▶ 0:12:56The committee will come to order. The chair now recognizes himself for five minutes for an opening statement. Welcome to today's environment subcommittee markup of seven bills to improve the process for establishing and implementing the national ambient air quality standards and to streamline environmental reviews and the new source review pre-construction permitting program under the Clean Air Act. No one questions that the Clean Air Act has been important in helping to improve air quality since the law was first enacted more than half a century ago.
▶ 0:13:25However, the law has not been significantly amended since 1990 and has not kept pace to meet the economic and security risk facing this country. Common sense permitting reforms contained in these seven bills are needed to improve the Clean Air Act so the United States can continue to be the world leader in economic prosperity, technological innovation, and environmental quality.
▶ 0:13:46At subcommittee hearings in June and September, we heard testimony from several witnesses that the air quality standards for fine particulate matter and ozone that were issued by the Biden Harris administration will stifle economic growth and be nearly impossible for states and regulated industries to meet because they are so close to background levels and that decisions on whether a state is meeting the standards should not be impacted by pollution caused by wildfires and from international sources outside of the state's control.
▶ 0:14:15We also heard testimony from top state environmental regulators. Several of the deadlines in the Clean Air Act are impossible for EPA and the states to implement. For example, several witnesses said it would make sense to extend the time frame for reviewing air quality standards from every 5 years as it is in current law to every 10 years.
▶ 0:14:34We also heard testimony from multiple witnesses that the current pre-construction permitting and environmental review pro provisions of the Clean Air Act can slow down or even block construction of high-tech manufacturing and energy products that we need more of in this country to win the race for critical minerals and advanced semiconductors against China. The seven bills that we will be marking up are HR6409, the foreign admissions and nonattainment clarification for economic stability by Representative Fluger.
▶ 0:15:03This bill would clarify that foreign air pollution is not to be considered when deciding if a state or air district is meeting an air standard. HR4218, Clean Air and Economic Advancement Reform Act, Representative Carter. This bill makes several improvements to the process for establishing and implementing the Air Quality Standards Program under the Clean Air Act, HR6387, Fire Improvement and Reforming Exceptional Events by Representative Evans.
▶ 0:15:31This bill clarifies that emissions from forest fires and other events are not factored into whether a state or air district is meeting an air standard. HR4214, Clean Air and Building Infrastructure Improvement Act, Representative Allen. This bill clarifies that when a new air standard has been factored into pre-construction permits under the Clean Air Act, HR 161, New Source Review Permitting Improvement Act, Representative Griffith.
▶ 0:15:56This bill clarifies what kind of construction or modifications of existing facilities would trigger permitting under the Clean Air Act. HR6373, air permitting improvements to protect national security act, which I introduced. This bill would allow the president to wave the requirement that facilities that are critical to our national security, including critical mineral processing facilities, offset emissions as part of the permitting process.
▶ 0:16:23and HR6398, reducing eliminated duplicative environmental regulations act by Representative Joyce. This bill would streamline the environmental review and permitting process. Passage of these bills will go a long way toward improving our infrastructure and making permitting more predictable and cost-effective. Some of these bills include ideas that we have considered in previous years, but some of them offer creative solutions based on feedback we have received. I urge all of my colleagues to support these pieces of legislation and I yield back.
▶ 0:16:53I now recognize the gentleman from New York's 12 20th district, the ranking member of the subcommittee, my friend Mr. Tonko for five minutes for an opening
▶ 0:17:02Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have heard over and over again from members on both sides of the aisle how effective the Clean Air Act has been at reducing pollution and protecting Americans. Without a doubt, the law has been successful, incredibly successful. It is arguably the most effective public health law in our nation's history. But despite decades of progress, millions of Americans still live in areas determined as having unhealthy air quality.
▶ 0:17:30And rather than allowing the law to continue working to help bring relief to Americans still experiencing unsafe levels of air pollution, the Republicans position, as evident by the bills included in today's markup, is to declare the job done and start eroding the progress that has been made over the past five decades. This should not come as a surprise. Republicans on this committee, under the leadership of several different committee and subcommittee chairs, have been trying and failing to enact versions of the proposals before us for many years.
▶ 0:17:59These bills do not represent new and innovative solutions specifically tailored to meet our current policy challenges. They are the same tired ideas that suggest Americans should expect to live with unsafe air quality if the rules necessary to protect them would cut into polluters profits. But Congress doesn't legislate in a vacuum. So I think it is important to add some context to today's proceedings.
▶ 0:18:24First, since January 20th, the Trump administration has been on a crusade to gut the Environmental Protection Agency, roll back previously finalized National Ambient Air Quality Standards, and exempt favored industries from hazardous air pollutant rules. The Trump administration is making EPA a toxic workplace for the people responsible for conducting and analyzing the science necessary to inform the regulatory process.
▶ 0:18:50That science is so essential, especially because as we generate more robust and precise scientific evidence, our understanding of the health effects of air pollution becomes more clear and it is almost always worse than we previously thought. That is why the national ambient air quality standards are so important. Standard setting process requires regular reviews and updates to ensure public health is adequately protected based on the latest science.
▶ 0:19:20But the bills today would undermine the Knox process, which has proven to be so successful. Several of the bills would make it more difficult for EPA to strengthen standards in the future, even if the scientific evidence would warrant it. Other bills would make it easier for polluters to cut corners and avoid compliance, which is great for their bottom lines, but not so good for the people who live and work near these facilities.
▶ 0:19:46Gutting the EPA and its workforce and carrying out a massive deregulatory agenda will have consequences indeed. And to complement the Trump administration's efforts to reduce agency capacity, these proposed bills would drastically limit its legal authorities. Ultimately, if these bills are enacted, it will be more difficult for EPA to protect Americans from environmental health threats and enforce the rules against polluters even beyond this current administration.
▶ 0:20:15The second important piece of context is that earlier this year, congressional Republicans and President Trump enacted a partisan budget reconciliation bill that will result in millions of Americans losing their health care. Millions more are feeling the effects of significant premium increases. House Republicans have no plan to address the expiration of the Affordable Care Act's enhanced premium tax credits. That comes at a time when so many Americans are losing access to health care.
▶ 0:20:42The proposal we proposals we will consider today simply add insult to injury. These bills will make it more likely that Americans will get sick and need to see a doctor or visit an emergency room. Republicans policy preferences are pushing us toward a future where hospitals already under financial pressure will have to deal with more cases of asthma, COPD, and other health consequences of increased air pollution affecting millions of uninsured Americans.
▶ 0:21:09The Clean Air Act has a 50-year track record of success driving innovation in pollution control technologies and enabling the cost-effective reduction of pollution. It is hard. It is worked as intended and it continues to protect Americans health while enabling economic growth. The legislation we will consider today represents serious challenges and threats to both past and future progress. So, I must oppose each of them. And with that, Mr.
▶ 0:21:37Chair, I yield The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky second district, the chairman of the full committee, my friend Mr. Guthrie. Five minutes for an opening statement. I'm sorry. Thank you, Chairman Palmer, and I really appreciate the opportunity to be here. Members of the subcommittee for the important work of this markup. Over the past few months, this subcommittee has held two hearings to consider common sense permitting reform solutions or modernize the Clean Air Act.
▶ 0:22:03During these hearings, we discussed proposals related to how to best protect public health while streamlining sprawling regulations that account for some of the most expensive and significant barriers in modern permitting process costs which are passed down to consumers and communities. This morning, the environment subcommittee is considering seven pieces of legislation to modernize the Clean Air Act. These bills will reduce the permitting gridlock that is slowing American economic progress.
▶ 0:22:33It's been 35 years since we meaningfully amended the Clean Air Act, and the bills we are considering today address aging and inefficient provisions that require modernization. We can protect our environment while fostering economic growth. Local communities should not be penalized for poor air quality from foreign emissions like the Canadian wildfires.
▶ 0:22:55The Clean Air Act should be modernized so that states can continue to protect air quality while balancing the needs of businesses have for regulatory certainty and streamline processes to obtain permits to bill without necessary delays in cost. Red tape and overburdensome regulations are stifling economic development and American innovation. Communities and companies are being punished for emissions they have no control over.
▶ 0:23:22I look forward to discussing the bills today and steps we can take to lessen regulatory burdens on Americans. And I hope I know that all Americans are aware that this is Army Navy week. So I'll conclude and yield back with go Army, beat Navy. I yield back.
▶ 0:23:40The gentleman yields. Chair now recognizes my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey 6th District, the ranking member of the full committee, Representative Palom, for five minutes for an opening statement.
▶ 0:23:49Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today, we're marking up seven Republican bills that once again put corporate polluters over people and will make the American people sicker. Republicans are eroding the foundation of the Clean Air Act and threatening our ability to ensure Americans have clean and healthy air to breathe. We know air pollution is dangerous and already poses serious and significant health risk to our communities every day. It's linked to cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and over a 100,000 premature deaths every year.
▶ 0:24:18Unfortunately, we're not here to consider any practical bipartisan solutions to address this problem. And instead, the majority is trying to rehash and rebrand the same tired failed pro coup proc corporate polluter ideas that they push every Congress.
▶ 0:24:33And the result is that we're once again wasting time on these pro polluter bills instead of tackling the real problems facing Americans like the affordability crisis and skyrocketing health care costs resulting from Republicans refusal to extend enhanced premium tax credits that make health care more affordable for millions of Americans. Now, the Clean Air Act has a long history of working to drive economic development while at the same time protecting the health of our communities.
▶ 0:25:00In fact, under the Clean Air Act, air pollution has fallen over 78% since 1970, while at the same time, our gross domestic product has nearly quadrupled. Any potential changes to the law should continue to have those goals in mind. We can't and should not sacrifice one in pursuit of the other. But unfortunately, that is exactly what these Republican bills would do.
▶ 0:25:21What my colleagues continuously ignore is that cleaner air results in healthier Americans and a healthier American workforce means fewer missed work days, fewer health care costs, and in turn a stronger economy. So there's no economic argument for tearing down the Clean Air Act. Four of the bills we're considering today will undermine the National Ambient Air Quality Standards or Knacks, a suite of health-based air quality standards that let us know what level of pollution is safe to breathe.
▶ 0:25:48HR4218 will gut these protections by requiring the EPA to consider the uh economic impact and feasibility of implementing the standard. In other words, weakening public health protections in favor of industry profits. It also removes critical incentives for states and contains problematic exemptions that will artificially reduce reporting while leaving communities exposed to unsafe air. And Republicans like these provisions so much they're duplicated in the other bills that we're considering today.
▶ 0:26:19So next is HR4214 which gives new sources of pollution amnesty from new air quality standards allowing new industrial facilities to emit more pollution with reckless abandon. This would raise the cost of cleaning up pollution and worsen air quality overall. Committee Republicans are also targeting the new source review program.
▶ 0:26:40HR 161 would allow polluters to cook the books on how they measure cancer-causing emissions and allow more pollution in communities already impacted by poor air quality. On top of that, we have HR 6398, which removes EPA's ability to review the public health and environmental impacts of major projects.
▶ 0:27:01And finally, there's HR 6373, which gives the president the ability to wave Clean Air Act permit requirements while simultaneously creating a payto-pollute scheme that lets large industrial sources of pollution off the hook for the harm they cause by simply paying their way into compliance. Now, instead of addressing deadly air pollution or offering solutions to the affordability crisis that the Trump administration is causing, they're pushing policies to help out their billionaire buddies.
▶ 0:27:30Republicans are already forcing Americans to foot the bill for skyrocketing health care costs and now they want to make people even sicker as they struggle to afford care. So I've opposed these ideas before. I opposed these bills today. I strongly urge my colleagues to do the same. Let me just say in the last minute, you know, one of the arguments I keep hearing from from the president is that uh you know, we don't have to worry about the Clean Air Act anymore because air pollution has fallen significantly.
▶ 0:27:59And I did mention that air pollution has fallen over 78% since 1970. But that doesn't mean you're supposed to reverse course. Just because things have improved doesn't mean we want to go back to the days when the air was dirty and there was smog in LA and everything else. And that's what really bothers me is this notion on the part of the president that somehow because things are significantly improved in terms of air quality that now is the time to weaken the protections and have dirty air. It makes no sense to me whatsoever.
▶ 0:28:29But that's what I hear from the president and that's what I hear from my Republican colleagues and it's just not acceptable. So with that, I yield back. Mr. Chairman,
▶ 0:28:38gentleman yields. The chair reminds members that pursuant to the committee rules, all members opening statements will be made part of the record. Are there further opening statements?
▶ 0:28:49Mr. Peters,
▶ 0:28:54chair recognizes gentleman from California, Mr. Peters, for an opening statement for three minutes.
▶ 0:28:59Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for for holding this hearing. I I do um recognize that the the environmental laws are [clears throat] some decades old and we should be open to modernizing them and realize that they're not given to us by Moses on tablets. They were given to to us by people who um back then were trying to solve the same kinds of problems we're we're trying to solve today.
▶ 0:29:21One of the reasons I'm so aggressive about trying to amend some of the process statutes is because we have the backs stop of these substantive um substantive environment laws that prevent the emission of pollutants into the environment without a permit and that's the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. So I I think we should be specifically very much more thoughtful and targeted when we deal with these bills. But I do want to express my sympathy with two of these efforts. One is Mr.
▶ 0:29:47Chairman, your effort, the air permitting improvements to protect national security act, how do we prevent how do we keep from penalizing facilities that are critical to our national security? I think that's a reasonable inquiry. I'd say two points on that. One is I'm not willing to leave this definition problem to the president of the United States, particularly this president, who's willing to use national security as a excuse to pull permits from existing wind facilities or to impose tariffs beyond I think what his power is under the constitution.
▶ 0:30:17If we want to deal with this issue, I would be happy to work on in in Congress to define what those national security exceptions are. Uh rather than leaving that that discretion to the president, I think you know with a different president from from our party, you know, you might be sympathetic to that that protection as well. Uh second, with respect to Mr. Evans Fire Act. I think um the it's the concept of many of us in the west.
▶ 0:30:43We can understand the idea that state should not be penalized for mitigating the risk of catastrophic My my issue here is that I think we already have a process for states to submit data to the EPA that they want excluded for consideration from [clears throat] um compliance of the national air ambient air quality standards. That includes wildfire mitigation and prescribed burns. uh rather than reinvent the wheel, I'd like to offer to work with Mr.
▶ 0:31:07Evans to figure out how to to improve that existing pro process to make sure that it's understandable for the states who will be responsible for navigating it. Um so, um I appreciate the the the issues being raised today. I think we have more work to do. Uh and I yield back by time.
▶ 0:31:24Gentleman yields. Are there further opening statements? Seeing none, the chair calls up HR6409 and asks the clerk to report a bill to amend the Clean Air Act to clarify standards for emissions emanating from outside of the United States and for other purposes.
▶ 0:31:50Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. The bill will be open for amendment at any point. So ordered. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? Mr. Fluger, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Fluger, is recognized.
▶ 0:32:04Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'm like to speak in favor of of my bill, HR6409, the Fences Act. Before I do, I just want to address one thing uh that that I continue to hear. Um that this is a a hearing on environmental issues and as we heard from the ranking member, there was um a lot of healthc care concerns and just want to make it clear that not a single Republican has ever voted on the Affordable Care Act, unaffordable care act. That that was done by Democrats.
▶ 0:32:35Uh and so rising cost um are a result of the policy that you passed. And if you're going to bring up healthcare in in this hearing, let's just set the record straight that you guys passed this and the rising costs are a result of your policy. So, back to the topic at hand. Um, across the country in the state, states are being unfairly penalized for emissions that they didn't create.
▶ 0:33:06Whether it's smoke drifting from Canadian wildfires or emissions carried over the border from Mexico, these foreign sources can push counties into non-attainment even when local communities and businesses are doing everything right. Congress has always recognized this reality and that's why the Clean Air Act allows states to adjust their plans when foreign emissions prevent them from meeting federal standards. But EPA guidance under the previous administration rewrote that understanding and narrowed the relief only to human-caused emissions from abroad.
▶ 0:33:35And that makes zero sense. The Fences Act, which is the Foreign Emissions Non-attainment Clarification for Economic Stability Act, restores the original intent of the law. It makes clear that all foreign emissions, natural or human cause, must be excluded when determining non-attainment or when reviewing new facility permits. And importantly, this bill lets states account for foreign emissions earlier in the regulatory process instead of forcing them to wait to the very end and risk costly delays or federal sanctions.
▶ 0:34:05This matters in every region of the country, but let me highlight the consequences back home in my district in the Perium Basin. We saw this play out recently when the Biden EPA floated a possible nonattainment designation that created real uncertainty. Even the hint of nonattainment sends a signal that permits could slow down, costs could rise, and long-term planning becomes harder for producers and communities alike at no fault of their own. That experience made it clear that these design designations are too consequential to get wrong.
▶ 0:34:32Local communities should not be burdened by regulatory consequences tied to emissions that come from foreign sources or unavo unavoidable natural events. The Fences Act levels the playing field, sets the table for fairness, and it's about giving states regulatory certainty. It's about keeping American industries competitive while still upholding environmental standards.
▶ 0:34:52And I'll remind everyone that the the decision from the Biden administration, the hint of non-attainment was based on uh sensors in New Mexico, not in Texas, but in New Mexico. Um I would urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back.
▶ 0:35:09Gentleman yields. Is there any further discussion on the bill?
▶ 0:35:13Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
▶ 0:35:17Is there any further discussion on the bill? Seeing none, the gentleman has an amendment to disc clerk will state the
▶ 0:35:27You have to spec
▶ 0:35:37Cler will um designate the amendment.
▶ 0:35:42Amendment to HR6409 offered by Mr. Ruiz. add at the end the following section three limitation.
▶ 0:35:51The minute is considered read without objection. The reading the minute is dispensed with and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment.
▶ 0:35:58Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh what this amendment does is straightforward. It prohibits implementation of the foreign emissions and non-attainment clarification for economic stability or the fences act if the provision in this bill will increase serious and life-threatening health problems for children, seniors, and other atrisisk communities. In other words, if this bill will make air pollution worse and increase the likelihood of death from those illnesses for a community, the bill cannot go into effect. Period.
