6:38 PM EDT
Ed Whitfield, R-KY 1st

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

The motion was agreed to.

Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Lankford) having assumed the chair, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1582) to protect consumers by prohibiting the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating as final certain energy-related rules that are estimated to cost more than $1 billion and will cause

significant adverse effects to the economy, had come to no resolution thereon.


6:39 PM EDT
Ed Whitfield, R-KY 1st

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

The motion was agreed to.

Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Lankford) having assumed the chair, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1582) to protect consumers by prohibiting the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating as final certain energy-related rules that are estimated to cost more than $1 billion and will cause

significant adverse effects to the economy, had come to no resolution thereon.


6:39 PM EDT
Ed Whitfield, R-KY 1st

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

This evening, we will be debating H.R. 1582, the Energy Consumers Relief Act of 2013, authored by the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Chairman, one of the major issues that the American people face today is a slow growth in its economy. Our economy has been sluggish for some time. The last quarter of 2012 and the first quarter of 2013, gross domestic product grew by less than 2 percent. And in the last 15 quarters, the growth of our economy in America has been the slowest since World War II. So we need to do everything in this country to promote economic growth, and this bill looks at the impact of regulations as obstacles

to economic growth.

I want to just read a few of the regulations that have been adopted by EPA since January 2009:

Greenhouse gas regulations for cars, and these are EPA numbers. It cost $52 billion. Greenhouse gas standards for cars 2017-2025, $144 billion; greenhouse gas standards for trucks, $8 billion; Utility MACT, $9.6 billion annually; Boiler MACT, $2.2 billion annually.

Now, I could go on and on, but I think that that shows that the cost of some of these regulations present serious obstacles to economic growth. So the legislation that we consider tonight is simply a commonsense approach, a way to review the impact of energy-related regulations at the Environmental Protection Agency.

All this legislation does is this:

The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency may not promulgate as final an energy-related rule that is estimated to cost more than $1 billion unless:

One, they make a report to Congress setting out what the regulation does; and

Two, the Secretary of Energy, working with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Administrator of the Energy Information Administration, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Small Business Administration will look at these regulations and look at the impact on consumer energy cost, the impact on employment, and the impact on economic growth. The Department of Energy certainly has the expertise to analyze these kinds of figures, and if the Secretary determines that it would be harmful to

economic growth, then the Secretary can actually stop the regulation from taking effect.

Now, the good news is, at that point, EPA could go back and redo the process. But I can tell you, from my personal experience of working with people in my district who are affected by regulations every day, most people genuinely believe that there's not anything wrong with having other government agencies review the impact of the cost of regulations on the economy, on jobs, on the price of fuel. That's precisely what Dr. Cassidy's bill does. I think it's a commonsense approach and something

that the American people need as additional protections.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

6:51 PM EDT
Bill Cassidy M.D., R-LA 6th

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam Chair, I want to thank Chairman Upton, Chairman Whitfield, and their staff for their hard work in preparing this important legislation and bringing it to the House floor, which, by the way, passed the committee with bipartisan support.

Currently, millions of Americans are unemployed or underemployed, millions more have left the labor force entirely, and our economy continues to struggle to recover.

This is particularly true among blue collar workers, blue collar workers who have traditionally been employed in mining, manufacturing, and construction. Those three are related because the mining, the bringing of resources from underneath the ground, fuels literally energy-intensive manufacturing enterprises, which will then go on to make steel, use the steel to construct pipelines, or first make steel pipes, then to construct pipelines. It is an energy-intensive economy that brings good jobs

with good benefits to blue collar workers. I have no clue why folks on the other side of the aisle are so hostile to our blue collar workers.

While we have all these millions unemployed, the EPA has been advancing an expansive regulatory assault on the production and distribution of affordable and reliable energy.

Now, by the way, current regulations don't change. That does not roll back anything. This is only about prospective regulations. So if there is a concern about the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act, those regulations as they have currently been enforced remain the same. It is just that numerous new regulations have created uncertainty, contributing to an unprecedented number of announced power plant shutdowns, destroying blue collar jobs, increasing energy costs on manufacturers, and raising

concern regarding electrical grid reliability.

Although the EPA attributes large public health benefits to billion-dollar regulations, their scientific analysis has been sharply criticized, with one public health expert saying their method of analysis is misleading to public policymakers.

Another, the National Academy of Science, on a formaldehyde rule saying that the conclusions are not

justified by the methodology or the research that was presented.

We are using faulty research to justify the destruction of blue collar jobs. I don't know why anybody wouldn't want to be for this, but some are not.

