[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 7, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H1458-H1465]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    BLOCKING REGULATORY INTERFERENCE FROM CLOSING KILNS ACT OF 2017

  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 762, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 1917) to allow for judicial review of any final rule 
addressing national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for 
brick and structural clay products or for clay ceramics manufacturing 
before requiring compliance with such rule, and ask for its immediate 
consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 762, an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
Committee Print 115-62 is adopted, and the bill, as amended, is 
considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 1917

       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 2017''.

     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--
       (1) begins on the date that is 60 days after the day on 
     which notice of promulgation of a final

[[Page H1459]]

     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.

     SEC. 3. STEP 2 COMPLIANCE DATE FOR STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE 
                   FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL WOOD HEATERS, NEW 
                   RESIDENTIAL HYDRONIC HEATERS, AND FORCED-AIR 
                   FURNACES.

       (a) In General.--The Step 2 compliance date (as such term 
     is used in the final rule entitled ``Standards of Performance 
     for New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic 
     Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces'' published at 80 Fed. Reg. 
     13672 (March 16, 2015)) is deemed to be May 15, 2023.
       (b) Conforming Changes.--Not later than 60 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency shall make such technical and 
     conforming changes to rules and guidance documents as may be 
     necessary to implement subsection (a).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) 
and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and insert extraneous material on H.R. 1917.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today we have a chance to help hundreds of small 
businesses, manufacturers, as well as thousands of employees, while 
also lowering prices for consumers.
  I thank the bipartisan cosponsors of H.R. 1917, the Blocking 
Regulatory Interference from Closing Kilns Act, the BRICK Act, and urge 
my colleagues to support this commonsense bill.
  American brickmakers literally produce the building blocks of our 
Nation. They are primarily small businesses, and they are often the 
most important employer in small communities across America, where many 
are located.
  Like an old brick house, this industry has had to weather a lot, 
including a long economic downturn, that we have finally come out of, 
that suppressed new construction activity and, thus, brick sales for 
many years.
  They even weathered the 2003 EPA regulation that cost many millions 
of dollars to comply. That regulation was later thrown out by a Federal 
court, but the judicial relief came too late, as the industry had 
already spent considerable sums to meet EPA's tight deadlines.
  We don't want to see a repeat of that unfair result, but, once again, 
EPA has imposed another regulation with difficult deadlines that will 
likely take effect before judicial review is complete.
  Brickmakers have testified before the Energy and Commerce Committee 
that this regulation may result in layoffs and even plant closures. 
H.R. 1917 would simply extend the compliance deadline until after 
judicial review is final.
  This industry has already reduced its emissions by up to 95 percent, 
according to a study from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It should not 
be forced to comply with another new regulation that may not withstand 
judicial scrutiny. We owe it to these brickmakers, their employees, and 
consumers of building materials to allow meaningful judicial review.
  I might add that a Senate bill has been recently introduced that also 
provides regulatory relief for brickmakers, but it takes a somewhat 
different approach than our version. I pledge to work with the Senate 
so that we can provide timely relief to this important industry.
  The bill also deals with wood heaters. As with bricks, the wood 
heaters industry is dominated by small business manufacturers who are 
often the economic anchors of rural communities, where many are 
located. Many wood heater buyers are low-income, rural households that 
rely on them to get through the winter.
  In 2015, EPA set a two-step wood heater emission rule. The first step 
took effect in 2015 and reduced emissions in new models by up to 90 
percent.
  The more stringent second step is scheduled to take effect in 2020, 
but is causing a great deal of difficulty. Only a small fraction of the 
wood heating models currently available can meet the 2020 standards, 
and time is running out to design and certify any additional models.
  One wood heater manufacturer testified before the Energy and Commerce 
Committee that he has already had to cut staff as a result of the 2020 
deadline, and others feel there will be additional job losses if the 
2020 standard is retained, but this is not just a jobs issue.
  Users of wood heaters face both reduced product choice and higher 
prices for new models. Many would have to forgo buying a new wood 
heater and continue using older and dirtier ones, which undercuts the 
claims that the current deadline will improve air quality.
  The provisions in the bill retain the 2015 standards, but extend the 
2020 deadline by 3 years to 2023.
  This is a reasonable fix that would avoid unnecessary economic damage 
while still prioritizing environmental protection.
  In conclusion, the brick industry and the wood heater industry may 
both be small, but they are far from small to those who owe their jobs 
to them and to those who rely on their products.
  I urge my colleagues to provide targeted relief to these two 
industries by supporting H.R. 1917.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1917, the Blocking 
Regulatory Interference from Closing Kilns, or BRICK, Act.
  EPA issued the Brick and Clay MACT rule in 2015, which sets maximum 
achievable control technology based on what is already being achieved 
at similar facilities.
  Section 2 of the BRICK Act seeks to delay compliance with the Brick 
and Clay MACT until ``judgment becomes final, and no longer subject to 
further appeal or review.''
  This would incentivize frivolous litigation simply to put off having 
to comply with the rule.
  Courts already have the ability to issue a stay of any compliance 
dates in a final rule. Congress should not insert itself into the 
judicial process.
  The courts have regularly used this process. There is no reason for 
Congress to override it.
  To date, no one has petitioned the court to stay the Brick and Clay 
MACT rule.
  Section 3 of H.R. 1917 incorporates another bill reported out of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee, H.R. 453, the Relief from New Source 
Performance Standards Act.

