I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 585 

To direct the President to enter into an arrangement with the National 

Academy of Sciences to evaluate certain Federal rules and regulations 

for potentially harmful impacts on public health, air quality, water quality, plant and animal wildlife, global climate, or the environment; and 

to direct Federal departments and agencies to create plans to reverse 

those impacts that are determined to be harmful by the National Academy of Sciences. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 15, 2009 

Ms. LEE of California (for herself, Mr. STARK, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. GRIJALVA, 

Mr. CONYERS, and Mr. RUSH) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Science and Technology, and in addition 

to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 

such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To direct the President to enter into an arrangement with 

the National Academy of Sciences to evaluate certain 

Federal rules and regulations for potentially harmful impacts on public health, air quality, water quality, plant 

and animal wildlife, global climate, or the environment; 

and to direct Federal departments and agencies to create 

plans to reverse those impacts that are determined to 

be harmful by the National Academy of Sciences. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•HR 585 IH

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Environment and Pub5 lic Health Restoration Act of 2009’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 (a) GENERAL FINDINGS.—The Congress finds as fol8 lows: 

9 (1) As human beings, we share our environment 

10 with a wide variety of habitats and ecosystems that 

11 nurture and sustain a diversity of species. 

12 (2) The abundance of natural resources in our 

13 environment forms the basis for our economy and 

14 has greatly contributed to human development 

15 throughout history. 

16 (3) The accelerated pace of human development 

17 over the last several hundred years has significantly 

18 impacted our natural environment and its resources, 

19 the health and diversity of plant and animal wildlife, 

20 the availability of critical habitats, the quality of our 

21 air and our water, and our global climate. 

22 (4) The intervention of the Federal Government 

23 is necessary to minimize and mitigate human impact 

24 on the environment for the benefit of public health, 

25 maintain air quality and water quality, sustain the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
3 

•HR 585 IH

1 diversity of plants and animals, combat global cli2 mate change, and protect the environment. 

3 (5) Laws and regulations in the United States 

4 have been created and promulgated to minimize and 

5 mitigate human impact on the environment for the 

6 benefit of public health, maintain air quality and 

7 water quality, sustain wildlife, and protect the envi8 ronment. 

9 (6) Such laws include the Antiquities Act of 

10 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) initiated by President 

11 Theodore Roosevelt to create the national park sys12 tem, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

13 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Clean Air Act (42 

14 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), the Federal Water Pollution 

15 Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Public Law 92– 

16 500), the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Public Law 95– 

17 217), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

18 Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (Public 

19 Law 96–510), the Endangered Species Act of 1973 

20 (Public Law 93–205), and the National Forest Man21 agement Act of 1976 (Public Law 94–588). 

22 (7) Attempts to repeal or weaken key environ23 mental safeguards pose dangers to the public health, 

24 air quality, water quality, wildlife, and the environ25 ment. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
4 

•HR 585 IH

1 (b) FINDINGS ON CHANGES AND PROPOSED

2 CHANGES IN LAW.—The Congress finds that, since 2001, 

3 the following changes and proposed changes to existing 

4 law or regulations have negatively impacted or will nega5 tively impact the environment and public health: 

6 (1) CLEAN WATER.— 

7 (A) On May 9, 2002, the Environmental 

8 Protection Agency (EPA) and the United 

9 States Army Corps of Engineers put forth a 

10 final rule that reconciled section 404 regula11 tions of the Clean Water Act by redefining the 

12 term ‘‘fill material’’ and amending the defini13 tion of the term ‘‘discharge of fill material’’, re14 versing a 25-year-old Clean Water Act regula15 tion. The new rule fails to restrict the dumping 

16 of hardrock mining waste, construction debris, 

17 and other industrial wastes into rivers, streams, 

18 lakes, and wetlands. The rule further allows de19 structive mountaintop removal coal mining com20 panies to dump waste into streams and lakes, 

21 polluting the surrounding natural habitat and 

22 poisoning plants and animals that depend on 

23 those water sources. 

