[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 21, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H2212-H2217]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RELATING TO ``REVIEW OF FINAL RULE
RECLASSIFICATION OF MAJOR SOURCES AS AREA SOURCES UNDER SECTION 112 OF
THE CLEAN AIR ACT''
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Pursuant to House Resolution 426, I call up the
joint resolution (S.J. Res. 31) providing for congressional disapproval
under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted
by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``Review of Final
Rule Reclassification of Major Sources as Area Sources Under Section
112 of the Clean Air Act'', and ask for its immediate consideration in
the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 426, the joint
resolution is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
S.J. Res. 31
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress
disapproves the rule submitted by the Environmental
Protection Agency relating to ``Review of Final Rule
Reclassification of Major Sources as Area Sources Under
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act'' (89 Fed. Reg. 73293
(September 10, 2024)), and such rule shall have no force or
effect.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debatable for
1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their
respective designees.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber) and the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
[[Page H2213]]
General Leave
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks
on the legislation and to insert extraneous material in the Record on
S.J. Res. 31.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S.J. Res. 31, a
resolution that pushes back on yet another outrageous overreach by the
Biden-Harris EPA which spent the last 4 years tying the hands of
America's energy producers and undermining our position as a global
energy leader.
The latest example is this joint resolution providing for
congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States
Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency
relating to Review of Final Rule Reclassification of Major Sources as
Area Sources Under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.
This commonsense resolution, led by my good friend, Senator Curtis of
Utah, and carried in the House by my good friend, Representative
Fedorchak, along with support from Representatives Balderson and Allen,
pushes back on a deeply flawed EPA rule that is yet another blow to
American energy producers and manufacturers, as well as small
businesses.
What does this rule do? This rule shackles businesses with burdensome
red tape under what is called the ``once in, always in'' policy. That
means once a facility is deemed a major source of emissions, even if it
invests heavily in modern equipment and successfully lowers its
emissions, it is still locked into that stricter classification
forever, period. They are not given credit for cleaning up their act.
There are no incentives given to improve. There is just more
bureaucracy.
Mr. Speaker, let's be clear. This rule is anti-innovation, anti-
investment, and anti-American.
Mr. Speaker, repealing this misguided rule would do what we should
have done all along: encourage facilities to reduce emissions by giving
them a path to reclassify as area sources once they meet that
threshold. That is not only good for industry, it is good for our
environment. It is a true win-win, Mr. Speaker.
Now, here is some background. Under section 112 of the Clean Air Act,
facilities that emit over 10 tons of a single hazardous pollutant, or
25 tons of a combination, are considered major sources and hit with the
strictest regulations and nonstop monitoring. What about those below
that threshold? They are area sources with more reasonable
requirements.
However, the ``once in, always in'' rule, cooked up during the
Clinton administration, locked companies into major source status
forever, even if they had dramatically reduced their emissions. That is
just plain wrong.
Thankfully, in 2020, the Trump administration corrected this
nonsense. They rightly said that the Clean Air Act doesn't prohibit
facilities from reclassifying if and when they reduce emissions below
the legal threshold.
Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? That rule actually worked. It
encouraged improvements, and businesses responded.
Under the Biden-Harris rule, companies have absolutely no incentive
to decrease their emissions.
We should encourage industries, Mr. Speaker, to lower their emissions
and allow them the possibility of reclassifying as an area source if
they can successfully reduce their emissions.
U.S. emissions have already decreased over the past two decades, even
as our energy production has hit record highs. That is not government
regulation, that is American innovation.
American industry relied on the Trump rule to make progress in
reducing emissions. Yet, under this new EPA rule, companies that did
the right thing under the Trump-era guidance, those that cut emissions,
are actually being punished. That is not environmentalism; that is
government overreach plain and simple.
Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker. This resolution does not strip the EPA
of its authority to regulate air pollutants. It doesn't. It simply
returns us to the commonsense, pro-growth, pro-clean-air policy of the
Trump administration. If a business steps up and reduces its emissions,
it ought to be rewarded, not handcuffed.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand with the American worker,
stand with American innovation, and vote ``yes'' on S.J. Res. 31. I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S.J. Res. 31. On the day
that House Republicans have been planning to actively strip healthcare
away from 13.7 million Americans, they are also seeking to make
Americans sicker by giving some of the worst industrial polluters a
free pass to pump dangerous chemicals into communities across the
Nation. With this resolution, Republicans are repealing critical Clean
Air Act safeguards that have been in place for decades.