  This section, Mr. Speaker, delays implementation of the EPA's step 2 
emission standards for three categories of wood-fueled heaters.
  EPA finalized the rule in 2015. Under the rule, manufacturers have 
until 2020 to comply with the new standards. This bill would delay the 
standards until 2023.
  Much like the Brick MACT, these standards are achievable.
  In a recent list of devices certified under the 2015 standard, 171 
devices report certified emission levels that already meet the 2020 
standards.
  These 2020-compliant products are both cleaner and more efficient, 
generating more heat per unit of wood burned and making them less 
expensive to operate.
  By delaying these standards, Congress is unfairly punishing companies 
that made investments to produce cleaner, more efficient products by 
the original deadline.
  Since these appliances typically last for 25 years or more once 
installed, delaying this standard will result in decades of additional 
pollution in and around people's homes.
  The original bill, H.R. 453, was opposed by State attorneys general 
of New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, Rhode Island, and the 
Puget Sound Clean Air Agency.
  In a letter from December 12, these officials pointed out that EPA 
estimated the net benefits of implementing the rule at more than 100 
times the costs.

[[Page H1460]]

  Wood smoke contains considerable amounts of fine particle pollution, 
carbon monoxide, and other toxic pollutants.
  In my home State of New York, less than 2 percent of residents heat 
their homes with wood, but residential wood heating accounts for 41 
percent of the State's particulate emissions.

                              {time}  1400

  Because the emissions are released close to ground level and homes, 
there is significant human exposure, which is why this bill is also 
opposed by a number of public health and medical organizations.
  The BRICK Act gives special treatment to a couple of industries by 
shifting the health and financial burdens of pollution on to the 
public. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, Mr. Speaker, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the excellent 
work that he has done on the BRICK Act, and also Mr. Johnson, who 
brought this legislation forward and who has worked so closely with 
individuals, with companies in his district to address their concerns 
on this.
  Now, what brings us here today is the fact that, once before, the 
brick industry faced an EPA rule that went on the books, hadn't gone 
through judicial review. This happened in 2003.
  Over a period of 5 years, they began ramping up to make these 
changes. This is expensive because most of the brick manufacturers in 
our country are small businesses. They have two kilns, and they are 
working very, very hard to keep the jobs and keep people employed. When 
they look at having to change to this new equipment, the investment is 
going to be $3 million, $4 million, $5 million, depending on the size 
of their business.
  Now, previously, a rule went through the process of judicial review, 
and then it was withdrawn. What this legislation does is to say, look, 
let's finish this entire process before we move that expense to the 
industry, because when you put it to the industry and they are 
incurring this cost that could end up being an unnecessary cost, what 
happens? Brick costs more. Building materials cost more.
  Who ends up paying for that? Consumers, purchasers, individuals who 
are buying homes, individuals who are remodeling homes, individuals who 
are building commercial buildings.
  So what we are saying is let's exercise some wisdom. Let's exercise a 
little bit of experience that comes from having been here before, and 
let's delay until this entire process is finished.
  As we have talked about bricks, we are also addressing the wood 
heater industry, which is a primary source of heat for many of our 
homes, and just saying let's be mindful, let's be careful, let's put 
consumers and taxpayers in front of the bureaucrats who are looking to 
implement these rules and regulations.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the ranking member, and 
I thank the chairman for his work on this, but I am going to rise in 
opposition to H.R. 1917, the BRICK Act.
  This bill will delay the implementation of the EPA's final Brick and 
Structural Clay Products rule and the final Clay Ceramic Manufacturing 
rule by extending all compliance deadlines based on pending judicial 
review.
  So what does that mean? That means it will delay implementation until 
judgment becomes final and not subject to review or appeal. This is a 
blanket extension that could have lasting negative impacts on the 
public's health.
  Brick and clay plants, if unregulated, can be major sources of toxic 
air pollutants like hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen chloride, and hazardous 
metals, pollutants that are associated with a variety of acute and 
chronic health effects, including cancer. It is estimated that the 
final Brick and Clay MACT rule will reduce nationwide air toxics by 
approximately 375 tons per year.
  Last Friday, the OMB issued a report showing that regulations have 
high benefit and low cost. The aggregate benefits of Federal 
regulations is between $219 billion and $695 billion; whereas, the 
aggregate costs are $59 billion to $88 billion. Many regulations spur 
innovation that benefit the economy as well as human health.
  Now, it is no surprise to me that this administration and the 
Republicans are targeting air pollution regulations. The OMB noted that 
EPA rules ``account for over 80 percent of the monetized benefits and 
over 70 percent of the monetized costs'' of Federal regulation between 
2006 and 2016.
  Since regulations protect human health and safety and have more 
benefits than costs for industry, I stand in opposition to bills like 
this one that seek to undermine these protections. I ask my colleagues 
to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1917.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the next individual, I 
just want to say it is not a low cost to the individuals in these small 
communities who lose their job, and it is not a low cost to the 
communities that lose the tax base when these small businesses fold up 
and go away in small towns.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Harper), a person who also represents big parts 
of rural America.
  Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage Members to support 
this commonsense bill, H.R. 1917, the Blocking Regulatory Interference 
from Closing Kilns Act, H.R. 1917, also known as the BRICK Act, which 
includes provisions that will provide a compromise approach to delaying 
a regulation on manufacturers of wood heaters.
  Wood heaters are frequently used by households in rural America. 
EPA's rushed 2020 deadline would raise the price of a new wood heater 
on those least able to afford it. It would also restrict consumer 
choice, as many currently available models may not be able to meet the 
2020 deadline. H.R. 1917 will not remove any regulations. It would 
simply extend the deadline to 2023.
  Frank Moore of Hardy Manufacturing, located in my district, testified 
before the Environment Subcommittee in September that he and other 
manufacturers are working to meet the 2020 step 2 standards, but that a 
lack of technology is making compliance nearly impossible. In that 
hearing, Mr. Moore said: `` . . . we provide jobs for about 50 people 
with payrolls exceeding $2 million,'' and that ``even if a product can 
meet the step 2 requirements, I believe it would not be consumer 
friendly, durable, or affordable.''