24 (B) On February 12, 2003, the Environ25 mental Protection Agency published the rule 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
5 

•HR 585 IH

1 ‘‘National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sys2 tem Permit Regulation and Effluent Limitation 

3 Guidelines and Standards for Concentrated 

4 Animal Feeding Operations’’—new livestock 

5 waste regulations that aimed to control factory 

6 farm pollution but which would severely under7 mine existing Clean Water Act protections. This 

8 regulation allows large-scale animal factories to 

9 foul the Nation’s waters with animal waste, al10 lows livestock owners to draft their own pollu11 tion-management plans and avoid groundwater 

12 monitoring, legalizes the discharge of contami13 nated runoff water rich in nitrogen, phos14 phorus, bacteria, and metals, and ensures that 

15 large factory farms are not held liable for the 

16 environmental damage they cause. In a 2005 

17 Federal Court Decision (Waterkeeper Alliance 

18 et al. v. EPA, 399 F.3d 486 (2nd Cir. 2005)), 

19 major parts of the rule were upheld, others va20 cated, and still others remanded back to the 

21 EPA. On November 20, 2008, the Environ22 mental Protection Agency published a revised 

23 final rule which undermines environmental pro24 tection provisions by removing mandatory per25 mitting requirements and allowing large animal 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
6 

•HR 585 IH

1 farms to self-certify the absence of pollutant 

2 discharge activity. 

3 (C) On March 19, 2003, the Environ4 mental Protection Agency published a new rule 

5 regarding the Total Maximum Daily Load pro6 gram of the Clean Water Act, which regulates 

7 the maximum amount of a particular pollutant 

8 that can be present in a body of water and still 

9 meet water quality standards. The new rule 

10 withdrew the existing regulation put forth on 

11 July 13, 2000, and halted momentum in clean12 ing up polluted waterways throughout the coun13 try. By abandoning the existing rule, the Envi14 ronmental Protection Agency is undermining 

15 the effectiveness of clean-up plans and is allow16 ing States to avoid cleaning polluted waters en17 tirely by dropping them from their clean-up 

18 lists. Waterways play a crucial role in the lives 

19 of Americans and are critical to the livelihood 

20 of fish and wildlife. By dropping the July 2000 

21 rule, cleanup of existing polluted rivers, shore22 lines, and lakes will be delayed, harming more 

23 fish and wildlife and worsening the quality of 

24 drinking water. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
7 

•HR 585 IH

1 (D) On December 2, 2008, the Environ2 mental Protection Agency and Army Corps of 

3 Engineers jointly issued a Guidance Document 

4 in the form of a Legal Memorandum, titled 

5 ‘‘Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the 

6 U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. 

7 United States & Carabell v. United States’’. 

8 This new guidance dictates enforcement actions 

9 under the Clean Water Act, and calls for a 

10 complicated ‘‘case-by-case’’ analysis to deter11 mine Clean Water Act jurisdiction for water12 ways that do not flow all year long. Such ac13 tions endanger small streams and wetlands that 

14 serve as important habitats for aquatic life, 

15 which play a fundamental role in safeguarding 

16 sources of clean drinking water and mitigate 

17 the risks and effects of floods and droughts. 

18 Further, the definition provided therein for 

19 ‘‘waters of the United States’’ is applicable to 

20 the Clean Water Act as a whole, potentially af21 fecting programs that control industrial pollu22 tion and sewage levels, prevent oil spills, and 

23 set water quality standards for all waters in the 

24 United States protected under the Clean Water 

25 Act. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
8 

•HR 585 IH

1 (2) FORESTS AND LAND MANAGEMENT.— 

2 (A) On December 3, 2003, the President 

3 signed into law the Healthy Forests Restoration 

4 Act of 2003 (Public Law 108–148). Although 

5 the law attempts to reduce the risk of cata6 strophic forest fires, it provides a boon to tim7 ber companies by accelerating the aggressive 

8 thinning of backcountry forests that are far 

9 from at-risk communities. The law allows for 

10 increased logging of large, fire-resistant trees 

11 that are not in close proximity of homes and 

12 communities; it undermines critical protections 

13 for endangered species by exempting Federal 

14 land management agencies from consulting with 

15 the United States Fish and Wildlife Service be16 fore approving any action that could harm en17 dangered plants or wildlife; and it limits public 

18 participation by reducing the number of envi19 ronmental project reviews. 

