▶ 0:20:20Himself for an opening statement. But first since we last met as a committee. The vice chair of the full committee, neal dunn Mr. dunn. Doctor dunn, has announced that he will go back to the private sector after next year. You're a very valuable member of this committee and we're we got another year out of it to go, but we're sure going to miss you. So congratulations on your decision and thank you for your efforts on this committee. >> thank you very much, Mr. chairman. >> I do believe that's the only one.
▶ 0:20:49Hopefully that's made that decision. So since the last time we met, are you leaving? Oh, are you not coming back? I didn't know Mr. vc was leaving. Yeah, you made that? We haven't met, but we haven't met as a full committee since you said that. Right? So we. We we thank you for your. We thank you for your service as always. Been great working with you as well. So thank you for your efforts to appreciate it. >> thank you. >> well good morning. So we'll get started.
▶ 0:21:18So I'll recognize myself for five minutes. Welcome to the first full committee markup of 26 and 25. The house passed 62 nc bills. 17 of those bills were signed into law. We held over 60 hearings and markups and spent 80 hours marking up legislation. Uh, I think about a quarter of that was in one meeting, almost. Um, that's a remarkable accomplishment. And I want to thank all the members of this committee for everyone's hard work. Uh, we're going to continue that work in 26 today.
▶ 0:21:47We're considering 11 pieces of legislation that will provide permanent permitting reform under the clean air act. Support american energy dominance, improves public safety. Communications. 30 of 35 years have passed since the clean air act as meaningful, updated and outdated provisions are creating a permitting gridlock that must be addressed when it comes to the clean air act, we are considering a range of bills that would ensure that states and local communities are not penalized for air emissions that come from outside of the us.
▶ 0:22:15We're modernizing the current national ambient air quality standards, reduce permitting gridlock, and facilitate state implementation of clean air act permitting. Unfortunately, the current program threatens nearly 200 billion in economic activity and puts over a million jobs at risk. Further, we'll discuss legislation to ensure that states are not penalized for wildfire mitigation measures like prescribed burns and brush clearing to streamline the new source revenue permitting process to provide.
▶ 0:22:45It provides alternate pathways for critical mineral manufacturing and advanced manufacturing facilities to meet permitting requirements and to eliminate duplicative reviews that currently lead to increased delays and expenses in nepa review. To ensure the availability of reliable, affordable power.
▶ 0:23:02Will examine legislation to extend hydropower licensing for projects across the country, and we will consider several bipartisan public safety communications bills to improve the emergency alert system, including lulu's law to codify the option of using emergency alerts in the instances of shark attacks. I appreciate all of the work our sponsors have done to advance these bills and bring them to this markup, urge my colleagues to support each of these bills and I yield back.
▶ 0:23:32And I now recognize the gentleman from new jersey, Mr. pallone, for five minutes for an opening statement. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Today the committee is considering 11 bills, some of them out of our communications and technology subcommittee that are bipartisan, while bills out of our environment subcommittee will be partizan with republican initiatives that assault americans health care. We'll begin by considering seven republican bills that strike at the heart of the clean air act and make americans sicker while they increase corporate polluter profits.
▶ 0:24:02For the bills we're considering today will undermine the national ambient air quality standards, or nox, a suite of health based standards that let us know what level of pollution is safe to breathe. And these bills would turn the nox from standards that protect public health to ones that protect special interests. Republicans are also taking aim at the new source review program h.r. One six.
▶ 0:24:24One would simultaneously allow polluters to cook the books and how they measure cancer-causing emissions and remove the ability of epa to review the public health and environmental impacts of major projects. If that wasn't enough, h.r. 6373 gives the president the ability to waive clean air act permit requirements for his pet projects and creates a pay to pollute scheme that lets large industrial sources of pollution off the hook for the harm they cause by simply paying their way into compliance and looking at the slate of bills, it
▶ 0:24:54Appears that my republican colleagues have forgotten that air pollution is dangerous and poses significant health risks, including cancer, cardiovascular disease and over 100,000 premature deaths every year. They also ignore the fact that the clean air act is one of the most successful public health laws in history. It has dramatically cut air pollution since 1970, while the us gross domestic product has nearly quadrupled and republicans attempt to gut clean air act protection rules will eliminate over half a century of economic and public health programs.
▶ 0:25:23To add insult to injury, republicans continue to ignore the affordability crisis. American families are struggling to afford their groceries, their utility bills and their health insurance premiums. Instead of working to address this crisis, republicans are advancing harmful bills that fundamentally undermine epa's ability to protect human health and the environment. And once again, republicans are focused on the corporate interests. Friends, not hard-working everyday americans.
▶ 0:25:49These bills push policies that benefit billionaire buddies and sell out americans health for industry profit. Republican inaction has already sent health care premiums skyrocketing for millions of americans. And now they want to make people or their. The result is to make people even sicker as they struggle to afford care. So that's why I continue to oppose these bills, and I strongly urge my colleagues to do the same.
▶ 0:26:11Now, we'll also consider several bills out of the communications and technology subcommittee, the emergency reporting act, from subcommittee ranking members. Matsui and chairman bilirakis will improve processes at the federal communications commission to assess communication failures caused by natural disasters like hurricanes and wildfires.
▶ 0:26:33This effort is a critical step to ensure that policy makers and regulators are equipped with detailed information to identify trends and inform efforts to address points of vulnerability in preparation for future disasters. We'll also consider the kyrie's law reporting act that builds upon a 2018 law and carries law, requires providers of multi-line telephone systems, which serve entities like office buildings and hotels, to reconfigure their systems.
▶ 0:26:59To enable callers to simply dial 911 without a prefix to reach emergency assistance. Unfortunately, providers have yet to fully comply with kari's law, so this bill provides congress and the fcc with the tools necessary to track down delinquent providers and ensure they comply with the law. Now, I just wanted to say, Mr. chairman, I appreciate the bipartisan cooperation that went into bringing these bills up. But again, I express my deep disappointment in the bills out of our environment subcommittee.
▶ 0:27:28I just think that this assault on america's health continues with these bills that will just increase pollution, that affects people's health. And with that, I yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. The gentleman yields back in the chair, reminds members that pursuant to the committee rules, all members opening statements will be made part of the record.
▶ 0:27:48Are there further opening statements any on the republican side seeing none any opening statement, the gentlelady from california recognized for the gentlelady from miss matsui from california. I got you have a lot of california, so is recognized for three minutes for an opening statement. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I appreciate the committee making strides to improve our public safety communications in a true emergency. You have. You shouldn't have to wonder whether help will come when someone calls 911.
▶ 0:28:15The call should go through and help should come immediately. Northern california has seen what happens when emergency communications fail. During the 2018 camp fire. More than half of initial 911 calls did not get through and emergency alerts were inconsistent. That's in acceptable, and that's what matters here. Since then, communities in my district have stepped up. Elk grove has modernized emergency communications with cloud based systems that connect dispatch with real time information.
▶ 0:28:47They're also leading the nation by integrating drones into their first response operations. But local innovation cannot substitute for federal action. I'm pleased the committee is taking up the public safety legislation that leading with congressman bilirakis first emergency reporting act requires the fcc to evaluate 911 access and outages after major disasters, and recommend steps to strengthen reporting resiliency and coordination with state and local officials.
▶ 0:29:17It also requires the fcc to examine unreported outages and recommend improvements to carriers. Notify 911 centers immediately. First responders should never be operating blind in an emergency, and this bill takes important steps to ensure that never happens. The other bill, the carries law reporting act, builds on the 2018 carries law by requiring the fcc to report on whether telephone system manufacturers and vendors are complying with the law.
▶ 0:29:47Carries law came from the tragic murder of carrie hunt, when her daughter tried repeatedly to call 911 from a hotel phone and couldn't because it required dialing nine first in america, calling 911 should mean exactly that. Moving these bills forward is an important step, but it's not the last one.
▶ 0:30:08We should continue working to improve public safety by strengthening our systems against disasters, improving outage reporting, and fully funding and deploying next gen 911. With that, Mr. chairman, I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there a further opening statements any on the republican side seeing none. The gentleman from new york, Mr. tonko, is recognized for three minutes for an opening statement. >> thank you, Mr. chair.
▶ 0:30:31Today, the full committee will consider seven bills to weaken public health, to weaken public health and environmental protections enshrined in the clean air act. These partizan bills were advanced by the environment subcommittee in december.
▶ 0:30:45It is indeed amazing that democrats and republicans can reference the same incredible historic progress that has occurred in the united states to reduce dangerous air pollution since the enactment of the clean air act and come to such dramatically different views on the best course of action.
▶ 0:31:01While democrats see this past progress as evidence that the law is working and we've been able to reduce pollution while growing the economy, republicans seem to believe that now is an appropriate time to change course, subjecting our constituents to more environmental harms just so polluters won't need to do as much to comply with health protective standards. Americans deserve clean air.
▶ 0:31:25This is especially true today, at a time when millions of americans are struggling to continue to be able to access affordable health care due to the republicans big, ugly bill. The bill is before us. Make it more likely that americans will get sick and need to see a doctor or visit an emergency room.
▶ 0:31:42And while there will be claims that it is imperative that we enact these bills now to compete with china or enable ai or any number of other reasons of the day, the truth is, most of these bills do not represent new and innovative solutions specifically tailored to meet our current challenges. They are the same policies that have been pushed by polluting industries and considered by this committee. For over a decade.
▶ 0:32:10The clean air act has worked and continues to work as intended. It has a 50 year track record of protecting americans health while enabling economic growth. The bills we will consider today represent serious threats to both past and future progress, so I must continue to oppose them. And with that, Mr. chair, I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Are there any statements on the republican side seeing any further? Gentlelady from illinois, schakowsky is recognized for three minutes for an opening statement.
▶ 0:32:41>> thank you, Mr. chairman. We've been here before, and many of us who are concerned about the children in our communities who have bad air to breathe.
▶ 0:32:55This is a serious problem, and it seems to me, for us not to take very close a common understanding of what is happening to our children and putting more air, more bad air into the into the air. And and I, you know, why are we doing that?
▶ 0:33:20To make it better for various organizations and to to to do what they want. And I care about the children there are uh, in our, in my community right now, there are children who are breathing bad air as it is. And to make it even worse is unacceptable. I yield back. >> gentlelady yields back.
▶ 0:33:49Are there any other opening statements? You know, any more? The gentlelady from michigan, miss dingell, is recognized for three minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chair. Before we move into today's markup, I want to step back and talk about what many of these bill would mean for the communities we represent.
▶ 0:34:06I'm deeply concerned that several proposals before us would weaken long standing environmental protections and tilt the balance away from public health and towards bad actors that have already shown they can't be trusted. Clean air and clean water are fundamental to public health. Today, more than 100 million americans live in areas with unhealthy air.
▶ 0:34:31Air pollution is linked to cancer, heart disease, stroke, asthma and premature death, and a disproportionately harms children, seniors, lower income communities and other vulnerable populations. These aren't just statistics, their families that have to deal with higher medical bills and missed school days, or worse, their lives cut short.
▶ 0:34:55For decades, environmental laws like the clean air act have worked because they were grounded in science. Since the 1970s, air pollution has dropped by nearly 80%, even as our economy has grown dramatically. That is proof that strong environmental safeguards and economic growth are both achievable. Achievable. There are several bills on today's market markup that are going to move us in the opposite direction.
▶ 0:35:23They're going to weaken national air quality standards, delay or avoid pollution controls, expand loopholes that allow dangerous emissions to go uncounted, and limit the federal government's ability to step in when states fail to protect their communities. When communities across the country are grappling with pfas contamination, let in drinking water.
▶ 0:35:48We have a generation of children in flint, michigan, that have been poisoned and will live their life with the after effects wildlife, wildfire smoke and poor air quality. The answer cannot be to lower the bar and look the other way. We have to hold polluters accountable with more oversight, not less. I want to be able to work with my colleagues and work on legislation, but I can't support legislation that undermines the health of the american people.
▶ 0:36:17We need to preserve our clean air and clean water, and continue the progress that's been made over decades. I ask my colleagues to think carefully about the real world consequences of these bills. Thank you, Mr. chair, and I yield back. >> thank you. The gentlelady yields back. And seeing none from the republican side any more from the democrat side. Seeing none. The chair calls up h.r.
▶ 0:36:456409 and ask the clerk to report. >> h.r. 6409a bill to amend the clean air act to clarify standards for emissions emanating from outside of the united states. >> without 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 purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> speak in favor of the bill. >> you are recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.
▶ 0:37:15>> thank you, Mr. chairman, and I am speaking in favor of h.r. 6409. The foreign emissions and non-attainment clarification economic stability act, also known as the fences act. States can be pushed into non-attainment because of pollution that they do not control and cannot prevent smoke from canadian wildfires, emissions drifting across the southern border or other foreign sources can overwhelm local air quality readings, even when states are fully compliant and acting in good faith. The clean air act has long acknowledged this. This problem.
▶ 0:37:44Congress intentionally allowed states to account for foreign emissions when those emissions interfere with attainment. That balance was disrupted when epa guidance under the last administration sharply narrowed what counts as foreign emissions, limiting relief to certain human caused sources while excluding events like wildfires. That distinction is arbitrary and unworkable. States cannot regulate another country, and they certainly cannot regulate natural disasters. The fences act corrects that mistake.
▶ 0:38:11It clarifies that all foreign emissions, whether natural or human caused, must be excluded. When the epa makes non-attainment determinations or reviews new source permits just as necessary. The bill allows states to raise these issues earlier in the process, rather than after years of planning and investment when the consequences are most severe. This issue is not theoretical. And the permian basin.
▶ 0:38:33We saw how even the possibility of a non-attainment designation can create uncertainty, and that uncertainty affects permitting, timelines, capital planning, and long term investment decisions for both energy producers and local communities. When the stakes are that high, the epa needs to get the analysis right. In fact, doctor nance, who was the region six epa director under president biden, came to the permian basin and visited, which I've invited colleagues from the other side of the aisle to also do the same.
▶ 0:39:00And she commented during that visit about how much emissions have been reduced, not knowing all the procedures and all the techniques and the data and the technology that have been put in place to reduce those emissions. And it's not just my constituents, but it's american workers. And businesses should not face regulatory penalties for polluting pollution originating outside of our borders and uncontrollable natural events. That is not environmental accountability. It is. It is regulatory overreach.
▶ 0:39:30And I urge my colleagues to support this bill and yield back. >> the gentleman yields back, and the chair recognizes the. Mr. tonko from new york, seek recognition to speak on the bill. Recognize t of my district are the adirondack mountains, which are known for their beauty as well as the ecological damage they suffered from acid rain. That acid rain was caused by polluting power plants in the midwest, and that pollution didn't stop in upstate new york. It also harmed people and the environment in eastern canada.
▶ 0:39:57The international pressure brought by the canadian government helped motivate the bush administration and congress to enact the 1990 clean air act amendments, which included a program to control sources of acid rain pollution. In that case, american industries were the polluters. But it illustrates a constructive model for how states and counties are burdened by foreign pollution.
▶ 0:40:21Sources can rely upon their federal government to address these issues through bilateral discussions with the polluting country, and I see no reason why we shouldn't come together as a country here to demand that polluters in mexico or china or any other country that may be proven to be contributing to an area's non-attainment of a standard, to do something to control their pollution.
▶ 0:40:41I understand that states and counties may be frustrated by pollution sources from outside their jurisdiction, but the lungs of the people living and working in those places don't care where the pollution originated. It affects their health all the same.
▶ 0:40:56So rather than just ignoring the problem, states and local area or local air agencies should continue to work with epa to find ways to better protect people, while also allowing for opportunities to prove when emissions originated outside their borders. And thankfully, that is already how the clean air act works, making this bill unnecessary.
▶ 0:41:18Section 179 b of the clean air act currently gives states the opportunity to prove emissions came from an international source and provides regulatory relief when an area would have attained a national ambient air quality standard. But for those international emissions instead.
▶ 0:41:37This bill allows states to completely ignore international pollution in their state implementation plans, and provides free passes on pollution that comes from outside the area, from exceptional events and from mobile source pollution. The bill blocks epa's ability to impose sanctions on states that fail to make progress toward reducing air pollution, including states that are not even trying to improve air quality.
▶ 0:42:00I agree that we should be working to protect our constituents from having to breathe pollution from foreign sources, but pretending that pollution doesn't exist simply isn't the answer. With that, Mr. chair, I urge members to oppose this bill and yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there anyone else seeking recognition on the bill? Seeing none, there are no discussion on the bill. Are there any amendments on the bill? Amendments on this one?
▶ 0:42:29I guess not. Yeah. No, they're seeing none. I said amendment. If there's no further discussion, the vote occurs on the question occurs on. Now on adopting h.r. 6409a roll call has been requested and the clerk will call the roll. >> Mr. latta. Mr. griffith, Mr. griffith votes. Aye. Mr.
▶ 0:42:59Bilirakis. Mr. bilirakis votes aye. Mr. hudson. Mr. carter of georgia. Mr. carter of georgia votes aye. Mr. palmer. Mr. dunn, Mr. dunn votes aye. Mr. crenshaw. Mr. joyce, Mr. joyce votes aye. Mr. weber. Mr. weber votes aye. Mr. allen. Mr.
▶ 0:43:33Balderson. Mr. fulcher, Mr. fulcher votes aye. Mr. pfluger. Mr. pfluger votes aye. Mrs. harshbarger. Mr. harshbarger votes I. Mrs. miller-meeks. Mrs. carmack. Mr. obernolte. Mr. obernolte votes aye. Mr. james. Mr. bentz, Mr.
▶ 0:44:01Bent votes aye. Mrs. houchin. Mrs. houchin votes aye. Mr. frye. Miss lee. Mr. langworthy. Mr. langworthy votes aye. Mr.
▶ 0:44:31Cain, Mr. cain votes aye Mr. rowley. Mr. rowley votes aye Mr. evans. Mr. evans votes aye. Mr. goldman. Mrs. fedorchuk. Mr. fedorchuk votes aye. Mr. pallone. Mr. pallone votes no. Miss daggett. Mr. get votes no.
▶ 0:45:02Miss schakowsky. No. Mishkovsky. No. Mishkovsky votes. No. Miss. Matsui, miss. Matsui votes no. Miss. Kaster, miss kaster votes no. Mr. tonko. >> no. >> Mr. tonko votes no. Miss clark, miss clark votes no. Mr. ruiz. Mr. peters, Mr.
▶ 0:45:25Peters votes no. Mrs. dingell, Mrs. dingell, votes no. Mr. veasey. Miss. Kelly, miss. Kelly, votes no. Miss. Barragan, miss. Barragan, votes no. Mr. soto, Mr. soto, votes no. Miss schrier, kim schrier, votes no.
▶ 0:45:55Mr. han. Mr. han votes no. Mrs. fletcher, miss fletcher votes no. Miss ocasio-cortez. Miss ocasio-cortez votes no. Mr. auchincloss, Mr. votes no. Mr. carter of louisiana. Mr. carter of louisiana votes no. Mr. menendez, Mr. menendez votes no. Mr. mullen. Mr. mullen votes no. Mr. landsman, Mr. landsman votes no. Miss mcclellan. Mr. mcclellan votes no. Chairman. Guthrie, chairman.
▶ 0:46:25Guthrie votes aye. Mr. latta is not recorded. Mr. latta votes I. Mr. palmer is not recorded. Mr. palmer votes I. Mr. allen is not recorded. Mr. allen votes I. Mr. balderson is not recorded. Mr. balderson votes I. Mr. campbell is not recorded. Mrs.
▶ 0:46:56Campbell votes I. Mr. goldman is not recorded. Mr. goldman votes I. Mr. james is not recorded. Mr. james votes I. >> seeing that no one is here
▶ 0:47:28To requesting to call the roll or answer the roll. The clerk will report. >> Mr. chairman of that vote. There were 25 eyes and 22 noes. >> the ayes have it and the bill is adopted. The clerk calls up h.r. 4218 and ask the clerk to report. >> h.r.
▶ 0:47:524218a bill to amend the clean air act to facilitate state implementation of national ambient air quality standards. >> without 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 recognition on the bill? All right, Mr. carter, what purpose does Mr. carter seek recognition? >> Mr. chairman, I rise to speak in support of my bill.
▶ 0:48:21>> you're recognized to speak on the bill for five minutes. >> Mr. chairman, epa reviews national ambient air quality standards on five year intervals, a standard that epa is only believed to have met once in the last 35 years, a standard that is only believed to have been met once in the last 35 years. After establishing a national ambient air quality standard, states assumed the primary responsibility for implementing and enforcing them.
▶ 0:48:47This is an extremely time consuming 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. This bill also allows states the opportunity to correct deficiencies found by epa and state implementation plans for nasc. Before epa can issue a federal implementation plan.
▶ 0:49:13The clear act offers common sense solutions to make attaining clear and clear air standards realistic, while giving states the time needed to comply. In terms of exceptional events, the clear act provides much needed clarification. Under my bill, natural disasters, wildfires and actions to prevent wildfires that produce emissions are excluded from regulatory penalties. This is not about choosing between the environment and development. This is about common sense.
▶ 0:49:39We 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 the top state for business in america. It has been for 12 years. Even with our growth, georgia's air has never been cleaner since. Monitoring began years ago.
▶ 0:49:58As our witnesses stated in the legislative hearing we had on this 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. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion? Gentlelady from colorado is recognized to speak on the bill for five minutes.
▶ 0:50:29>> thank you so much, Mr. chairman. For over 50 years, the clean air act has worked to protect public health. I remember growing up in denver as a little girl. This time of year, you literally could not see the mountains because of the air pollution.
▶ 0:50:43After the clean air act was passed, after we worked to clean up the air, not only now is it crystal clear most days seeing the mountains in the winter, but also asthma and other childhood diseases have plummeted, not just in denver, colorado, but all across the country.
