[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 35 (Thursday, March 3, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H1129-H1134]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    BLOCKING REGULATORY INTERFERENCE FROM CLOSING KILNS ACT OF 2016

  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 635, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 4557) 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.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 635, the bill 
is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 4557

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Blocking Regulatory 
     Interference from Closing Kilns Act of 2016''.

     SEC. 2. EXTENDING COMPLIANCE DATES (PENDING JUDICIAL REVIEW) 
                   OF RULES ADDRESSING NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS 
                   FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS FOR BRICK AND 
                   STRUCTURAL CLAY PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING OR CLAY 
                   CERAMICS MANUFACTURING.

       (a) Extension of Compliance Dates.--
       (1) Extension.--Each compliance date of any final rule 
     described in subsection (b) is deemed to be extended by the 
     time period equal to the time period described in subsection 
     (c).
       (2) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``compliance 
     date'' means, with respect to any requirement of a final rule 
     described in subsection (b), the date by which any State, 
     local, or tribal government or other person is first required 
     to comply.
       (b) Final Rules Described.--A final rule described in this 
     subsection is any final rule to address national emission 
     standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for brick and 
     structural clay products manufacturing or clay ceramics 
     manufacturing under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7412), including--
       (1) the final rule entitled ``NESHAP for Brick and 
     Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; and NESHAP for Clay 
     Ceramics Manufacturing'' published at 80 Fed. Reg. 65469 
     (October 26, 2015);
       (2) the final rule entitled ``NESHAP for Brick and 
     Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; and NESHAP for Clay 
     Ceramics Manufacturing: Correction'' published at 80 Fed. 
     Reg. 75817 (December 4, 2015); and
       (3) any final rule that succeeds or amends the rule 
     described in paragraph (1) or (2).
       (c) Period Described.--The time period described in this 
     subsection is the period of days that--

[[Page H1130]]

       (1) begins on the date that is 60 days after the day on 
     which notice of promulgation of a final rule described in 
     subsection (b) appears in the Federal Register; and
       (2) ends on the date on which judgment becomes final, and 
     no longer subject to further appeal or review, in all actions 
     (including actions that are filed pursuant to section 307 of 
     the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7607))--
       (A) that are filed during the 60 days described in 
     paragraph (1); and
       (B) that seek review of any aspect of such rule.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) and the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rush) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to 
include extraneous materials on H.R. 4557.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Today, we have the important opportunity to protect the American 
brick manufacturing industry and the ceramic kiln industry and its 
7,000 employees from a costly regulation that has yet to survive a 
judicial scrutiny.
  At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Bishop), one of the original sponsors of this bill.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and I certainly appreciate the opportunity to speak on this 
bill.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 4557, the Blocking Regulatory 
Interference from Closing Kilns Act, or the BRICK Act. This legislation 
is important to preserving the viability of brick manufacturing 
facilities all across the country.
  Simply put, the BRICK Act pauses the EPA's 2015 National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants until court challenges of the 
rule are resolved. I am very concerned that brick manufacturers in my 
district, as well as those in the districts of my colleagues, may be 
required to spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars to 
satisfy an EPA requirement similar to the EPA's 2003 rule, a rule, it 
should be noted, that was vacated by the Federal courts.

