tv U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN March 7, 2018 11:59am-2:39pm EST
the acuracy of that affects a better operation and enables reform. thetor boozman: mr. gibson, fiscal year 2019 defense budget submission indicates an exspictation of $2.9 billion from ongoing reforms, including reforms in health care management. can you give us some examples, can you talk a little bit about health care management and some of the -- that's such a huge issue for not only the department of defense but the country in general. do you have any ideas about efficiencies or savings in that regard? mr. gibson: we're looking at this in two ways. there's the larger -- >> you can watch this hearing later online at c-span.org. we're leaving here as the u.s. house is gaveling in for legislative work. this afternoon a bill suspending certain e.p.a. emissions standards for brick and clay kilns. votes later this afternoon.
the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. lord our god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. the prophet warns us lord, unless we acknowledge you with living faith and lasting reference, we go adrift. you have reared us and pets know their owners and appetites to be fed and there are times we don't know where to turn unless we truly belong to you. as your people, should we hear you call us a sinful nation, a people laden with wickedness and evil ways and corrupt children, should we run away from you or toward you? in those times, is it you we fear and cannot face or is it the truth about ourselves.
strengthen us that we may be drawn into the truth by you, now and always. and may all we do in the people's house be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1, rule 1, the journal stands approved. mr. duncan: would you our guests please join us in the pledge allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle.
for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, this week we have representatives from the south carolina manufacturing extension partnership visit for their annual legislative day. they are a public-private partnerships that help small and medium-sized manufacturers grow their business. there are m.a.p. senters in all 50 states and puerto rico. manufacturing is one of america's major economic drivers. comprising over 12% of our annual g.d.p., with most manufacturing firms in the united states having 500 employees or less. m.a.p.'s provide much needed assistance for manufacturers to become more successful. m.a.p.'s help manufacturers grow their global market with export guidance on where to eliminate waste. last year m.a.p.'s across the country generated $1st7 billion in cost savings, $3.5 billion in new client investments, and
helped create an retain over $100,000 jobs. can you see these benefits firsthand in this second congressional district where the south carolina manufacturing extension partnership led by chuck spangler, served over 40 companies last year resulting in $25 million in new sales and 325 retained jobs. i'm grateful for the m.a.p.'s positive impact in communities across the country. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we'll never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from hawaii seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. gabbard: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of the students, faculty, staff, and community around marjory stoneman douglas high school who lost 176 their three weeks ago today. -- 17 of their own three weeks ago today. i rise to support the community
of parkland and millions of americans across the country, democrats and republicans, who are saying enough is enough. the time for action is now. we cannot allow partisan politics to get in the way of taking meaningful action in areas where both parties agree and that have the support of most americans across this country. here's a view examples. both democrats and republicans support legislation i have co-sponsored to ban bump stocks. both democrats and republicans support legislation to close he loophole exploited by the southerland springs, texas shooter last year. both democrats and republicans support legislation to uphold second amendment rights and strengthen the national instant criminal background check system. now is the time for to us come together. and to take meaningful action towards responsible commonsense gun safety reform. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek rex -- seek recognition? mr. duncan: to address the
house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. duncan: mr. speaker, in his column yesterday pat buchanan wrote through most of its history the republican party was the high tariff party favoring tariffs rather than income taxes. he wrote that those tariffs helped the u.s. to become the strongest industrial power in the world. in the 1950's and 1960's, 53% of american jobs were industrial bazed, many white kohl amplet now only around 10% are in manufacturing. and many thousands of college graduates are working at waiters and waitresses or other low-paying jobs and living with their parents. fears of a trade war are being greatly exaggerated. we have been in a trade war for many years and we have been losing. with only 4% of the world's population, we buy almost 23% of the world's goods. every country wants into our markets. and we have tremendous leverage on trade that we haven't been using. petroleump's proposed tariffs apply to only two products.
i commend him for his effort to try to protect american jobs. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. cicilline: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cicilline: despite their best efforts, my republican friends have not fooled the american people. they provide add modest temporary tax cut for some americans, but their tax bill raised taxes on 86 million middle class families. 83% of the tax cuts go to the top 1%. it creates $2.3 trillion in debt. and pays for it with deep cuts to medicare and medicaid. it also provides a huge tax break, $1.3 trillion, for the biggest corporations in this country. and further incentivizes shipping american jobs overseas. corporations have announced more than $00 billion in stock buybacks in just three months. more than 30 times what workers received. wal-mart are ke
at the same time laying off thousands of workers as they pocket massive tax breaks for themselves. we gave them incentives to ship more jobs overseas. democrats want real bipartisan tax reform that starts with a real permanent tax break for the middle class. that will produce better jobs, bert wages, for a better future. the american people deserve a better deal than this raw deal that they got from the republicans in this tax bill. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today in county, scotland north carolina deputy alexis locklear who was killed in the line of duty last thursday while rushing to the aid of a fellow officer. mr. pittenger: the deputy was 23 years old and had only been on the force tore 10 months. yet those who knew him best
said he tied doing what he loved. my friend, the sheriff, said that the deputy made friends everywhere he went. the sheriff said, he wanted to be a law enforcement officer and he chose a scotland a county sheriff's office. it did not take a long time to know that he would fit right in with his family. end of quote. the deputy leaves behind a -year-old daughter, as well as his parents, grandparents, and six sisters. last week they lost a hero, but a hero remembered never dies in our hearts. please join me in offering condolences to the locklear family, the sheriff, and the scotland county sheriff's office. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, the threat of
foreign interference in our elections is real. our intelligence chiefs are sounding the alarm that russia used the 201 election as a target for additional interference. mr. schneider: finally yesterday, president trump at last acknowledged russian meddling and vowed to guard against it saying, quote, we won't allow it to happen. mr. speaker, actions speak louder than words and time and time again this administration has proven unwilling to confront this threat. we learned this week the state department is not using any of the resources they have been given to counter election interference. u.s. cyber command chief admiral rogers said the president has not granted him authority to disrupt russian hacking operations. we're still waiting on the administration to impose sanctions on russia passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in this congress. this isn't a future concern. americans voted in texas primaries yesterday and are already heading to the polls in
my state, illinois, where early voting began on monday. i urge the administration to get serious about this threat and support funding for the election assistance commission and resources for state election officials on the frontlines of this battle. this is not a partisan issue. it's about protecting our democracy and ensuring the integrity of every americans' vote. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i came to the floor today to speak about my cotton farmers, but my heart is heavy after a conversation with our veterans, our v.f.w. to be exact, about this issue of union time, union activities on the taxpayer dole. there was a g.a.o. report a year ago that said there were hundreds of v.a. employees
spending 1% of their time on union activity. mr. arrington: not the job they were hired to do. not in service to our veterans who wait in line to get health care, who sometimes get sicker and sometimes even die and the law says the only way to do official time must be administered in a way that's reasonable, necessary, and in the public's best interest. somebody spending first base00% of their time on anything -- 100% of their time on anything, is not reasonable, not necessary, and certainly isn't in the best interest of the american people. it's outrageous. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition. >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. costa: mr. speaker, i rise today to call for the support of the hmong veterans service recognition act this.
bipartisan legislation extends veterans' burial benefits to hmong and lou shan veterans who fought with the american forces during the vietnam war. they risked their lives fighting alongside american service men and women as soldiers in the special guerrilla units, otherwise known as s.g.u. they were covertly trained by the c.i.a. during the vietnam war and led to direct combat support for american forces. yet they have never been recognized for their service. which is why i introduced the legislation with congressman paul cook, himself a decorated vietnam veteran, a colonel in the united states army. and knows their story well. there are only estimated 5,000 hmong veterans still alive today with thousands in the san joaquin valley i represent. we extended this honor to filipino soldiers years ago. i ask that we honor these courageous individuals with their choice of being laid to rest next to their brothers in
arms. it's the right thing to do. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mr. speaker, as congress fails to advance commonsense gun safety legislation, i'd like to share a letter from a young constituent of mine, bela, from skokie, illinois. bela recently had a lockdown at her school. she writes, quote, while my peers and i crowded in the corner of my classroom, my mind instantly thought about the rise in school shootings in 2018. i thought, am i going to be part of that statistic? this lockdown made me realize that something like that could happen to anyone anywhere. please do something. bela, we have solutions that
are supported by an overwhelming majority of americans. banning assault weapons. passing comprehensive background checks. students and parents around the country are telling us to do something. it's time now for congress to listen. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. i would like to share experts of a letter i received from a 15-year-old in my district. it shows the impact of parkland, florida shooting is having. this young person writes, and i quote, i have never been in a school shooting nor do i know anyone who has. every time i think about it or have a dream about it, i experience it. i'm only 15 years old.