20 (B) On April 21, 2008, the Department of 

21 Agriculture issued a Final Planning Rule and 

22 Record of Decision for National Forest System 

23 Land Management Planning. Similar to rules 

24 enacted by the Administration on January 5, 

25 2005, later remanded back to the agency in 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
9 

•HR 585 IH

1 Federal district court for violating the National 

2 Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Endan3 gered Species Act of 1973, and the Administra4 tive Procedure Act (Citizens for Better Forestry 

5 v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 481 F. Supp. 2d 

6 1059 (N.D. Cal. 2007)), this revised rule elimi7 nates strict forest planning standards estab8 lished in 1982, and opens millions of acres of 

9 public lands to damaging and invasive logging, 

10 mining, and drilling operations. These regula11 tions would reverse more than 20 years of pro12 tection for wildlife and national forests by re13 moving the overall goal of ensuring ecological 

14 sustainability in managing the national forest 

15 system, weakening the National Forest Man16 agement Act of 1976, and effectively ending the 

17 review of forest management plans under the 

18 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 

19 (C) On September 20, 2006, the District 

20 Court for the Northern District of California 

21 vacated the Protection of Inventoried Roadless 

22 Areas rule, enacted on May 13, 2005, which 

23 gave State Governors 18 months to petition the 

24 Federal Government to either restore the pre25 vious rule for their States, or submit a new 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
10 

•HR 585 IH

1 management and development plan for national 

2 forest areas inventoried under the rule. Despite 

3 the enjoinment of the Administration’s 2005 

4 rule, and the subsequent restoration of the 

5 original Roadless Area Conservation Rule, the 

6 U.S. Forest Service has continued to allow 

7 States to petition for a special rule under the 

8 authority of the Administrative Procedure Act, 

9 publishing a final special rule for Idaho on Oc10 tober 16, 2008. As a result, 58.5 million acres 

11 of wild national forests are still vulnerable to 

12 logging, road building, and other developments 

13 that may fragment natural habitats and nega14 tively impact fish and wildlife. 

15 (D) On November 17, 2008, the Depart16 ment of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Manage17 ment (BLM) signed the Record of Decision 

18 (ROD) amending 12 resource management 

19 plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming opening 

20 up 2,000,000 acres of public lands to commer21 cial tar sands and oil shale exploration and de22 velopment. On November 18, 2008, the BLM 

23 published a final rule for Oil Shale Manage24 ment setting the policies and procedures for a 

25 commercial leasing program for the manageVerDate Nov 24 2008 22:48 Jan 20, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H585.IH H585

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
11 

•HR 585 IH

1 ment of federally owned oil shale in these 3 

2 States. Previously barred by a Congressional 

3 Moratorium on the commercial leasing regula4 tions for oil shale until September 30, 2008, the 

5 development of oil shale on public lands poses 

6 a serious threat to land conservation, endan7 gered and threatened species, and critical habi8 tat. Domestic shale oil production permitted by 

9 these regulations is highly water and energy in10 tensive, the impacts of which will intensify ex11 isting water scarcity in the arid Western Region 

12 and potentially degrade air and water quality 

13 for surrounding populations. 

14 (3) CLEAN AIR.—On March 27, 2008, the En15 vironmental Protection Agency issued a new rule re16 vising National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

17 Ozone (NAAQS), which sets new EPA air pollution 

18 limits for ground level ozone, or smog, allowed in the 

19 air. Despite a requirement that directs the EPA to 

20 set air pollution limits low enough, and with a ‘‘mar21 gin of safety’’ sufficient to protect even the most 

22 sensitive groups, this new rule sets primary and sec23 ondary standards at .075 parts per million, well 

24 above the lower level of .060 found to affect some 

25 healthy individuals. The Clean Air Scientific AdviVerDate Nov 24 2008 22:48 Jan 20, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H585.IH H585

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
12 

•HR 585 IH

1 sory Committee unanimously recommended a range 

2 of .060 to .070 for the primary ozone NAAQS. Be3 cause existing law allows nonattainment areas up to 

4 twenty years to meet air quality standards, the long5 term implications of this new standard and its ex6 tensive impact on public health across the country 

7 necessitate standards supported by available sci8 entific data in order to ensure adequate public pro9 tection from serious diseases linked to ozone pollu10 tion including asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis. 