                              {time}  1045

  For example, Cherokee Brick & Tile from Macon, Georgia, spent over 
$1.5 million to install controls in order to comply with the EPA's 
invalidated 2003 rule.
  Cherokee is a small, family-owned business, and as my colleagues with 
small businesses in their districts can attest, $1.5 million is a very 
substantial sum that can cut heavily into a bottom line. This rule 
impacts more than just Cherokee Brick & Tile in my State, but also 
General Shale and Pine Hall Brick, among others.
  A basic material for home building and construction, bricks are more 
than just a figurative cornerstone in the United States construction 
industry. Passing this legislation would guarantee the EPA would wait 
until its 2015 emission standards are reviewed by the courts before 
implementing the rule and before manufacturers across the country are 
needlessly required to spend millions of dollars.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 4557, the BRICK Act.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4557 is an unnecessary bill that would set a 
terrible precedent.
  As the Statement of Administration Policy, which outlines the 
justification for President Obama's veto threat, states:
  ``H.R. 4557 would undermine the public health protections of the 
Clean Air Act by allowing further emissions of approximately 30 tons 
per month of toxic air pollution from brick and clay products 
production facilities. These toxic emissions include mercury, gases, 
and other hazardous metals which are associated with a variety of acute 
and chronic health effects, including cancers.''
  Mr. Speaker, the statement from President Obama goes on to say:
  ``Because H.R. 4557 threatens the health of Americans by allowing 
more toxic air pollution, if the President were presented with H.R. 
4557, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill.''
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4557 is the wrong remedy at the wrong time. Mr. 
Speaker, this bill is premature.
  While I understand that the industry feels that it has been penalized 
for complying with the 2003 rule, that is not sufficient reason in 
itself to set up a unique process that incentivizes all parties that 
object to this rule to file endless challenges to the rulemaking.
  The Brick and Clay Maximum Achievable Control Technology, or MACT, 
regulations that are the subject of this legislation are the subject of 
ongoing legal actions by industry and by public health communities 
across this Nation.
  The courts already have the ability to grant a stay on this rule, yet 
for some reason the industry has not yet made that request to the 
court. But there are a number of pending cases filed by the industry on 
this very rule.
  This week, Mr. Speaker, it was reported that the industry petitioned 
the court to put four suits on hold until the EPA decides whether to 
grant their requests to reconsider the regulations.
  The pending decision by the court and by the EPA indicate that there 
is no need for H.R. 4557, as there are ample remedies available under 
the Clean Air Act to address concerns about this rule. Additionally, 
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4557 does not actually address the merits or the 
faults with the Brick and Clay MACT rules.
  Instead, what this bill does is takes these rules and this rulemaking 
outside of the process in the Clean Air Act that allows the EPA to 
issue final rules with deadlines for their implementation, without 
waiting for the conclusion of all the appeals and all the reviews.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill would also delay any subsequent rule issued 
that is similar in scope and similar in objective until any legal 
challenges to it were completed as well. In other words, Mr. Speaker, 
this bill allows an opportunity for endless lawsuits on this very 
issue.
  I fear, Mr. Speaker, that if H.R. 4557 were to become law, we would 
end up in a situation where we would never, ever control air polluting 
emissions from these facilities, no matter how cost-effective or how 
necessary that rule might be. Mr. Speaker, this is a policy that we 
must reject.
  As the Statement of Administration Policy also noted, if rules cannot 
go forward until all legal actions are complete, there is a strong 
incentive to use frivolous legal challenges to prevent any rules from 
being implemented.
  Under that scenario, we never would have achieved the improvements in 
air quality and in public health that have been accomplished under the 
Clean Air Act. We know, Mr. Speaker, that the Clean Air Act has 
delivered many cost-effective health benefits to the American people 
over the years.
  It has been demonstrated many times that we do not have to make a 
choice between healthy air and jobs in this Nation. We can have both.
  We cannot agree, Mr. Speaker, to setting this precedent and 
establishing a process that will delay important public health 
protections and encourage, at the same time, frivolous legal challenges 
to our clean air rules.
  The brick, clay, and tile industries would be better served by 
pursuing the options available to them right now under the Clean Air 
Act.
  For all of these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I must urge all of my 
colleagues to oppose this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Johnson) for introducing this important bill. This is an industry that 
has been hard hit by the recession. It has lost 45 percent of its jobs. 
There are 70 of these plants around the country, and they employ 7,000 
people.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), the 
sponsor of the legislation.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the BRICK Act would simply allow 
for the consideration and completion of any judicial review regarding 
the

[[Page H1131]]