▶ 0:36:28Uh the reason is simple. The Clean Air Act is a public health law meant to protect the health and safety of Americans. I think we can all agree with these goals, but this is not what this bill, the fences act, would do.
▶ 0:36:41This bill would allow areas to ignore air pollution and escape a non-attainment designation for a national ambient air quality standard or knacks by just blaming exceeded on sources outside of their borders or outside the country while residents continue to breathe unhealthy air and suffer the consequences. Americans don't want us to just point the finger and shrug our shoulders.
▶ 0:37:06They want us to take action to cut pollution, protect their health, so the air is healthy to breathe. The bill sponsors claim this is about fairness, protecting states from penalties for pollution caused by Canadian wildfires or dust from Mexico. But here's what they're not telling you. This bill makes it easier for areas to avoid accountability entirely with no incentive to clean up pollution and leaving communities to suffer. And let me tell you what this means for my district.
▶ 0:37:36Imperial County has been designated a non-attainment area for ozone in particular matter for over a decade. One in five children in Imperial County suffer from asthma, double the state rate due to high levels of air pollution already. The Coachella Valley is classified as extreme non-attainment for ozone with an attainment deadline that has been pushed all the way to 2032.
▶ 0:38:04Under the Clean Air Act, states aren't penalized if they've done their part, and foreign emissions keep them from meeting standards. The Fences Act strips that safeguard, allowing polluted areas to avoid cleanup and leaving residents with weaker protections. That's environmental malpractice. Yes, we understand that crossborder pollution exists. EPA has already recognized that Imperial County would have attained ozone standards but for emissions from Mexico.
▶ 0:38:35The Clean Air Act already has provisions to address this. So the bill is completely unnecessary and the existence of crossber pollution doesn't mean we give up trying to provide clean and healthy air for already overburdened communities. When a kid comes with an asthma attack to the emergency department, we're not debating where the stimuli for that asthma exacerbation came from, whether it was from our communities or from across the border.
▶ 0:39:04What we care about is that kid getting better, is saving the kid's life. That should be our focus. Here we are debating whether you know the pollution's coming from Mexico or coming from the United States or other places. You know we need to address that pollution coming from Mexico. But what we really need to focus on is the health of that child who already suffers from acute asthma exacerbations.
▶ 0:39:33And I've seen children who have died from asthma attacks. Do you think their parents are really going to be concerned after their child dies where that pollution came from? They want the air that they breathe in our local communities to be clean. And this bill will make that air dirtier. My amendment protects communities that are already overburdened, communities that have been asked again and again to bear the burden of pollution, illness, and higher health care costs.
▶ 0:40:04And let be clear, while we're here debating giveaways to polluters, congressional Republicans have still taken no action to extend the enhanced premium tax credits beyond the end of 2020. In fact, their big beautiful bill, also known as the big ugly law, increased premiums by stripping health care insurance away, cutting Medicaid by nearly a trillion, taking over $600 billion from rural hospitals that, by the way, treat this child that comes in with asthma exacerbation.
▶ 0:40:32And as a result, 2026 plan rates and premiums, tax credits levels are already being set based on the expiration of these subsidies. People in my community would have to pay 18,000 years $18,000 more a year. That's impossible for working people. And it would force families into devastating choices between putting food on their table, paying for their child's asthma medications, or their health insurance.
▶ 0:40:58We need to protect our uh uh clean our air and protect our health care for our children and our communities. Thank you and I yield back.
▶ 0:41:08Is there further discussion on the
▶ 0:41:12The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Fluger, is recognized for five minutes.
▶ 0:41:15Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, I'm uh in opposition to this uh amendment and and I'll remind this committee that um for for four years under the B administration, we brought Democrat witnesses into this committee room and talked about uh transborder pollution. And you would probably not expect a a Texan to rise in support of California, but that's what I'm going to paint the picture with right now.
▶ 0:41:42uh that even in places like San Diego uh that we are advocating for you
▶ 0:41:48uh that the pollution that is in Tijana across the southern border, you shouldn't be held accountable for that. Uh and that shouldn't be weaponized uh as as a way to stop projects from happening and being built in San Diego or in California. But that's exactly what happened under the Biden administration is that there was not a cleareyed factual scientific look at data. It was a very weaponized look.
▶ 0:42:16Uh whether it was in El Paso or San Diego or any other place, those were the data that the previous administration were using to stop uh projects. So I completely agree with my colleague that we want clean air and the Clean Air Act does that. Uh, and it was monumental legislation that was passed. But, but unfortunately, we just have to go off to facts. And those facts are that the previous administration weaponized, which is why I'm in opposition to this amendment.
▶ 0:42:44This bill is tailored so that communities are not unfair unfairly punished uh for air emissions that they don't have control over. Uh, and it doesn't change the underlying health protections in the Clean Air Act. In fact, it strengthens them and make sure that we focus on what we can control. And you know what? We need the administration to do what they should have done in the previous one, which was to deal with the the worst of the worst polluters, which are countries like China and Mexico and other countries that don't care.
▶ 0:43:12But punishing our own communities uh is not the answer to that. Um the last thing I'll say, so obviously I'm in opposition. I I urge [clears throat] my colleagues to to vote against this uh amendment. And uh a rhetorical question would be why didn't the uh the Democrats when they had control of the House, the Senate, and the White House from 21 to to the end of 22 extend as they tried to the enhanced premium tax credits. They failed it. For the record, they they they failed that that proposition.
▶ 0:43:40They wanted to make it um permanent and they couldn't even do it. They couldn't get the votes on their side of the aisle. So um with that, Mr. Chairman, I'll yield back.
▶ 0:43:51Gentleman yields. Is there further discussion on the amendment?
▶ 0:43:56The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Sodto, is recognized for 5 minutes.
▶ 0:44:00Thank you so much, Chairman. Utility bills are going up this year, 6 to 10%, in some states, even higher. Uh, in 2025, under Trump's watch, he promised to lower energy bills. He's done the exact opposite. And the reasons are simple. AI and data centers are spiking demand. And by the way, we need them uh to help with commerce, to help with our AI advancement.
▶ 0:44:27But at the same time, he canceled 7.5 billion dollars in renewable energy projects, 223 of them, mostly wind and solar. This is why your utility rates are going up, because we have demand spiking while he's pulling away projects that are either almost done or in the pipeline. What is not as big of a driver is the Clean Air Act right now.
▶ 0:44:52And the irony is a lot of these projects would help make sure the air was cleaner because they aren't using fossil fuels. And so we need to set the record straight straight about what's causing this rise in utility prices that's hurting the American people. And I yield back.
▶ 0:45:12Gentleman yields. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Gentleman from Texas, Mr. Prrenchaw is recognized for 5 minutes.
▶ 0:45:18Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. I just say a few things about the the bill and this amendment. This is a common sense bill. I I I don't think that Americans should be punished for uh foreign pollutants. And as Mr. Fluger pointed out, you know, we're talking about our state, Texas. We're talking about California. It's really difficult for me to see why this would be controversial at all. It's simply common sense.
▶ 0:45:47Uh we should be responsible for what we can control, not what we cannot control. Um as for the amendment itself, I mean, this is a this lacks common sense. How on earth are they supposed to make this kind of uh assertion, any scientific board that there's not going to be any more asthma attacks? How how do you even make that correlation? I might might uh educate everyone with some statistics.
▶ 0:46:12Turns out that since between 2000 and 2021, uh, cases of asthma have remained flat. Did everyone know that they remained flat despite a huge increase in GDP and productivity and and population growth remained flat. Uh, the data gets even better. Hospitalizations from asthma dropped by 75%.
▶ 0:46:41ER visits from asthma dropped by half during that same period. So what crisis are we trying to solve? And when you when you did what the Abid administration did and and and and lower the the PM 2.5 rate from from 12 to around nine, which is very close to background levels, you're making it impossible for your constituents to even build anything new.
▶ 0:47:08And by the way, meet those energy demands that we just talked about, which are you're exactly right. We we do have much higher energy demands than we ever thought possible because of things like data centers. So, look, this this amendment is is designed to be a poison pill to a very common sense piece of legislation that we shouldn't have to take into account China's air pollution, Canadian wildfires, Mexican pollution, uh, when we're looking at attainment zones to to build the things
▶ 0:47:38we need to build so that our citizens can prosper. I I really I really hope that we could come together on something like this. and I yield back.
▶ 0:47:48Gentleman yields. Is there further discussion on the amendment?
▶ 0:47:54Seeing none, the clerk Oh, M the gentleman rec the chair recognized gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for five minutes.
▶ 0:48:03Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I hadn't planned to speak on this bill, but somehow we got into utility rates, and it just drives me crazy that somehow the policies that that President Obama and President Biden brought into play uh are Republicans fault. President Obama said that if we passed his plans and it was a cap and trade plan, but it was but we've done similar things with the Green New Deal that your electric rates would necessarily skyrocket.
▶ 0:48:33When you take existing coal and natural gas plants and you shut them down or limit them as a result of and the policies may be fine. People may like those policies, but when you do that, which is what the Democrats have advocated doing in numerous administrations and when they were in control, you're going to make electric prices go up.
▶ 0:48:57Everything they have done, even if you can point to what this administration has done in the last few months as being a a minor increase, everything on energy policy that our colleagues on the other side of aisle have done have caused the American consumer's prices to go up. For example, in 2012, we opened up a new facility in my district. Mr. Chairman, was the cleanest coal fired burning in the world at the time it opened up.
▶ 0:49:26It has a 50 to 70year life expectancy. Let's go with 50. That makes it 2062. A Democratic legislature in Virginia wants to limit and has limited the life expectancy on that. I think it's to like 2040 now, maybe 2035. And what happens is in order to make up for that power that they're not going to have in the future that they counted on, the company has to build additional facilities generally looking at based on policies in the Biden administration wind and solar.
▶ 0:49:57Now they don't wind and solar don't really provide base load power. You can look at it and say that's great. You can do batteries, but when they build the wind and solar, when they build a battery unit to back it up, when they do all of that, the rateayer has to pay for And the already built plant, which could produce electricity because there's no additional cost in building it, could produce electricity at a lower rate, that already existing facility, still has to be paid for, even though legislators in the Commonwealth
▶ 0:50:28of Virginia have chosen to say, "We're going to limit it." And that's happening across the country and it's happening here in Congress. When you choose to take those offline, somebody has to pay. And I can assure you, it's not the power companies. It's the rateayer, the consumer. It gets passed along. I'm sure it's the same in in many other states.
▶ 0:50:50In Virginia, the publicly controlled uh from a pricing standpoint um utility is entitled to a return on their investment. So, they're going to make a profit every year and it's the consumer that pays the price. And what we are paying for today are the mistakes of Democrat administrations and Democrat Congresses of the past. I yield
▶ 0:51:15Gentleman yields. Is there further discussion on the amendment? There's no further discussion. Oh, didn't see you. You got a respond.
▶ 0:51:26Recognizes gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez, for five minutes.
▶ 0:51:30Thank you, Chairman. It wouldn't be a committee hearing if we didn't have the opportunity to engage with each other. You know, listen, every every committee here, you're talking about prior administrations, right? You have a lot to criticize the Biden administration. Now, we're talking about the Obama administrations. And it's just fascinating that there's nothing that the Trump administration does that you feel the need to criticize or push back on. Right? He says that he'd give himself an A++++++ on the economy. Right? He says affordability is a con job. Right?
▶ 0:51:59He he has all these tariffs and his a way to address the affordability challenge is to unwind the tariffs that his administration put into place. And now when we talk with our constituents, we know the affordability crisis is real, right? And I believe that you have solutions that you believe would be good for your constituents. And we believe we have solutions, but we know the affordability crisis is real. And the president is saying that he would give himself an A++++++. Do you agree with that? Do you think that's how this economy is performing?
▶ 0:52:29There's no room for an improvement because that's what an A+ grade would be. And I think there's a ton of room for improvement, right? Whether it's on energy, whether it's [clears throat] on healthcare, but there's a ton of room for improvement because people are suffering out there. And I can't believe that you wouldn't say he's doing all right, but there's still room for improvement. So maybe it's not an A+++, right? So if we're going to talk about administrations, I would like to hear Republicans talk about things that they disagree with with the Trump administration. Things that the Trump administration could do better.
▶ 0:52:57And I'm happy to yield any of my time. Um because I think it's important that Republicans use their voices to push back on this administration.
▶ 0:53:06I would ask the gentleman to yield, Mr.
▶ 0:53:07I yield. Yeah, of course. I said I would. I'm happy to. has to go through the chairman.
▶ 0:53:11You my time.
▶ 0:53:13Gentleman yields to the gentleman from Virginia. He's recognized.
▶ 0:53:17Thank you very much. So, there are things that I have disagreed with the president on over time. But I would say that the president got this statement right. Democrats broke it. We're trying to fix it. And that's what these bills today are about. That's what some of the other bills that we've dealt with are about. And I would remind the gentleman that he has not yet been in office a full year. And it takes a while to turn the ship of state around. It's not going to get done in 11 months.
▶ 0:53:44So I ask the American people to be patient with us and to realize that we are trying to fix the problems that are out there, but we run into opposition every single time with a two vote majority in the House and our choices are to keep pushing forward, keep taking the incoming fire. We will do that. Is the president perfect? No. I would say to the gentleman, he is not perfect. Would I say to the gentleman that there are always things that a legislative body and an administration can do better? Of course there are.
▶ 0:54:13But I would also say to the gentleman that we are trying to resolve the problems and and the problems that the American people elected President Trump and us to try to solve and to obiscate by saying that, you know, well, we've now had this administration. You can't point back. Look, energy policy takes years before you see an impact. Years. And we are now paying the price for the energy policies of the past.
▶ 0:54:37See, I'll reclaim my time here.
▶ 0:54:38Gentleman reclaims his time. I respect
▶ 0:54:40because and I appreciate I I let you go and I wanted to make and be a good faith effort, right? But, you know, on when you start a new administration with trying to undo certain things, right? And you guys won. You were in the majority. You have the right to take things in a different course. But, you know, on a project like Revolution Wind off the coast of Rhode Island, almost 90% done, and you have the president pull the permit on it, right? That's not productive for creating more energy production. You know, you talk about, you know, a year into this administration.
▶ 0:55:08Well, four years of President Biden, as I mentioned in one of our last hearing has resulted from the Infrastructure Investment Jobs Act, a project in every single congressional district. And that clearly means that all the Republicans that didn't vote for the Infrastructure Investment Jobs Act have a project in their district funded by a bill signed into law by President Biden. I think that's a good thing.
▶ 0:55:31I think uh we've had conversations about how South Carolina is seeing this economic boom because of the infrastructure investment jobs act, the inflation reduction act, and the chips and science act. So that's a great thing to see across the country. But that was President Biden. And I do see Republicans going to a lot of ribbon cutting for federal money and federal projects that were delivered by the Biden administration. So I think there's an immense amount that they've done, right?
▶ 0:55:59Um, and I'm glad you don't think the president's doing a perfect job. I think that's an important thing to say because there's an immense amount of work that we have to do. I look forward to you continuing to challenge the administration when you know that they're doing wrong by our constituents. That I'll
▶ 0:56:13The gentleman yield.
▶ 0:56:15Very quick question. I know. I know.
▶ 0:56:1715 seconds. Sure.
▶ 0:56:17Mr. Chairman.
▶ 0:56:20The gentleman is recognized. Well, of those examples that you named earlier about PL about projects that were started and then ended by the would Keystone XL pipeline be an example of
▶ 0:56:30In what way? That was the Obama administration issue the national permit for the project.
▶ 0:56:39Okay. So, so you're saying that that justifies what happened with Revolution
▶ 0:56:44No, no. I'm just asking is that the type of example that you're referring to? They're referring to projects that were funded by legislation signed into law by President Biden. I don't believe Keystone pipeline fits within that universe of things I'm talking about. We're talking about three major bills that were signed into law by President Biden which are bringing federal dollars to all of your districts. Right. That's what I'm talking about. So that I don't think he still pipelines within that
▶ 0:57:10I yel back.
▶ 0:57:12Gentleman yields. Um, is there any other member wishing to speak on the
▶ 0:57:22If there's no further discussion, the vote occurs on the amendment. All those in favor shall signify by saying I. All those opposed, nay.
▶ 0:57:34Gentleman request a recorded vote. The clerk will call the role.
▶ 0:57:41Mr. Krenshaw. This is not
▶ 0:57:47Mr. Lada.
▶ 0:57:48Mr. Lada votes no.
▶ 0:57:51Mr. Griffith Mr. Griffith votes no. Mr. Carter of Georgia.
▶ 0:57:58Mr. Carter of Georgia votes no. Mr. Joyce
▶ 0:58:04Mr. Joyce votes no. Mr. Weber.
▶ 0:58:09Mr. Weber votes no. Mr. Mr. Fluger.
▶ 0:58:13Mr. Fluger votes no. Mrs. Miller Meeks Mrs. Miller Meeks votes no.
▶ 0:58:21Miss Lee.
▶ 0:58:23Miss Lee votes no. Mr. Langworthy,
▶ 0:58:27Mr. Langworthy votes no. Mr. Evans.
▶ 0:58:32Mr. Evans votes no. Mrs. Fedorch.
▶ 0:58:36Mrs. Fedorch votes no. Mr. Guthrie,
▶ 0:58:41Mr. Mr. Guthrie votes no. Mr. Tonko,
▶ 0:58:45Mr. Tonko votes I.
▶ 0:58:48Mr. Shakowski,
▶ 0:58:51Mr. Shakowski votes I. Mr. Ruiz.
▶ 0:58:55Mr. Ruiz votes I. Mr. Peters. Mr. Peters votes I. Miss Baragon. Miss Baragon votes I. Mr. Sodto I.
▶ 0:59:14Mr. Sodto votes I. Mr. Aenclaus.