▶ 0:51:03Under this bill, rather than focusing on air pollution's impact on public health, national ambient air quality standards would be set on the cost of businesses to implement those standards. In other words, it flips it around. And I hate to say just because we cleaned up the air doesn't mean that we don't have to keep cleaning up the air. It's not a problem that's solved. And then we never have it again.
▶ 0:51:29The provisions in these, this bill combined, coupled with the fact that committee which advises on these standards, would now minimize critical health and medical experience. This would create an environment that caters to the bottom line of polluters, leaving our constituents to pay the price both in money and in health. It also creates more loopholes for corporations to delay implementation of the standards, meaning that they can pollute more harmful chemicals into our air for longer periods of time.
▶ 0:52:01The communities that directly surround major polluters will bear the brunt of this increased pollution. Those are mostly lower income communities of color. Take the communities of globeville and elyria. Swansea. In denver, there's an oil refinery right north of those communities, and it's in congressman evans district on this committee. And this refinery, suncor has been dodging environmental regulations for decades.
▶ 0:52:30Those violations have made the zip codes in which those in which these communities reside south of suncor have some of the most polluted zip codes in america. This area of north denver houses the city's largest latino populations. They have lower than average incomes, and they're primarily younger families with children. Despite having nearly 10,000 air pollution violations citations in the last five years. Let me say that again.
▶ 0:52:5910,000 air pollution violation citations in the past year, suncor continues to poison the air of the surrounding community. Consequently, these residents face disproportionately negative health and environmental outcomes, and they're left to foot the bill. The neighborhoods have comparatively higher rates of respiratory problems like asthma and also reproductive issues and birth complications, diabetes and cardiovascular conditions.
▶ 0:53:27And most notably, they have a 24% higher death rate than other denver area residents. Rather than hold suncor accountable, the majority would like to make it easier for them to continue harming their neighbors. Instead of addressing the pervasive public health concerns in fenceline communities like these, this bill would put profit at the forefront of decision making.
▶ 0:53:53The company running the oil refinery boasted that 2025 was, quote, a record breaking year, producing an average of 860,000 barrels of oil a day and earning almost $1.2 billion in profit. Frankly, they don't need a handout to make it easier and cheaper to pollute. They need to be held accountable for the harm that they're causing to my constituents.
▶ 0:54:18Well, more than 60% of americans believe that low income groups are more likely to be exposed to environmental hazards and more than 70% supporting environmental justice initiatives. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are once again deaf to the concerns of their own constituents, and they're putting corporations over communities, which is exactly what this bill would do.
▶ 0:54:44Families should not have to choose between their health and their home in order to line the pockets of polluters. I strongly oppose this bill, and I yield back. >> the gentlelady yields back. Is there further discussion on the bill? Seeing no further discussion on the bill, are there any amendments for purpose of gentleman, seek recognition? >> Mr. chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Fc underscore amd underscore h.r.
▶ 0:55:13Well, I think you can find it with that. No. You want the rest of. >> it 1 or 2. >> 00101. >> 421801 do you have that report? >> amendment to h.r. 4218, page two, strike lines four through 15. >> without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 0:55:40My amendment seeks to fix one of the most egregious provisions of the bill, and that's the consideration of likely attainability in the next setting process. Now, this provision of the bill is far from common sense. It's a radical provision, in my opinion, that would allow polluters to override scientists. But my amendment would refocus the nox around public health as congress intended.
▶ 0:56:04The bill would make so-called likely attainability a factor in the scientific decision about how much pollution is safe for a child to breathe. In other words, this bill tells the epa to set air quality standards based on the cost to industry rather than the protection of americans health and safety.
▶ 0:56:20I think it's outrageous to even consider this provision that would make americans sicker, especially at a time when families across the nation are facing skyrocketing health care costs, requiring epa to consider attainability or the potential costs of attaining an air quality standard, I think is a dangerous precedent that ignores the purpose of the clean air act. And this is not to say that attainability and costs aren't considered at any point.
▶ 0:56:46The scientific determination of what is safe to breathe doesn't depend on the technology or cost of cleaning up pollution, but those considerations do come into play in the second step of the process, when states decide the most effective way to meet their air quality goals. But section two b turns this extremely effective approach upside down. In other words, turns around the scientific basis or the scientific standards.
▶ 0:57:12And to make matters worse, last week epa, epa announced that it would not assign a monetary value to the health benefits of cutting fine particulate matter and ozone pollution, effectively saying the public health costs of dangerous air pollution is $0. So in other words, they won't take into consideration the cost of care your doctor bills, your hospital bill, uh, and that, uh, change that the epa, epa announced last week is very much in line with the bill before us today.
▶ 0:57:41The considerations that are set up by section two b and epa's recent announcements are equivalent to a doctor basing a patient's diagnosis on the cost of treatment and likeliness of a cure. And I think 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, I urge my colleagues to stand with the american people and vote in favor of this amendment, and I yield back.
▶ 0:58:12Mr. chairman. >> the gentleman yields back, and the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia to speak on the amendment. >> Mr. speaker. Mr. speaker, Mr. chairman, excuse me. Um, this amendment would retain the status quo, if you will remember what I said in my opening statement or in my in my comments just a minute ago, this standard that epa has, has here has only been met once in the last 35 years, only once it's supposed to be done every five years, but only once in
▶ 0:58:43The last 35 years has it been met. But this amendment would require would retain the status quo. The clean air act currently requires epa administrator to establish and ask 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 two b of this bill does not change the clean air act requirements, that standards be protective of public health.
▶ 0:59:09The text simply clarifies, 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. I yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Gentleman from florida, Mr.
▶ 0:59:38Soto, is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment. >> thank you. >> chairman, I rise in support of this good amendment. Now is not the time to weaken the clean air act going from 5 to 10 years. You know, a lot can happen in ten years. And public health should be driving this decision. We know in florida well, we don't have a clean air issues all the time. In the summertime, we could have high levels of ozone, as we saw this last year.
▶ 1:00:04And just this week, prescribed burns in the ocala national forest led to hazy skies and skies and poor air quality. But we're now the 20th largest metro area in the country and weakening the national air ambient air quality standards from 5 to 10 years. In a fast growing place like central florida doesn't make any sense as things continue to change. Also, the reason we're here increasing forest fires from canada, from the midwest and other areas. But what's that caused by?
▶ 1:00:33It's caused by fossil fuel pollution. So in order to try to make it easier for standards, because of these increased firefighters, you're going to increase pollution. That doesn't make any sense. People come to florida because they look for sunny skies, clean air, and tourism's our largest industry. We're also eliminating things like coal plants in central florida and looking at an all the above standard.
▶ 1:01:02Other than that. And so this brings us in the wrong direction. Wrong direction. I move and I yield. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment. Seeing none the republican further discussion on the amendment. Gentlelady from virginia, miss mcclellan is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chair. I speak in strong support of ranking member pallone's amendment.
▶ 1:01:24Uh, the clear act attempts to morph the clean air act from a law focused on protecting public health to one that puts industry's bottom line first. The national ambient air quality standards set the level of air pollution that is safe to breathe. And once it sets states in, the epa go to work to implement the standards, which is where the costs are considered.
▶ 1:01:47Attempting to change this tried and true structure that has made this law so successful will only lead to health harms in our communities, particularly for children, seniors, and mothers. Exposure to oil and gas well sites during pregnancy has been shown to be associated with increased risk of spontaneous preterm birth.
▶ 1:02:07A recent study called the fuel fueling sickness the hidden health costs of fossil fuel pollution, discusses how exposure to fossil fuel pollution is linked to poor pregnancy, health loss, fetal neurodevelopmental disruption, and adverse birth outcomes such as preterm birth, low birth weight, and birth defects. Because pregnant women and developing fetuses are especially vulnerable to the impacts of pollution. Uh, and and we need to do something about that.
▶ 1:02:35It's critical we do something about that, because in 2024, there were more than 380,000 preterm births nationwide, accounting for nearly 36% of all infant deaths in the united states. And the united states has a d, a d for maternal and infant health, mortality, and preterm rates. This bill will only exacerbate that crisis, leading to more preterm births and further increasing our already unacceptable infant mortality rate.
▶ 1:03:04In fluvanna county, virginia, a proposed gas plant alone is projected to result in 2 to 3 additional premature deaths each year. Approximately six new asthma cases and more than 1100 asthma symptoms cases annually. It would also lead to two additional emergency room visits and one non-fatal heart attack every year, according to estimates. This is the reality that fluvanna and countless other communities across the country will be forced to endure if this bill is pushed through without this amendment.
▶ 1:03:35And that is why I strongly support ranking member pallone's amendment, which strikes the requirement that epa consider likely attainability when setting nox and preserves the heart of the clean air act. Unfortunately, this bill is not an isolated example. Just last week, the epa announced that it would disregard the value of human life, disregard the value of human life when preparing regulatory impact analysis.
▶ 1:04:00With that announcement, the trump epa made clear that protecting industry profits, not public health, is its priority, representing a dramatic departure from the agency's core mission to protect human health and the environment. As members of congress, it is our responsibility to ensure that the federal government serves the american people, particularly the most vulnerable, and particularly their health. This bill clearly does not do that, and I urge my colleagues to stand with the american people and support this amendment. Thank you.
▶ 1:04:28And I yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Gentleman from colorado, Mr. evans, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. And I just want to discuss a couple of things that have come up so far. Whenever this conversation emerges, we usually hear the juxtaposition of fossil fuels with negative public health outcomes.
▶ 1:04:48And I just want to highlight for the record that when the economy is gutted under the weight of regulations, that also has a negative impact on public health, because when people can't have jobs or they can't afford the cost of living because their energy sources are being strangled, they don't have insurance, they don't have the discretionary income to be able to go to the doctor. That also increases negative health outcomes. We have a term for that. It's called poverty.
▶ 1:05:12And when we strangle our energy economy through regulations, that impacts the poverty rates, that impacts people's ability to have that discretionary funding, to be able to go and get that preemptive care from a doctor. When health outcomes can be caught, they can be found early. Um, and then that means we not only are spending less money, people are staying healthier because they have that ability to go to the doctor earlier.
▶ 1:05:37Um, we also know that if we don't promote our own energy economy in the united states, it's going to go to other places. We heard some data earlier about my part of the country, colorado's front range, 70% of the air pollution along the front range of colorado doesn't come from colorado. It comes from external sources. That's not my data. That's the democrat controlled data from the colorado department of public health and environment.
▶ 1:06:04We heard conversations about the negative health impacts of a refinery, which happens to be in my district. And I'll tell you some of the other data points about that refinery. We heard that it has 10,000, um, missed compliance points. Well, there are over 5 million compliance points levied against that refinery. So when you go and you do the math on it, that refinery is in compliance 99.8% of the time.
▶ 1:06:29And we know that many of these regulations in colorado come from the perspective of banning natural gas entirely, which we saw with the recent public utilities commission ruling that bans natural gas for residential heating in colorado, which, of course, also increases the burden that people have when it comes to costs and paying for the daily, um, you know, cost of living. If you get rid of that, uh, oil and gas, you get rid of the refinery, you get rid of these so-called fossil fuels.
▶ 1:06:56We know what the impact is, uh, on on people's wallets and on people's economy. The refinery in my area produces one third of the gasoline, one third of the jet fuel and half the diesel fuel for the front range of colorado. If that refinery goes down, all of that fuel has to be made up and brought into colorado by truck. Do you know what all of that truck traffic does? Not just to our roadways, but to air quality.
▶ 1:07:20When you're having to put thousands of trucks over the road to be able to backfill the production of these refineries and these other processors of fossil fuel, uh, it has an even greater impact on air quality. And it also has an impact on people's wallets when they're having to not only pay for the banning of natural gas in colorado, but now they're having to pay to get their their gasoline, their diesel and their other fuels trucked in and brought into the state. And we've seen that because we saw the data.
▶ 1:07:50Denver, colorado had the highest rate of inflation in the country in september of 2025, and a significant percentage of that is tied directly to the fact that energy in colorado is being regulated to death. And we know that it does not actually have a positive impact on air quality.
▶ 1:08:10You can go look at data from, uh, nasa and the sounder program there, uh, where we've seen as oil and gas production has increased in colorado, uh, in the mid 2000, 2013 to 2019 as production increased, um, ethane concentrations actually went down by over 50% because we produced the cleanest energy in the world in the united states, in places like colorado.
▶ 1:08:34And if you strangle that energy production, it goes overseas, it goes to other places where they produce it with a with a much higher carbon cost. And so we have to make sure that we are producing that energy in the united states. If we don't produce it here, it goes other places and we still get all of the pollution. Again, 70% of the pollution along colorado's front range does not originate from colorado.
▶ 1:08:57And so I just want to make sure that we're highlighting and understanding here that public health is also negatively impacted when the economy is strangled under the weight of these regulations, and that promoting american energy makes sure that we're promoting our economy, that's promoting jobs, that's fixing the cost of living crisis, that's giving people the insurance and the discretionary income they need to be able to go and preemptively see the doctor so that they can solve health problems earlier, at a lower cost, and where they have better health outcomes.
▶ 1:09:27Thank you, Mr. chairman, and I yield back. >> thank you. The gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion? Amendment gentlelady from from colorado is recognized for five. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I just have to clarify a couple of things. My friend to the north said, uh, the first thing and most important thing is colorado has not banned natural gas for heating. So I don't really know where that's coming from. But thanks for sharing.
▶ 1:09:53Secondly, um, nobody is um, well, some people, but not me, are suggesting that we close the suncor plant. And because my colleague is correct, Mr. evans is correct. It is the the biggest refinery for a large area around there. And, and um, so people uh, at least most people are not suggesting that we close that refinery down.
▶ 1:10:17But if we're going to be running a refinery up there, we sure as heck should be running one that complies with the clean air standards. And what that means is one that complies so that the people just south of that plant in my district, in these environmental justice neighborhoods, are not forced to breathe this polluted air every day, 360 days a year. And I yield back. >> the gentleman yield to me. >> I would be happy to yield to the. >> thank you. Thank the gentlewoman.
▶ 1:10:47The concern I have with the statements that are being made by the gentleman from colorado is this notion that somehow you can't improve air quality and also, um, still, uh, have your refineries and have your production. I mean, I don't buy that. In other words, I think that what we've seen with the clean air act since, I guess the 70s actually was an intern, uh, at the time when the clean air act was passed. I shouldn't admit it, but it's true.
▶ 1:11:16And, um, what we have found is in all that time, we have improved air quality. At the same time that we've improved technology and still, uh, produce oil and natural gas, uh, you know, combustion use, um, and at the same time, there's no this this is a myth, in my opinion, that somehow people have to sacrifice, uh, clean air, uh, in order to have a job in order to be able to manufacture, in order to be
▶ 1:11:46Able to have sufficient energy. It's just not true. And you can't tell that to the public. And I certainly don't intend to. If I went to anybody in, uh, in my state, in my district where we have oil refineries, and I said to them, oh, well, you'll have to sacrifice air quality and get sick, uh, in order to make sure that we have enough energy or that we can continue to manufacture it. They will categorically, uh, not accept that they would not accept it.
▶ 1:12:15Um, and as as miss, as miss degette suggested, who lives in a lot of times in these areas, minorities, not only poor people, but oftentimes minorities, latinos, african americans. Um, and you know peoo live there, uh, you know, have moved dirty air. So it's just not fair.
▶ 1:12:37It's not fair to to say to these communities around the refineries, to these people that, um, you have to sacrifice, uh, for the good, uh, of making sure we have enough energy. We have enough, uh, manufacturing. We have jobs that, uh, it's just unacceptable. No one is going to buy into that. I understand you're saying it, but I don't think it's the right way to look at this.
▶ 1:13:04Because there's no reason to believe that we can't have both every time we move forward on environmental standards, improving air quality, improve water quality, we still we still have growth. We still have jobs. And there's no reason to suggest that somehow, uh, you can't have both. And I and I refuse to accept that. But I yield back to the gentlewoman. >> I yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. Recognizes the gentleman from ohio.
▶ 1:13:35>> thank you, chairman, I yield my time to the gentleman from colorado. >> thank you. And I appreciate my colleague from colorado's comments. Just want to read a very briefly here, a headline from last month from the colorado sun, the puc public utilities commission in colorado finalizes plans to push natural gas out of colorado home heating to hit 100% decarbonization. Xcel and other utilities must make 41% cuts to natural gas heating emissions in ten years, transition fully by 2050.
▶ 1:14:04So yes, there's absolutely a push underfoot in colorado to ban natural gas for residential heating. We know that that's not actually going to have an impact on our air quality, because you don't have to take my word for it. Take the word of the democrat appointed chair of the denver regional air quality council, who admitted that we could, quote, ban oil and gas in colorado and still not meet our summertime ozone standards.
▶ 1:14:28So if you ban oil and gas in colorado and you're still not meeting your summertime ozone standards, folks are still suffering under poor air quality. But now they also don't have a job to go along with it. So thank you very much. And yield back to the gentleman from ohio. >> thank you very much. I yield my time back to the chair. >> gentleman yields back. Do we have anyone else wishing recognition? Gentlelady from texas is recognized. >> uh, thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 1:14:57Uh, I too wanted to, uh, just take a moment to respond to some of the things that we heard, uh, from our colleague from colorado. And I appreciate, uh, congresswoman degette and ranking member pallone's, uh, responses that covered a lot of the things that I jotted down notes about. Um, as, as we were hearing from, uh, Mr. evans. But I, I think that one of the challenges here on this committee, um, is highlighted by the comments that Mr.
▶ 1:15:23Evans was making, and certainly I don't think anyone on this committee thinks that I support banning or phasing out natural gas or fossil fuels, and that's not what this amendment does. So I'm not sure why we had a long conversation about that, uh, relating to this amendment.
▶ 1:15:42Um, but what he did mention that I think is important is how expensive it is for people who have health issues to get access to health care, and that we shouldn't be imposing burdens on getting access to health care. But that's exactly what this committee has done for the last year. We've made it harder for people who get medicaid to access their medicaid.
▶ 1:16:04Uh, this congress did not extend the premium enhanced premium tax credits that are designed to help people get affordable health care and get to a doctor. So I think it's ironic that that's the argument being used against clean air standards here, when this congress is voting to make it harder for people to get access to health care.
▶ 1:16:23You know, and the other thing that's driving up costs for everyone are these insane tariffs that the president is instituting on a whim all the time now, apparently, over whether nato countries are going to object to his plan to take over greenland. And I'm not hearing anything from anyone on this committee objecting to those tariffs.
▶ 1:16:46In fact, the republicans in this congress put something in our rule vote last fall to prevent us from even talking about tariffs, to prevent us from even having the conversation about one, whether the president is authorized to do it, which he's not, and two, whether these tariffs are a good idea, which clearly they are not. When we're talking about what's driving up costs for americans, you can't ignore the tariffs. But everybody in this congress seems to have their head in the sand about what is driving up costs.
▶ 1:17:12And so the idea that air quality restrictions are going to make it harder for people to get to a doctor, and it's going to make it harder on their wallets when we know that the tariffs and the massive billions of dollars of cuts to health care are a huge problem for people in every state in this country.
▶ 1:17:35And so I just think, you know, our job on this committee is to deal with the hard stuff and the complexities, and we're not doing that right. We're supposed to do this in a balanced way, but this congress is not responding to the assault, not only on governing, which we're seeing as this administration ignores pretty much everything coming out of this congress that is in a rubber stamp of what it already wants to do. But we're not doing the hard stuff.
▶ 1:18:02And so I just I am shocked to hear a response to an amendment to protect clean air standards come around to making sure that people have access to health care, because that is not what this congress has done. With that, I yield back. >> gentlelady yields back.
▶ 1:18:19Let me let me remind members on both sides of the aisle that we have an amendment to a bill in front of us that has a certain subject, and that while we often in efforts to promote comedy c o m I t y we let people go far afield, I would just remind everybody that the principles of jefferson's manual and of parliamentary practice and procedure are to be efficient, and when we go far afield, we are not being efficient.
▶ 1:18:46Both sides have done this, and I just ask people to take that into mind when they begin their comments with that. Does somebody else wish to be recognized? Seeing none, we'll now move to the vote on the amendment. All and there's a request for recorded vote. So we will do a recorded vote. And those in favor of the amendment will respond with an I. Those opposed will respond with an aye, Mr. latta. Nope, not my job. He's got a call. >> Mr. latta, Mr. lada votes no.
▶ 1:19:18Mr. griffith. Mr. griffith votes no. Mr. bilirakis, Mr. bilirakis votes no. Mr. hudson. Mr. carter of georgia. Mr. carter of georgia votes no. Mr. palmer. Mr. dunn. Mr. crenshaw, Mr. crenshaw votes no. Mr. joyce. Mr. joyce votes no. Mr.
▶ 1:19:51Weber. Mr. weber votes no. Mr. allen. Mr. allen votes no. Mr. balderson, Mr. balderson votes no. Mr. fulcher, Mr. fulcher votes no. Mr. pflueger. Mrs. harshbarger, Mr. harshbarger votes no. Mr. miller-meeks, Mr. miller-meeks votes no. Mrs. cammack, Mrs. cammack votes no. Mr. over. Mr.
▶ 1:20:21Obernolte votes no. Mr. james. Mr. james votes no. Mr. pence. Mr. pence votes no. Mrs. horton. Mrs. horton votes no. Mr. fry. Mr. frye votes no. Miss lee, Mr. langworthy. Mr. langworthy votes no. Mr. cain, Mr. cain votes no. Mr. rowley, Mr. rowley votes no. Mr. evans, Mr. evans votes no. Mr. goldman, Mr. goldman votes no. Mrs.
