Relief from New Source Performance Standards Act of 2017

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 762 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 762, which provides for the consideration of H.R. 1119, the Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the Environment--or SENSE--Act, and provides for consideration of H.R. 1917, the Blocking Regulatory Interference from Closing Kilns--or BRICK--Act of 2017.

Mr. Speaker, for many years our domestic energy industry has suffered under unnecessary and politically motivated regulations and burdensome, bureaucratic red tape, prohibiting growth and innovation. President Trump and his administration have been working hard, along with this Congress, to undo the policies which have so harmed our domestic energy industry.

Today's rule allows for the consideration of two bills, which will further those efforts and reform our regulatory framework so our energy producers can do their jobs more efficiently and economically, along with safeguards that will still be in place to protect health and safety. These bills provide a commonsense solution to tailor EPA emission standards, and they provide reasonable compliance timelines for the specific regulated industries.

The first bill, H.R. 1119, the SENSE Act, is sponsored by my colleague, Mr. Rothfus from Pennsylvania. This bill would provide for targeted modifications to the EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, MATS, as it applies to coal refuse-to-energy facilities. The EPA has included certain emissions limits in the new standards that are just simply not achievable for these refuse plants.

These specialized power plants have been developed to recycle coal refuse by using it as an energy source to generate affordable, reliable electricity. These facilities have thus far removed 214 million tons of coal refuse from the environment, at no expense to taxpayers.

In addition to helping address coal refuse, these facilities have created an estimated 1,200 direct jobs and 4,000 indirect jobs in areas that have been economically distressed for many years.

There are 19 of these coal refuse-to-energy facilities, many of which are at direct risk of being shut down absent passage of the SENSE Act.

The SENSE Act would create a way for coal refuse-to-energy facilities to continue their much-needed work by allowing these plants to demonstrate compliance with EPA's hydrochloric acid standard by using sulfur dioxide as a proxy and assuming that a 93 percent reduction in sulfur dioxide demonstrates compliance with the hydrochloric acid emissions reduction standard.

The bill would still require these coal refuse-to-energy facilities to be subject to emissions limitations and to achieve substantial declines in emissions; but it would do so in a way that these facilities can achieve while also remaining operational, recognizing the crucial role they play in providing energy, and helping to clean up coal refuse sites.

Mr. Speaker, our rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 1917, the Blocking Regulatory Interference from Closing Kilns, or BRICK, Act of 2017 sponsored by my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Johnson). This bill will help preserve America's brickmaking industry and its 7,000 jobs and protects them from an EPA rule that created a far too rushed compliance timetable for businesses across the Nation.

The emissions standards in this rule apply to kilns at brick and structural clay products manufacturing facilities and at clay ceramic manufacturing facilities. Industry has estimated the cost of this rule, if allowed to go into effect, would potentially exceed $100 million annually, which is four times higher than what the EPA initially estimated. This is yet one more example of how poorly thought-out and misguided regulations are harming industries and have been a severe hindrance to the kind of job creation we know we can now see unleashed across our Nation.

We have got to ensure businesses have time to comply and that regulations make sense. We should not force them into arbitrary time lines that will make them shut down. H.R. 1917 provides that needed time and makes compliance possible.

The BRICK Act also includes the text of the Relief from New Source Performance Standards. This legislation was authored by my Democratic colleague from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson). The provision in this bill will help both manufacturers and users of wood heaters by providing relief from overly burdensome and arbitrary time lines that have been imposed by the EPA's New Source Performance Standards. Specifically, this bill provides an additional 3 years for businesses to comply with this rule.

Wood heaters are an affordable source of home heating, especially in rural America, and it is critically important that we protect this low- cost source of heating. The New Source Performance Standards for wood heaters, which took effect in 2015, include a provision that is proving nearly impossible, once again, for manufacturers to comply with as they are struggling to design compliant models in the short timeframe allowed by the agency. As a result, we have seen workers laid off and other companies fearing that they will not be able to stay in business after 2020.

Wood heater users in many low-income households across the country face the likelihood of having to pay more and having a reduced product choice. This is one more example of Federal overreach in which the agency failed to take into account the real impact of these regulations on everyday Americans across our country.

