00:00The gentleman from Texas Reserves, the gentleman from New Jersey.
00:04Mr. Speaker, I yield now four minutes to the ranking member of our environmental subcommittee, Mr. Tonko of New York.
00:11Gentleman's recognized.
00:12Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.
00:16Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution.
00:20SJ Res 31 is irresponsible, especially as we wait to see whether Republicans will bring forward their budget bill
00:26to strip health care from millions of Americans to give tax breaks to billionaires.
00:32But this resolution would allow 1,800 facilities that emit the worst of the worst cancer-causing toxic air pollutants
00:39to avoid Clean Air Act requirements that protect the air that we breathe.
00:43It would eliminate a 2024 EPA rule that ensures large industrial facilities like chemical plants and oil refineries
00:52control their hazardous air pollution.
00:54Hazardous air pollutants are known or suspected to cause cancer, birth defects,
01:00defelimental disorders, and neurological problems, even at extremely low levels of exposure.
01:07It has been suggested that the 2024 rule eliminates the incentive for facilities to deploy new technologies
01:14to reduce pollution.
01:16But we have some real-world data on this, and there is zero evidence that polluters will go above and beyond
01:22what is legally required of them by installing new technologies once they have avoided the major source requirements
01:28of the Clean Air Act.
01:30The first Trump administration initially undid the once-in-always-in policy in 2020,
01:37and over 200 facilities were able to escape those given requirements.
01:42As far as I know, none of these sites have taken additional steps to install new pollution controls.
01:48On the other hand, many of these facilities have been free to run their existing, previously installed pollution controls less.
01:56When they were categorized as a major source, they needed to take steps to drastically reduce their emissions as much as possible,
02:04based on demonstrated, cost-effective technologies.
02:07And in many cases, that resulted in emission levels dropping far below the major source thresholds.
02:14But the Clean Air Act's intent was never to bring pollution level right below some arbitrary major source threshold.
02:22It is about reducing emissions, and potentially even eliminating emissions, as much as it is cost-effectively possible.
02:30Rescinding this rule would give another 1,800 facilities the green light to shut off their long-installed pollution control equipment,
02:38spew hazardous air pollution right up to the major source trigger, and increase cancer-causing pollution without consequence.
02:46So the Clean Air Act is an incredible public health success story, and we are at risk of writing a new, dark chapter in this law's history.
02:54There have been five decades of strong bipartisan support in Congress for the law, which has allowed us to make steady progress to reduce air pollution in our country.
03:05Yes, in many places, we are breathing cleaner air today than we were in the 1970s or in the 1990s.
03:11But that improvement is not guaranteed to be maintained if we start to chip away and backslide.
03:17This resolution puts our previous progress in serious jeopardy, and the people who live along the fence lines of these 1,800 industrialized facilities are at risk of facing the worst consequences.
03:31These communities tend to be low-income. I would venture that many rely on Medicaid.
03:36The one-two punch of this resolution, with the budget bill to strip health care from nearly 14 million people, is wrong.
03:44It will leave people with unhealthier air, fewer protections, and less access to health care to deal with the consequences – cancer, birth defects, and developmental disorders – of allowing these facilities to pollute more.
03:57With that, I urge members to oppose this resolution, and I yield back.
04:03I hope so.
04:07Perfect.
04:11Good night.
Comments