EPA's 2015 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
the brick, clay, and tile industries before requiring compliance.
  So why is this important? Because this rule needlessly jeopardizes 
good-paying jobs all across America, as the chart right here next to me 
clearly demonstrates.
  And for what reason? Why are they jeopardizing these jobs? The EPA 
itself concedes in the rule: ``We do not expect that the combined 
emissions . . . would result in substantial cumulative health and 
environmental impacts.''
  Instead, the real health impacts due to this rule will be felt by the 
workers who lose their jobs, their health benefits, and even the 
education and training opportunities offered by their employers.
  The brick industry primarily consists of small, family-owned 
businesses. They are often located in small communities that depend on 
the plant for good-paying jobs.
  To comply with the EPA's requirement, these small businesses will be 
forced to borrow millions of dollars to pay for the required control 
technology. Many brick companies are already struggling to find the 
capital for plant modernization. I can't imagine how difficult it will 
be for these companies to secure the needed investments to pay for new 
control equipment, equipment that provides zero return on investment.

  And let's not forget that the brick industry has already been through 
this before. The EPA finalized a similar rule in 2003 that required 
brick companies to spend millions of dollars on control equipment. A 
few years later, a Federal court vacated that rule.
  Unfortunately, the brick industry couldn't roll back the clock and 
recover the investments they had made. Worse yet, the EPA's new 
emission rules use the reductions achieved by the vacated rule as the 
baseline for further reduction requirements, so the industry 
essentially got no credit for the hard work that they had already done.
  This history further underscores why this legislation is so 
important. It also baffles me when I hear some of my colleagues say the 
BRICK Act is not needed because parties can already seek a judicial 
stay.
  However, the EPA has effectively indicated, in a statement for the 
Record submitted to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, that they 
would oppose any requests to stay the rule.
  Further, while the EPA's Clean Power Plan was recently stayed, the 
parties were only able to obtain relief by going to the U.S. Supreme 
Court. Here, the EPA's rule threatens the very existence of small brick 
and tile companies. These companies do not have unlimited resources to 
litigate against the Federal Government, and their jobs should not be 
put at risk due to a rule which has been vacated once already and has 
yet to be reviewed by the courts.
  Mr. Speaker, the brick industry is part of our American culture. It 
has helped build some of the most iconic buildings, cities, and towns 
in existence in our country today. We must make certain our regulations 
and laws preserve this industry, not destroy it. The BRICK Act will do 
that.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers right now.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in favor of this very important, I think, legislation 
sponsored by my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Johnson). I want to thank him 
for his leadership on this bill because it is a very pro-growth jobs 
bill. I think it is very important that we pass this.
  I happen to be the chairman of the House Committee on Small Business, 
and our Nation's brick industry is primarily made up of small, family-
owned businesses that employ thousands of workers. In Ohio alone, brick 
companies directly employ more than 700 workers and ensure the 
livelihoods of thousands of other workers.