It is crucial that we pass the BRICK Act, which would extend the deadline for the second phase of the wood heater standards from 2020 to 2023, and provide time for meaningful judicial review of the Brick and Structural Clay Products: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants before the owners and operations of these facilities are required to make significant and potentially irreversible decisions regarding capital investments, or driving them out of business altogether.

Mr. Speaker, we must ensure emissions standards are reasonable and do not unnecessarily cripple small businesses, which we know are the drivers of our economy.

Mr. Speaker, therefore, I encourage support for the rule for these important bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), my colleague and the sponsor of the SENSE Act.

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), the sponsor of the BRICK Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy very much serving on the Rules Committee with all of my colleagues on the committee. One of the things that I am often asked because I am a new Member of this body is: What has surprised me most about being a Member of Congress?

My answer is: Often you see on the outside what looks like a lot of vitriol between the parties, but, in actuality, I believe that every Member of this body is here for the right reasons. They are here because they want to serve the people of their districts, the people of their States, and the people of this Nation.

I think it is crucially important, Mr. Speaker, particularly when we are talking about something as sacred as the safety of our children, that we not engage in the kind of partisan attacks, that we not exploit tragedy, that we not engage in the kind of questioning of motives that I just heard my colleague on the other side of the aisle do.

I know my colleague, Mr. Hastings, knows that we may have disagreements, but the reason that I, as a mother, feel so strongly about the Second Amendment is because I want to keep our kids safe. I know he knows that my beliefs about the Second Amendment, though they are different from his, are not based upon any campaign donations and any campaign contributions. I know he knows that they are based very firmly on a fundamental commitment to the importance of the Second Amendment as part of what makes this Nation safe, as part of what makes our individuals secure, and how important it is for us not to use this tragedy to take steps--that may make people feel better--that fundamentally violate our constitutional rights and that won't keep our kids safe.

When you go down the path that we have heard so many on the other side of the aisle suggest we go down, whether they are talking about banning entire classes of weapons, whether they are talking about expanding background checks so that they are somehow universal--our background check system right now is broken. It doesn't work.

We have a situation in which States are not reporting in the way that they ought to report. So when I hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle suggest that what we ought to do, frankly, is expand a system that is failing and call that progress, I can't help but think that that is pretty much their standard operating procedure: No matter what the policy is, let's expand the broken system, let's ignore whether or not it is really working, and let's call it progress.

Mr. Speaker, I will not be a party to that. I will not be a party in a situation in which we have had tragedy after tragedy, a situation in which in this most recent tragedy law enforcement fundamentally at all levels failed our children. When you have individuals inside of a school who were killed because armed officers outside the school failed to enter, when you have children who are killed because call after call after call to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and to the local law enforcement officials went unheeded because specific tips about this particular individual went unheeded, that is not a time, Mr. Speaker, for us to say: What we ought to do then is prevent law-abiding Americans from having access to the firearms that they need to defend and protect themselves.

I think, Mr. Speaker, if you look at what those on the other side of the aisle are attempting to do with respect to the debate about guns and the debate about school safety, it is critically important for all of us to stand up and say: No, we will not go down a path that is going to violate constitutional rights, that will not keep our children safe, and find some kind of false comfort in that.

When you are talking about the bills that are before us today, Mr. Speaker, we are in a similar situation. We have had 8 years in the Obama administration where they imposed regulation after regulation after regulation in the name of somehow protecting the environment.

Mr. Speaker, President Obama's own EPA Administrator testified in front of Congress that the Clean Power Plan would, in fact, not have any sort of positive impact on the environment or on global temperatures, yet they imposed it anyway, imposing massive costs on our industry in the name, I suppose, of trying to feel better and trying to feel like they are doing something. But what they are really doing is actually putting ourselves in a situation where we are harming small businesses, where we are strangling them, and where we are preventing their ability to grow and to thrive. We know we can do that, Mr. Speaker, in a way that also protects our environment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues, Mr. Rothfus and Mr. Johnson, for their work on these very important bills.

In Wyoming, Mr. Speaker, we know that our coal and our fossil fuels are national treasures. They are absolutely crucial to providing the power that runs this Nation. I am proud of all that we in this body and President Trump together have done to roll back dangerous and ill- advised Obama-era regulations that have been aimed at killing our fossil fuel industry.

