Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Representative John Dingell spoke on the floor of the House of Representatives to voice his strong opposition to H.R. 1633, “The Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act.” The legislation passed by a vote of 268 to 150. Below is his statement as prepared for delivery:
“H.R. 1633, otherwise known as the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act, would prevent the EPA from regulating dust generated from farming activities such as harvesting crops or driving on dirt roads by amending the Clean Air Act. The only problem is that this EPA regulation doesn’t exist and the EPA Administrator has promised that such a regulation will not be considered. Simply put, this bill is a solution in search of a problem. With our nation’s jobs crisis, our crippling debt and excessive deficit, the gaping inequality between the wealthy and poor is putting our democracy at risk – why are we wasting time of this body when we have an enormous deficit and a terrifying national debt, and when we should be working on the problem of jobs for American workers?
“The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were the last major changes to the original Clean Air Act of 1970 and, unlike what is before us today, the Amendments of 1990 was needed legislation. Back then, over 100 of the 166 cosponsors were Republicans. According to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s report on the 1990 Amendments, the Subcommittees on Health and the Environment, Energy and Power, and Oversight and Investigations held 70 days of hearings over a 10 year period. The Amendments of 1990 passed by a vote of 401-25 in the House and 89-10 in the Senate.
“H.R. 1633, on the other hand, has had only one hearing and two markups. While the Amendments of 1990 were truly bipartisan, only four of 120 cosponsors of H.R. 1633 are Democrats. Ten amendments were considered in Committee for H.R. 1633 but only one Democratic amendment was adopted. The final vote from the Subcommittee on Energy and Power occurred along partisan lines. It is clear to anyone that this is not compromise legislation.
“Supporters insist the legislation is necessary due to uncertainty regarding EPA action. Yet the Republican author of a similar Senate bill, a former secretary of the Department of Agriculture, takes a different position. In one of his weekly columns, the Senate sponsor stated, “I asked only for clarity from EPA, and this week Administrator Jackson finally provided it.” It is obvious to our friends in the Senate and from the EPA Administrator herself that the EPA does not intend to implement stricter regulations.
“Even newspapers in the sponsor’s home state have questioned the logic of this legislation. The Sioux Falls Argus Leader wrote that the bill is fighting “against a made-up problem” and that it’s time for the sponsor “to let the phantom issue of dust regulation settle.”
The Yankton Daily Press and Dakotan gave a “thumbs down” to the legislation which they say is unnecessary. The two local papers went on to say that they wish the sponsors would “stop trying to stir the fears of farmers and ranchers and instead spend her time fighting real problems rather than imagined ones.”
“Mr. Speaker, the approach here assures mischief, mistakes, confusion, and difficulty for everyone who might be affected by the failures of H.R. 1633. If we want to make changes, let’s really examine the specific problems and propose legislation that solves those problems. Until that time comes, I will continue to oppose these half baked bills that are poorly written, contain no new solutions, and make little effort to bring both parties to the table to find a true, well reasoned compromise to real problems.
“I urge my colleagues to vote no on the bill and I yield back the balance of my time.”
To view Congressman Dingell’s Dissenting Views, click here.
###
