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. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I say it is good to see the gentlewoman from Utah in the chair.
Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 61, another attempt by House Republicans to ensure workers and communities continue to breathe toxic air pollution. This harmful Republican resolution puts the profits of billionaire corporate polluters over the health and welfare of the American people, and it makes a mockery of Republican promises to make America healthy again.
I really believe, Madam Speaker, that this resolution is a distraction. I listened to the President's speech last night, and it is clear to me that neither he, nor the Republicans in the House, have found a way to lower grocery prices. They haven't found a way to lower energy prices. They haven't found a way to fund the government. Now they are on the cusp of stripping millions of people of their healthcare, all so they can shower these giant tax breaks on billionaires and big corporations.
Using the Congressional Review Act hatchet to carve away critical protections from an agency that has already been decimated by DOGE's indiscriminate firing demonstrates how unserious Republicans are about keeping Americans safe from dangerous pollution, and another week of nonsense CRAs, in my opinion, shows how unserious House Republicans are about governing.
Madam Speaker, I will directly address what the gentleman said. Under the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency is required to reduce hazardous air pollutants from large industrial sources like rubber tire manufacturers to protect Americans across the country from harm.
They have to do this. They are obligated in the EPA to look at the things that might be hazardous under the Clean Air Act. To be clear, hazardous air pollutants are air toxics that are known or suspected of causing cancer and other serious health impacts like heart attacks, worsening asthma, reproductive and birth defects, as well as severe impacts on the environment.
EPA is obligated under the law to set pollution limits based on what is already being achieved at similar facilities using readily available technologies.
Basically, under the Clean Air Act, the EPA has to say what is harming the public and is there a technology out there in this industry that is innovative and does not achieve that level of harm?
The bottom line is, there are industries that are already retrofitting and meeting these standards, otherwise, the EPA couldn't establish the standards. I have had this discussion before with my colleague. There are good actors and bad actors. The good actors want innovation, want to retrofit their manufacturing companies to do the right thing and cause less pollution. By repealing this, all the Republicans are doing is basically helping the bad actors, in this case, mostly foreign manufacturers or foreign-based companies that just want to save money by not eliminating this harm.
I don't want to get into the specifics of whether the rubber tire manufacturers will address this, but it is cost-effective, protects public health, and ensures the industry stays competitive. It is long overdue.
In fact, the Court ruling required the EPA to finalize this rule to close the loophole that allowed rubber processing facilities to spew unlimited hazardous air pollution. When fully implemented, the rule will cut these harmful emissions by 171 tons per year. That includes over 100 tons of toxic organic chemicals and over 60 tons of particulate matter that will be removed from the air of the workers and the communities near the impacted facilities.
However, H.J. Res. 61 will throw all of these benefits away. This resolution would hamstring EPA's ability to fulfill its obligation to protect the health and welfare of Americans from air pollution. Unfortunately for everyone with lungs, Republicans can't leave commonsense environmental protections in place.
As the House Republicans move to strip healthcare from millions of Americans to fund tax breaks for billionaires and big corporations, they also want to make people sicker by rolling back regulations meant to keep people safe from cancer-causing air pollution. It is outrageous. I don't know what else to say.
Contrary to what my colleagues on the other side claim, EPA's rule was developed in close consultation with industry, using industry data. It also proposes emissions reduction technology that the best performers in the industry are already using.
Overall, it is estimated to cost less than a fraction of 1 percent of the company's annual revenue and facilities have years to comply.
This should be a no-brainer, a win-win scenario of reducing cancer- causing emissions and promoting innovative technologies to modernize industry and provide regulatory certainty. I really don't understand why House Republicans are so fixated on trying to repeal and block the work of the EPA.
Madam Speaker, for the health of workers and the surrounding communities and for the sake of clean air, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution that puts the whims of billionaires and corporate polluters before the American people.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), who is the ranking member of our Environment Subcommittee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Dexter.)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Morrison).
Mr. Speaker, I can't stress enough that the EPA's rule, which the Republicans are trying to repeal, would remove 171 tons of hazardous air pollution per year, including some of the worst air toxins.
This critical rule is, first and foremost, a public health rule, seeking to help both the workers and the communities surrounding these facilities.
We heard a very impassioned speech by the gentlewoman from Akron, Ohio, who talked about how much, in Akron, they depend on this industry and want it to thrive. They have suffered over the years, not only the people who work in the factory but the people of Akron and the surrounding areas, from hazardous air pollution. Essentially, that is why she is opposed to the repeal of this rule that helps people breathe.
Again, this is not only something that the EPA is required to do under the Clean Air Act, which is to look at whether or not particular industries are causing health problems for the American public, but in addition to that, the EPA was compelled to regulate these specific air toxins by a 2020 court case that required the agency to close loopholes for unregulated hazardous air pollution that they are legally required to manage under the Clean Air Act.
My colleagues on the other side suggested that somehow this is a Biden administration midnight rule and that it was rushed at the last minute. The reality is that the EPA has been regulating the process involved in tire manufacturing since 2002. That is over 20 years ago.
Rubber processing, which is really what we are talking about here, had gotten a free pass, as I said, for over 20 years. This rule that the EPA promulgated seeks to ensure that the workers and communities like those in Akron near these facilities aren't put in harm's way any longer.
I think House Republicans are really minimizing these critical public health protections decades in the making by using the CRA to repeal this title and block the EPA from further action.
Instead of funding our government, lowering prices, or finding ways to help everyday Americans, House Republicans are wasting Congress' time by rescinding a long-awaited rule that will reduce 171 tons of harmful, cancer-causing emissions a year.
While this rule was finalized in November, the 11 rubber processing facilities have 3 years to make the necessary technology upgrades. Any doomsday claims about the EPA rule simply ignore the very real experiences of people who have been forced to breathe toxic pollution while coming into work or walking out of their front door for far too long.
Mr. Speaker, for all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source