We can no longer go down the path of allowing these regulations to exist in a way that devastates industry, puts the fundamental reliability of our electricity and of our energy grid at risk, and achieves no measurable impact for the environment. It is long past time for that indefensible approach to end. That is what we are doing here today.

These are good bills. They are important bills. They will take this next step in rolling back the kind of overwhelming regulation that we have seen, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of both the rule and the underlying bills.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would like first to thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney), my friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate.

Today's bills would modify Clean Air Act regulations, or the act itself, to give a handout to specified industries to emit more pollution into the air. These bills, in my view, would result in more smog, more fine particle pollution, and more toxic air pollution. The effects would be worse, resulting in more asthma attacks, more kids in emergency rooms, more bronchitis, more cancer diagnoses, and more birth defects.

Mr. Speaker, these bills represent a fundamentally unfair and deeply troubling approach to regulation. In bringing up these bills, the Republican-controlled Congress is granting favors to special interests at the expense of public health. Shocking, but not surprising. By bringing up these bills, the majority intends to overturn evidence- based, scientific decisions made by the Environmental Protection Agency, States, and courts after a transparent and extensive process.

To date, the Trump administration, with the help of the Republican- controlled Congress, has targeted 67 environmental rules. One of those rules was the requirement that mining companies prove they have the financial wherewithal to clean up their pollution. Another is the rule regulating airborne mercury emissions from fossil fuel power plants. And most recently, the administration announced it was targeting oil rig safety regulations, regulations that were implemented after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill, a spill that burned for 36 hours, released 4.9 billion barrels of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico, spread 3,850 square miles, and resulted in billions of dollars of losses to the U.S. fishing industry and the Gulf Coast tourist industry.

Mr. Speaker, since passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970, America has made substantial progress in cleaning up this Nation's air. We have done this by following a fundamental principle: holding polluters accountable for their pollution.

Instead of following this commonsense, bedrock principle, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle insist on creating loopholes for a few favored industries: waste coal plants, brick manufacturers, and those who manufacture residential wood heaters.

Mr. Speaker, the first of these bills, the ironically titled SENSE Act, weakens the critical Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule, which established the first national standards to address power plant emissions of toxic air pollutants. This Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule requires coal-fired power plants to meet emissions standards for mercury, other metals, and acid gases.

Has the majority engaged in any in-depth analysis of what will happen when this rule is weakened? Has the majority filled its ranks with experts, scientists, and doctors who will be able to put forth a case for why undermining this rule is good policy? Of course not.

Mr. Speaker, here is what we know: The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that for every dollar spent to reduce pollution under this rule American families receive up to $9 in health benefits. In fact, the EPA estimated that, in 2016, the MATS rule would avoid up to 11,000 premature deaths, 2,800 cases of chronic bronchitis, 4,700 heart attacks, 130,000 cases of aggravated asthma, 5,700 hospital and emergency room visits, 6,300 cases of acute bronchitis, 140,000 cases of respiratory symptoms, and 540,000 days when people miss work. My Republican colleagues want to do away with those health benefits and, instead, permit favored industries to pollute more.

Mr. Speaker, the second measure combines two bills: H.R. 1917, the BRICK Act; and H.R. 453, the Relief from New Source Performance Standards Act. The BRICK Act unjustifiably delays reductions in toxic air pollution from brick manufacturers by allowing them to continue to pollute until all their lawsuits are exhausted. The bill throws out existing judicial process by providing a blanket extension for any compliance deadline, regardless of the merits of the case.

Under well established legal norms, the court of appeals for the district circuit may stay a rule during litigation if it finds that the party seeking the stay has demonstrated that there is a likelihood of success on the merits, the prospect of irreparable harm to the party requesting the stay, and, most importantly, whether granting the stay is in the public interest. To date, not one of the industry litigants have even asked the court to stay the Brick and Structural Clay Products rule. Not one. Presumably it is because they recognize that they cannot meet this legal standard.

Mr. Speaker, the existing judicial process is the appropriate method to seek a stay of the rule and is the preferable method to unnecessary congressional intervention proposed by the BRICK Act.