  Again, extension of this effective date doesn't remove any 
regulations. Extension simply provides more time for manufacturers to 
come into compliance with much stricter requirements. It is best for 
the consumers; it is best for the businesses; and it will not undo the 
regulations that are requested.
  I hope that Members will agree that this bipartisan legislation is a 
compromise solution that helps small businesses and our constituents. I 
encourage Members to support H.R. 1917.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. McEachin).
  Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Speaker, every American--in fact, every human 
being--has the right to breathe clean air. If this Congress trammels 
that right in the name of corporate profits, that choice is not just an 
abstract moral failure, it is a concrete public health disaster, one 
that will cause needless suffering, especially for our most vulnerable 
friends and neighbors.
  The regulations this bill seeks to impede are long overdue. The 
earliest form of the Brick and Clay rule dates back to 2003. That was 
more than 14 years ago, and now some of my friends in the majority are 
seeking even longer delays.
  We have been putting pollutants into our air and we can never unring 
that bell, but we can do better moving forward, and we need to make 
those improvements sooner rather than later.
  We all know that justice delayed is justice denied. Justice has 
already been delayed by more than a decade. We can measure that cost.
  The Brick and Clay rule, in its current form, would reduce the amount 
of toxins in our air by hundreds of tons per year. If we delay the rule 
another

[[Page H1461]]

year, or 2 years or longer, all of our families, all of our 
constituents are going to be breathing dirtier and more dangerous air.
  This bill is a direct attack on our right to live in a clean and 
healthy environment. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this 
misguided legislation.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from the great State of Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), a Democrat 
who is going to speak on behalf of part of his bill.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the BRICK Act, 
particularly section 3, which includes language from my bill to bring 
much-needed regulatory relief to wood heater manufacturers that are in 
my district and also across the Nation.
  Section 3 delays the second phase of Federal emission regulations for 
wood heaters by 3 years. It is important to note that, since 2007, 
manufacturers have voluntarily invested in technology to reduce the 
emissions to comply with the first phase of the regulations.
  I had one situation in the north part of my district where they spent 
I don't know how many hundreds of thousands of dollars coming up with 
this 90 percent reduction; and 6 months after they accomplished it, 
they came in with these new regulations to do another 90 percent, which 
can't be done, and it is going to put them out of business.
  So these businessowners in my district and around the country have 
approached me and said, as I said, that they will go out of business if 
this second phase is not delayed. Some of them have already begun 
laying people off in towns like Greenbush, Minnesota, in my area. And 
in these small communities, these layoffs are devastating.
  These companies already produce some of the cleanest wood heaters in 
the Nation, and they are telling me that the EPA has just gone too far. 
So I wrote this language to help these businesses, these workers, these 
communities that depend on the production of these important 
appliances, and I urge my colleagues to support the BRICK Act.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), the author of the BRICK Act.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the majority of U.S. brick and 
ceramic plants are small, family-owned operations, often located in 
rural communities that depend on the plant for their very livelihood, 
for the good-paying jobs. They have built some of the most recognizable 
buildings, cities, and towns in existence across America, including 
many within my district in eastern and southeastern Ohio.
  Unfortunately, these industries have borne the brunt of an 
unpredictable regulatory process that is nearly two decades in the 
making. In 2003, the EPA required brickmakers to install expensive new 
equipment to comply with the Agency's Maximum Achievable Control 
Technology, or their MACT rule.
  In 2007, after companies spent millions to implement these controls, 
the U.S. Court of Appeals in the D.C. Circuit vacated the rule. Our 
brickmakers now find themselves in a very similar situation today. In 
2015, the EPA again finalized a rule requiring the industry to once 
again invest in similar control equipment technologies.
  Additionally, this new regulation uses the emission reductions 
achieved under the vacated regulation as a baseline for further 
emission reductions. In other words, the EPA, under the former 
administration, chose not to recognize the great strides this industry 
achieved under the previously vacated rule. The Agency neglected to 
take this past regulatory and compliance history into consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, that is simply not right. The bill before us today, H.R. 
1917, the BRICK Act, ensures history does not repeat itself. This 
legislation simply allows for the consideration and completion of any 
judicial review regarding the 2015 regulation before requiring 
compliance.
  Now, some of my colleagues across the aisle say they are worried that 
this legislation sets a dangerous precedent. Many of these same 
colleagues are also quick to recognize the very unique regulatory 
situation this industry finds itself in. They even go so far as to say 
they are sympathetic to the unique situation.