▶ 0:59:18Mr. Aenclaus votes I. Mr. Carter of
▶ 0:59:23Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes I. Mr.
▶ 0:59:28Mr. Mendez votes I. Mr. Lansman.
▶ 0:59:33Mr. Lansman votes I. Mr. Palone
▶ 0:59:37Mr. Palone votes I. Chairman Palmer.
▶ 0:59:43Chairman Palmer votes no.
▶ 0:59:50Are there any other members who wish to Chairman Palmer, on that vote, there are 11 eyes and 13 nos.
▶ 1:00:22The amendment is not agreed to. Are there further amendments? The question now occurs on adopting HR6409 as all those in favor say I. Those opposed, no.
▶ 1:00:38The eyes have it. The bill is adopted and forward to the full committee.
▶ 1:00:43A roll call vote has been requested. The clerk will call the role.
▶ 1:00:48Mr. Krenshaw.
▶ 1:00:53Mr. Lada.
▶ 1:00:54Mr. La votes I. Mr. Griffith.
▶ 1:00:58Mr. Griffith votes I. Mr. Carter of Georgia I.
▶ 1:01:04Mr. Carter of Georgia votes I. Mr. Joyce Mr. Joyce votes I. Mr. Weber. Mr. Weber votes I. Mr. Fluger. Mr. Fluger votes I. Mrs. Miller Meeks. Mrs. Miller Meeks votes I. Miss Lee Miss Lee votes I. Mr. Langworthy.
▶ 1:01:35Mr. Evans. Mr. Evans votes I. Mrs. Mrs. Fedorch votes I. Mr. Guthrie.
▶ 1:01:50Mr. Guthrie votes I. Mr. Tonko.
▶ 1:01:55Mr. Tonko votes no. Miss Shakowski.
▶ 1:01:59M. Shakowski votes no. Mr. Ruiz.
▶ 1:02:03Mr. Ruiz votes no. Mr. Peters. Mr. Peters votes no. Miss Mr. Bergagon votes no. Mr. Sodto. Mr. Sodto votes no. Mr. Aenclaus. Mr. Aenclaus votes no. Mr. Carter of Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes no. Mr. Mendez Mr. Menendez votes no. Mr. Lansman.
▶ 1:02:33[clears throat] Mr. Lansman votes no. Mr. Palone
▶ 1:02:38Mr. Palone votes no. Chairman Palmer
▶ 1:02:42Chairman Palmer votes I.
▶ 1:02:44Are there other members that wish to be
▶ 1:02:49Mr. Langworthy. How's Mr. Langworthy
▶ 1:02:51Mr. Mr. Langworthy is not recorded. I
▶ 1:02:54Mr. Langworthy votes I.
▶ 1:02:56How's Mr. Krenshaw recorded?
▶ 1:02:58Mr. Krenshaw is not recorded.
▶ 1:03:00Mr. Krenshaw votes I.
▶ 1:03:05Clerk will report.
▶ 1:03:11Chairman Palmer on that vote there are 14 eyes and 11 nos.
▶ 1:03:16the eyes have it. The bill is adopted and forwarded to the full committee. Chair now calls up HR 4218 and asks the clerk to report.
▶ 1:03:27HR 4218, a bill to amend the Clean Air Act to facilitate state implementation of national ambient air quality standards and for other purposes.
▶ 1:03:38Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. The bill will be open for amendment at any point. So ordered. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? Uh the chair recognizes gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Carter.
▶ 1:03:51Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, EPA reviews national ambient air quality standards on five-year intervals. After establishing the national ambient air quality standards, states assume their the respons the primary responsibility for implementing and enforcing them. This is an extremely timeconsuming process, one that takes years and years. My bill, the Clear Act, would give states the time needed to implement standards without rushing the process.
▶ 1:04:19This bill also allows states the opportunity to correct deficiencies found by EPA and state implementation plans for the national air ambient quality standards before EPA can issue a federal implementation plan. The Clear Act offers common sense solutions to make attaining clear act clear clean air standards realistic while giving states the time needed to comply. In terms of exceptional events, the Clear Act provides much needed clarification.
▶ 1:04:49Under my bill, natural disasters, wildfires, and actions to prevent wildfires that produce emissions are excluded from regulatory penalties as they should be. This is not about choosing between the environment and development. This is about common sense. We should not penalize states that are impacted by events out of their control and they should not be penalized for taking action to prevent exceptional events. Georgia is a top state for business in America. It has been for 12 years.
▶ 1:05:18Even with our growth, Georgia's air has never been cleaner since monitoring began years ago. As our witnesses stated in the legislative hearing we had on that bill, if we give our state officials the time they truly need to implement regulations while also ensuring that they are not punished for background levels from natural sources, we can have lasting meaningful policy and economic growth. I urge my colleagues to support the Clear Act and I yield back.
▶ 1:05:48gentleman yields. There any other members who wish to speak on the bill? Seeing none, are there any amendments? Chair recognized gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Palone, for five minutes.
▶ 1:06:06Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment is
▶ 1:06:12Thank you.
▶ 1:06:16Amendment to HR4218 offered by Mr. Palone. Page two, beginning on line four, strike subsection B and make conforming make such conforming changes as may be
▶ 1:06:32Without objection, the first reading of the of the reading of the amendment uh is dispensed. Gentleman is
▶ 1:06:40Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment is straightforward and it fixes one of the most egregious provisions in the bill, the consideration of quote likely attainability in the next setting process. Now, let's not pretend that we're tinkering around the margins or applying common sense here. This is a radical provision that would allow polluters to override scientists.
▶ 1:07:01The bill would make so-called likely attainability a factor in the scientific decision about how much pollution is safe for a child to breathe, thereby requiring EPA to set air quality standards based on corporate profits rather than public health. I think it's outrageous to even consider this provision that will make Americans sicker, especially at a time when families across the nation are facing skyrocketing health care costs.
▶ 1:07:26Requiring EPA to consider attainability or the potential costs of attaining an air quality standard is a dangerous precedent that ignores the purpose of the Clean Air Act. Since 1970, the law's science-based health protective standards keep our eye on the prize, healthy air for everyone. Cooperative federalism allows EPA to set the clean air goals and states to decide how best to achieve them.
▶ 1:07:52Furthermore, this provision would overturn a unanimous Supreme Court decision written by Justice Scalia that bars cost considerations from the Knack setting process. This is not to say that attainability and costs aren't considered at any point. The scientific determination of what is safe to breathe doesn't depend on the technology or cost of cleaning up pollution. But these considerations come into play in a second step of the process when states decide the most effective way to meet their air quality goals.
▶ 1:08:21But section 2B turns this extremely effective approach upside down. The considerations set up by this section are equivalent to a doctor basing a patients diagnosis on the cost of treatment and likeliness of a cure. It's unconscionable and puts the health of all Americans at unnecessary risk. So my amendment ensures that the Clean Air Act continues to prioritize the health and safety of families and children by rejecting this dangerous change.
▶ 1:08:47And I urge my colleagues to stand with the American people and vote in favor of this amendment. And I yield back. Uh, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 1:08:55Gentleman yields. Is there discussion of the amendment? The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Carter, is recognized for five minutes.
▶ 1:09:01Mr. Chairman, I seek to be recognized to speak in opposition to this amendment.
▶ 1:09:05Gentleman's recognized.
▶ 1:09:06Mr. Chairman, this amendment would retain the status quo. The Clean Air Act currently requires the EPA administrator to establish the knacks at a level that is protective of public health with an adequate margin of safety and provides a role for the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee to evaluate the science. Section 2B of this bill does not change to Clear the Clean Air Act's requirements that standards be protective of public of public health.
▶ 1:09:32The text simply clarifies that the EPA administrator has the discretion in certain situations to consider technological feasibility when choosing among a range of levels identified and supported by the science advisory committee as protective of public health. I urge a no vote on this amendment and I yield back. Gentleman yields. Is there further discussion of the amendment? Gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Menz is recognized for 5 minutes.
▶ 1:10:02Thank you, Chairman. Since 1970, the Clean Air Act has had several key features that have helped make it one of our country's most successful environmental laws and public health protections. One of those features is the law's science-based health protective standards that reflect its core mission, healthy air for everyone. And cooperative federalism allows the EPA to set the Clean Air goals and states to decide how best to achieve them.
▶ 1:10:27The Clean Air Act uses regulatory standards like the National Ambient Air Quality Standards or Knacks to drive innovation and pollution controls often called quote techn technology forcing standards. The reality is it usually costs less to dump pollution rather than to prevent it. So businesses generally don't control pollution in the absence of regulatory requirements. Once an air pollution standard is in place, industry gets to work to meet it. We've seen this time and time again.
▶ 1:10:54And along the way, we develop more effective and less expensive pollution control technologies that then become the industry standard, which in addition to benefiting public health, is good for business. Not only is our air cleaner, but we also export tens of billions of dollars of pollution control equipment all over the world. We have seen that happen over and over again. But section 2B ignores this fact and rejects an approach that has been successful for over 50 years.
▶ 1:11:21The provision attempts to insert consideration of costs into the knack setting process, saying a higher, less protective standard that will endanger public health, including the health of vulnerable populations like children, the elderly, low-income communities, and communities of color. Ultimately, this provision would mean the EPA must weigh cost of polluting to polluting industries against the well-being of our communities. And that is entirely unacceptable.
▶ 1:11:46As we've repeated time and time again in this committee, over a 100 million Americans live in counties with unhealthy levels of air pollution. And air pollution is responsible for over a 100,000 premature deaths in America every year. So, it is a mystery to me why our Republican colleagues attempt to turn the knack process into a reflection of how much public health protection polluters can afford instead of what is safe for our children, friends, and neighbors to breathe.
▶ 1:12:14Every aspect of life is impacted by the quality of our air. That is why it is important that we protect the EPA's ability to set air quality standards that excuse me to set air quality standards are guided solely by public health. Overall, this section is a radical rewrite of the health-based air quality standards that are the foundation of the Clean Air Act. It ignores decades of experience in cleaning up air pollution. It's an extreme and reckless approach.
▶ 1:12:42So I urge adoption of the amendment to protect our families and to ensure these critical standards are based on science and health alone. And with that I yield
▶ 1:12:50Gentleman yields. Is there further discussion of the amendment?
▶ 1:12:56I ask for a roll call. Mr.
▶ 1:12:59Seeing none, all those
▶ 1:13:06the gentleman has requested a recorded vote. The clerk will call the role. Mr. Krenshaw. Mr. Krenshaw votes no. Mr. Lada. Mr. Griffith. Mr. Griffith votes no.
▶ 1:13:36Mr. Carter of Georgia.
▶ 1:13:39Mr. Mr. Carter of Georgia votes no. Mr. Joyce Mr. Joyce votes no. [snorts] Mr. Weber. Mr. Fluger. Mrs. Miller Meeks. Mrs. Miller Meeks votes no. Miss Lee. Miss Lee votes no.
▶ 1:14:12Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Evans. Mr. Evans votes no. Mrs. Fedorak. Mrs. Fedorch votes no. Mr. Guthrie. Mr. Guthrie votes no. Mr. Tonko.
▶ 1:14:39Yes. I
▶ 1:14:40Mr. Tonko votes I. Mr. Shakowski. Mr. Ruiz. Mr. Ruiz votes I. Mr. Peters. Mr. Peters votes I. Miss Bagon. Miss Bagon votes I. Mr. Sodto. Mr. Sodto votes I. Mr. Oenclaus. Mr.
▶ 1:15:10Aenclaus votes I. Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes I. Mr. Mendez. Mr. Mendez votes I. Mr. Lansman. Mr. Lansman votes I. Mr. Palone Mr. Palone votes I.
▶ 1:15:42Chairman Palmer Chairman Palmer votes no.
▶ 1:15:46Are there other members who wish to be
▶ 1:15:50Mr. Lad is not recorded.
▶ 1:15:52Votes no.
▶ 1:15:53Mr. Lada votes no.
▶ 1:15:55House Mr. Fluger recorded.
▶ 1:15:56Mr. Fluger is not recorded. Mr. Fluger votes no.
▶ 1:15:59House Mr. Lang uh Langworthy recorded.
▶ 1:16:02Mr. Langworthy is not recorded.
▶ 1:16:05Mr. Langworthy votes no.
▶ 1:16:06How's Miss Shakowski reported?
▶ 1:16:08Miss Shakowski is not recorded.
▶ 1:16:10I miss Shakowski votes I.
▶ 1:16:16The clerk will report the result. Chairman Palmer, on that vote, there were 11 eyes and 13 nos. The amendment is not agreed to. Are there further amendments?
▶ 1:16:36I have an amendment.
▶ 1:16:39Yes, Mr. Chair.
▶ 1:16:41You specify the amendment.
▶ 1:16:45It is labeled HR4218_4.
▶ 1:16:52The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to speak on.
▶ 1:16:55The clerk will report the amendment. Amendment to HR 4218 offered by Mr. Tonko page 12 beginning on line five strike paragraphs one
▶ 1:17:07without objection the reading amendment is dispenseed with and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes support of the amendment.
▶ 1:17:13Thank you Mr. Chair. It is absolutely critical that our environmental regulations are informed by the latest and best available science. That is why EPA is legally required to maintain a scientific advisory committee to invol in inform the next standard setting process.
▶ 1:17:31We've debated provisions included in the clear act numerous times in the past including section 4 which would change the composition of EPA's clear air scientific advisory committee or case. The KAC is required by law to consist of seven members, at least one of which is required to be a physician, one a nationalmy's member and one a state representative.
▶ 1:17:57The bill before us would change states representation from 17th to 37ths of the committee's makeup. In the past, I have been very clear that I am not opposed to having greater state representation on the case act, provided that the committee continues to have the technical and scientific expertise necessary to properly advise the administrator. States are important partners in understanding public health risks posed by air pollution, but they are far from the only voice that should be part of this process.
▶ 1:18:28My amendment seeks to recognize the potential for a greater role for states while maintaining the balance of of the case composition. It would maintain the proposed increase in state seats from 1 to three while also increasing the total number of committee members from 7 to 13 and requiring that along with the three state representatives there are also three physicians and three nationalmies members.
▶ 1:18:54This would clearly allow more states the opportunity to participate in this aspect of Knack process without risking erosion of the committee's technical expertise. So if members would like to have more states represented in this process, this amendment does that while also allowing more public health experts and doctors to be able to advise the agency. I encourage you to support this amendment. With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
▶ 1:19:20Gentleman yields. Is there further discussion on the amendment?
▶ 1:19:25gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Carter is
▶ 1:19:27Mr. Chairman, this amendment would undermine the purpose of the bill and dilute the role that state air regulators should play. Section four of this bill would require the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee, which helps advise the EPA administrator on technical issues impacting the NAS, to include additional expertise from state regulatory agencies. In both hearings before this committee, we heard about the impacts that resulted from an unbalanced K-ACC board.
▶ 1:19:56It is essential to have members of KAC who understand how scientific B data is applied and what it would look like in practice. State air pollution control agencies are uniquely wellqualified in this area as they're responsible for applying the standards.
▶ 1:20:12KAC members have ex have experience in the underlying science but they do not have significant experience in how that science is translated in knacks are how monitoring data is modeled to determine if an area meets or violates the standards they set. This is a significant knowledge gap. State air regulatory agencies possess specialized expertise, the practical knowledge and skills needed for environmental management.
▶ 1:20:40I urge my colleagues to to oppose this amendment and I yield back.
▶ 1:20:46Gentlemen yields. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Lansman's recognized.
▶ 1:20:51Uh thank you. I uh just want to speak in support of my colleagues amendment and and I do hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle will consider supporting this. This is a really simple sort of approach which is to say look if if if you're going to change the the group that oversees or provides advice on critically important uh clean air, clean
▶ 1:21:21water legislation, policy scientists, include doctors, include physicians. uh this committee benefits from the fact that it has multiple physicians on both sides of the aisle. Uh and what Mr.
▶ 1:21:39Tonko is saying is, you know, 100% include, you know, have uh these state folks uh lead this effort, but just expand the committee from seven seven people to 13 so that you can have physicians, you can have experts in the field so that we're getting the best possible policy for the people we serve. And that seems to make all the sense in the world. I can understand if Mr.
▶ 1:22:09Tonko said look uh you know I want to amend this uh to just in a way that ensures there's physicians and it undermines or dilutes the number of uh of state uh leaders at the table. But he didn't do that. He decided that look he wants to make sure that this is a science-based process that we get all the data that we can possibly get.
▶ 1:22:32we're leveraging all the experts we can leverage and uh so it made sense just change it from seven people to 13 people so that you can have both you can have uh the state leadership that you all are pushing for and the scientific and medical expertise to review and comment on the data which I suspect if you filled this room uh with a cross-section of Americans and you said hey what if we added
▶ 1:23:02a few seats to make sure that we can balance both. We have the state folks at the table and uh we have experts including physicians and scientists. They would say yeah that makes sense. So with that I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
▶ 1:23:17Gentlemen yields. Is there further discussion on the amendment?
▶ 1:23:23There's no further discussion. The vote occurs on the amendment. All those in favor shall signify by saying
▶ 1:23:28roll calls. Mr. Chair. Gentlemen, request a recorded vote. Uh, the clerk will call the role.
▶ 1:23:39Mr. Krenshaw,
▶ 1:23:41Mr. Krenshaw votes no.
▶ 1:23:44Mr. Lada,
▶ 1:23:47Mr. La votes no. Mr. Griffith Mr. Griffith votes no.
▶ 1:23:54Mr. Carter of Georgia.
▶ 1:23:57Mr. Carter of Georgia votes no. Mr. Joyce,
▶ 1:24:03Mr. Joyce votes no.
▶ 1:24:06Mr. Weber.
▶ 1:24:11Mr. Fluger. Mr. Fluger votes no. Mrs. Miller Meeks. Mrs. Miller Meeks votes no. Miss Lee. Miss Lee votes no. Mr. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Langworthy votes no. Mr. Evans Mr. Evans votes no. Mrs. Fedorch.
