{"database": "openregs", "table": "congressional_record", "rows": [["CREC-2018-03-07-pt1-PgH1458", "2018-03-07", 115, 2, null, null, "BLOCKING REGULATORY INTERFERENCE FROM CLOSING KILNS ACT OF 2017", "HOUSE", "HOUSE", "ALLOTHER", "H1458", "H1465", "[{\"name\": \"John Shimkus\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Paul Tonko\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Marsha Blackburn\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jerry McNerney\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Gregg Harper\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"A. Donald McEachin\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Collin C. Peterson\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Bill Johnson\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Earl L. \\\"Buddy\\\" Carter\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Steve Chabot\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Bob Goodlatte\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Greg Walden\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Frank Pallone, Jr.\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Kathy Castor\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", "[{\"congress\": \"115\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"453\"}, {\"congress\": \"115\", \"type\": \"HRES\", \"number\": \"762\"}, {\"congress\": \"115\", \"type\": \"HRES\", \"number\": \"762\"}, {\"congress\": \"115\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"1917\"}, {\"congress\": \"115\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"1917\"}, {\"congress\": \"115\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"1917\"}]", "164 Cong. Rec. H1458", "Congressional Record, Volume 164 Issue 40 (Wednesday, March 7, 2018)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 7, 2018)]\n[House]\n[Pages H1458-H1465]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n    BLOCKING REGULATORY INTERFERENCE FROM CLOSING KILNS ACT OF 2017\n\n  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 762, I call up\nthe bill (H.R. 1917) to allow for judicial review of any final rule\naddressing national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for\nbrick and structural clay products or for clay ceramics manufacturing\nbefore requiring compliance with such rule, and ask for its immediate\nconsideration in the House.\n  The Clerk read the title of the bill.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 762, an\namendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules\nCommittee Print 115-62 is adopted, and the bill, as amended, is\nconsidered read.\n  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:\n\n                               H.R. 1917\n\n       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of\n     the United States of America in Congress assembled.\n\n     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.\n\n       This Act may be cited as the ``Blocking Regulatory\n     Interference from Closing Kilns Act of 2017''.\n\n     SEC. 2. EXTENDING COMPLIANCE DATES (PENDING JUDICIAL REVIEW)\n                   OF RULES ADDRESSING NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS\n                   FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS FOR BRICK AND\n                   STRUCTURAL CLAY PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING OR CLAY\n                   CERAMICS MANUFACTURING.\n\n       (a) Extension of Compliance Dates.--\n       (1) Extension.--Each compliance date of any final rule\n     described in subsection (b) is deemed to be extended by the\n     time period equal to the time period described in subsection\n     (c).\n       (2) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``compliance\n     date'' means, with respect to any requirement of a final rule\n     described in subsection (b), the date by which any State,\n     local, or tribal government or other person is first required\n     to comply.\n       (b) Final Rules Described.--A final rule described in this\n     subsection is any final rule to address national emission\n     standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for brick and\n     structural clay products manufacturing or clay ceramics\n     manufacturing under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (42\n     U.S.C. 7412), including--\n       (1) the final rule entitled ``NESHAP for Brick and\n     Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; and NESHAP for Clay\n     Ceramics Manufacturing'' published at 80 Fed. Reg. 65469\n     (October 26, 2015);\n       (2) the final rule entitled ``NESHAP for Brick and\n     Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; and NESHAP for Clay\n     Ceramics Manufacturing: Correction'' published at 80 Fed.\n     Reg. 75817 (December 4, 2015); and\n       (3) any final rule that succeeds or amends the rule\n     described in paragraph (1) or (2).\n       (c) Period Described.--The time period described in this\n     subsection is the period of days that--\n       (1) begins on the date that is 60 days after the day on\n     which notice of promulgation of a final\n\n[[Page H1459]]\n\n     rule described in subsection (b) appears in the Federal\n     Register; and\n       (2) ends on the date on which judgment becomes final, and\n     no longer subject to further appeal or review, in all actions\n     (including actions that are filed pursuant to section 307 of\n     the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7607))--\n       (A) that are filed during the 60 days described in\n     paragraph (1); and\n       (B) that seek review of any aspect of such rule.\n\n     SEC. 3. STEP 2 COMPLIANCE DATE FOR STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE\n                   FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL WOOD HEATERS, NEW\n                   RESIDENTIAL HYDRONIC HEATERS, AND FORCED-AIR\n                   FURNACES.\n\n       (a) In General.--The Step 2 compliance date (as such term\n     is used in the final rule entitled ``Standards of Performance\n     for New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic\n     Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces'' published at 80 Fed. Reg.\n     13672 (March 16, 2015)) is deemed to be May 15, 2023.\n       (b) Conforming Changes.--Not later than 60 days after the\n     date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the\n     Environmental Protection Agency shall make such technical and\n     conforming changes to rules and guidance documents as may be\n     necessary to implement subsection (a).\n\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus)\nand the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko) each will control 30\nminutes.\n  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.\n\n                             General Leave\n\n  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members\nmay have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks\nand insert extraneous material on H.R. 1917.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the\ngentleman from Illinois?\n  There was no objection.\n  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n  Mr. Speaker, today we have a chance to help hundreds of small\nbusinesses, manufacturers, as well as thousands of employees, while\nalso lowering prices for consumers.