                              {time}  1415

  However, they are unwilling to support this bill that simply extends 
the compliance deadlines, which would give the brick and tile 
industries a bit of regulatory certainty while the courts complete 
their work.
  Mr. Speaker, that logic baffles me. We need a bit of pragmatism when 
we approach this situation. Because if you really want to talk about a 
dangerous precedent, consider this: this new regulation also caps the 
economic productivity of the clay ceramics industry. While the former 
administration admitted that this regulation will not reduce emissions 
emitted by the industry, it decided to set new emission standards 
through regulations anyway.
  Regulating an industry for no immediate reason or environmental 
benefit? Now that is a dangerous precedent. Brick manufacturers have 
suffered heavy losses since the recession, shedding 45 percent of jobs 
between 2005 and 2012, and these increased compliance costs from EPA 
regulations are driving more job losses and consolidations within this 
primarily family-owned industry.
  Brick plant owners already struggle to obtain financing for plant 
modernization projects, and brick companies estimate that this rule 
will cost as much as $100 million a year to comply. Many are worried 
that the financing needed to comply with this most recent reiteration 
of this rule will not be available, considering that the required 
control equipment will not improve plant productivity, nor help the 
bottom line.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation 
today, and I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues to 
quickly address this issue. I know some recent bipartisan progress has 
been made in the Senate between Senator Wicker and Senator Donnelly, 
and I am very encouraged by that progress.
  I am hopeful that this vote today will help push the Senate to act 
and act sooner than later. The compliance deadlines are quickly 
approaching, and we need a solution now to this important issue. 
Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, we are in danger of having to build buildings 
in America out of sticks and straw, or, worse yet, out of bricks 
imported from foreign countries.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, no one wants to shut down these businesses, but H.R. 
1917 is the wrong remedy. We understand the circumstances, and those 
circumstances should be brought to the attention of the courts.
  The court has the power to grant the stay of this rule. For some 
reason, the industry has not yet made that request, even though there 
are a number of pending lawsuits challenging the rule. In fact, 
industry petitioned the court to put their lawsuits on hold until EPA 
decides whether to grant their request to reconsider the rule.
  The pending decisions by the court and the EPA indicate there are 
still a number of remedies available to address the industry's 
concerns, including a request to the court to stay the rule. There is 
no need for H.R. 1917.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Blocking Regulatory 
Interference from Closing Kilns Act of 2017. This bill is very simple, 
Mr. Speaker, as it simply aligns the timeline for compliance with 
judicial review of these rules and regulations.
  American businesses are finding themselves facing millions of dollars 
in compliance costs due to burdensome EPA regulations. It is estimated 
that the EPA's rules may cost the brick and ceramics industry millions 
annually, with the cost of compliance for the average facility at over 
$4 million.
  Industry won't be able to meet the requirement deadlines imposed by 
the rule, which is currently being reviewed

[[Page H1462]]

in our court system. The EPA's first attempt at a rule was vacated, but 
not before the industry spent millions in compliance measures that were 
ultimately found to be invalid.
  Small brick and ceramics businesses have been the hardest hit by the 
first rule; and if something isn't done, many of these small businesses 
will be forced to close their doors for good.
  H.R. 1917 would provide much-needed regulatory relief to brick and 
ceramics businesses by simply stating that we need to let the judicial 
review process move ahead before we penalize hardworking people.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this bill and to support 
businesses all across the country.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Mr. Shimkus yielding. And I 
want to thank Chairman Walden, as well, for his hard work in this area, 
as well as Mr. Shimkus', and the entire Energy and Commerce Committee 
for their leadership in this area.
  As chairman of the House Small Business Committee, I continue to hear 
from small-business owners all across America that compliance with 
regulations is one of the greatest challenges that they face, and this 
is, in essence, what this is.
  In fact, today, I chaired a hearing on how the regulatory process is 
impacting small businesses. The bill before us today, the BRICK Act, 
would provide crucial relief to America's brick, clay, and tile 
industries, the majority of which are, by definition, small businesses; 
and we should always remember that small businesses create about 7 out 
of every 10 new jobs in America.
  The BRICK Act would ensure that small-business owners don't have to 
worry about spending millions of dollars to comply with a regulation 
that may well be thrown out in court. I would urge my colleagues to 
support this important legislation.