▶ 1:20:53Fedorchuk. Mrs. fedorchuk votes no. Mr. pallone. Mr. Mr. Mr. get votes. I miss schakowsky. Schakowsky. Votes. I miss matsui. Miss. Matsui votes. I miss castor. Mr. >> tonko I. >> miss castor votes I Mr. tonko. Mr. tonko votes I miss clark. Miss clark votes I Mr.
▶ 1:21:23Ruiz. Mr. ruiz votes I Mr. peters. Mr. peters votes I. Mrs. dingle. Mrs. dingell votes I Mr. veasey. Miss kelly miss kelly votes I miss barragan. Miss barragan votes I Mr. soto. Mr. soto, votes I miss schreyer kim schrier votes I Mr. han. Mr. han votes I miss fletcher.
▶ 1:21:51Miss fletcher votes I miss ocasio-cortez miss ocasio-cortez votes I Mr. auchincloss. Mr. kloss votes I. Mr. carter of louisiana. Mr. carter of louisiana votes I Mr. menendez. Mr. menendez votes I Mr. mullen. Mr. mullen votes I Mr. landsman Mr. landsman votes I miss mcclellan. Miss mcclellan votes I chairman. Guthrie, chairman. Guthrie votes no. >> Mr. as Mr.
▶ 1:22:19Palmer been recorded. >> Mr. palmer is not recorded. Mr. palmer votes no. >> Mr. >> dunn Mr. dunn is not recorded. Mr. dunn votes no. >> Mr. >> pfluger Mr. pfluger is not recorded. Mr. pfluger votes no. >> Mr. veasey is not recorded. Mr. veasey votes I. >> all right. Clerk will report the roll when you have it tallied.
▶ 1:22:58>> Mr. chairman on that vote there were 24 eyes and 28 noes. >> amendment is not agreed to. Do we have additional amendments. Mr. chair? I'm looking for you. Where are you? Oh, Mr. tonko, gentleman from new york. >> I have an amendment at the desk. Um, it's labeled fc underscore amd underscore h.r. 4218, underscore oh two. >> clerk will report the amendment.
▶ 1:23:29>> amendment, h.r. 4218, page 12, beginning line five, strike paragraph one and insert two and insert the following. >> without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chair. Every day scientists make vital contributions to our health, our economy, and our national security. However, over the past year, we have witnessed a troubling pattern.
▶ 1:23:54Scientific and public health expertise at our federal agencies, being sidelined by political appointees, enacting their partizan agendas. Last may, president trump signed an executive order calling for a rebranding of science and restoration of so-called high scientific standards.
▶ 1:24:11What this order really does is undermine years of progress made to enhance scientific integrity, while empowering political appointees to make final decisions on scientific guidance under the guise of accountability. This move sends a dangerous message that politics matters more than science, and that corporate interests carry more weight than public health. That is simply unacceptable.
▶ 1:24:36We've debated provisions included in the clear act numerous times in the past, including section four, which would change the composition of epa's clean air scientific advisory committee, or csac.
▶ 1:24:50My amendment, which I have proposed versions of in the past, would expand case membership from 7 to 13, allowing us to achieve the majority's goal having including more states perspectives without eroding the scientific and technical capabilities of the committee. Additionally, this amendment also includes a new provision to bind the case to the scientific integrity policy framework in effect at the epa. As of january 19th of 2025.
▶ 1:25:22This framework builds upon the 2023 federal framework for scientific integrity policy and practice to include a standardized federal definition of scientific integrity protections for scientists ability to communicate their work publicly, and the reaffirmation of the importance of policy decisions to be informed by sound science.
▶ 1:25:42A key strength of the 2025 epa scientific integrity policy was that it was developed in a transparent process, with extensive public comment and consultation with outside stakeholders and epa staff, ensuring that the case can continue to be an independent advisory committee that adheres to the highest standards of scientific integrity, is absolutely crucial for our constituents to have confidence that their reviews of the
▶ 1:26:12Health risks of criteria pollutants are based on evidence, not just the wishes of polluting interests. Let's be clear sound science is the foundation upon which we build public health protections with scientific rigor. Without integrity is hollow. I encourage members to support this amendment that would meaningfully uphold and protect the independence and the integrity of the case act. And with that, Mr. chair, I thank you and yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there any comment on the amendment? Mr.
▶ 1:26:42Carter of georgia, you're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I rise in opposition to this amendment and both hearings before the clean air science advisory committee. We heard about the impacts that resulted from an unbalanced case board. It's essential to have members of csac who understand how scientific data is applied and what it will look like in practice. State air pollution control agencies are uniquely well qualified in this area, as they're responsible for applying the standards.
▶ 1:27:12Ksat academic members have experience in the underlying science, but they do not have significant experience in how that science is translated into knacks, or 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 to practical knowledge and skills needed for environmental management.
▶ 1:27:40I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Are there any further comments or discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, the question arises on the amendment. Uh. All can we do a voice? Okay. We've been requested to do a roll call vote. The clerk will take the roll.
▶ 1:28:10>> Mr. latta, Mr. lodha votes no. Mr. griffith. Mr. griffith votes no. Mr. bilirakis. Mr. hudson. Mr. carter of georgia. Mr. carter of georgia votes no. Mr. palmer. Mr. dunn. Mr. dunn votes no. Mr. crenshaw, Mr.
▶ 1:28:41Crenshaw votes no. Mr. joyce. Mr. joyce votes no. Mr. weber, Mr. weber votes no. Mr. allen, Mr. allen votes no. Mr. balderson, Mr. balderson votes no. Mr. fulcher, Mr. fulcher votes no. Mr. pfluger. Mr. pfluger votes no. Mr. harshbarger, Mr. harshbarger votes no. Mrs. miller-meeks. Mrs. cammack, Mrs.
▶ 1:29:08Cammack votes no. Mr. obernolte, Mr. obernolte votes no. Mr. james. Mr. benson, Mr. bense votes no. Mrs. houchin. Mrs. houchin votes no. Mr. fry. Miss. Lee. Mr. langworthy. Mr. langworthy votes no. Mr. cain, Mr.
▶ 1:29:38Cain votes no. Mr. rowley. Mr. evans, Mr. evans votes no. Mr. goldman, Mr. goldman votes no. Mrs. fedorchuk. Mr. malone. Mr. pallone, votes aye. Mr. get Mr. get votes. I miss schakowsky.
▶ 1:30:04I miss schakowsky votes I miss matsui Mr. matsui votes I miss castor miss castor votes I Mr. tom cole I Mr. tom cole votes I miss clark. Miss clark votes I Mr. ruiz. Mr. ruiz votes I Mr. peters. Mr. peters votes I Mrs. dingle. Mrs. dingell votes I Mr. veasey. Mr.
▶ 1:30:30Veasey votes I miss kelly. Miss kelly votes I miss madigan miss votes I mister soto. Mister soto, votes I miss schreyer. Miss schreyer, votes I Mr. han. Mr. han votes I miss fletcher. Miss fletcher votes I miss ocasio-cortez. Miss ocasio-cortez votes I, Mr. auchincloss. Mr. austin scott votes I, Mr. carter. Louisiana. Mr.
▶ 1:31:00Carter, louisiana votes I Mr. menendez, Mr. menendez votes I Mr. mullen. Mr. mullen votes I Mr. landsman. Mr. landsman votes I miss mcclellan. Miss mcclellan votes I chairman. Guthrie, chairman. Guthrie votes no. >> already further votes Mr. hudson recorded. >> Mr. hudson is not recorded. Mr. hudson votes no. >> Mr. frey is he recorded.
▶ 1:31:31>> Mr. frey is not recorded. Mr. frey votes no. >> Mr. james. >> Mr. james not recorded. Mr. james votes no. >> uh is Mr. palmer recorded. >> Mr. palmer is not recorded. Mr. palmer votes no. >> anybody on your side? >> Mr. bilirakis is recorded. >> Mr. bilirakis is not recorded. Mr. bilirakis votes no.
▶ 1:32:05>> all members voted. The clerk will report the result. >> Mr. chairman, on that vote, there were 24 eyes and 26 noes. >> uh, the vote is no and the amendment is not adopted.
▶ 1:32:32Are there any further amendments or discussion on the bill? Mr. california. >> uh, Mr. chair, I have an amendment at the desk. H.r. 4218 underscore zero nine. >> you have five minutes. You recognized for five minutes to. Okay. Clerk report the vote reported. >> amendment to h.r. 4218.
▶ 1:33:01Add at the end the following section five limitation. This act and the amendments made by this act shall not take effect unless. >> without objection, reading the amendment is dispensed with and the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment. >> thank you.
▶ 1:33:17My 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. Low birth weight. This matters because the republican bill weakens core parts of the clean air act and threatens public health.
▶ 1:33:45Decades of research are clear polluted air contributes to asthma, chronic lung disease, health, disease, pregnancy complications, and early death. Low income communities and communities of color are hit first and worst. I represent a district on the front lines of this injustice. Air quality in my district ranks among the worst in the country due to poor trucks, refineries and other heavy industry.
▶ 1:34:11Children in my community are far more likely to suffer from asthma and other respiratory conditions. Seeing students bring inhalers to school is routine, not unusual. What families in my district experience is backed by strong medical evidence, pollution from fossil fuels falls most heavily on low income communities, and communities of color causes lasting harm to children whose developing lungs and immune systems make them especially vulnerable.
▶ 1:34:37It increases the chance of premature birth and low birth weights, and it drives more heart attacks and strokes, which accounts for the largest share of pollution related deaths. When clean air protections are rolled back, the pollution doesn't vanish. It relocates from coal power plants and diesel trucks to lungs. And when people get sicker, the cost of health care goes up. So I ask, should large polluters take responsibility for reducing harmful emissions?
▶ 1:35:07Or should families, children and seniors pay? With this bill, republicans are siding with polluters. Democrats are with the people and for the children. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and uphold the clean air protections that people across this country rely on every day. With that, I yield back. >> the gentlelady yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? I recognize Mr. carter from georgia for five minutes. >> Mr. chairman, I rise to speak in opposition to this amendment. H.r.
▶ 1:35:364218, the clean air and economic advancement reform act, amends the clean air act to better facilitate state implementation of the nacs program. The legislation makes several reforms to the nacs process that would improve program implementation for american businesses while maintaining regulatory guardrails protecting health and local communities.
▶ 1:35:57This bill is tailored so that communities are not unfairly punished for air emissions that have little or no control over unfairly penalizing communities for the for. They have no control over our emissions at background level. Creates creates. It makes it impossible to build or update manufacturing facilities for entire swaths of the country.
▶ 1:36:23This impact of stifling progress for a region has a significant impact on the health of that community. People need access to jobs and economic stability. Amendments like those contained in the clear act avoid counting emissions from activities like prescribed fires, which are intended to reduce larger, catastrophic wildfires. I urge a no vote on this amendment, and I support the underlying bill.
▶ 1:36:51>> gentleman yields back any further discussion on the amendment. Seeing none. Roll call has been requested. The clerk will call the roll. >> Mr. latta. Mr. lauda votes no. Mr. griffith. Mr. bilirakis. Mr. bilirakis votes no. Mr. hudson. Mr. carter of georgia. >> no. >> Mr. carter of georgia votes no. Mr. palmer. Mr. dunn.
▶ 1:37:25>> no. >> Mr. dunn votes no. Mr. crenshaw. Mr. joyce. Mr. joyce votes no. Mr. weber. Mr. weber votes no. Mr. alan. Mr. alan votes no. Mr. balderson. Mr. balderson votes no. Mr. fulcher, Mr. fulcher votes no. Mr. pfluger. Mrs. harshbarger, Mr. harshbarger votes no. Mrs.
▶ 1:37:57Miller-meeks. Mrs. kat cammack. Mrs. cammack votes no. Mr. obernolte. Mr. obernolte votes no. Mr. james. Mr. pence. Mr. pence votes no. Mrs. houchin. Mrs. houchin votes no. Mr. frey, Mr. frey votes no. Miss lee. Mr. langworthy. Mr.
▶ 1:38:26Langworthy votes no. Mr. cain. Mr. rowley. Mr. evans, Mr. evans votes no. Mr. coleman. Mr. coleman votes no. Mrs. fedorchuk. Mr. pallone.
▶ 1:38:57Mr. pallone votes. Aye. Mr. get. Mr. get votes I miss schakowsky. Schakowsky votes I miss matsui Mr. matsui votes I miss castor miss castor votes I Mr. tonko I Mr. tonko votes I miss clark. Miss clark votes I Mr. ruiz. Mr. ruiz votes I Mr. peters. Mr. peters votes I. Mrs. dingell. Mrs. dingell votes I. Mr. Mr. veasey votes I miss kelly.
▶ 1:39:26Miss kelly votes I miss barragan miss. Votes I mister soto. Mister soto, votes I miss schrier. Miss schrier, votes I, Mr. han. Mr. han votes I miss fletcher. Miss fletcher votes I miss ocasio-cortez. Miss ocasio-cortez votes I Mr. claus. Mr. claus votes I. Mr. carter of louisiana. Mr. carter of louisiana votes I Mr. menendez. Mr. menendez votes I Mr. mullen Mr. mullen votes I Mr. lansman.
▶ 1:39:57Mr. lansman votes I. Mr. mcclellan. Miss mcclellan votes I chairman guthrie, chairman guthrie votes no. >> is Mr. palmer recorded. >> Mr. palmer is not recorded. Mr. palmer votes no. >> is Mr. griffith recorded. >> Mr. griffith is not recorded. Mr. griffith votes no. >> miss. Mr. pfluger recorded. >> Mr. pfluger is not recorded. Mr. pfluger votes no. >> Mr. james. >> Mr. james is not recorded.
▶ 1:40:28Mr. james votes no. >> Mr. crenshaw recorded. >> Mr. crenshaw is not recorded. Mr. crenshaw votes no.
▶ 1:41:14>> Mr. hudson recorded. >> Mr. hudson is not recorded. Mr. hudson votes no. >> are there any other votes? Seeing none, the clerk will report the vote.
▶ 1:41:45>> Mr. chairman, on that vote there were 24 eyes and 25 noes. >> uh, the amendment is not adopted. And are there any further amendments on the bill? Seeing none, the roll call will be called on the bill. Adoption of the underlying bill. Please call the roll. >> Mr. latta, Mr. lada votes.
▶ 1:42:15Aye, Mr. griffith. Mr. griffith votes aye. Mr. bilirakis. Mr. bilirakis votes aye. Mr. hudson. Mr. carter of georgia. Mr. carter of georgia, votes aye. Mr. palmer. Mr. dunn. >> aye. >> Mr. dunn votes aye. Mr. crenshaw. Mr. joyce. Mr. joyce votes aye Mr. weber. Mr.
▶ 1:42:43Allen, Mr. allen votes aye. Mr. balderson, Mr. balderson votes aye. Mr. fulcher. Mr. fulcher votes aye. Mr. pfluger. Mr. pfluger votes aye. Mrs. harshbarger, Mrs. harshbarger votes aye Mrs. miller-meeks.
▶ 1:43:14Mrs. carmack, Mrs. carmack votes aye. Mr. obernolte. Mr. obernolte votes aye Mr. james. Mr. pence, Mr. pence votes aye Mrs. horton. Mrs. horton votes aye Mr. frye. Mr. frye votes I miss lee. Miss lee. Miss lee, votes aye. Mr. langworthy. Mr.
▶ 1:43:46Langworthy votes aye Mr. cain. Mr. rowley. Mr. evans, Mr. evans, votes aye. Mr. goldman, Mr. goldman votes aye. Mrs. fedorchuk. Mr. pallone, Mr. pallone votes no. Mr. get Mr. get votes. No. Mishkovsky schakowsky votes no. Mr.
▶ 1:44:13Matsui Mrs. matsui votes no. Mrs. casper. Casper votes no. Mr. tonko. No. Mr. tonko votes no. Miss. Clark. Miss clark votes no. Mr. ruiz, Mr. ruiz votes no. Mr. peters, Mr. peters votes no. Mrs. dingell, Mrs. dingell, votes no. Mr. veasey, Mr. veasey votes no. Miss. Kelly.
▶ 1:44:45Miss. Barragan, Mr. votes no. Mr. soto, Mr. soto, votes no. Schreyer, miss schreyer, votes no. Mr. han. Mr. han votes no. Mrs. fletcher, miss fletcher votes no. Miss ocasio-cortez. Miss ocasio-cortez votes no. Mr. Mr. auchincloss votes no. Mr. carter of louisiana. Mr. carter, louisiana votes no. Mr. menendez. Mr. menendez votes no. Mr. mullen. Mr. mullen votes no.
▶ 1:45:15Mr. landsman, Mr. landsman votes no. Miss mcclellan. Miss mcclellan votes no. Chairman. Guthrie, chairman. Guthrie votes aye. >> Mr. palmer recorded. >> Mr. palmer is not recorded. Mr. palmer votes aye. >> Mr. Mr. weber recorded. >> Mr. weber is not recorded. Mr. weber votes aye. >> Mr. hudson recorded. >> Mr. hudson is not recorded. Mr. hudson votes aye. >> Mr. james recorded.
▶ 1:45:48>> Mr. james is not recorded. Mr. james votes aye. Mr. Mr. crenshaw not recorded. Mr. crenshaw votes aye. Mr. cain is not recorded. Mr. cain votes aye. >> any further votes seeing none the clerk will report the roll call. Oh Mr. coleman, did we get Mr. coleman. Yeah, we got it.
▶ 1:46:27>> Mr. chairman, on that vote there were 27 eyes and 23 noes. >> uh, the vote is, uh, positive and, uh, uh, bill is adopted. I now call up h.r. 6387 and ask the clerk to report. >> h.r. 6387a bill to amend the clean air act to require revisions to. >> without objection, first reading of the bill is jason smith.
▶ 1:46:57The bill will be open for amendment at any point so ordered. Is there any discussion on the bill or amendments of the bill? >> Mr. >> recognize Mr. evans from colorado? >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I move to strike the last word. >> you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 1:47:18I rise today in strong support of my common sense bipartisan bill that will help address a critical issue in western states that makes life less affordable for working families. My fire improvement and reforming exceptional exceptional events act, or fire act for short ensures that states like colorado are not punished for smoke and emissions they can't control, while still maintaining strong environmental protections.
▶ 1:47:43We've heard the data 70% of the emissions in colorado originate from outside of the state's jurisdiction. This includes things like canadian wildfires, chinese pollution, and naturally occurring atmospheric events. But the resulting regulations that states like colorado put on to industry and consumers are a leading cause of the affordability crisis facing families in my district.
▶ 1:48:06Um, things like the denver metro area having the highest rate of inflation in the country last fall, when the economy is strangled under the weight of costly and poorly designed ozone attainment standards, jobs are lost, prices strike and financial stress increases negative health health outcomes. And let's be clear I have a kid that struggles with asthma. No one wants cleaner air more than I do. I want a healthy environment for all coloradans.
▶ 1:48:32But when working families are penalized for emissions that they cannot control, this leads to unemployment and higher costs and does not promote healthy living. I'll give you an example. Reformulated gasoline in colorado, commuters across my state are forced in the summertime to buy reformulated gasoline that's typically $0.40 more expensive per gallon.
▶ 1:48:53Despite the fact that this so-called mitigation effort actually reduces ground level ozone levels by about 0.15%. And that's why the legislation this committee is considering today is so important, and why my bill, the fire act, has garnered bipartisan support. It's a common sense solution that simply clarifies how emissions from wildfires, prescribed burns and other exceptional events are treated in federal air quality reviews.
▶ 1:49:21It prevents american jobs from being penalized for emissions outside of their control, or for things like good forest management practices, while still maintaining strong environmental protections and allowing states the flexibility they need to comply with the clean air act.
▶ 1:49:38This modernization effort, while simple, is sorely needed, and that's why I'm proud to report that my fire act has received the endorsement of more than 20 different national, state and local organizations, including the us chamber of commerce, the western governors association, and tri-state generation. This demonstrates that people across all industries and across party lines, know that this bill is common sense and will result in lower costs for americans while still protecting our environment.
▶ 1:50:07I want to thank my democrat co-lead, congressman gray from california, whose district and state faces similar challenges to mine when it comes to ozone, non-attainment and wildfires. And I'm also grateful for my colleagues on this committee that are championing their own legislation vital to the modernization of the clean air act. I look forward to supporting the fire act and all of these bills through the legislative process, and urge my colleagues to join me in advancing them out of the committee today and yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the bill? Yes.
▶ 1:50:35Uh, you're recognized. Uh, yes. You're recognized for five minutes. >> okay. >> me? >> yes. >> okay. >> thank you. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Mr. chairman, I oppose this bill because it is not just unnecessary. It would actually be harmful to states like colorado, which regularly deal with the consequences of wildfires.
▶ 1:50:56As I said earlier during this markup, the clean air act is an enormously consequential piece of legislation that's been massively successful in reducing air pollution and saving the lives of thousands. And good news to my colleague to the north, the clean air act is already written to ensure that polluters have guardrails on their emissions without being unfairly penalized for factors outside their control, like natural disasters and wildfires.
▶ 1:51:26The clean air act provides a pathway to exempt data from these extraordinary events from counting against the state, and that's a good thing. So if the clean air act already lists wildfires is exceptional events, why is this bill needed?
▶ 1:51:41This bill would open the door for claiming weather occurrences like high temperatures on a hot day, are why a state doesn't meet its national ambient air quality standards, and not the industrial plant spewing toxic chemicals in the air.
▶ 1:51:57Looking at colorado's haze and ozone issues, uh, for example, we know for a fact that suncor, the oil refinery I was talking about before, um, is a major contributor to the state's air pollution and is a proven emitter of nitrogen oxide and other volatile organic compounds which create ground level ozone pollution. Um, and that pollution is made worse on hot summer days.
