'll tell you something that's more expensive: Tax breaks for zillionaires, billionaires, and millionaires is a lot more expensive than requiring EPA to do even more.

Let's not burden the agency with reviews only for one sector that add nothing to the analysis that they already achieved before they adopt any regulation. And these regulations that are already in effect now are not costing jobs.

This whole bill is supposed to prevent regulations that had not even been adopted. And we're not losing jobs because of that. We're losing jobs because our economy is not functioning, because we don't have a willingness by the Republicans to stimulate this economy, get people back to work and get jobs for those who need them.

I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 487 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying bill. House Resolution 487 provides for a structured rule for consideration of House Resolution 1633, the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act.

The rule makes 8 of the 11 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee in order, a majority of which are Democrat amendments, in order to have robust debate here on the floor of the House of Representatives.

H.R. 1633 passed out of the Energy and Commerce Committee with bipartisan support after proceeding through the committee process under regular order. A subcommittee hearing was followed by a subcommittee markup, and then a markup was held by the full committee, which passed the bill with bipartisan support.

The Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act is quite simple. It seeks regulatory certainty in the short term and a regulatory, commonsense approach in the long term. Specifically, this legislation does two things. First, in the short term, the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act would temporarily prohibit the EPA from issuing a new coarse particulate matter standard for 1 year.

H.R. 1633 does not prohibit EPA from issuing a revised standard for coarse particulate matter after this 1-year timeout. Coarse particulate matter, or PM10, is also known by a much more common name: dust.

Second, in the longer term, this legislation would limit future EPA regulation of nuisance dust to areas where it is not already regulated by State or local government, where it causes substantial adverse effects, and where the benefits of the EPA stepping in would outweigh the costs.

Nuisance dust is particulate matter that is generated primarily from natural sources, dirt roads, earth moving, or other common farm activities. Nuisance dust is pieces of plants plowed up during tilling, soil disturbed by the movement of livestock or bits of rock kicked up by a truck driving down a dirt road. The definition specifically precludes combustion emissions, coal combustion residues and radioactive particulate matter from mining operations.

H.R. 1633 does not eliminate EPA's authority to step in if local or State regulatory efforts fall short of what is needed to adequately protect the public. The bill would allow EPA to step in and regulate ``nuisance dust'' in areas where States and localities do not do so, if it substantially hurts the public health, and if benefits of applying these standards outweigh the cost.

So in summary, if it isn't regulated, it would harm public health, and the benefit of regulation would outweigh the cost of regulation. The EPA could, and presumably would, fill that void.

While EPA Administrator Jackson has announced that she does not plan on changing the standard, EPA has been actively considering a revised, more costly and stringent standard as part of the review process. The same review process increased the stringency of that standard in 1996 and most recently in 2006. Prior to the administrator's announcement, EPA's staff had recommended further changes to the standard.

Despite Administrator Jackson's statement, there is nothing currently on the books preventing the EPA from adopting a stricter regulation. Further, as we all know, the environmental lobby could force a more stringent standard regardless of what the EPA announces, finalizes, or proposes through legal action.

This legislation provides ironclad certainty to farmers, ranchers, small business owners that farm dust would stay off the EPA's to-do list for at least another year. For that very reason, farming, agricultural and rural small business organizations of all shapes and sizes have put their steadfast support behind this legislation. To them, certainty means the ability to grow their business by creating jobs in their communities, feeding every American, and providing for their families through the sale of the fruits of their labors.

The agricultural community and, more largely, rural America is critical to economic growth and job creation. The agricultural sector alone supports 1.8 million American jobs and represents 5 percent of our Nation's total exports. The Obama administration has acknowledged the importance of economic health for rural America. In fact, the President's White House Rural Council has claimed that rural America is ``central to the economic health and prosperity of our Nation.''

Unfortunately, it is often rural communities, particularly those in the western United States, that suffer from the highest rates of unemployment and are least equipped to bear the burden of additional costs stemming from Washington.

So once again, Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. The relevant committee of jurisdiction has worked to provide us with a bipartisan bill which, at its core, quite simply offers regulatory certainty in the short term and commonsense regularity relief in the long.

This bill is not a cure-all, but is a step in the right direction. While a small step, it is a commonsense approach to fixing what's wrong in Washington, D.C. It's a step that many in

Congress on both sides of the aisle seem ready and willing to take.