This brings me to H.R. 453, the Relief from New Source Performance Standards Act, which delays cleaner burning wood stoves until 2023, on top of the 5 years manufacturers already had to comply, exposing communities to additional years of unhealthy fine particle pollution, carbon monoxide, and volatile organic compounds.

In 2015, the EPA strengthened the pollution control requirements for new residential wood heaters. The new standards would cut fine particle pollution and volatile organic compounds from new wood heaters by almost 70 percent and will cut carbon monoxide pollution by 62 percent. The EPA even included provisions in the rule to help manufacturers achieve the new standards, giving the manufacturers 5 years to comply.

Mr. Speaker, these pollutants combine with other pollutants in the air from smog, black carbon, and benzene, harming the health of the American people, particularly our kids and seniors, who will have to pay for these special interest breaks with their health and, in some cases, with their lives. These three bills sacrifice Americans' health with additional years of unnecessary pollution.

Mr. Speaker, it is as disappointing as it is frustrating that we come here today to debate bills that will increase pollution in our country and also have very little hope--let me underscore that: very little hope--of ever becoming law. We have real work to do in this place, and these bills are not that work.

This body must turn its attention to finally addressing the gun violence epidemic that has taken over our country. Most recently at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, in a district adjacent to the district that I am privileged to serve, less than a month ago, a 19-year-old legally purchased a semiautomatic AR-15 and used it to methodically murder 14 of his former classmates and three teachers.

What was the response of this body? Well, we did prayers and thoughts, which is good. But did my Republican colleagues bring to the floor a bill that would ban assault weapons? Did they bring to the floor legislation to close the gun show loophole? Did they bring to the floor legislation that would raise the minimum purchase age for rifles? Or mandatory comprehensive background checks for gun buyers and ban bump stocks? Or allow the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to study gun violence?

No, Mr. Speaker. Instead this body offered, as I said, its thoughts and prayers.

And I have said it before and I will say it again today: those who stand in the way of legislation that will address our country's gun violence epidemic are increasingly culpable for its needless continuation.

So what we choose to talk about is pollution. What we should be talking about is the gun epidemic, and I will get to DACA a little bit later in my closing.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, 6 months ago, Donald John Trump decided to end the DACA program, a program which gave hundreds of thousands of hardworking young people hope for the future. He gave Congress until March 5--that was 2 days ago--to pass a bill. Since then, House Democrats have tried 23 times to pass bipartisan legislation to fix this problem. Donald John Trump even tweeted: ``Total inaction on DACA by Dems. Where are you?''

Well, Mr. President, where we are is right here, waiting for this deal that you say can be made. Yet, on 23 occasions, it was our friends on the other side of the aisle who refused to make a deal and rejected even considering the bipartisan Dream Act that was deadlined by you, Donald John Trump, on March 5.

We need to address this vital issue now. Approximately 120 Dreamers lose their status each day. Over 22,000 have lost their status since the administration ended the program.

Mr. Speaker, I implore my colleagues: Let's do something now to lift the cloud that hangs over these young people who are American in every way except on paper.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer for the 24th time an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation will help solve the problem created by Donald John Trump's decision to end the DACA program.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa), my good friend, a member of the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committees of this Congress, who will discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I have watched this last year as members of the Republican majority worked diligently to eliminate Federal environmental regulations that serve to keep the American people safe from harmful toxins in their air and water.

I couldn't help but be amused by my colleague on the right's comments at the end that we will be using sticks instead of bricks. Very clever. But the real truth of the matter is, in certain parts of the world--and I would urge him to visit some of them--there are examples of things other than brick for construction. I have no quarrel with the brick industry. I just urge--and in many instances they are already doing it--that they do everything they can not to pollute the environment.

I have watched members in the Republican majority work relentlessly for special interest groups instead of working for all of the American people. I have watched members of the Republican majority put the wish list of the powerful corporate gun lobby ahead of the safety of the American people.

On Monday, we all watched a self-imposed Republican deadline slip by, to the detriment of thousands upon thousands of young people in our country who we have identified as Dreamers, young people who know no other country as home than the United States of America. Every day of inaction on the part of my friends across the aisle means another day that families are needlessly and cruelly made to live under the threat of being torn asunder.