▶ 1:24:40Mrs. Fedorch votes no. Mr. Guthrie. Mr. Tonko.
▶ 1:24:49Mr. Tonko votes I. Miss Shakowski.
▶ 1:24:55M. Shakowski votes I. Mr. Ruiz Mr. Ruiz votes I. Mr. Peters. Mr. Peters votes I. Miss Bedagon. Miss Bedagon votes I. Mr. Sodto. Mr. Sodto votes I. Mr. Aenclaus. Mr. Aenclaus votes I. Mr.
▶ 1:25:24Carter of Mr. Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes I. Mr. Mendez. Mr. Menendez votes I. Mr. Lansman. Mr. Lansman votes I. Mr. Mr. Palone votes I. Chairman Palmer. Chairman Palmer votes no.
▶ 1:25:51Are there other members that wish to be recorded? How's uh Chairman Guthrie
▶ 1:25:57Chairman Guthrie is not recorded. Chairman Guthrie votes no.
▶ 1:26:03Clerk will report the result.
▶ 1:26:12Chairman Palmer, on that vote, there were 11 eyes and 13 nos.
▶ 1:26:17The amendment is not agreed to. Are there further amendments? Gentle lady from California.
▶ 1:26:24Mr. Chair,
▶ 1:26:26to state chair, I have an amendment at the desk. It's HR4218_09.
▶ 1:26:34The clerk will report the amendment.
▶ 1:26:37Amendment to HR4218 offered by Miss Baragon. Add at the end the following.
▶ 1:26:43Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentle lady is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment.
▶ 1:26:49Thank you, Mr. Chair. My amendment prevents the Clear Act from taking effect unless the EPA finds that this bill will not increase harmful health outcomes for our communities such as asthma attacks, emergency room visits due to respiratory disease, or babies born with low birth weight. This is critical because the Republican legislation before us guts the Clean Air Act and the cost of turning back the clock on clean air is far too high for public health and for the affordability of healthcare.
▶ 1:27:20across the country. Air pollution is a well doumented trier for asthma, respiratory illness, cardiovascular disease, birth complications, and premature death. A weaker Clean Air Act threatens to make America sicker. For communities already burdened by pollution, often low-income communities and communities of color, the consequences are severe.
▶ 1:27:44More pollution means more asthma attacks, more emergency room visits, worsened chronic illnesses, and more premature deaths. We see this clearly in the story of Caitlyn Joshua and her twin sister, who have suffered from chronic asthma since childhood.
▶ 1:28:06They grew up in Louisiana's cancer alley, surrounded by prochemical facilities, refineries, and the pollution that comes from those plants. Kayn's doctor prescribes multiple medications and breathing treatments to manage her asthma. Yet, she still spends significant time and money in urgent care. and her and Caitlyn really shouldn't have to go through this.
▶ 1:28:33Caitlyn's a physician told her directly, "It's where you live. It's the air quality. You're going to have to move out of there." Now, imagine being told that your only health care solution is to leave your home. That is the human cost of weaker clean air enforcement. This story is not isolated. In California's Sanw King Valley, families are experiencing a similar crisis.
▶ 1:28:58Recent reporting found that because of air pollution driven asthma, residents are buying inhalers on the street for $70 a piece from other people because they cannot afford them at pharmacies. This is the cost of pollution on our health care system. Democrats have spent this year focused on lowering health care costs. Affordable coverage is critical, which is why we have fought to extend healthcare tax credits and have opposed Republicans massive cuts to Medicaid.
▶ 1:29:28When pollution makes people sick, it makes healthc care more expensive. Every unplanned hospital admission, every emergency asthma treatment, every chronic lung disease diagnosis translates directly into higher cost. Sicker communities mean higher premiums, miss school and work, and unaffordable medical bills. The Republican bill to weaken clean air protections is not simply a debate about industrial permitting.
▶ 1:29:58It's a decision about who Do large corporations and polluting industries pay for cleaner technology or do low-income communities, workers, seniors, and children continue to pay with their health and their lives? That is what this vote is about. Republicans have already cut health care. Now they propose to cut the clean air protections that keep people healthy in the first place. Instead, we can and should pursue economic growth while protecting public health.
▶ 1:30:27The Clean Air Act is not a burden. It's a foundation for healthier lives, fewer emergency room visits, and lower health care costs. I strongly urge this committee to support my amendment and preserve the clean air protections our constituents depend on. I yield
▶ 1:30:43Is there discussion of the amendment?
▶ 1:30:46Gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Carter, is
▶ 1:30:49Mr. Chairman, we can protect public health and the environment while facilitating economic growth, but we need permitting reform to stay competitive in the global economy. As many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have recognized, meaningful permitting reform cannot occur without modernizing the Clean Air Act. The consequences of our committee and Congress's inaction are on the horizon and they are significant.
▶ 1:31:14Continued permitting gridlock, prevention of failure to build new bridges, roads, and other infrastructure projects, American businesses forced to abandon or shutter their facilities. In fact, according to a recent report by the National Association of Manufacturers, the current overburdensome regulations threaten nearly$200 billion dollars in economic activity and put one million 1 million jobs at risk.
▶ 1:31:40These are real impacts that threaten the future for the youngest members of our population. Those impacts are tangible for women, for children, and for all Americans. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and I yield back.
▶ 1:31:55Gentleman yields. Is there further discussion of the amendment?
▶ 1:31:59Mr. Carter from Louisiana is recognized.
▶ 1:32:08Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I support the general lady's amendment. This bill, the Clear Act, would weaken air quality setting standards, delay implementation of stronger health protective standards, and give polluters a free pass to contaminate our air. Republicans continue to pedal legislation with false narratives that we need to undermine the Clean Air Act in order to promote economic growth.
▶ 1:32:38This has been proven false time and time again. For more than 50 years, the Clean Act has been successful in reducing pollution by nearly 80% while the nation's GP GDP has almost quadrupled. This is incredible progress, but we cannot become complacent. Our air quality standards must reflect the latest scientific information.
▶ 1:33:04Unfortunately, this legislation would do just the opposite, undermining science in favor of industry profits. The Clear Act would force the EPA to set less protective standards and allow industry to continue polluting our air.
▶ 1:33:22Under the Republican's proposal, communities would be left to contend with adverse effects of air pollution, more asthma attacks, heart attacks, lung disease, birth defects, neurological damage, and premature death. Miss Baragan's amendment would ensure that EPA prioritizes community health, especially that of the most vulnerable and historically marginalized, like in my district in Louisiana. The American people deserve clean, safe air.
▶ 1:33:52I urge my colleagues to support this very basic, common sense, decent amendment, and I yield back.
▶ 1:34:00Gentleman yields. Is there further discussion of the amendment?
▶ 1:34:04The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Krenshaw, is recognized for five minutes.
▶ 1:34:08Mr. Chairman, move the last word. I just want to continue to address the what what I think is a manufactured crisis here about public health. And so I'm going to go back to the to the We didn't make these up. This is from the CDC. This is not Trump's CDC. This is just the CDC under Biden, under Obama, under same CDC. Same CDC statistics.
▶ 1:34:31So national surveillance shows current asthma prevalence went from 7.4% which is about 20 million people in 2001 to uh 7.7% about 25 million in 2021. You might look at that and say, "Ah, see it's increasing." But here's the thing. When you actually account for population growth, that's actually a decrease on a per capita basis. So, so where where is this crisis of air quality that we're we're talking about?
▶ 1:34:59Um, and then there's the actual outcomes of having asthma. Those attacks are way down. Over that same period, the share of people who had asthma um had at least one attack in the past year substantially fell for children and adults. So, with children, attack prevalence dropped from 62% to 39% in that 20-year period. Adults, it dropped from 54% to 40%.
▶ 1:35:22ER visits declined from per 10,000 people in 2001 to 29.8 per 10,000 people in 2020. I said before that was a 50% drop. I was wrong. It's more than a 50% drop. Slightly more. Hospitalization rates fell from 13 to out of 10,000 to 2.9 out of 10,000 over that same period. Again, in my earlier statements, I said that was a 75% drop. I was wrong.
▶ 1:35:50It's more like a 78% drop. Deaths have fallen 15 deaths per million in 2001 to 10.6 per million in 2021. Separate peer-reviewed study reports that age adjusted asthma mortality rates dropped from 2.46 to 1.33.
▶ 1:36:07I mean, the American Lung Association notes 2010 to to to 2022 that overall asthma prevalence has been flat, but the percentage of people with asthma who suffer an attack each year has fallen by about a quarter since I mean, we could keep going, but in the end, like we just have to be honest about this.
▶ 1:36:28We're we're scaring people into into this idea that they that they that they can't have manufacturing, that they can't have basic power needs because their their counties are in unattainment zones, and you're scaring them into believing that they're that they're going to die of asthma when all the statistics show the So, we have to have honest debates about this stuff.
▶ 1:36:53We're not we're not trying keep saying we're trying to get rid of the air the the the air quality act. That's just not true. Just there's no bills today about getting rid of the air quality act. We're trying to put some left left and right limits on it that are that are completely sensible. Again, we can have it both ways. We can protect the environment. We can continue to protect public health, which we all agree on. uh and we can also create a regulatory environment where we can actually build some stuff that we actually need for our own prosperity and we'll probably save more lives in the long run.
▶ 1:37:23I yield back.
▶ 1:37:25Gentleman yields. Is there further discussion on amendment? The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Lansman's recognized for five minutes.
▶ 1:37:30Yeah, I think it's really important to have uh a frank conversation about this and asthma and air quality in general. the the idea that flat is victory is so problematic for the families and the children that are struggling uh with upper respiratory issues, asthma, asthma is one of, if not the leading cause of uh of kids missing school and it is, you know, one of the leading causes of uh uh of
▶ 1:38:01serious serious health issu issues for children. And so if you only look at the if that's your perspective is I'm just going to look at a spreadsheet. Yes, the EPA works. The numbers are going down. Science works.
▶ 1:38:22The interventions that have led to a I I I I guess this sort of flattening of asthma rates in this country. those interventions have worked. You don't walk away from that. Nor do you ignore the fact that these children and it is children are going to the hospital with upper respiratory issues for a whole host of reasons.
▶ 1:38:50sewer backups, mold and and and and dilapitated buildings, uh, air quality, all of these things that the EPA and other agencies are working to address with local leaders. And if we get in their way or if we do anything other than support them, it is going to make matters worse.
▶ 1:39:15But I just as I'm sitting here listening to these stats being rattled off, uh the idea that flat is victory, I'm thinking about the number of children in the in in my district that go to the hospital all the time with serious upper respiratory issues caused by crap in their walls, by in crap in the
▶ 1:39:45all kinds of issues that if you strip away or undermine the power of the Environmental Protection Agency to help these children, it's only going to get worse. Flat is not victory. Nor are these children's statistics. This is a huge, huge issue for families, particularly in low-income communities. I yield back. Gentlemen yields. Is there further discussion on the amendment?
▶ 1:40:14Gentleman from Ohio's recognized five
▶ 1:40:17Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield uh my time to the gentleman, the vice chairman of the subcommittee.
▶ 1:40:25Appreciate that and and appreciate the discussion on on this important subject on asthma. We're not saying flat is victory and I just laid out a bunch of stats. It's really not flat. I mean, when it comes to asthma, when it comes to the important outcomes here, hospitalizations, ER visits, not only is it not flat, it's it's dramatically decreased despite a pretty substantial increase in population and manufacturing and power production and all of these things.
▶ 1:40:54So, no, we are not making the argument that it's flat. And I and I got to say just that there has to be some limiting principle to how we regulate whatever whatever it is we're talking about. There has to be some limiting principle. Just because one regulation is good doesn't mean 10 more are better. Eventually you start to have tradeoffs that are inconsistent with our ability to prosper as a nation.
▶ 1:41:19And with all of the progress we've made and you know the argument could be made, oh we should keep making more. Well, and and we we could keep making more and we could all live in in back in the stone We are at a point where we've done a pretty good job. We don't want to get rid of the Clean Air Act. We don't want to get rid of the EPA. We don't get want to get rid of all regulations. We want to put them in a in a in a place of of common sense.
▶ 1:41:44And when it when it comes to 20 years of of of of industrial growth and yet the asthma rates have not changed, that is that is that that does tell you something. It tells you that there might be other factors behind asthma. You know, especially when you consider that the vast majority somewhere near like 16% of of these particulate matters that we're talking about are actually due to these point of productions places that we're that we're discussing.
▶ 1:42:15It's a very small number and yet we're putting all of the blame on asthma on that. That's not a reasonable logical conclusion and I should be part of this discussion and I yield back to the gentleman. Thank
▶ 1:42:29I yield back.
▶ 1:42:31Gentleman yields. Is there further discussion of the amendment? There's no further discussion. The vote occurs on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I. Mr.
▶ 1:42:40Chair, uh, can I request a recorded vote, please?
▶ 1:42:43Gentlemen will request recorded vote. Clerk, call the role.
▶ 1:42:48Mr. Krenshaw. Mr. Krenshaw votes no. Mr. La Mr. La votes no. Mr. Griffith Mr. Griffith votes no Mr. Carter of Georgia Mr. Joyce Mr.
▶ 1:43:16Weber Mr. Fluger Mr. Fluger votes no Mrs. Miller Meeks. Mrs. Miller Meeks votes no. Miss Lee, Miss Lee votes no. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Langworthy votes no. Mr. Evans. Mr.
▶ 1:43:46Evans votes no. Mrs. Fedorek. Mr. Guthrie Mr. Tonko Mr. Tonko votes I.
▶ 1:44:09M Shakowski votes I. Mr. Ruiz Mr. Peters Mr. Peters votes I. Miss Betagon Miss Pedagon votes I. Mr. Sodto.
▶ 1:44:32Mr. Stoodto votes I. Mr. Aenclaus. Mr. Aenclaus votes I. Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes I. Mr. Mr. Menendez votes I. Mr. Mr. Lansman. Mr. Lansman votes I. Mr. Palone. Mr. Palone votes I. Chairman Palmer.
▶ 1:45:02Chairman Palmer votes no.
▶ 1:45:04Are there other members who wish to be recorded? House. Gentleman from Georgia. Mr. Carter recorded.
▶ 1:45:09Mr. Carter is not recorded.
▶ 1:45:11Mr. Carter of Georgia votes no.
▶ 1:45:13House. The gentleman from Kentucky. Chairman Guthrie
▶ 1:45:17Mr. Guthrie votes no.
▶ 1:45:20House. Gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Joyce recorded.
▶ 1:45:23Mr. Joyce is not recorded.
▶ 1:45:25Mr. Joyce votes no.
▶ 1:45:28As gentle lady from North Dakota, Miss Fedoric recorded.
▶ 1:45:31Mrs. Fedorch is not recorded.
▶ 1:45:34Mrs. Fedorek votes no.
▶ 1:45:36As a gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber
▶ 1:45:38Mr. Weber is not recorded.
▶ 1:45:41Mr. Weber votes no.
▶ 1:45:42Are there other members who wish to be
▶ 1:45:47Clerk will report the result. Chairman Palmer, on that vote, there were 10 eyes and 14 nos.
▶ 1:46:03The amendment is not agreed to. Are there further amendments? Question now occurs on adopting HR 4218 as all those in favor say I.
▶ 1:46:20Those opposed no.
▶ 1:46:22The eyes have it.
▶ 1:46:23Recorded vote please.
▶ 1:46:24The gentleman uh request the A's and N's. Roll call. Um cler will call the
▶ 1:46:34Mr. Krenshaw.
▶ 1:46:37Mr. Krenshaw votes I. Mr. Lada
▶ 1:46:43Mr. Lada votes I. Mr. Griffith
▶ 1:46:47Mr. Griffith votes I. Mr. Carter of
▶ 1:46:52Mr. Carter of Georgia votes I. Mr. Joyce.
▶ 1:47:00He has to be visible.
▶ 1:47:01Mr. Joyce votes I. Mr. Mr. Weber, Mr. Fluger, Mr. Fluger votes I. Mrs. Miller Meeks. Mrs. Miller Meeks votes I. Miss Lee. Miss Lee votes I. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Langworthy votes I. Mr. Evans. Mr.
▶ 1:47:31Evans votes I. Mrs. Fedorch. Mrs. Fedorch votes I. Mr. Guthrie.
▶ 1:47:46Mr. Guthrie votes I. Mr. Tonko.
▶ 1:47:52Mr. Tonko votes no. M. Shakowski.
▶ 1:47:56M. Shakowski votes no. Mr. Ruiz. Mr. Peters. Mr. Peters votes no. Miss Bedagon Miss Betagon votes no. Mr. Sodto Mr. Sodto votes no. Mr. Aenclaus Mr. Carter of Louisiana Mr.
▶ 1:48:27Carter of Louisiana votes no. Mr. Mendez Mr. Menendez votes no. Mr. Lansman. Mr. Lansman votes no. Mr. Palone. Mr. Palone votes no. Truman Palmer. Chairman Palmer votes I.
▶ 1:48:48How's gentleman from Texas recorded?
▶ 1:48:50Mr. Weber is not recorded.
▶ 1:48:52Mr. Weber votes I.
▶ 1:48:55Are there other members who wish to be
▶ 1:48:59Gentleman from Massachusetts. Mr. Mr. Austin Claus.
▶ 1:49:02Mr. Aenclaus is not recorded. Mr. Aenclaus votes no.
▶ 1:49:09Clerk will report.
▶ 1:49:16Chairman Palmer. On that vote, there were 14 eyes and 10 nos.
▶ 1:49:22The bill is adopted and we will be reported forwarded to the full Chair now calls up HR6387. and ask the clerk to report.
▶ 1:49:32HR 6387, a bill to amend the Clean Air Act to require revisions to the regulations governing the review and handling of air quality monitoring data influenced by exceptional events or actions to mitigate wildfire risk. Section one, short title. This act may be cited as the fire improvement and reforming exceptional events act or the fire act. Section two, air quality monitoring data influenced by exceptional events or actions to mitigate wildfire.
▶ 1:50:02Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. The bill will be open for amendment at any point. So ordered. Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Evans.