\n  I thank the bipartisan cosponsors of H.R. 1917, the Blocking\nRegulatory Interference from Closing Kilns Act, the BRICK Act, and urge\nmy colleagues to support this commonsense bill.\n  American brickmakers literally produce the building blocks of our\nNation. They are primarily small businesses, and they are often the\nmost important employer in small communities across America, where many\nare located.\n  Like an old brick house, this industry has had to weather a lot,\nincluding a long economic downturn, that we have finally come out of,\nthat suppressed new construction activity and, thus, brick sales for\nmany years.\n  They even weathered the 2003 EPA regulation that cost many millions\nof dollars to comply. That regulation was later thrown out by a Federal\ncourt, but the judicial relief came too late, as the industry had\nalready spent considerable sums to meet EPA's tight deadlines.\n  We don't want to see a repeat of that unfair result, but, once again,\nEPA has imposed another regulation with difficult deadlines that will\nlikely take effect before judicial review is complete.\n  Brickmakers have testified before the Energy and Commerce Committee\nthat this regulation may result in layoffs and even plant closures.\nH.R. 1917 would simply extend the compliance deadline until after\njudicial review is final.\n  This industry has already reduced its emissions by up to 95 percent,\naccording to a study from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It should not\nbe forced to comply with another new regulation that may not withstand\njudicial scrutiny. We owe it to these brickmakers, their employees, and\nconsumers of building materials to allow meaningful judicial review.\n  I might add that a Senate bill has been recently introduced that also\nprovides regulatory relief for brickmakers, but it takes a somewhat\ndifferent approach than our version. I pledge to work with the Senate\nso that we can provide timely relief to this important industry.\n  The bill also deals with wood heaters. As with bricks, the wood\nheaters industry is dominated by small business manufacturers who are\noften the economic anchors of rural communities, where many are\nlocated. Many wood heater buyers are low-income, rural households that\nrely on them to get through the winter.\n  In 2015, EPA set a two-step wood heater emission rule. The first step\ntook effect in 2015 and reduced emissions in new models by up to 90\npercent.\n  The more stringent second step is scheduled to take effect in 2020,\nbut is causing a great deal of difficulty. Only a small fraction of the\nwood heating models currently available can meet the 2020 standards,\nand time is running out to design and certify any additional models.\n  One wood heater manufacturer testified before the Energy and Commerce\nCommittee that he has already had to cut staff as a result of the 2020\ndeadline, and others feel there will be additional job losses if the\n2020 standard is retained, but this is not just a jobs issue.\n  Users of wood heaters face both reduced product choice and higher\nprices for new models. Many would have to forgo buying a new wood\nheater and continue using older and dirtier ones, which undercuts the\nclaims that the current deadline will improve air quality.\n  The provisions in the bill retain the 2015 standards, but extend the\n2020 deadline by 3 years to 2023.\n  This is a reasonable fix that would avoid unnecessary economic damage\nwhile still prioritizing environmental protection.\n  In conclusion, the brick industry and the wood heater industry may\nboth be small, but they are far from small to those who owe their jobs\nto them and to those who rely on their products.\n  I urge my colleagues to provide targeted relief to these two\nindustries by supporting H.R. 1917.\n  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1917, the Blocking\nRegulatory Interference from Closing Kilns, or BRICK, Act.\n  EPA issued the Brick and Clay MACT rule in 2015, which sets maximum\nachievable control technology based on what is already being achieved\nat similar facilities.\n  Section 2 of the BRICK Act seeks to delay compliance with the Brick\nand Clay MACT until ``judgment becomes final, and no longer subject to\nfurther appeal or review.''\n  This would incentivize frivolous litigation simply to put off having\nto comply with the rule.\n  Courts already have the ability to issue a stay of any compliance\ndates in a final rule. Congress should not insert itself into the\njudicial process.\n  The courts have regularly used this process. There is no reason for\nCongress to override it.\n  To date, no one has petitioned the court to stay the Brick and Clay\nMACT rule.\n  Section 3 of H.R. 1917 incorporates another bill reported out of the\nEnergy and Commerce Committee, H.R. 453, the Relief from New Source\nPerformance Standards Act.\n\n  This section, Mr. Speaker, delays implementation of the EPA's step 2\nemission standards for three categories of wood-fueled heaters.\n  EPA finalized the rule in 2015. Under the rule, manufacturers have\nuntil 2020 to comply with the new standards. This bill would delay the\nstandards until 2023.\n  Much like the Brick MACT, these standards are achievable.\n  In a recent list of devices certified under the 2015 standard, 171\ndevices report certified emission levels that already meet the 2020\nstandards.\n  These 2020-compliant products are both cleaner and more efficient,\ngenerating more heat per unit of wood burned and making them less\nexpensive to operate.\n  By delaying these standards, Congress is unfairly punishing companies\nthat made investments to produce cleaner, more efficient products by\nthe original deadline.\n  Since these appliances typically last for 25 years or more once\ninstalled, delaying this standard will result in decades of additional\npollution in and around people's homes.\n  The original bill, H.R. 453, was opposed by State attorneys general\nof New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, Rhode Island, and the\nPuget Sound Clean Air Agency.\n  In a letter from December 12, these officials pointed out that EPA\nestimated the net benefits of implementing the rule at more than 100\ntimes the costs.\n\n[[Page H1460]]\n\n  Wood smoke contains considerable amounts of fine particle pollution,\ncarbon monoxide, and other toxic pollutants.\n  In my home State of New York, less than 2 percent of residents heat\ntheir homes with wood, but residential wood heating accounts for 41\npercent of the State's particulate emissions.\n\n                              {time}  1400\n\n  Because the emissions are released close to ground level and homes,\nthere is significant human exposure, which is why this bill is also\nopposed by a number of public health and medical organizations.\n  The BRICK Act gives special treatment to a couple of industries by\nshifting the health and financial burdens of pollution on to the\npublic. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, Mr. Speaker, and I\nreserve the balance of my time.\n  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the\ngentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).\n  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the excellent\nwork that he has done on the BRICK Act, and also Mr. Johnson, who\nbrought this legislation forward and who has worked so closely with\nindividuals, with companies in his district to address their concerns\non this.