why am i terrified to go to places i used to love because someone could shoot me? why is it so easy to buy and make guns in this country? why can nobody seem to do the right thing and put a stop to this? why does nobody pay attention? the kids in this country, who have never been in a shooting but live in constant fear and do not feel safe. i am asking you to do something about the gun policies in this country so people stop dying and younger generations of people can feel safe. put us first, not guns. mr. speaker, what's your answer to this young voice? the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. ellison: i come before the house today and the people of
the united states because america needs single payer health care. e spend $9,000 per person on health care, but for all that money, we still have tens of millions of uninsured and highest mortality rate of any wealthy nation on earth and we are last in life expectancy among wealthy countries. in a few moments i expect to ask for unanimous consent that i may hereafter be the first co-sponsor of h.r. 676, the bill was originally introduced by my friend, john conyers. i have his support in picking up the mantle where he left it and for the purposes of adding co-sponsors and requesting reprintings. i will do that in a moment. mr. speaker, thank you. the money we are spending on
health care isn't going to the patients or the surgeons, it isn't even going to the pharmaceutical industries. the insurance industries are raking in record profits are the major beneficiaries of our policy. i yield back at this time and -- i nimous consent for ask unanimous consent that i may be considered as the first sponsor of h.r. 676 the expanded and improved medical health for all act for the purposes of adding co-sponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule 12. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings: keith, put me on that. in a few moments, i will manage
today's rules, but right now, i would like to thank the staff of the rules committee on both sides for the hard work that they do and especially the staff director for the democrats. i would like to take a moment to albion a senior from high school in western new york. she is here along with classmates from her school and don is her uncle. day, we will not address dreamers. today, we will not address the gun epidemic. i encourage all adult americans to work with the students on march 24 that are coming here to washington in a march for what they describe as our future. i hope adult americans will encourage massive attendance at this march and that this
congress will take action to abate the gun epidemic. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlewoman is recognized or one minute. those in florida are still suffering and no gun action at all. no debate. additionally young people are in the streets and their families are fearful because the daca fix promised by this president has not been done. we need to do our work if we are americans and need to do it for all of those who live within the
confines of this nation. then finally, we had an election yesterday in texas, full of mistakes and closed polls and nonworking machines. and yet the president of the united states has 120 million to safeguard our elections in 2018 and he has done absolutely nothing. it is a demand that we begin to look at the russian intrusion, faulty voting polls and machines and begin to address the american people's right and civil lits of voting, one vote, one person, without the fear and the apprehension of russians intruding into an election in 2018 in order to skew the federal elections. enough is enough. time for us to act. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.
the gentlewoman is recognize thed for one minute. ms. ros-lehtinen: mr. speaker, as we celebrate women's history month and the resilient women who have challenged the status quo, i'm honored to recognize my congressional colleague and dear friend, representative marcy kaptur. in 1981 she defeated the incumbent leading her to become the longest serving woman in the u.s. house of representatives and senior member of the powerful and highly coveted appropriations committee. i met marcy during my first tenure in the house back in 1989 and at that time there were only 31 women serving. marcy welcomed me with open arms and she embodies what any legislator should be, principled, truthful and fierce fighter for her constituents. it was because of her vision and
tireless advocacy that americans from all over the country are able to visit the world war ii memorial here in d.c. and honor the brave men and women who defended our country. marcy, you are an inspiration to women everywhere and i thank you to your commitment to advocate for so many important issues that matter to all americans. congratulations on this great honor, the longest serving woman in u.s. history. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. raskin: one of the great things about our job is we have all these wonderful young people who come to us from all over the world. and in school they read john locke and read russo and the whole premise is that we will be safer in civil society together
than we would be stay if we state in the state of nature which hobbs was nasty, brutish and short. we are feeling that test and obligation of civil government because we are not keeping our people safe. when a teenager can access an ar-15 and go into a school and assassinate 17 teachers and students. and what are we doing here in congress? nothing. we have not had a single hearing on gun violence, not a single hearing on the universal criminal background checks which is supported by 97% of the american people. we can't even have a hearing about it. we are demanding a hearing and demanding with the young people who are coming march 24 serious treatment of the gun violence problem which does not belong in a civil society. yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from wyoming seek recognition? ms. cheney: mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 6723. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report. the clerk: house resolution 762, resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill, h.r. 1119, to establish the bases by which the administrator of the environmental protection agency shall issue, implement, and enforce certain emission limitations and allocations for existing electric utility steam generating units that convert coal refuse into energy. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on energy and commerce now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived.
the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 2. upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill, h.r. 1917, to allow for judicial review of any final rule addressing national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for brick and structural clay products or for clay ceramics manufacturing before requiring compliance with such rule. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 115-62 shall be considered as adopted. the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. all points of order against
provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce; and (2) one motion to recommit with or ithout instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from wyoming is recognized for one hour. ms. cheney: during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from of florida pending which i yield myself such time i may consume. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. cheney: i rise in house resolution 762 which provides for h.r. 1119 satisfying energy needs and saving the environment
and for consideration of h.r. 1917, the olympicing regulatory interference from closing kilns or brick act of 2017. mr. speaker, for many years our domestic energy has suffered under unnecessary and politically motivated regulations and burdensome bureaucratic red tape. prohibiting growth and innovation. president trump and his administration has been working hard along with this congress, to undo the policies which have so harmed our domestic energy industry. today's rule allows for the consideration of two bills which will further those efforts and reform our regulatory framework so our energy producers can do their jobs more efficiently and economically along with safeguards that will be in place to protect health and safety. these bills provide a commonsense solution to taylor e.p.a. mission standards and
comply guidelines. the first bill, h.r. 119, the sense act, is sponsored by mr. rothfus of pennsylvania. this bill would provide for targeted motorcycleses to the e.p.a.'s mercury and air toxic standards as it applies to coal refuse to energy facilities. the e.p.a. has included certain emissions limits in the new standards that are simply not achievable for these refuse plants. these specialized power plants have been developed to recycle coal refuse by using it as an energy source to generate affordable and reliable electricity. these facilities have removed 214 million tons of coal refuse from the environment at no expense to taxpayers. in addition to helping address coal refuse, these facilities created an estimated 1,200 direct and 4,000 indirect jobs in areas that have been
economically distressed for many years. coal to 19 of these energy facilities which are at direct risk being shut down. the sense act would create a way for coal refuse to energy facilities to continue their much needed work by allowing these plants to demonstrate compliance with e.p.a.'s hydro coloric acid standards by using sulfur dioxide as a proxy and 93% reduction demonstrates compliance with the hydro coloric reduction standards. . it would achieve substantial declines in emissions. but it would do so in a way that these facilities can achieve. while also remaining operational. crew sheal role
they play. it also provides for 1917, the on of h.r. blocking regulatory interference from closing kilns, or brick asket 2017, sponsored by my colleague from ohio, mr. johnson. this bill 1917, the blocking regulatory interference from closing kilns, or brick asket 2017, sponsored by my colleague from ohio, mr. johnson. this bill will help preserve america's brick making industry and it's 7,000 jobs and protects them from an e.p.a. rule that created a far too rushed to compliance timetable for businesses across the nation. the emissions standards in this rule apply to kilns at brick and structural clay products manufacturing facilities. and at clay ceramic manufacturing facilities. industry estimated the cost of this rule if allowed to go into effect would potentially exceed $100 million annually. which is four times higher than what the e.p.a. initially estimated. this is yet one more example of how poorly thought out and misguided regulation are
harming industries and have been a severe hindrance to the kind of job creation we know we can now see unleashed across our nation. we've got to ensure businesses have time to comply and the regulations make sense. we should not force them into arbitrary timelines that will make them shut down. h.r. 1917 provides that needed time and makes compliance possible. the brick act also includes the text of the relief from new source performance standards. this legislation was authored by my democratic colleague from minnesota, mr. peterson. the provision in this bill will help both manufacturers and users of wood heaters by providing relief from overly burdensome and arbitrary timelines that have been imposed by the e.p.a.'s new source performance standards. specifically, this bill provides an additional three years for businesses to comply with this rule. wood heaters are an affordable source of home heating, especially in rural america.
and it's critically important that we protect this low cost source of heating. the new source performance standards for wood heaters, which took effect in 2015, include a provision that is proving nearly impossible once again for manufacturers to comply with. as they are struggling to design client mods in a short time frame allowed by the agentcy. as a result, we have seen workers laid off and others -- other companies fearing that they will not be able to stay in business after 2020. wood heater users in many low-income households across the country face the likelihood of having to pay more and having to -- a reduced product choice. this is one more example of federal overreach which the agency failed to take into of nt the real impact these regulations on everyday americans across our country. it is crucial that we pass the brick act which would extend the deadline for the of these second phase of the wood heater standards from 2020 to 2023.
and provide time for meaningful judicial review of the brick and structural clay manufacturing and national emission standards. before the owners and operations of these facilities are required to make significant and potentially irreversible decisions regarding capital investments or driving them out of business all together. mr. speaker, we must ensure emission standards are reasonable and to not unnecessarily cripple small businesses which we know are the drivers of our economy. therefore, i encourage support for the rule, for these important bills, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i'd thank the to gentlewoman from wyoming, my friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate.
and today's bills would thank t gentlewoman from wyoming, my friend, for yielding me modify clean air act regulations. or the act itself. specified ndout to industries to emit more pollution into the air. these bills, in my view, would result in more smog, more fine particle pollution, and more toxic air pollution. the effects would be worse resulting in more asthma attacks, more kids in emergency rooms, more bronchitis, more cancer diagnosis, and more birth defects. mr. speaker, these bills represent a fundamentally unfair and deeply troubling approach to regulation. in bringing up these bills, the republican-controlled congress special ng favors to
interests special interests at the expense of public health. shocking but not surprising. by bringing up these bills, the majority intends to overturn evidence-based the trump administration with the help of the republican-controlled congress has targeted 67 environmental rules. one of those rules was the requirement that mining companies prove they have the financial wherewithal to clean up their pollution. the rule regulating airborne mercury emissions from fossil fuel power plants. and most recently the administration announced it was all safety regulation, regulation that is
were implemented after the 2010 deep water horizon explosion and oil spill. a spill that burned for all saf hours, released 4.9 billion barrels of crude oil into the 3,850 mexico, spread square miles, and resulted in billions of dollars of losses to the u.s. fishing industry and the gulf coast tourist industry. mr. speaker, since passage of the clean air act in 1970, america has made substantial progress in cleaning up this nation's air. we have done this by following a fundamental principle. holding polluters accountable for their pollution. instead of following this commonsense, bedrock principle, side leagues on the other of the aisle, insist on creating loopholes for a few
favored industries, waste coal plants, brick manufacturers, and those who manufacture residential wood heaters. mr. speaker, the first of these ills, the ironically titled, sense act, weakens the critical mercury and air toxic rule. which established the first national standards to address power plant emissions of toxic air polluters. is mercury and air toxic standards rule requires coal fired power plants to meet emission standards for mercury, . her metals, and acid has the majority engaged in any analysis what would happen when this rule is weakened? has the majority filled its ranks are expert scientists and doctors who would be able to put forth a case for why
undermining this rule is good policy? of course not. here's what we know. the e.p.a. estimates that for every dollar spent to reduce pollution under this rule, american families receive up to $9 in health benefits. in fact, the e.p.a. estimated rule would the avoid up to 11,000 premature deaths, 2,800 cases of chronic bronco cry tiss, 4,700 heart attack, 130,000 cases of aggravated asthma, 5,700 hospital and emergency rooms visits, 6,300 cases of acute bronchitis. 140,000 cases of respiratory symptoms. and 540,000 days when people
miss work. my republican colleagues want to do away with those health benefits and instead permit favored industries to pollute more. mr. speaker, the second measure combines two bills. h.r. 1917, the brick act. and h.r. 453, the relief from new source performance standards. the brick act unjustifiably delays reductions in toxic air pollution from brick manufacturers by allowing them to continue to pollute all their lawsuits -- until all their lawsuits are exhausted. the bill throws out existing judicial process by providing a blanket extension for any compliance deadline regardless of the merits of the case. under well established legal norms, the court can of appeals for the district circuit may
stay a rule during litigation if it finds that the party seeking the stay has demonstrated that. there is a likelihood of success on the merits, the prospect of irreparable harm to the party requesting the stay, and most importantly, whether granting the stay is in the public interest. to date not one of the industry litigants have even asked the court to stay the brick and structural clay products rule. not one. presumably it's because they recognize that they cannot meet this legal standard. mr. speaker, the existing judicial process is the appropriate method to seek a stay of the rule and is the preferable method to unnecessary congressional intervention proposed by the brick act. h.r. 453. me to
the relief from new source standards act. which delays cleaner burning wood stombs until 2023. standards act. had to comply, exposing communities to additional years of unhealthy manufacturers already fine particle pollution, carbon monoxide, and volatile organic compounds. in 2015, the e.p.a. strengthened the pollution control requirements for new residential wood heaters. the new standards would cut fine particle pollution and volatile organic compounds from new wood heaters by almost 70% and will cut carbon monoxide pollution by 62%. the e.p.a. even included provisions in the rule to help manufacturers achieve the new standards giving the
manufacturers five years to comply. mr. speaker, these pollutants combined with other pollutants in the air from smog, black carbon, and benzene harming the health of the american people, particularly our kids and seniors, who would have to pay for these special interest breaks with their health and in some cases with their lives. these three bills sacrifice americans' health with additional years of unnecessary pollution. mr. speaker, it is as disappointing as it is frustrating that we come here today to debate bills that will increase pollution in our country and also have very little hope, let me underscore that, very little hope of ever becoming law. we have real work to do in this place and these bills are not
that work. this body must turn its attention to finally addressing the gun violence epidemic that has taken over our country. most recently at marjory stoneman douglas high school in parkland, florida, in a district adjacent to the district that i'm privileged to serve, less than a month ago a 19-year-old legally purchased a semiautomatic ar-15 and used it to methodically murder 14 of his former classmates and three teachers. what was the response of this body? well, we did prayers and thoughts. which is good. did my republican colleagues bring to the floor a bill that would ban assault weapons? did they bring to the floor legislation to close the gun show loophole. did they bring to the floor legislation that would raise the minimum purchase age for
rifles? or mandatory comprehensive background checks for gun buyers and ban bump stocks? or allow the centers for disease control and prevention to study gun violence? no, mr. speaker. instead this body offered, as i said, its thoughts and prayers, and i said it it before and i'll say it again here today, those who stand in the way of will address at our country's gun violence epidemic are increasingly culpable for its needless continuation. what we choose to talk about is pollution. what we should be talking about is the gun epidemic and i'll get to daca little bit later in my closing. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. cheney: i yield five minutes to the gentleman from
pennsylvania. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rothfus: just listening to the other side's comments about the sense act, i'm wondering if they read the same bill or ever visited the hills of western pennsylvania where we see the environmental damage that waste coal piles have done and the tremendous progress that we have seen over the last number of decades and actually cleaning up the environment. i'm happy to rise in support of h.r. 762, the rule that is under consideration. and i want to talk about the sense act, which is included within this rule, h.r. 1119. this is a pro-environment bill. the purpose of the bill is to ensure that coal refuse to energy facilities can be held to strict, but achievable standards. to be clear, these plants comply with nearly all standards as it is, including mercury emissions. we are talking about a modification, as it were, in
recognition of the tremendous benefit that these plants have made to the environment. i have introduced versions of this bill during prior congresses and i'm hopeful this bill can become law. it enjoys bipartisan support. as many of you know, coal refuse is a byproduct of historic coal mining operations. touring black mounds of this material loom besides cities and towns especially in pennsylvania and in west virginia. i invite my colleague from florida to come up to western pennsylvania and look at the landscape and polluted rivers we have there as a result of these coal refuse piles. many of these piles can smolder and spontaneously combust with zero controls. they catch fire, sending hazardous smoke into the air and into surrounding communities.
local governments are forced to spend scares taxpayer resources fighting these fires. rain water releases chemicals polluting rivers rivers and streams. the coal industry turned this terial into energy while remediating polluted sites at no cost to the taxpayer. these power plants are the only solution to this massive environmental problem that we have in pennsylvania and west virginia that would cost in pennsylvania alone, an estimated $2 billion to remediate. this is being done without taxpayer funding right now, the cleanup. for several years, i have spoken about the tremendous work being done by hardworking folks in this industry, which i have seen. i have stood on piles in the process in remediation and walked on restored sites that are now parks and meadows which
are assets and not lights. feeding streams that now have fish. despite this industry does for pennsylvania and west virginia, five facilities are under threat from federal regulations seemingly incapable of flexibility to accommodate private sector work that is improving the environment. if they make no exceptions for this agency, it is not just the environment that will continue to suffer. they support thousands of jobs and they are at stake if they are regulated out of business both direct and indirect. many of these jobs are in localities that have been hit hard. the people expect us to stand for them especially when their livelihoods come under threat from heavy handed one size fits all policies.
please keep in mind what the supporters are fighting for. here's what's going to happen if this law doesn't pass. rivers and streams aren't going to come back to life. hillsides aren't going to be restored and the piles, they can spontaneously combust with no emission controls whatsoever. this is about ensuring the continuation of the environmental success story. i urge members to support the ule and the sense act. again, are we capable of making judgments in this house? are we capable of custom highsing one size fits all and the e.p.a. has reckfiesed the work of this industry. coal refuse piles are an environmental concern because of seepage, spontaneous combustion and low soil fertility. units that burn this provide
environmental benefits by combining the production of energy with the removal of coal receive use piles. consequently because of the unique and environmental benefits that they provide, the e.p.a., said, these units warrant special consideration. so i hope my colleagues would see -- ms. cheney: i yield a minute. mr. rothfus: i hope my colleagues would see the benefits that can come from this. this isn't a special interest carveout unless you consider cleaning up the environment in western pennsylvania, to be a special interest. again, are we capable of making judgments about what this town puts out, one size fits all. seemingly with blinders on, not having the ability to recognize that in certain circumstances, customization is appropriate.
that's what this this underlying bill does. it does make sense. satisfying energy needs and saving the environment. i hope my colleagues would see the sense in that and then work with us to allow the environmental cleanup to continue and to protect hundreds of families sustaining jobs across western pennsylvania and west virginia and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: six months ago, donald john trump decided to end the daca program, a program which gave hundreds of thousands of hardworking young people hope for the future. he gave congress until march 5, that was two days ago, to pass a bill. since then, house democrats have tried 23 times to pass bipartisan legislation to physician this problem.
donald john trump even tweeted, and i quote him, total inaction on daca by dems. where are you? well, mr. president, here we are right here waiting for this deal that you say can be made. yet on 23 occasions, it was our friends on the other side of the aisle who refused to make a deal and rejected even considering the bipartisan dream act that was dead lined by you, donald john trump, on march 5. we need to address this vital issue now. approximately 120 deemers lose their status each day. over 22,000 have lost their status since the administration ended the program. now i implore my colleagues, let's do something now to lift
the cloud that hangs over these young people who are american in every way except on paper. if we defeat the previous question, i'm going to offer an amendment to the rule, number 24, to bring up h.r. 3440, the dream act. this bipartisan bicameral legislation will help solve the problem created by donald john trump's decision to end the daca program. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings: to discuss our proposal, i yield four minutes to my good friend, the distinguished the gentleman from california, mr. costa, a member of the agriculture and resources committee of this congress.
the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair and not to a perceived viewing evidence. mr. costello: -- mr. costa: the united states is a nation of immigrants past and present. for hundreds of years, people have come to our shores for a better life for themselves and their children. immigrants from across the world have made incredible chiropractics to our country. we know that as fact. from starting businesses to healing the sick, to harvesting our fields, putting food on america's dinner table to ensuring safety and pursuing justice. immigrants have made america a great nation because of these and their contributions. yet, there have been times when our nation has struggled to live up to our own ideals and right now is one of those times.
this week, the president's deadline, march 5, two days past to end the daca program, took effect, threatening hundreds and thousands of lives of dreamers. now let us remember, this is because president trump's uniony lateral action last september to repeal daca that we are in the position we are in today. i am standing here with the dreamers. with over 80% of the americans and with many of my colleagues believe we ought to fix this problem. i asked speaker ryan and i call upon this chamber to vote now on a bipartisan bicameral dream act. this bill would provide permanent legislative protections for our dreamers. immigrants who were brought to the united states' shores as children. the average age of six years. for them, america is the only country they have ever known.
the dream act will provide these people with the legal status and ultimately a path to citizenship. in my district there are thousands of daca recipients, thousands of dreamers. currently over 600 at the university of california at merced and fresno state. president castro from fresno state had a meeting with dreamers. let me tell you about one student who would be helped by the dream act. what a story he had to tell. he came to the united states with his mother and siblings when he was four years old, at great risk. he is set to graduate with a degree in chemistry this year. daca gave him the ability to work through school and help his family and isn't that the immigrant way? just last week, he got some great news, he learned he was admitted to the university of california, san francisco school
of pharmacy, one of the best schools in the nation. his dreams as a dreamer, his dreams is to use his education and skills to give back to our communities by providing health care to underserved communities. we want dreamers like you here in the united states. there are over 800,000 of you, all contributing and giving. many of you served in our armed services today. so i urge my colleagues to bring the dream act to the floor for a vote. support this legislation. they should not be held hostage for other agendas that are out there and clearly this is the case. this is common sense. i ask my colleagues to do the right thing. let's bring the dream act to the floor as soon as we go. i yield back the balance of my time. ms. cheney: i yield five minutes
to the gentleman from ohio and the sponsor of the brick act, mr. johnson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. johnson: i appreciate the opportunity to speak. i'm a little bit con tuesdayed. i thought this was supposed to be a debate on a rule dealing ith overturning onerous e.p.a. regulations. instead our colleagues on the left want to talk about something nongermane and change the subject and wonder why the american people get so frustrated that this institution can't address its big issues and i also heard a little bit ago, an impassioned claim by my colleague on the left over here that these -- the legislation that we're talking about today somehow flies in the face of the courts. well, that's not true, because the courts have already overturned this regulation one time and set it aside and it's cost the industries millions and
millions of dollars that they shouldn't have had to spend. i also heard it claimed that it flies in the face of commonsense science-based evidence. well, that's not true, because if it were, then the courts wouldn't have made the decision to set it aside in the first place. . the brick act is about regulate common sense, mr. speaker. but it's also about preserving good-paying jobs in rural communities across america. brick makers and tile manufacturers are primarily small businesses and their product is critical for our infrastructure. they have built some of the most iconic towns and buildings across america, and this bill will help ensure that these small businesses are able to continue to do exactly that. the e.p.a.'s current brick mack rule finalized in 2015 would impose millions of dollars in
cost on these small businesses all before judicial review of the -- before the rule is complete. and while the e.p.a., under the former administration, estimates that the annual cost to comply with the rule will be $25 million, other estimates will be up to $100 million or greater. for a facility with two kilns, which is the industry average, the costs are estimated to be $4.4 million. securing capital for these projects will be very difficult, some worry it may not be available. considering these compliance cost also not improve plant productivity nor help the bottom line. what's worse is that these costs are over and above the tens of millions of dollars spent by the industry to comply with an earlier version of the rule vacated by the district of . lumbia circuit court in 2007
this bill allows for any completion of the judicial regarding the 2015 regulation before regarding compliance. for an industry that's faced so much regulate uncertainty through rules, vacated rules, and now new regulation, h.r. 1917 will help inject a bit of much-needed regulate certainty back into this industry. additionally, this bill provides regulate relief for our wood heater manufacturers which help provide an affordable source of heat for many low-income and rural households. e.p.a. regulations said to take effect in 2020 are causing some manufacturers to already lay off workers. this industry needs more time to comply. and a provision within h.r. 1917 will simply extend that compliance deadline from 2020 to 2023. if left unchanged, product choice will diminish, prices
will rise, and more jobs will be lost. mr. speaker, we must ensure our federal agencies are not needlessly regulating companies out of business. brick manufacturers have suffered heavy losses since the recession. losing about 45% of jobs between 2005 and 2012. increased compliance cost from these e.p.a. regulations will only lead to more job losses and consolidations within this primarily family-owned business industry. we owe this industry regulate certainty, and i urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support h.r. 1917 because if we don't, if the brick industry gets shut down because of these onerous rules, we're going to stop building buildings, -- start building buildings, mr. speaker, out of straw and with sticks instead of brick. i yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. i've stings: mr. speaker, watched this last year as republicans worked to eliminate environmental regulations that serve to keep the american people safe from harmful toxins n their air and water. i couldn't help but be amused by my colleague on the right's comments at the end that we will using sticks instead of bricks. very clever. the real truth of the matter is in certain parts of the world -- and i would urge him to visit some of them -- there are examples of things other than brick for the construction. i have no quarl with the brick industry. i just -- quarrel with the brick industry.
i just urge that they do everything they can not to pollute the environment. i watched members in the republican majority work relentlessly for special interests groups instead of working for all of the american people. i watched members of the republican put the wish list of werful corporate gun lobby ahead of the safety of the american people. and on monday, we all watched a self-imposed republican deadline slip by to the detriment of thousands upon thousands of young people in our country that we have identified as dreamers. young people who have known no other country as home than the united states of america. every day of inaction on the part of my friends across the aisle means another day that families are needlessly and
cruelly made to live under the . reat of being torn i had my colleague, lois frankel and i were at a men's club fore a couple hundred of men in boynton beach. and the question was put to both of us, why do we support illegal immigrants in this country. we tried to make the distinction for him with reference to dreamers and the fact that all of these are young people who are brought here against their volition by their parents. and so it is the dreamers that
we are supporting, and i think he finally understood the importance of us doing comprehensive immigration reform in this country. democrats have offered to bring the dream act to the floor now 24 times. we are going to give them one more chance. we have done it 23. and every single time this effort has been blocked by the majority. and to address my friend who correctly cited that we were bringing this up, it's not so much to change the topic of the day. we don't have that prerogative. but we do have embedded in this a e the prerogative to bring previous question and that can be on any subject that we choose , and what we choose to do is prioritize things that we consider to be important. i would not have blocked this particular measure.
but the fact is enough is enough. the president says he wants to fix this problem. the speaker says he wants to fix this problem. we on this side of the aisle clearly want to fix this problem, so let's do it now. mr. speaker, i urge a no vote on the rule, on the previous question and the underlying bills, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from wyoming. ms. cheney: mr. speaker, you know, i enjoy very much serving on the rules committee with all my colleagues on the committee. one of the things that i'm often asked, because i'm a new member of this body, what surprised me most about being a member of congress and my answer is often that, you know, you see on the outside what looks like a lot of vitriol between the parties. but that in actuality i believe
that every member of this body is here for the right reasons. they're here because they want to serve the people of their districts, the people of their states, the people of this nation. and i think it's crucially important, mr. speaker, particularly when we're talking about something as sacred as the safety of our children, that we not engage in the kind of partisan attacks that we not exploit tragedy, that we not engage in the kind of questioning of motives that i just heard my colleague on the other side of the aisle do. i know my colleague, mr. hastings, knows that we may have disagreements but the reason that i as a mother feel so strongly about the second amendment is because i want to keep our kids safe. i know he knows that my beliefs about the second amendment, though they're different from his, are not based upon any campaign donations, any campaign contributions. i know he knows that they're based very firmly on a fundamental commitment to the
importance of the second amendment as part of what makes this nation safe, as part of what makes our individuals secure, how important it is for us to not to use this tragedy to take steps that may make people feel better that fundamentally violate our constitutional rights and that won't keep our kids safe. you know, when you go down the path that we've heard so many on the other side of the aisle suggest we go down, whether they're talking about banning entire classes of weapons, whether they're talking about expanding background checks so they're somehow universal -- you know, our background check system right now is broken. it doesn't work. we have a situation in which states are not reporting the way that they ought to report. and so when i hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle suggest, well, what we ought to do, frankly, is expand a system that's failing and call that progress, i can't help but think that's pretty much their standard operating another no
matter what the policy is. let's expand the broken system. let's ignore whether or not it's working and let's call it progress. mr. speaker, i will not be a party to that. mr. speaker, i will not be a party in the situation which we had tragedy after tragedy, a situation which in this most recent tragedy law enforcement fundamentally at all levels failed our children. when you have individuals inside of a school who were killed because armed officers outside the school failed to enter, when you have children who were killed because call after call after call to the federal bureau of investigation, to the local law enforcement officials went unheeded because specific tips about this particular individual went unheeded, that's not a time for us, mr. speaker, to say what we should do is prevent law-abiding americans from having access to the firearms they he need to defend and protect themselves. i think, mr. speaker, if you look at what those on the other side of the aisle are attempting
to do with respect to guns and the debate about school safety, it's critically important for all of us to stand up and say, no, we will not go down a path that's going to violate constitutional rights, that will not keep our children safe, and find some kind of false comfort in that. and when you're talking about the bills that are before us today, mr. speaker, we are in a similar situation. we have had eight years in the obama administration where they imposed regulation after regulation after regulation in the name of somehow protecting the environment. and mr. speaker, the president -- president obama's own e.p.a. administrator testified in front of congress that the clean power plan would in fact be not have any sort of positive impact on the environment, on global temperatures. yet, they impose it anyway. imposing massive costs in our industry in the name, i suppose, trying to feel better, try to feel like they're doing
something but what they're really doing is actually putting ourselves in a situation where we're harming small businesses, where we're strangling them, preventing their ability to grow and to thrive and we know we can do that, mr. speaker, in a way that also protects our environment. so mr. speaker, i want to thank my colleagues, mr. rothfus and mr. johnson, for their work on these very important bills. in wyoming, mr. speaker, we know that our coal and our fossil fuels are national treasures. they are absolutely crucial to providing the power that runs this nation. i am proud of all that we in this body and president trump together have done to roll back dangerous and ill-advised obama-era regulations that have been aimed at killing our fossil fuel industry. we can no longer go down the path of allowing these regulations to exist in a way that devastates industry, puts the fundamental reliability of our electricity, of our energy
grid at risk and achieves no measurable impact for the environment. it's long past time for that indefensible approach to end. that is what we're doing here today. these are good bills. they're important bills. they will take this next step in rolling back the kind of overwhelming regulation that we've seen, mr. speaker. therefore, i urge the adoption of both the rule and the underlying bills. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time of -- for any electronic vote on the question of adoption of the resolution. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 229. the nays are 183. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly
would the gentleman from iowa please cease conversation on the floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. pursuant to house resolution 762, i call up the bill h.r. 1917 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar 379, h r. 1917 a bill to allow for udicial review for any
regulation for hazardous pollutants for clay ker amic before requiring compliance with such rule. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 76 , an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 115-62 is adopted and the bill as amended is considered read. the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus, and the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on h.r. 1917. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. shimkus: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. shimkus: today we have a chance to help hundreds of small business manufacturers, as well as thousands of employee, while also lowering prices for consumers.
i thank the bipartisan co-sponsors of h.r. 1917, the blocking regulatory interference from closing kilns, the brick, act and urge my colleagues to support this commonsense bill. american brickmakers produce the building blocks of our nation. they are primarily small businesses and they are often the most important employer in small communities across america where many are located. like an old brick house this industry has had to weather a lot, including a long economic downturn that we have finally come out of. one that suppress nud construction activity and thus brick sales for many years. they even weathered the 2003 e.p.a. regulation that cost many millions of dollars to comply that regulation was later thrown out by the federal court but the judicial relief came too late as the industry had already spent considerable sums to meet e.p.a.'s tight deadlines. we don't want to see a repeat of that unfair result, but once again e.p.a. imposed another
regulation with difficult deadlines that will likely take effect before judicial review is complete. brickmakers have testified before the energy and commerce committee that this regulation may result in layoffs and even plant closures. h.r. 1917 would simply extend the compliance deadline until after judicial review is final. this industry has already reduced its emissions by up to 95%, according to a study from the u.s. chamber of commerce. it should not be forced to comply with another new regulation that may not withstand judicial scrutiny. we owe it to these brickmaker, their employee, and consumers of building materials to allow meaningful judicial review. i might add that a senate bill has been recently introduced that also provides regulatory for brickmakers but it takes a different approach to our version. i pledge to work with the senate to provide timely relief to this important industry. the bill also deals with wood
heaters as with brick the wood heaters industry is dominated by small business manufacturers that are the economic anchors of rural communities. and many wood heater buyers are low-income households that require them to get through the weekend. the e.p.a. set a two-step wood heater rule. the first step took effect in 2016, the more stringent second step will take effect in 2020 but is causing a great deal of difficulty. only a small fraction of the wood heating models currently available can meet the 2020 standards and time is running out to design and certify any additional models. one wood heater manufacturer testified before the energy and commerce committee that he's already had to cut staff as a result of the 2020 deadline and others feel additional job losses if the 2020 standard is retained. but this is not just a jobs issue.
users of wood heaters face both reduced product choice and higher prices for new models. many would have to forego buying a new wood heater and continue using older and dirtier ones, which undercuts claims that the current deadline will improve air quality. the provisions in the bill retain the 2015 standards but extend the 2020 deadline by three years to 2023. this is a reasonable fix that would avoid unnecessary economic damage while still prioritizing environmental protection. in conclusion, the brick industry, the wood heater industry, may both be small but they are far from small to those who owe their jobs to them and those who rely on their products. i urge my -- i urge my colleagues to provide target red leaf to these two industries by supporting h.r. 1917 and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves this egentleman from new york. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman is recognized. mr. tonko: i rise in opposition to h.r. 1917, the blocking regulatory interference from closing kilns or brick act. e.p.a. issued the brick and clay rule in 2015 which sets maximum achieveable control technology based on what is already being achieved at similar facilities. section 206 the brick act seeks to delay compliance with the brick and clay mact until judgment becomes final and no longer subject to further appeal or review. this would incentivize frivolous litigation simply to put off having to comply with the rule. courts already have the ability to issue a stay of any compliance dates in a final rule. congress should not insert itself into the judicial process. the courts have regularly used this process. there's no reason for congress to override it. to date new york one has petitioned the court to stay the brick and clay mact rule.
section 3 of h.r. 1917 incorporates another bill reported out of the energy and commerce committee, h.r. 453, the relief from the new source performance standards act. this section, mr. speaker, delays implementation of e.p.a.'s step two emissions standards for three categories of wood fueled heaters. e.p.a. finalized the rule in 2015. under the rule, mores -- manufacturers have until 2020 to comply with the new standards this bill would delay the standards until 2023. much like the brick mact, these standards are achieveable. in a recent list of devices certified under the 2015 standard, 171 devices report certified emission levels that already meet the 2020 standards. these 2020 compliant products are both cleaner and more efficient. generate manager heat per unit of wood burned and making them less expensive to operate. by delaying these standards,
congress is unfairly punishing companies that made investments to produce cleaner, more efficient products by the original deadline. since these appliances typically last for 25 years or more, once installed, delaying this standard will result in decades of additional pollution in and around people's homes. the original bill, h.r. 453, was opposed by state attorneys general of new york, maryland, massachusetts, oregon, rhode island, and the puget sound clean air agency. in a letter from december 12, these officials pointed out that e.p.a. estimated the net benefits of implementing the rule at more than 100 times the cost. wood smoke contains considerable amounts of fine partle pollution, carbon monoxide and other toxic pollutants. in my home state of new york, less than 2% of residents heat their home with woods but residential wood heating
accounts for 41% of emissions. there is significant human exposure which is why this bill is opposed by a number of public health and medical organizations. the brick act gives special treatment to a couple of industries by shifting the health and financial burdens of pollution onto the public. i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, mr. speaker, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: i yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from tennessee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. . mrs. blackburn: i'd like to thank mr. shimkus. i'd like to thank mr. johnson who has brought this legislation forward who worked with individuals, with companies in his district to address their concerns on this. w, what brings us here today is the fact that once before the
brick industry faced an e.p.a. rule that went on the books, hasn't gone through judicial review. this happened in 2003, and over a period of five years they began ramping up to make these changes. and this is expensive because most of the brick manufacturers in our country are small businesses. they have two kilns, and they are working very, very hard to keep the jobs and keep people employed. and when they look at having to change to this new equipment, the investment is going to be $3 million, $4 million, $5 million, depending on the size of their business. now, previously a rule went through the process of judicial review and then it was withdrawn.
what this legislation does is to say, look, let's finish this entire process before we move that expense to the industry because when you put it to the industry and they are incurring this cost that could end up being an unnecessary cost, what happens? brick costs more, building materials cost more. who ends up paying for that? consumers, purchasers, individuals that are buying homes, individuals that are rebuilding homes, individuals that are building commercial buildings. so what we're saying is, let's exercise some wisdom, let's exercise a little bit of experience that comes from having been here before, and let's delay until this entire process is finished.
and as we've talked about bricks, we're also addressing the wood hereto industry which is a primary -- heater industry which is a primary source of heat for many of our homes and saying let's be mindful, let's be careful. let's put consumers and taxpayers in front of the bureaucrats who are looking to implement these rules and regulations, and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from new york. mr. tonko: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from california as much time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> i thank my friend, the ranking member, and i thank the chairman for his work on this but i am going to rise in opposition of 1917, h.r. 1917, the brick act. mr. mcnerney: it would delay the agreementation of the clay products rule and the final clay, ceramics manufacturing rule by extending all compliance deadlines based on pending judicial review. so what does that mean? that means it will delay
agreementation until judgment becomes final and no -- not subject to further review or appeal. this is a blanket extension that could have lasting negative impacts on the public's health. brick and clay, if unregulated, can be major sources of toxic air pollutants like hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen chloride and hazardous metals, that has a variety of acute and chronic health effects including cancer. it's estimated that the final brick and clay mack rule will redo nationwide air toxics by approximately 375 -- 375 tons per year. last friday, the o.m.b. issued a report showing that regulations have high benefit and low cost. the aggregate benefits of federal regulations is between
$219 billion to $695 billion whereas the aggregate costs are $59 billion to $88 billion. many regulations spur innovation that benefit the economy as well as human health. now, it's no surprise to me that this administration and republicans are targeting air pollution regulations. the o.m.b. noted that e.p.a. rules account for over 80% of the benefits and over 70% of the monetized costs of federal regulation during 2006 and 2016. since regulations protect human health and safety and have more benefits than costs for industry, i stand in opposition to bills like this one that seek to undermine these protections. i ask my colleagues to vote no on h.r. 1917 and yield back to my ranking member. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker. before i yield to the next
individual, i just want to say t is not a low cost to the individual and these communities who lose their jobs and to the communities who lose a tax base when these small businesses -- when these small businesses fold up and go away in small towns. with that i'd like to yield to a person who also represents big parts of rural america in the state of mississippi, congressman harper, for as much time as he may consume. mr. harper: i ask my colleagues to support this commonsense bill, h.r. 1917, the blocking regulatory interference from losing kilns act, h.r. 1917, known as the brick act, which includes provisions which will provide a compromised approach that will delay manufacturers of wood heaters. wood heaters are frequently used by households in rural america. e.p.a.'s rush to 2020 deadline would raise the price of a new wood heater on those least able
to afford it. it would also restrict consumer choice. as many currently available model may not be able to meet the 2020 deadline. h.r. 1917 will not remove any regulations. it would simply extend the deadline to 2023. frank moore of hardy manufacturing, located in my district, testified before the environment subcommittee in september that he and other manufacturers are working to meet the 2020 step 2 standards but that a lack of technology is making compliance nearly impossible. in that hearing, mr. moore said, we provide jobs for about 50 people with payrolls exceeding $2 million and that even if a product can meet the step 2 requirements, i believe it will not be consumer-friendly, durable, or affordable. again, extension of this
effective date doesn't remove any regulations. extensions provides more time for manufacturers to come into compliance with much stricter requirements. it's best for the consumers. it's best for the businesses, and it will not undo the regulationes that are requested, and i hope that members will agree this bipartisan legislation is a compromised solution that helps small businesses and our constituents. i encourage members to support h.r. 1917, and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. tonko: mr. speaker, i now yield to the gentleman from virginia for as much time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank my ranking member. mr. speaker, every american, in fact, every human being has the right to breathe clean air. mr. brown: that choice is not
just an abstract moral failure, it's a concrete public health disaster. one that will cause needless suffering, especially for our most vulnerable friends and neighbors. the regulations this bill seeks to impede are long overdue. the earliest form of the brick and clay rules date back to 2003. that was more than 14 years ago. and now some of my friends in the majority are seeking even longer delays. we have been putting pollutants into our air and we can never unring that bell, but we can do better moving forward and we need to make those improvements sooner rather than later. we all know that justice delayed is justice denied. mr. mceachin: justice has been delayed by more than decade. we can measure that cost. the bring and clay rule in its current form will remove the amount of toxins in our air by hundreds of tons per year. if we delay the rule another
year or two years or longer, all of our families, all of our constituents will be breathing more dirtier, dangerous airs. this bill is a direct attack on our right to live in a clean and .ealthy environment i strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this misguided bill and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker. i now rise to a democrat, collin peterson from the great state of minnesota for as much time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. peterson: mr. speaker, i rise in support of the brick act, particularly secretary 3 which brings much-needed regulate relief to wood manufacturers that in my district and also across the nation. section 3 delays the second phase of federal emissions for
wood heaters by three years. it's important to note since 2007, manufacturers have voluntarily invested in technology to reduce the admissions to comply for the first phase of the regulations. i had one situation in the north part of my district where they spent i don't know how many hundreds of thousands of dollars coming up with this 90% reduction, and six months after they accomplished it they came in with these new regulations to another 90% which can't be done and it's going to put them out of business. so these business owners in my district and around the country have approached me and said, as i said, they'll go out of business if the second phase is not delayed. some have already become -- have begun laying people off in towns like green bush, minnesota, in my area, and in these small communities, these layoffs are devastating. these companies already produce some of the cleanest wood
heaters in the nation. and they're telling me that the e.p.a. has just gone too far. so i wrote this language to help these businesses, these workers, the communities that depend on the production of these important appliances and i urge my colleagues to support the brick act and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. tonko: mr. speaker, i'll continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to now recognize the author of the brick act, congressman johnson from ohio, for as much time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. you know, the majority of u.s. brick and ceramic plants are small. family-owned operations often located in rural communities that depend on the plant for their very livelihood, for the good-paying jobs. they built some of the most recognizable buildings, cities, and towns in existence across america, including many within my district in eastern and southeastern ohio.
unfortunately, these industries have borne the brunt of an unpredictable regulate process that's nearly two decades in the making. in 2003, the e.p.a. required brick makers to install expensive new equipment to comply with the agency's maximum achievable control technology, mact rule. after they spent millions to implement these rules, the court of appeals vacated the rule. our brick makers find themselves in a very similar situation today. again , the e.p.a. finalized a rule requiring the industry to once again invest in similar control equipment technologies. additionally, this new regulation uses the emission reductions achieved under the vacated regulation as a baseline
for further emission reductions. in other words, the e.p.a., under the former administration, chose not to recognize the great strides this industry achieved under the previously vacated rule. the agency neglected to take this past regulate and compliance history into consideration. mr. speaker, that's simply not right. the bill before us today, h.r. 1917, the brick act, ensures history does not repeat itself. this legislation simply allows for the consideration and completion of any judicial eview regarding the 2015 regulation before requiring compliance. now, some of my colleagues across the aisle say they're worried this legislation sets a dangerous precedent. many of these same colleagues are also quick to recognize the very unique regulate situation
this industry finds itself in. they even go so far as to say they are sympathetic to the unique situation. however, they're unwilling to support this bill that simply extends the compliance deadlines, which would give the brick and tile industries a bit of regulate certainty while the courts complete their work. mr. speaker, that logic baffles me. . we need a bit of pragmatism as we approach this situation. if you really want to talk about a dangerous precedent, consider this, this new regulation also caps the economic productivity of the clay ceramics industry. while the former administration admitted that this regulation will not reduce emissions admitted by the industry, it it decided to set new emission standards through regulations anyway. regulating an industry for no
mmediate reason or environmental benefit? that's a dangerous precedent. brick manufacturers have suffered heavy loss since the recession. shedding 45% of jobs between 2005 and 2012. and these increased compliance costs from e.p.a. regulations are driving more job losses and consolidations within this primarily family-owned industry. brick plant owner already struggle to obtain financing for plant modendization projects and brick companies estimated this rule will cost as much as $100 million a year to comply. many are worried the financing needed to comply with this most recent reiteration of this rule will not be available. considering that the required control equipment will not improve plant productivity, nor help the bottom line. i urge all of my colleagues to support this commonsense
legislation today and i look forward to working with my senate colleagues to quickly address this issue. i know some recent bipartisan progress has been made in the senate between senator wicker and senator donnelly, and i am very encouraged by that progress. i'm hopeful that this vote today will help push the senate to act and act sooner than later. the compliance deadlines are quickly approaching and we need a solution now to this important issue. otherwise, mr. speaker, we're having to build buildings in america out of sticks and straw, or worse yet, out of bricks imported from foreign countries. with that, i urge a yes vote. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. havingd >> mr. speaker, no one wants to shut down these business, but h.r. 1917 is the wrong remedy. mr. tonko: we understand the circumstances and those circumstances should be brought to the attention of the courts. the court has the power to
grant a stay of this rule. for some reason, the industry has not yet made that request. even though there are a number of pending lawsuits challenging the rule. in fact, industry petitioned the court to put their lawsuits on hold until e.p.a. decides whether to grant their request to reconsider the rule. the pending decisions by the court and the e.p.a. indicate there are still a number of remedies available to address the industry's concerns, including a request to the court to stay the rule. there's no need for h.r. 1917. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i'd like to recognize now for as much time as he may consume, the gentleman from georgia, congressman carter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman virginia tech. mr. carter: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the blocking regulatory interference from closing kilns act of 2017. this bill is very simple, mr.
chairman. as it simply aligns the timeline for compliance with judicial review of these rules and regulations. american businesses are finding themselves facing millions of dollars in client costs due to burdensome e.p.a. regulations. it's estimated the e.p.a.'s rules may cost the brick and ceramics industry millions annually with the cost of compliance for the average facility at over $4 million. industry won't be able to meet the requirement deadlines imposed by the rule, which is currently being reviewed in our court system. the e.p.a.'s first attempt at a rule was vacated. before the industry spent millions in compliance measures that were ultimately found to be invalid. ceramics and before the induy business vs. been the hardest hit by the first rule and if something isn't done, many of these small businesses will be forced to close their doors for good. ceramics business vs. h.r. 1917 would provide much needed regulatory relief to
brick and ceramics businesses by simply stating that we need to let the judicial review process move ahead before we penalize hardworking people. i encourage my colleagues to support this bill and to support businesses all across the country. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. tonko: mr. speaker, we have no further speakers and ready to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i'd like to recognize the gentleman from ohio, mr. chabot, for as much time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. chabot: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. speaker. appreciate you yielding, mr. chairman. i want to thank chairman walden as well for his hard work in this area, as well as yours, mr. shimkus, and the entire energy and commerce committee for their leadership in this area. as chairman of the house small business committee, i continue
to hear from small business owners all across america that compliance with regulations is one of the greatest challenges that they face. this is in essence what this is. in fact, today i chaired a hearing on how the regulatory process is impacting small businesses. the bill before us today, the brick act, would provide crucial relief to america's brick, clay, and tile industries. the majority of which are by definition small businesses. we should always remember that small businesses create about seven out of every 10 new jobs in america. the brick act would ensure that small business owners don't have to worry about spending millions of dollars to comply with the regulation that may well be thrown out in court. i would urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. tonko: mr. speaker, with no other speakers available, i'm prepared to close.
congress should not be in the business of encouraging frivolous litigation or penalizing businesses that make -- made the necessary investments to comply with standards. especially when clean air is at stake. unfortunately, that is what the brick act would do. these standards are achievable. long overdue, and provide considerable health benefits. it has been nearly two decades for pollution control standards or brick and clay if a sits, tsh-facilities, and nearly three decades for wood stombs. we shouldn't have to choose between a giveaway to a couple of special interests over clean air for all of our constituents. again i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: i'd like to recognize for as much time as he may consume, the gentleman from virginia, chairman good louisiana the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.
mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate your good work on this legislation. my district and many rural communities around the country, wood burning stombs and heaters e a popular heat source -- stombs and heaters are a popular heat source and it's a renewable fuel. the person who utilizes a wood stomb to heat their home is not special interest. the e.p.a.'s new source performance standards for products like wood and pelllatstombs and wood furnaces have special interest. the e.p.a.'s new raised signifi concerns. his regulation sets forth an unreasonable nd timeline to come into compliance with the standards in time. i have heard from manufacturers and retailers like england stomb workers in amherst county in my district that they don't want -- it's not that they don't want to comply with the rule, they simply need more time. for just 1-wood stomb it can
take up to six months to complete the e.p.a. certification process. in the meantime, the availability of wood stombs -- stoves, accordibility of this heating source for our constituents and other people, mostly rural areas, but other communities as well around the country, is going to go up. the brick act before the house stayed includes provisions from a bill that introduced along with representative colin -collin peterson. this provision is a simple one. it extends the time wood stove manufacturers have to comply with federal regulations by three years. affordable heat is important in my -- to my constituents and federal regulations must take into account the real world needs and time constraints of the industries that make these products and must now develop new technologies. i urge my colleagues to vote in support of this bill today to give this industry more time and ensure consumers can choose wood heat sources to help keep their families warm.
i thank the chairman. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield my southwest balance of the time. this is -- yield myself the balance of the time. it's a good debate and discussion, one we had in the subcommittee and full committee, and we're bringing it to the floor. it just focuses on a different way in which we view manufacturing and really as you heard in this debate small manufacturers. small brick manufacturers. small wood heaters. because as everyone knows, when you are in a big corporation, you got lawyers and you can do economic analysis, and you can do research and development. but a lot of these folks are just small, local operations. probably started by a husband and wife. probably brought on a kid or next door neighbor. in my opening statement i mentioned how in rural america
there's not a lot of businesses other than maybe agriculture, people come into the town, so not only are these manufacturers, they are the backbone of these small communities. simply put this bill is a combination of two. one says, you really shouldn't force someone to comply with a regulation until they have thought -- fought the litigation battle because in the example, what we're talking claimant, the manufacturers, won. where either they went out of business because they were trying to comply or they had to have the success -- exsussive c manufacturers, won. where either they went out of business because they were trying to comply or they had to have the success -- exsussive costs. issue two, on the small wood heaters is just say they were forced to move forward and clean technology, increasing eir environmental ability, 90%. we all know that the cleaner you get, the harder it is to get the last percentages.
all the folks are asking is for more time to comply. i really-tsh they are both bipartisan bills. i applaud folks coming down to talk and defend those. exciting time in our country. it's exciting because we're having economic growth. we're having economic growth for two reasons. one our historic tax cuts. 50% of all manufacturers of the country said they are going to investment. ital pretty exciting. there's optimism again. wages are increasing. benefits run creasing. you have -- benefits are increasing. you have people getting checks increasing or new growth capital expenses. there is another component of this exciting time for jobs and the economy. and this investment. pretty exciting. there's optimism other componen easing up on the assault that the e.p.a. has done over the past decade on our manufacturing sector and job
creators. you put these two together, the american worker has a greater opportunity and these are just a couple examples the bills we're moving today, how we can continue to make that happen. with that, i urge passage of this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 762, the previous question ordered on the bill as amended. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to allow for judicial review of any final rule addressing national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for brick and structural clay products and clay ceramics manufacturing before requiring compliance with such rule. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition. >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill? ms. castor: i am opposed. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: ms. castor of florida moves to recommit the bill h.r. 1917 to the committee on energy and commerce with instructions to report the same
back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. at the end of section 3 of the bill, add the following new subsection. limitation on private plane travel. be ng in this act may construed to authorize the administrator of the environmental protection agency to be construed to authorize the administrator of the environmental protection agency to charter a flight or travel in any class of air accommodation above coach class. two, in accordance with subsection b make such technical and conforming and guidance es documents and guidance documents as may be necessary to implement subsection a. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from florida is recognized for five minutes in support of her motion. ms. castor: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended. mr. speaker, my motion to recommit is simple and should garner the support of all members who dislike government waste and abuse of power. my motion goes to the heart of
the costly, ethical violations by e.p.a. administrator scott pruitt and his penchant for flying first class in violation of federal regulations and billing it to taxpayers. he supported cuts to e.p.a. clean water and clean air initiatives in the communities we represent back home. so my amendment is simple. it says nothing in this act may be construed to authorize the administrator of the environmental protection agency to charter a flight or travel in any class of air accommodation above coach class. see, federal regulations right now require government officials to get the least expensive class of travel that meets their needs. now, agencies are allowed to travel first class in very rare instances, such as a flight of 14 hours or more, medical disability, or for exceptional security circumstances if your
life or government property is in danger. well, administrator scott pruitt has abused these exceptions. this came to light after the house energy and commerce committee asked the peaverplet administrator to explain his cost -- e.p.a. administrator to explain his costly travel records which showed he repeatedly booked first-class flights at taxpayer expense and hoped no one would notice. there's no adequate justification for this wasteful spending and abuse of power by scott pruitt and if he enjoys flying first class and staying in luxury hotels, then he should pay for it himself and not ask the taxpayers foot the bill. here's what we know per press reports and committee research. last june 5, pruitt settled into his $1,641 first class seat for a short flight from d.c. to new york. the ticket cost more than six times that of the two media
aides that traveled along with him and sat in coach. in manhattan, administrator pruitt made two brief television appearances praising the white house's decision to withdrawal from the 2015 paris climate agreement. he stayed in an upscale hotel near times square and returned to washington the next day. that wednesday after traveling on air force one for an infrastructure event in cincinnati, pruitt and several staffers raced back to new york on a military jet at the cost of $36,000 to then catch a plane to rome. the trans-atlantic flight was part of a roundtrip ticket for the administrator that cost over $7,000, according to e.p.a. records. several times what was paid for other officials who went. in total the taxpayer-funded travel for pruitt and his top aides during that stretch in june cost at least $90,000. thanks to the environmental integrity project who got the
records. his travel practices are quite different from previous e.p.a. administrators who very rarely traveled on first class -- in first class and always announced their public travel schedule to the public, but scott pruitt's travel is different. it's secretive, it's costly, and it's frequent. in fact, this year we've come to learn he plans to travel to israel, australia, japan, mexico, and possibly canada. none of those have been officially announced, but we've been digging. pruitt rarely discloses where he plans to be. so at the request of congressional democrats, the e.p.a.'s office of inspector general is conducting probes of pruitt's travel. he has attempted to justify his luxury travel by noting that he's been approached by people in the airport numerous times to talk about his environmental record. however, it's unclear why this justifies purchasing first-class tickets.
these new justifications are also contradict previous explanations of this questionable travel as a way of providing an opportunity to hear directly from people affected by e.p.a. the administrator simply prefers to be wasteful of taxpayer dollars. we've asked about other conflicts of interest. he has continually sided with dirty energy and chemical companies, so it's no matter that members of the public would like to discuss these pressing issues with him. according to the environmental integrity project new travel records show that pruitt and e.p.a. employees spend up to $50,000 on premium and commercial chartered flights in the last few months. he said he will start flying coach but hasn't promised to do so. through this motion to recommit we'd like to make it permanent. we'd like to hold him accountable and for anyone that would like to eliminate waste in government and make sure our officials do not abuse their
power, it's time to adopt this amendment and i urge the congress to do so. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, a member uses a motion to instruct or recommit to change or amend the bill. i don't think we build and use bricks to make our airplanes, and i don't think we power our planes with wood heaters. so what's the deal with this motion to instruct or recommit? it's just purely politics, and it's not surprising. why? well, because democrats want to distort us from our economic success of the republican agenda, and it's built on two foundational principles. one is the very successful tax
reform and bill that we passed in december and americans are seeing it. 50% of all manufacturers around the country are going to invest in capital expansion. people have bigger paychecks now. they're getting bonuses. in fact, i was on the floor last night with illinoisans. we were reading stories from constituents about the benefits they're receiving, either in less money being taken out on taxes or increase in wages. trucking companies expanding. so it's an incredible success of optimism when we've been in an economic malaise for the past eight years and that's the kind of society i want to live in. i want to live in a society when my kids enter the work force, there's a job there, and when i -- and i want them to say, if i work hard and play by the rules, man, there's an opportunity for
me. and that's what's coming back. there's another component to this economic success, and that's calling off the e.p.a. dogs who've been attacking the job creators in our country over he past eight years. ease the regulate burden, provide historic tax relief, excitement in the economy, new jobs, new energy and so i understand why my opponents on the other side would like to distort us from this record. this motion to recommit is purely politics to do that, so that's why i call, ask my colleagues to reject the motion to recommit and once we do that support the underlying bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the motion is not agreed to. ms. castor: mr. speaker, i ask
for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this uestion will be postponed. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess subject to the call of the chair.