                              {time}  1100

  Brick is used to construct, as we all know, residential homes and has 
been used to build some of our country's most iconic landmarks, such as 
Independence Hall, the birthplace of this great Nation.
  With the severe downturn in construction during the Great Recession, 
the brick industry suffered significantly and still has not fully 
recovered. The industry is operating at about 50 percent of its 
capacity and suffered a 45 percent job loss from 2005 to 2012.
  Now, small brick manufacturers are facing a costly new EPA regulation 
that may make it impossible for them to keep their doors open. That 
means those jobs would go away.
  Compliance will require many companies to remove and replace costly 
air pollution control equipment with new devices that may not be able 
to meet the new, stringent emissions standards.
  It is estimated to cost $4.4 million to retrofit two kilns--the 
average number of kilns in a facility--with the new pollution control 
equipment. While the regulation is being challenged in Federal court, 
it just makes common sense to delay the compliance deadlines until that 
matter is resolved.
  As chairman of the Small Business Committee, I urge my colleagues to 
stand up for small brick manufacturers and support this bill. This is a 
jobs bill.
  Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson) for his 
leadership in moving this bill forward.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois). The gentleman 
from Illinois has 21\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
Kentucky has 22\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the BRICK Act.
  I agree with my colleagues that the brick, clay, and tile industries 
are in a tough position. The Bush administration issued final brick and 
clay emission standards--or Brick and Clay MACT standards--in 2003, 3 
years after they were supposed to be completed.
  Unfortunately, the rule was flawed and, when challenged, the court 
vacated those standards as unlawful. As a result, the EPA Administrator 
was able to redo the brick and clay rule.
  I am sympathetic to the fact that the brick, clay, and tile 
industries have been facing some real challenges since 2007, when the 
housing market began to decline, but some proponents of this bill will 
have you believe that all of the challenges are a result of the 
improvements the industry must make to meet the 2015 Brick and Clay 
MACT rule. What they refuse to acknowledge are the real health benefits 
that will come with the reduction of several major air pollutants.
  I understand the industry stakeholders' reluctance to make further 
investments in pollution control technology to comply with this rule, 
given their previous experience with the 2003 rule, but the Clean Air 
Act provides a number of remedies that are available to them.
  The courts are the proper venue for resolving issues with the Brick 
and Clay MACT. To date, industry groups have filed lawsuits on the 
merits of the rule, but none of the interested parties have actually 
asked the court to stay the rule's compliance dates.
  The industry can also ask EPA to reconsider the rule, which I 
understand has already happened. In fact, earlier this week industry 
groups asked the D.C. Circuit Court to postpone consideration of their 
pending lawsuits until EPA makes a decision on whether to reconsider 
the rule. Neither of those remedies require action by Congress, but a 
legislative quick fix is the only remedy the proponents of this bill 
appear to care about.
  H.R. 4557 does not resolve the ongoing issues with this rule. In 
fact, it is far more likely to create a drawn-out rulemaking process 
fueled by an endless stream of court challenges. That wouldn't resolve 
any of the industry's problems with the Brick and Clay MACT rule.
  The bill also sets, in my opinion, a terrible precedent by delaying 
all of the rule's compliance requirements until all legal actions are 
complete.
  If this remedy sounds familiar, that is because it is. The majority 
included a similar provision in a bill we considered earlier in this 
Congress: H.R. 2042,

[[Page H1132]]

the Ratepayer Protection Act. I opposed that bill, and I oppose this 
one for the same reasons.
  If we had included a litigation delay policy in the Clean Air Act, we 
would never have achieved the improvements in air quality and public 
health that we now enjoy.
  The Clean Air Act provides ample opportunities for industry and the 
public to influence the development and implementation of regulations. 
These tools should be used in this case.
  Finally, I do not support legislation to resolve the issues being 
raised by the bill's supporters. These issues can and should be 
resolved by the courts.
  So I urge my colleagues to reject this attempt to get around the 
courts. I ask that they vote ``no'' on H.R. 4557.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell), one of the original cosponsors 
of this legislation.
  Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to voice my support 
for H.R. 4557, the BRICK Act.
  I want to tell a story about a small company in my hometown of Selma, 
Alabama. Henry Brick Company has been a family-owned business since 
1945, providing jobs and economic support to the Black Belt of Alabama.
  In 2003, the EPA passed a rule requiring Henry Brick Company, along 
with all other brick and structural clay manufacturers, to reduce their 
air pollutant emissions.
  In order to meet these new regulations by 2006, Henry Brick Company 
of Selma, Alabama, spent $1.5 million to come into compliance with the 
rule. This was a major financial burden for this small company, but 
Henry Brick Company is a good corporate citizen and understands the 
importance of protecting our environment.
  However, 1 year after they spent $1.5 million, the courts vacated the 
EPA's 2003 regulation. So the EPA went back to the drawing board to 
create a new rule, but they did not give these brick companies credit 
for emission reductions achieved under the previous rule.
  On the contrary, in their new rule, the EPA actually used the 
emission reductions achieved under the vacated rule as a baseline for 
further reduction requirements.
  Now, Henry Brick Company faces a new brick and clay manufacturing 
rule with even stricter emissions requirements and must come into 
compliance by December 2018.
  This time the small company may have to spend up to $8 million to 
comply with the new emissions standards, leaving Henry Brick Company 
one step closer to being forced to close their doors.
  I am supportive, Mr. Speaker, of reducing emissions, and I am also in 
favor of protecting our environment. But this must be done in an 
economically viable way. It is simply unfair for regulators to continue 
to move the goalposts on small brick manufacturers like Henry Brick 
Company.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.

  Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
  Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. That is why I support this legislation to 
delay the enforcement of the new EPA rule until all of the legal 
challenges have been concluded.
  This is a necessary and commonsense bill. I ask my colleagues to vote 
``yes'' on final passage.
  I want to thank Representative Johnson of Ohio and all of those that 
are working hard to make sure that small brick companies, like Henry 
Brick Company of Selma, Alabama, do not have to close its doors.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4557, the BRICK Act.
  Once again American businesses find themselves facing millions of 
dollars in compliance costs due to burdensome EPA regulations.
  It is estimated that the EPA's Brick MACT rule may cost the brick and 
ceramics industry up to $100 million per year, with the cost of 
compliance for the average facility at approximately $4.4 million.
  In addition, the industry will not be able to meet the requirement 
deadlines imposed by the rule, which is currently being challenged in 
Federal court.
  The EPA's first attempt at a Brick MACT rule was judicially vacated, 
but not before the industry spent millions in compliance measures 
ultimately found to be invalid.
  Small brick and ceramics businesses have been the hardest hit by the 
first rule, and if this situation repeats itself, many of these 
businesses will be forced to close their doors for good.
  H.R. 4557 would provide much-needed regulatory relief to brick and 
ceramic businesses by stating that no additional compliance measures 
shall be mandated by the EPA until judicial review of the rule is 
completed.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this bill, which will protect a 
vital industry and its thousands of jobs from potentially devastating 
regulatory uncertainty.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Kelly).
  Mr. KELLY of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the 
Blocking Regulatory Interference from Closing Kilns Act, or the BRICK 
Act.
  Rules handed down by the EPA have real-world consequences on 
businesses and our economy. You have heard the backstory today 
regarding the 2015 Brick MACT standards and the impact it will have on 
the brick manufacturing industry.
  In my district, Columbus Brick Company, a fifth-generation, family-
owned small business, will be forced to spend millions of dollars in 
compliance costs and significantly downsize or go out of business and 
tell 85 dedicated employees to find a new job. What is even more 
disappointing is that Columbus Brick has been forced to navigate this 
decision before.
  The EPA promulgated Brick MACT standards in 2003, and then the rule 
was vacated by a Federal court in 2007, but not until a significant 
monetary investment had been made by Columbus Brick in an attempt to be 
in compliance. That is why it is imperative that we pass the BRICK Act 
today.
  Companies like Columbus Brick aren't asking for zero regulation, but 
they are asking to be regulated fairly, to have a seat at the table in 
determining new rules, and some certainty when it comes to making 
future business decisions.
  The American people deserve better. They deserve a government that 
can ensure citizens have clean air to breathe without eliminating 
essential industries.
  That is why I urge you to support the BRICK Act. Let's wait until 
judicial review is complete so our businesses aren't forced to make 
unnecessary, costly decisions with minimal or unknown environmental 
benefits.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't know why we are even here debating this issue, 
which is an important issue, but not a prevailing issue. This is an 
issue that concerns one industry.
  It is a concern that is already under consideration by the courts and 
by the administration. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it is a problem that is 
more appropriately addressed by those branches of government than by 
this Congress.
  There are many other issues that this Congress has before it that it 
is our job to address. Yet, Mr. Speaker, we are not spending ample time 
on those things that are closely tied to the economic benefits and jobs 
for all Americans.
  Our water infrastructure, Mr. Speaker, is in dire need of repair and 
maintenance. We spend little to no time on our water infrastructure and 
the problems associated with it.
  We have Superfund sites and brownfield sites that need to be cleaned 
up and put to productive use. No time, no energy, no congressional 
resources are used to address these vital issues.
  Our States need support for modernizing and hardening the electricity 
grid. We are AWOL on these issues.
  And still, Mr. Speaker, many Americans are underemployed, unemployed, 
and underpaid for the work that they are doing.