There are concerns that the EPA ignores a significant public health cost associated with energy prices and result in job losses. I'm a doc. I know that when someone loses their job with good benefits and goes on something like Medicaid their health suffers.

There is a researcher, Dr. Till von Wachter, currently an associate professor of economics at UCLA, who testified that job losses can lead to significant reductions in life expectancy of 1 to 1.5 years. This isn't just a parent, the worker; it's their children as well. It is so well documented, and yet folks are just cavalier and casual about the job losses that EPA regulation brings about. When energy becomes expensive or unreliable, public health is threatened, as that research shows.

All we are asking for here is accountability and transparency to determine the full impact of EPA's major energy-related regulations--the impact it will have on jobs, energy prices, and our Nation's economy. If the benefit outweighs the cost, the rule goes forward; but if the cost greatly outweighs the benefit, then let's just stick up for the blue collar worker, her family, let's just stick up for them so maybe they don't have to go on government dependency.

By the way, it is not unprecedented. OMB has previously put a hold on EPA rules, and EPA has the right to put a hold on Army Corps of Engineer rulings. Commonly, agencies are accountable to one another. All we ask is that the EPA will be accountable to the Department of Energy, but, if you will, to the American people.

This rule requires that if the energy rules are appropriately reviewed by the Secretary of Energy, consulting with the other relevant agencies to determine whether the proposed rules will cause significant adverse effects to the economy if this review takes place and it does not outweigh the benefits, then the rule is put on hold. By so doing, the legislation ensures energy cost and economic and job impacts are given appropriate consideration.

It is important to note, again, nothing in the legislation prevents consideration of both cost and benefits in the proposed rule; and an independent and thorough review by Federal departments with expertise in energy and economic analysis is merely a check, merely a call, for EPA to be transparent, which they have not been in the past.

The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.

6:57 PM EDT
Bobby Rush, D-IL 1st

Mr. RUSH. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to this horrendous bill, H.R. 1582.

Although this bill is called the Energy Consumers Relief Act, a more appropriate title would be the Shamelessly Blocking Public Health Protections Act.

While the gentleman from Louisiana and the rest of my Republican colleagues may attempt to fool the American people into thinking that this is some kind of a jobs bill, the fact of the matter is, as the Republican leadership admitted on national television a few days ago, the majority party is not interested in working on legislation to address the real problems that American families face, but rather they are more concerned with trying to overturn and undo any and all of the initiatives that

the President has already accomplished. Whatever President Obama has done, the Republicans want to undo.

So, Madam Chair, while the majority party proudly wears the label as the leaders of one of the most ineffective, do-nothing Congresses of all times, we are here today yet again spending valuable time debating yet another rhetorical, meaningless message bill that will never ever become law, instead of working on real problems that confront the American people.

[Time: 19:00]

Madam Chairman, I am here today to say enough is enough.

Let us get back to the business of governing by working on legislation to put Americans back to work and to get our economy running at full steam once again for the benefit of all the American people. Instead, we are here debating a bill that we know and that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know is dead on arrival in the Senate due to its radical and extreme positions.

Make no mistake about it, Madam Chairman. This bill is not about making government more open and more accountable to the American people. In fact, the opposite is true. This bill is simply and solely about blocking the EPA from finalizing rules that would make our air and our water cleaner and help avert catastrophic climate change.

This bill has many problems, but its most egregious flaw is that it gives the Department of Energy an unprecedented veto over the most important EPA rules, which are to protect human health and to protect our Nation's environment.

The EPA regulations most likely to be delayed or the most likely to be destroyed by this legislation have tremendous benefits for human health and the environment, including money saved on energy bills and at the gas pump; reductions in the emissions of toxic pollutants, which cause cancer and developmental delays in children; [Page: H5245]

hospitalizations that will be averted; and the prevention of asthma attacks and premature deaths, all of which provide real benefits

to the American people--real people.

The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.

7:02 PM EDT
Bobby Rush, D-IL 1st

Mr. RUSH. The title of this bill is the Energy Consumers Relief Act, but yet the majority prevented me from offering an amendment that simply stated that the EPA rules could not be blocked if they resulted in consumers saving money at the gas pump. So, if the purpose of this bill were truly to provide relief to consumers, then allowing my amendment would have been, simply, a no-brainer.

Madam Chairman, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. Enough is enough. Let us get back to considering real legislation.

7:04 PM EDT
Keith J. Rothfus, R-PA 12th

Mr. ROTHFUS. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Energy Consumers Relief Act.