11 Thirteen states have filed suit against this rule alleg12 ing that the newly promulgated Federal ozone stand13 ards fail to protect the elderly, children and people 

14 with respiratory ailments, such as asthma. 

15 (4) SCIENTIFIC REVIEW.—On December 16, 

16 2008, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of the De17 partment of the Interior and the National Oceanic 

18 and Atmospheric Administration of the Department 

19 of Commerce jointly issued a new rule amending 

20 regulations governing interagency cooperation under 

21 section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 

22 (ESA). This rule undermines the intention of the 

23 ESA to protect species and the ecosystems upon 

24 which they depend by allowing Federal agencies to 

25 carry out, permit, or fund an action without proper 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
13 

•HR 585 IH

1 environmental review and expert third-party con2 sultation from Federal wildlife experts. Under this 

3 new rule, Federal agencies can unilaterally cir4 cumvent the formal review process, eliminating long5 standing and scientifically grounded safeguards that 

6 serve to protect the biodiversity of our Nation’s eco7 systems and avert harm to thousands of endangered 

8 and threatened species. 

9 SEC. 3. STATEMENT OF POLICY. 

10 It is the policy of the United States Government to 

11 work in conjunction with States, territories, tribal govern12 ments, international organizations, and foreign govern13 ments in order to act as a steward of the environment 

14 for the benefit of public health, maintain air quality and 

15 water quality, sustain the diversity of plant and animal 

16 species, combat global climate change, and protect the en17 vironment for future generations to enjoy. 

18 SEC. 4. STUDY AND REPORT ON PUBLIC HEALTH OR ENVI19 RONMENTAL IMPACT OF REVISED RULES, 

20 REGULATIONS, LAWS, OR PROPOSED LAWS. 

21 (a) STUDY.—Not later than 30 days after the date 

22 of enactment of this Act, the President shall enter into 

23 an arrangement under which the National Academy of 

24 Sciences will conduct a study to determine the impact on 

25 public health, air quality, water quality, wildlife, and the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
14 

•HR 585 IH

1 environment of the following regulations, laws, and pro2 posed laws: 

3 (1) CLEAN WATER.— 

4 (A) Final Revisions to the Clean Water 

5 Act Regulatory Definitions of ‘‘Fill Material’’ 

6 and ‘‘Discharge of Fill Material’’, finalized and 

7 published in the Federal Register on May 9, 

8 2002 (67 FR 31129), amending title 40, Code 

9 of Federal Regulations, part 232. 

10 (B) Revised National Pollutant Discharge 

11 Elimination System Permit Regulation and Ef12 fluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for 

13 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations in 

14 Response to the Waterkeeper Decision, finalized 

15 and published in the Federal Register on No16 vember 20, 2008 (73 FR 225), amending title 

17 40 Code of Federal Regulations, parts 9, 122, 

18 and 412. 

19 (C) A March 19, 2003, rule published in 

20 the Federal Register (68 FR 13608) with21 drawing a July 13, 2000, rule revising the 

22 Total Maximum Daily Load program of the 

23 Clean Water Act (65 FR 43586), amending 

24 title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, parts 9, 

25 122, 123, 124, and 130. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
15 

•HR 585 IH

1 (D) Official Guidance Document, ‘‘Clean 

2 Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Su3 preme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. United 

4 States & Carabell v. United States’’, issued on 

5 December 2, 2008, relating to jurisdiction 

6 under the Clean Water Act, section 404. 

7 (2) FORESTS AND LAND MANAGEMENT.— 

8 (A) Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 

9 2003, signed into law on December 3, 2003 

10 (Public Law 108–148). 