My colleague, Lois Frankel, and I were at a men's club before a couple of hundred of men in the Valencia Cove in Boynton Beach. The question was put to both of us: Why do we support illegal immigrants in this country?

We tried to make the distinction for him with reference to Dreamers and the fact that all of these young people were brought here against their volition by their parents. So it is the Dreamers that we are supporting. I think he finally understood the importance of our doing comprehensive immigration reform in this country.

Democrats have offered to bring the Dream Act to the floor now 24 times. We are going to give them one more chance. We have done it 23, and every single time this effort has been blocked by the majority.

To address my friend who correctly cited that we were bringing this up: It is not so much to change the topic of the day. We don't have that prerogative. But we do have embedded in this rule the prerogative to bring a previous question, and that can be on any subject that we choose. What we choose to do is to prioritize things that we consider to be important. It would not have blocked this particular measure.

But the fact is, enough is enough. The President says he wants to fix this problem. The Speaker says he wants to fix this problem. We on this side of the aisle clearly want to fix this problem. So let's do it now.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, on the previous question, and on the underlying bills.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 762, I call up the bill (H.R. 1917) to allow for judicial review of any final rule addressing national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for brick and structural clay products or for clay ceramics manufacturing before requiring compliance with such rule, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 1917.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today we have a chance to help hundreds of small businesses, manufacturers, as well as thousands of employees, while also lowering prices for consumers.

I thank the bipartisan cosponsors of H.R. 1917, the Blocking Regulatory Interference from Closing Kilns Act, the BRICK Act, and urge my colleagues to support this commonsense bill.

American brickmakers literally produce the building blocks of our Nation. They are primarily small businesses, and they are often the most important employer in small communities across America, where many are located.

Like an old brick house, this industry has had to weather a lot, including a long economic downturn, that we have finally come out of, that suppressed new construction activity and, thus, brick sales for many years.

They even weathered the 2003 EPA regulation that cost many millions of dollars to comply. That regulation was later thrown out by a Federal court, but the judicial relief came too late, as the industry had already spent considerable sums to meet EPA's tight deadlines.

We don't want to see a repeat of that unfair result, but, once again, EPA has imposed another regulation with difficult deadlines that will likely take effect before judicial review is complete.

Brickmakers have testified before the Energy and Commerce Committee that this regulation may result in layoffs and even plant closures. H.R. 1917 would simply extend the compliance deadline until after judicial review is final.

This industry has already reduced its emissions by up to 95 percent, according to a study from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It should not be forced to comply with another new regulation that may not withstand judicial scrutiny. We owe it to these brickmakers, their employees, and consumers of building materials to allow meaningful judicial review.

I might add that a Senate bill has been recently introduced that also provides regulatory relief for brickmakers, but it takes a somewhat different approach than our version. I pledge to work with the Senate so that we can provide timely relief to this important industry.

The bill also deals with wood heaters. As with bricks, the wood heaters industry is dominated by small business manufacturers who are often the economic anchors of rural communities, where many are located. Many wood heater buyers are low-income, rural households that rely on them to get through the winter.

In 2015, EPA set a two-step wood heater emission rule. The first step took effect in 2015 and reduced emissions in new models by up to 90 percent.

The more stringent second step is scheduled to take effect in 2020, but is causing a great deal of difficulty. Only a small fraction of the wood heating models currently available can meet the 2020 standards, and time is running out to design and certify any additional models.

One wood heater manufacturer testified before the Energy and Commerce Committee that he has already had to cut staff as a result of the 2020 deadline, and others feel there will be additional job losses if the 2020 standard is retained, but this is not just a jobs issue.

Users of wood heaters face both reduced product choice and higher prices for new models. Many would have to forgo buying a new wood heater and continue using older and dirtier ones, which undercuts the claims that the current deadline will improve air quality.

The provisions in the bill retain the 2015 standards, but extend the 2020 deadline by 3 years to 2023.

This is a reasonable fix that would avoid unnecessary economic damage while still prioritizing environmental protection.

In conclusion, the brick industry and the wood heater industry may both be small, but they are far from small to those who owe their jobs to them and to those who rely on their products.