  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress should not be in the business of encouraging 
frivolous litigation or penalizing businesses that made the necessary 
investments to comply with standards, especially when clean air is at 
stake.
  Unfortunately, that is what the BRICK Act would do. These standards 
are achievable, long overdue, and provide considerable health benefits. 
It has been nearly two decades for pollution control standards for 
brick and clay facilities and nearly three decades since the last 
Federal standards for wood stoves.
  We shouldn't have to choose between a giveaway to a couple of special 
interests over clean air for all of our constituents. Again, I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman's good work on 
this legislation.
  In my district and in many rural communities around the country, wood 
burning stoves and heaters are a popular heat source, and an affordable 
one as well; and it is a renewable fuel. And I will tell you what: the 
person who utilizes a wood stove to heat their home is not a special 
interest.
  The EPA's New Source Performance Standards for products like wood and 
pellet stoves and wood furnaces have raised significant concerns. This 
regulation sets forth an unrealistic and unachievable timeline for 
manufacturers of these products to come into compliance with the 
standards in time.
  I have heard from manufacturers and retailers, like England's Stove 
Works in Amherst County in my district, that it is not that they don't 
want to comply with the rule, they just simply need more time. For just 
one wood stove, it can take up to 6 months to complete the EPA 
certification process.
  In the meantime, the availability of wood stoves--the affordability 
of this heating source for my constituents and other people in mostly 
rural areas, but other communities as well around the country, is going 
to go up.
  The BRICK Act, before the House today, includes provisions from a 
bill that I introduced along with Representative Collin Peterson, the 
Relief from New Source Performance Standards Act. This provision is a 
simple one. It simply extends the time wood stove manufacturers have to 
comply with Federal regulations by 3 years.
  Affordable heat is important to my constituents, and Federal 
regulations must take into account the real world needs and time 
constraints of the industries that make these products and must now 
develop new technologies.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this bill today to give 
this industry more time and ensure consumers can choose wood heat 
sources to help keep their families warm.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good debate and discussion. It is one we had 
in the subcommittee; it is one we had in the full committee; and we are 
bringing it to the floor. It just focuses on a different way in which 
we view manufacturing and, really, as you heard in this debate, small 
manufacturers--small brick manufacturers, small wood heaters, because, 
as everyone knows, when you are in a big corporation, you have got 
lawyers and you have got--you can do an economic analysis and you can 
do research and development, but a lot of these folks are just small 
local operations, probably started by a husband and wife, probably 
brought on a kid and next-door neighbor.
  In my opening statement, I mentioned how, in rural America, there are 
not a lot of businesses, other than maybe agriculture, people coming 
into the town; so not only are these manufacturers, they are the 
backbone of these small communities.
  So, simply put, this bill is a combination of two. One says you 
really shouldn't force someone to comply with a rule and regulation 
until they have fought the litigation battle, because, in the example 
that we are talking about today, the claimants, the manufacturers, won, 
where either they went out of business because they were trying to 
comply or they had to have this excessive cost. That is issue one.
  Issue two on the small wood heaters is just say they were forced to 
move forward in cleaner technology, increasing their environmental 
ability 90 percent; and we all know that the cleaner you get, the 
harder it is to get the last percentages. So all the folks are asking 
for is more time to comply.
  They are both bipartisan bills. I applaud folks coming down to talk 
and defend those. This is an exciting time in our country. It is 
exciting because we are having economic growth. We are having economic 
growth for two reasons. One, our historic tax cuts. Fifty percent of 
all manufacturers of the country have said they are going to invest in 
capital investment. Pretty exciting.
  There is optimism again. Wages are increasing. Benefits are 
increasing. You have people getting checks increasing or new growth 
capital expenses.
  There is another component of this exciting time for jobs in the 
economy, and this other component is easing up on the assault that the 
EPA has done over the past decade on our manufacturing sector and our 
job creators.
  So you put these two together, the American worker has a greater 
opportunity, and these are just a couple of examples of the bills we 
are moving today, how we can continue to make that happen.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this bill, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today, the BRICK Act, 
makes commonsense adjustments to preserve small businesses and American 
jobs while still protecting the environment. This bill addresses the 
impact of regulations and policies aimed at brickmakers, and--
particularly important to many in my home state, wood stoves.
  In many parts of Oregon, we're surrounded by forests and affordable 
wood, so wood stoves are often the most economical way to heat a home 
or a ranch shop. Oregonians also know what a real air pollution crisis 
looks like, as we have recently dealt with the thick smoke from several 
very bad wildfires across the state. Compared to that, wood stove 
emissions are far from a crisis, especially now that