▶ 1:52:25And so under this bill, what would happen would be suncor, who's already emitting pollutants, would be allowed an exemption from clean air act standards simply because of heat. With the climate changing, certainly that is not an emergency situation, and that is not a situation under which we should be allowing exemptions from having to comply.
▶ 1:52:51It would be catastrophic in the west, given the pervasiveness of drought, extreme heat and wildfire throughout the region to allow exemptions every single day. Frankly, as climate change only worsens and increases these disasters, the bill could lead to the systemic weakening of air pollution enforcement. Mr.
▶ 1:53:13Chairman, I would rather protect my constituents from both the harms of pollution and catastrophic wildfire rather than pave the way for polluters to skirt responsibility and blame the planet for a problem they caused. That's why I strongly oppose this bill, which will lead to a growing divergence between actual and regulatory air quality.
▶ 1:53:35And I just want to give a couple of statistics, because we've been talking about this plant and there's plants like this all around the united states in I talked in earlier that suncor has 9000 instances of clean air act violations.
▶ 1:53:51What that means is in 2020 alone, the suncor refinery emitted approximately 20 tons of hazardous air pollutions, 500 tons of carbon monoxide, 50 tons of nitrogen oxides, 125 tons of particulate matter, 450 tons of volatile organic compounds, and 230 tons of sulfur dioxide.
▶ 1:54:20And because of lack of enforcement by the federal government and the state government, a coalition of groups have had to sue and and to be honest, suncor and these other plants, they could comply. And I think we need to have um, I think we need to have them as a refinery. But I also think they need to obey the law.
▶ 1:54:43And I for sure don't think that they should be able to get an exemption to this law because it's a hot day, only magnifying the impact of all of these emissions. And let me say ps because my, my, um, my, my colleague has said this several times. The last I heard, high inflation does not cause air pollution. I yield back. >> the gentlelady yields back. Further discussion on the bill.
▶ 1:55:13Mr. schreier, you recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Uh, I first want to just thank my colleague, representative evans, for identifying the need for increased prescribed while prescribed fire across the west in both of our districts, colorado, washington state, the entire west. We're seeing record breaking catastrophic wildfires that are spreading farther, lasting longer, happening more frequently. Um, and to have higher intensity.
▶ 1:55:45And they're even extending the entire wildfire season, blanketing our skies and having us choking on smoke, uh, and threatening public health for our constituents. It's meant more evacuations, closing roads, closing schools, closing recreation sites, less tourism due to safety concerns. And importantly, it has rendered the air unhealthy during those times for everyone to breathe so beneficial.
▶ 1:56:12Fire, like prescribed fire, is a historically underused and under-resourced tool to enhance forests and reduce catastrophic wildfire. And the cost savings, um, this cost saving and effective measure can mitigate significant air pollution during those months that are brought on by these catastrophic wildfires. They can also keep our communities safe. So there is no question we're going to face smoke.
▶ 1:56:35The issue is really how we experience smoke, you know, are we going to experience it in a predictable, manageable way when we know to stay in our houses and, uh, in a way that's made possible by the already existing exceptional events, demonstrations process, or are we going to choke on it all summer? And this is why I was proud to introduce the national prescribed fire act with the representative. Valadao and my senate colleagues, widen and bud.
▶ 1:57:03This comprehensive package would increase the pace and scale of prescribed fire, boost a technically skilled workforce, and make sure, uh, controlled burns are scheduled when they're most effective and when they are the least risky. In addition, my bill addresses the issues with the current exceptional events process, the one that specifies that this is for prescribed fire.
▶ 1:57:28Although epa has already provided this pathway as representative to get discussed. Uh challenges remain for land and prescribed fire managers to utilize this pathway due to implementation challenges, including difficulty in accessing federal smoke data. It also remains, uh, an administrative process that is not yet codified in statute and untested in the courts in a post chevron world.
▶ 1:57:54So my bill improves the current exceptional events process by thoughtfully codifying prescribed fire as an exceptional event, so long as the event was conducted in line with management plans. It also requires the epa to closely coordinate, modernize, and offer technical assistance. When requesters rely on that agency's data and cooperation.
▶ 1:58:19So I guess the bottom line is that I share representatives evan's concerns here when it comes to catastrophic wildfires, wildfires and prescribed burns. But this bill falls short in a couple of ways. Um, first, although it codifies prescribed wire fire as an exceptional event, um, it doesn't address the red tape that is affecting states and tribes and local entities.
▶ 1:58:44And second, this bill is so broad that it qualifies, as my colleague just said, um, extreme heat and drought, which are so common now as exceptional events, reducing reporting on air pollution and loosening compliance, and weather events like wildfire and dust storms. Um, those are real conditions that need exceptions. But when you're talking about the weather, it feels like a get out of jail free card for polluters.
▶ 1:59:10Um, so while I can't support the bill in its current form, I do appreciate its consideration. I would welcome discussions with representative evans and the chairman on ways that we can make it better. Um, we do desperately need these these reforms, and I look forward to also taking up, um, my bill. Thank you. And I yield back. >> the gentlelady yields back for further discussion on the bill. Mr. bentz, you recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. chair.
▶ 1:59:40I move to strike the last word you recognized, Mr. chair. This this. I rise in strong support of this bill. Um, I'm from oregon. We have 30 million acres of forest. California has 33 million acres of forest. Washington has 23 million acres of forest. And, uh, the time for fiddling here in congress while the west burns is over.
▶ 2:00:03This is the time when we should be passing a bill just like this, so that we can do the one thing, the one thing that would help us, uh, reduce the chances of these cataclysmic wildfires that when they start, uh, you cannot put them out. And that's because we haven't removed the literally millions of tons of excess fuel from our forests that's built up over the past 80 or 100 years.
▶ 2:00:30The this bill would at least give us the foundation to start reducing wildfire risk while avoiding the lawsuits that are then filed.
▶ 2:00:42I just want to point out that if you take two seconds to google what caused was a part of the cause of the forest fires around la, you will find that a failure to manage the forests in that area led to the cataclysmic loss in los angeles. $300 billion is what they think that that fire cost.
▶ 2:01:07And why in the world we would hesitate for a moment to take care of this or address this, as this bill would do is beyond me. So people need to come out and take a look at how and what actually happens in the west when one of these wildfires start. You cannot believe the speed at which these fires move. Now people will come in and say, well, it's climate change. Okay. Um, we have I ever heard of adaptation?
▶ 2:01:33Because one of the proper ways to respond to climate change is to adapt to it, not to sit there and say, well, let's stop china from creating billions of tons of co2. That's not going to happen. What will happen is that we will burn down in the west if we don't do something about it. This bill does. I yield back, the. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the bill? Seeing none, are there any amendments on the bill? Seeing none. The question now occurs on adoption of roll call has been requested.
▶ 2:02:03The clerk will call the roll. >> Mr. latta, Mr. lada votes. Aye, Mr. griffith. Mr. griffith votes aye. Mr. bilirakis. Mr. bilirakis votes aye. Mr. hudson. Mr. hudson votes aye. Mr. carter, of georgia. Mr. palmer. Mr. dunn. Aye. Mr. dunn votes aye. Mr. crenshaw, Mr.
▶ 2:02:33Crenshaw votes aye. Mr. joyce. Mr. joyce votes aye Mr. weber. Mr. weber votes aye Mr. allen. Mr. allen votes aye Mr. balderson. Mr. balderson votes aye Mr. fulcher. Mr. fulcher votes aye Mr. pfluger. Mrs. harshbarger, Mrs. harshbarger votes aye Mrs. miller-meeks. Mrs.
▶ 2:02:58Carmack, Mrs. carmack votes aye. Mr. obernolte, Mr. obernolte votes aye Mr. james. Mr. pence, Mr. pence votes aye. Mrs. houchin. Mrs. houchin votes aye. Mr. frye. Mr. frye votes I miss lee. Miss lee votes aye. Mr. langworthy. Mr. langworthy votes aye. Mr. cain. Mr.
▶ 2:03:26Cain votes aye. Mr. rowley, Mr. evans, Mr. evans votes aye Mr. goldman, Mr. goldman votes aye Mrs. fedorchuk. Mr. pallone. Mr. pallone votes no. Mr. get Mr. get votes no. Miss. Schakowsky. Schakowsky votes no. Miss. Matsui. Miss. Matsui votes no. Miss. Castor, miss.
▶ 2:03:57Castor votes no. Mr. tonko, Mr. tonko votes no. Miss. Clark. Miss clark votes no. Mr. ruiz, Mr. ruiz votes no. Mr. peters, Mr. peters votes no. Mrs. dingell, Mrs. dingell votes no. Mr. veasey. Miss. Kelly. Mr. betagan, miss. Votes no. Mister. Soto. Mister soto, votes no. Miss. Schreyer.
▶ 2:04:25Schreyer votes no. Mr. han. Mr. han votes no. Miss fletcher. Mrs. fletcher votes no. Miss ocasio-cortez. Miss ocasio-cortez votes no. Mr. jake auchincloss. Mr. votes no. Mr. carter of louisiana. Mr. carter of louisiana votes no. Mr. menendez. Mr. menendez votes no. Mr. mullen. Mr. mullen votes no. Mr. landsman. Mr. landsman votes no. Miss mcclellan. Miss mcclellan votes no. Chairman. Guthrie, chairman.
▶ 2:04:55Guthrie votes aye. Mr. carter of georgia is not recorded. Mr. carter of georgia votes I. >> is Mr. palmer recognized. >> Mr. palmer is not recorded. Mr. palmer votes I. >> Mr. pfluger recorded. >> Mr. pfluger is not recorded. Mr. pfluger votes I. >> Mr. james recorded. >> Mr. james is not recorded. Mr. james votes I. >> anybody over. >> Mr. veasey recorded.
▶ 2:05:28>> Mr. is not recorded. Mr. veasey votes no. >> any other votes. Seeing. None the clerk will report the recorded report. The vote. >> Mr. chairman on that vote there were 27 eyes and 23 noes. >> the bill is adopted. The chair now calls up h.r.
▶ 2:05:584214 and asks clerk to report. >> h.r. 42 one for a bill to require the administrator of the environmental protection agency to publish. >> without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with and the bill will be open for amendment. Does anybody wish to be recognized on the bill? Mr. allen, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I move to strike the last word to speak in favor of my bill, h.r.
▶ 2:06:284214, the clean air and building infrastructure improvement act. >> you're recognized for five minutes. >> simply put, the biden administration's unworkable rule to revise pm 2.5 standards tied the hands of job creators and manufacturers. Is it was the result of a bad process and provisions that allowed the biden-harris administration to exploit the clean air act to unfairly punish job creators and manufacturers.
▶ 2:06:53This bill provides much needed clarity that will prevent these abuses from happening again. The golden age of america is upon us, and house republicans are committed to eliminating unnecessary compliance and implementation burdens that harm our state's businesses, communities, and economic development. My legislation provides much needed clarity for the process of obtaining pre-construction permits and meeting compliance requirements for revised national ambient air quality standards.
▶ 2:07:25Importantly, it protects american job creators from attempts in future administrations to abuse the national ambient air quality standards. Specifically, this bill would require epa to publish implementing regulations and guidance when establishing revising national ambient air quality standards. Too often, understaffed state agencies are forced to implement regulations on tight deadlines with little to no guidance from the epa.
▶ 2:07:54Currently, regulations go into effect as soon as they are final, but it often takes epa months or even years to release implementation guidance on the rule. States depend on epa's implementation guidance to understand the requirements and come into attainment. This bill also requires guidance on how to submit pre-construction permit applications under new or revised standards. If epa fails to do its job, the new standards will not apply to the permit applications.
▶ 2:08:22This is about streamlining, permitting and ensuring our state agencies have the proper guidance needed to properly do their jobs. It 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 investment while also protecting our environment. Thank you. And I yield back.
▶ 2:08:56>> gentleman yields back. Is there a discussion on the bill? Seeing no discussion on the bill, are there any amendments to the bill? Gentleman from new jersey, what purpose do you seek recognition? >> Mr. chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will report. What amendment? Mr. menendez. >> h.r. 2414. Underscore zero one. >> clerk will report.
▶ 2:09:27>> amendment to h.r. 4214. Page two. >> line without objection, the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment. >> thank you. Chairman. This is a simple, targeted amendment that strikes a loophole created by section two of the bill, a loophole that would jeopardize both the health of our families and the clean air act's economic benefits. The clean air act requires major new or expanding sources of air pollution to obtain permits before they start construction.
▶ 2:09:55That requirement reflects common sense to to clean up ongoing pollution, we must minimize the amount of pollution that is added in the first place. The amount of pollution those permits allow depends on the national ambient air quality standards. The nacs that the epa periodically updates to protect public health. However, this bill imposes new procedural hurdles on the epa when it updates the nacs.
▶ 2:10:18If the epa fails to clear that additional red tape, then the bill would allow new facilities to receive permits under an outdated standard. In practice, that change means that new facilities would emit more than their fair share of pollution. Previous expert witnesses before this committee have called this provision amnesty for new polluters, and have testified that it would expose families to dirtier, potentially harmful air.
▶ 2:10:43And previous expert witnesses warned that this bill would push the burden of pollution from new facilities to existing ones, forcing businesses already in operation to retrofit to compensate for the excess pollution. Critically, is far more efficient, cost effective and feasible to mitigate pollution and install proper controls. At the outset, my republican colleagues often talk about supporting industry, yet ignore a very foreseeable outcome of this bill.
▶ 2:11:11It would raise pollution control costs overall in the manufacturing sector by obligating existing facilities to undertake expensive retrofits. That shift creates an inefficiency in one of our nation's most successful public health laws. It will needlessly make operating under the clean air act more difficult and more expensive. For businesses that already play by the rules. We cannot create loopholes in a bedrock public health law that our communities and our economy will pay for.
▶ 2:11:40We cannot put the health of the people that we represent at risk. That is why this provision has already been rejected multiple times in previous congresses, and is why we should reject it. Again, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of my amendment. I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. The gentleman from. Gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes on the amendment. >> um. >> Mr. chairman, I seek to be recognized to speak in opposition to this amendment. >> gentleman is recognized.
▶ 2:12:10>> uh, this amendment would significantly gut the bill and ignore the testimony we received on ways to improve naaqs in permitting and the permitting process. The bill would require epa to issue implementation guidance. At the same time, it updates a naaqs standard.
▶ 2:12:27And our two hearings this summer, several witnesses testified that the 2024 ppm 2.5 naaqs issued by the biden-harris administration was so close to background levels that many states would be prevented from issuing permits for new business or factory. This permitting gridlock would shut down our economy and could lead to 200 billion in lost economic activity and a million lost jobs.
▶ 2:12:55This is limited, common sense approach that does not overturn the 2024 naaqs, 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. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion of amendment? Gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chair.
▶ 2:13:23I move to strike the last word. I support the amendment offered by representative menendez. Um, regulated entities claim that epa isn't issuing implementation rules and guidance quickly enough. After updating a national ambient air quality standard, or naaqs. The bill concludes that the solution is to sacrifice public health by allowing facilities to ignore the new standard. But I'm not surprised since this is very much in line with republicans polluter over people agenda.
▶ 2:13:52I reject the trade offs suggested by this provision. I'm not willing to expose our kids to unhealthy air to speed up permits for polluters. But even if even if you were willing to sacrifice air quality for faster permits, that isn't what this bill does. This bill allows some facilities to pollute more while doing nothing to expedite the permitting process.
▶ 2:14:15Under 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 under this bill.
▶ 2:14:37If epa, epa issues a new national ambient air quality standard, that standard doesn't apply for permitting purposes unless and until epa has issued implementation rules and guidance for the new standard. Besides allowing unhealthy levels of air pollution, this provision doesn't even help states speed up permitting. Witnesses have testified that current guidance isn't always practical or necessary.
▶ 2:15:03My colleague's amendment would strike the language in this bill that exempts facilities from complying with new air quality standards. With that, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and with that, I yield back. Mr. chairman. >> gentleman yields back. Is there any further discussion on the republicans on the democrat side? Seeing none there's no further discussion. The vote occurs on the amendment. A roll call has been requested and the clerk will call the roll. >> Mr. latta. Mr.
▶ 2:15:32Latta votes no. Mr. griffith. Mr. griffith votes no. Mr. bilirakis. Mr. bilirakis votes no. Mr. hudson, Mr. hudson votes no. Mr. carter of georgia. Mr. palmer. Mr. palmer votes no. Mr. dunn. Mr. dunn votes no. Mr. crenshaw. Mr. joyce. Mr. joyce votes no.
▶ 2:16:03Mr. weber. Mr. allen. Mr. allen votes no. Mr. balderson, Mr. balderson votes no. Mr. fulcher, Mr. fulcher votes no. Mr. pfluger. Mr. pfluger votes no. Mrs. harshbarger, Mr. harshbarger votes no. Mrs. miller-meeks. Mrs. kat cammack. Mrs. cammack votes no. Mr. obernolte. Mr. obernolte votes no. Mr. james. Mr. pence. Mr.
▶ 2:16:39Pence votes no. Mrs. houchin. Mrs. houchin votes no. Mr. fry, Mr. frey votes no. Miss lee. Miss lee votes no. Mr. langworthy. Mr. cain, Mr. cain votes no. Mr. rowley. Mr. evans, Mr. evans votes no. Mr. goldman, Mr. goldman votes no. Mrs. dorchak. Mr. pallone. Mr.
▶ 2:17:13Pallone votes aye. Mr. get Mr. votes I miss schakowsky. Schakowsky votes I miss matsui. Miss. Matsui votes I miss castor. Miss castor votes I Mr. tonko I Mr. tonko votes I miss clark. Miss clark votes I Mr. ruiz. Mr. ruiz votes I, Mr. peters. Mrs. dingell. Mrs. dingell votes aye. Mr. Mr. veasey votes I miss kelley.
▶ 2:17:44Miss. Kelley votes I miss madigan miss. Votes I mister soto. Mister soto votes I miss schreyer. Mr. han Mr. han votes I miss fletcher. Miss fletcher votes I miss ocasio-cortez. Mr. garcia cortez votes I Mr. jake auchincloss. Mr. votes I. Mr. carter of louisiana. Mr.
▶ 2:18:12Carter of louisiana votes I Mr. menendez. Mr. menendez votes I Mr. mullen. Mr. mullen votes I Mr. landsman Mr. landsman votes I miss mcclellan. Miss mcclellan votes I chairman guthrie, chairman. Guthrie votes no. Mr. carter of georgia is not recorded. Mr. carter of georgia votes no. >> anyone. Mr. james. >> Mr. james is not recorded. Mr. james votes no.
▶ 2:18:45>> Mr. >> peters. Mr. peters is not recorded. Mr. peters votes I. >> Mr. langworthy. >> Mr. langworthy is not recorded. Mr. langworthy votes no. >> Mr. crenshaw. >> Mr. crenshaw is not recorded. Mr. crenshaw votes no. >> okay. >> anyone else seeking to answer the row? Seeing none, the clerk will report the result.
▶ 2:19:19>> Mr. chairman, on that vote there were 23 eyes and 26 no's. >> the amendment is not agreed to. Are there further amendments? Gentlelady from florida? >> Mr. chairman, I have an amendment at the desk labeled amendment number h.r. 4214 underscore 101. >> the clerk will report. State the amendment again. What tom emmer. >> fc underscore and underscore 4214 underscore zero one.
▶ 2:19:49>> did you say 010101. Gentleman have you have the clerk will report. >> amendment to h.r. 4214 page three. After line 23, insert the following. >> without objection. The amendment, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady from florida is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 2:20:16When the list of bills for this markup came out and members had an opportunity to review them, all I could think of was dirty, dirty, dirty, costly. A gift to polluters. Uh, but definitely on theme for the republican controlled congress, uh, where powerful special interests get what they want all the time, and they leave hardworking americans holding the bag.
▶ 2:20:45All of these bills got the clean air act, the clean air act, one of america's historical successes used to be bipartisan. It's not anymore. Uh, and I remember, as congresswoman degette said, um, my time as a little girl remembering, uh, the smoggy days in florida.
▶ 2:21:07I have seen the improvement in air quality and the public health over my lifetime, and I do not want to go back. We should not go back. And as congressman soto said, we do not have to sacrifice economic growth, uh, for environmental protection. They go hand in hand in the last 50 years, I hope prove that to everyone.
▶ 2:21:32But today's bills make plain that the republicans are willing to sacrifice the health and the pocketbooks of families we represent back home. Uh, to side instead with the special interest, uh, these bills and this bill, uh, really gives polluters a fast pass. It's a polluter fast pass with a blind eye to the pocketbooks of people back home. It's a blind eye turning a blind eye to technological advancement.
▶ 2:21:59Uh, all of the republican bills, uh, are worthy of the misnomer of the year award here in congress. But this one, especially the clean air and building infrastructure improvement act members, this doesn't do anything to improve air quality. It simply introduces loopholes that allow polluters to keep polluting. Let's look at one of the biggest sources of air pollution coal plants.
▶ 2:22:24Just last week, energy secretary rice said that the administration would do everything that it can to force old coal plants to keep operating, no matter the expense to ratepayers. Uh, and even when they're broken. Um, yeah. It's true. Um, according to a recent estimate, uh, forcing dirty, expensive, outdoor, outdated coal plants.
▶ 2:22:54Uh, the the already the trump administration has cost americans more than $173 million. That includes plants like schafer's unit 18 in indiana, which has been offline since july because of a damaged turbine in colorado. Craig unit one has been offline since december 19th because of mechanical failures.
▶ 2:23:15They aren't even generating electricity right now, and employees have moved on or retired, forcing utilities to comply with successive 90 day emergency orders completely upends how utilities and state regulators conduct system planning and manage their grids.
