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''
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Res. 31.
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source