\n  Now, what brings us here today is the fact that, once before, the\nbrick industry faced an EPA rule that went on the books, hadn't gone\nthrough judicial review. This happened in 2003.\n  Over a period of 5 years, they began ramping up to make these\nchanges. This is expensive because most of the brick manufacturers in\nour country are small businesses. They have two kilns, and they are\nworking very, very hard to keep the jobs and keep people employed. When\nthey look at having to change to this new equipment, the investment is\ngoing to be $3 million, $4 million, $5 million, depending on the size\nof their business.\n  Now, previously, a rule went through the process of judicial review,\nand then it was withdrawn. What this legislation does is to say, look,\nlet's finish this entire process before we move that expense to the\nindustry, because when you put it to the industry and they are\nincurring this cost that could end up being an unnecessary cost, what\nhappens? Brick costs more. Building materials cost more.\n  Who ends up paying for that? Consumers, purchasers, individuals who\nare buying homes, individuals who are remodeling homes, individuals who\nare building commercial buildings.\n  So what we are saying is let's exercise some wisdom. Let's exercise a\nlittle bit of experience that comes from having been here before, and\nlet's delay until this entire process is finished.\n  As we have talked about bricks, we are also addressing the wood\nheater industry, which is a primary source of heat for many of our\nhomes, and just saying let's be mindful, let's be careful, let's put\nconsumers and taxpayers in front of the bureaucrats who are looking to\nimplement these rules and regulations.\n  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the\ngentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).\n  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the ranking member, and\nI thank the chairman for his work on this, but I am going to rise in\nopposition to H.R. 1917, the BRICK Act.\n  This bill will delay the implementation of the EPA's final Brick and\nStructural Clay Products rule and the final Clay Ceramic Manufacturing\nrule by extending all compliance deadlines based on pending judicial\nreview.\n  So what does that mean? That means it will delay implementation until\njudgment becomes final and not subject to review or appeal. This is a\nblanket extension that could have lasting negative impacts on the\npublic's health.\n  Brick and clay plants, if unregulated, can be major sources of toxic\nair pollutants like hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen chloride, and hazardous\nmetals, pollutants that are associated with a variety of acute and\nchronic health effects, including cancer. It is estimated that the\nfinal Brick and Clay MACT rule will reduce nationwide air toxics by\napproximately 375 tons per year.\n  Last Friday, the OMB issued a report showing that regulations have\nhigh benefit and low cost. The aggregate benefits of Federal\nregulations is between $219 billion and $695 billion; whereas, the\naggregate costs are $59 billion to $88 billion. Many regulations spur\ninnovation that benefit the economy as well as human health.\n  Now, it is no surprise to me that this administration and the\nRepublicans are targeting air pollution regulations. The OMB noted that\nEPA rules ``account for over 80 percent of the monetized benefits and\nover 70 percent of the monetized costs'' of Federal regulation between\n2006 and 2016.\n  Since regulations protect human health and safety and have more\nbenefits than costs for industry, I stand in opposition to bills like\nthis one that seek to undermine these protections. I ask my colleagues\nto vote ``no'' on H.R. 1917.\n  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the next individual, I\njust want to say it is not a low cost to the individuals in these small\ncommunities who lose their job, and it is not a low cost to the\ncommunities that lose the tax base when these small businesses fold up\nand go away in small towns.\n  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman\nfrom Mississippi (Mr. Harper), a person who also represents big parts\nof rural America.\n  Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage Members to support\nthis commonsense bill, H.R. 1917, the Blocking Regulatory Interference\nfrom Closing Kilns Act, H.R. 1917, also known as the BRICK Act, which\nincludes provisions that will provide a compromise approach to delaying\na regulation on manufacturers of wood heaters.\n  Wood heaters are frequently used by households in rural America.\nEPA's rushed 2020 deadline would raise the price of a new wood heater\non those least able to afford it. It would also restrict consumer\nchoice, as many currently available models may not be able to meet the\n2020 deadline. H.R. 1917 will not remove any regulations. It would\nsimply extend the deadline to 2023.\n  Frank Moore of Hardy Manufacturing, located in my district, testified\nbefore the Environment Subcommittee in September that he and other\nmanufacturers are working to meet the 2020 step 2 standards, but that a\nlack of technology is making compliance nearly impossible. In that\nhearing, Mr. Moore said: `` . . . we provide jobs for about 50 people\nwith payrolls exceeding $2 million,'' and that ``even if a product can\nmeet the step 2 requirements, I believe it would not be consumer\nfriendly, durable, or affordable.''\n\n  Again, extension of this effective date doesn't remove any\nregulations. Extension simply provides more time for manufacturers to\ncome into compliance with much stricter requirements. It is best for\nthe consumers; it is best for the businesses; and it will not undo the\nregulations that are requested.\n  I hope that Members will agree that this bipartisan legislation is a\ncompromise solution that helps small businesses and our constituents. I\nencourage Members to support H.R. 1917.\n  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the\ngentleman from Virginia (Mr. McEachin).\n  Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Speaker, every American--in fact, every human\nbeing--has the right to breathe clean air. If this Congress trammels\nthat right in the name of corporate profits, that choice is not just an\nabstract moral failure, it is a concrete public health disaster, one\nthat will cause needless suffering, especially for our most vulnerable\nfriends and neighbors.\n  The regulations this bill seeks to impede are long overdue. The\nearliest form of the Brick and Clay rule dates back to 2003. That was\nmore than 14 years ago, and now some of my friends in the majority are\nseeking even longer delays.\n  We have been putting pollutants into our air and we can never unring\nthat bell, but we can do better moving forward, and we need to make\nthose improvements sooner rather than later.\n  We all know that justice delayed is justice denied. Justice has\nalready been delayed by more than a decade. We can measure that cost.\n  The Brick and Clay rule, in its current form, would reduce the amount\nof toxins in our air by hundreds of tons per year. If we delay the rule\nanother\n\n[[Page H1461]]\n\nyear, or 2 years or longer, all of our families, all of our\nconstituents are going to be breathing dirtier and more dangerous air.\n  This bill is a direct attack on our right to live in a clean and\nhealthy environment. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this\nmisguided legislation.