The regulatory rule Republicans are trying to repeal today is first
and foremost a public health protection measure. It requires facilities
that emit the worst of the worst hazardous air pollutants to monitor,
report, and cut those emissions to the maximum degree of reduction
achievable, even eliminating them entirely if possible.
The rule also prevents any backsliding by major sources of the seven
most dangerous hazardous air pollutants, including mercury and PCBs. By
repealing this rule, Republicans are going to allow large facilities to
increase their toxic emissions up to just below the legal limit,
endangering the health of American communities.
The cruelty of the Republican majority cannot be overstated. Let me
be clear. The dangerous air pollution this rule protects us from can
cause cancer, birth defects, developmental disorders, and neurological
problems, even at small levels of exposure.
Unfortunately, Republicans want to make it easier for large
industrial polluters to increase their emissions of these chemicals,
regardless of the harms. They want to make Americans sicker at the same
time they are looking to strip away their health coverage.
Allowing nearly 2,000 large industrial facilities to escape from
their Clean Air Act compliance obligations, as this resolution allows,
will not magically push them to invest in new technologies to clean up.
There is zero evidence that giving facilities a free pass leads to less
pollution. In fact, the opposite is certainly true.
Passing this resolution will be a race to the bottom, giving these
facilities the green light to permanently abandon their long-installed
pollution control equipment that are currently saving lives. This
Republican resolution will allow these facilities to spew hazardous air
pollution into the air with reckless abandon, and increase cancer-
causing pollutants without consequence.
It will also allow these facilities to stop monitoring and reporting
to the EPA which would end any chance of accountability for surrounding
communities. The Trump EPA has been clear that enforcement of
environmental laws is not a priority, so American families will be at
the mercy of large corporate polluters.
This resolution proves, once again, that Republicans are completely
out of touch. Americans are struggling to make ends meet and facing the
reality that Republicans may soon strip them and their families of
healthcare, but their focus is on repealing commonsense protections
that make the air safer to breathe.
In the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, Congress recognized the clear
and present danger caused by hazardous air pollution coming from large
industrial sources across the country. It is because of the
requirements put in place to address that danger that we have seen such
sharp emission reductions and cleaner air over the past one-half
century. To turn back now because of a CRA vote would be catastrophic,
especially for anyone who lives near an industrial facility.
It is not enough to gut the healthcare of millions of Americans.
Republicans first want to make sure the air we all breathe will do us
harm. S.J. Res. 31 is cynical, dangerous, and deeply irresponsible.
Congress should be trying to protect Americans, not trying to make them
sick.
[[Page H2214]]
Mr. Speaker, for the health and safety of all Americans and for the
sake of clean air, I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this
resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend from Texas for
yielding the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S.J. Res. 31 to overturn the
Biden administration's ``once in, always in'' rule. This is an
egregious and burdensome rule, and it was just one of many actions
taken by the previous administration on their way out the door to
further hamstring our domestic energy producers.
By permanently classifying certain industrial facilities as major
sources of hazardous air pollutants, even if they successfully reduce
emissions, the Biden administration was seemingly punishing job
creators for being good stewards of the environment.
As an original cosponsor of S.J. Res. 31, I am proud that House
Republicans are taking a stand and defending our energy producers,
manufacturers, and small businesses against unfair and costly
environmental rules.
In overturning the ``once in, always in'' rule, we are returning to
commonsense policy implemented during President Trump's first
administration. If businesses reduce their emissions below the major
source threshold, then they should reap the reward of more cost-
effective and flexible requirements under the Clean Air Act, period.
Repealing this backward rule is part of House Republicans' work to
unleash American energy and ensure that government red tape does not
stand in the way of creating jobs and growing our economy here at home.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to join us in
supporting S.J. Res. 31.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Tonko) who is the ranking member of our Environment
Subcommittee.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. S.J.
Res. 31 is irresponsible, especially as we wait to see whether
Republicans will bring forward their budget bill to strip healthcare
from millions of Americans to give tax breaks to billionaires.