I urge my colleagues to provide targeted relief to these two industries by supporting H.R. 1917.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the next individual, I just want to say it is not a low cost to the individuals in these small communities who lose their job, and it is not a low cost to the communities that lose the tax base when these small businesses fold up and go away in small towns.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Harper), a person who also represents big parts of rural America.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from the great State of Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), a Democrat who is going to speak on behalf of part of his bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), the author of the BRICK Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good debate and discussion. It is one we had in the subcommittee; it is one we had in the full committee; and we are bringing it to the floor. It just focuses on a different way in which we view manufacturing and, really, as you heard in this debate, small manufacturers--small brick manufacturers, small wood heaters, because, as everyone knows, when you are in a big corporation, you have got lawyers and you have got--you can do an economic analysis and you can do research and development, but a lot of these folks are just small local operations, probably started by a husband and wife, probably brought on a kid and next-door neighbor.

In my opening statement, I mentioned how, in rural America, there are not a lot of businesses, other than maybe agriculture, people coming into the town; so not only are these manufacturers, they are the backbone of these small communities.

So, simply put, this bill is a combination of two. One says you really shouldn't force someone to comply with a rule and regulation until they have fought the litigation battle, because, in the example that we are talking about today, the claimants, the manufacturers, won, where either they went out of business because they were trying to comply or they had to have this excessive cost. That is issue one.

Issue two on the small wood heaters is just say they were forced to move forward in cleaner technology, increasing their environmental ability 90 percent; and we all know that the cleaner you get, the harder it is to get the last percentages. So all the folks are asking for is more time to comply.

They are both bipartisan bills. I applaud folks coming down to talk and defend those. This is an exciting time in our country. It is exciting because we are having economic growth. We are having economic growth for two reasons. One, our historic tax cuts. Fifty percent of all manufacturers of the country have said they are going to invest in capital investment. Pretty exciting.

There is optimism again. Wages are increasing. Benefits are increasing. You have people getting checks increasing or new growth capital expenses.

There is another component of this exciting time for jobs in the economy, and this other component is easing up on the assault that the EPA has done over the past decade on our manufacturing sector and our job creators.

So you put these two together, the American worker has a greater opportunity, and these are just a couple of examples of the bills we are moving today, how we can continue to make that happen.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I include the following letters in the Record on H.R. 1917.

Chamber of Commerce of

the United States of America,

Washington, DC, March 7, 2018.

To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The

U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports H.R. 1917, the ``Blocking

Regulatory Interference from Closing Kilns (BRICK) Act of

2017.'' The bill would ensure that the U.S. brick industry

will not be forced to comply with the Brick Maximum

Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards for air

quality issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) until after judicial challenges to the rule are

resolved.

EPA issued an earlier version of the Brick MACT rule in

2003, which required the brick industry to spend millions of

dollars to purchase, install, and operate control equipment.

Five years later, a court threw out the 2003 rule. Now brick

companies are faced with having to pay to tear out the

equipment they installed and install even more costly new

equipment. Brick companies are rightfully worried that they

may make the investment to comply with the 2015 rule, only to

have it subsequently thrown out by a court. To avoid this

unfair and wasteful outcome, H.R. 1917 would set a compliance

date for the final Brick MACT rule after judicial challenges

to the 2015 Brick MACT rule are completed and after any

subsequent final rule is promulgated.

It is important that American industries are not unfairly

penalized when they are compelled to comply with costly rules

that are later overturned by the courts. This wasteful and

unreasonable outcome must be avoided.

Sincerely,

Neil L. Bradley.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, a Member uses a motion to instruct or recommit to change or amend the bill. I don't think we build and use bricks to make our airplanes, and I don't think we power our planes with wood heaters.

So what is the deal with this motion to instruct and recommit?

It is just purely politics, and it is not surprising.

Why?

Well, because Democrats want to distort us from our economic success of the Republican agenda. And it is built on two foundational principles. One is the very successful tax reform and bill that we passed in December. And Americans are seeing it. Fifty percent of all manufacturers around the country are going to invest in capital expansion. People have bigger paychecks now. They are getting bonuses.

In fact, I was on the floor last night with Illinoisans. We were reading stories from constituents about the benefits they are receiving, either in less money being taken out on taxes or increase in wages; trucking companies expanding. So it is an incredible success of optimism when we have been in an economic malaise for the past 8 years.