\n  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the\ngentleman from the great State of Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), a Democrat\nwho is going to speak on behalf of part of his bill.\n  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the BRICK Act,\nparticularly section 3, which includes language from my bill to bring\nmuch-needed regulatory relief to wood heater manufacturers that are in\nmy district and also across the Nation.\n  Section 3 delays the second phase of Federal emission regulations for\nwood heaters by 3 years. It is important to note that, since 2007,\nmanufacturers have voluntarily invested in technology to reduce the\nemissions to comply with the first phase of the regulations.\n  I had one situation in the north part of my district where they spent\nI don't know how many hundreds of thousands of dollars coming up with\nthis 90 percent reduction; and 6 months after they accomplished it,\nthey came in with these new regulations to do another 90 percent, which\ncan't be done, and it is going to put them out of business.\n  So these businessowners in my district and around the country have\napproached me and said, as I said, that they will go out of business if\nthis second phase is not delayed. Some of them have already begun\nlaying people off in towns like Greenbush, Minnesota, in my area. And\nin these small communities, these layoffs are devastating.\n  These companies already produce some of the cleanest wood heaters in\nthe Nation, and they are telling me that the EPA has just gone too far.\nSo I wrote this language to help these businesses, these workers, these\ncommunities that depend on the production of these important\nappliances, and I urge my colleagues to support the BRICK Act.\n  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the\ngentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), the author of the BRICK Act.\n  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the majority of U.S. brick and\nceramic plants are small, family-owned operations, often located in\nrural communities that depend on the plant for their very livelihood,\nfor the good-paying jobs. They have built some of the most recognizable\nbuildings, cities, and towns in existence across America, including\nmany within my district in eastern and southeastern Ohio.\n  Unfortunately, these industries have borne the brunt of an\nunpredictable regulatory process that is nearly two decades in the\nmaking. In 2003, the EPA required brickmakers to install expensive new\nequipment to comply with the Agency's Maximum Achievable Control\nTechnology, or their MACT rule.\n  In 2007, after companies spent millions to implement these controls,\nthe U.S. Court of Appeals in the D.C. Circuit vacated the rule. Our\nbrickmakers now find themselves in a very similar situation today. In\n2015, the EPA again finalized a rule requiring the industry to once\nagain invest in similar control equipment technologies.\n  Additionally, this new regulation uses the emission reductions\nachieved under the vacated regulation as a baseline for further\nemission reductions. In other words, the EPA, under the former\nadministration, chose not to recognize the great strides this industry\nachieved under the previously vacated rule. The Agency neglected to\ntake this past regulatory and compliance history into consideration.\n  Mr. Speaker, that is simply not right. The bill before us today, H.R.\n1917, the BRICK Act, ensures history does not repeat itself. This\nlegislation simply allows for the consideration and completion of any\njudicial review regarding the 2015 regulation before requiring\ncompliance.\n  Now, some of my colleagues across the aisle say they are worried that\nthis legislation sets a dangerous precedent. Many of these same\ncolleagues are also quick to recognize the very unique regulatory\nsituation this industry finds itself in. They even go so far as to say\nthey are sympathetic to the unique situation.\n\n                              {time}  1415\n\n  However, they are unwilling to support this bill that simply extends\nthe compliance deadlines, which would give the brick and tile\nindustries a bit of regulatory certainty while the courts complete\ntheir work.\n  Mr. Speaker, that logic baffles me. We need a bit of pragmatism when\nwe approach this situation. Because if you really want to talk about a\ndangerous precedent, consider this: this new regulation also caps the\neconomic productivity of the clay ceramics industry. While the former\nadministration admitted that this regulation will not reduce emissions\nemitted by the industry, it decided to set new emission standards\nthrough regulations anyway.\n  Regulating an industry for no immediate reason or environmental\nbenefit? Now that is a dangerous precedent. Brick manufacturers have\nsuffered heavy losses since the recession, shedding 45 percent of jobs\nbetween 2005 and 2012, and these increased compliance costs from EPA\nregulations are driving more job losses and consolidations within this\nprimarily family-owned industry.\n  Brick plant owners already struggle to obtain financing for plant\nmodernization projects, and brick companies estimate that this rule\nwill cost as much as $100 million a year to comply. Many are worried\nthat the financing needed to comply with this most recent reiteration\nof this rule will not be available, considering that the required\ncontrol equipment will not improve plant productivity, nor help the\nbottom line.\n  I urge all of my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation\ntoday, and I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues to\nquickly address this issue. I know some recent bipartisan progress has\nbeen made in the Senate between Senator Wicker and Senator Donnelly,\nand I am very encouraged by that progress.\n  I am hopeful that this vote today will help push the Senate to act\nand act sooner than later. The compliance deadlines are quickly\napproaching, and we need a solution now to this important issue.\nOtherwise, Mr. Speaker, we are in danger of having to build buildings\nin America out of sticks and straw, or, worse yet, out of bricks\nimported from foreign countries.\n  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote.\n  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n  Mr. Speaker, no one wants to shut down these businesses, but H.R.\n1917 is the wrong remedy. We understand the circumstances, and those\ncircumstances should be brought to the attention of the courts.\n  The court has the power to grant the stay of this rule. For some\nreason, the industry has not yet made that request, even though there\nare a number of pending lawsuits challenging the rule. In fact,\nindustry petitioned the court to put their lawsuits on hold until EPA\ndecides whether to grant their request to reconsider the rule.\n  The pending decisions by the court and the EPA indicate there are\nstill a number of remedies available to address the industry's\nconcerns, including a request to the court to stay the rule. There is\nno need for H.R. 1917.\n  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to\nthe gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).\n  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for\nyielding.\n  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Blocking Regulatory\nInterference from Closing Kilns Act of 2017. This bill is very simple,\nMr. Speaker, as it simply aligns the timeline for compliance with\njudicial review of these rules and regulations.