A House subpanel today will vote on two GOP bills that seek to override U.S. EPA decisions on phasing out products that contain ozone-depleting substances.

Republican leaders in the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power are going ahead with the votes on the bills despite calls yesterday from Democratic members to delay in order to receive more feedback from EPA and other government agencies. The subpanel held a hearing on the bills yesterday that did not include any federal officials.

Although EPA submitted a written statement on the bills, Democrats said they wanted the chance to be able to question officials directly before marking up the legislation.

"What's the rush?" asked Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), ranking member on the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, adding that committee members would "benefit greatly" from hearing testimony from expert witnesses.

The subpanel's chairman, Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), said he had reached out to Obama administration officials. He said he wanted to move on the bills, citing potential job losses in the agricultural industry and the need to make sure asthma patients have access to inhalers in emergencies.

"We do believe this is an important issue. A lot of jobs are at stake," Whitfield said.

One of the bills seeks to ensure that farmers will continue to have access to methyl bromide, a pesticide containing chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that officials agreed to phase out under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. The other would allow over-the-counter epinephrine inhalers containing CFCs to be sold until August 2013 after being taken off the market at the beginning of the year.

Subpanel members made opening statements yesterday afternoon and will offer amendments today. Regardless of whether the bills pass the committee and the House, it is unlikely they will go much further.

"It's going to sink out of sight. And if it doesn't sink out of sight in the Senate, it's probably not going to be signed by the president," Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) said of the methyl bromide bill.

The subpanel is also scheduled to mark up the "No More Solyndras Act," a bill sponsored by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) to phase out the loan guarantee program that handed a $535 million loan guarantee to the now-defunct Solyndra Inc.

Heated debate at hearing

The hearing on the CFC bills yesterday saw heated exchanges between supporters and opponents.

On the methyl bromide issue, a panel made up of mostly farmers urged the committee to pass the bill, saying that the phase-out of methyl bromide as a pesticide has led to crop losses and the introduction of new diseases.

Methyl bromide was banned in 2005 under the Montreal Protocol, but the protocol allows for exemptions for "critical uses" that producers can apply for each year. Since the ban, methyl bromide use has dropped dramatically, as have the exemptions.

The legislation being marked up today would permanently define the critical uses that methyl bromide users are able to claim, relying on the uses that were labeled "critical" in 2005. The bill would also transfer the onus of gathering data to support exemptions to EPA.

It would also expand producers' ability to claim emergency exemptions.

Farmers yesterday testified that the bill was needed because the available alternatives to methyl bromide have been ineffective.

"When EPA told us to replace methyl bromide with other fumigants, we did so," said Mark Murai, president of the California Strawberry Commission. "However, after multiple years of repeated use of the alternatives, we learned that they did not work on all of the soil-borne diseases. In 2008, we saw the emergence of new diseases that resulted in widespread crop failure."

But David Doniger, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council and the only non-farmer on the panel, warned that tampering with the Montreal Protocol could harm public health. He said that farmers have had plenty of time to prepare for the phase-out of the pesticide.

"Methyl bromide suppliers and users have dragged their feet on replacing this dangerous compound for two decades," he said. "No other industry has had more time and more leeway to transition from dangerous, ozone-destroying chemicals."

He and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) warned that growers that have already phased out methyl bromide would be permitted to use the pesticide again, as would golf courses. In the written comments provided to committee members, EPA also opposed the bill.

"The bill appears intended to shift the burden of proof for justifying a critical use exemption from the applicant to EPA," Gina McCarthy, assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, said in the statement. "This shift may have the unintended result of producing U.S. nominations that are less likely to secure international agreement because they are not as fully technically supported and may be viewed by other Parties as less rigorous than nominations developed under the current process."

Republican members sided with the farmers, saying that the lack of methyl bromide would allow foreign countries to outstrip the United States in the production of strawberries and other crops dependent on the pesticide.

"Just outlawing something does not answer the problem," said Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.) "We need alternatives that work."

Controversy over asthma inhaler bill

The asthma inhaler bill also prompted strong responses from both opponents and supporters.

Under the bill, the company Amphastar Pharmaceuticals Inc. would be allowed to bring its CFC-containing inhaler, Primatene Mist, back on the market until 2013 to sell off remaining supplies. EPA banned the inhaler at the beginning of the year under the Montreal Protocol, leaving asthma patients without any options for over-the-counter inhalers and approximately 1.2 million inhalers in storage.

There are prescription-based medications available, but they can cost upward of $100, according to panel witnesses.

The bill is sponsored by Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas), who is himself an asthmatic and yesterday gave an impassioned speech in support of the legislation, saying that Primatene Mist has helped him in emergency situations. EPA and the Food and Drug Administration, which approves new drugs, have been giving him conflicting answers, he said.

"This has been difficult for me because I just simply cannot understand what in the hell is going on," Burgess said. "We've got the EPA saying that the Montreal Protocol says we've got to take this stuff off the market. The FDA is saying, 'Yeah, yeah, we're working on a replacement, we'll get through it.' But it just wasn't happening."

The bill is backed by Republican members on the subpanel.

"We should allow those that have already been manufactured to be sold before they expire," Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) said yesterday.

Much of the hearing centered on the effectiveness of Primatene Mist and whether it was even an appropriate medication in the first place, much less whether EPA should prohibit its use for ozone reasons.

Jason Shandell, general counsel and secretary of Amphastar, defended its use, noting that the inhaler has been on the market for 50 years and that EPA was allowing two other CFC-containing prescription inhalers to remain on the market. He was backed by former Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, who did not testify but was at the hearing in his capacity as a lobbyist with Venable LLC.

"I think overall, the majority House will support the legislation," Stupak said after the hearing. "Pretty much all the Republican side and you see a number of Democrats are supporting this."

In her written statement, McCarthy opposed the bill, saying it would "confuse patients, reduce confidence in the transition process, and send a strong signal to other pharmaceutical manufacturers that orderly engagement in public policy processes may not be rewarded," McCarthy said. "Further, the bill's language is directed at restricting EPA enforcement authority."

Whitfield encouraged his colleagues to meet with federal officials on the issues outside of the committee room. But the markup officially started about two hours after the hearings, not leaving lawmakers much time.