As I mentioned, the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act passed out of subcommittee and full committee with bipartisan support. The bill has over 100 bipartisan cosponsors. Companion legislation in the Senate also enjoys that same bipartisan support.

Let's ensure rural businesses and American farmers that at least for 1 more year they can cross dust off the list of the potential bureaucratic burdens passed down from Washington.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes ``on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

That's a good reason as to why we should pass this bill. The real cure for unemployment is employment. If we can remove the uncertainty from the marketplace for farmers and for those in other places in this country through limited regulation--good regulation but not by overburdening the businesses and the job creators of this country--then we will have the opportunity to solve that problem, to solve it by hiring people.

I am hoping that this bill will pass. In knowing that it probably will pass in the House, I hope the Senate takes it up and the President signs it, and I hope we end up with less regulation in an area where many, many jobs could be created and where certainty could be provided if we would only pass this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Yes, Yogi Berra, it ain't over till it's over. We've got time.

We have a plan. House Republicans have a plan. It's down here on this card. We have a plan, a jobs plan. Twenty-five of those issues have already passed this House and they went to the Senate. And where are they? I don't know. They're there. They're ready to be acted on.

Let me just give one. The union labor in this country rallied around that bill a couple of days ago and said we want to build the pipeline. It's tens of thousands of jobs. Many of the Democrats opposed that, and yes, it's thousands and thousands of jobs. Is it a job creator? Absolutely.

Do we have a plan? We have a plan, and that's just one of the 25 that's waiting in the Senate for action. We need to have action there. We have a plan. We have job plans, this is it, and we're ready to move this country forward, get our economy rolling again, creating jobs, and making this economy better for everyone in America.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am prepared to close.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

This bill provides for ample open debate, allowing for the colleagues here on this floor and across the aisle, both on our side and theirs, to offer amendments to this bill.

The underlying bill isn't particularly controversial. As a matter of fact, it's rather simple. This bill has no effect on direct spending. It does not appropriate any money or have any new appropriation in it at all. This bill creates no new programs. It has nothing to do with CutGo or pay-as-you-go, either way. It doesn't do either.

In the end, I can't imagine 186 different groups being so stirred up in this country to write and to call and to ask for this legislation, groups like the National Corn Growers Association and the Sheep Growers Association and the Association of Cooperatives and the Farm Bureaus across this country and the American Soybean Association and many, many more getting stirred up about nothing?

No, that argument is heifer dust. It is. This argument is real, it's true, and it's right, and it's absolutely just like what's happening in EPA in many other areas.

The underlying bill, as I said, is quite simple. It provides much- needed certainty in the short term for agricultural, ranching, and rural businesses by hitting pause on the EPA's runaway regulatory machine for just one measure for just 1 year.

H.R. 1633 simply says that now is not the time to thrust yet another burdensome, costly and, in EPA's own judgment, unnecessary regulation on rural job creators. In the long term, it offers regulatory relief to rural America by acknowledging that States and local communities are better suited to manage dust in their own communities and thus grant them the flexibility to do so.

It's particularly offensive because it's like the old cookie-cutter approach that Washington uses, the same program that's good for Ocoee, Florida, is good for Butte, Montana, and inner-city New York, and it's wrong. We ought to get rid of the cookie-cutter approach and go back to local communities and State governments and let them solve their problems, as opposed to one-size-fits-all Federal Government.

Given the state of the economy, given the EPA administrator's own comments about the lack of need to further regulate farm dust, given the dearth of scientific evidence that says that this is a danger, there is some sort of danger from farm dust, this legislation represents a commonsense effort to create an environment for job creation that all Members should support. It gives farmers, ranchers, and other rural small business owners the certainty, at least when it comes to dust, that costly regulations would not shackle their ability to focus on growing their business, providing for their families, and creating much needed jobs in rural America.

I ask my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of the rule and passage of the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill.

Today, there are very serious challenges facing our country, facing rural America, suburban America, and urban America. In the next 3 weeks, Congress has to address the payroll tax cut issue, or there will be an enormous tax increase, over $1,000 per family, to the American middle class. This Congress has to pass a budget or the government will shut down. This Congress has to address a number of other expiring tax provisions--all in the next 3 weeks.

This is real work to do, real work that needs to be done for the American middle class, the American people, for farmers, for businessmen and -women, and for workers.