▶ 2:23:38Uh, that's the opposite of of what we need for reliable grid and looking forward, forcing all coal plants, broken ones, uh, included, to keep running will cost americans $3 billion per year.
▶ 2:23:53If the trump administration continues this policy on theme and on brand for the party just since last year, that has added $2 trillion to the national debt and inflicted significant economic pain on the people we represent back home. But here, it doesn't just hurt our pocketbooks either. It hurts our health. These plants emit millions of tons of toxic emissions, contributing to asthma and respiratory illnesses.
▶ 2:24:23They cause brain damage in young children as well as cancer, heart and lung diseases. Uh, I was so glad representative mcclellan brought up the outrageous announcement of the epa last week. Um, I'm going to get into that a little bit more on another amendment. Uh, but this amendment would block any new project expected to use power from a coal plant ordered to stay online through the federal power act from receiving updated tax compliance exemptions.
▶ 2:24:53Uh, it's not heavy handed environmental regulation that's killing coal. It's economics. And in the end, republicans are saddling americans with old, expensive energy. The least they could do is stop giving them exemptions from regulations that protect our health and safeguard the clean air that we breathe. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and stand up instead for the clean air act, rather than the polluters who have too much influence here in congress. >> thank you.
▶ 2:25:22The gentlelady yields back. Is there further discussion? Gentleman from georgia, you're recognized for five minutes on the amendment. >> uh, Mr. chairman, I seek to be recognized to speak in opposition to this amendment. >> gentleman is recognized. >> uh, this amendment is unnecessary, and it would delay significant reforms needed to improve permitting under the clean air act, especially at this time when we should be working to bring new electricity generation online.
▶ 2:25:47The clean air act already requires that the air quality standards be protective of public health, with an adequate margin of safety. This bill would not change that. This is a limited common sense approach that does not overturn the 2024 nascar, even though it should be overturned, but minimum minimizes the negative consequences of this unrealistic standard for projects already going through the permitting process, including new power generation facilities.
▶ 2:26:16I urge a no vote on this amendment and I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. The gentleman from new jersey seeks recognition on the amendment. You're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Uh, I support my colleague from florida's amendment. This bill is a thinly veiled attempt to let industry save a few dollars by complying with old, unprotected air quality standards.
▶ 2:26:40And when combined with president trump's exploitation of the federal power act to keep expensive, polluting coal plants online, this bill, in my opinion, is dangerous. For once, the trump administration isn't even trying to, uh, misinform the public without the disastrous impacts of their policies on the american people. Last week, the white house national energy dominance council admitted that the cost to keep old, derelict coal plants running will be passed down to ratepayers.
▶ 2:27:08And a study by grid strategies estimates that keeping these coal plants, unlike cost americans 3.1 to $5.9 billion per year. With these policies, the trump administration is handing billions of dollars to their fossil fuel friends every year, and it's all bankrolled by the american people. But that's apparently not enough.
▶ 2:27:31Republican proponents of this bill also want to make it easier for the facilities that will draw power from these coal plants to skirt public health protections like the nacs. So I strongly encourage my colleagues to support congresswoman castor's amendment, which would close this loophole. I call these the zombie coal plants, because they're coming back from the dead. And these zombie coal plants increase energy bills for neighboring communities and make their air quality worse.
▶ 2:27:58Many of these communities have already seen double digit increases in their power bills, and many also already struggle with poor air quality. At the same time, many families are facing skyrocketing health insurance premiums as a result of the republicans inaction on affordable care act subsidies. But rather than tackling affordability, poor air quality and rising health care costs, the majority is focused on ways to save money for their corporate polluter friends at the cost, at the cost of the health of our communities.
▶ 2:28:26If you care about addressing these issues and I urge you to support the amendment, and with that, I yield back. Mr. chairman. >> gentleman, yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I move to strike the last word. Uh, look, I just want to point out that the legislation today does something washington doesn't do enough of. It fixes the broken process and puts common sense into practice.
▶ 2:28:55Because right now, the clean air act implementation system is just punishing states for pollution that they don't control. It's whipsawing regulators with constant rule changes. And it's and it's trapping projects that we all need in years of permitting limbo. That doesn't help public health. It doesn't clean the air any faster either. But. It's I want to be clear about what this bill does not do, because we're hearing a lot about what they think it does.
▶ 2:29:26It doesn't repeal national ambient air quality standards. It does not weaken epa's obligation to set health based standards with an adequate margin of safety. Those guardrails are staying exactly where they are. The bill does restore predictability. It restores realism over ideology and and just basic fairness to a system that has drifted away from all three. All of these pieces of legislation.
▶ 2:29:51Um, together they update the naaqs cycle from five years to ten years. That's very reasonable, because science doesn't operate on a very tidy five year political or ideological calendar, and neither do state implementation plans. Infrastructure investments, permitting decisions. You know, states are often still working to meet one standard when epa is already revising the next.
▶ 2:30:16It makes it impossible to plan ahead for for this, at the state regulatory level and especially at the investor level. Again, for projects that I think we all believe we need for human prosperity, ten year cycle just provides stability, but also preserves the epa's authority to revise standards when the science truly warrants it. It still gives the epa that authority.
▶ 2:30:36These also strengthen cooperative federalism because it gives states a real opportunity to fix implementation plans, fix implementation implementation plan issues that arise. And so states aren't the junior partner here. They're the ones actually responsible for making these standards work on the ground. And this bill gives them the ability to do that also addresses basic fairness problems. States are being penalized for air quality impacts that they cannot possibly control.
▶ 2:31:05That's wildfire smoke, dust storms, pollution that's transported across state and even national borders, which accounts for the vast majority of the p of 2.5 standards that we're talking about. So let's modernize these exceptional event processes so communities aren't punished for acts of god or emissions drifting from somewhere else. Now, finally, the bill improves epa's advisory process, and it actually ensures more state air regulators have a seat at the table.
▶ 2:31:32Because if you're responsible for implementation, I think your expertise should matter. So at the end of the day, it's very much common sense reform. It's not a we're not removing any protections on the environment. It's really the opposite. It's implementation reform. It protects public health. It restores predictability, respects federalism, focuses enforcement where it can actually make a difference. So I urge my colleagues to support these bills and, um, and to not support the amendment. Thank you I yield back.
▶ 2:32:03>> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none. The roll call has been requested. Uh, clerk will call the roll on the amendment. >> Mr. lauda. Mr. lauda votes no. Mr. griffith. Mr. griffith votes no. Mr. bilirakis. Mr. bilirakis votes no. Mr. hudson. Mr. hudson votes no. Mr. carter of georgia. Mr. carter of georgia votes no. Mr. palmer.
▶ 2:32:36Mr. palmer votes no. Mr. dunn. No. Mr. dunn votes no. Mr. crenshaw, Mr. crenshaw votes no. Mr. joyce, Mr. joyce votes no. Mr. weber. Mr. allen, Mr. allen votes no. Mr. balderson, Mr. balderson votes no. Mr. fulcher, Mr. fulcher votes no. Mr. pfluger. Mrs. harshbarger, Mr.
▶ 2:33:12Harshbarger votes no. Mrs. miller-meeks. Mrs. cammack, Mrs. cammack votes no. Mr. obernolte, Mr. obernolte votes no. Mr. james. Mr. bence, Mr. bent votes no. Mrs. horton. Mrs. horton votes no. Mr. frey, Mr. frey votes no. Miss lee. Miss lee votes no. Mr.
▶ 2:33:44Langworthy, Mr. langworthy votes no. Mr. cain. Mr. rowley, Mr. rowley votes no. Mr. evans, Mr. evans votes no. Mr. goldman, Mr. goldman votes no. Mrs. fedorchuk. Mr. pallone. Mr. pallone, votes aye. Mr. get. Miss. Schakowsky. Miss.
▶ 2:34:14Schakowsky votes I miss matsui. Miss. Matsui votes I miss castor. Castor votes I. Mr. tonko. Mr. tonko votes I miss clark. Miss clark votes I. Mr. ruiz. Mr. ruiz votes I. Mr. peters. Mr. peters votes I. Mrs. dingell. Mrs. dingell votes I. Mr. marc veasey. Mr. votes I miss kelly. Miss.
▶ 2:34:47Madigan miss. Votes I mister soto. Mister soto votes I miss schreyer. Miss schreyer votes I Mr. han. Mr. han, votes I miss fletcher. Miss fletcher, miss fletcher votes I miss ocasio-cortez. Mr. ocasio-cortez votes I, Mr. auchincloss. Mr. austin scott, votes I. Mr. carter. Louisiana. Mr. carter, louisiana votes I Mr. menendez, Mr.
▶ 2:35:16Menendez, votes I Mr. mullen. Mr. mullen votes I Mr. lansman. Mr. lansman votes I miss mcclellan. Miss mcclellan votes I chairman guthrie, chairman. Guthrie votes no. >> other votes. Miss. Miller-meeks. >> Mr. miller. Mr. Mr. miller is not recorded. Mrs. miller-meeks votes. No. >> Mr. cain recorded. >> Mr. cain is not recorded. Mr. cain votes no.
▶ 2:35:47>> Mr. carter, she recorded. >> Mr. jet is not recorded. Mr. get votes I. >> miss kelly recorded. >> miss kelly is not recorded. Miss kelly votes I. >> Mr. >> james is not recorded. Mr. james votes no. >> further votes. All right. The clerk will report the result.
▶ 2:36:22>> Mr. chairman on that vote there were 24 eyes and 27 noes. >> the amendment is not agreed to. Are there any further amendments? Further discussion on the bill. Question now occurs on adoption of h.r. 4214. Uh. Clerk will call the roll. >> Mr. latta. Mr. lada votes. Aye. Mr. griffin. Mr.
▶ 2:36:50Griffin votes aye. Mr. bilirakis. Mr. bilirakis votes aye. Mr. hudson. Mr. hudson votes aye. Mr. carter of georgia. Mr. carter of georgia votes aye. Mr. palmer. Mr. palmer votes aye. Mr. dunn. Aye. Mr. dunn votes aye. Mr. crenshaw, Mr. crenshaw votes aye Mr. joyce, Mr. joyce votes aye Mr. weber. Mr.
▶ 2:37:18Allen, Mr. allen votes aye. Mr. balderson, Mr. balderson votes aye Mr. fulcher. Mr. fulcher votes aye Mr. pfluger. Mrs. harshbarger. Mr. harshbarger votes aye. Mrs. miller-meeks. Mrs. miller-meeks votes aye Mrs. carmack. Mr. obernolte, Mr. obernolte votes aye. Mr.
▶ 2:37:49James. Mr. pence, Mr. pence votes aye. Mrs. houchin. Mrs. houchin. Mrs. houchin votes aye. Mr. frey. Mr. frey, votes aye. Miss lee, miss lee, votes aye. Mr. langworthy. Mr. langworthy votes aye. Mr. cain, Mr. cain votes aye Mr. rowley. Mr.
▶ 2:38:20Rowley votes aye Mr. evans. Mr. evans votes aye. Mr. goldman. Mr. goldman votes aye. Mrs. fedorchuk. Mr. pallone. Mr. pallone votes no. Mr. get Mr. get votes. No. Miss. Schakowsky mishkovsky votes. No. Miss. Matsui Mr. matsui votes no. Miss. Kastor, miss kastor votes no. Mr. tonko, Mr.
▶ 2:38:47Tonko votes no. Miss. Clark, miss clark votes no. Mr. ruiz. Mr. ruiz, Mr. ruiz votes no. Mr. peters, Mr. peters votes no. Mrs. dingell. Mrs. dingell, Mrs. dingell, votes no. Mr. veasey, Mr. veasey votes no. Miss. Kelly. Miss. Kelly.
▶ 2:39:14Miss kelly, votes no. Miss. Madigan, Mr. votes no. Mister soto. Mister soto, votes no. Mr. schreier, Mrs. schreier, Mr. meyer votes no. Mr. han. Mr. han votes no. Mr. fletcher, miss fletcher votes no. Mr. ocasio-cortez, miss ocasio-cortez votes no. Mr. jake auchincloss, Mr. austin scott votes no. Mr. carter of louisiana. Mr. carter of louisiana votes no. Mr.
▶ 2:39:45Menendez, Mr. menendez votes no. Mr. mullen, Mr. mullen votes no. Mr. landsman, Mr. landsman votes no. Miss mcclellan. Miss mcclellan votes no. Chairman. Guthrie, chairman. Guthrie votes aye. Mr. weber is not recorded. Mr. weber votes aye. >> is miss cammack report recorded? >> Mrs. carmack is not recorded. Mrs. campbell votes I. >> Mr. james recorded. >> Mr. james is not recorded.
▶ 2:40:17Mr. james votes I. >> is further votes seeing none. The clerk will report the roll call. >> Mr. chairman on that vote there are 28 eyes and 24 noes. >> we lost. >> no, the amendment is not adopted.
▶ 2:40:48>> the bill? Yeah. The bill that was on the bill. The bill is adopted. >> the bill is adopted. >> all right. The chair calls up h.r. 161, and the clerk asked the clerk to report. >> h.r. 161. A bill to amend sections 111, 169 and 171. >> not objection. The first reading of the bill is dispensed with.
▶ 2:41:16The bill will be open for amendment at any point so ordered. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? >> Mr. chairman? >> Mr. griffith of virginia, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Speaking in favor of my bill, h.r.
▶ 2:41:32161, the new source review permitting improvement act, my bill simply clarifies that a modification of a power plant or industrial plant should not include projects to reduce emissions or increase efficiency over the history of the clean air act.
▶ 2:41:47There has been much argument over what the definition of a major modification should be, and at what point should any work on a stationary source require more intensive epa modeling and review? Essentially, at some industrial plants, you have an owner who ends up not installing new pollution pollution controls for fear of having to go through the complex and uncertain new source review permitting process where they might actually lose their air permit.
▶ 2:42:19What we are trying to do with this bill is clarify and unify clean air act definitions. I would submit that h.r. 161 is really a permitting bill. We can talk all we want about the desire to build advanced manufacturing facilities, but without some tweaks to clean air act permits, some manufacturing facilities will not be built, not expanded, or even improved.
▶ 2:42:44More specifically, my bill is necessary, in part because of how some courts have interpreted the word modification to have different meanings depending on which section of the clean air act the word appears in. My bill would clarify questions of interpretation by adopting the so-called maximum hourly emission rate test currently utilized under the epa's new source performance standard program.
▶ 2:43:10To ensure that this change to the 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 over the preceding ten years. My bill also specifically says that plants have to reduce emissions per kilowatt hour, or per piece of furniture or ton of steel produced at the facility.
▶ 2:43:32Finally, when clarifying the term modification across the prevention of significant deterioration permitting program and in non-attainment areas, I have included an actual and, excuse me, an annual actual emissions test for the entirety of the stationary source. I am pleased to see the committee mark up my bill to fix a statute that is long overdue for an update. Mr. chairman, I'm proud to have support for h.r.
▶ 2:43:58161 from numerous industry groups, including american public power association, the national rural electric cooperative association, the electric power supply association, the american fuel and petrochemical manufacturers, the american cement association, the aluminum association, the american petroleum institute, the interstate natural gas association of america, the national association of manufacturers, the national mining association, the american forest and paper association, the us chamber of commerce, and citizens for responsible energy solutions. But wait, Mr.
▶ 2:44:27Chairman, there's more. I am also proud to have support of several labor unions for h.r. 161, including united mine workers of america, the transportation division of the sheet metal, air, rail and transportation workers, the international brotherhood of boilermakers, the international brotherhood of electrical workers, the transportation communications union, the ironworkers union, and the association of heat and frost insulators and allied workers.
▶ 2:44:52I urge my colleagues to vote yes and support this bill favorably to the floor, and I yield back on the underlying bill itself. Although the chairman knows I do have an amendment. >> gentleman yields back for the discussion on the bill. The gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. We're not on the manager's amendment yet. Right now. >> we are. >> not okay. I just wanted to express my opposition to the so called new source review permitting improvement act, because it does nothing to improve permitting.
▶ 2:45:22As the title suggests, at our september hearing on these bills, we heard from a state regulator witness that changing how we measure emissions, to quote maximum, our emission rate would require facilities to have expansive record keeping and would require state agencies to have adequate staff and time to meticulously go over that information. And that is significant additional work.
▶ 2:45:46If there aren't resources to do that additional work, it's very likely these facilities and their increased pollution will fall through the cracks and go completely unchecked, changing how emissions are measured, as this bill proposes, would allow facilities, in my opinion, to cook the books when measuring their emissions and operations to make it harder to understand the potential harm to communities. The goal of this bill is not to measure emissions of facilities.
▶ 2:46:10Rather, I believe it's to give facilities a way out of regulating their cancer causing emissions. I'm not saying that's what the what the sponsor intends, but that's the consequence. And so they're going to end up polluting with reckless abandon, essentially. And this bill also redefines what activities count as a modification or construction at a facility.
▶ 2:46:32This change may sound reasonable, but it's drafted so broadly that even major changes to a facility that increase emissions would not trigger required emission controls. So I think all in all, this is good for the industrial facility, bad for the neighborhood next to them who will have increased hospitalizations, er visits and asthma rates. At the end of the day, the clean air act is a law rooted in protecting public health.
▶ 2:46:57If we move forward with this bill, I think we lose sight of the goals of the clean air act, which is to ensure safe and clean air. So with that, I strongly urge a no vote on the bill, and I bill and I yield back. Mr. chairman. >> the gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the bill? Mr. lotter, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Strike the last word. >> you're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. My friend, the gentleman from virginia's ninth congressional districts. Legislation.
▶ 2:47:21The new source review permitting improvement act, will clarify epa interpretations of new source review and sr regarding the clean air act. Plans would not have to go through the full nsr process, so long as the project does not result in a net increase in hourly emissions. This reform will streamline permitting and reduce regulatory uncertainty and whiplash.
▶ 2:47:46Currently, for example, if a cement plant needs to be upgraded with more efficient motors, it cannot do so unless they go through the nsr process. Results in costly technical analysis and permitting costs, even if the motor is identical and more efficient. H.r. 161 will reduce permitting delays for new construction of natural gas plants and making updates to existing coal and gas plants.
▶ 2:48:14This is essential to adding more baseload generation, letting industry start site preparation before a permit will lead to projects being completed faster and without harm to air quality. What this means is more affordable power from natural gas and coal coming online faster by modernizing the nsr permitting process, manufacturing facilities will be able to keep pace with economic growth and technological advancements. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from virginia for introducing h.r.
▶ 2:48:44161 to support american manufacturing and energy production. And Mr. chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the bill? Further amendments? >> and the have an amendment at the desk. >> Mr. griffith, you are recognized for five minutes. >> I need to report the amendment first. >> clerk will report the amendment. >> amendment to h.r.
▶ 2:49:12161 offered by Mr. griffith of virginia. Page three, line 11. >> objection. The reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Speaking in favor of my amendment. This amendment will help expedite the building of job creating facilities such as power plants, steel mills, auto and defense plants. The amendment gives owners and operators absolute certainty on what types of construction are allowed before the clean air act permit is required.
▶ 2:49:40There has been much hemming and hawing at epa going back to the 80s on when construction actually triggers the clean air act. For example, in a 1993 epa news source review and prevention of significant deterioration enforcement memo, epa specifically prohibits the building of supports and foundations and the laying of underground pipe under current law, a project that triggers new source review requirements needs a permit before the owner begins to actually construct
▶ 2:50:11Anything related to the emissions unit, which is the the part of the facility. The emissions unit is the part of the facility that will actually generate emissions, like the natural gas boiler. Under my amendment, a plant owner does not need an nsr permit for pouring concrete slabs or building the shells of buildings that will later house boilers, turbines, furnaces, etc.
▶ 2:50:32The amendment also defines emissions unit for the first time in this section of the clean air act, as the discrete parts of the plant that emit regulated pollutants. This makes common sense and maintains environmental protection. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on my amendment, and I would say, Mr. chairman, that these amendments came about after we were in the in the subcommittee. Um, it's amazing how folks come in with helpful suggestions.
▶ 2:51:02I thought they were good, but they came in with helpful suggestions when they suddenly say, oh, wait a minute. This bill has been bouncing around for years, but it might actually pass this year. So they came in with these amendments. I think they're good amendments. And I would urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment. >> the gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion? Gentleman from is recognized, Mr. pallone. >> thank you.
▶ 2:51:26I would urge my colleagues to oppose what is essentially a manager's amendment here. This amendment doesn't do anything to address the major concerns that I and others on the democratic side, will express in opposition to the underlying bill. This manager's amendment does not limit pollution. In fact, the the part of the bill that makes clear emissions will rise remains intact even with this manager's amendment.
▶ 2:51:55So again, I would urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment as well as the underlying bill. >> gentleman yields back as a further discussion on the amendment. If there's no further discussion, the vote occurs on the amendment. All those in favor signify by. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed? No. The opinion of the chair. The ayes have it.
▶ 2:52:23Uh, the gentleman's request a recorded vote on the underlying bill and as many as amended. I think we have. >> amendments, Mr. chairman. We have some amendments. >> yeah. Oh, we have further amendments. Yeah. Are there any further amendments? Yes. >> doctor. Ruiz, member. >> are you going to vote on the first amendment? Voice vote?
▶ 2:52:56Okay. Well, Mr. chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. >> doctor ruiz, you or, uh, recognized for five minutes. Oh, actually, the clerk will report the amendment. Doctor. >> am I recognized now? >> yes. >> yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. chairman. Uh, my amendment clarifies. Did you report the amendment? >> no, he hadn't reported it yet. >> oh. Sc underscore and underscore h.r. Underscore 161.