                              {time}  1115

  Where is the time allocation, the resource allocation? Where are our 
efforts on behalf of these people?
  All of these things, Mr. Speaker, particularly and especially the 
infrastructure issue, must be addressed by the Congress. There is no 
other place that

[[Page H1133]]

can address these issues as appropriately, as effectively, as 
efficiently, except this Congress. And these issues, these 
infrastructure issues affect every industry, every State, every 
American in our Nation.
  So, Mr. Speaker, let us use this body's time and efforts on the 
critical issues that are of great importance to the American people. 
Mr. Speaker, our time could be better served if we would just address 
some of these prevailing issues of the day.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I will conclude my remarks over on this side. I was listening to the 
debate on the rule about this bill, and some people did make the 
comment that this was not a particularly important issue.
  I might say to the 7,000 people employed in this industry, to the 
owners of the companies, this is very important because some of them 
may very well lose their business, may very well lose their jobs.
  So we have two goals with this legislation. One is simply to say this 
regulation coming out of EPA needs to be considered by the courts 
before these companies are required to invest significant sums of 
money.
  In fact, the industry itself has said that the average plant has two 
kilns, and a plant with two kilns would have to spend roughly $4 
million to meet the requirements of this regulation.
  Now, remember, in 2003, EPA came out with a regulation for this 
industry and, by 2006, the industry had to comply. They did comply and 
they reduced emissions of the regulated substance by 96 percent.
  We see a pattern developing at EPA. They know full well that this 
President would veto any legislation that changes in any way anything 
coming out of EPA, so the only avenue left to the regulated parties is 
to file a lawsuit.
  So just as the brick industry filed a lawsuit in 2003 on that extreme 
regulation, they had to comply by 2006; and then the Court, in 2007, 
after they had already complied, ruled that the regulation was illegal, 
but the money had already been spent.
  Now, the money has already been spent, 96 percent reduction has 
occurred, and now the EPA is coming back with a new regulation.
  So these people involved, they have no avenue. I mean, they are 
talking to EPA, pleading with EPA, and EPA, as usual, is not 
responsive.
  So all this legislation does is say, we are not trying to reverse the 
regulation, change the regulation. We are simply saying, let the Court 
decide.
  And guess what?
  A pattern is also developing over at EPA because they are losing 
these court cases.
  Now, on the Clean Energy Plan, which was one of the most extreme 
regulations ever to come from EPA, 3 days before Judge Scalia died, the 
Supreme Court issued a stay on the Clean Energy Plan, saying that you 
cannot implement this plan until the judicial remedies have been 
exhausted.
  Then, even under Utility MACT, that also went to the Supreme Court, 
and the Court said, well, you didn't consider certain costs; we are 
remanding this. But most of the industries have already spent the 
money, met the requirements, and some of them have closed as well.
  So the question becomes, are we going to let an EPA adopting extreme 
rules under this administration make all the decisions?
  Or will the Congress of the United States try to stand up and pass 
some legislation, not reversing, not changing, but simply saying, since 
lawsuits have been filed, let's give the Court the opportunity to 
determine if the regulation is legal or not legal?
  So that is all we are doing here.
  I want to thank those who introduced this legislation, both the 
Democrats and Republicans. And I would urge our colleagues to pass this 
legislation, to simply provide some commonsense balance, and let the 
courts make a decision before we require the companies to spend all 
this money and, in many cases, lay off employees and, in some cases, 
even close the business.
  So I would urge the passage of H.R. 4557.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I voted against H.R. 4557, the Blocking 
Regulatory Interference from Closing Kilns Act of 2016, yet another 
bill in a series of Republican attempts to block EPA's ability to 
effectively regulate pollution in a way that protects our health and 
the environment.
  H.R. 4557 would delay the enactment of an important rule limiting 
mercury and other hazardous pollution from clay and brick products 
production facilities. I was disappointed to see it pass the House, but 
I know that President Obama and Democrats in the Senate will ensure 
that this misguided bill does not become law this year.
  The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to establish standards for 
pollution from all industrial sectors, and many other sectors are 
already complying to improve air quality. There is no reason to further 
delay this rule, and no reason for this legislation.
  I am hopeful that House Republicans will drop its obsession with pro-
pollution bills and allow us to get to work on a budget and bills that 
will improve the lives of Oregonians.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity today to help many 
struggling small businesses and the jobs they support by voting yes on 
H.R. 4557, the BRICK Act.
  How did we get here? Last October, the EPA finalized an extremely 
stringent new rule for the brick making industry. Most of the companies 
that find themselves threatened by this rule are small businesses--many 
are family-owned--and the industry is still dealing with the effects of 
the recession and the weak recovery that continues to suppress demand 
for bricks and other building materials. Few, if any, brick makers can 
easily afford the estimated $4.4 million dollars it will take to bring 
a typical facility into compliance and the industry is currently 
challenging the rule in federal court.
  The BRICK Act simply extends the compliance deadlines for the rule 
until after judicial review is complete. This commonsense step would 
prevent brick makers from having to initiate costly and potentially 
irreversible compliance steps--and in some cases shut their doors 
entirely and lay off workers--over a rule whose legality is still in 
question.
  This is far from a hypothetical concern. EPA's last set of Brick 
standards in 2003 were vacated by a federal court in 2007, but by that 
time the industry had already been forced to spend millions on 
compliance. None of us want to see that happen again. It's a matter of 
fairness. It's a matter of commonsense.
  For the sake of brick makers and their thousands of employees across 
the country, including nearly 2,000 in Michigan I urge my colleagues to 
vote yes on the BRICK Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 635, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on passage of the bill will be followed by a 5-minute vote 
on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 238, 
nays 163, not voting 32, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 109]