However, this resolution would allow 1,800 facilities that emit the
worst of the worst cancer-causing toxic air pollutants to avoid Clean
Air Act requirements that protect the air that we breathe.
It would eliminate a 2024 EPA rule that ensures large industrial
facilities like chemical plants and oil refineries control their
hazardous air pollution. Hazardous air pollutants are known or
suspected to cause cancer, birth defects, developmental disorders, and
neurological problems, even at extremely low levels of exposure.
It has been suggested that the 2024 rule eliminates the incentive for
facilities to deploy new technologies to reduce pollution. However, we
have some real-world data on this, and there is zero evidence that
polluters will go above and beyond what is legally required of them by
installing new technologies once they have avoided the major source
requirements of the Clean Air Act.
{time} 1230
The first Trump administration initially undid the ``once in, always
in'' policy in 2020, and over 200 facilities were able to escape those
given requirements. As far as I know, none of these sites has taken
additional steps to install new pollution controls.
On the other hand, many of these facilities have been free to run
their existing, previously installed pollution controls less. When they
were categorized as a major source, they needed to take steps to
drastically reduce their emissions as much as possible, based on
demonstrated, cost-effective technologies.
In many cases, that resulted in emission levels dropping far below
the major source thresholds, but the Clean Air Act's intent was never
to bring pollution levels right below some arbitrary major source
threshold. It is about reducing emissions and potentially even
eliminating emissions as much as it is cost-effectively possible.
Rescinding this rule would give another 1,800 facilities the green
light to shut off their long-installed pollution control equipment,
spew hazardous air pollution right up to the major source trigger, and
increase cancer-causing pollution without consequence.
The Clean Air Act is an incredible public health success story, and
we are at risk of writing a new, dark chapter in this law's history.
There have been five decades of strong, bipartisan support in Congress
for the law, which has allowed us to make steady progress to reduce air
pollution in our country.
Yes, in many places we are breathing cleaner air today than we were
in the 1970s or 1990s, but that improvement is not guaranteed to be
maintained if we start to chip away and backslide.
This resolution puts our previous progress in serious jeopardy, and
the people who live along the fence lines of these 1,800 industrial
facilities are at risk of facing the worst consequences.
These communities tend to be low income. I would venture that many
rely on Medicaid. The one-two punch of this resolution with a budget
bill to strip healthcare from nearly 14 million people is wrong. It
will leave people with unhealthier air, fewer protections, and less
access to healthcare to deal with the consequences--cancer, birth
defects, and developmental disorders--of allowing these facilities to
pollute more.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose this resolution.
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Balderson).
Mr. BALDERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Weber for yielding me time.
I rise today in strong support of S.J. Res. 31. This resolution would
disapprove of the Biden-era EPA's ``once in, always in'' rule, which
was finalized in the final months of the previous administration.
Simply put, the ``once in, always in'' policy hurts America's
manufacturing and energy sectors while doing nothing to actually
improve air pollution.
In 2020, the Trump administration first reversed this policy, which
encouraged businesses to lower their emissions and reduce pollution.
My home State of Ohio ranks third in the Nation with almost 700,000
manufacturing jobs. The manufacturing sector is responsible for over 17
percent of Ohio's gross domestic product and has an annual payroll of
$48 billion in the Buckeye State alone.
It is critical that we support this resolution today and send it to
the President's desk to deliver on our promise to unleash American
manufacturing and energy.
I am proud to have introduced the House companion to this CRA with
the gentlewoman from North Dakota (Mrs. Fedorchak), my good friend, and
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this commonsense resolution.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Castor), the ranking member of the Energy Subcommittee.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Pallone
for yielding the time.
Mr. Speaker, this is a dirty, pro-polluter resolution, so I rise in
strong opposition to S.J. Res. 31. It is going to increase hazardous
air pollution across America. It is going to expose more Americans to
cancer-causing toxins.
What is worse, it comes at a time when Republicans are ripping
healthcare away from at least 13.7 million Americans in their
billionaire boondoggle bill. In fact, Mr. Speaker, if you talk to folks
back home or in your townhalls, what they are talking about is the cost
of living.
It is amazing that this is the priority of the GOP at a time when
people are really being squeezed back home. Republicans have not
brought one bill to the floor to lower the cost of living and tackle
the everyday challenges of our neighbors back home. Instead, they are
consumed by this tax giveaway for billionaires.