This commonsense legislation will protect workers, families, small businesses, and manufacturers by providing for more rigorous oversight and public disclosure of expensive and job-killing EPA regulations.

Yesterday, President Obama's new EPA Administrator demonstrated how out of touch she was by denying that regulations have an impact on jobs. She is quoted as saying: ``Can we stop talking about environmental regulations killing jobs, please, at least for today?''

We'll stop talking about it when they stop robbing us of the jobs that support our communities.

Within the last month, regulations have cost another 300 jobs in western Pennsylvania. The damage wrought by these regulations extends far beyond the individual families affected. They hurt their surrounding communities where these moms and dads live, work, and send their kids to school. They increase the cost of energy, which is a direct cost on families and businesses. It is especially painful for seniors and others who live on fixed incomes.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation that will protect workers, families, and businesses from higher electricity prices, less reliable energy, and more lost jobs.

7:06 PM EDT
Paul Tonko, D-NY 20th

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Ranking Member Waxman, for the opportunity to share some thoughts on this legislation.

Madam Chair, H.R. 1582 is yet another attempt to block the Environmental Protection Agency from fulfilling its mission, which is to protect public health and our environment.

The bill is premised on the false notion that the protection of public health and the environment comes at the price of jobs. Simply, it does not. H.R. 1582 is not about transparency or fairness. The bill creates a burdensome and duplicative requirement for analysis by the Department of Energy, designed to block EPA from moving forward to address climate change.

The people standing in the way of policy to address climate change are willing to subject us to ever-increasing costs of natural disasters, damaged infrastructure, and the loss of lives and livelihoods.

Why? To preserve our dependence on a fossil fuel-only energy economy.

Proposed regulations are analyzed and reviewed now under multiple laws and multiple executive orders. Rules in the Federal Register consume more page numbers now due to the requirements for additional analyses and documentation under the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Unfunded Mandates Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and multiple executive orders. These additional analyses, studies, and peer reviews have repeatedly shown that EPA's rules are justified and deliver many more benefits to people's

health and our environment than costs to business. If and when they do not, either the rule does not go forward or opponents can have their day in court.

H.R. 1582 pits one department against another. The Secretary of the Department of Energy should not have

veto power over regulations that EPA is empowered by law to issue. There are ample opportunities for interagency consultation during the rulemaking process. Regulations to improve our air quality and to address other pollution problems have been opposed over the years with the threat that controlling pollution would bankrupt our industries and our economy. That has not happened. We have managed to create a cleaner, healthier environment for our people and have a robust, dynamic recovery. H.R.

1582 is designed to hamstring the EPA and continue to delay action on the looming, serious challenge of climate change.

We can and must do better. We have the innovative capacity to meet these challenges. The only thing lacking is political will--political will to move forward. This Nation did not become great by denying and avoiding challenges. Avoiding this problem will only increase costs and risks across the Nation. I oppose H.R. 1582, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

7:10 PM EDT
Eliot Engel, D-NY 16th

Mr. ENGEL. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this bill.

As far as I am concerned, this is just another attack on the EPA. Some of my colleagues have spent hundreds of hours this session attacking the EPA. May I remind them that Congress set up the EPA to regulate dangerous and toxic substances in order to keep our air and water clean. We must continue to support the EPA in this task. Who would not want clean air and clean water? I think the EPA does a fine job in protecting us.

My district has one of the highest asthma rates in the country. It is one of the reasons that I championed clean energy and have argued for strong EPA rules to help protect our children.

If this bill had been law already, the EPA could have been delayed or blocked from finalizing the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, which set emissions limits for new coal- and oil-fired power plants for mercury and other toxic air pollutants. Why would anyone want to block the EPA from doing that? The EPA estimates that these new standards will save up to 11,000 lives and prevent 130,000 asthma attacks. That's good enough for me.

There are many, many reasons to continue to support the EPA. This bill, unfortunately, does not do that, so I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and to support the EPA in a goal we should all share of protecting our air and water.

7:11 PM EDT
Henry Waxman, D-CA 33rd

Mr. WAXMAN. So, under those circumstances, I would like to yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, there was a claim from one of the supporters of this bill that the EPA is using faulty science to justify its rules. In fact, the proponents of this bill are using faulty examples to try to justify this ridiculous bill. For example, the gentleman from Louisiana's chief example of a faulty EPA rule is what he refers to as a ``formaldehyde rule.'' In fact, this isn't a rule. It is a draft scientific assessment that is completely unrelated to the energy-related rules that are the subject

of this bill. I do want to point out that pollution control regulations create jobs because they create clean technologies that the whole world wants. [Page: H5246]

The proponents of this bill claim they are worried about jobs and the unemployed. I think they're crying crocodile tears. The Republicans are for the sequestration, which is costing hundreds of thousands of jobs. They are threatening the U.S. with default. They are against food stamps for people who don't have jobs and who don't have food to eat. Give me a break. They're not trying to save jobs; they're trying to save some of these big polluting industries that have to pay to reduce their pollution.