[[Page H1463]]

they all must comply with EPA's 2015 emissions standards. There is no 
reason to threaten wood heater affordability as well as industry jobs 
by insisting on the unworkable 2020 deadline for the next round of 
standards. This bill takes the sensible step of extending the deadline 
to 2023, thus preserving wood heater choice and affordability.
  Opponents of these bills have claimed that H.R. 1917 is harmful to 
the environment and public health protections, but I think we need to 
maintain a sense of perspective.
  Neither brickmakers nor wood heaters are a significant source of 
emissions, and both industries have already reduced emissions 
significantly due to earlier regulations that are not affected under 
this bill. For example, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the 
brick industry has already committed millions of dollars to install and 
operate controls to reduce emissions by nearly 95 percent in order to 
comply with previous regulations.
  Perhaps most importantly, this bill does not repeal any health-based 
regulation--it simply makes minimal, temporal adjustments to reduce the 
risk of plant shutdowns, layoffs, and higher prices for consumers. We 
should be looking at ways to get people working, not imposing 
unnecessary and tough to meet regulatory timeframes that take away 
people's livelihoods.
  We need a balanced approach. These brickmakers and wood heater 
manufacturers are important employers in the small communities where 
many are located. The data shows that there is little environmental 
justification for inflicting economic harm on these small businesses 
and their communities, and thus there is every reason to pass this bill 
to ensure that any such harm is avoided.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I include the following letters in the 
Record on H.R. 1917.
                                            Chamber of Commerce of


                                 the United States of America,

                                    Washington, DC, March 7, 2018.
       To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The 
     U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports H.R. 1917, the ``Blocking 
     Regulatory Interference from Closing Kilns (BRICK) Act of 
     2017.'' The bill would ensure that the U.S. brick industry 
     will not be forced to comply with the Brick Maximum 
     Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards for air 
     quality issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
     (EPA) until after judicial challenges to the rule are 
     resolved.
       EPA issued an earlier version of the Brick MACT rule in 
     2003, which required the brick industry to spend millions of 
     dollars to purchase, install, and operate control equipment. 
     Five years later, a court threw out the 2003 rule. Now brick 
     companies are faced with having to pay to tear out the 
     equipment they installed and install even more costly new 
     equipment. Brick companies are rightfully worried that they 
     may make the investment to comply with the 2015 rule, only to 
     have it subsequently thrown out by a court. To avoid this 
     unfair and wasteful outcome, H.R. 1917 would set a compliance 
     date for the final Brick MACT rule after judicial challenges 
     to the 2015 Brick MACT rule are completed and after any 
     subsequent final rule is promulgated.
       It is important that American industries are not unfairly 
     penalized when they are compelled to comply with costly rules 
     that are later overturned by the courts. This wasteful and 
     unreasonable outcome must be avoided.
           Sincerely,
     Neil L. Bradley.
                                  ____

                                              National Association


                                             of Manufacturers,

                                    Washington, DC, March 7, 2018.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative, The National Association of 
     Manufacturers (NAM), the largest manufacturing association in 
     the United States representing manufacturers in every 
     industrial sector and in all 50 states, urges you to support 
     H.R. 1917, the Blocking Regulatory Interference from Closing 
     Kilns Act of 2017 (BRICK Act), introduced by Representative 
     Bill Johnson (R-OH).
       In September 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency 
     (EPA) issued final National Emissions Standards for Brick, 
     Structural Clay Products and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing, 
     often referred to as Brick MACT. It is estimated that this 
     rule will collectively cost the brick industry, which is made 
     up of predominantly small- and medium-sized manufacturers, 
     more than $100 million dollars per year.
       Manufacturers support reasonable environmental policies, 
     but need regulatory certainty to ensure that the investments 
     made today match what regulations will ultimately require. 
     When regulations stretch beyond what the law allows, 
     manufacturers and other stakeholders must turn to the courts 
     for relief. Often times compliance deadlines for disputed 
     final regulations are too short for the legal process to 
     fully run its course and manufacturers are forced to make 
     investments to comply with rules that courts may ultimately 
     throw out or send back to EPA for more work.
       This is exactly the situation brick manufacturers find 
     themselves in with this regulation, as EPA's rule requires 
     millions in new regulatory costs within a three-year period, 
     while the underlying regulation is being disputed in the 
     courts--a process that could ultimately span several years 
     H.R. 1917 is a commonsense way to approach this issue, as it 
     simply ensures that manufacturers will have the certainty 
     that the investments they make are based on laws that the 
     courts have determined are appropriate and legal. The NAM 
     strongly urges you to support H.R. 1917
           Sincerely,
     Ross Eisenberg.
                                  ____