▶ 1:50:13Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 1:50:17Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I want to speak today in strong support uh of my common sense bipartisan bill that will help address a long-standing issue in Colorado and many other western states that continues to drive up costs for families. The Fire Improvement and Reforming Exceptional Events Act, or Fire Act for short, ensures that states are not punished for smoke and emissions that they cannot control while still maintaining strong environmental protections.
▶ 1:50:47For years, my area, the front range of Colorado, has consistently struggled to meet ozone attainment levels set by the Federal Clean Air Act, despite the fact that the bulk of emissions originate from sources outside of the state's control. This includes sources like wildfires, Chinese pollution, and naturally occurring atmospheric events.
▶ 1:51:06The resulting red tape around air quality permitting and the regulations that states like Colorado slap onto industry, the economy, and consumers are a leading cause of the affordability crisis that working families in my district are facing. When the economy is strangled under the weight of costly, poorly designed ozone attainment standards, jobs are lost, prices spike, and financial stress increases negative health outcomes. Trust me, I have a kid with asthma.
▶ 1:51:36I understand the struggles that many parents and many folks with asthma have. I want clean air as much as anyone. But when families and jobs are penalized for emissions outside of their control, that leads to unemployment. That leads to higher costs and that does not promote healthy living. It instead promotes poverty. And poverty also leads to negative health outcomes.
▶ 1:52:00The clearest example of the economic strain that the current system is putting on my constituents is a reformulated gasoline mandate that Colorado has imposed. In the summertime, commuters across the state are forced to buy reformulated gas that's typically 40 cents more expensive per gallon despite the fact that this so-called mitigation effort produces negligible results less than one part per billion in actually reducing ozone levels. But don't take my word for it.
▶ 1:52:29The Democrat-appointed chair of the Denver Regional Air Quality Council admitted that we could quote, "ban oil and gas in Colorado and still not meet summertime ozone standards." End quote. Why? Well, I've got all of the slides right here, not my slides. These are slides from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, which shows that in Colorado, only 29% of the ozone in the air pollution along the Colorado front range is humancaused.
▶ 1:52:58The other 71% of the air pollution is things like naturally occurring. It's things like fire and it's things that are outside the control of the state of Colorado which in this slide are represented as the boundary initial We need to follow the science. And in this case, the science from entities like the Democratc controlled Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment show that twothirds of the air quality in Colorado is not under the control of the state of Colorado.
▶ 1:53:28And that's why the legislation this subcommittee is considering today is so important and why my bill, the fire act, has garnered bipartisan support. It's a common sense solution. It simply clarifies how emissions from wildfires, prescribed burns, and other exceptional events are treated in federal air quality reviews.
▶ 1:53:47It maintains the environmental protections that benefit Americans while allowing states the flexibility to comply with the Clean Air Act without punishing American jobs for international wildfire smoke, naturally occurring exceptional events, and other things that fall in those categories. I'm proud to be leading this bill with Congressman Gray from California, whose district and state face similar challenges to mine when it comes to ozone non-attainment and wildfires.
▶ 1:54:14And I'm grateful to my colleagues on this committee who are championing their own legislation vital to modernizing the Clean Air Act. I look forward to supporting the fire act and these bills that are we're hearing today through the legislative process and I urge my colleagues to join me in advancing them through markup today and I yield back.
▶ 1:54:32Gentleman yields. Is there further discussion on the bill?
▶ 1:54:35Mr. Chair, I I move to strike the last
▶ 1:54:38Gentleman is recognized.
▶ 1:54:40Thank you, sir. I completely understand that many state and local governments are dealing with severe air pollution related to wildfires. And of course, those challenges will only get worse, as we know, if we continue to ignore the threat of climate change, which is causing longer and more devastating fire seasons. I also appreciate the prescribed burns uh that can be used as an effective tool in limiting future wildfire risks.
▶ 1:55:08Our air pollution rules should acknowledge naturally occurring exceptional events as well as tailored and proven methods to treat them. However, we shouldn't lose sight that our constituents lungs don't care where the pollution they're breathing comes from. Our environmental regulation should seek to create the conditions to maximize public health protections even when conducting wildfire mitigation activities. And the current law clearly allows for this already.
▶ 1:55:33EPA already provides a pathway for states to exclude data influenced by exceptional events like wildfires and like prescribed burns from being used when determining compliance with air quality standards. In 2019, EPA issued guidance addressing how prescribed fires could satisfy the statutory definition of exceptional events.
▶ 1:55:57And in 2024, EPA issued a number of other tools to assist our states in meeting the regulatory requirements. This helps ensure that states are doing everything possible to follow best practices and limit health risks from prescribed fires causing unsafe air quality. This bill would also create a major loophole in the law by dramatically expanding the types of events that could be considered an exceptional event, including common occurrences like drought and hot days.
▶ 1:56:27Exceptional events should be limited to things that are truly exceptional. It is critical that during high temperature and low precipitation times, days that are more likely to experience poor air quality, that we are still seeking to protect people. exemptions uh prescrib prescribed fire activities from knacks, not to mention the other commonly occurring conditions that would be considered exceptional under this bill does not protect public health.
▶ 1:56:55Our constituents will breathe unsafe air whether or not an event is eligible for an exceptional event exclusion. This bill is seeking a quick fix that papers over legitimate pollution reduction issues. Instead, we should build upon the existing law and EPA's efforts to bring together all of the relevant partners from federal to state to local levels to work together to reduce wildfire risk by also mitigating risk to public health. With that, I urge members to oppose the bill, Mr.
▶ 1:57:24Chair, and I yield back.
▶ 1:57:26Gentleman yields. Is there further discussion on the bill? Seeing none. Are there any amendments? Seeing none. I got my Yeah, there is no further discussion. Question now occurs on adopting HR6387.
▶ 1:57:55Mr. Chair,
▶ 1:57:56call for a recorded vote, please.
▶ 1:57:58A roll call vote has been requested. The clerk will call the role.
▶ 1:58:04Mr. Krenshaw.
▶ 1:58:09Mr. Lada.
▶ 1:58:11Mr. Lada votes I. Mr. Griffith.
▶ 1:58:15Mr. Griffith votes I. Mr. Carter of Georgia. Mr. Joyce. I.
▶ 1:58:27Mr. Joyce votes I. Mr. Weber.
▶ 1:58:36Mr. Weber votes I. Mr. Fluger.
▶ 1:58:40Mr. Fluger votes I.
▶ 1:58:43Mrs. Miller Meeks.
▶ 1:58:48Miss Lee.
▶ 1:58:50Miss Lee votes I.
▶ 1:58:53Mr. Langworthy.
▶ 1:58:55Mr. Langworthy votes I. Mr. Mr. Evans.
▶ 1:59:00Mr. Evans votes I.
▶ 1:59:03Mrs. Fedorch.
▶ 1:59:06Mrs. Fedorek votes I. Mr. Guthrie.
▶ 1:59:13Mr. Tonko.
▶ 1:59:16Um, no.
▶ 1:59:17Mr. Tonko votes no.
▶ 1:59:20Miss Shakowski.
▶ 1:59:22M. Shakowski votes no.
▶ 1:59:25Mr. Ruiz. Mr. Peters Mr. Peters votes no. Miss Betagon Miss Betagon votes no. Mr. Sodto Mr. Sodto votes no. Mr. Oenclaus Mr. Oenclaus votes no. Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes no. Mr.
▶ 1:59:54Mendez Mr. Mr. Mendez votes no. Mr. Lansman Mr. Lansman votes no. Mr. Palone Mr. Palone votes no. Chairman Palmer.
▶ 2:00:10Chairman Palmer votes I.
▶ 2:00:15Mr. Carter is not recorded.
▶ 2:00:18How are are there any other members to record? How's the gentleman from Texas?
▶ 2:00:22Mr. Krenshaw is not recorded. Mr. Crunchaw votes I.
▶ 2:00:27How's the chairman recorded?
▶ 2:00:30Mr. Guthrie votes I.
▶ 2:00:34Are there any other members wishing to record their vote? Hearing none, the clerk will take the
▶ 2:00:48Mr. Lada, on that vote, there were 13 eyes and 10 nos. Thank you very much. The eyes have it. The bill is adopted and forward to the full committee. Chair calls up HR 4214 and ask the clerk to report
▶ 2:01:07HR 4214 a bill to require the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
▶ 2:01:14Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with and the bill will be open for amendment at any point. So ordered. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? For what purposes, gentleman from Georgia wish to be recognized?
▶ 2:01:26Mr. Chairman, I move to strike last word. The
▶ 2:01:28gentleman's recognized for five minutes. Speak on the bill.
▶ 2:01:31Mr. Chairman, Congressman Allen's Clean Air and Building Infrastructure Improvement Act is another common sense piece of legislation designed to fix our overly burdensome Knack standards. This bill would require the EPA to publish implementing regulations and guidance when establishing or revising national ambient air quality standards. Too often, understaffed state agencies are forced to implement regulations on tight timelines with little to no guidance from the EPA.
▶ 2:02:00This bill also requires guidance on how to submit pre-construction permit applications under new or revised standards. If e if EPA fails to do its job, then new standards will not apply to permit applications. This legislation would also repeal the overly burdensome, economically devastating Biden Harris rule. This is about streamlining permitting and ensuring our state's agencies have the proper guidance needed to properly do their jobs.
▶ 2:02:29It will remove costly delays and uncertainty that industries and developers often face when they try to build and invest in America. The Clean Air and Building Infrastructure Improvement Act will pave the way for more manufacturing and investment in America, creating jobs and creating jobs and investment while also protecting our environment. I want to thank Congressman Allen for introducing this legislation and I urge its adoption. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
▶ 2:02:57Thank you very much. Gentlemen yields back. Any further discussion on the bill? For what purpose? Gentleman from New Jersey wish to be recognized.
▶ 2:03:05Mr. Chairman have an amendment at the
▶ 2:03:07Uh the clerk does does the clerk have the uh number?
▶ 2:03:13Would the gentleman please specify?
▶ 2:03:26The clerk will report the amendment.
▶ 2:03:28Amendment to HR4214 offered by Mr. Mendez. Page two, line 13. Strike.
▶ 2:03:36Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and agenda is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment.
▶ 2:03:43Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a simple targeted amendment that strikes a loophole created by section two of the bill that would jeopardize the health of our families and the economic benefits that the Clean Air Act provides. Let me walk through why. The Clean Air Act requires major new or expanding sources of air pollution to obtain permits before they start construction. And it's common sense to clean up ongoing pollution, we must minimize the amount of new pollution that is added to an area.
▶ 2:04:10To obtain a permit for a new source, a company must first determine which pollution controls it will install to reduce a facility's emissions. Then the applica applicant must estimate how much pollution the facility will emit and show that this quantity of pollution will not cause the area to exceed the standard. If the new facility's emissions will cause a violation of an air quality standard, the applicant must take additional steps to cut its emissions or obtain offsets.
▶ 2:04:37The EPA updates and strengthens the national air quality standards when the science says it is necessary to protect human health with an adequate margin of safety. But the bill allows certain facilities to disregard this science and ignore a new standard when obtaining a permit. Under this legislation, if the EPA doesn't issue rules and guidance at the same time it issues a new air quality standard, the old unprotective standard applies for purposes of a pre-construction permit.
▶ 2:05:08This means that when a new facility is demonstrating whether its emissions will violate the air quality standard, it would use the old weaker standard as a benchmark. In effect, this bill gives new polluters amnesty from the standard that protects public health. These facilities will be allowed to emit extra pollution at levels that could harm the well-being of our communities. This provision and frankly the entire package of bills being considered today parades as a solution to allow more efficient implementation of the Knack program.
▶ 2:05:38But clearly in this provision and others, implementation won't be faster or improve actual permitting processes. It will create exemptions to allow polluters to pollute more. It seems that Republicans are willing to consider industry's bottom line more than they are willing to protect the health of American families, workers, and children. Yet, this provision is also bad news for business. If one facility emits more than its fair share of pollution, other facilities will eventually have to pick up the slack and control more.
▶ 2:06:08So, by granting amnesty to new sources of pollution, the bill shifts the pollution control responsibility to existing businesses. that will raise pollution control cost overall for the manufacturing sector. As the Clean Air Act has long recognized, it is generally far more efficient and cost effective to build pollution controls into a facility upfront rather than adding them later. But this provision does the opposite.
▶ 2:06:35It allows new facilities to be built with insufficient pollution controls, forcing more expensive upgrades on existing ones. That makes no economic sense and it makes no sense for the health and well-being of the people that we serve. Republicans are failing to deliver on efficiency, on affordability, on the real issues that are facing our working families. The amnesty provision in section 2 epitomizes those failures.
▶ 2:06:59It harms public health and burdens existing manufacturing facilities by allowing new ones to pollute more than they would be allowed to under current law. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to strike the amnesty provision from the bill. And with that, I yield back.
▶ 2:07:14Gentlemen yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? For what purpose? Gentleman from Georgia seek
▶ 2:07:21Mr. Speaker, I Mr. Chairman, I seek to be recognized to speak in opposition to this amendment.
▶ 2:07:27The gentleman's recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment.
▶ 2:07:32Mr. Chairman, this amendment would significantly gut the bill and ignore the testimony we received on ways to improve the Knacks and permitting process. The bill would require EPA to issue implementation guidance at the same time it updates a NAS a NAS standard.
▶ 2:07:48At our two hearings this summer, several witnesses testified that the 2024 PM2.5 NAS issued by the Biden Harris administration was so close to background levels that many states would be prevented from issuing permits for new businesses and factories. This permitting gridlock would shut down our economy and could lead to 200 billion, let me repeat, $200 billion dollar in lost economic activity and a million lost jobs. 1 million lost jobs.
▶ 2:08:18This is a limited common sense approach that does not overturn the 2024 Knax even though it should be overturned but minimizes the negative consequences of this unrealistic standard for projects already going through the permitting process. I urge a no vote on this amendment and I yield back.
▶ 2:08:36Thank you. The gentleman yields back as further discussion. For what purposes? The gentleman from New Jersey. The member of the full committee received recognition. Strike the last word, Mr.
▶ 2:08:46Gentleman's recognized five minutes. Strike the last word.
▶ 2:08:49Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support my colleague from New Jerseys amendment. Uh proponents of this bill and some regulated entities claim that EPA isn't issuing implementation rules and guidance quickly enough after updating a national ambient air quality standard or knack. The bill concludes that the solution is to sacrifice public health across the country by allowing new or expanding facilities to just ignore the new air quality standard.
▶ 2:09:14Now, this is very much in line, of course, with Republicans polluter over people agenda. Under the Clean Air Act, a company that wants to build a new facility must obtain a pre-construction permit that requires the facility to control its pollution. The goal of this permitting process is simple. to ensure that the facility will not significantly increase air pollution above levels that are safe to breathe.
▶ 2:09:38Now, under this bill, if EPA issues a new national ambient air quality standard, that standard doesn't apply for permitting purposes unless until EPA has issued implementation rules and guidance for the new standard. Witnesses have testified that concurrent guidance isn't always practical or necessary. Besides allowing un unhealthy levels of air pollution, this provision doesn't even help states speed up permitting.
▶ 2:10:03In reality, this bill allows some facilities to pollute more, leaving existing facilities to foot the bill of cleaning up pollution in an area with poor air quality, and that just increases costs and is not in by any stretch of the imagination permitting reform. So, I reject the trade-off suggested by proponents of this provision that we should be willing to expose our kids to unhealthy air and sacrifice air quality to speed up permits for corporate polluters.
▶ 2:10:30My colleague from New Jerseys amendment would strike the language in the bill that exempt facilities from complying with new air quality standards and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Yield back, Mr. Chair.
▶ 2:10:40Thank you. The gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the Seeing none, a roll call has been requested on the amendment. The clerk will call the role.
▶ 2:10:55Mr. Krenshaw.
▶ 2:11:00Mr. Lada.
▶ 2:11:01Mr. Lada votes no. Mr. Griffith,
▶ 2:11:06Mr. Griffith votes no. Mr. Carter of
▶ 2:11:11Mr. Carter of Georgia votes no.
▶ 2:11:14Mr. Joyce. Mr. Joyce votes no. Mr. Weber Mr. Weber votes no. Mr. Fluger.
▶ 2:11:29Mrs. Miller. Meeks.
▶ 2:11:33Miss Lee.
▶ 2:11:35Miss Lee votes no.
▶ 2:11:38Mr. Langworthy.
▶ 2:11:39Mr. Langworthy votes no.
▶ 2:11:43Mr. Mr. Evans, Mrs. Fedorch,
▶ 2:11:49Mrs. Fedorch votes no.
▶ 2:11:52Mr. Guthrie,
▶ 2:11:54Mr. Guthrie votes no.
▶ 2:11:57Mr. Tonko,
▶ 2:11:59Mr. Tonko votes I.
▶ 2:12:03Mr. Shakowski votes I. Mr. Ruiz. Mr. Peters. Mr. Mr. Peters votes I. Miss Betteragon. Miss Bagon votes I. Mr. Stoodto. Mr. Stoodto votes I. Mr.
▶ 2:12:27Mr. Aenclaus votes I. Mr. Carter of
▶ 2:12:32Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes I. Mr.
▶ 2:12:37Mr. Mendez votes I. Mr. Lansman.
▶ 2:12:41Mr. Mr. Lansman votes I. Mr. Palone
▶ 2:12:44Mr. Palone votes I. Chairman Palmer.
▶ 2:12:49Chairman Palmer votes no.
▶ 2:12:51Are there any other members wishing you?
▶ 2:12:55Thank you.
▶ 2:12:56Mr. Krenshaw votes no.
▶ 2:12:59Mr. Evans is not recorded.
▶ 2:13:01Mr. Evans votes no.
▶ 2:13:07How's a gentleman from Texas recorded?
▶ 2:13:09Mr. Mr. Fluger is not recorded. Mr. Fluger votes no.
▶ 2:13:13Oh, and uh is the uh vice chairman of the energy subcommittee recorded?