Now, we've heard that this bill is going to provide more checks and balances because the EPA will then have its rules reviewed by the Department of Energy, but EPA rules go through a very extensive interagency process. Other agencies, including the Department of Energy, can make their views known to the EPA. The Office of Management and Budget already has the ability to have any concerns addressed before they allow EPA rules to go forward. These rules go through months or even years of scrutiny

before they are issued, but this bill creates a new, unchecked authority for the Department of Energy to veto public health rules. That's a terrible idea.

Why would we give one agency the unchecked authority to block another agency's rules? There are plenty of checks and balances in the existing law.

[Time: 10:50]

Then we hear the argument that this bill is really about transparency because somebody else should be overseeing EPA rulemaking. But, in fact, this bill will do the opposite. The bill creates a duplicative and confused regulatory process for EPA rules. After EPA has done its analysis, they've weighed the risks and the costs and the benefits, they've heard from people who are claiming the costs are too high, they've heard from people claiming the benefits are not enough. Whatever the claims are,

they evaluate those claims based on science. And according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, if we let EPA review all these regulations again from scratch, the taxpayers are going to pay $35 billion.

The bill gives the Department of Energy an unprecedented veto over EPA public health rules. And you know what? There's no public comment when DOE does that. They don't hear from the public. They'll hear from the industry, but they won't hear from the public. They're not equipped to evaluate the scientific health benefits. They're looking at the costs. It's a skewed DOE analysis. This bill is not about transparency.

We were told this is not over any simple rules; it's only over the expensive ones, regulations that will cost over a billion dollars. A billion dollars over a year? A billion dollars over 10 years? A billion dollars over 20 years? There is no definition of that. They say a billion dollars. Okay. But that could, then, be used to stop a rule that is far less than what people think it would cost, and, of course, the benefits have to outweigh the cost before the rule can even be issued by EPA.

I want to give a good example of regulations that would be stopped by this legislation. EPA and the Department of Transportation work together on tailpipe standards and fuel efficiency rules for automobiles and other motor vehicles. There are huge benefits. They help consumers save money at the pump. When you have a car that runs on more miles per gallon, you're saving money. We're also protecting the environment because we're not burning as much carbon.

Under the rules, by 2025, Americans will be able to travel twice as far on a gallon of gas, which will save consumers thousands of dollars. But that rule won't go into effect because the DOE now has to get involved. Transportation and EPA are proposing rules over their jurisdiction, over transportation and over air pollution. These rules, which could lead to consumers seeing gasoline at the pump drop by over a dollar a gallon, could be held up.

And even though these rules are all supported by the major auto companies, including Ford, GM, and Chrysler, these rules will cut U.S. emissions and carbon pollution by $6 billion, but this bill could prevent EPA from adopting new vehicle rules that will save consumers even more money and continue to address the threat of climate change.

This is a very bad bill. It doesn't make sense, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

7:19 PM EDT
Ed Whitfield, R-KY 1st

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Once again I want to thank Dr. Cassidy for authoring this bill and bringing it to the House floor.

I would like to remind everyone that EPA has made great strides. We all recognize the improvements that have been made in our air quality, water quality, particulate matter, et cetera. As a matter of fact, carbon dioxide emissions are the lowest that they've been in 20 years here in America. Yet I would say that EPA is not the Holy Grail. The EPA does make mistakes.

I would like to just read a couple of comments from some witnesses who testified over the last year at the Energy and Commerce Committee's Energy and Power Subcommittee. Dr. Peter Valberg, former member of the Harvard School of Public Health, testified that ``there are major questions about EPA's forecast of serious health effects caused by small increments in particulate matter levels. EPA's statistical approach is fraught with numerous assumptions and uncertainties.''

Dr. Tony Cox of the Colorado School of Public Health testified that ``the use of statistical associations to address causal questions about health effects of regulation is not only technically incorrect, but, as practiced by EPA and others, is also highly misleading to policymakers.''

Then Dr. Anne Smith, an economist with NERA Economic Consulting, talked about the uncertainties and the statistical models used by EPA having serious flaws.