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1917, the so-
called ``Blocking Regulatory Interference from Closing Kilns Act of 
2017.''
  This is the first in a series of dirty air proposals on the floor 
this week. The BRICK Act is part of the ongoing effort by Republicans 
to undermine the commonsense protections found in the Clean Air Act, in 
order to give special breaks to polluters at the expense of public 
health.
  We have seen this bill before. Last Congress we debated and voted on 
the BRICK Act: I opposed it then, and I oppose it now. Frankly, I have 
even more concerns with this legislation than I did in 2016.
  That is because the BRICK Act was amended by the Rules Committee to 
include two separate attacks on clean air safeguards. Like previous 
versions, this version before us today would indefinitely delay 
standards to reduce toxic air pollution from brick and clay 
manufacturers. However, it now also incorporates a separate bill that 
would delay long-overdue pollution standards for new wood fired 
heaters. The only thing these bills really have in common is that they 
both undermine Clean Air Act protections and endanger the health of our 
children.
  Regarding the treatment of brick and clay manufacturing facilities, 
the bill automatically delays implementation of EPA's final Brick and 
Clay rule by extending all deadlines . . . by however long it takes to 
complete all possible litigation. This blanket extension would be given 
to all facilities covered by the final rule, without regard for the 
merits of the legal challenges or their final outcome.
  But that is not Congress' job. The courts already have the ability to 
issue a ``stay'' of any compliance dates in a final rule. Delaying a 
rule for legitimate reasons does not require action by Congress, but a 
legislative quick fix is the only remedy the proponents of this bill 
appear to care about.
  By throwing out the existing judicial process, Republicans are giving 
polluters an incentive to ``run the clock'' on frivolous litigation, to 
put off ever controlling their pollution.
  This is especially problematic because Administrator Pruitt has 
announced plans to reconsider the Brick and Clay rule, which is 
expected to be finalized in 2019. At that point, the pollution control 
standards for brick and clay facilities will be almost two decades 
overdue, and this bill would delay those protections even longer.
  The new wood heater provision is not much better. The bill delays 
EPA's pollution standards for new wood-fueled heaters that have not 
been updated in nearly 30 years. The final rule included a gradual, 
five-year phase in to allow manufacturers time to adapt and develop 
cleaner and more efficient technologies, and the phase 2 requirements 
don't kick in until 2020.
  These newer appliances are a win for consumers. The 2020-compliant 
products are both cleaner and more efficient, generating more heat per 
unit of wood burned and making them less expensive to operate.
  But, with this provision, Republicans are picking winners and losers. 
They are rewarding companies that refused to clean up their dirty and 
inefficient products, while punishing innovative companies that 
invested in developing cleaner and more efficient technologies for wood 
heaters.
  Ultimately, the BRICK Act is really more about transferring burdens 
than relieving them. This so-called ``relief'' from regulation comes at 
the expense of our children's health. Moreover, it doesn't reduce 
costs; it merely transfers them from favored businesses to the general 
public who will pay for more doctor visits and lost work or school days 
as a result.
  My Republican colleagues repeatedly claim they support clean air, and 
yet, they continually put forward bill after bill designed to delay, 
weaken, or repeal safeguards that protect public health by cleaning up 
the air. Passing this bill allows dirty products to remain in operation 
for decades into the future, resulting in tons of additional pollution, 
and putting the health of our children and future generations at risk.
  Exempting businesses from clean air rules leads to more air 
pollution. It is that simple. We all want small businesses to thrive, 
and the history of the Clean Air Act demonstrates clearly that we can 
grow the economy while cleaning up the air and improving public health.
  Congress should not be selling out the health and safety of American 
children. But that is just what a YES vote on the BRICK Act would do.

[[Page H1464]]

  I urge all my colleagues to join me in opposing this dirty air bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 762, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  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.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at 
the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I am opposed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Castor of Florida moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1917 
     to the Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House forthwith, with the 
     following amendment:
       At the end of section 3 of the bill, add the following new 
     subsection:
       (c) Limitation on Private Plane Travel.--Nothing in this 
     Act may be construed to authorize the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency to charter a flight, or 
     travel in any class of air accommodation above coach class, 
     to, in accordance with subsection (b), make such technical 
     and conforming changes to rules and guidance documents as may 
     be necessary to implement subsection (a).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Curtis). Pursuant to the rule, the 
gentlewoman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes in support of her 
motion.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to 
the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If 
adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as 
amended.
  Mr. Speaker, my motion to recommit is simple and should garner the 
support of all Members who dislike government waste and abuse of power.
  My motion goes to the heart of the costly ethical violations by EPA 
Administrator Scott Pruitt and his penchant for flying first class in 
violation of Federal regulations and billing it to taxpayers.
  He has done this at a time when he has supported cuts to EPA clean 
water and clean air initiatives in the communities we represent back 
home.