▶ 2:13:25Mr. Weber votes no.
▶ 2:13:28Thank you. Any other members wishing to be recorded? Hearing none, the clerk will take the Mr. Lada, on that vote there were 10 eyes and 13 nos.
▶ 2:13:52The amendment is not agreed to. Are there further amendments on the bill?
▶ 2:14:00Hearing none. The question now occurs on adopting HR and a recorded vote is requested. The clerk will call the role.
▶ 2:14:15Mr. Krenshaw.
▶ 2:14:20Mr. Lada.
▶ 2:14:22Mr. Lada votes I. Mr. Griffith.
▶ 2:14:26Mr. Griffith votes I. Mr. Carter of Georgia. Mr. Carter of Georgia votes I. Mr. Joyce. Mr. Joyce votes I. Mr. Weber. Mr. Weber votes I. Mr. Fluger. Mr. Fluger votes I. Mrs. Miller Meeks.
▶ 2:14:58Miss Lee. Miss Lee votes I. Mr. Mr.
▶ 2:15:04Mr. Langworthy votes I. Mr. Evans I.
▶ 2:15:09Mr. Evans votes I. Mrs. Fedorch.
▶ 2:15:13Mrs. Fedorch votes I. Mr. Guthrie.
▶ 2:15:17Mr. Guthrie votes I. Mr. Tonko. Mr. Tonko votes no. Miss Shakowski. Miss Shakowski votes no. Mr. Ruiz Mr. Peters Mr. Peters votes no. Miss Metagon votes no. Mr. Sodto Mr. Sodto votes no. Mr.
▶ 2:15:46Aenclaus Mr. Aenclaus votes no. Mr. Carter of Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes no. Mr. Mr. Mr. Vernendez votes no. Mr. Lansman. Mr. Lansman votes no. Mr. Palone
▶ 2:16:06Mr. Palone votes no. Chairman Palmer.
▶ 2:16:12Are there members wishing to be record? Gentleman from Texas recorded.
▶ 2:16:17Mr. Krenshaw is not recorded. Mr. Krenshaw votes I. One last call. If not, the clerk will report.
▶ 2:16:42Mr. Lada, on that vote, there were 12 eyes and 10 nos.
▶ 2:16:47Thank you very much. The eyes have it. The bill is adopted and forward to full The chair now calls up HR 161 and asks the clerk to report
▶ 2:17:00HR 161, a bill to amend sections 111,69 [clears throat] and 171 of the Clean Air Act. To clarify, without
▶ 2:17:10objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with and the bill will remain open for amendment at any point so ordered. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? What purpose is the gentleman from Virginia seek
▶ 2:17:23Mr. Speaker or Mr. Chairman, I ask to speak in favor of the bill.
▶ 2:17:27The gentleman's recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.
▶ 2:17:30Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am speaking in favor of my bill HR161, the New Source Review Permitting Improvement Act. My bill is simply clarifying that a modification of a power plant or industrial plant and factory shouldn't include projects to reduce emissions or increase efficiency.
▶ 2:17:49Over the history of the Clean Air Act, there has been a lot of constrnation over what the definition of a major u modification or even a regular modification should be and at what point should any work on a stationary source require more intensive EPA modeling and review.
▶ 2:18:06Essentially, at some industrial plants, you have an owner who ends up not installing pollution controls or other efficiency improvements for fear of having to go through the complex and uncertain new source review permitting process where they might lose their air permit. Earlier this year, we received testimony in this subcommittee about how new source review permitting uncertainty actually discourages installing and installation of additional emission control equipment and really drives away investment in domestic manufacturing.
▶ 2:18:37We can talk all we want about a desire to build, but without some tweaks in this area of the Clean Air Act permits, I am confident some manufacturing facilities will not be built, expanded, or improved and updated. More specifically, my bill is necessary in part because of how some courts have interpreted the word modification to have a different meaning depending on which section of the Clean Air Act the word appears in.
▶ 2:19:04My bill would clarify questions of interpretation by adopting the so-called maximum hourly emission rate test currently utilized under the same language in the EPA's new source performance standards program to ensure that this change to new source review program is not abused. There is a provision which says that the maximum hourly emission rate cannot be higher than it was in the preceding 10 years.
▶ 2:19:28My bill also specifically says that plants have to reduce uh emissions per kilowatt hour or per unit such as a chest of drawers that is Finally, when clarifying the term modification across the prevention of sign significant deterioration permitting program and in nonattainment areas, I include an annual actual emissions test for the entirety of the stationary source. Mr.
▶ 2:19:55Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to include for the record several letters of support for HR161 from the American Cement Association, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the Electrical Power Supply Association, the American Public Power Association, the American Fuel and Prochemical Manufacturers, the US Chamber of Commerce, and the Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions.
▶ 2:20:17Without objection, so ordered.
▶ 2:20:19Further, Mr. Chairman, the bill is supported by several labor unions, including the United Mine Workers of America, the Transportation Division of the Sheet, Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers, the International Brotherhood of Boiler Makers, the Transportation Communications Union, the Iron Workers Union, and the Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Allied Workers. I would also say the National Mining and the National Aluminum are also in favor of the bill. Uh, Mr.
▶ 2:20:47Chairman, the reason I mentioned chest of drawers, and I apologize to those of you who've heard the story before, but this first came to my attention because of a United States manufacturer of furniture, case goods, chest of drawers, and other furniture goods in my district and in North Carolina. And in the facility in my district, they have a conveyor belt that runs from about here out to the front door of the Rayurn building and back.
▶ 2:21:15Decades ago, Mr. Chairman, they changed their processes. They no longer have a lacquer unit at the end of that conveyor belt. So, every piece of furniture in that facility in Galax, Virginia goes down the conveyor belt, circles around, and comes back. It adds about a minute, minute and a half, I think, to the production time on every piece of furniture that facility manufactures.
▶ 2:21:39And time is money when you're dealing with these things because they're competing with, as you can guess, Asian countries that are producing these products at a much cheaper amount of money because they have so much lower labor. They're competitive. They're staying in business. They're all American. Everything in their facility is USA.
▶ 2:22:00But they're at a disadvantage because their lawyers consistently tell them that based on court rulings, they're afraid to modify that conveyor belt for fear they'd have to comply the entire facility with a an update and a review under the new source review. So, they can't improve their process, making them less competitive against our Asian comp competition. And that's just wrong.
▶ 2:22:26I am trying to solve this problem with this bill and I will yield back.
▶ 2:22:30The gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the bill?
▶ 2:22:37Uh for what purposes gentleman from Louisiana seek recognition?
▶ 2:22:42I have an amendment, sir. I'm sorry.
▶ 2:22:44I'm sorry. Uh the uh gentleman will report. Well, I should say, does the gentleman have the number for the clerk for each amendment?
▶ 2:22:59Yes. SC
▶ 2:23:09The [clears throat] clerk will report the amendment.
▶ 2:23:13Amendment to HR1 161 offered by Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Page two, beginning on line 11. Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in support of the
▶ 2:23:28Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I urge my colleagues to support my common sense amendment that would protect public health, especially for communities near industrial facilities. This amendment requires that industry prove that their modifications to facilities do not increase emissions by installing air monitors at the facilities that directly report their emissions to the EPA and to the public.
▶ 2:23:54If my Republican colleagues are serious about their new definitions of modifications in this bill, they should wholeheartedly support my amendment. It provides transparency since under this bill of facilities modification to the plant will will not trigger new source review permitting. This amendment simply makes sure there aren't any loopholes.
▶ 2:24:18These monitors and reporting requirements ensure that the facilities can't cook the books or manipulate their operations to make their emissions appear lower than they truly are under the bill's new weaker definition of modifications.
▶ 2:24:33and and The additional protections from this amendment are especially vital for the safety of communities like mine in South Louisiana, where emissions from industrial facilities are always at the forefront of their minds and in direct view of their backyards.
▶ 2:24:52Americans should be able to easily check the EPA website and see that the facility down the street is compliance is in compliance because it is measuring and reporting its emissions timely. My amendment also resolves removes rather the use of maximum achievable hourly emissions rate and instead uses the standard measurement currently used in the new source review program annual emissions.
▶ 2:25:20Without this change, the program can be uninforcable and open to and actual emissions. We do not need to choose between supporting industry, our constituents right rights to breathe clean air. Let's hold these industries accountable and ensure families living next to them have the information they need to stay safe. This is not a matter of being pro or anti-industry. This is a matter about making sure that they can coexist.
▶ 2:25:51That if you want industry to survive, industry can only survive if they have healthy, safe communities that have the ability to breathe clean air, to have access to clean water. And any modification that's being made should be real simple, real basic. Let's test it. If you believe it to be true, a simple test will prove your case. And there is in that case a winwin scenario.
▶ 2:26:18I urge my colleagues to please support this common sense measure that will demonstrate that Republicans and Democrats can work together in providing clean air. This is a great test. Let's do it today.
▶ 2:26:32Anyone else? The chair recognizes gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for five minutes. Speaking in opposition to the amendment, um I would submit the amendment is not necessary as we account in the bill for the annual emissions limit increases under the prevention of significant deterioration programs and under the definitions of a non-attainment area.
▶ 2:26:54My friends also forget about the title five permitting program for a facility's potential to emit limitations. And I would also point out that in so many cases, we're talking about things that are not that expensive to change, but they're afraid to move forward with the current language that we have.
▶ 2:27:15And so we're adding this amendment would add additional costs again limiting the ability of manufacturers in in particular to make changes that would make them more competitive and yet not affect the air quality. This would add an additional cost. And so I would ask my colleagues to vote no on the amendment and I yield back.
▶ 2:27:38Is there any further discussion of the
▶ 2:27:42Would the gentleman yield?
▶ 2:27:45The gentleman yielded. Uh you wish to speak on the amendment.
▶ 2:27:48I just wanted to ask a question. gentlemen, I I will yield to the gentleman to ask a question. I may have to get counsel to help me. No, it it's a very it's going to be a very simple one. I would ask that if these modifications in in your estimation are simple and you're saying they're going to do better.
▶ 2:28:12Then I I I fail to understand why there would be a concern with just putting belts and suspenders on to make sure that we are ensuring that we're not causing further harm to a neighborhood. I believe you in your in your statement that you want to do the right thing and I want us to do the right thing together.
▶ 2:28:28I think in the interest of safety and clean health for the people in the communities, uh, a demonstration from EPA and from this Congress that we want to ensure that they're safe and to have this extra level of security and comfort by monitoring these modifications, I think would go a very long way. I yield. Thank you, sir.
▶ 2:28:54Gentleman yields. Chair recognized general lady from North Dakota, Miss
▶ 2:28:58Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. I also would speak in opposition to the uh Mr. Carter's amendment and in favor of the bill as a whole. Um, Mr. Carter's amendment. It's hard to know what the additional costs would be of that monitoring, the additional costs uh for the EPA as well for that monitoring. Uh, and I think all of those costs get baked right into the price of everything that consumers purchase.
▶ 2:29:25And so, you know, in in an era where we're really concerned about affordability, I think that's just a risk I would not be willing to take in in adding to this. But when we talk about things that make um sense and common sense and don't make sense, the current way that the new source review permitting is handled just simply makes zero sense at all.
▶ 2:29:48I've seen it personally myself multiple times where generators want to make improvements to increased their efficiency or reduce emissions and they simply won't do it because of these new source review permitting standards. uh at a time where we should be encouraging our generators, our power generators to maximize their output.
▶ 2:30:12We simply need to remove barriers like this that discourage those kinds of investments to improve their efficiency, improve their output, and reduce emissions. The new source review permitting act provides a clear consistent standard for a major modification, which is as Mr. Griffith has said a major source of resistance for uh modifications today.
▶ 2:30:39Essentially, a plant doesn't have to go through the full NSR process as long as the project doesn't result in a net increase in hourly emissions. This reform will reduce regulatory uncertainty, streamline permitting, and encourage modernization projects that improve environmental performance and public health.
▶ 2:30:59At the same time, the bill ensures that when facility changes would increase hourly emissions or harm the environment, they cannot move forward without undergoing the full NSR permitting review. Most importantly, this bill is fuel neutral. It will apply to all the fuels on the in the on the uh spectrum of generation.
▶ 2:31:22And so I really encourage my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to support this and help our uh facilities maximize their output at a time when we've never needed more power. Thank you. I yield back.
▶ 2:31:35Gentle lady yields. Is there further discussion on the amendment?
▶ 2:31:41Seeing none, vote occurs on the amendment. All those in favor shall signify by saying I.
▶ 2:31:46Mr. Chair, can we have a recorded vote,
▶ 2:31:48A recorded vote is requested. The clerk will call the role.
▶ 2:31:54Mr. Krenshaw.
▶ 2:31:58Mr. Krenshaw votes no. Mr. Lada.
▶ 2:32:03Mr. Lada votes no. Mr. Griffith.
▶ 2:32:07Mr. Griffith votes no. Mr. Carter of
▶ 2:32:13Mr. Carter of Georgia votes no. Mr.
▶ 2:32:17Mr. Joyce votes no. Mr. Weber Mr. Weber votes no. Mr. Fluger. Mrs. Miller Meeks.
▶ 2:32:34Miss Lee.
▶ 2:32:36Miss Lee votes no.
▶ 2:32:40Mr. Langworthy.
▶ 2:32:41Mr. Langworthy votes no.
▶ 2:32:44Mr. Evans.
▶ 2:32:46Mr. Evans votes no. Mrs. Fedorich.
▶ 2:32:50Mrs. Fedorichek votes no.
▶ 2:32:53Mr. Guthrie,
▶ 2:32:54Mr. Guthrie votes no.
▶ 2:32:56Mr. Tonko
▶ 2:32:58Mr. Tonko votes I. Miss Shakowski
▶ 2:33:02Mr. Shakowski votes I. Mr. Ruiz.
▶ 2:33:07Mr. Ruiz votes I.
▶ 2:33:09Mr. Peters.
▶ 2:33:11Mr. Peters votes I.
▶ 2:33:13Miss Bagon.
▶ 2:33:15Miss Bagon votes I. Mr. Sodto.
▶ 2:33:19Mr. Stoodto votes I.
▶ 2:33:22Mr. Oenclaus I.
▶ 2:33:24Mr. Oenclaus votes I.
▶ 2:33:26Mr. Carter of Louisiana.
▶ 2:33:28Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes I. Mr. Mr. Lansman, Mr. Palone.
▶ 2:33:50Mr. Palone votes I.
▶ 2:33:53Chairman Palmer
▶ 2:33:55Chairman Palmer votes no.
▶ 2:33:57Are there members who wish to be Gentleman from Ohio. How's he recorded?
▶ 2:34:02Mr. Lansman is not recorded. Mr. Lansman votes I.
▶ 2:34:06Are there any other members? Kurt will report to Brazil.
▶ 2:34:12House. The gentleman from New Jersey
▶ 2:34:15Mr. Menendez not recorded.
▶ 2:34:18Mr. Mendez votes I.
▶ 2:34:20The clerk will report the result. Chairman Palmer. On that vote, there were 11 eyes and 12 nos.
▶ 2:34:41The amendment is not agreed to. Are there further amendments? The question now occurs on adopting HR 161. All those in favor say I.
▶ 2:34:57Those opposed, no.
▶ 2:35:01The eyes have it. The bill is adopted and forwarded to the full committee.
▶ 2:35:03A roll call. A roll call vote has been requested. The clerk will call the role.
▶ 2:35:11Mr. Krenshaw.
▶ 2:35:12Mr. Krenshaw votes I.
▶ 2:35:14Mr. Lada.
▶ 2:35:16Mr. Lada votes I. Mr. Griffith.
▶ 2:35:20Mr. Griffith votes I. Mr. Carter of
▶ 2:35:24Mr. Carter of Georgia votes I. Mr. Joyce. Mr. Joyce votes I. Mr. Weber.
▶ 2:35:33Mr. Mr. Weber votes I Mr. Fluger. Mrs. Miller Meeks Miss Lee Miss Lee votes I. Mr.
▶ 2:35:57Mr. Langworthy votes I. Mr. Evans
▶ 2:36:01Mr. Evans votes I. Mrs. Fedorch.
▶ 2:36:05Mrs. Fedorch votes I. Mr. Guthrie.
▶ 2:36:08Mr. Guthrie votes I. Mr. Tonko,
▶ 2:36:12Mr. Tonko votes no. Mr. Shakowski,
▶ 2:36:16M. Shakowski votes no. Mr. Ruiz,
▶ 2:36:20Mr. Ruiz votes no. Mr. Peters. Mr. Peters votes no. Miss Better. Miss Bagon votes no. Mr. Sodto.
▶ 2:36:32Mr. Mr. Soda votes no. Mr. Oenclaus.
▶ 2:36:36Mr. Oenclaus votes no. Mr. Carter of
▶ 2:36:41Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes no. Mr.
▶ 2:36:45Mr. Menendez votes no.
▶ 2:36:47Mr. Lansman.
▶ 2:36:49Mr. Lansman votes no. Mr. Palone
▶ 2:36:54Mr. Palone votes no. Chairman Palmer
▶ 2:36:58Chairman Palmer votes I. Are there any members who wish to be recorded? Clerk will report.
▶ 2:37:12Chairman Palmer, on that vote, there are 12 eyes and 11 nos. The eyes have it. The bill is adopted and forward to the full committee. The chair calls up HR 6373 and asks the clerk to report. a bill to amend the Clean Air Act to establish authority for the president to wave the requirement.
▶ 2:37:37Without objection, the first reading, the bill is dispensed with. The bill will be open for amendment at any point. So ordered. I recognize myself for five minutes to speak on HR6373, the air permitting improvements to protect national security act. Critical minerals and rare earth elements have become buzzwords around Capitol Hill the last several months. Something I want to bring attention to is that our access to critical minerals and rare earth elements is not at the heart of the problem.
▶ 2:38:04But the United States lack of ability to process and refine them is the real issue. That is what we are relying on China for and that is what aims to address. Increasing both manufacturing and critical mineral uh processing and refining capacity in the homeland is an understated endeavor. US isn't just reliant on China for the aggregate material.