▶ 2:53:28Underscore zero one. >> the clerk will report the amendment. >> amendment to hr 161. Add at the end the following section six limitation in objection. >> the first reading is dispensed with. And uh, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. First amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 2:53:49My amendment clarifies that the provisions of the new source review, permitting improvement act do not apply to new or modified sources of pollution located within five miles of a school, a hospital or healthcare facility. That buffer matters because where pollution happens is just as important as how much pollution happens. The new source review exists for a reason.
▶ 2:54:13It is one of the clean air acts most important safeguards ensuring that when industrial facilities are built or expanded, they do not significantly increase harmful emissions without proper review and controls. Nsaa is not red tape, it is a public health protection. But as currently written, this bill weakens that protection in two dangerous ways. First, the bill changes the definition of what constitutes a quote unquote, modification of a facility.
▶ 2:54:44This change explicitly allows facilities to emit more pollution than they otherwise could under current law, while avoiding full permitting review. In plain terms, the bill makes it easier for toxic emissions to rise. Second, the bill contains no meaningful guardrails to protect communities that are already overburdened by pollution, especially communities where people are least able to avoid exposure.
▶ 2:55:10Children in schools, patients in hospitals, seniors in long term facilities, and families seeking medical treatment. We know from decades of public health research and data that proximity matters. The closer to the pollution, the higher the risk for dangerous illnesses.
▶ 2:55:30Living or learning near industrial sources is linked to higher rates of asthma, respiratory disease, cardiovascular illness and cancer. Even facilities that are currently offline, like the one in my district, coachella valley power plant in mecca, could be affected by this bill by changing key definitions and playing with how we measure emissions increases.
▶ 2:55:58The legislation could allow such a plant to resume operations or make modifications without a full nsr review, sidestepping critical guardrails. This is unacceptable. The residents of mecca have already borne the consequences of this plant's past emissions, experiencing higher rates of asthma, respiratory illnesses and other health impacts, particularly among children and other vulnerable population.
▶ 2:56:24My amendment protects community health by preventing even temporarily idle plants from restarting within five miles of schools, hospitals or healthcare centers. My amendment does not stop development. It does not ban new facilities. What it does is draw a clear, reasonable, common sense line.
▶ 2:56:46If a facility wants to take advantage of these looser permitting standards, it should not be allowed to do so within five miles of a place where human health is most at risk. This is a modest safeguard, but a critical one. Supporters of this bill argue that it simply modernizes, permitting. But modernization should never come at the expense of safety. The underlying bill benefits polluters and puts communities at risk.
▶ 2:57:14My amendment clarifies that these changes should not apply where polluters pollution's impact is greatest, and underscores that economic growth and public health can go hand in hand. You can have both, not one at the expense of others, and we can support manufacturing and infrastructure while protecting children, patients and frontline communities. So this is a common sense, bipartisan and essential.
▶ 2:57:40And I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and defend public health where people are most vulnerable. And I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. There's a further discussion on the amendment. Yes. Mr. griffith of virginia, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I rise to oppose the amendment offered by the good gentleman.
▶ 2:58:04Um, you know, what we're trying to do is to bring in the definition so that it is similar or equal to the epa's new source performance standards program. We haven't seen a lot of folks coming in here saying that those tests in the epa's new source performance standard program don't work, or that there's somehow detrimental to the environment and so forth. And I would say for those members who are relatively new for the old ones, I apologize. The older ones, I apologize.
▶ 2:58:33But you may have heard and wondered, why did I say in my opening that the bill specifically says that plants have to reduce emissions per kilowatt hour, or per piece of furniture or ton of steel produced? And the whole reason I brought this bill and got interested in the subject in the first place is I have a furniture manufacturer in my district in galax, virginia that I toured, and they have a conveyor belt to nowhere.
▶ 2:59:00That conveyor belt goes I my memory serves me. It's a little bit longer than the length of this committee room, and then circles back and comes back around and goes back into the rest of the production process. At one point in time, at the end of that conveyor belt, there was a lacquering station. They took the station out because they no longer needed it.
▶ 2:59:25They found a better way to do it, but their lawyers advised them that because removing any part of the conveyor belt system would possibly trigger the clean air acts new source review that their entire facility could be in jeopardy, that they could lose their air permit. That's the purpose of this bill.
▶ 2:59:53And the gentleman's amendment. I think it's well intentioned, guts the bill for any existing facility that happens to be near a school or any healthcare facility. And as one might imagine that when you're in appalachia and other regions of the country, the factory comes in, in this case, numerous. At one time, numerous factories came into a little community and brought workers in, and the community developed.
▶ 3:00:22And guess what? They wanted their children educated. So they built a school and they built a hospital, and they built other health care facilities. And now they need to get rid of that conveyor belt. And the gentleman's amendment would prevent them from doing so. The bill will allow it. The amendment will not. The amendment guts it. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment. >> gentleman yields back further discussion on the amendment. Mr.
▶ 3:00:52Matsui, you're recognized for five minutes. >> I move to strike the last word and speak in support of this amendment. >> you recognized. >> whatever happened to make america healthy again over the last year? It's just been one attack after another on america's health and well-being. Immediately after taking office in january 2025, the trump epa basically stopped enforcing environmental laws.
▶ 3:01:19In april, epa exempted 66 coal power plants across the country from air pollution regulations. In may, epa announced the rollback of pfas limits for drinking water. In june, the epa announced the rollback of regulations on mercury and other toxic air pollution from coal plants, and the same month they instructed staff to stop enforcing violations against fossil fuel companies.
▶ 3:01:47In august, they announced the rollback of vehicle pollution limits. In november, the administration asked courts to overturn the national air quality standards for soot. Just last week, epa announced they would stop calculating the health benefits and lives saved from air pollution regulations for soot and ozone pollution. Now this list goes on and on.
▶ 3:02:13And now republicans are forcing through seven partizan bills that would further gut federal pollution protections and create new loopholes for industrial facilities. My republican colleagues will tell you they're cutting through unnecessary bureaucracy or liberating americans from government overreach. But the truth is, they're just giving kickbacks to big corporations. Make america healthy again is just a cover for making failing industries wealthy again.
▶ 3:02:41If they cared about your health, epa wouldn't be hiding the health impacts of these pollution rollbacks. If congressional republicans cared about your health, they would have voted to extend the advanced premium tax credits that 24 million americans rely on. If they cared about your health, they wouldn't stand idly by with this administration destroys our public health and research ecosystems.
▶ 3:03:08But instead of standing up to this administration and protecting lives of their constituents, republicans are pushing policies that will make americans even sicker. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and support the common sense changes in this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentlelady yields back. Further discussion on the amendment. >> Mr. chairman. >> miss castor, florida, you recognize. >> I move to strike the last word. >> you recognized.
▶ 3:03:39>> thank you, Mr. chairman. Um, I want to thank doctor ruiz for bringing this very important amendment. We we have to do everything in our power right now to rein in the trump administration. All they're trying to do to gut the clean air act. Uh, every one of these bills that are a dirty gift to polluters, a polluter fast pass everything that these bills would do to harm the health of our neighbors.
▶ 3:04:04And I'd like to ask unanimous consent to submit for the record two articles, one from today's new york times. The environmental protection agency has stopped estimating the dollar value of lives saved in the cost benefit analysis for new pollution rules and the conversation, a university of colorado environmental epidemiologist. Her her analysis of what air pollution does to the human body.
▶ 3:04:31Asking unanimous consent. >> gentlelady yields back. >> no, I'm asking unanimous consent for submission into the record of these two articles. >> what? Yes, >> sorry, we were in. >> a yes. Without objection. >> thank you. And let me read a little bit from the new york times story for the first time ever.
▶ 3:04:56Last week, the epa stopped estimating the monetary value of lives saved when setting limits on two of the most widespread deadly air pollutants fine particulate matter and ozone. Instead, the agency is calculating only the cost to the companies of complying with pollution regulations. The trump administration is saying literally that they put zero value on human life, marshall burke, an environmental economist at stanford, said.
▶ 3:05:26If your kid breathes in air pollution from a power plant or an industrial source, epa is saying that they only care insofar as cleaning up that pollution would cost the emitter. It's a drastic change to the way the government weighs the cost of curbing air pollution against the benefits of to public health and the environment.
▶ 3:05:47It could lead to looser controls on pollutants from coal burning power plants, oil refineries, steel mills and other industrial sites across the country, resulting in dirtier air. And this, um. Jenny shearston, environmental epidemiologist at university of colorado, gets into this. She said. The clean air act is one of the most successful public health policies ever implemented by the united states.
▶ 3:06:14First passed in 1970, clean air act regulates air pollution emissions and authorizes epa to set air quality standards for the nation. Well, all these republican bills, they want to go backwards. All of the polluters, all of their interests are more important.
▶ 3:06:34They're saying in each and every one of these bills and what the trump administration did on friday, she says breathing in air pollution like ozone and pm 2.5 harms nearly every major system in the human body. It's particularly hard on the cardiovascular, respiratory and neurological systems. Numerous studies have found that pm 2.5 exposure is associated with increased death from cardiovascular diseases like coronary heart disease.
▶ 3:07:02Even short term exposure can increase hospitalization for heart attacks and strokes. Several studies show that the impact of pollution sources like power plants on human health are pretty severe. For example, the retirement of coal and oil power plants has been connected with a reduction in pre-term birth to mothers living near the power plants.
▶ 3:07:28Scientists studied 57,000 births in california and found the percentage of babies born preterm to mothers living within 3.1 miles of a coal or oil fueled power plant fell from 7% to 5.1% after the power plant was retired.
▶ 3:07:43Another study in louisville, kentucky, found that for coal fired power plants, either retiring or installing pollution reduction technologies such as flue gas desulfurization systems, coincided with a drop in hospitalizations and emergency department visits for asthma and reduced asthma medication use, so reducing preterm births, hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and medication use saves money by
▶ 3:08:13Preventing expensive health care treatment. The point that, uh, congresswoman fletcher was making earlier. You're ripping away healthcare, you're making lives less healthy. And so, doctor reis, you're an er doc. You understand the impact on families. Thank you very much for bringing this important amendment. And again, I beseech our colleagues to stand up for families back home, their health, their pocketbooks, and and stop giving polluters a fast pass and causing all the harm. I yield back my time. >> gentlelady yields back.
▶ 3:08:43Is there further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none there any further discussion? Seeing none. Uh, if there's no further discussion, avert vote occurs on the amendment. A roll call has been requested and the clerk will call the roll. >> Mr. latta, Mr. lada votes no. Mr. griffith. Mr. griffith votes no. Mr. bilirakis. Okay. >> this is for the record. >> Mr. hudson. Mr.
▶ 3:09:12Carter of georgia, Mr. carter of georgia, votes no. Mr. palmer. Mr. palmer votes no. Mr. dunn. Mr. crenshaw, Mr. crenshaw votes no. Mr. joyce. Mr. joyce votes no. Mr. weber. Mr. allen, Mr.
▶ 3:09:35Allen votes no. Mr. balderson, Mr. balderson votes no. Mr. fulcher, Mr. fulcher votes no. Mr. pflueger. Mrs. harshbarger. Mrs. miller-meeks, Mrs. miller-meeks votes no. Mrs. cammack. Mr. obernolte, Mr.
▶ 3:10:11Obernolte votes no. Mr. james. Mr. james votes no. Mr. bence. Mr. bense votes no. Mrs. horton. Mrs. horton votes no. Mr. frey, Mr. frey votes no. Miss lee. Miss lee votes no. Mr. langworthy, Mr. langworthy votes no. Mr. cain, Mr. cain votes no. Mr. rowley, Mr. rowley votes no. Mr. evans, Mr. evans votes no. Mr. goldman, Mr. goldman votes no. Mrs.
▶ 3:10:44Fedorchuk. Mr. pallone. Mr. pallone votes I. Mr. get Mr. get votes I miss schakowsky miss. Schakowsky votes I miss matsui Mr. matsui votes I miss castor I miss castor votes I Mr. tonko I Mr. tonko votes I miss clark I miss clark votes I Mr. ruiz Mr. ruiz votes I Mr.
▶ 3:11:14Peters. Mr. peters votes I Mrs. dingle. Mrs. dingell votes I. Mr. veasey. Mr. veasey votes I miss kelly. Miss kelly votes I miss but a gun miss votes I Mr. soto. Kim schrier kim schrier votes I Mr. han. Mr. han votes I miss fletcher. Miss fletcher votes I miss ocasio-cortez. Mr.
▶ 3:11:44Ocasio-cortez votes I Mr. claus. Mr. claus votes I. Mr. carter of louisiana. Mr. carter of louisiana votes I Mr. menendez Mr. menendez votes I Mr. mullin Mr. mullen votes I Mr. landsman Mr. landsman votes I miss mcclellan. Miss mcclellan votes I chairman guthrie. >> no. >> chairman guthrie votes no.
▶ 3:12:18>> Mr. Mr. bilirakis, Mr. >> bilirakis is not recorded. Mr. bilirakis. >> Mr. hudson. >> Mr. hudson is not recorded. Mr. hudson votes. No. >> fedorchuk. >> misses. Fedorchuk is not recorded. Mrs. fedorchuk votes no. >> miss. >> cammack miss cammack is not recorded. Mrs. carmack votes no. >> Mr. weber. >> Mr. weber is not recorded. Mr. weber votes no. >> miss harshbarger. >> miss harshbarger is not recorded. Mrs.
▶ 3:12:48Harshbarger votes no. >> and you know the democrats, Mr. soto. >> Mr. soto is not recorded. Mr. soto votes I. >> doctor dunn. >> Mr. dunn is not recorded. Mr. dunn votes no. >> anyone else. >> seeing no one requesting to respond to the roll. The clerk will report the result. >> Mr.
▶ 3:13:17Chairman, on that vote, there were 24 a's and 29 no's. >> the amendment is not agreed to. Are there further amendments? Chair. >> I have an amendment at the desk. >> gentleman from new york is recognized the amendment at the desk. Thank you for the amendment. >> it's labeled fc underscore amd underscore h.r. 161 underscore oh one. >> the clerk will report. >> amendment to h.r. 161.
▶ 3:13:44Add at the end the following section six applicability. >> without objection, the reading of amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chair. When the clean air act was enacted, many power plants were grandfathered from certain requirements, allowing them to avoid installation of the best available pollution controls. For more than five decades, these power plants have operated without scrubbers and other mitigation technologies.
▶ 3:14:13This has turned out to be a tremendous loophole in the law. I doubt many members of congress at that time imagined that some of those same coal fired power plants would continue operating for more than 50 years into the future, but the new source review program ensures that these coal fired power plants lose their special status if they go through a major modification. H.r.
▶ 3:14:35161 would, among other changes, exclude a wide variety of facility upgrades from being considered a modification, allowing the dirtiest, most polluting power plants to continue to be able to operate while avoiding taking actions to reduce their emissions. This amendment would simply exclude coal fired power plants from the benefits of the bill's proposed reforms to the new source review program. I believe this is simply a matter of fairness.
▶ 3:15:04Why should some coal plants be able to massively pollute and put americans health at risk while competing with other electricity generating facilities, including newer coal plants that are required to protect people's health and control their pollution. We should be requiring all industrial facilities, whether they're brand new or undergoing a major upgrade, to utilize the best available, cost effective pollution controls. That has been the goal of the new source review program.
▶ 3:15:34I encourage members to support this amendment to prevent coal fired power plants from having another free pass for decades to come. With that, Mr. chair, I thank you and yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there discussion of the amendment? The gentleman from new jersey is recognized. New jersey, I'm sorry. Gentleman from virginia is recognized. Thanks. >> get me in trouble. I know, and he's a good man. Alright.
▶ 3:16:03This is the turn off the lights at every factory in the ninth congressional district of virginia, in the sixth congressional district of virginia, in east tennessee, in west virginia. Let's just put central appalachia completely out of business, because what the amendment says is it shall not apply with respect to any stationary source that generates electricity from coal or uses electricity generated by a facility that generates electricity from coal.
▶ 3:16:32Well, we've been using a lot of coal for a lot of years, and we still have coal fired power plants. In fact, we have one in my district that's one of the cleanest in the world. And it was it was I was there at the ribbon cutting in 2012. It's got a lot of life expectancy left on it.
▶ 3:16:51And to say that this completely takes away the right for any area that uses electricity generated by any coal doesn't say I mean, I'm not asking for you all to admit it, because I'd oppose that too. But it doesn't say that uses 90% of its electricity from coal. It says it uses electricity from coal. Now come on, let's get reasonable. You can't shut down coal.
▶ 3:17:17You can't have power and say, we're only going to use wind or solar and we're going to not only are we going to have all of our electric cars run on it, and not only are we going to run our houses on it, but we're going to run our schools, our hospitals, our factories that employ people can't have any electricity or can't have any modification in their systems, can't be reviewed to improve,
▶ 3:17:47Increase or build new. If the electricity in the community you're in uses electricity generated by coal. Well, as you might imagine, I'm from the cold regions of central appalachia. And we're tired of being kicked around. And I know the gentleman didn't mean it because he's a good man.
▶ 3:18:08But this is just another kicking appalachia around amendment because people don't understand, and we want to have a good life. We want more jobs. We want increased incomes. And people have to understand that means that probably in perpetuity. But certainly for the next 50 years, we're going to still use electricity generated in some measure by coal.
▶ 3:18:35And to say that we can't is you might as well put a closed out of business, move out of here. This is going to be a desert for jobs and a desert for people who want a better way of life. That's not the american way. I urge my colleagues to vote no. >> gentleman yields back further discussion. Gentlelady from florida. 65 minutes to speak on the amendment. >> move to strike. The last word. Mr. chairman. >> the lady is recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 3:19:05I strongly support the amendment offered by ranking member tonko. At a time when the republicans are offering these costly, dirty bills that gut the clean air act there, american families are also facing facing this radical affordability squeeze while trump um, you know, here we are. We're kind of looking at the one year what happened over the last year.
▶ 3:19:30A lot of broken promises happened over the last year, because you may remember the president said, I'm going to lower your electricity bill. Well, all of the data is in and electricity prices are up by 13% on average, and they're much higher in many other places, many communities across the country.
▶ 3:19:48And at the same time, the trump administration has gutted 31 pollution protections for fitting $275 billion in annual savings and 30,000 preventable deaths per year. And get this the trump administration handed out nearly 70 pollution exemptions for coal fired power plants, exposing americans to higher amounts of at least eight toxic pollutants.
▶ 3:20:14And I know that my colleague from virginia fights for his people, but it's not, uh, regulations that have have harmed the coal industry. It's frack gas. It's cheaper. Uh, what's hurt coal over time is economics. Coal accounted for 20% of us electricity generated in 2024, but that was down from about 50% in the year 2000. And the main reason for that decline is simple.
▶ 3:20:44Coal is more expensive than the other options we have today. Um, republicans nevertheless have chosen to double down bringing forth this package of bills today, the polluter free for all the polluter fastpasses paid for by hard working american families, their pocketbooks, their health. Uh, but what's really quite simple is thanks to american innovation, we have newer, modern technologies.
▶ 3:21:12These are technologies we did not have back in 1970 when congress first allowed the grandfathering of old energy plants under the clean air act. And as a result, those very old and inefficient plants are forced to innovate. That happened back home in tampa at the tampa electric company. Uh, coal fired power plant provided our power for many years. Then they the technology became available to for scrubbers.
▶ 3:21:43They instituted that. But now they've moved mainly to gas and they should be moving faster to solar. But all of these innovations are very important. Um, otherwise you all are going to keep us stuck in the past, stuck in the bad old days. In the bad old days are very expensive, and the bad old days are very unhealthy. The bad old days. If you take us back to the bad old days, you'll continue to boost chinese technologies.
▶ 3:22:10And you're going to do that at a ♪time when the president is insulting our allies and driving our friends and allies into the arms of our adversaries, it's not smart. People deserve a lot better. Uh, rep tom cole amendment would restrict older, less efficient, high, higher polluting coal plants from using the loopholes in the act and require they be brought to the same standards as all other facilities.
▶ 3:22:38That's fair. My republican colleagues also often speak about winning the ai race, but they're not serious about it. They just use it as an excuse to side with polluters every time. We can't win the ai competition for the 21st century with energy policies from the 20th century, we can't stay in the bad old days. We have to move forward. This is the united states of america.
▶ 3:23:07We can have clean air and we can have cheaper, cleaner energy at the same time. But we can't do it while passing on exorbitant costs to working american families by favoring old, polluting energy sources. So this amendment is smart policy. I urge you to vote yes. I yield back my time. >> the gentlelady yields back. Is there further discussion on the any further discussion on the democrat side, seeing none. There's no further discussion.
▶ 3:23:36The vote occurs on the amendment. A roll call has been requested and the clerk will call the roll. >> Mr. latta, Mr. lauda votes. No. Mr. griffith. No. Mr. griffith votes no. Mr. bilirakis. Mr. hudson, Mr. hudson votes no. Mr. carter of georgia. Mr. carter of georgia votes no. Mr. palmer. Mr. dunn. Mr. dunn votes no. Mr. crenshaw.
▶ 3:24:11Mr. joyce. Mr. joyce votes no. Mr. weber, Mr. weber votes no. Mr. alan. Mr. alan votes no. Mr. balderson, Mr. balderson votes no. Mr. fulcher, Mr. fulcher votes no. Mr. pfluger. Mrs. harshbarger. Mr. miller-meeks. Mrs. miller-meeks votes no. Mrs. kat cammack. Mrs. cammack votes no. Mr.
▶ 3:24:43Obernolte. Mr. obernolte votes no. Mr. james. Mr. james votes no. Mr. bence. Mr. benn's votes no. Mrs. houchin. Mrs. houchin votes no. Mr. frey, Mr. frey votes no. Miss lee. Miss lee, votes no. Mr. langworthy, Mr. langworthy votes no. Mr. cain, Mr. cain votes no. Mr. rowley. Mr. rowley votes no. Mr. evans, Mr. evans votes no. Mr.
