Blocking Regulatory Interference From Closing Kilns Act of 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the BRICK Act.

I agree with my colleagues that the brick, clay, and tile industries are in a tough position. The Bush administration issued final brick and clay emission standards--or Brick and Clay MACT standards--in 2003, 3 years after they were supposed to be completed.

Unfortunately, the rule was flawed and, when challenged, the court vacated those standards as unlawful. As a result, the EPA Administrator was able to redo the brick and clay rule.

I am sympathetic to the fact that the brick, clay, and tile industries have been facing some real challenges since 2007, when the housing market began to decline, but some proponents of this bill will have you believe that all of the challenges are a result of the improvements the industry must make to meet the 2015 Brick and Clay MACT rule. What they refuse to acknowledge are the real health benefits that will come with the reduction of several major air pollutants.

I understand the industry stakeholders' reluctance to make further investments in pollution control technology to comply with this rule, given their previous experience with the 2003 rule, but the Clean Air Act provides a number of remedies that are available to them.

The courts are the proper venue for resolving issues with the Brick and Clay MACT. To date, industry groups have filed lawsuits on the merits of the rule, but none of the interested parties have actually asked the court to stay the rule's compliance dates.

The industry can also ask EPA to reconsider the rule, which I understand has already happened. In fact, earlier this week industry groups asked the D.C. Circuit Court to postpone consideration of their pending lawsuits until EPA makes a decision on whether to reconsider the rule. Neither of those remedies require action by Congress, but a legislative quick fix is the only remedy the proponents of this bill appear to care about.

H.R. 4557 does not resolve the ongoing issues with this rule. In fact, it is far more likely to create a drawn-out rulemaking process fueled by an endless stream of court challenges. That wouldn't resolve any of the industry's problems with the Brick and Clay MACT rule.

The bill also sets, in my opinion, a terrible precedent by delaying all of the rule's compliance requirements until all legal actions are complete.

If this remedy sounds familiar, that is because it is. The majority included a similar provision in a bill we considered earlier in this Congress: H.R. 2042, the Ratepayer Protection Act. I opposed that bill, and I oppose this one for the same reasons.

If we had included a litigation delay policy in the Clean Air Act, we would never have achieved the improvements in air quality and public health that we now enjoy.

The Clean Air Act provides ample opportunities for industry and the public to influence the development and implementation of regulations. These tools should be used in this case.

Finally, I do not support legislation to resolve the issues being raised by the bill's supporters. These issues can and should be resolved by the courts.

So I urge my colleagues to reject this attempt to get around the courts. I ask that they vote ``no'' on H.R. 4557.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source