\n  American businesses are finding themselves facing millions of dollars\nin compliance costs due to burdensome EPA regulations. It is estimated\nthat the EPA's rules may cost the brick and ceramics industry millions\nannually, with the cost of compliance for the average facility at over\n$4 million.\n  Industry won't be able to meet the requirement deadlines imposed by\nthe rule, which is currently being reviewed\n\n[[Page H1462]]\n\nin our court system. The EPA's first attempt at a rule was vacated, but\nnot before the industry spent millions in compliance measures that were\nultimately found to be invalid.\n  Small brick and ceramics businesses have been the hardest hit by the\nfirst rule; and if something isn't done, many of these small businesses\nwill be forced to close their doors for good.\n  H.R. 1917 would provide much-needed regulatory relief to brick and\nceramics businesses by simply stating that we need to let the judicial\nreview process move ahead before we penalize hardworking people.\n  I encourage my colleagues to support this bill and to support\nbusinesses all across the country.\n  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the\nbalance of my time.\n  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to\nthe gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).\n  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Mr. Shimkus yielding. And I\nwant to thank Chairman Walden, as well, for his hard work in this area,\nas well as Mr. Shimkus', and the entire Energy and Commerce Committee\nfor their leadership in this area.\n  As chairman of the House Small Business Committee, I continue to hear\nfrom small-business owners all across America that compliance with\nregulations is one of the greatest challenges that they face, and this\nis, in essence, what this is.\n  In fact, today, I chaired a hearing on how the regulatory process is\nimpacting small businesses. The bill before us today, the BRICK Act,\nwould provide crucial relief to America's brick, clay, and tile\nindustries, the majority of which are, by definition, small businesses;\nand we should always remember that small businesses create about 7 out\nof every 10 new jobs in America.\n  The BRICK Act would ensure that small-business owners don't have to\nworry about spending millions of dollars to comply with a regulation\nthat may well be thrown out in court. I would urge my colleagues to\nsupport this important legislation.\n\n  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to\nclose.\n  Mr. Speaker, Congress should not be in the business of encouraging\nfrivolous litigation or penalizing businesses that made the necessary\ninvestments to comply with standards, especially when clean air is at\nstake.\n  Unfortunately, that is what the BRICK Act would do. These standards\nare achievable, long overdue, and provide considerable health benefits.\nIt has been nearly two decades for pollution control standards for\nbrick and clay facilities and nearly three decades since the last\nFederal standards for wood stoves.\n  We shouldn't have to choose between a giveaway to a couple of special\ninterests over clean air for all of our constituents. Again, I urge my\ncolleagues to oppose this bill.\n  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.\n  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to\nthe gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).\n  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman's good work on\nthis legislation.\n  In my district and in many rural communities around the country, wood\nburning stoves and heaters are a popular heat source, and an affordable\none as well; and it is a renewable fuel. And I will tell you what: the\nperson who utilizes a wood stove to heat their home is not a special\ninterest.\n  The EPA's New Source Performance Standards for products like wood and\npellet stoves and wood furnaces have raised significant concerns. This\nregulation sets forth an unrealistic and unachievable timeline for\nmanufacturers of these products to come into compliance with the\nstandards in time.\n  I have heard from manufacturers and retailers, like England's Stove\nWorks in Amherst County in my district, that it is not that they don't\nwant to comply with the rule, they just simply need more time. For just\none wood stove, it can take up to 6 months to complete the EPA\ncertification process.\n  In the meantime, the availability of wood stoves--the affordability\nof this heating source for my constituents and other people in mostly\nrural areas, but other communities as well around the country, is going\nto go up.\n  The BRICK Act, before the House today, includes provisions from a\nbill that I introduced along with Representative Collin Peterson, the\nRelief from New Source Performance Standards Act. This provision is a\nsimple one. It simply extends the time wood stove manufacturers have to\ncomply with Federal regulations by 3 years.\n  Affordable heat is important to my constituents, and Federal\nregulations must take into account the real world needs and time\nconstraints of the industries that make these products and must now\ndevelop new technologies.\n  I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this bill today to give\nthis industry more time and ensure consumers can choose wood heat\nsources to help keep their families warm.\n  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.\n  Mr. Speaker, this is a good debate and discussion. It is one we had\nin the subcommittee; it is one we had in the full committee; and we are\nbringing it to the floor. It just focuses on a different way in which\nwe view manufacturing and, really, as you heard in this debate, small\nmanufacturers--small brick manufacturers, small wood heaters, because,\nas everyone knows, when you are in a big corporation, you have got\nlawyers and you have got--you can do an economic analysis and you can\ndo research and development, but a lot of these folks are just small\nlocal operations, probably started by a husband and wife, probably\nbrought on a kid and next-door neighbor.\n  In my opening statement, I mentioned how, in rural America, there are\nnot a lot of businesses, other than maybe agriculture, people coming\ninto the town; so not only are these manufacturers, they are the\nbackbone of these small communities.\n  So, simply put, this bill is a combination of two. One says you\nreally shouldn't force someone to comply with a rule and regulation\nuntil they have fought the litigation battle, because, in the example\nthat we are talking about today, the claimants, the manufacturers, won,\nwhere either they went out of business because they were trying to\ncomply or they had to have this excessive cost. That is issue one.\n  Issue two on the small wood heaters is just say they were forced to\nmove forward in cleaner technology, increasing their environmental\nability 90 percent; and we all know that the cleaner you get, the\nharder it is to get the last percentages. So all the folks are asking\nfor is more time to comply.\n  They are both bipartisan bills. I applaud folks coming down to talk\nand defend those. This is an exciting time in our country. It is\nexciting because we are having economic growth. We are having economic\ngrowth for two reasons. One, our historic tax cuts. Fifty percent of\nall manufacturers of the country have said they are going to invest in\ncapital investment. Pretty exciting.