▶ 3:25:11Goldman, Mr. goldman votes no. Mr. fedorchuk. Mr. fedorchuk votes no. Mr. pallone, Mr. malone votes I. Mr. get Mr. get votes I miss schakowsky mishkovsky votes I miss matsui miss. Matsui votes I miss kathy castor miss votes I Mr. tom cole I Mr. tom cole votes I miss clark. Miss clark votes I Mr. ruiz. Mr. ruiz votes I Mr.
▶ 3:25:43Peters. Mr. peters votes I Mrs. dingle. Mrs. dingell votes I Mr. veasey. Mr. veasey votes I miss kelly. Miss kelly votes I miss madigan. Kevin's Mr. madigan Mr. votes I mister soto. Mister soto votes I miss schreyer. Miss schreyer votes I Mr. han. Mr. han votes I miss fletcher. Miss fletcher votes I miss ocasio-cortez. Mr.
▶ 3:26:12Garcia cortez votes I Mr. auchincloss. Mr. votes I. Mr. carter of louisiana. Mr. carter of louisiana votes I. Mr. menendez Mr. menendez votes I Mr. mullen. Mr. mullen votes I Mr. lansman. Mr. lansman votes I miss mcclellan. Miss mcclellan votes I chairman guthrie. No. Chairman guthrie votes no. >> anyone. Mr. bilirakis how was he recorded? >> Mr.
▶ 3:26:42Bilirakis is not recorded. >> Mr. bilirakis, you record your vote. You voted. Did you get his vote? >> Mr. bilirakis votes no. >> okay, Mr. palmer. >> Mr. palmer is not recorded. Mr. palmer votes no. >> Mr. harshbarger. >> miss harshbarger is not recorded. Mrs. >> crenshaw. >> no. Mrs. Mr. crenshaw is not recorded. Mr. crenshaw votes no. >> anyone on the democrat side seeing none. The clerk will report the result.
▶ 3:27:18>> Mr. chairman, on that vote, there were 24 eyes and 29 no's. >> the amendment is not agreed to. Are there further amendments? The gentleman from louisiana. What purpose do you seek recognition, Mr. chairman? >> I have an amendment at the desk. >> the amendment. >> c underscore am underscore h.r. 161 underscore zero seven. >> clerk will report 0716107.
▶ 3:27:50Clerk will report. >> amendment to h.r. 161. Add at the end the following section six. >> without objection, the reading amendment is dispensed with. The gentleman from louisiana is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment. >> thank 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 cause additional emissions.
▶ 3:28:18By installing air monitors at facilities that directly report emissions to the epa and to the public. If my republican colleagues are serious about the new definition of modifications in this bill, they should wholeheartedly support my amendment.
▶ 3:28:33It ensures transparency because under this bill, facilities modification to the plant will not trigger new source reviewing, permitting these air monitors and reporting requirements ensure that facilities can't cook the books or manipulate their operations to make their emissions appear lower than they truly are.
▶ 3:28:55Under this new bill, bill's new, weaker definition of modifications and construction our constituents could quickly verify on the epa website that the nearby facility is in compliance, and that their family is breathing clean and healthy air.
▶ 3:29:12The 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 from their backyards. We do not need to choose between supporting industry or constituents rights to breathe clean air.
▶ 3:29:36Let's hold these industries accountable and ensure families living next to them have the information they need to stay safe. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing to fight, to make sure that coexistence is not just a word, but an action where we can continue to advance industry while protecting the rights of citizens who live in the near proximity and have the audacity to want to breathe clean air, drink clean water.
▶ 3:30:05It is a right that they must have. We don't have to pick winners and losers. We don't have to choose industry over community. But we must. We must protect communities. We must provide clean air. We must provide clean water. We must provide safe, healthy workforces so industry can thrive.
▶ 3:30:27But if communities are not safe, if those who work in the plants are not safe, if those who live in the nearby proximity are not safe, what have we gained? This is a very basic and simple amendment, one that should be embraced and passed. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment. Mr. chairman, I yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from new from.
▶ 3:30:53I keep saying new jersey from virginia for five minutes to speak on the amendment. >> I will say, Mr. chairman, I did live in new jersey for about 5 or 6 months right after my birth. As you look up on wikipedia, I was born in philadelphia. I lived there three days. Oh, and then lived in western new jersey for about six months before the family returned to virginia, where they had originally been since 1740 or earlier. So it's understandable.
▶ 3:31:22That said, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment. Uh, the definitional section of the amendment basically guts the bill. And, um, it's, um, you know, I understand my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, um, are against the bill. I get that, and they're throwing up every amendment they can to to make it look like the bill does things it doesn't do. But the bill's really not that big a change.
▶ 3:31:54It's not that big a change. It does make it easier for people to upgrade, makes it easier for them to improve their facilities. That's true. But it does not go against the principles of the clean air act. And so the amendment is another attempt to undermine the bill, to take away either part or all of the bill. And the definitional section is is basically gutting the bill. So I would urge my colleagues to vote no.
▶ 3:32:24>> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion? Seeing no further discussion. So this is there's a they're about to call a vote. They just they call vote. So we'll vote on this amendment. My understanding there may not be another amendment offer. So we'll do final passage and then we'll come back ten minutes after the last vote is called to finish up. So we're going to do two roll call votes essentially. And unless there's a change between the first one and the second one, which everybody has the right to, so the clerk will call the roll on.
▶ 3:32:54Seeing no further discussion, the clerk will call the roll on the amendment. >> Mr. latta. Mr. lot of votes. No, Mr. griffith. Mr. griffith votes. No. Mr. bilirakis. Mr. hudson. Mr. hudson votes no. Mr. carter of georgia. Mr. carter of georgia votes no. Mr. palmer, Mr. dunn. Mr. dunn votes no. Mr. crenshaw. Mr. crenshaw votes no. Mr. joyce. Mr. joyce votes no. Mr. weber. Mr. weber votes no. Mr. allen.
▶ 3:33:26Mr. allen. Mr. allen votes no. Mr. balderson, Mr. balderson votes no. Mr. fulcher. Mr. fulcher votes no. Mr. pflueger, Mrs. harshbarger, Mrs. harshbarger votes no. Mrs. miller-meeks, Mr. miller-meeks votes no. Mrs. cammack, Mrs. kat cammack votes no. Mr. Mr. obernolte votes no. Mr. james. Mr. james votes no. Mr. bentz. Mr. bentz votes no. Mrs. horton. Mr. horton votes no. Mr. frey, Mr. frey votes no. Miss lee.
▶ 3:33:58Mr. langworthy. Mr. langworthy votes no. Mr. cain, Mr. rowley. Mr. rowley votes no. Mr. evans. Mr. evans votes no. Mr. goldman, Mr. goldman votes no. Mrs. Mrs. votes no. Mr. malone. Mr. malone votes aye. Mr. get. Mr. get votes. Aye. Mr. schakowsky. Schakowsky. Votes aye. Miss. Matsui Mr. matsui votes I miss castor. Miss castor votes I Mr. tom cole I Mr.
▶ 3:34:26Tom cole votes I miss clark. I miss clark votes I Mr. ruiz. Mr. ruiz votes aye Mr. peters. Mr. peters votes aye Mrs. dingell. Mr. dingell votes aye. Mr. veasey. Miss kelly miss kelly votes I miss betagan. >> I'm approached here. >> Mr. barragan. I miss barragan votes I mister soto. Mister soto votes I miss schreyer. Miss schreyer votes I Mr. han kevin kiley.
▶ 3:34:53Miss fletcher. >> yes. >> miss fletcher votes I miss ocasio-cortez. Ocasio-cortez. Votes aye, Mr. auchincloss. Mr. votes aye. Mr. carter, louisiana. Mr. carter. Louisiana. Votes aye. Mr. menendez. Mr. menendez votes aye. Mr. mullen. Mr. mullen votes aye. Mr. landsman. Miss mcclellan. Mr. mcclellan votes aye. Chairman. Guthrie.
▶ 3:35:25Chairman guthrie votes no. >> anyone seeking Mr. bilirakis. >> Mr. bilirakis is not recorded. >> Mr. gary palmer. >> votes no. Mr. palmer is not recorded. >> everybody stay close. We're going to write another roll call. So Mr. lee. >> Mr. palmer's not recorded, Mr. palmer. Mr. no. >> miss. >> lee lee is not recorded. Miss lee votes no. >> landsman. Trahan. >> Mr. han is not recorded. Mr. trahan votes aye. >> I miss my trahan. Mr. lanson. >> landsman. Landsman is not recorded. Mr. landsman is not recorded. >> everybody stay close. Okay, so what's the.
▶ 3:35:54So anybody seeking recognition for the call of the roll. >> Mr. landsman? Votes. Aye. >> you have everybody. Mr. I'm sorry, I thought I called on you. I apologize, the clerk will report. >> Mr. chairman, on that vote. There were 23 eyes and 28 no's. >> the amendment is not agreed to.
▶ 3:36:23Are there further amendments? Since there's no further amendments, we'll do a roll call on the bill and will be no further committee action until ten minutes after the final vote is called. Not when the when the gavel for the vote to be called ten minutes after that. So the question now occurs. On adopting h.r. 161, a roll call has been requested. The clerk will call the roll. >> Mr. latta Mr. lot of votes.
▶ 3:36:54I, Mr. griffith. Mr. griffith votes. Aye. Mr. bilirakis Mr. bilirakis votes aye. Mr. hudson. Mr. hudson votes aye. Mr. carter of georgia. Mr. carter of georgia votes aye Mr. palmer. Mr. palmer votes aye Mr. dunn. Mr. dunn votes aye. Mr. crenshaw. Mr. crenshaw votes aye. Mr. joyce. Mr. joyce votes aye Mr. weber. Mr. weber votes aye Mr. alan. Mr. alan votes aye Mr. balderson. Mr. balderson votes aye Mr. fulcher. Mr. fulcher votes aye. Mr. pfluger, Mrs. harshbarger, Mr.
▶ 3:37:24Harshbarger votes aye. Mrs. miller-meeks. Mr. miller-meeks votes aye. Mrs. karmic. Mrs. karmic votes aye. Mr. obernolte Mr. obernolte votes aye. Mr. james. Mr. james votes aye. Mr. bentz Mr. benz votes aye. Mrs. houchin. Mrs. houchin. Mrs. hotchkin votes aye. Mr. frye. Mr. frye votes I miss lee. Miss lee votes aye. Mr. langworthy. Mr. langworthy votes aye. Mr. cain, Mr. rowley. Mr. rowley votes aye Mr. evans. Mr. evans votes aye Mr. goldman. Mr.
▶ 3:37:54Goldman votes aye miss dorchak. Mr. dorchak votes aye Mr. malone. Mr. malone votes no. Mr. get. Mr. get votes. No, miss. Schakowsky. Schakowsky votes no. Miss. Matsui. Miss. Matsui votes no. Miss. Carter, miss castor votes no. Mr. tonko. >> no. >> Mr. tonko votes no. Miss clark. Miss clark votes no. Mr. ruiz, Mr. ruiz votes no. Mr. peters, Mr. peters votes no. Mrs. dingle, Mrs. dingle votes no. Mr. veasey, miss. Kelly, miss kelly votes no.
▶ 3:38:23Miss barragan, miss. Votes no. Mister soto. Mister soto, votes no. Miss schreyer, miss schreyer votes no. Mr. han. Mr. han votes no. Mrs. fletcher. Miss fletcher votes no. Miss ocasio-cortez. Miss ocasio-cortez votes no. Mr. claus, Mr. claus votes no. Mr. carter of louisiana. Mr. carter of louisiana votes no. Mr. menendez, Mr. menendez votes no. Mr. mullen. Mr. mullen votes no. Mr. landsman. Mr. landsman votes no. Miss mcclellan. Miss mcclellan votes no. Chairman guthrie. >> I.
▶ 3:38:54>> chairman guthrie votes aye. >> anyone seeking to answer the roll call seeing none, the clerk will report. >> Mr. chairman, on that vote. There are 28 eyes and 23 nos. >> the ayes have it. The bill is adopted, and the committee is in recess until ten minutes after the call of the last vote.
▶ 4:18:2773 and ask the clerk to report. >> h.r. 6373a bill to amend the clean air act to establish authority for the president to waive the requirement for an advanced manufacturing facility or critical mineral facility to offset increased emissions of any air pollutant and for other purposes. >> without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with and the bill will be open for amendment at any point so ordered. And I will recognize recognize myself for five minutes to speak on the bill.
▶ 4:18:56Um, I'm speaking in favor of h.r. Six 373. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Access to processed, refined, critical minerals and rare earth elements is an enormous vulnerability that threatens the future of the united states. This is both the there is both single major refinery for re in the western hemisphere. Only nine in the world.
▶ 4:19:19The united states lacks lack of ability to process and refine critical minerals in our e is major national security threat. If I have, as I have said in this committee many times, and as gary palmer said in this committee many times, we are my friend from alabama. We are in an ai arms race with china and accessory to refund critical minerals. And rees is essential. It is.
▶ 4:19:43If the us had all the nickel copper, gallium, uranium, cerium, neodymium, we would we would need we ever need it. We would still be relying on china to refine their critical minerals in the rees. And our economy needs to function that our national defense depend on. We must act quickly to secure our own supply chain by building the processing and testing facilities we need.
▶ 4:20:07That is why, uh, chairman of this environment subcommittee, palmer, introduced the, er, permitting improvements to protect national security act, and that's what he hopes to resolve with this bill. The critical mineral vulnerability is this generation space race. H.r. 6373 will help eliminate U.S. reliance on china for our prioritizing development of crucial national security infrastructure.
▶ 4:20:32As we all saw last spring, when china put a hold on the critical minerals they were sending it, it had the potential of stopping enormous amount of manufacturing. And the automotive industry talked about it. I know people from from my good friend from, uh, miss dingell's district has talked about it. And so this is this is an area that hopefully we need to resolve and work together on. So I will yield back. And does anybody see recognition to speak on the bill. Gentleman from well, two gentleman from california. Doctor ruiz you will go first.
▶ 4:21:04>> yeah. I move to strike the last. >> five minutes. You're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mister chairman. As it stands, the air permitting improvements to protect national security act changes the rules for when industrial facilities are required to update their permits. Uh, my. My republican colleagues would have you believe this is just a technical change. But for families living near these facilities, the consequences are anything but technical.
▶ 4:21:31By changing what counts as a quote unquote modification, the bill lets facilities, uh, increase production without improving their pollution controls. So I opposed this bill during subcommittee markup because I believe we can support permitting economic growth and national security without putting people's health and lives at risk.
▶ 4:21:54Protecting our nation means protecting our people, their health, their safety, and the communities they call home. Permitting matters and efficiency matters. But those goals should never come at the expense of the health and safety of our communities and the communities we represent. That means more toxic emissions in the air people breathe every day at home, work and school.
▶ 4:22:25Communities across the country are already struggling with poor air quality, and this bill would only make that burden heavier. Many schools, hospitals and healthcare facilities are located near industrial sites. These are places where children learn, where patients try to heal and where seniors receive care. So this bill would allow pollution to increase around those places. And as a physician, I've seen the real world consequences of polluted air. I've treated children with asthma who come in the emergency room struggling to breathe.
▶ 4:22:53I have treated seniors whose heart and lung conditions are made worse by pollution. These are not abstract outcomes. They are everyday realities in too many communities. And when people get sick more often, health care costs go up. Families pay more for doctor visits, medications, and hospital stays. Public health programs like medicare and medicaid face higher costs.
▶ 4:23:19Ultimately, american families and taxpayers are left to pick up the bill. This is why I oppose this legislation during subcommittee, and I oppose it now. It weakens protections that keep our air clean, shifts the cost of pollution from polluters onto families and working people, and makes our health care system more expensive and more strained. I support responsible permitting.
▶ 4:23:46I support economic growth, and I support policies that strengthen our national security by protecting the health and lives of the american people. But I do not support policies that worsen air quality, increase health risks, and raise healthcare costs for the very people we are supposed to protect. We should not be forced to choose between efficiency and safety. We can do both. But this bill, as written does not.
▶ 4:24:15For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation. I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. The gentlelady from florida, miss lee, is recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. The clean air act has not been updated in 35 years and needs to be modernized for the 21st century.
▶ 4:24:36In its outdated form, the regulatory framework often results in expensive and inefficient regulations, with harmful economic effects and little environmental gain. These aren't hypothetical concerns job creators across the country are having their growth stunted due to burdensome regulations. Testimony before the environment subcommittee illustrated the impact that these regulations have on companies that are trying to build and expand in america.
▶ 4:25:04We heard about how these regulations put over a million jobs at risk. Witnesses shared examples of companies that wanted to build or expand in the united states, but could not. One company hoping to expand found 400 sites that could meet its labor requirements. But when they considered the clean air acts outdated requirements, that number was narrowed to eight.
▶ 4:25:30After considering whether they'd have access to the proper supply chain and energy, it became clear that they couldn't expand their company. This is the reality that american job creators are facing. The clean air act must be updated to fit modern realities, the air permitting improvements to protect national security act does this by expanding the national security exemptions contained in section 173 of the clean air act to advanced manufacturing
▶ 4:26:00And critical mineral facilities, including these facilities makes them exempt from certain emissions offset requirements when offsets are unavailable, the facilities are still required to comply with other environmental standards. Building these facilities is essential for national security and energy independence. Modernizing the clean air act is not about giving polluters a free pass or abolishing environmental protections.
▶ 4:26:27At the core of the clean air act is the idea that we can both protect our environment and facilitate economic growth and development. We can protect americans while avoiding outdated and needless regulatory burdens that have little benefit but severely impede economic growth. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. Gentleman from california, Mr.
▶ 4:26:56Peters, is recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill. Thank you, Mr. chairman. I, um. >> none of the permitting reform bills we're considering today are bipartisan. But I want to say I appreciate representative palmer and his team reaching out to mine to discuss the potential for us to work together on this bill, since we spoke about it at the subcommittee. And I understand the goal of the bill, even though I disagree with the approach.
▶ 4:27:17Um, when we did the bipartisan chips and science act, um, we recognized as a congress that there was a national security interest in, um, our, our need to provide semiconductors domestically. We provided over $50 billion via grant funding and tax credits to our domestic semiconductor industry. And that was a critical investment in american manufacturing that will improve national security, create jobs, and ensure we can compete in the 21st century.
▶ 4:27:44And that was a determination we made here in congress. Um, this bill gives, again, a science to the president, the final say on whether something is a matter of national security. And I must say, given what I've seen over the first year, that I don't think a lot of democrats really trust, um, the president to make that determination.
▶ 4:28:03He said, for instance, uh, he had to stop, uh, wind, wind farm permits or pull wind farm permits that had already been issued and relied upon, um, because of national security. Of course, the courts ruled that he had no evidence for that. And they've so far not allowed him to do that. Uh, this week I heard him say we need greenland for national security, uh, potentially threatening our nato alliances.
▶ 4:28:27And also, of course, the justification for his tariffs, which I think the supreme court was very skeptical of, um, was national security. Clearly, that's something congress is supposed to be doing. And I think even this supreme court will tell us that soon. So I'm not willing to, um, to cede our authority to make national security determinations to this president or any president, but particularly to this president. I would support, however, making it easier for companies to comply with this law and making the permitting process more efficient.
▶ 4:28:56So let me tell you what I would support in this context. One is we should consider providing more state by state flexibility to trade emissions credits, not credits, not just to bordering states, but to states that are not contiguous. That would extend the regional options available available to industry without sacrificing the intent of the law. Second, there's a particular rule now that if you want to build a series of fabs of fabrication facilities, you need to get all the permits at once.
▶ 4:29:25Um, I can understand why we would want to allow people to get individual permits and associated credits for individual facilities, instead of requiring they get everything they need as a package before they even break ground. And that would ensure that operators bear the risk while also allowing them to have the emissions credits in hand before they actually start operating the facilities that emit into the air, potentially. So I think that's a good compromise, something that industry and environmental advocates can support.
▶ 4:29:49Uh, so I do not support this bill as written, but I hope we can work with the chair, the ranking member, um, and the subcommittee chair and ranking member on a bipartisan path forward on this issue. But I will oppose this bill and ask my colleagues to do the same. And I yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. Do we have any more discussion? Mr. palmer, you're recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. chairman. I speak in support of the bill, and I appreciate my friend from california's comments.
▶ 4:30:18And I do hope we can work together. But I want to emphasize this is not, um, this is not something that I believe will harm air quality. Uh, I've worked, as I've said many times in, uh, engineering, we built the air pollution control equipment. I know what we're capable of doing. Uh, this is about national security, and this is a crisis. I mean, we're in a national security emergency, and this is not a time for us to be divided on this.
▶ 4:30:47The failure to advance critical permitting improvements is a gift to china and allows the chinese communist party the ability to hold the us and our western allies hostage. Advancing modernization of permitting is essential to getting the facilities we need, uh, to process and refine critical minerals and rare earth elements built in the very limited time frame that we have, as the chairman said.
▶ 4:31:13And as I've said before, this is this generation space race. It might be this generation's manhattan project. So I would urge my colleagues, uh, on these issues that I I'm telling you, this is the stuff that keeps me up at night. If china decided, as they did back in the spring, to cut us off from refined, uh, rare earth elements, it will shut down economies, it will collapse western economies.
▶ 4:31:42It would do enormous harm to our military. They know this. This is not the time to be partizan. And I do appreciate, uh, my friend from california because I think he's a serious legislator. He's serious about policy. I would hope that all of my colleagues would agree that we need on some of these things.