And that is the kind of society I want to live in. I want to live in a society where, when my kids enter the workforce, there is a job there. And I want them to say: If I work hard and play by the rules, man, there is an opportunity for me. And that is what is coming back.

There is another component to this economic success, and that is calling

off the EPA dogs who have been attacking the job creators in our country over the past 8 years. Ease the regulatory burden, provide historic tax relief, excitement in the economy, new jobs, new energy. So I understand why my opponents on the other side would like to distort us from this record.

This motion to recommit is purely politics to do that, so that is why I ask my colleagues to reject the motion to recommit and, once we do that, support the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me.

Mr. Speaker, just listening to the other side's comments about the SENSE Act, I am wondering if they

have read the same bill or if they have ever visited the hills of western Pennsylvania where we see the environmental damage that waste coal piles have done and the tremendous progress that we have seen over the last number of decades in actually cleaning up the environment.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise in support of H. Res. 762, the rule that is under consideration, and I want to talk about the SENSE Act, which is included within this rule, H.R. 1119.

This is a pro-environment bill. The purpose of the bill is to ensure that coal refuse-to-energy facilities can be held to strict but achievable standards.

To be clear, these plants comply with nearly all standards as it is, including mercury emissions. We are talking about a modification, a customization, as it were, in recognition of the tremendous benefit that these plants have made to the environment.

I have introduced versions of this bill during prior Congresses, and I am hopeful that this bill can become law. It enjoys bipartisan support.

As many of you know, coal refuse is a by-product of historic coal mining operations. Throughout many parts of coal country, towering black mounds of this material loom beside cities and towns, especially in Pennsylvania and in West Virginia.

I would invite my colleague from Florida to come up to western Pennsylvania and take a look at the scarred landscape and polluted rivers we have there as a result of these coal refuse piles.

Many of these piles can smoulder, can spontaneously combust, giving off emissions with no controls, zero controls. They catch fire, burning uncontrollably, sending hazardous smoke into the air and into surrounding communities. Local governments are then forced to spend increasingly scarce taxpayer resources fighting these fires.

Rainwater leaches terrible chemicals from these mounds, polluting nearby rivers and streams.

Fortunately, the coal refuse-to-energy industry turns this material into energy, while cleaning up and remediating many polluted sites, at no cost to the taxpayer.

These power plants are really the only practical solution to this massive environmental problem that we have in Pennsylvania and West Virginia that could cost, in Pennsylvania alone, an estimated $2 billion to remediate. This is being done without taxpayer funding right now, the cleanup, because of these plants.

For several years, I have spoken about the tremendous work being done by hardworking folks in this industry, which I have seen firsthand. I have stood on coal refuse piles in the process of remediation, and I have also walked on restored sites, many of which are parks and meadows, now regarded as community assets rather than liabilities. I have seen the streams that were once dead that now have fish.

Despite all the good that this industry does for Pennsylvania and West Virginia, five coal refuse-to-energy facilities are under threat from Federal regulations, seemingly incapable of needed flexibility to accommodate private sector work that is actually improving the environment.

If rigid EPA orthodoxy makes no exceptions for this pro-environment industry, it is not just the environment that will continue to suffer. These plants support family-sustaining jobs, and thousands of jobs are at stake if these plants are regulated out of business, both direct and indirect.

I should note that many of these jobs are in localities that have already been hit exceptionally hard by both the last recession and the ongoing opioid crisis.

The people expect us to stand for them, especially when their livelihoods come under threat from heavy-handed, one-size-fits-all Washington policies. So as we debate the SENSE Act, please keep in mind what the bill's supporters are fighting for.

Here is what is going to happen if this law doesn't pass: rivers and streams aren't going to come back to life; hillsides aren't going to be restored; and these piles, they can spontaneously combust, again, with no emissions control whatsoever.

The SENSE Act is about protecting family-sustaining jobs and ensuring the continuation of the environmental success story of the coal refuse- to-energy industry. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support the rule and the SENSE Act.

Again, are we capable of making judgments in this House? Are we capable of customizing one-size-fits all.