                               YEAS--238

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren

[[Page H1134]]


     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--163

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Honda
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--32

     Barr
     Barton
     Beatty
     Benishek
     Burgess
     Cardenas
     Chabot
     Cleaver
     Costa
     Edwards
     Garrett
     Graves (GA)
     Green, Gene
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     Hoyer
     Kirkpatrick
     McCaul
     Moore
     Mulvaney
     Napolitano
     Pascrell
     Price, Tom
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scott, David
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Thompson (PA)
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  1140

  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Messrs. MARCHANT and ZELDIN changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 109, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 109, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''


                          Personal Explanation

  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I was absent on Thursday, March 3, 
2016. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following ways:
  Vote ``no'' on rollcall No. 106--Motion on Ordering the Previous 
Question on the Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 4557.
  Vote ``no'' on rollcall No. 107--H. Res. 635--Rule providing for 
consideration of H.R. 4557--Blocking Regulatory Interference from 
Closing Kilns (BRICK) Act of 2016.
  Vote ``yes'' on rollcall No. 108--S. 1826--To designate the facility 
of the United States Postal Service located at 99 West 2nd Street in 
Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, as the Lieutenant Colonel James ``Maggie'' 
Megellas Post Office.
  Vote ``no'' on rollcall No. 109--Passage of H.R. 4557--Blocking 
Regulatory Interference from Closing Kilns (BRICK) Act of 2016.


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I was absent for votes due to official 
business outside of Washington, D.C.
  If I were present, I would vote in the following manner on the 
following votes:
  (1) Previous Question--``yes.''
  (2) Adoption of the Rule--``yes.''
  (3) S. 1826--To designate the facility of the United States Postal 
Service located at 99 West 2nd Street in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, as the 
Lieutenant Colonel James ``Maggie'' Megellas Post Office--``yes.''
  (4) H.R. 4557, Blocking Regulatory Interference from Closing Kilns 
Act--``yes.''

                          ____________________