And yet today, this body is not taking on real work. Instead, we're addressing an illusory problem, a fake problem rather than a real one. My colleague from Florida mentioned the specter of someone somehow regulating the dust kicked up by a truck on a dirt road. I don't think there's a single Member of this body that wants to regulate the dust that's kicked up by a truck on a dirt road. The EPA certainly doesn't. The farmers don't want us to. Members of Congress don't want us to.

So what are we exactly talking about? Instead of addressing the serious problems that are facing the Nation, we're talking about a bill that satisfies talking points, has a few unintended consequences, which I'll get into in my remarks, and ignores the real problems of today.

This bill before us claims to block the EPA from implementing a rule that doesn't even exist, hasn't even been thought up, and is opposed by the head of the EPA. That's right. We've got millions of unemployed Americans, a massive tax increase looming, and yet here we have a bill to stop the EPA from doing something it's not doing.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson just told Congress specifically that they have no intention of doing a rule in this area because the existing rules passed during the Reagan administration are adequate.

So instead of worrying about a non-existent farm dust rule, maybe we should pass a regulatory ban on blowing smoke, because that's exactly what Congress is doing with this bill here today.

Not only does this bill seek to address a non-existent problem, Madam Speaker, but it also has a number of unintended consequences. The new loopholes it creates in the mining and other sectors will have severe public health and environmental impacts. Now, there will be a number of amendments that have been allowed under this rule that will go into a discussion and tailoring of this bill to hopefully roll back some of these unintended consequences, but what this bill does, rather than solve a problem, is create a slew of new problems which we would need to address.

This bill is chock full of exemptions for major industries. It allows for more arsenic and lead pollution from industrial sources, with dire consequences for health and well-being. It disables the ambient air quality standards within the Air Quality Act. This bill won't help farmers at all because it won't fend off any onerous regulation because none of the regulations that are being contemplated are even being thought of by anybody in the EPA.

Interestingly, what this bill will do is it allows the release of more pollution from industrial sources like open-pit mining, coal- processing facilities, cement kilns and smelters. This has nothing to do with the family farms that you're going to hear people talk about debating this bill.

That's why this bill's main supporters are not farmers, but they're the mining industry. In fact, this bill has gained vocal support from the National Mining Association; and one of the biggest groups representing farmers, the National Farmers Union, has said this bill isn't necessary. In fact, in October, National Farmers Union president Roger Jackson said, ``The National Farmers Union is pleased to see EPA Administrator Jackson provide final clarification for Members of Congress and the agriculture community that the agency does not have plans to regulate farm dust.''

He went on, ``Lately, there has been considerable anxiety within the farming community that EPA is going to regulate dust on farms. We hope this action finally puts to rest the misinformation regarding dust regulation and eases the minds of farmers and ranchers across the country.''

Yet, instead of letting sleeping dogs lie and quelling the ridiculous rumors that somebody plans to regulate dust kicked up from cars on dirt roads, here we have Members of this body reinvigorating and giving credibility to these false rumors, scaring the hardworking farmers of America into thinking somehow government is about to regulate something that no one is purporting to regulate.

Furthermore, during committee consideration of this bill, an amendment by Congressman Butterfield would have explicitly limited this bill to agriculture, which is what the proponents of this bill purport it to be about. And yet the majority voted down that amendment, sending a clear message that this bill is not about farmers.

Let us see this bill for what it really is--another effort to attack the EPA and prevent the EPA from implementing the Clean Air Act under its commonsense rules to protect our public health.

It's time to get serious with the business of the House, to take on the real tasks that we have of expanding the payroll tax cut, passing a budget, and stop making up problems and making up solutions that cause more problems than they purport to solve. We've already got enough problems that this Congress and this country need to work on. Let's get to work.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it is my honor to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to require that we vote on an unemployment benefit extension and that we vote on a payroll tax holiday extension for next year before we leave for the holidays.

I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

I don't see how this bill would create any jobs, because it's purporting to undo regulations that don't exist and that aren't going to exist. So, obviously, if somebody at the EPA were to get the idea to start regulating farm dust, we would probably act to undo those regulations, which might help create jobs. Yet nobody is doing that, so this bill does absolutely nothing.

I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, we have no remaining speakers on our side. I would like to inquire if the gentleman has any remaining speakers.

I yield myself such time as I may consume, Madam Speaker.

We get it and the American people get it. Just because you repeat something enough times doesn't make it true.