The EPA, frankly, has recognized the work of this industry. ``Coal refuse piles,'' the EPA has said, ``are an environmental concern because of acid seepage and leachate production, spontaneous combustion, and low soil fertility. Units that burn coal refuse provide multimedia environmental benefits by combining the production of energy with the removal of coal refuse piles and by reclaiming land for productive use. Consequently, because of the unique environmental benefits that coal refuse-fired EGUs provide,'' the EPA said, ``these units warrant special consideration. . . .''

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will see the benefits that can come from this. This isn't a special interest carveout, unless you consider cleaning up the environment in western Pennsylvania to be a special interest.

Again, are we capable of making judgments about what this town puts out, one size fits all, seemingly with blinders on, not having the ability to recognize that in certain circumstances customization is appropriate?

That is what this underlying bill, the SENSE Act, does. It does make sense: satisfying energy needs and saving the environment. I hope my colleagues would see the sense in that and work with us to allow the environmental cleanup to continue and to protect hundreds of family- sustaining jobs across western Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1917, the Blocking Regulatory Interference from Closing Kilns, or BRICK, Act.

EPA issued the Brick and Clay MACT rule in 2015, which sets maximum achievable control technology based on what is already being achieved at similar facilities.

Section 2 of the BRICK Act seeks to delay compliance with the Brick and Clay MACT until ``judgment becomes final, and no longer subject to further appeal or review.''

This would incentivize frivolous litigation simply to put off having to comply with the rule.

Courts already have the ability to issue a stay of any compliance dates in a final rule. Congress should not insert itself into the judicial process.

The courts have regularly used this process. There is no reason for Congress to override it.

To date, no one has petitioned the court to stay the Brick and Clay MACT rule.

Section 3 of H.R. 1917 incorporates another bill reported out of the Energy and Commerce Committee, H.R. 453, the Relief from New Source Performance Standards Act.

This section, Mr. Speaker, delays implementation of the EPA's step 2 emission standards for three categories of wood-fueled heaters.

EPA finalized the rule in 2015. Under the rule, manufacturers have until 2020 to comply with the new standards. This bill would delay the standards until 2023.

Much like the Brick MACT, these standards are achievable.

In a recent list of devices certified under the 2015 standard, 171 devices report certified emission levels that already meet the 2020 standards.

These 2020-compliant products are both cleaner and more efficient, generating more heat per unit of wood burned and making them less expensive to operate.

By delaying these standards, Congress is unfairly punishing companies that made investments to produce cleaner, more efficient products by the original deadline.

Since these appliances typically last for 25 years or more once installed, delaying this standard will result in decades of additional pollution in and around people's homes.

The original bill, H.R. 453, was opposed by State attorneys general of New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, Rhode Island, and the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency.

In a letter from December 12, these officials pointed out that EPA estimated the net benefits of implementing the rule at more than 100 times the costs.

Wood smoke contains considerable amounts of fine particle pollution, carbon monoxide, and other toxic pollutants.

In my home State of New York, less than 2 percent of residents heat their homes with wood, but residential wood heating accounts for 41 percent of the State's particulate emissions.

Because the emissions are released close to ground level and homes, there is significant human exposure, which is why this bill is also opposed by a number of public health and medical organizations.

The BRICK Act gives special treatment to a couple of industries by shifting the health and financial burdens of pollution on to the public. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, Mr. Speaker, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. McEachin).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, no one wants to shut down these businesses, but H.R. 1917 is the wrong remedy. We understand the circumstances, and those circumstances should be brought to the attention of the courts.

The court has the power to grant the stay of this rule. For some reason, the industry has not yet made that request, even though there are a number of pending lawsuits challenging the rule. In fact, industry petitioned the court to put their lawsuits on hold until EPA decides whether to grant their request to reconsider the rule.

The pending decisions by the court and the EPA indicate there are still a number of remedies available to address the industry's concerns, including a request to the court to stay the rule. There is no need for H.R. 1917.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, Congress should not be in the business of encouraging frivolous litigation or penalizing businesses that made the necessary investments to comply with standards, especially when clean air is at stake.

Unfortunately, that is what the BRICK Act would do. These standards are achievable, long overdue, and provide considerable health benefits. It has been nearly two decades for pollution control standards for brick and clay facilities and nearly three decades since the last Federal standards for wood stoves.

We shouldn't have to choose between a giveaway to a couple of special interests over clean air for all of our constituents. Again, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.