Blocking Regulatory Interference From Closing Kilns Act of 2017

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

I urge all my colleagues to join me in opposing this dirty air bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source