All we're saying is at a time when the economy is struggling--particularly now--and when EPA is the most aggressive that it has been in recent memory--as a matter of fact, even though our CO

2 emissions are down to the lowest level in 20 years, America is the only country in the world where you cannot build a new coal-powered plant. All this legislation does is it says if EPA comes up with a new regulation, energy related, that costs over a billion dollars, they've got to make a report to Congress.

Then the Secretary of Energy, working with the Secretary of Commerce and the Small Business Administration and the Energy Information Agency, they will look and they will see what is the impact of this regulation upon the cost of energy, the cost of gasoline, the cost of electricity; what is the impact on causing jobs to be lost or a plant maybe not to be built and a job will be lost or a plant will close. So it's not dictating anything.

It's the Cabinet members of the same administration simply reviewing all of the evidence, doing its own analysis, and then deciding that if it has significant impact on the economy, then they can rule that the regulation will not take effect, at which point the EPA can go back, make some adjustments, and redo it.

I think it's a good piece of legislation that provides additional transparency and additional review of the regulation, the impact on the economy, the impact on jobs, the impact on prices. And what is wrong with that? What is wrong with the Congress getting a report back from the agency and letting the other Department heads in the government review it? That's all this legislation is about.

I urge Members to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.

Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule.

In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce, printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 113-19. That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.

The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as follows:

H.R. 1582

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


This Act may be cited as the ``Energy Consumers Relief Act of 2013''.


Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency may not promulgate as final an energy-related rule that is estimated to cost more than $1 billion if the Secretary of Energy determines under section 3(3) that the rule will cause significant adverse effects to the economy.


Before promulgating as final any energy-related rule that is estimated to cost more than $1 billion:

(1) REPORT TO CONGRESS.--The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall submit to Congress a report (and transmit a copy to the Secretary of Energy) containing--

(A) a copy of the rule;

(B) a concise general statement relating to the rule;

(C) an estimate of the total costs of the rule, including the direct costs and indirect costs of the rule;

(D) an estimate of the total benefits of the rule, an estimate of when such benefits are expected to be realized, and a description of the modeling, the assumptions, and the limitations due to uncertainty, speculation, or lack of information associated with the estimates under this subparagraph;

(E) an estimate of the increases in energy prices, including potential increases in gasoline or electricity prices for consumers, that may result from implementation or enforcement of the rule; and

(F) a detailed description of the employment effects, including potential job losses and shifts in employment, that may result from implementation or enforcement of the rule.

(2) INITIAL DETERMINATION ON INCREASES AND IMPACTS.--The Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Administrator of the Energy Information Administration, shall prepare an independent analysis to determine whether the rule will cause--

(A) any increase in energy prices for consumers, including low-income households, small businesses, and manufacturers;

(B) any impact on fuel diversity of the Nation's electricity generation portfolio or on national, regional, or local electric reliability;

(C) any adverse effect on energy supply, distribution, or use due to the economic or technical infeasibility of implementing the rule; or

(D) any other adverse effect on energy supply, distribution, or use (including a shortfall in supply and increased use of foreign supplies).

(3) SUBSEQUENT DETERMINATION ON ADVERSE EFFECTS TO THE ECONOMY.--If the Secretary of Energy determines, under paragraph (2), that the rule will cause an increase, impact, or effect described in such paragraph, then the Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Labor, and the Administrator of the Small Business Administration, shall--

(A) determine whether the rule will cause significant adverse effects to the economy, taking into consideration--

(i) the costs and benefits of the rule and limitations in calculating such costs and benefits due to uncertainty, speculation, or lack of information; and

(ii) the positive and negative impacts of the rule on economic indicators, including those related to gross domestic product, unemployment, wages, consumer prices, and business and manufacturing activity; and

(B) publish the results of such determination in the Federal Register.


In this Act:

(1) The terms ``direct costs'' and ``indirect costs'' have the meanings given such terms in chapter 8 of the Environmental Protection Agency's ``Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses'' dated December 17, 2010.

(2) The term ``energy-related rule that is estimated to cost more than $1 billion'' means a rule of the Environmental Protection Agency that--

(A) regulates any aspect of the production, supply, distribution, or use of energy or provides for such regulation by States or other governmental entities; and

(B) is estimated by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency or the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to impose direct costs and indirect costs, in the aggregate, of more than $1,000,000,000.

(3) The term ``rule'' has the meaning given to such term in section 551 of title 5, United States Code.

The CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B of House Report 113-174. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered 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.



The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in part B of House Report 113-174.