What businesses need in this country is long-term certainty and predictability, a fair playing field with clear rules for all. And yet here we are with a bill like this creating more uncertainty by introducing ambiguously drafted bills and new ambiguously drafted standards that skew the rules in favor of some and against others, making it tougher and tougher for small business, entrepreneurs, and innovators who don't have teams of lobbyists in Washington, D.C., monitoring every bit of legislation to get by and succeed.

The American people understand it wasn't the Environmental Protection Agency that caused this recession, that caused this economic mess we're in, and the economic recovery won't come through creating loopholes in public health laws.

If we are serious about helping farmers, there's plenty that we could be doing. But increasing industrial pollution for mining and coal processing isn't something that farmers in my district and across Colorado have asked me to do.

Farmers are concerned about many real-life challenges. Farmers are concerned that their kids can't get financing to go carry on the family business because the startup and liability costs are too high. Farmers are concerned about the estate tax.

Farmers are concerned about getting sued by Monsanto because their crops were contaminated by Roundup Ready pollen. Farmers are concerned about rapid swings in commodity prices because of instability in the market. Political brinksmanship and gridlock create market instability, and bills that create corporate handouts, loopholes, and more uncertainty like this one aren't helping farmers, they're hurting farmers, and they aren't helping the rest of the country either.

In addition to ignoring the needs of farmers, this bill ignores our national debt. In fact, it ignores our own House protocols to pay for things. Oddly enough, not regulating this nonexistent regulation isn't cheap. Because of the bureaucratic changes that would ensue from this bill, the nonpartisan CBO has scored this bill as costing the Federal Government $10 million. So this bill violates the Republican rule for discretionary authorizations.

In fact, while the majority has pledged to adhere to spending limits on all indirect spending bills by including offsetting language, this bill includes no offsetting language, which is particularly grating because this bill doesn't actually do anything besides create more Federal bureaucrats.

Madam Speaker, with only one committee hearing and a quick vote, this bill shouldn't be before us on the floor today. We have real work to do. We need a good-faith effort to get to the bottom of the real issues that affect this country and caused the recession, and help the middle class. This bill is not aimed at doing anything for farmers. It's not even aimed at a real problem.

I urge my colleagues to follow the House CutGo guidelines, to table this bill and focus on the real problems we should be working on. We all must stop pretending the answer to this country's problems is giving handouts and loopholes to those with the most lobbyists here in Washington, D.C.

As I mentioned earlier, Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule.

I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so that we can do the right thing for working families and the millions of people looking for a job and vote on an unemployment extension and a payroll tax holiday and extension before we leave for next year, 3 more weeks.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

American farmers, ranchers, and other rural businesses, like many other sectors of our economy, have faced an onslaught of EPA regulations. Now, we all support the environment, but our economy is struggling today, and every regulation adds additional cost.

The Congressional Research Service recently reported that agriculture has been facing new Clean Air Act greenhouse gas standards; engine emission standards; national ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulates; Clean Water Act permitting and other requirements; Superfund reporting requirements; and regulations for disclosure, permitting, and other regulatory requirements relating to the use of pesticides. And until recently, the dairy industry faced ambiguity about whether milk and milk containers would be subject to the EPA oil spill prevention regulations.

We have 2.2 million farms in America employing 1.8 million people and providing 5 percent of this Nation's exports. We need to do everything possible to make it easy for them to do business and still protect the economy.

Today we're going to consider H.R. 1633, the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act of 2011. At a time when rural economies are struggling, this bill provides certainty that farmers, ranchers, and other rural businesses will not be burdened with costly and unnecessary new dust regulations from Washington, D.C.

As one might expect, a reasonable and commonsense measure like H.R. 1633 has garnered 120 bipartisan cosponsors. I would like to particularly thank and commend the efforts of Representative Kristi Noem, as well as Representative Leonard Boswell, Representative Robert Hurt, and Representative Larry Kissell for their tireless efforts on behalf of rural Americans and this bill.

Our bill makes clear that the lead role in regulating so-called nuisance dust rests with State, local, and tribal governments. And the bill defines nuisance dust to include particulate matter generated primarily from natural sources, unpaved roads, earth moving, and other activities typically conducted in rural areas.

In some ways, it's ludicrous we're sitting here debating about the EPA regulating dust. And I might say that we have 197 organizations supporting this legislation.