This is the priority, to gut the Clean Air Act, to give polluting
industrial plants the right to pollute more, to pollute our air with
toxins that cause cancer, neurological damage, and death.
As a result of this Republican bill, we will see about 1,800
industrial facilities able to increase their pollution output.
[[Page H2215]]
Back home in Florida, we anticipate that will apply to 72 more
polluting facilities that will be allowed to escape regulation and emit
cancer-causing air pollution.
These are the major sources of hazardous air pollution, the large
industrial facilities like chemical plants, refineries, and pesticide
manufacturers. It is especially troubling because--and I think Mr.
Pallone would agree that this hasn't gotten a lot of play--in that
billionaire boondoggle bill, the big tax giveaway package that is
ruminating here in the Rules Committee right now, the American people
need to know what else was included in that bill.
The Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans included a pay-to-play
scheme to sell out the most vulnerable communities to the highest
bidder. This is in addition to gutting Medicaid and the Affordable Care
Act.
What they put in relating to their pay-to-play scheme would allow Big
Oil polluters to pay a one-time $1 million fee to the Department of
Energy to grease the skids to get polluting gas plants online faster.
Yes, we need more energy, but this comes at a time when they are, in
doing so, going to raise electric bills across the country because they
say it is only oil and gas. Forget about solar, wind, storage, all the
energy that is ready to come onto the grid.
It is another example of sacrificing the people's interests for the
special interests'. The special interests here are the chemical plants,
refineries, and pesticide manufacturers.
This is especially troubling, too, because, for decades, Congress has
recognized the clear health dangers of hazardous air pollutants from
these large-scale industrial polluting plants. We know they cause
cancer. We know they cause birth defects, developmental disorders, and
neurological problems, even at low levels of exposure.
While Americans struggle with the high cost of living and watch this
billionaire boondoggle bill try to get through the House, just know
what else is going on at the same time.
They are gutting the Clean Air Act, the bipartisan piece of
legislation that has stood us well for years and years. No Congress has
ever stripped away protections against toxic air pollution, and we
shouldn't start now.
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume
to the gentlewoman from North Dakota (Mrs. Fedorchak).
Mrs. FEDORCHAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my
resolution to repeal the Biden administration's eleventh hour
reinstatement of the ``once in, always in'' rule and to counter some of
the misinformation being shared on this rule by my colleagues on the
other side.
I am a mom of three. When my kids were growing up, they woke up every
Saturday morning to a job list, and they couldn't get their allowance
until they completed the jobs on the list. They were motivated to get
their jobs done by that allowance, and I would have had very little
luck incentivizing them to do their jobs if they never received their
promised reward.
This is a law of human nature. People respond to incentives and
rewards, which underscores the main problem with the ``once in, always
in'' rule. There is no incentive to invest.
This misguided regulation permanently classifies certain industrial
facilities as major sources, major sources of hazardous air pollutants
even after they have made significant investments to reduce the
emissions below the Federal threshold.
Mr. Speaker, think about that for a minute. They invest millions of
dollars to modernize their operations, improve efficiency, and reduce
emissions only for the Federal Government to permanently classify their
business as a major source, stuck with the same costly regulations.
That is not smart policy. That is counterproductive. By refusing to
let businesses reclassify after making progress, after meeting the
standards, this rule removes any real incentive to invest in cleaner
technologies.
Our energy producers in North Dakota have invested $2 billion in
emissions control technology. They have done this because they care
about our communities and environment. In fact, North Dakota exports
thousands of megawatts of electricity every year.
We are the third largest oil- and gas-producing State in the Nation,
and we are one of only four States in the Nation that has never
violated Federal air quality standards. That is not an accident. That
is the result of smart investments, cutting-edge technology, and a
commitment to responsible energy production.
North Dakota is proof that we can grow the economy, power the
country, and protect the environment at the same time.
This bureaucratic rule ignores these successful efforts. It removes
the incentive to innovate and locks facilities into restrictive
regulations, even when they are trying to reduce emissions and operate
more efficiently.
It is not just a problem for North Dakota. This rule affects
manufacturers, energy producers, and small businesses all over the
country. This approach raises costs, discourages innovation, and forces
companies to think twice before making long-term investments in cleaner
technologies.