▶ 2:38:28We are relying on China for manufacturing anything from our pacemakers to dishwashers to automobiles to fighter jets and the list could go on and on. Section 173 of the Clean Air Act contains a provision allowing offset requirements to be waved for rocket engines or motors related to our defense which are essential for national security.
▶ 2:38:50This bill would expand that authority to include advanced manufacturing facilities and critical mineral refineries which are vital to strengthening America's economic and national security. Under the bill, the president would have the authority to determine what a facility is exempt from certain offset admissions credit requirements. This would provide flexibility, a clear pathway to production, and help increase investor confidence. I've said it over and over, but the critical minerals issue is this generation's space race.
▶ 2:39:20I think we can take a three- tiered approach. Focus on international agreements and investments such as the $9.5 billion deal with Australia and the deals with Japan, Malaysia, and Saudi Arabia to meet our immediate needs. turn our attention to domestic efforts identifying companies with some capacity for mining, separation, processing and refining including recycling materials from black mass is the second tier.
▶ 2:39:45And the third building out the processing refinery infrastructure we need to eliminate any ability of China or any other adversarial nation to threaten the US or our allies by cutting us off from retire refined materials and elements as they did earlier this year. This is where HR6373, the air permitting improvements to protect national security act comes into play. This bill will help reduce US reliance on China by pri prioritizing the development of crucial national security infrastructure.
▶ 2:40:16I yield back. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the
▶ 2:40:20Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last
▶ 2:40:23The gentleman is recognized.
▶ 2:40:25Thank you, sir. Americans deserve clean air, but this bill would undermine critical clean air act protections for people already suffering from unhealthy air quality in nonattainment areas. And as we heard at the legislative hearing by allowing some favored industries to escape certain knacks requirements, it would actually impose stricter requirements on other nearby sources to make up that difference. I understand the impulse to support it certain strategic industries.
▶ 2:40:53my district along with several other nearby districts in upstate New York, home to uh major chip manufacturing investments. I've seen firsthand how these projects not only benefit us locally, but also support America's long-term national security and economic competitiveness interests. So, I am extremely supportive of the notion that we should be doing all that we can to ensure the responsible construction and operation of advanced manufacturing facilities.
▶ 2:41:20But I do not think it's responsible or even reasonable to expect that people will who live in the communities that host these facilities to sacrifice their health for the sake of letting an industrial site cut corners and avoid environmental protections. To make matters worse, this bill allows these favored industries to avoid environmental standards through a new opaque exemption process. This is a complete non-starter.
▶ 2:41:46We have had a front row seat to the Trump administration's abuse of an existing Clean Air Act exemption in section 112 of the act. Before we create a new opportunity for abuse, this committee should exert its oversight responsibilities to understand what the administration has already done and what the public health consequences of those decisions might be. Because truthfully, we don't fully know. The exemptions issued this year have had virtually no transparency.
▶ 2:42:18The administration has not needed to develop a public record or seek comments. They haven't even needed to publish a meaningful analysis of uh to demonstrate that the statutoily required conditions for an exemption such as technology availability have been met. Under normal circumstances, I would question the wisdom of creating a new Clean Air Act exemption.
▶ 2:42:42But seeing how the Trump administration is so willing to exploit existing exemptions to benefit its political supporters with little to no justification means that I cannot support this bill. So with that, I urge members to oppose it and Mr. Chair, I yield back.
▶ 2:43:00Is there any further discussion on the
▶ 2:43:03Gentleman from Florida, Mr. Sto is
▶ 2:43:07Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do think it's a a uh admirable effort to try to improve the ability to process new rare earth men minerals here in the United States. While this may go a little too far, you may find some allies on other issues.
▶ 2:43:22Um, we do have to avoid a reliance on China, which is why Trump's attempt to allow Nvidia, Nvidia H200 chip sales to China right now, which have a military aspect, which are our competitive advantage, seems to be the real issue facing microchips right now.
▶ 2:43:42uh the end product where we have the most advanced chips in the world are being given to China because of the Trump's failed tariff war against China uh that has cost uh soybean farmers and uh has hurt local retailers across the nation.
▶ 2:44:00It's raised uh inflation and to fix that rather than removing the tariffs to help lower costs and helping our local agriculture folks at the same time that you're doing your best to try to avoid us being beholden to China. Trump is giving away the store the most complex microchips we have.
▶ 2:44:21And so I'd hope uh since while it's not the jurisdiction of this subcommittee, it is the jurisdiction of this committee, the full committee, that these Nvidia H200 chips will be the subject of the same uh vigor that we see with this effort on critical rare earth minerals. And I yield back. Gentleman yields. Is there further discussion on the bill?
▶ 2:44:50Seeing none, are there any amendments? Gentleman from Arizona is recognized.
▶ 2:44:56Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to introduce amendment seam DHR67361.
▶ 2:45:03Clerk will report the amendment.
▶ 2:45:06Amendment to HR6373 offered by Mr.
▶ 2:45:10Mr. Chairman, if I might reserve an objection to the amendment, please.
▶ 2:45:15The gentleman is recogniz reserves an add at the end the following section three limitation. This act and the amendments made by this act shall not take effect until the administrator of
▶ 2:45:28without objection the reading amendment is dispensed with. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to speak on
▶ 2:45:34Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to be crystal clear about what we have witnessed uh this year. A Republican sat in this very chamber and voted to rip healthc care away from millions of Americans. gut our resources to hospitals and clinics, long-term care, take away healthy, nutrition for millions of individuals through their massive historic cuts to SNAP.
▶ 2:46:03Um, and so now these same members are gutting air quality protections that are literally helping people breathe. Um they are removing protections that save lives in communities like mine. Let's not pretend we don't see the pattern here. Uh benefit the CEO, billionaires, and multi-corporations at the expense of working people and at risk communities.
▶ 2:46:31When it comes to the health and well-being of working people and vulnerable communities, Republicans have made their priorities abundantly clear. They side with billionaires with their massive, massive historic tax cuts in the billions for billionaires while increasing costs for working people. This amendment is straightforward and necessary if health care costs increase by more than 25% for American families. Implementation of this unhealthy bill must be paused.
▶ 2:47:01That threshold gives Congress a clear checkpoint to reassess before moving forward with a policy that affects millions of Americans nationwide. These are not just abstract federal concerns. They have real consequences in our states. California medical costs have increased by approximately $20 billion over recent projections. State's own budget document shows that unexpected cost growth in our Medicaid program is straining our fiscal capacity. And let me tell you what that means on the ground.
▶ 2:47:30When healthcare costs spike, it means higher premiums for working families, reduced services for those who need them most, and increased pressure on our safety net hospitals and community health centers. Those same ones that are experienc a $600 billion cut by the beautiful big beautiful bill in my district in communities like Imperial County and the Coachella Valley. We cannot afford to gamble with people's health.
▶ 2:47:55Imperial County already has some of the worst air quality in the nation with asthma hospitalization rates that exceeds the state average by over There is a correlation proven scientifically between air pollution and asthma exacerbation, ED visits and hospitalization. There's no refuting that data. In fact, I can go into the data which my colleague on the other side aisle so misconstrued.
▶ 2:48:22The Coachella Valley faces similar challenges with elevated rates of respiratory disease and cardiovascular illnesses linked to environmental factors. These are families who are already struggling. Any policy that could drive up health care costs or exacerbate health burdens in these vulnerable areas demand automatic reassessment if expenditures balloon beyond expectations. This amendment does not obstruct our national security goals. It does not prevent us from strengthening critical supply chains or enhancing our industrial capacity.
▶ 2:48:53What it does is ensure fiscal responsibility and protect public health. As a physician, you know, I have seen firsthand what happens when health systems are strained and when vulnerable communities don't get the protections they need. And as a member of Congress, I have a responsibility to those communities and to the American taxpayers.
▶ 2:49:09And as a physician who who understands science and understands the correlation between risk factors and diseases and disparities, you know, I'm my colleague on the other side has mentioned on multiple occasions this study or uh based on self-reporting surveys and likes to make the claim that somehow there's more pollution and less ED visits. And that's a wild extrapolation.
▶ 2:49:35I think any doctor on the other side can correlate that if you have a noxious stimulus in the air like pollution there's emphyma uh and um COPD and asthma exacerbation and we know that's true in fact the reason why towards the end years of this study that ended in 2021 you saw ED reports of asthma coming down was because of COVID one many people wanted to stay away from the emergency departments
▶ 2:50:06and two when people went in with respiratory distress the initial diagnosis and which remained was COVID and not necessarily the uh the the due to asthma I didn't make it up the own authors explained it here but my colleague on the other sides wants to misrepresent this and try to draw wild extrapolation to kind of say there is no problem with asthma if we allow companies to continue to pollute the air and that's
▶ 2:50:36wrong and we have to call it out for what it is. I yield back.
▶ 2:50:42Gentleman yields. Representative Griffith is recognized.
▶ 2:50:45Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh I I raised my point of u of order in that the amendment is clearly not germaine and and let me explain briefly if I might. Mr. Chair,
▶ 2:50:57the gentleman is recognized. Um, this amendment has the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency information about group health plans, group or individual health insurance coverage by health insurance issuers and the EPA has no expertise there. The bill doesn't say anything about health insurance plans, group plans, individual health plans.
▶ 2:51:26It it has no relevance to the underlying bill, Mr. Chairman. I mean, nice try to get the favorite talking points in there. And as a matter of comedy, and that's coom ty had a mistake one time. They didn't understand my accent. Thought I was talking about something humorous. This is not humorous. But in the sake of trying to be friendly, we have adopted over the years the policy of letting people explain their amendment before we raise the uh objection.
▶ 2:51:55But initially when we first had these, it was meant to be the objection was meant to be a matter of efficiency so that you didn't have to go through the debate on the matter that didn't have anything to do with the underlying bill. But this clearly is not gerine and I would ask the chairman to so rule. Will the gentleman yield?
▶ 2:52:12I'm happy to yield. So
▶ 2:52:14gentleman's recognized.
▶ 2:52:16Thank you very much. The reason why this is germanine is because this is a bill that focuses mostly and primarily on open uh mining which increases as we know pollution for the surrounding communities. Our whole session is about protecting the air quality and the public health of communities in our country. When you have an exacerbation of illnesses that drives up costs.
▶ 2:52:43when you have cuts to hospitals like you all voted on on the big beautiful bill that
▶ 2:52:48but I might claiming back my time just briefly and I'll give you another second but but this bill doesn't deal with those cuts that were made that you claim were made earlier. This bill doesn't deal with health insurance plans. It deals with regulations. This is not in in the purview of the EPA. They'd probably have to hire another 25 employees. It's a whole new section of the EPA.
▶ 2:53:08would be expanding the EPA into whole new arenas never before uh that have existed and it has nothing to do with the underlying bill other than a claim that it that the underlying bill affects health and therefore gentlemen health that could affect health
▶ 2:53:26the secretary of HHS that would assess that this totally blows up the hold your maintenance rule we might as well just have any bill mean anything
▶ 2:53:33it's the secretary of HHS you were wrong it's not the EP EPA director it's the secretary of HHS.
▶ 2:53:39Well, it says right here, the the amendment that I'm looking at says the the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency in consultation.
▶ 2:53:46It's it's the EPA. I'm sorry. It's not Germaine. I yield back.
▶ 2:53:52The gentleman insist on the point of order. Is there anyone else wishing to speak briefly on the point of order?
▶ 2:54:01The chair will now rule on the point of order. As the gentleman from Virginia noted, clause 7, rule 16 of the rules of the house prohibit the committee from considering non-gerermanine amendments. The presidents of the house set forth several general tests for gerineess. These include the fundamental purpose test, the jurisdiction test, and the subject matter test. Having reviewed the amendment and listened to the arguments, the chair finds that the amendment violates the subject matter test with respect to the underlying bill. Therefore, the chair sustains the point of order.
▶ 2:54:28Are there further amendments, Gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Carter.
▶ 2:54:35Chairman, I have an amendment of the desk s_hr
▶ 2:54:44The clerk will report the amendment.
▶ 2:54:51Amendment to HR 6373 at the end. Add at the end of the following section three limited. Without objection, the reading amendment is dispensed with and the gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes in support of the amendment.
▶ 2:55:05Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. It ensures that none of the waiverss and exemptions provided in this bill to allow additional industrial emissions disguised under the vague pretext of national security are used to further enrich the president's family and his business.
▶ 2:55:24This amendment also ensures that no one can buy one of these waivers by funding lavish renovations to the White House, attending fancy dinners, handling the president's cold gold bars, and offering to fund gold painted decor of the White House shouldn't get shouldn't get you special treatment when it comes to clean air and its protections.
▶ 2:55:49I wish this amendment weren't necessary, but the blatant cronyism in this administration is overwhelming and quite frankly disgusting to Republicans and Democrats alike. So, I'm offering my Republican colleagues an opportunity to reach out across the aisle and make sure that no Trump crypto mind schemes scheme gets a leg up on using these abusive extrajudicial waiverss offered in this bill.
▶ 2:56:16This amendment is a chance to show that congressional Republicans can push back against big money interests and represent regular Americans who just want to breathe clean air. Shouldn't be that difficult to just want to breathe clean air. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting yes on this amendment. Yes to the American people. Yes to fairness.
▶ 2:56:46Yes to doing things the right way. Yes to regaining the confidence of the American people that we can rise above cronyism, favoritism and trickery and demon demonstrate to the American people that we are brave enough, strong enough to support our constitution, our rule of law and every semblance of fairness. I
▶ 2:57:08Gentleman yields. chair recognizes himself to speak in opposition to this amendment. This is not a serious amendment. It mocks the importance of permitting reform measures specifically in regard to where we are in terms of our reliance on China for processed and refined rare earth elements and critical minerals. We need to recognize that this is an economic security issue. It's a national security issue.
▶ 2:57:35Uh there there are real consequences for for not putting ourselves in a position to provide for ourselves what we are now dependent on China for. As I noted earlier in and introducing the uh the bill uh we can't make anything a car, a fighter jet, a naval vessel. Um this impacts job opportunities. that impacts, like I said, our economy, but specifically impacts our national security.
▶ 2:58:06Urge my colleagues to approach this problem with the seriousness it deserves and work toward a solution for the overall problem that that we're trying to address with this bill. Urge a no vote on the amendment. I yield back. Is there anyone else any other member wish to speak on on amendment? The chair recognized gentleman from New York, Mr.
▶ 2:58:25Mr. Chairman, I'd like to strike the last word and speak in opposition to the amendment. Gentleman's recognized.
▶ 2:58:30Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The EPA's own data shows that 84% of uh PM 2.5 emissions now come from sources like wildfires and road dust that are costly and hard to control. Non-attainment under the national ambient air quality standards is primarily the result of non-mobile sources. America's ability to build has always been central to our strength. from factories that power our industrial revolution to the technology that's made us the global leader in innovation.
▶ 2:58:59But today that strength is being tested and we are no longer moving at the pace of our competitors. While countries like China can break ground on massive projects in just a matter of months, here in the US we struggle to turn around even the simplest approvals. Uh what used to be a straightforward process has now become one of the biggest barriers to growth in this country. A company can secure financing. It can line up its workforce and have the technology ready to go. But it will wait years and maybe years after that before breaking ground because of permitting delays.
▶ 2:59:29Federal agencies pile review on top of review. Each one demanding more time, more paperwork, more money without providing any real additional benefit. In New York State, Micron is making one of the largest private investments in the country to build a state-of-the-art semiconductor facility. That project represents thousands of jobs in a cornerstone of America's supply chain resilience.
▶ 2:59:53Yet, these kind of investments constantly run the risk of delay or derailment because of overlapping reviews that add time and expense, but no real environmental gains at all. If we want America to lead, we cannot allow outdated processes to block our future. Every project that stalls is another opportunity lost to our competitors.
▶ 3:00:16Every delay is another family waiting for a good job that never The bills we are discussing today are about fixing that broken system so that the next generation of factories, energy infrastructure, and advanced manufacturies can break ground here in the United States of America. I urge a no vote on this amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
▶ 3:00:38Gentleman yields back. Anyone else? Any other member wish to speak on? Mr. The gentleman from Florida, Minnesota is recognized for five
▶ 3:00:49Thank you, chairman. You know, the American people are absolutely outraged by massive amounts of corruption by the Trump administration. So, I applaud my dear friend from Louisiana for bringing forward this important good government amendment to make sure that if these pollution waiverss are granted, they're not granted under corruption scheme. So, um to Mr. Carter, if you would yield to a question.
▶ 3:01:14Certainly. Would uh I just want to make sure would this uh pollution waiver protection apply to the $2 billion cryptocurrency paytoplay scheme that the Trump administration has right now?
▶ 3:01:26Uh second question, would it apply to donors to the billionaire ballroom he's
▶ 3:01:32And then what about pardons? We've seen a lot of pardons Grant in
▶ 3:01:35every possible way that you can imagine. We want to close any loophole that will allow a paytoplay that will allow the American people's health and welfare to be put in second, third, or fourth place to favoritism, cronyism, or lackeyism to the president.
▶ 3:01:56Now, would this stop giving away our most advanced chips to China to make up for his uh big blunders with tariffs?
▶ 3:02:03This is just another one of those loopholes that we're trying to close. Well, we'll we'll have to worry about that with an anti- incompetence uh amendment next and I yield back. Thank
▶ 3:02:13Gentleman yields. Any other member wish to be recognized? The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Evans, is recognized for five minutes.
▶ 3:02:20Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Move to strike last word.
▶ 3:02:22Gentleman is recognized.
▶ 3:02:24Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I spent 12 years in the US Army. I deployed overseas as part of uh the global war on terror. And so in this piece of legislation, uh, we're talking about national security here. And national security is is critically important, uh, and connected to our ability to manufacture and make things here in the United States. Uh, I'm an army guy. And so when I throw out Navy statistics, you know how serious this is.