\n  There is optimism again. Wages are increasing. Benefits are\nincreasing. You have people getting checks increasing or new growth\ncapital expenses.\n  There is another component of this exciting time for jobs in the\neconomy, and this other component is easing up on the assault that the\nEPA has done over the past decade on our manufacturing sector and our\njob creators.\n  So you put these two together, the American worker has a greater\nopportunity, and these are just a couple of examples of the bills we\nare moving today, how we can continue to make that happen.\n  Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this bill, and I yield back the\nbalance of my time.\n  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today, the BRICK Act,\nmakes commonsense adjustments to preserve small businesses and American\njobs while still protecting the environment. This bill addresses the\nimpact of regulations and policies aimed at brickmakers, and--\nparticularly important to many in my home state, wood stoves.\n  In many parts of Oregon, we're surrounded by forests and affordable\nwood, so wood stoves are often the most economical way to heat a home\nor a ranch shop. Oregonians also know what a real air pollution crisis\nlooks like, as we have recently dealt with the thick smoke from several\nvery bad wildfires across the state. Compared to that, wood stove\nemissions are far from a crisis, especially now that\n\n[[Page H1463]]\n\nthey all must comply with EPA's 2015 emissions standards. There is no\nreason to threaten wood heater affordability as well as industry jobs\nby insisting on the unworkable 2020 deadline for the next round of\nstandards. This bill takes the sensible step of extending the deadline\nto 2023, thus preserving wood heater choice and affordability.\n  Opponents of these bills have claimed that H.R. 1917 is harmful to\nthe environment and public health protections, but I think we need to\nmaintain a sense of perspective.\n  Neither brickmakers nor wood heaters are a significant source of\nemissions, and both industries have already reduced emissions\nsignificantly due to earlier regulations that are not affected under\nthis bill. For example, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the\nbrick industry has already committed millions of dollars to install and\noperate controls to reduce emissions by nearly 95 percent in order to\ncomply with previous regulations.\n  Perhaps most importantly, this bill does not repeal any health-based\nregulation--it simply makes minimal, temporal adjustments to reduce the\nrisk of plant shutdowns, layoffs, and higher prices for consumers. We\nshould be looking at ways to get people working, not imposing\nunnecessary and tough to meet regulatory timeframes that take away\npeople's livelihoods.\n  We need a balanced approach. These brickmakers and wood heater\nmanufacturers are important employers in the small communities where\nmany are located. The data shows that there is little environmental\njustification for inflicting economic harm on these small businesses\nand their communities, and thus there is every reason to pass this bill\nto ensure that any such harm is avoided.\n  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I include the following letters in the\nRecord on H.R. 1917.\n                                            Chamber of Commerce of\n\n                                 the United States of America,\n\n                                    Washington, DC, March 7, 2018.\n       To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The\n     U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports H.R. 1917, the ``Blocking\n     Regulatory Interference from Closing Kilns (BRICK) Act of\n     2017.'' The bill would ensure that the U.S. brick industry\n     will not be forced to comply with the Brick Maximum\n     Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards for air\n     quality issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency\n     (EPA) until after judicial challenges to the rule are\n     resolved.\n       EPA issued an earlier version of the Brick MACT rule in\n     2003, which required the brick industry to spend millions of\n     dollars to purchase, install, and operate control equipment.\n     Five years later, a court threw out the 2003 rule. Now brick\n     companies are faced with having to pay to tear out the\n     equipment they installed and install even more costly new\n     equipment. Brick companies are rightfully worried that they\n     may make the investment to comply with the 2015 rule, only to\n     have it subsequently thrown out by a court. To avoid this\n     unfair and wasteful outcome, H.R. 1917 would set a compliance\n     date for the final Brick MACT rule after judicial challenges\n     to the 2015 Brick MACT rule are completed and after any\n     subsequent final rule is promulgated.\n       It is important that American industries are not unfairly\n     penalized when they are compelled to comply with costly rules\n     that are later overturned by the courts. This wasteful and\n     unreasonable outcome must be avoided.\n           Sincerely,\n     Neil L. Bradley.\n                                  ____\n\n                                              National Association\n\n                                             of Manufacturers,\n\n                                    Washington, DC, March 7, 2018.\n     House of Representatives,\n     Washington, DC.\n       Dear Representative, The National Association of\n     Manufacturers (NAM), the largest manufacturing association in\n     the United States representing manufacturers in every\n     industrial sector and in all 50 states, urges you to support\n     H.R. 1917, the Blocking Regulatory Interference from Closing\n     Kilns Act of 2017 (BRICK Act), introduced by Representative\n     Bill Johnson (R-OH).\n       In September 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency\n     (EPA) issued final National Emissions Standards for Brick,\n     Structural Clay Products and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing,\n     often referred to as Brick MACT. It is estimated that this\n     rule will collectively cost the brick industry, which is made\n     up of predominantly small- and medium-sized manufacturers,\n     more than $100 million dollars per year.\n       Manufacturers support reasonable environmental policies,\n     but need regulatory certainty to ensure that the investments\n     made today match what regulations will ultimately require.\n     When regulations stretch beyond what the law allows,\n     manufacturers and other stakeholders must turn to the courts\n     for relief. Often times compliance deadlines for disputed\n     final regulations are too short for the legal process to\n     fully run its course and manufacturers are forced to make\n     investments to comply with rules that courts may ultimately\n     throw out or send back to EPA for more work.\n       This is exactly the situation brick manufacturers find\n     themselves in with this regulation, as EPA's rule requires\n     millions in new regulatory costs within a three-year period,\n     while the underlying regulation is being disputed in the\n     courts--a process that could ultimately span several years\n     H.R. 1917 is a commonsense way to approach this issue, as it\n     simply ensures that manufacturers will have the certainty\n     that the investments they make are based on laws that the\n     courts have determined are appropriate and legal. The NAM\n     strongly urges you to support H.R. 1917\n           Sincerely,\n     Ross Eisenberg.