This is not how to build a stronger economy or a cleaner future, and
it is not how to make things more affordable for Americans.
Our Nation's energy future should be driven by innovation. American
technological innovation have allowed us to reduce emissions more than
any other Nation since 2005, all while achieving record energy
production.
We need a regulatory framework that incentivizes innovation and
rewards it when it happens. That means eliminating one-size-fits-all
regulations like the ``once in, always in'' rule.
Supporting this resolution means supporting American energy jobs,
lower prices, and fostering a regulatory environment where businesses
can thrive while safeguarding the environment.
I want to underscore that this resolution is not about allowing
facilities to maintain high pollutant levels. It is about incentivizing
them to reduce emissions and rewarding them when they do. That is how
we both expand energy production and protect our environment.
I thank Senator John Curtis of Utah for his leadership on this
resolution in the Senate, and I urge my colleagues in the House to
support this resolution.
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her
remarks, and I want to highlight one line she said: American technology
and innovation has allowed us to reduce emissions more than any other
country since 2005. That is important.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Washington (Ms. Schrier).
Ms. SCHRIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me
time.
Today, I rise just flabbergasted and outraged by the latest attempts
to undermine protections that keep our air clean, safe, and healthy. Do
we really disagree about that?
Today's bill would allow an unnecessary, dangerous increase in some
of the worst toxic chemicals back into the air that we and our children
breathe, even when these facilities have abided by these standards for
decades and proven that they have the technologies to do so. Let me
repeat that: They have the technologies. They have the equipment
already.
As a pediatrician, I know how damaging these toxins can be. Mercury
and lead can lead to severe developmental delays, birth defects, and
brain damage for children. Dioxins are known human carcinogens. The
list goes on.
As a Member of Congress who strives always to find pragmatic,
bipartisan solutions for us and for our children, I simply fail to
understand when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are
choosing to relax these standards for clean air, all while stripping
healthcare away from more than 13 million Americans.
{time} 1245
I mean, they are jeopardizing our health and taking away our
healthcare. I urge my colleagues to strongly oppose this bill. It is a
corporate giveaway that hurts our constituents once again.
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this is amazing to me, quite
frankly. I served 4 years in the Texas legislature, and we were busy
with catalytic scrubbers on all the industry that we had
[[Page H2216]]
making sure that Texans had clean energy. We care about the
environment. We care about people's health. We care about the future.
We care about the economy.
It is a little bit curious to me to hear our friends across the aisle
say that we don't care about any of that stuff. In Texas, we have a
saying, Mr. Speaker: It just ain't so.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Matsui), the ranking member of our Communications and
Technology Subcommittee.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to S.J. Res. 31.
Once again, Republicans are gutting our most fundamental pollution
regulations.
This bill overturns air quality regulations for the most polluting
industrial facilities in the country, giving a green light for
polluters to pump more cancer-causing pollutants into the air we
breathe.
Without these safeguards, nearly 2,000 of the Nation's largest
polluters would get a free pass. Oil refineries, chemical
manufacturers, pesticide producers, they would all be allowed to shut
off their pollution controls and start spewing some of the most
dangerous chemicals directly into our air: lead, mercury, arsenic,
benzene. When inhaled, these pollutants are known to have significant
health impacts, including cancer, birth defects, infertility, organ
failure, and developmental disorders in children.
The science is clear. Pollution kills. Study after study has shown
that air pollution is linked to higher rates of hospitalizations and
death.
Every year, air pollution kills over 100,000 Americans, and nearly
half of Americans now live in areas with harmful levels of pollution,
up 20 percent from just last year.
This is a health crisis in the making. Republicans aren't cutting red
tape. They are sentencing thousands of Americans to die in communities
across our country. This isn't a partisan issue. This affects
everybody. Red States and blue States, Republican and Democrat, every
American deserves clean air.
Yet, my Republican colleagues would rather prioritize their donors in
the oil and chemical business instead of protecting the health of their
own constituents.
Let's not forget, while Republicans are attacking Americans' access
to clean air, they are also ramming through their big, ugly
reconciliation bill, which slashes funding for pollution reduction and
prevention programs, ends clean energy and climate programs, and strips
away healthcare from almost 14 million Americans.