▶ 3:02:51We built and delivered less than 10 commercial ships uh, in 2023. China's built and delivered somewhere around a thousand depending on how you uh crunch those statistics. We can't build and manufacture things in the United States because of the permitting delays and the bureau bureaucratic quagmires uh that are being imposed through just a lot of this overlapping legislation and the current process. And so that's where this this piece of legislation is so important.
▶ 3:03:20And so the amendment here uh this amendment here just to me this looks like a um fortunately just a political stunt that is missing the point which is to make sure that we can actually produce things in the United States again and make sure that we are protecting and promoting our national security through our industrial capacity to manufacture things and whenever we hear the conversation as I've heard so many times from my colleagues on the other side uh [laughter] we always hear the conversation around uh public health well I
▶ 3:03:50just want to point out my area uh of the country is a major producer of of energy and is under major major um regulations from the Clean Air Act. And and here's what here's what we're actually seeing in Colorado uh in my part of the state again major producer of oil and gas uh from NASA NASA Sounder uh data says that between 20 and 2019 2013 to 2019 methane enhancements so enhancements are things that come from human cause.
▶ 3:04:20These are above the background concentration. Methane enhancements decreased by 52%. The state of Colorado's public health and environment ground level Platville monitoring site, again that's in my district, heart of oil and gas country, says that oil and gas emissions, ethane, uh, fell 65% between 2013 and 2019. And that's when production is actually increasing in Colorado. And so when we're talking about the Clean Air Act, we're talking about producing energy.
▶ 3:04:47We're talking about uh national security and making sure that we can actually um promote n the national defense of the United States through industry and through manufacturing. We have to make sure that we have the ability to build things in the United States because if we don't build it here, it will be built in places like China. We've seen the data. I've held out the the papers. I'll I'll hold them up again here from the state of Colorado showing that 70% of the air pollution in Colorado doesn't come from sources under Colorado's control.
▶ 3:05:18It comes from places like China. China has a perverse incentive to increase pollution. Because as pollution from China goes up as they manufacture and build more things, that pollution comes to the United States and our jobs, our producers, our energy is held accountable for that pollution. Uh and so what this piece of legislation uh does before us is make sure that our producers aren't held responsible for those things, particularly in the national security space.
▶ 3:05:45And unfortunately, this amendment that I'm looking at here uh is just an endun uh to to gut those critical national security protections. And so I oppose this amendment and I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment as well. Yield
▶ 3:05:58The gentleman yields. Does any other member wish to be recognized? The gentleman from Kentucky, the chairman of full committee, Mr. Mr. Guthrie is recognized for five minutes.
▶ 3:06:06Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'll I'll yield you time.
▶ 3:06:10The gentleman yields. Thank you. I'm appalled at some of the particularly this amendment. Uh, and what's appalling about it is is a lack of of regard for the seriousness of the situation that we have right now in the United States because of our reliance on China for processed and refined rare earth elements and critical minerals.
▶ 3:06:36Just earlier this year, China embargoed rare earth elements. We were able to work with them to get them to extend it for six months. And then December 1st, they planned a a full embargo not only of the United States, but of our allies. You're I mean, you're making arguments about healthc care in in regard uh to some of the the legislation that's come before the committee today.
▶ 3:07:03Do you not understand that if we don't have the ability to re process refine our own rare earth elements and critical minerals that that people are not going to be able to get things that we've come to to just consider routine and basic like an MRI, a CAT scan, a CT because we'll get to a point where we we can't repair equipment because we don't have the the the materials that we need.
▶ 3:07:28We're talking about building uh chip microchip and and semiconductor facilities in the United States. If we don't have these materials u available for us, we're not making This is this I I said this earlier in in my comments. This is this generation space race. We have a window that's closing rapidly on us to secure our own supply chain.
▶ 3:07:56It is absolutely imperative that we do that not only for ourselves but to work collaboratively with allies around the world. I've been working for the last five years trying to to get this Congress's attention on this issue. During CO, I don't know how many of you were here during COVID, but China cut us off from personal protective equipment. You know what we had to do?
▶ 3:08:23We had to use the Defense Production Act to order companies that were making one product to stop making that product to start making PPE. That's when I started looking at this. I thought, "Oh my god, what else are we relied on China for?" And when I started seeing how dependent we were, I realized we had to do something. I've spoken time and time and time again in in in this committee about this. Also launched a Western Hemisphere alliance because it's not just us.
▶ 3:08:52You realize that there's not one single major refinery for rare elements in the Western Hemisphere? Not one. If I said there wasn't one in the United States, that that'd be problematic enough. But there's not one in the Western Hemisphere. There's only nine in the world. Eight are in China. The other one's in Malaysia. It's owned by an Australian company, Linus. This is one of the the greatest challenges facing this country in terms of of of our national security that we've ever faced.
▶ 3:09:21And it's not just so as Mr. Evans pointed out that we have the materials that we need to produce our weapon systems, our fighters, our ships, our missiles, our guidance It's not just it's not just that. It's our ability to compete in in the in the arms race for artificial intelligence and quantum computing. And I've said this time and time and time again that whoever wins the arms race for artificial intelligence and quantum computing will not be a superpower.
▶ 3:09:51They will be the superpower. And we're right on the precipice of this. We have to act with the that that is justified for this moment in time. So, you know, I I really I don't mind the politics in the amendments. Both sides do that. I I don't mind that at all. And I I think uh all both sides are justifiable in in in doing that.
▶ 3:10:21But there are certain bills where it's totally inappropriate and I think it that applies this time. We have to take this seriously. we have to do the things that we need to do and expediting uh in this case is consistent with what we've done in regard to building rocket engines and and and motors for military vehicles for armored vehicles. So it's
▶ 3:10:48this this is not something that we ought to be in opposition to. is something that we ought to work together on to make sure that we have provided for our nation the very basic things that will allow us to maintain our national security and our economic security that I will yield back and recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts Mr. Auction Claus for five minutes.
▶ 3:11:12Thank you chairman. I I appreciate the the spirit of seriousness to which the chairman is bringing the question of competition with China. I served last term on the Select Committee on China, which was a bipartisan strategic committee carving out a number of areas where the United States uh needs to invest and out compete Chinese Communist Party. And I also hear the chairman's exhortation that we not be partisan about the issue.
▶ 3:11:35I would invite the chairman then to offer his thoughts on the president's recent national security document released last week that has been cheered in Beijing for watering down language about our commitment to Taiwan uh and uh his decision to greenlight exports of our highest capability semiconductor chips to the Chinese Communist Party. In the spirit of being nonpartisan about our commitment to out compete the Chinese Communist Party, would the chairman like to weigh in on those decisions by this
▶ 3:12:07I thank the gentleman for the question. Uh I have not seen the report, but I'd be happy to to have a serious discussion about these things because I have great concerns about China's ambitions toward Taiwan. There was an article I think in the last few days in the Wall Street Journal and in anticipation of a Chinese invasion which uh obviously as the gentleman uh and I think would agree on raises very serious consequences not only for us but worldwide.
▶ 3:12:33Yeah. My concern is that starting with Tik Tok, then with a failure to address fentanyl despite bipartisan legislation on fentinel introduction here in Congress, moving on to uh cutting edge AI chips, moving on to Taiwan tariffs that he had to tuck tail and run on and ended up putting our farmers in the crosshairs. Uh decision to wedge Japan away from the United States as Japan is trying to counter Chinese belligerence.
▶ 3:12:59Now, um, this president has repeatedly failed to be strong when strength is the only language that the Chinese Communist Party understands and when there is bipartisan commitment in Congress to be strong against what is the pacing adversary of the 21st century. And so, I do encourage the chairman to review this administration's
▶ 3:13:17actions and to weigh in publicly because goodness knows we need to build some bipartisan push back. Um, I believe the gentleman from Louisiana wanted to I'll yield to the gentleman from Louisiana. gentleman from Louisiana is recognized.
▶ 3:13:30Thank you very much. Uh, Mr. [clears throat] Chairman, you suggested that we should be serious and I'm I'm I'm going to give you and every other member of this committee the benefit of the doubt that you're not suggesting [snorts] that health care for the American people isn't serious. That you're aren't suggesting that we should short circuit or give shortcuts in health care and the ability for one to breathe clean air.
▶ 3:13:55Listen, I would be the first to tell you that I'm supportive of permit reform for expediting processes so people can get steel in the ground and get people back to work faster. But I will also tell you that I would never sacrifice the health or the well-being of the American people to accomplish that. We should never be so quick in any of our efforts that we put the American people's health at risk.
▶ 3:14:24And yes, sir, we are serious and we're very serious about every comment that's made about healthc care, about environmental justice, about making sure that when we allow these shortcuts to expedite perbating processes, that we do not do it at the expense of the American people.
▶ 3:14:49I represent Louisiana where people are living in close proximity to prochemical plants and I have said consistently we must coexist but you can only coexist if you put the health and welfare of the people who are made to breathe these chemicals who are made to drink water that may be contaminated.
▶ 3:15:12Yeah, we should expedite permits, but we should not expedite permits that may hurt or damage the health of American people. Yes, we should make sure that we are competitive with China and that we're pushing back against those things that would put America's security at risk, but we should always make sure that the American people are in that thought process. Yes, sir. Very respectfully, I am very serious.
▶ 3:15:41There's nothing unserious about fighting for the American people and their healthcare. And we will continue to use this perch to advance those discussions every time there's something that I or others believe are anti the health care of the American people. Yes, we should expedite but not at the expense of the American people. And I yield back.
▶ 3:16:04Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time. The gentleman yields.
▶ 3:16:08Is there any further discussion on the Call for roll call, please.
▶ 3:16:14There's a call for roll call. Uh clerk will call the roll.
▶ 3:16:22Mr. Krenshaw, Mr. Lada, Mr. Griffith. Mr. Griffith votes no. Mr. Carter of Georgia, Mr.
▶ 3:16:48Joyce, Mr. Weber Mr. Weber votes no. Mr. Fluger, Mrs. Miller Meeks. Mrs. Miller Meeks votes no.
▶ 3:17:14Miss Lee Miss Lee votes no. Mr. Langworthy.
▶ 3:17:25Mr. Langworthy votes no. Mr. Evans.
▶ 3:17:32Mr. Evans votes no.
▶ 3:17:36Mrs. Fedoric. Mrs. Fedorchic votes no. Mr. Guthrie. Mr. Guthrie votes no. Mr. Conko Mr. Cono votes I. M Shakowski.
▶ 3:17:58Miss Shakowski votes I. Mr. Ruiz Mr. Ruiz votes I. Mr. Peters Mr. Peters votes I. Miss Baragon Mr. Sodto Mr. Sodto votes I. Mr. Aenclaus.
▶ 3:18:29Mr. Aenclaus votes I. Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes I. Mr. Mendez. Mr. Mendez votes I. Mr. Lansman Mr. Lansman votes I. Mr. Palone. Mr. Palone votes I. Chairman Palmer.
▶ 3:19:00Chairman Palmer votes no. Mr. L is
▶ 3:19:09Mr. Lad is not recorded.
▶ 3:19:12Mr. Lada votes no.
▶ 3:19:19How is Mr. Krenshaw recorded?
▶ 3:19:20Mr. Krenshaw is not recorded. Mr. Krenshaw votes no.
▶ 3:19:26How's Mr. Joyce recorded?
▶ 3:19:28Mr. Joyce is not recorded.
▶ 3:19:31Mr. Joyce votes no. CL um will report the result.
▶ 3:19:51Mr. Chairman, on that vote there were 10 eyes and 12 nos.
▶ 3:19:58The amendment is not agreed to. Are there further amendments? Question now occurs on adopting HR6373. All those in favor say I. Those opposed,
▶ 3:20:11I recorded vote, please.
▶ 3:20:13A roll call vote has been requested. The clerk will call the role. Mr. Krenshaw.
▶ 3:20:20Mr. Krenshaw votes I. Mr. La.
▶ 3:20:22Mr. Lada votes I. Mr. Griffith.
▶ 3:20:26Mr. Griffith votes I. Mr. Carter of Mr. Joyce.
▶ 3:20:32Mr. Joyce votes I. Mr. Weber Mr. Weber votes I. Mr. Fluger.
▶ 3:20:40Mrs. Miller Meeks. Miss Lee.
▶ 3:20:46Miss Lee votes I. Mr. Langworthy.
▶ 3:20:48Miller Meeks.
▶ 3:20:49Mr. Langworthy votes I. Mr. Evans.
▶ 3:20:52Mr. Evans votes I. Mrs. Fedorich.
▶ 3:20:55Mrs. Fedorich votes I. Mr. Guthrie.
▶ 3:20:59Mr. Guthrie votes I. Mr. Tonko Mr. Tonko votes no. Miss Shakowski Miss Shakowski votes no. Mr. Ruiz Mr. Ruiz votes no. Mr. Peters Mr. Peters votes no. Miss Baragon Mr. Sodto Mr. Sodto votes no. Mr. Mr. Aenclaus votes no. Mr. Carter of Louisiana Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes no. Mr. Mendez Mr.
▶ 3:21:29Menendez votes no. Mr. Lansman Mr. Lansman votes no. Mr.
▶ 3:21:34Mr. Palone votes no. Chairman Palmer
▶ 3:21:37Chairman Palmer votes I.
▶ 3:21:39How's Miss Miller Meeks recorded?
▶ 3:21:41Mr. Miller Meeks is not recorded. Mr. Miller Meeks votes I.
▶ 3:21:45Are there other members that wish to be Clerk will report.
▶ 3:22:02Mr. Chairman. On that vote, there were 12 eyes and 10 nos.
▶ 3:22:07The eyes have it. The bill is adopted and forward to the full committee. Chair calls up HR6398 and ask the clerk to report. a bill to amend the Clean Air Act relating to review by the Environmental Protection Agency. A proposed
▶ 3:22:26objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. The bill will be open for amendments at any point. So ordered. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the
▶ 3:22:34Mr. Chairman,
▶ 3:22:35the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Joyce, is recognized for five minutes.
▶ 3:22:38Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to speak in support of my bill. Thank you for holding this important markup and for including HR 30 6398, the reducing and eliminating duplicative environmental regulations or the red tape act. This bill eliminates the requirement for the EPA to conduct a duplicative review and publicly comment on other agencies environmental impact statements.
▶ 3:23:05This legislation keeps in place the initial environmental review required for federal projects and regulations under NEPA. It simply eliminates a bureaucratic and redundant secondary review that only serves to further delay the permitting and construction of critical projects.
▶ 3:23:25In order for America to remain competitive in the global economy, we must take steps to ensure timely and predictable outcomes for any new projects or regulations. Very simply, my legislation, the Red Tape Act, directly accomplishes this goal, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
▶ 3:23:49Gentleman yields. Is there any further discussion on the bill?
▶ 3:23:51Mr. Chair,
▶ 3:23:53uh, chair recognized gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, for five minutes.
▶ 3:23:56I move to strike the last word.
▶ 3:23:58Gentleman's recognized.
▶ 3:23:59Thank you, sir. I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation. The Red Tape Act would block a critical public health agency from simply reviewing environmental impact statements from major federal projects. These reviews weren't slowing down projects. They weren't stopping projects, but by removing them from the overall process, we are losing out on the expertise of EPA scientists tax tasked with protecting public health and the environment.
▶ 3:24:27I often say that NEPA is one of our most critical laws because it makes you look before you leap. I don't have a problem with making government more efficient, but this bill is simply removing the voice of an important whose viewpoint you happen to dislike. An EPA assessment might find a major project could harm the health of your constituents, your town, or your neighbors. That's the type of critical assessment that EPA's expertise alone could offer and would be missing as a result of this bill.
▶ 3:24:57This broader attack on expertise and EPA cannot continue to stand and I urge my Republican colleagues to stand with me in opposition. So I urge all my colleagues to vote no on this misguided bill. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
▶ 3:25:11Gentleman yields. Is there any further discussion on the bill? Do any members wish to offer an Question now occurs on adopting HR 6398. All those in favor say I. I. All. Those opposed, no.
▶ 3:25:41For a recorded vote, please.
▶ 3:25:43A roll call vote has been requested. The clerk will call the role.
▶ 3:25:47Mr. Krenshaw.
▶ 3:25:50Mr. Krenshaw votes I. Mr. Mr. Lada. Mr. Griffith. Mr. Griffith votes I. Mr. Carter of Georgia. Mr. Joyce. Mr. Joyce votes I. Mr. Weber. Mr. Weber votes I. Mr. Fluger.
▶ 3:26:24Mrs. Miller Meeks. Mrs. Miller Meeks votes I. Miss Lee. Miss Lee votes I. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Langworthy votes I. Mr. Evans.
▶ 3:26:42Mr. Evans votes I.
▶ 3:26:44Mrs. Fedorich
▶ 3:26:46Mrs. Fedorichek votes I. Mr. Guthrie.
▶ 3:26:50Mr. Guthrie votes I. Mr. Tonko.
▶ 3:26:55Mr. Tonko votes no. Miss Shakowski.
▶ 3:26:59Miss Shakowski votes no. Mr. Ruiz. Mr. Ruiz votes no. Mr. Peters. Mr. Peters votes no. Miss Baragon, Mr. Sodto, Mr. Sodto votes no. Mr. Mr. Aenclaus votes no. Mr. Carter of Louisiana Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes no. Mr. Mendez Mr. Mendez votes no. Mr.
▶ 3:27:28Lansman, Mr. Palone Mr. Palone votes no. Chairman
▶ 3:27:37Chairman Palmer votes I.
▶ 3:27:43Mr. Lad is not recorded.
▶ 3:27:46Mr. Lada votes I.
▶ 3:27:50How's Mr. Lansman recorded?
▶ 3:27:52Mr. Lansman is not recorded.
▶ 3:27:54Mr. Lansman votes no. Clerk will report Chairman Palmer. On that vote, there were 12 eyes and 10 nos.
▶ 3:28:11The eyes have it. The bill is adopted and forwarded to the full committee. Without objection, the staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes to the legislation approved by the committee today. So ordered. Without objection, the committee stands adjourned.