Now, why do we need the bill? Well, EPA has been considering more costly, stringent PM10 standards. It is true that the EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson, recently announced that she would not propose new regulations, that she would retain the current PM10 standards. But the problem with that is, when they finalize a standard, it's uncertain whether EPA will finalize a standard that imposes greater costs to rural businesses. And we all know that many of the regulations and EPA environmental protections today are decided by the court system. So even though Lisa Jackson says she's not going to do anything, lawsuits can be filed requiring her to do certain things. So this legislation simply provides certainty.

I might also say, because the science does not support the regulation of coarse rural dust, EPA itself proposed, in 2006, to exempt this dust from their national ambient air quality standards. And the integrated science assessment for particulate matter at EPA said, for long-term effects of coarse particles, there is next to no evidence in support of long-term health effects.

I would urge all the Members to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I might say that during the debate on this bill in committee, a lot was made of mining activities in rural America, and I would just point out that there are 17 Federal laws that mining operations must abide by. So we didn't feel like we needed to provide additional protection in that area.

At this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt), one of the prime sponsors of this legislation and a protector of rural America.

The gentleman from Massachusetts may view this as being about Peter Pan and Tinker Bell and fairy dust, but we have 197 organizations representing rural America that consider it a real problem.

At this time, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. McKinley.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I have been told that we have no further speakers; so if the gentleman from California would like to close, then I would follow him.

Mr. Chairman, we certainly do appreciate this discussion on this important bill. I can tell you that rural America 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 in 2006, the EPA went back to review that standard. They made a determination at that time that they would not take further action, but they were sued. Litigation ensued, and every 5 years the EPA is required by the Clean Air Act to look at this.

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 EPA regulating the dust on farms and ranches in America.

I might also add that in the letter we received from the board of supervisors of the county of Imperial in Arizona, they said the original rule that EPA had covered farms of 40 acres or more, which is 97 percent of all farmland in the Valley. EPA 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 as a real problem. Congress needs to assert itself and set a definitive policy on this issue. I would urge all Members to support this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

While I have a great deal of respect and admiration for the gentleman from Illinois, I am going to oppose this amendment.

I would say, first of all, that this legislation does not change in any way the current EPA standard relating to particulate matter on coarse materials. His amendment would strike the provision in the bill addressing nuisance dust, keeping only that which prohibits a change to the existing PM10 standard for 1 year, which we agree with. But because it strikes section 3, which is the main part and the substantive part of this bill because it would eliminate our nuisance dust definition, I would respectfully oppose the amendment and urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this is a little off topic. We have a young man who served the Energy and Commerce Committee and me personally for many years and did an outstanding job. His name is Jeff Mortier. Tomorrow is his last day as an employee of the House of Representatives. 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.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

American farmers, ranchers and other rural businesses, like many other sectors of this economy, have faced an onslaught of EPA regulations--regulations that are costly and that make it more difficult to create jobs in America at a time when America needs jobs.

The Congressional Research Service recently reported that agriculture alone has been facing new Clean Air Act greenhouse gas standards; engine emission standards; National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone and particulates; Clean Water Act permitting and other requirements; Superfund reporting requirements; and regulations for disclosure, permitting and other regulatory requirements related to the use of pesticides.

There are 2.2 million farms in America. There are 1.8 million people employed by those farms. Those farms provide 5 percent of the exports from America, and they provide $154 billion to our economy.

This legislation that we have on the floor today has the support of 120 Democrats and Republicans, and we have over 197 organizations representing rural America that support this legislation. The bill is very simple. It does not change any of the existing EPA regulations. It just says that the EPA cannot change its PM10 standard for coarse material earlier than 1 year after the enactment of this legislation, and it defines and exempts nuisance dust.

So why do we need this bill? People are saying that Lisa Jackson has said she is not going to regulate PM10.

That is true. She has said that. Yet we know that many of the environmental decisions in America today are made by people and groups and entities that file lawsuits against the EPA. Every time that has happened recently, the EPA has run and entered into a consent decree, and then it has paid the legal fees for the entity that has brought the lawsuit, which is exactly what we are afraid is going to happen in this instance. In this way, we can pass this legislation and make certain that local governments, State governments, and tribal governments will decide this issue of nuisance dust.

Now, some people have said, Oh, my God, this dust is so dangerous to one's health, and it includes all sorts of substances.

I might remind everyone that one of the authors of the EPA's most recent Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter testified before our committee. He said, as to the long-term effects of coarse particles, there is not one shred of evidence in support of long-term health effects.

This is a commonsense piece of legislation. It protects jobs in America, and it protects our exports. So I would urge everyone to vote against the motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.