11 (B) National Forest System Land Manage12 ment Planning Rule, finalized and published in 

13 the Federal Register on April 21, 2008 (73 FR 

14 21468), replacing the 2005 final rule (70 FR 

15 1022, Jan. 5, 2005), as amended March 3, 

16 2006 (71 FR 10837) and the 2000 final rule 

17 adopted on November 9, 2000 (65 FR 67514) 

18 as amended on September 29, 2004 (69 FR 

19 58055), amending title 36, Code of Federal 

20 Regulations, part 219. 

21 (C) The application of the Administrative 

22 Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 to 559, 701 to 

23 706, et seq.), such that States may petition for 

24 a special rule for the roadless areas in all or 

25 part of said State. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
16 

•HR 585 IH

1 (D) Record of Decision, ‘‘Oil Shale and 

2 Tar Sands Resources Resource Management 

3 Plan Amendments’’, issued on November 17, 

4 2008, along with the Final Rule, Oil Shale 

5 Management-General, published in the Federal 

6 Register on November 18, 2008 (73 FR 223), 

7 amending title 43, Code of Federal Regulations, 

8 parts 3900, 3910, 3920, and 3930. 

9 (3) CLEAN AIR.—Final Rule, National Ambient 

10 Air Quality Standards for Ozone, published in the 

11 Federal Register on March 27, 2008 (73 FR 

12 16436), amending title 40, Code of Federal Regula13 tions, parts 50 and 58. 

14 (4) SCIENTIFIC REVIEW.—Final Rule, Inter15 agency Cooperation Under the Endangered Species 

16 Act, published in the Federal Register on December 

17 16, 2008, amending title 50, Code of Federal Regu18 lations, part 402. 

19 (b) METHOD.—In conducting the study under sub20 section (a), the National Academy of Sciences may utilize 

21 and compare existing scientific studies regarding the regu22 lations, laws, and proposed laws listed in subsection (a). 

23 (c) REPORT.—Under the arrangement entered into 

24 under subsection (a), not later than 270 days after the 

25 date on which such arrangement is entered into, the NaVerDate Nov 24 2008 22:48 Jan 20, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H585.IH H585

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
17 

•HR 585 IH

1 tional Academy of Sciences shall make publicly available 

2 and shall submit to the Congress and to the head of each 

3 department and agency of the Federal Government that 

4 issued, implements, or would implement a regulation, law, 

5 or proposed law listed in subsection (a), a report con6 taining— 

7 (1) a description of the impact of all such regu8 lations, laws, and proposed laws on public health, air 

9 quality, water quality, wildlife, and the environment, 

10 compared to the impact of preexisting regulations, 

11 or laws in effect, including— 

12 (A) any negative impacts to air quality or 

13 water quality; 

14 (B) any negative impacts to wildlife; 

15 (C) any delays in hazardous waste cleanup 

16 that are projected to be hazardous to public 

17 health; and 

18 (D) any other negative impact on public 

19 health or the environment; and 

20 (2) any recommendations that the National 

21 Academy of Sciences considers appropriate to main22 tain, restore, or improve in whole or in part protec23 tions for public health, air quality, water quality, 

24 wildlife, and the environment for each of the regula25 tions, laws, and proposed laws listed in subsection 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
18 

•HR 585 IH

1 (a), which may include recommendations for the 

2 adoption of any regulation or law in place or pro3 posed prior to January 1, 2001. 

4 SEC. 5. DEPARTMENT AND AGENCY REVISION OF EXISTING 

5 RULES, REGULATIONS, OR LAWS. 

6 Not later than 180 days after the date on which the 

7 report is submitted pursuant to section 4(c), the head of 

8 each department and agency that has issued or imple9 mented a regulation or law listed in section 4(a) shall sub10 mit to the Congress a plan describing the steps such de11 partment or such agency will take, or has taken, to restore 

12 or improve protections for public health and the environ13 ment in whole or in part that were in existence prior to 

14 the issuance of such regulation or law. 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS