[Pages H986-H991]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE 
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RELATING TO ``NATIONAL EMISSION 
  STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS: RUBBER TIRE MANUFACTURING''

  Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 177, I call 
up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 61) providing for congressional 
disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule 
submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber Tire 
Manufacturing'', and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 177, the joint 
resolution is considered read.
  The text of the joint resolution is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 61

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 
     disapproves the rule submitted by the Environmental 
     Protection Agency relating to ``National Emission Standards 
     for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber Tire Manufacturing'' (89 
     Fed. Reg. 94886 (November 29, 2024)), and such rule shall 
     have no force or effect.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debatable for 
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective 
designees.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith) and the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith).


                             General Leave

  Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 61.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my bill, H.J. Res. 
61, a resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 
8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the 
Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber Tire Manufacturing.''
  My resolution will repeal this suspect rule that the Biden 
administration pushed out after the election but before President 
Trump's inauguration.
  This rule was flawed to begin with. It was published on November 29, 
2024, after the election of Mr. Trump but before his administration 
could take office.
  Further, as required by the Clean Air Act, EPA performed a risk and 
technology review specifically on rubber tire plant emissions as 
recently as 2020. After the risk and technology review, the EPA 
concluded that the pollutant thresholds and emission regulations 
already in place were sufficient and protected public health with an 
``ample margin of safety.''
  Madam Speaker, under the Clean Air Act, this should have been the end 
of it, as the EPA is only required to review and revise the standards 
on emissions every 8 years. To make matters worse, the EPA basically 
said the only way to comply with the new regulation is to buy 
regenerative thermal oxidizers, which are essentially flares that burn 
off the smokestack exhaust at the specific tire plants.
  These devices are expensive and likely will not be able to be 
installed within the 3-year Clean Air Act deadline. It is my 
understanding that the tire industry estimates that it will cost about 
$100 million to get the regenerative thermal oxidizers ordered, 
fabricated, and installed and then about $20 million more per year to 
operate the devices.
  While this cost is across several affected plants, these figures are 
certainly much higher than the EPA's estimates.
  I also note that this rule does not affect most of my constituents. I 
am sure some of my constituents drive from eastern Henry County to work 
at the Danville Goodyear plant located in the district of my neighbor, 
Congressman John McGuire, and that facility would be affected.
  In the Rules Committee, I was erroneously under the assumption that 
this might affect my Yokohama Tire plant today. I still submit, Madam 
Speaker, that it could affect them because what happens at the EPA, if 
they do it now on the larger producers of tires, et cetera, at some 
point, they are going to look at doing it at the medium-sized 
producers.

                              {time}  1215

  The Yokohama plant that employs a lot of people in my district, in my 
hometown of Salem, Virginia, could be affected long term, but currently 
it affects Danville. Now, that is about 16 miles from the edge of my 
district. In my area, because it is a rural area, lots of people drive 
more than 16 or 17 or 18 miles, whatever the number is, to get to a 
good-paying job like these facilities have that make tires for the 
American market.
  This rule wouldn't be the first time my constituents have seen an 
environmental rule from the government inflicting economic pain on our 
rural part of Virginia. Several years ago, an EPA rule ended up closing 
down a plant in a small town.
  In the end, the Supreme Court struck down the rule just a few weeks 
after the coal-fired plant closed. It was in Glen Lyn, Virginia. A few 
weeks after the plant was closed by Appalachian Power, the Supreme 
Court ruled that the EPA hadn't done it right. The rule was improper 
and it was invalidated by the Supreme Court, but they are not going to 
come back in and reopen the plant.
  Those jobs are lost. The jobs of the people who worked there, who 
then ate lunch at the local lunch facilities, or who might have bought 
a car, or might have bought something else there in the very small town 
of Glen Lyn, no longer did so. As a result, the people there lost their 
livelihood, their economic resilience because of an erroneous EPA 
regulation.
  The EPA's callous disregard for my peoples' jobs is not forgotten. 
What happened in Glen Lyn took about a decade. The population dropped, 
and last year, they turned in their charter to be a town. They are now 
an unincorporated census area inside of Giles County, and it all 
started with an EPA regulation that was misguided and improperly done.
  I submit, Madam Speaker, that this regulation is probably not 
properly done, but that is for the courts to decide. We can fix it, 
though, here in Congress with this Congressional Review Act.
  Some on the other side may say, if we repeal this regulation, we are 
letting tire manufacturers get away with unchecked pollution.
  Madam Speaker, I say not so. That is not so. The EPA's National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants would still exist. All 
major sources would still have to abide by their Clean Air Act Title V 
permits and various other Federal and local controls and regulations.

[[Page H987]]

  Regardless, if Congress were to pass this joint resolution, rubber 
tire manufacturers will still be subjected to pollution regulations. 
The EPA can always come back with an updated hazardous air pollutant 
standard if they can ever get actual data indicating specific and 
significant pollution. They don't have that now.
  Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to join me in voting in favor of 
H.J. Res. 61 because it is important for peoples' jobs and for the 
principle of not doing willy-nilly regulations at the end of an 
administration in order to pursue something that does not have 
verifiable data indicating specific and significant pollution.
  Mr. Speaker, further, as alluded to in this New York Post article, 
titled, ``Jen Psaki mocks reporter when asked about Keystone pipeline 
job losses,'' so-called ``green jobs'' are not plentiful enough to make 
up for jobs lost because of EPA regulations.

                 [From the New York Post, Feb. 8, 2021]

       Washington--White House press secretary Jen Psaki on Monday 
     mocked a reporter who asked when workers on the canceled 
     Keystone XL pipeline would get ``green jobs'' promised by 
     President Biden.
       It's expected that up to 11,000 jobs will be lost following 
     Biden's day-one decision to immediately shut down 
     construction of the pipeline that was supposed to carry oil 
     from Canada to Texas--leaving South Dakotans reeling and 
     1,000 people immediately out of work.
       ``Where is it that they can go for their green job?'' Fox 
     News reporter Peter Doocy asked Psaki at her Monday afternoon 
     press briefing, referring to Biden's promise to create good-
     paying union jobs in the green energy sector as his 
     administration attempts to end the nation's reliance on 
     fossil fuels.
       ``That is something the administration has promised and 
     there is now a gap so I'm just curious when that happens, 
     when those people can count on that?'' Doocy added.
       ``Well, I'd certainly welcome you to present your data of 
     all the thousands and thousands of people who won't be 
     getting a green job,'' Psaki snarked. ``Maybe next time 
     you're here you can present that.''
       ``But you said they will be getting green jobs. I'm just 
     asking when that happens?'' Doocy responded, noting a report 
     by the Laborers' International Union of North America that 
     found 1,000 union jobs on the Keystone project would 
     ``immediately vanish.''
       Another 10,000 construction jobs expected to be created by 
     the project have also been nixed by Biden's decision.
       A prominent union leader and Biden ally, AFL-CIO president 
     Richard Trumka, lashed the decision in Axios on HBO interview 
     Sunday, saying Biden should have also announced where he 
     would replace those lost jobs.
       ``I wish he hadn't done that on the first day, because the 
     Laborers International was right. It did and will cost us 
     jobs in the process,'' Trumka told Jonathan Swan.
       ``I wish he had paired that more carefully with the thing 
     that he did second by saying, `Here's where we're creating 
     jobs,' '' he went on, saying he believed Biden knows his 
     announcement was a ``mistake.''
       Trumka, a former coal miner, also signaled his skepticism 
     at Biden's plan to transition coal, gas and oil workers to 
     clean energy jobs, saying he was subject to a similar failed 
     policy.
       ``You know, when they laid off at the mines back in 
     Pennsylvania, they told us they were going to train us to be 
     computer programmers,'' Trumka said.
       ``And I said, `Where are the computer programmer job at?' 
     `Uh, they're in, Oklahoma and they're in Vegas and they're 
     here.' And I said, `So, in other words, what we're going to 
     be is unemployed miners and unemployed computer programmers 
     as well' '' he recounted.
       But Psaki swatted away the criticism and made a vague 
     promise that Biden would put a jobs plan forward in the 
     coming weeks.
       ``He has every plan to share more details on that plan in 
     the weeks ahead,'' she said when asked how Biden would 
     support workers left jobless by the decision.
       Biden's climate czar John Kerry was also condemned by 
     Republicans last month as ``out of touch'' when he suggested 
     that energy and coal workers impacted by climate change 
     efforts could ``go to work to make the solar panels.''
       Last month, the Biden administration unveiled its $2 
     trillion Green New Deal-fueled environmental plan, which 
     includes eliminating coal, oil and natural gas as electricity 
     sources by 2035.

  Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I say it is good to see the gentlewoman 
from Utah in the chair.
  Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 61, another 
attempt by House Republicans to ensure workers and communities continue 
to breathe toxic air pollution. This harmful Republican resolution puts 
the profits of billionaire corporate polluters over the health and 
welfare of the American people, and it makes a mockery of Republican 
promises to make America healthy again.
  I really believe, Madam Speaker, that this resolution is a 
distraction. I listened to the President's speech last night, and it is 
clear to me that neither he, nor the Republicans in the House, have 
found a way to lower grocery prices. They haven't found a way to lower 
energy prices. They haven't found a way to fund the government. Now 
they are on the cusp of stripping millions of people of their 
healthcare, all so they can shower these giant tax breaks on 
billionaires and big corporations.
  Using the Congressional Review Act hatchet to carve away critical 
protections from an agency that has already been decimated by DOGE's 
indiscriminate firing demonstrates how unserious Republicans are about 
keeping Americans safe from dangerous pollution, and another week of 
nonsense CRAs, in my opinion, shows how unserious House Republicans are 
about governing.
  Madam Speaker, I will directly address what the gentleman said. Under 
the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency is required to 
reduce hazardous air pollutants from large industrial sources like 
rubber tire manufacturers to protect Americans across the country from 
harm.
  They have to do this. They are obligated in the EPA to look at the 
things that might be hazardous under the Clean Air Act. To be clear, 
hazardous air pollutants are air toxics that are known or suspected of 
causing cancer and other serious health impacts like heart attacks, 
worsening asthma, reproductive and birth defects, as well as severe 
impacts on the environment.
  EPA is obligated under the law to set pollution limits based on what 
is already being achieved at similar facilities using readily available 
technologies.
  Basically, under the Clean Air Act, the EPA has to say what is 
harming the public and is there a technology out there in this industry 
that is innovative and does not achieve that level of harm?
  The bottom line is, there are industries that are already 
retrofitting and meeting these standards, otherwise, the EPA couldn't 
establish the standards. I have had this discussion before with my 
colleague. There are good actors and bad actors. The good actors want 
innovation, want to retrofit their manufacturing companies to do the 
right thing and cause less pollution. By repealing this, all the 
Republicans are doing is basically helping the bad actors, in this 
case, mostly foreign manufacturers or foreign-based companies that just 
want to save money by not eliminating this harm.
  I don't want to get into the specifics of whether the rubber tire 
manufacturers will address this, but it is cost-effective, protects 
public health, and ensures the industry stays competitive. It is long 
overdue.
  In fact, the Court ruling required the EPA to finalize this rule to 
close the loophole that allowed rubber processing facilities to spew 
unlimited hazardous air pollution. When fully implemented, the rule 
will cut these harmful emissions by 171 tons per year. That includes 
over 100 tons of toxic organic chemicals and over 60 tons of 
particulate matter that will be removed from the air of the workers and 
the communities near the impacted facilities.
  However, H.J. Res. 61 will throw all of these benefits away. This 
resolution would hamstring EPA's ability to fulfill its obligation to 
protect the health and welfare of Americans from air pollution. 
Unfortunately for everyone with lungs, Republicans can't leave 
commonsense environmental protections in place.
  As the House Republicans move to strip healthcare from millions of 
Americans to fund tax breaks for billionaires and big corporations, 
they also want to make people sicker by rolling back regulations meant 
to keep people safe from cancer-causing air pollution. It is 
outrageous. I don't know what else to say.
  Contrary to what my colleagues on the other side claim, EPA's rule 
was developed in close consultation with industry, using industry data. 
It also proposes emissions reduction technology that the best 
performers in the industry are already using.

[[Page H988]]

  Overall, it is estimated to cost less than a fraction of 1 percent of 
the company's annual revenue and facilities have years to comply.
  This should be a no-brainer, a win-win scenario of reducing cancer-
causing emissions and promoting innovative technologies to modernize 
industry and provide regulatory certainty. I really don't understand 
why House Republicans are so fixated on trying to repeal and block the 
work of the EPA.
  Madam Speaker, for the health of workers and the surrounding 
communities and for the sake of clean air, I urge all of my colleagues 
to vote ``no'' on this resolution that puts the whims of billionaires 
and corporate polluters before the American people.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, let me assure you that those of us on this side of the 
aisle have no desire to make people sick.
  The number one test in a community as to whether or not there is a 
likelihood of being sick or healthy is whether or not the people have a 
good, strong economy and have a job. What this regulation would do is 
to take that away.
  As I talked about with Glen Lyn, if you start shutting down 
factories, you shut down towns, and people don't have jobs. Then you 
will have people who are clearly going to have more issues with their 
health than they currently have.

  Further, in regard to the various things that my colleague said, I 
have seen it before where the EPA goes out and they create a maximum 
achievable control technology and they claim, oh, it is out there or it 
will be soon, and industry tells me it doesn't exist.
  Now, in this case, it does exist. It is just very expensive and it 
would take longer than the Clean Air Act gives them in order to install 
it. This is where I think we should take care of it instead of letting 
the executive branch do all of our work for us. They used proxy data 
and used total hydrocarbons instead of looking at what the EPA is 
charged with doing, which is the actual hazardous air pollutant. They 
don't have that data, and when they last checked for that data, they 
said there was an ample margin of safety.
  November 29, they suddenly throw this regulation on the books as a 
final rule without referencing how the ample margin of safety that was 
found in 2020 somehow disappeared in a 4-year time period, how it went 
away. They don't have any data to show actual hazardous air pollutants. 
They used proxy data. That is not good enough for regulations that 
could cause the curtailment of tire manufacturing in the United States.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Rouzer), my colleague.
  Mr. ROUZER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend, the Chairman, for 
yielding me the time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 61, which would 
repeal the Biden-Harris EPA's rule amending National Emission Standards 
on the domestic rubber tire manufacturing industry.
  This rule would impact 11 facilities in nine States, including 1 in 
my district in Fayetteville, North Carolina, which has been 
manufacturing tires since the 1960s, produces 20,000 tires a day for 
passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks, and employs 2,300 of my 
constituents.
  Fayetteville plays a major role in the State's industrial economy, 
and its manufacturing sector provides significant economic 
opportunities for my constituents, including our area's veterans from 
Fort Bragg. These 11 facilities have supported the American worker for 
decades while complying with all environmental regulations.
  In 2020, the EPA ruled that these facilities were already operating 
under the accepted threshold and had established a margin of safety to 
protect public health. This rule, issued by the previous 
administration, would do just the opposite, actually. It would increase 
CO<inf>2</inf> emissions by requiring facilities to install additional 
costly technologies that will increase energy consumption.
  Beyond that economic harm, the rule would prove costly to 
manufacturers, affecting workers' wages and the expansion of the 
domestic tire manufacturing industry.
  The per-company cost to comply with this rule would be four times 
what EPA has suggested: 100 million in capital costs and $20 million in 
other annual costs.
  Madam Speaker, this regulation must be rescinded. We must reinstate 
common sense. Rubber tire manufacturing facilities have complied with 
the existing standards, and keeping this rule in place would bring 
economic harm and no benefit for anyone, including my constituents.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
resolution.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Tonko), who is the ranking member of our Environment 
Subcommittee.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. TONKO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for 
yielding.
  I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. I am honestly having 
a hard time understanding why we are considering this resolution today.
  In the first 9 weeks of 2025, the House majority has made no progress 
on funding the government for the remainder of the fiscal year, and 
they have made no attempt to hold the Trump administration accountable 
for its actions, whether it is ignoring court orders to stop 
withholding congressionally directed funding or dismissing hardworking 
Federal employees or upending our closest trade and national security 
partnerships.
  Instead, today, we are taking time on the House floor to consider a 
minor rule that EPA was legally obligated to develop. The rule in 
question--to limit hazardous air pollutants from rubber tire 
manufacturers--was finalized in November of last year.
  At no time, as far as I can remember, did the Energy and Commerce 
Committee conduct any oversight of that rules development during the 
years EPA took to collect data and then propose and finalize the rule. 
It was certainly never the subject of a hearing. Why would it be? This 
rule only affects 12 facilities across our country and does not even 
meet the Congressional Review Act's definition of economically 
significant.
  Hazardous air pollutant emission limits have existed for most parts 
of rubber tire manufacturing since 2002. However, a 2020 court ruling 
required EPA to address all unregulated hazardous air pollutant 
emissions from a major source category. When EPA carried out a required 
technology review, it was obligated to propose limits for the 
unregulated rubber processing subcategory of rubber tire manufacturing.
  I understand this is getting into the weeds of the Clean Air Act, so 
let me be as clear as possible for our Members. This rule requires a 
very small number of rubber processing manufacturers to take reasonable 
steps to reduce hazardous air pollutants. It is not overly burdensome 
to manufacturers. It is achievable, based on cost-effective, existing 
pollution control technologies, and it does fulfill EPA's legal 
obligation to regulate harmful air pollutants from all segments of the 
rubber tire manufacturing process.
  While the economic impacts on these firms are small, the rule will 
reduce air pollution, resulting in greater public health protections 
for the communities near those 12 facilities.
  This resolution is just the latest on a long and growing list of 
legislation to give a free pass to polluters. I urge Members to oppose 
it.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Obviously, when, in 2020, the EPA found there was an ample margin of 
safety, there was no reason for the Energy and Commerce Oversight 
Committee, which at the time I chaired, to do an oversight hearing on 
something that appeared to be a matter which on its face would not 
require new regulation.
  The EPA, of course, does things that sometimes are perplexing to many 
of us. I would submit as well that one would have anticipated they 
would have used, as they are supposed to, an actual hazardous air 
pollutant study or standard. Instead, they used a proxy study of total 
hydrocarbons.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Kelly), my friend.

[[Page H989]]

  

  Mr. KELLY of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Griffith for 
the opportunity to speak in support of this resolution.
  It is death by a thousand cuts with the EPA. Each one only costs a 
little bit. It is kind of like when we have DOGE right now. It only 
costs a little bit to have two or three extra people on each job. It 
only costs a little bit to add another regulation that does not make 
sense and that does not accomplish anything.
  These businesses are dying because, one regulation at a time, for no 
reason other than to create jobs for some bureaucracy, we continue to 
have those.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res. 61 to repeal 
yet another burdensome regulation from the Biden administration that 
threatens American jobs and manufacturing, some of those in my 
district. Although it may only be a few that are recognized, one of 
those is in my district.
  This rule imposes costly, unnecessary mandates that do little to 
improve the environment but will drive up costs, hurt businesses, and 
put hardworking Americans at risk or out of work.
  In my district and across the country, the manufacturers provide 
good-paying jobs that support families and strengthen our economy, but 
under this rule, companies will be forced to take on massive new costs, 
costs that will either be passed on to consumers or result in lost jobs 
and closed facilities. We cannot afford to let Washington bureaucrats 
dictate policies that weaken American industries and send our 
opportunities overseas.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 61 and to push back against 
reckless regulatory overreach. American workers and businesses are 
better.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Reclaiming my time, I would like to enter into a 
colloquy with the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Kelly).
  Is the gentleman trying to tell the American people that it is only a 
minor rule, as one of our colleagues said, it is only a minor rule if 
it doesn't apply to you?
  I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Kelly) for a response.
  Mr. KELLY of Mississippi. If it doesn't apply to you.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Also, if it doesn't take your job?
  Mr. KELLY of Mississippi. Also, thousands of those minor rules add up 
over time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Dexter.)
  Ms. DEXTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.J. 
Res. 61.
  As the government hurtles toward a shutdown and millions of 
Oregonians fear being stripped of their healthcare, House Republicans 
are wasting time on ridiculous resolutions that do nothing to lower 
costs for working families and, instead, threaten our public health.

  Before coming to Congress, I spent over two decades as a pulmonary 
and critical care physician. Every day, I saw firsthand how climate 
change impacts people and how poor air quality leads to people's 
morbidity and, yes, mortality. It is undeniable, the air we breathe is 
making us sick, and we cannot afford to ignore this any longer.
  As Democrats fight tooth and nail to protect public health and center 
our families, Republicans are pushing harmful resolutions that threaten 
the well-being of our constituents and the future of our planet. If it 
weren't so cruel, it would be laughable.
  H.J. Res. 61, the one before us today, would cripple the EPA's 
ability to protect our communities from hazardous air pollutants, the 
worst cancer-causing air toxins, at a time when Republicans are also on 
the cusp of taking away healthcare from millions of Americans.
  This resolution is part of a larger, more dangerous trend to gut our 
public health agencies, silence our scientists, and roll back critical 
environmental protections. It proves just how out of touch they are 
with the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, my message to the Oregonians watching is simple: I will 
stand on this floor time and again to raise their voices and make sure 
they are heard because, as a doctor, when my patient's health is 
threatened, I do what it takes to protect them.
  Clean air is not a luxury. It is a right, and I will not stop 
fighting for it. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this 
reckless and irresponsible policy.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Crenshaw).
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 61 because 
it is common sense. The Biden administration decided to put these 
additional regulations on tire manufacturers. The inevitable 
consequence of that, of course, is increasing the cost of tires for the 
American people.
  The American people might be okay with such a regulation if it was to 
have a meaningful, positive effect. Everybody wants to protect the 
environment. I can't name a single Member who doesn't. As policymakers, 
we have to ensure that regulations are pragmatic and balance the 
inherent trade-offs. That is what policymaking is about. That is what 
regulation is about, trade-offs.
  The Biden-era regulation on tire manufacturers is a perfect example 
of when regulators fail to do a proper cost-benefit analysis.
  Let's talk specifics. This EPA rule piles on huge costs for our 
domestic tire makers. It is going to hit close to 100 rubber-mixers 
across the country. That jeopardizes jobs, increases prices, and makes 
American manufacturers less competitive globally.
  Worse, there is not really a benefit to this. These regulations don't 
do much of anything to actually improve the environment. Under the 
final rule, tire manufacturers have to install expensive new devices 
like regenerative thermal oxidizers, which require incredible amounts 
of energy to operate. Therefore, you offset the so-called benefit by 
burning a lot more energy, meaning you are burning a lot more carbon 
dioxide, by the way. In other words, you are left with a policy that is 
pretty much all cost and no clear upside to it.
  If you look at the justification, the Biden EPA claimed they 
implemented this rule to address hazardous air pollutants from tire 
manufacturers. Here is the thing: The agency's own data found that our 
existing standards already kept those emissions in check and protect 
public health. Why did they do it anyway? It is simple. It was because 
the political appointees at Biden's EPA are beholden to a bunch of 
radical environmental groups.
  They went for the optics. They want headlines like ``Tough on 
Pollution'' instead of trusting the data that says actually we are in a 
good place here. They want the headlines. They believe in this crazy 
philosophy that if 1 regulation is good, then 10 more must be better. 
You can never do enough.
  Of course, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have started 
with the scare tactics claiming the sky is falling, the air quality is 
plummeting, and people are dying and they are not going to have 
healthcare. There is no evidence for that, of course.
  The evidence actually shows the opposite. The EPA's own website shows 
criteria pollutants have dropped by nearly 80 percent over the last 
several decades. We have already made a huge amount of progress. The 
data backs that up, not doom-and-gloom talking points.
  Mr. Speaker, I say to anyone watching at home, don't buy into the 
fear-mongering that the Democrats are selling. This resolution is about 
protecting American jobs and keeping an eye on costs for everyone. It 
won't hurt the environment at all. It just reverses a burdensome rule 
that does more harm than good.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand with Chairman Griffith in support of 
this resolution. I urge all my colleagues on both sides to do the same.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Mrs. Sykes).
  Mrs. SYKES. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition of H.J. Res. 61, 
which would nullify an Environmental Protection Agency rule to 
significantly reduce the unregulated toxic chemicals from tire 
manufacturing facilities, facilities that my community is all too 
familiar with.
  In 1839, Charles Goodyear invented vulcanized rubber, revolutionizing 
the way that the world travels. Decades later, the Goodyear Tire and 
Rubber Company was founded and headquartered in Akron, Ohio, my 
hometown, in Ohio's 13th Congressional District.

[[Page H990]]

  For many years, the city of Akron, which I proudly represent, has 
been nicknamed the Rubber Capital of the World due to its long history 
of rubber and tire manufacturing. This industry has provided decades 
of local jobs, economic development, and financial stability to 
countless families in Akron and the surrounding area.

  Without rubber manufacturing, Akron would not be what it is today. In 
fact, Mr. Speaker, my family fled the segregated South to find jobs in 
these rubber factories, in the Firestone plant, and I stand here before 
you a proud graduate of the Harvey S. Firestone High School, the 
founder of the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company.
  Yes, we are proud in the city of Akron to honor the legacy of rubber 
workers in my district. As the centerpiece of downtown Akron's Main 
Street corridor, you can find a statue of a rubber factory worker 
standing tall in commemoration of their contributions to our community 
that is 200 years old this year. Unfortunately, a generation later, we 
know now that the stories of far too many rubber workers and families 
included cancer, asthma, and other respiratory illnesses. Decades 
without adequate regulation of toxic emissions from these plants have 
taken a serious toll on the Akron community. Studies from the 1980s 
found increased risk of leukemia among rubber plant workers in Akron 
and respiratory illnesses in children nearby rubber plants. Goodyear's 
St. Marys, Ohio, rubber plant vented carcinogenic vinyl chloride into 
the environment in close proximity to a Boy Scout camp, and an Akron 
plant vented dust contaminated with asbestos into surrounding 
neighborhoods.
  It should be no surprise that asthma and cancer remain challenges for 
my community. In 2019, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America 
designated Akron as an asthma capital alongside it being the rubber 
capital, and ranked the city 14th in the list of the top 100 most 
challenging places in America to live with asthma.
  Thankfully, in 2024, Akron moved further down the list to 52, but we 
would obviously prefer not to be on that list at all. Studies have also 
shown that neighborhoods in southern Akron, like Summit Lake and 
Kenmore, continue to pose lifetime cancer risk from industrial 
pollution that is nearly twice the EPA's acceptable levels.
  Unfortunately, everyone in Akron has a friend or a family member with 
a cancer story. Too often, these stories involve working in rubber or 
being too close to a plant.
  The EPA rule that is the subject of this joint resolution estimates 
that compliance with the rule will cost these multimillion dollar 
corporations no greater than 1 percent of their annual revenue. Yes, I 
know that can still be a lot of money, but to argue that these costs 
are too great when the alternative is communities plagued with years of 
increased cancer and asthma, as they are in my community, is just plain 
insulting.
  To be clear, I know the importance of the rubber industry to my 
community. It is the reason why I stand here today. It is, quite 
literally, why I get the opportunity to stand here today. I appreciate 
rubber workers in Akron who helped make our city the rubber capital and 
revolutionized the way in which we travel.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. Speaker, we also built the best middle class that this country 
has ever seen, but we cannot repeat history and continue to expose our 
communities and our rubber workers to these toxic chemicals. This 
resolution poses a danger to the public health of our communities 
across the country.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Wied). The time of the gentlewoman has 
expired.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Mrs. SYKES. Mr. Speaker, with Americans looking at a reduction in 
critical healthcare services from the recently passed Republican 
budget, including cuts to the Medicaid program that children with 
asthma will need to access, this resolution could not come at a worse 
time.
  This is not hyperbole, and I hear my colleagues when they say on the 
other side of the aisle that this may be problematic. I ask them to 
hear me, standing on behalf of 786,000 people from the city of Akron, 
representing northeast Ohio, a great-granddaughter of a rubber factory 
worker, who knows what it is like to lose a friend because of cancer 
due to some of these toxic chemicals: I don't want the same for my 
colleagues' communities.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask them to learn from our mistakes, and I ask my 
colleagues in Congress to join me in opposition to this resolution.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), the chairman of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce.
  Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Chairman Griffith, for 
yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule is an example of unsubstantiated bureaucratic 
overreach that does not have any added impact to public health benefits 
and actually goes so far as to have a negative environmental impact.
  The Biden-Harris EPA finalized a rule targeting American tire 
manufacturers that runs the risk of destroying domestic tire production 
and eliminating thousands of good-paying American jobs.
  When finalizing the rule, the EPA stated the goal was to reduce 
emissions from hazardous air pollutants. However, the rule also adds 
emissions limitations for total hydrocarbons. These two pollutants are 
not correlated.
  In short, limiting hydrocarbons does not reduce emissions from 
hazardous air pollutants.
  Additionally, implementation of this rule requires facilities to use 
regenerative thermal oxidizers. Use of RTOs will result in higher 
carbon dioxide emissions, as they require significant energy inputs to 
operate and maintain.
  American tire manufacturers already comply with National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, known as NESHAP, and are 
operating well under the acceptable limitations. The manufacturers' 
compliance has ensured that our communities are safe. On the other 
hand, this rule all but ensures their demise.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are concerned about why 
we are bringing these issues up now. Due to the number of Biden-Harris 
administration midnight regulations, we have no choice in Congress but 
to address the onslaught of these policies before they destroy 
businesses and make life more expensive for the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, let us be pragmatic and use common sense in our 
policymaking, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.J. 
Res. 61.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 15 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Virginia has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Minnesota (Ms. Morrison).
  Ms. MORRISON. Mr. Speaker, today I rise, as a doctor of more than 20 
years, in opposition to H.J. Res. 61, an egregious and completely 
unnecessary assault on our public health.
  This resolution put forward by congressional Republicans would rip 
away protections that keep Americans safe from some of the most 
dangerous and cancer-causing air toxins in the world, such as arsenic 
and lead.
  As an OB/GYN, I am extremely concerned because these toxins are known 
to cause reproductive harm and birth defects.
  Just last night, in this Chamber, President Trump claimed: ``Our goal 
is to get toxins out of our environment.'' President Trump also 
highlighted the concerning increase in rates of childhood cancer and 
claimed: ``Reversing this trend is one of the top priorities.''
  Yet, less than 24 hours later, the Republican majority is choosing to 
increase toxins in our environment, expose more Americans to some of 
the most dangerous pollutants, and likely increase the rates of cancer.
  Let's be clear: This cost-effective rule presents minimal cost to 
industry in order to protect public health.
  What are we doing here? Why are we selling out the health of 
Americans? The consequences of this would be devastating to our 
children, moms and new babies, and families across the country. It is 
completely preventable.
  To my Republican colleagues who hold the majority rule in this 
Chamber,

[[Page H991]]

please, for the sake of the health and well-being of the American 
people, vote ``no'' on this resolution.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I recognize none of us wants the world polluted. The 
gentlewoman indicated that somehow this was going to affect arsenic and 
lead. I suppose, in a theoretical world, perhaps it could, but there 
are other regulations on tire manufacturing that may deal with that.
  That is not what this Congressional Review Act is about. It is about 
a regulation that was put into effect because, instead of looking for 
things like arsenic and lead or actual hazardous air pollutants, the 
EPA used a proxy measurement and measured carbon dioxide. They didn't 
use a test to come up with this rule based on arsenic or lead. It was a 
proxy using carbon.

  Further, somebody said earlier, Mr. Speaker, that we were stripping 
away critical regulations. I would say, Mr. Speaker, if it was so 
critical, why did the Biden administration wait until November 29 with 
less than 2 months left in their term? If it was so critical, why did 
the EPA in 2020 find that there was an ample margin of safety in the 
regulations that already existed?
  Mr. Speaker, this is not about stripping away all regulations on tire 
manufacturing. It is one specific ill-advised, ill-timed, expensive 
regulation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I can't stress enough that the EPA's rule, which the 
Republicans are trying to repeal, would remove 171 tons of hazardous 
air pollution per year, including some of the worst air toxins.
  This critical rule is, first and foremost, a public health rule, 
seeking to help both the workers and the communities surrounding these 
facilities.
  We heard a very impassioned speech by the gentlewoman from Akron, 
Ohio, who talked about how much, in Akron, they depend on this industry 
and want it to thrive. They have suffered over the years, not only the 
people who work in the factory but the people of Akron and the 
surrounding areas, from hazardous air pollution. Essentially, that is 
why she is opposed to the repeal of this rule that helps people 
breathe.
  Again, this is not only something that the EPA is required to do 
under the Clean Air Act, which is to look at whether or not particular 
industries are causing health problems for the American public, but in 
addition to that, the EPA was compelled to regulate these specific air 
toxins by a 2020 court case that required the agency to close loopholes 
for unregulated hazardous air pollution that they are legally required 
to manage under the Clean Air Act.
  My colleagues on the other side suggested that somehow this is a 
Biden administration midnight rule and that it was rushed at the last 
minute. The reality is that the EPA has been regulating the process 
involved in tire manufacturing since 2002. That is over 20 years ago.
  Rubber processing, which is really what we are talking about here, 
had gotten a free pass, as I said, for over 20 years. This rule that 
the EPA promulgated seeks to ensure that the workers and communities 
like those in Akron near these facilities aren't put in harm's way any 
longer.
  I think House Republicans are really minimizing these critical public 
health protections decades in the making by using the CRA to repeal 
this title and block the EPA from further action.
  Instead of funding our government, lowering prices, or finding ways 
to help everyday Americans, House Republicans are wasting Congress' 
time by rescinding a long-awaited rule that will reduce 171 tons of 
harmful, cancer-causing emissions a year.
  While this rule was finalized in November, the 11 rubber processing 
facilities have 3 years to make the necessary technology upgrades. Any 
doomsday claims about the EPA rule simply ignore the very real 
experiences of people who have been forced to breathe toxic pollution 
while coming into work or walking out of their front door for far too 
long.
  Mr. Speaker, for all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose 
this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, the EPA was under no obligation to do this regulation. 
They may have been under an obligation to look at unregulated hazardous 
air pollutants, but nowhere in the statute does it allow for proxy 
carbon studies.
  Hydrocarbons are not listed as a hazardous air pollutant. The plain 
language, I repeat, does not authorize proxy or surrogate studies to 
say: Well, we looked at it, and there is a lot of carbon. Therefore, we 
are going to make specific regulations that cost hundreds of millions 
of dollars and may or may not cost jobs.
  That is not their job. That is the purpose of the Congressional 
Review Act. It is to rein in unreasonable, improper, or irrational 
regulations done at the last minute by an outgoing administration or by 
an incoming team.
  This is not something that needs to be on the books to protect 
health. They did a proxy study. They don't have actual data that shows 
that this would do any good at all. It will perhaps cause significant 
curtailment in production at certain facilities of tires made in the 
United States. It is our job as Members of Congress to prevent this 
travesty.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that the arguments that we have made have now 
worn out. We have used up the mileage on these arguments. Now, we get 
to vote ``yes,'' and voting ``yes'' is where the rubber meets the road 
and gives us a more sound regulatory scheme related to tire 
manufacturing.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask everyone to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Loudermilk). All time for debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 177, the previous question is ordered on 
the joint resolution.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________