\n                                  ____\n\n  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1917, the so-\ncalled ``Blocking Regulatory Interference from Closing Kilns Act of\n2017.''\n  This is the first in a series of dirty air proposals on the floor\nthis week. The BRICK Act is part of the ongoing effort by Republicans\nto undermine the commonsense protections found in the Clean Air Act, in\norder to give special breaks to polluters at the expense of public\nhealth.\n  We have seen this bill before. Last Congress we debated and voted on\nthe BRICK Act: I opposed it then, and I oppose it now. Frankly, I have\neven more concerns with this legislation than I did in 2016.\n  That is because the BRICK Act was amended by the Rules Committee to\ninclude two separate attacks on clean air safeguards. Like previous\nversions, this version before us today would indefinitely delay\nstandards to reduce toxic air pollution from brick and clay\nmanufacturers. However, it now also incorporates a separate bill that\nwould delay long-overdue pollution standards for new wood fired\nheaters. The only thing these bills really have in common is that they\nboth undermine Clean Air Act protections and endanger the health of our\nchildren.\n  Regarding the treatment of brick and clay manufacturing facilities,\nthe bill automatically delays implementation of EPA's final Brick and\nClay rule by extending all deadlines . . . by however long it takes to\ncomplete all possible litigation. This blanket extension would be given\nto all facilities covered by the final rule, without regard for the\nmerits of the legal challenges or their final outcome.\n  But that is not Congress' job. The courts already have the ability to\nissue a ``stay'' of any compliance dates in a final rule. Delaying a\nrule for legitimate reasons does not require action by Congress, but a\nlegislative quick fix is the only remedy the proponents of this bill\nappear to care about.\n  By throwing out the existing judicial process, Republicans are giving\npolluters an incentive to ``run the clock'' on frivolous litigation, to\nput off ever controlling their pollution.\n  This is especially problematic because Administrator Pruitt has\nannounced plans to reconsider the Brick and Clay rule, which is\nexpected to be finalized in 2019. At that point, the pollution control\nstandards for brick and clay facilities will be almost two decades\noverdue, and this bill would delay those protections even longer.\n  The new wood heater provision is not much better. The bill delays\nEPA's pollution standards for new wood-fueled heaters that have not\nbeen updated in nearly 30 years. The final rule included a gradual,\nfive-year phase in to allow manufacturers time to adapt and develop\ncleaner and more efficient technologies, and the phase 2 requirements\ndon't kick in until 2020.\n  These newer appliances are a win for consumers. The 2020-compliant\nproducts are both cleaner and more efficient, generating more heat per\nunit of wood burned and making them less expensive to operate.\n  But, with this provision, Republicans are picking winners and losers.\nThey are rewarding companies that refused to clean up their dirty and\ninefficient products, while punishing innovative companies that\ninvested in developing cleaner and more efficient technologies for wood\nheaters.\n  Ultimately, the BRICK Act is really more about transferring burdens\nthan relieving them. This so-called ``relief'' from regulation comes at\nthe expense of our children's health. Moreover, it doesn't reduce\ncosts; it merely transfers them from favored businesses to the general\npublic who will pay for more doctor visits and lost work or school days\nas a result.\n  My Republican colleagues repeatedly claim they support clean air, and\nyet, they continually put forward bill after bill designed to delay,\nweaken, or repeal safeguards that protect public health by cleaning up\nthe air. Passing this bill allows dirty products to remain in operation\nfor decades into the future, resulting in tons of additional pollution,\nand putting the health of our children and future generations at risk.\n  Exempting businesses from clean air rules leads to more air\npollution. It is that simple. We all want small businesses to thrive,\nand the history of the Clean Air Act demonstrates clearly that we can\ngrow the economy while cleaning up the air and improving public health.\n  Congress should not be selling out the health and safety of American\nchildren. But that is just what a YES vote on the BRICK Act would do.\n\n[[Page H1464]]\n\n  I urge all my colleagues to join me in opposing this dirty air bill.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.\n  Pursuant to House Resolution 762, the previous question is ordered on\nthe bill, as amended.\n  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.\n  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was\nread the third time.\n\n                           Motion to Recommit\n\n  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at\nthe desk.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?\n  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I am opposed.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to\nrecommit.\n  The Clerk read as follows:\n\n       Ms. Castor of Florida moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1917\n     to the Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to\n     report the same back to the House forthwith, with the\n     following amendment:\n       At the end of section 3 of the bill, add the following new\n     subsection:\n       (c) Limitation on Private Plane Travel.--Nothing in this\n     Act may be construed to authorize the Administrator of the\n     Environmental Protection Agency to charter a flight, or\n     travel in any class of air accommodation above coach class,\n     to, in accordance with subsection (b), make such technical\n     and conforming changes to rules and guidance documents as may\n     be necessary to implement subsection (a).\n\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Curtis). Pursuant to the rule, the\ngentlewoman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes in support of her\nmotion.\n  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to\nthe bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If\nadopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as\namended.\n  Mr. Speaker, my motion to recommit is simple and should garner the\nsupport of all Members who dislike government waste and abuse of power.\n  My motion goes to the heart of the costly ethical violations by EPA\nAdministrator Scott Pruitt and his penchant for flying first class in\nviolation of Federal regulations and billing it to taxpayers.\n  He has done this at a time when he has supported cuts to EPA clean\nwater and clean air initiatives in the communities we represent back\nhome.\n\n                              {time}  1430\n\n  So my amendment is simple. It says: ``Nothing in this act may be\nconstrued to authorize the Administrator of the Environmental\nProtection Agency to charter a flight, or travel in any class of air\naccommodation above coach class.''