                              {time}  1430

  So my amendment is simple. It says: ``Nothing in this act may be 
construed to authorize the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency to charter a flight, or travel in any class of air 
accommodation above coach class.''
  See, Federal regulations right now require government officials to 
consider the least expensive class of travel that meets their needs. 
Now, agencies are allowed to travel first class in very rare instances, 
such as a flight of 14 hours or more, a medical disability, or for 
exceptional security circumstances if your life or government property 
is in danger.
  Well, Administrator Scott Pruitt has abused these exceptions. This 
came to light after the House Energy and Commerce Committee asked the 
EPA Administrator to explain his costly travel records, which showed he 
repeatedly booked first class flights at taxpayer expense, and he hoped 
no one would notice. There is no adequate justification for this 
wasteful spending and abuse of power by Scott Pruitt. If he enjoys 
flying first class and staying in luxury hotels, then he should pay for 
it himself and not ask the taxpayers to foot the bill.
  Here is what we know per press reports and committee research: last 
June 5, Pruitt settled into his $1,641 first class seat for a short 
flight from D.C. to New York. The ticket cost more than 6 times that of 
the two media aides who traveled along with him and sat in coach. In 
Manhattan, Administrator Pruitt made two brief television appearances 
praising the White House's decision to withdraw from the 2015 Paris 
climate agreement. He stayed in an upscale hotel near Times Square and 
returned to Washington the next day. That Wednesday, after traveling on 
Air Force One for an infrastructure event in Cincinnati, Pruitt and 
several staffers raced back to New York on a military jet, at the cost 
of $36,000, to then catch a plane to Rome. The transatlantic flight was 
part of a round-trip ticket for the Administrator that cost over 
$7,000, according to EPA records, several times what was paid for other 
officials who went.
  In total, the taxpayer-funded travel for Pruitt and his top aides 
during that stretch in June cost at least $90,000, thanks to the 
Environmental Integrity Project, which got the records. His travel 
practices are quite different from previous EPA Administrators', who 
very rarely traveled first class and always announced their travel 
schedule to the public.
  But Scott Pruitt's travel is different. It is secretive, it is 
costly, and it is frequent. In fact, we have come to learn that this 
year he plans to travel to Israel, Australia, Japan, Mexico, and 
possibly Canada. None of those have been officially announced, but we 
have been digging. Pruitt rarely discloses where he plans to be.
  So, at the request of congressional Democrats, the EPA's Office of 
Inspector General is conducting probes of Pruitt's travel. He has 
attempted to justify his luxury travel by noting that he has been 
approached by people in the airport numerous times to talk about his 
environmental record. However, it is unclear why this justifies 
purchasing first class tickets.
  These new justifications also contradict previous explanations of 
this questionable travel as a way of providing an opportunity to hear 
directly from people affected by the EPA. The Administrator simply 
prefers to be wasteful with taxpayer dollars.
  We have asked about other conflicts of interest. He has continually 
sided with dirty energy and chemical companies, so it is no matter that 
members of the public would like to discuss these pressing issues with 
him. According to the Environmental Integrity Project, new travel 
records shared with the media show Pruitt and EPA employees spent up to 
$150,000 on premium commercial and chartered flights just in a 6-month 
period.
  So, Mr. Speaker, Administrator Pruitt says he will start flying coach 
after all the attention it has garnered, but he hasn't promised to do 
so. Through this motion to recommit, we would like to make it 
permanent. We would like to hold him accountable.
  And for anyone who would like to eliminate waste in government and 
make sure that our officials do not abuse their power, it is time to 
adopt this amendment, and I urge Congress to do so.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, a Member uses a motion to instruct or 
recommit to change or amend the bill. I don't think we build and use 
bricks to make our airplanes, and I don't think we power our planes 
with wood heaters.
  So what is the deal with this motion to instruct and recommit?

  It is just purely politics, and it is not surprising.
  Why?
  Well, because Democrats want to distort us from our economic success 
of the Republican agenda. And it is built on two foundational 
principles. One is the very successful tax reform and bill that we 
passed in December. And Americans are seeing it. Fifty percent of all 
manufacturers around the country are going to invest in capital 
expansion. People have bigger paychecks now. They are getting bonuses.
  In fact, I was on the floor last night with Illinoisans. We were 
reading stories from constituents about the benefits they are 
receiving, either in less money being taken out on taxes or increase in 
wages; trucking companies expanding. So it is an incredible success of 
optimism when we have been in an economic malaise for the past 8 years.
  And that is the kind of society I want to live in. I want to live in 
a society where, when my kids enter the workforce, there is a job 
there. And I want them to say: If I work hard and play by the rules, 
man, there is an opportunity for me. And that is what is coming back.
  There is another component to this economic success, and that is 
calling

[[Page H1465]]

off the EPA dogs who have been attacking the job creators in our 
country over the past 8 years. Ease the regulatory burden, provide 
historic tax relief, excitement in the economy, new jobs, new energy. 
So I understand why my opponents on the other side would like to 
distort us from this record.
  This motion to recommit is purely politics to do that, so that is why 
I ask my colleagues to reject the motion to recommit and, once we do 
that, support the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. 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, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________