The Republicans' agenda will make Americans sicker and poorer,
sending more Americans to the hospital, and ensuring fewer Americans
can afford the healthcare they need.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for clean air. Vote ``no''
on S.J. Res. 31.
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), the distinguished
chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today addresses a key issue
created in the Biden-Harris administration that harms American
businesses and actually disincentivizes investment to reduce pollution.
This was originally created during the Clinton administration. It was
the ``once in, always in'' rule that penalized job creators and energy
producers who took steps to invest in new technologies that lowered
pollution.
If your emissions are at such a level you become a major source, once
in under this rule that we are overturning today, you are always a
major source, no matter what you do with your businesses. If you lower
emissions, if you lower standards, you put in new equipment, you do
operating hours differently, you do whatever you can to lower your
emissions, you can't go back to being an area source and regulated with
a level of emissions. Once you cross the threshold, no matter what you
do, you stay listed as a major source pollutant.
We believe it disincentivizes companies from trying to lower their
standard, and that is what we want to do. It is a disincentive. It is
counterintuitive for what is trying to be done with the rule. We want
lowered emissions, and we want to incentivize businesses to get there.
In the last Congress, I was proud to lead the legislation to overturn
this burdensome regulation, which is a one-way ratchet that creates a
disincentive for businesses to take steps to reduce their emissions.
By passing this resolution of disapproval under the Congressional
Review Act, we are working to unleash American energy and ensuring that
every dollar that is invested in our economy is focused on jobs,
growth, and innovation, not siphoned off for unworkable compliance
created by government red tape.
I thank Congresswoman Fedorchak for leading this resolution, and I
thank my friend from Texas for yielding.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the seven hazardous air
pollutants that Republicans are apparently fine with pumping into the
air we breathe.
First is mercury. Mercury is quickly absorbed into the body through
inhalation and skin contact. It moves quickly across the placenta and
into a human fetus and can also cross the blood-brain barrier and
remain in blood cells for decades.
This is why it is linked to developmental deficits in children. It
can impact the heart, lungs, central nervous system, reproduction,
kidneys, and GI tract. It is also linked to cancer and autoimmune
diseases. The Republicans want children to breathe more of this toxin.
Next is alkylated lead. Alkylated lead is a combination of toxic lead
and hydrocarbons from fossil fuels. It affects nearly every organ in
the human body and reduces cognitive function in children. It is a
known carcinogen, and as far as we know, there is no safe level of
lead.
Then we have dioxins, furans, polycyclic organic matter,
hexachlorobenzene, and PCBs. Also, all of these would be increased
because of this CRA. These are all known carcinogens. All are
bioaccumulative, persistent, and toxic, even in amounts in fractions of
a gram.
It is really a shame to frame this rule simply as a so-called
regulatory burden or a simple cost of doing business. EPA's rule is a
public health rule, and we need to uphold it to protect the health and
safety of our constituents, both adults and children.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, big polluters are the only people who will benefit from
the rescission of this rule, not the American people.
If this rule is blocked, industrial facilities would once again be
allowed to escape the regulations of the Clean Air Act that are meant
to curb the release of harmful and cancer-causing pollutants.
Once they have escaped, most of these facilities would not be
required to conduct monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting of what
pollutants they are releasing into our communities.
They certainly will not have any incentive to implement any type of
reporting on their own, especially when over half of the States
prohibit regulators from being more stringent than EPA regulations.
This is all while the American people will bear the burdens of the
rule's repeal, facing even higher risks of cancer, asthma, and other
severe health conditions.
Not once--and I will repeat that--not once in the history of the
Clean Air Act has Congress rolled back its protections. I find it
extraordinary that Republicans are attempting to do this at a time when
they are also trying to gut Medicaid.
We should be protecting this rule to defend the health of our
constituents
[[Page H2217]]
and to make sure that polluters are held accountable, not just trying
to rescind this rule entirely.
I think it is time that we stand up to big polluters and billionaires
and re-center the health and needs of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, for all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' on this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, I am kind of amused listening to our friends from the
other side, all of the facts and the things that they are bringing up.
You know, it is not, Mr. Speaker, that they are ignorant, it is just
that so much of what they know ain't so.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on S.J. Res.
31, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. DesJarlais). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the previous question is ordered on the joint
resolution.
The question is on the third reading of the joint resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. PALLONE. 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.
____________________