\n  See, Federal regulations right now require government officials to\nconsider the least expensive class of travel that meets their needs.\nNow, agencies are allowed to travel first class in very rare instances,\nsuch as a flight of 14 hours or more, a medical disability, or for\nexceptional security circumstances if your life or government property\nis in danger.\n  Well, Administrator Scott Pruitt has abused these exceptions. This\ncame to light after the House Energy and Commerce Committee asked the\nEPA Administrator to explain his costly travel records, which showed he\nrepeatedly booked first class flights at taxpayer expense, and he hoped\nno one would notice. There is no adequate justification for this\nwasteful spending and abuse of power by Scott Pruitt. If he enjoys\nflying first class and staying in luxury hotels, then he should pay for\nit himself and not ask the taxpayers to foot the bill.\n  Here is what we know per press reports and committee research: last\nJune 5, Pruitt settled into his $1,641 first class seat for a short\nflight from D.C. to New York. The ticket cost more than 6 times that of\nthe two media aides who traveled along with him and sat in coach. In\nManhattan, Administrator Pruitt made two brief television appearances\npraising the White House's decision to withdraw from the 2015 Paris\nclimate agreement. He stayed in an upscale hotel near Times Square and\nreturned to Washington the next day. That Wednesday, after traveling on\nAir Force One for an infrastructure event in Cincinnati, Pruitt and\nseveral staffers raced back to New York on a military jet, at the cost\nof $36,000, to then catch a plane to Rome. The transatlantic flight was\npart of a round-trip ticket for the Administrator that cost over\n$7,000, according to EPA records, several times what was paid for other\nofficials who went.\n  In total, the taxpayer-funded travel for Pruitt and his top aides\nduring that stretch in June cost at least $90,000, thanks to the\nEnvironmental Integrity Project, which got the records. His travel\npractices are quite different from previous EPA Administrators', who\nvery rarely traveled first class and always announced their travel\nschedule to the public.\n  But Scott Pruitt's travel is different. It is secretive, it is\ncostly, and it is frequent. In fact, we have come to learn that this\nyear he plans to travel to Israel, Australia, Japan, Mexico, and\npossibly Canada. None of those have been officially announced, but we\nhave been digging. Pruitt rarely discloses where he plans to be.\n  So, at the request of congressional Democrats, the EPA's Office of\nInspector General is conducting probes of Pruitt's travel. He has\nattempted to justify his luxury travel by noting that he has been\napproached by people in the airport numerous times to talk about his\nenvironmental record. However, it is unclear why this justifies\npurchasing first class tickets.\n  These new justifications also contradict previous explanations of\nthis questionable travel as a way of providing an opportunity to hear\ndirectly from people affected by the EPA. The Administrator simply\nprefers to be wasteful with taxpayer dollars.\n  We have asked about other conflicts of interest. He has continually\nsided with dirty energy and chemical companies, so it is no matter that\nmembers of the public would like to discuss these pressing issues with\nhim. According to the Environmental Integrity Project, new travel\nrecords shared with the media show Pruitt and EPA employees spent up to\n$150,000 on premium commercial and chartered flights just in a 6-month\nperiod.\n  So, Mr. Speaker, Administrator Pruitt says he will start flying coach\nafter all the attention it has garnered, but he hasn't promised to do\nso. Through this motion to recommit, we would like to make it\npermanent. We would like to hold him accountable.\n  And for anyone who would like to eliminate waste in government and\nmake sure that our officials do not abuse their power, it is time to\nadopt this amendment, and I urge Congress to do so.\n  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.\n  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to\nrecommit.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized\nfor 5 minutes.\n  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, a Member uses a motion to instruct or\nrecommit to change or amend the bill. I don't think we build and use\nbricks to make our airplanes, and I don't think we power our planes\nwith wood heaters.\n  So what is the deal with this motion to instruct and recommit?\n\n  It is just purely politics, and it is not surprising.\n  Why?\n  Well, because Democrats want to distort us from our economic success\nof the Republican agenda. And it is built on two foundational\nprinciples. One is the very successful tax reform and bill that we\npassed in December. And Americans are seeing it. Fifty percent of all\nmanufacturers around the country are going to invest in capital\nexpansion. People have bigger paychecks now. They are getting bonuses.\n  In fact, I was on the floor last night with Illinoisans. We were\nreading stories from constituents about the benefits they are\nreceiving, either in less money being taken out on taxes or increase in\nwages; trucking companies expanding. So it is an incredible success of\noptimism when we have been in an economic malaise for the past 8 years.\n  And that is the kind of society I want to live in. I want to live in\na society where, when my kids enter the workforce, there is a job\nthere. And I want them to say: If I work hard and play by the rules,\nman, there is an opportunity for me. And that is what is coming back.\n  There is another component to this economic success, and that is\ncalling\n\n[[Page H1465]]\n\noff the EPA dogs who have been attacking the job creators in our\ncountry over the past 8 years. Ease the regulatory burden, provide\nhistoric tax relief, excitement in the economy, new jobs, new energy.\nSo I understand why my opponents on the other side would like to\ndistort us from this record.\n  This motion to recommit is purely politics to do that, so that is why\nI ask my colleagues to reject the motion to recommit and, once we do\nthat, support the underlying bill.\n  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is\nordered on the motion to recommit.\n  There was no objection.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.\n  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that\nthe noes appeared to have it.\n  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and\nnays.\n  The yeas and nays were ordered.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further\nproceedings on this question will be postponed.\n\n                          ____________________"]], "columns": ["granule_id", "date", "congress", "session", "volume", "issue", "title", "chamber", "granule_class", "sub_granule_class", "page_start", "page_end", "speakers", "bills", "citation", "full_text"], "primary_keys": ["granule_id"], "primary_key_values": ["CREC-2018-03-07-pt1-PgH1458"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 5.384027026593685, "source": "Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API", "source_url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/developers/api/v1", "license": "Public Domain (U.S. Government data)", "license_url": "https://www.regulations.gov/faq"}