Providing for Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted By the Environmental Protection Agency Relating to ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber Tire Manufacturing''

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 61 because it is common sense. The Biden administration decided to put these additional regulations on tire manufacturers. The inevitable consequence of that, of course, is increasing the cost of tires for the American people.

The American people might be okay with such a regulation if it was to have a meaningful, positive effect. Everybody wants to protect the environment. I can't name a single Member who doesn't. As policymakers, we have to ensure that regulations are pragmatic and balance the inherent trade-offs. That is what policymaking is about. That is what regulation is about, trade-offs.

The Biden-era regulation on tire manufacturers is a perfect example of when regulators fail to do a proper cost-benefit analysis.

Let's talk specifics. This EPA rule piles on huge costs for our domestic tire makers. It is going to hit close to 100 rubber-mixers across the country. That jeopardizes jobs, increases prices, and makes American manufacturers less competitive globally.

Worse, there is not really a benefit to this. These regulations don't do much of anything to actually improve the environment. Under the final rule, tire manufacturers have to install expensive new devices like regenerative thermal oxidizers, which require incredible amounts of energy to operate. Therefore, you offset the so-called benefit by burning a lot more energy, meaning you are burning a lot more carbon dioxide, by the way. In other words, you are left with a policy that is pretty much all cost and no clear upside to it.

If you look at the justification, the Biden EPA claimed they implemented this rule to address hazardous air pollutants from tire manufacturers. Here is the thing: The agency's own data found that our existing standards already kept those emissions in check and protect public health. Why did they do it anyway? It is simple. It was because the political appointees at Biden's EPA are beholden to a bunch of radical environmental groups.

They went for the optics. They want headlines like ``Tough on Pollution'' instead of trusting the data that says actually we are in a good place here. They want the headlines. They believe in this crazy philosophy that if 1 regulation is good, then 10 more must be better. You can never do enough.

Of course, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have started with the scare tactics claiming the sky is falling, the air quality is plummeting, and people are dying and they are not going to have healthcare. There is no evidence for that, of course.

The evidence actually shows the opposite. The EPA's own website shows criteria pollutants have dropped by nearly 80 percent over the last several decades. We have already made a huge amount of progress. The data backs that up, not doom-and-gloom talking points.

Mr. Speaker, I say to anyone watching at home, don't buy into the fear-mongering that the Democrats are selling. This resolution is about protecting American jobs and keeping an eye on costs for everyone. It won't hurt the environment at all. It just reverses a burdensome rule that does more harm than good.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand with Chairman Griffith in support of this resolution. I urge all my colleagues on both sides to do the same.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source