On the recordJanuary 13, 2015
This amendment is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It would not change the bill's overarching regulatory purpose, nor does it address the many concerns expressed by scores of public interest groups that strenuously oppose the bill. I think the President is very sensitive to the working class, the poor, and minorities especially, and I enjoy hearing this commentary coming from the other side of the aisle. If the majority were serious about protecting the low-income population, it would have made in order the amendment offered by our colleague from Illinois, Bobby Rush, to promote environmental justice. The Rush amendment would have safeguarded existing protections while mitigating the devastating consequences of H.R. 185 on both minority and low-income populations. I repeat, AFL-CIO, Public Citizen, and the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards all oppose the McKinley amendment. I yield back the balance of my time. The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley). The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it. Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia will be postponed. Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in part A of House Report 114-2.





