[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.''
____________________