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.…
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.