▶ 4:32:08We just need to do what's best for the country, because the time is, is very limited for us to be able to get these facilities built and operational so that we are no longer dependent on china for things that, as I've said, are literally a national security emergency. So I urge my colleagues to support the bill, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. chairman. Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the bill? Any amendments on the bill? Mr.
▶ 4:32:36Carter from louisiana is recognized. >> chairman of an amendment at the desk. Fc underscore and underscore h.r. 637301. >> the clerk will report the amendment. >> amendment to h.r. 6373. Add at the end the following section three.
▶ 4:33:03>> without objection, we will dispense with reading the amendment. Is there any, uh or actually, Mr. carter, you recognized to discuss your amendment for five minutes? >> thank you, Mr. chairman. The er permitting improvement to protect national security act amends the clear, clear, clean air act to exempt certain industrial facilities from offsetting emissions as part of the nonattainment new source review permit process. If the president issues a national security determination.
▶ 4:33:30The bill also establishes a pay to play scheme that allows facilities that pay state regulators a nominal fee in lieu of controlling controlling harmful pollution. I was criticized by my republic, by my republican colleagues, for opposing an amendment during the previous mark of this bill.
▶ 4:33:51That amendment aimed to prevent these waivers and exemptions used to justify increased industrial pollution, and cloaked under the vague guise of national security, from being exploited to enrich the president's family and businesses. It also sought to ensure that these waivers could not be purchased with funds from for lavish white house renovations.
▶ 4:34:16If you think this isn't isn't a serious concern, I have a trump meme meme coin I'd like to sell you. So some of my colleagues across the aisle continue to willfully ignore president's the president's excesses. This amendment just makes it clear that if we're going to give be giving national security waivers to trump friends and donors, we at least should check that it won't be making vulnerable communities sick in the process.
▶ 4:34:44This amendment requires that the bill cannot take effect until epa, in coordination with the clean air scientific advisory committee, certifies that the bill would not harm the health of nearby communities, ensuring industries of communities can coexist without compromising public health. And the fundamental concern.
▶ 4:35:02I represent a community in louisiana, unfortunately known as the painful nickname cancer alley, as industrialized stretch along mississippi river, which suffers from high cancer rates among residents believed to be linked to industrial pollution. I've heard these stories of families who've lost loved ones far too soon parents, siblings and neighbors. These communities disproportionately are black, and working class already face higher exposure to toxic air and water pollution.
▶ 4:35:34Additional exemptions under the vague pretext of national security will put them at greater risk. This amendment would ensure that epa prioritizes community health, especially that of the most vulnerable and historically marginalized.
▶ 4:35:49The american people deserve clean air, so I encourage my colleagues to do the right thing, to look deep into their hearts, to recognize that as we attempt to give shortcuts, to give passes to those who would violate simply because they have powerful friends, or simply because they have access to resources to pay to play. This is not the america that we should be.
▶ 4:36:19We want to make sure that industry survives, but we want to make sure that people can breathe clean air, that their permits and processes in place to ensure that as we manufacture things that are essential to our economy, to our world, to our national security, that we don't do so while hurting the very people we claim to be protecting. This is not republican or democrat.
▶ 4:36:48This is not red or blue. This is common sense. This is about making sure that people are healthy. This is making sure that people play by the rules. This is making sure that things are regulated to make sure that emissions are not going to the air, that people are not finding shortcuts in exchange for greater profit. Life cannot be evaluated on how much money you make. It cannot be short.
▶ 4:37:16Given a shortcut to allow you to make more money, to rack up more benefits for your shareholders, while killing the very people that are in the community, and even the very people who work in the industry that we purport to want to help. This scheme doesn't work. The american people are watching and they're watching the expecting us to do the right thing. And as long as I'm sitting here with you, I will continue to remind you that we must do the right thing. And again, to emphasize it's not r&d, it's humanity. Mr.
▶ 4:37:49Chairman, I yield. >> the gentleman yields back. Do we have further discussion on the amendment? Yes. Mr. palmer, you're recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. chairman. Um, it's hard sometimes to respond to some of the comments that are made in this committee because I'm not sure if it's just pure politics or or serious discussion, but to fail to take the actions that need to be taken by this
▶ 4:38:19Congress to defend our national security is political malfeasance, political malpractice? It may be political insanity. I keep telling you, I've been talking about this for five years. I felt like a voice crying in the wilderness about the exposure that we have, the fact that there's not a single major refinery for rare earth elements in the western hemisphere should shock everybody in this room. Every member of congress.
▶ 4:38:47We're going to wake up one morning and realize we have lost the arms race for artificial intelligence, because we made everything partizan. We cannot keep doing this. Advanced manufacturing facilities for critical mineral processing and rare earth element processing.
▶ 4:39:13Refining is not an issue of we're going to abide by every environmental law. We're just trying to expedite the permitting process so that we can start building these things. Companies learned a vital lesson the first week that joe biden was in office, when he stopped the construction of the keystone pipeline, and billions of dollars were lost. Nobody wants to get keystone again.
▶ 4:39:41We have to have this done in our own country. We cannot continue to outsource these things to adversarial nations. I mean, what have we learned from the war in ukraine? What has europe learned from that, if not the simple lesson that no nation should be reliant on an adversarial nation for anything critical to its economic security and its national security. And that's what we've done.
▶ 4:40:08We have made ourselves vulnerable to the most powerful adversary on the planet, and we keep debating these things because we want to try to get a political advantage. I can assure you that's not what this is about. Most americans don't even know we're in this situation. But you want to make it about politics.
▶ 4:40:33And I'm just telling you that we will regret this one day if we don't act in an expeditious manner. >> will the gentleman yield? >> I will be happy to yield the gentleman. >> Mr. palmer, I respect your efforts, but I have to push back on your assertion that somehow this was, um, not thoughtful, that it's political. Listen, I think I was very clear that I support industry.
▶ 4:41:01My amendment merely says that we cannot allow people to jump the line when it comes to enforcement of regulations that keep communities safe. I didn't speak against the amendment of the intent. I just said, respectfully, sir, that we have to do it clean, that we have to do it when we're taking people's lives into consideration. >> reclaiming my time, sir. >> yes, sir.
▶ 4:41:27>> and I appreciate your response and particularly, uh, the manner in which you you made it. I have I want to emphasize that this is not going to exempt anyone from following our environmental laws. This is about permitting giving us the opportunity to start the construction of these facilities. They will still have to abide by all of the environmental laws.
▶ 4:41:49I like I said, I worked in engineering building, building these equipment that has given us much cleaner air, much cleaner water. I understand this, but what I'm trying to get across is that this is one area where we need to work together, because as I pointed this out, I was asked to speak to be on a panel with the members of european parliament.
▶ 4:42:17And obviously we have a lot of differences. But I made this point that the competition is not between the united states and europe. It's not between the us and canada. It's between the west and china. We all have to work together on this, all of us. So I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. And again, I appreciate the spirit in which he delivered his remarks. Uh, and, Mr. chairman, I urge a no vote on the amendment. I yield back.
▶ 4:42:48>> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Who is the. >> gentleman from? >> Mr. menendez, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. Chairman, I yield to my colleague from louisiana. >> thank you, Mr. menendez. Mr.
▶ 4:43:03Palmer, I you made several comments that I have to take issue with and push back against, although I believe your intent is is is right to suggest that fighting for communities that are underserved is unserious, to suggest that this is making political points are partizan.
▶ 4:43:27Clearly you didn't hear any or at a minimum, most of what I said in my comments, my comments were very clear that this is not political, and it should not be that this is not republican or democrat, and it should not be. This is not industry versus community, because it should not be. This is about common sense.
▶ 4:43:45It's about making sure that people are not because they have rich friends or deep pockets, that they can skip the line, that they can pay to play and avoid the rigors of regulation that checks to make sure that even in expedited processes, that we are not jumping the line when it comes to those essential steps to provide security for the communities, for people's health, the notion that somehow
▶ 4:44:18We can just hide behind national security, which is often used and abused, to suggest that we can skip the line and we can we can just say, to hell with the people. They're disposable, but they're not disposable. They're not disposable. Lives are not disposable.
▶ 4:44:39And you cannot simply say, because we want to expedite things, we can ignore the processes that are in place to ensure their health. Listen, I am first in line to want to expedite processes, but not so much so that we put people in harm's way.
▶ 4:44:58I'm the first in line that says that we should have the best technologies, and we should let businesses go and do their thing, but not so much so that we put people's lives at risk. We should have access and have the strongest national security. We're america. That's what we're supposed to have. But we're also human, and we're supposed to take care of the people of america. We're supposed to take care of human life.
▶ 4:45:27We're supposed to make sure that there's fairness in processes, that there's fairness not because you have a friend in power, not because you can write a big check to bypass the rules, not because you can pay to play that, because you can afford to write a check. You don't have to go through the same rules. People who don't doesn't matter whether you've got 1 or 1 million, 1 million or 1 billion, the rules are the same.
▶ 4:45:55The processes are the same. To make sure that we are providing clean air, clean water and a process, that industry is being checked to determine if they are, in fact following the rules, if they are reporting emissions, if they are blocking emissions, if they are staying in contact with air monitoring. So people can have some degree of comfort that the big boys that paid big don't get to skip the line.
▶ 4:46:25See, skipping the line is quite different from expediting processes. Expediting processes means we're going to do it faster, but we're not going to shortcut the process. Paying to play is I'll pay a fee so you don't look as deeply at my potential misgivings. That's not fair. That's not fair. That's not what america is made of.
▶ 4:46:52That's not the message we send to our children. That's not the message we send to people. We're members of congress, and we're sworn to uphold the rule of law. Yes, national security is important. Yes.
▶ 4:47:04Making sure that we're sending businesses a message that we want to expedite processes, but short circuiting process that keeps people alive and makes sure that people are playing by the rules, making sure that people are doing the right thing as it relates to regulatory controls and the right for people to be able to breathe clean air and not have someone look the other way because you've paid to play. That's not expediting, that's cheating.
▶ 4:47:33And I urge this committee and this congress to do better, I yield. >> gentleman yields back, sir. Further discussion on the amendment. Yes, doctor miller-meeks, you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chair. I yield my time to representative palmer. >> I thank the gentleman for yielding her time. I don't understand what my friend from louisiana doesn't understand.
▶ 4:48:03This is not about polluting or hurting, uh, impoverished communities. I mean, there hasn't even been a discussion about whether these facilities be located. How could how could you make the assumption that it's going to harm disadvantaged communities? Uh, the discussions that I've had with the location for these facilities wouldn't be an issue like that. I don't understand.
▶ 4:48:35>> would the gentleman yield? Because I'll help. >> you know, we need to get to the end of this, and we can keep this going. >> well, you want to understand? I'm happy to help. >> you, but what I, what I, I'm concerned about is that this is a national security emergency. I mean, china has an enormous advantage over us. I don't know if you've been involved in building facilities, but it you don't get them overnight.
▶ 4:49:04It takes a while to build them. It takes a while to. We don't even have the equipment here anymore. China came in and not only put our processing, refining facilities, our ability to make the magnets and the other products that we need from our elements, they put those companies out of business. Then they came in and bought the equipment. I don't think this ought to be about who the president is.
▶ 4:49:32I don't think it ought to be about democrat or republican. This is about americans. It's about every american rich, poor. It doesn't matter if we fail to rise to this challenge. It's going to be enormous harm to this country. I don't know that we will ever recover. I would urge every one of my colleagues to get a classified briefing on where we are.
▶ 4:50:00I again, I don't want this to be partizan. I want this to be about what's best for the country. It's not rich or poor. It's not the favored versus the unfavored. It's not democrat or republican. It's about american. We have got to get a handle on this. We've got to act on this. And if we don't, we're going to pay an enormous price.
▶ 4:50:29You won't be talking about us. We won't be talking about some things we've been talking about in here. If we if we fail in this, this effort, I emphasize again, let's let's fight these battles on other issues, which we do and have serious discussions about how people are treated. I think that's fair.
▶ 4:50:54But this is this is not about favoring big industry or people with big that can write big checks. This is about what is, I think, going to be determinative of our future, our economic future and our national security. Thank the gentlelady for yielding. I yield back to her. >> doctor miller-meeks. >> I yield back. >> the gentlelady yields back. Further discussion. Mr. soto of florida, you're recognized for five minutes.
▶ 4:51:24>> thank you. Chairman, you know, with 435 members of this congress and over 60 members of this committee, compromise is what produces lasting results. I know I was in the environmental subcommittee, and there were some promises that we'd get a bipartisan product out for this committee hearing. I remember specifically rep peters asking for that. And on the environmental justice issues, Mr. carter, fun fact california is the only state that actually processes rare earth metals right now.
▶ 4:51:53So I would think their delegation would know a thing or two. And so if this is so important, why are we not dealing with a bipartisan bill today where there were some certain compromises made to make sure we get an advanced product, that that's the reason why we're at a standstill? With that, I yield to the gentleman from louisiana. >> thank you, mister soto. Um, Mr.
▶ 4:52:14Palmer, you you carefully and craftily are attempting to conflate issues, and I, in good faith and good conscience, cannot allow you to do that. I think I've been abundantly clear. Yet every time you take the mic, you try again to twist my words. Thank god for recordings. I'm not going to let you do it. The american people aren't going to let you do it, because we're going to watch these tapes, and they're going to hear that I said that this should not be r&d.
▶ 4:52:43I don't care who the president is, who occupies the white house. It's wrong. And it doesn't matter if an r or d lived there. A pay to play scheme is wrong, and expediting the permitting process and ignoring the necessity of making sure that there's rules in place, it's
▶ 4:53:13Something we must have. I want to be clear what my amendment says, because to use your words, I'm not sure what you don't understand here. The amendment requires that the bill cannot take effect until the epa, in coordination with clean air scientific advisory committee, certifies that the bill will not harm the health of nearby communities.
▶ 4:53:37I don't what's hard to digest there, other than your attempt to conflate issues, to try to make this appear to be us against them. I'm all in with us, not against them. But I'm all in with the community where I think you should be as well. Ensuring industries and communities can coexist without compromising public health is a fundamental concern. Mm.
▶ 4:54:04It's not that difficult. This doesn't say you can't do it. This doesn't say let's ignore national security. This doesn't say where it might be. If it might be. It's just wherever it might be, might be in your backyard. I don't know, probably not. But if it were.
▶ 4:54:35Let's make sure that as we expedite that, we not ignore the science. So the amendment just says the member requires that the bill cannot take effect until epa, in coordination with clean air scientific advisory committee, certifies that the bill that the bill would not harm or the industry would not harm the health of nearby communities. That's real simple.
▶ 4:55:00That should be something that should be attached to every single bill that comes to this committee, that we should do a battery of tests to make sure, however fast, however expeditious, however clear, we want to advance a technology that we make sure that we test at least based on that this is not going to cause more harm than good. Fast is not always good. Expediting is not always best. Pushing to the head of the line is not always the best thing.
▶ 4:55:30There's a reason we have processes. If they've been determined to be onerous, let's modify them. If they've determined to be unnecessary, let's correct them. But when it comes to health and safety, let's enhance them and let's embrace them because it's the right thing to do. Now, I hope that you don't come back and say you don't understand anymore, because I'm going to keep asking for time to help you understand.
▶ 4:55:59And I can say, I say this with as much respect as I can muster. I mean no harm in my comments, but I will not allow you to suggest that this is unserious, that the people who deserve to breathe clean air should be at the back of the line for expeditious processing while babies die. No, sir. Mr. palmer, I hope you understand now, but I'm happy to have more conversation. If you don't, I yield. >> yield back. >> gentleman's time has expired.
▶ 4:56:30Any further discussion on the amendment? Further discussion on the amendment. All right. Um, if there's no further discussion, vote on the amendment. Uh, roll call has been requested. Clerk will call the roll. >> Mr. latta. Mr. griffith, Mr. griffith votes no. Mr. bilirakis. Mr. bilirakis votes no. Mr. hudson. Mr. hudson votes no. Mr. carter of georgia.
▶ 4:57:07Mr. palmer. Mr. palmer votes no. Mr. dunn. Mr. dunn votes no. Mr. crenshaw. Mr. joyce. Mr. joyce votes no. Mr. weber. Mr. weber votes no. Mr. allen. Mr. allen votes no. Mr. balderson, Mr. balderson votes no. Mr. fulcher, Mr. fulcher votes no.
▶ 4:57:38Mr. pfluger. Mrs. harshbarger, Mrs. harshbarger votes no. Mrs. miller-meeks, Mrs. miller-meeks votes no. Mrs. carmack. Mr. obernolte, Mr. obernolte votes no. Mr. james. Mr. benson, Mr.
▶ 4:58:10Benson votes no. Mrs. houchin. Mr. frey. Miss lee, miss lee votes no. Mr. langworthy, Mr. langworthy votes no. Mr. cain, Mr. cain votes no. Mr. rowley.
▶ 4:58:41Mr. evans, Mr. evans votes no. Mr. goldman, Mr. goldman votes no. Mrs. fedorchuk, Mrs. fedorchuk votes no. Mr. pallone. Mr. pallone votes aye. Mr. get. Mr. get votes. I miss schakowsky schakowsky votes I miss matsui miss. Matsui votes I miss castor I miss castor votes I Mr. tonko I Mr.
▶ 4:59:09Tonko votes I miss clerk I miss clerk. Votes I Mr. ruiz. Mr. ruiz votes I. Mr. peters. Mr. peters votes I. Mrs. dingell. Mrs. dingell votes I. Mr. veasey. >> they were ready to get this to the current. >> miss kelly.
▶ 4:59:36Miss kelly votes I miss barragan miss votes I mister soto. Mister soto votes I miss schreyer I miss schreyer. Votes I Mr. han. Mr. han votes I miss fletcher. Miss fletcher votes I miss ocasio-cortez. Miss ocasio-cortez votes I Mr. kloss. Mr. claus votes I. Mr. carter of louisiana. Mr.
▶ 5:00:03Carter of louisiana votes I. Mr. menendez. Mr. menendez votes I Mr. mullen. Mr. mullen votes I Mr. landsman. Mr. landsman. Mr. landsman votes I. Mr. mcclellan. Miss mcclellan votes I. Chairman. Guthrie, chairman. Guthrie votes no.
▶ 5:00:37>> is Mr. lauder recorded. >> Mr. lott is not recorded. Mr. lordi votes no. >> is miss cammack recorded. >> Mrs. cammack is not recorded. Mrs. karmic votes no. >> Mr. carter. >> Mr. carter of georgia is not recorded. Mr. carter georgia votes no. >> Mr. >> james Mr. james is not recorded. Mr. james votes no. >> Mr. pfluger. >> Mr. pfluger is not recorded. Mr. pfluger votes no. >> Mr. crenshaw. >> Mr. crenshaw is not recorded.
▶ 5:01:08Mr. crenshaw votes no. >> Mr. >> any more votes. All right. >> short. Call. >> the clerk will report the vote. >> Mr. chairman, on that vote, there were 23 eyes and 27 noes.
▶ 5:01:40>> the amendment is not adopted. Any further amendments, no further hearing, no further amendments. Uh, we now take up the underlying bill 6373 vote occurs. The clerk will call the roll. >> Mr. lauda. Mr. lada votes. Aye, Mr. griffith. Mr. griffith votes aye. Mr. bilirakis. Mr. bilirakis votes aye. Mr.
▶ 5:02:08Hudson, Mr. carter of georgia, Mr. carter of georgia votes aye. Mr. palmer, Mr. palmer votes aye. Mr. dunn. Mr. dunn votes aye. Mr. crenshaw. Mr. crenshaw votes aye. Mr. joyce. Mr. joyce votes aye Mr. weber. Mr. weber votes aye Mr. allen. Mr. allen votes aye. Mr. balderson. Mr.
▶ 5:02:38Balderson votes aye Mr. fulcher. Mr. fulcher votes aye. Mr. pfluger. Mr. pfluger votes aye. Mr. harshbarger, Mrs. harshbarger votes aye Mr. miller. Meeks. Mr. miller-meeks votes aye. Mrs. carmack. Mrs. carmack votes aye. Mr. obernolte. Mr. obernolte votes aye Mr. james. Mr. james votes aye Mr. pence. Mr. pence votes aye. Mrs. houchin. Mr. frey.
▶ 5:03:10Miss lee. Mr. langworthy. Mr. langworthy votes aye. Mr. cain, Mr. cain votes aye Mr. rowley. Mr. evans, Mr. evans votes aye. Mr. goldman, Mr. goldman votes aye. Mrs. dorchak misses votes aye. Mr. pallone. Mr. pallone votes no. Mr. get Mr. get votes no. Miss. Schakowsky.
▶ 5:03:40>> no. No. >> schakowsky. Votes no. Miss. Matsui. Mr. matsui votes no. Miss. Castor. No. Miss castor votes no. Mr. tonko. No. Mr. tonko votes no. Miss clark. Miss clark votes no. Mr. ruiz, Mr. ruiz votes no. Mr. peters, Mr. peters votes no. Mrs. dingell, Mrs. dingell votes no. Mr. veasey. Miss. Kelly, miss. Kelly votes no. Mr.
▶ 5:04:07Gunn votes no. Mr. soto, Mr. soto votes no. Miss schrier, kim schrier votes no. Mr. han. Mr. han, Mr. han votes no. Miss fletcher, miss fletcher votes no. Mr. garcia cortez, miss ocasio-cortez, votes no. Mr. Mr. michael cloud votes no. Mr. carter of louisiana. Mr.
▶ 5:04:36Carter of louisiana votes no. Mr. menendez. Mr. menendez votes no. Mr. mullen. Mr. mullen votes no. Mr. landsman, Mr. landsman votes no. Mr. mcclellan. Miss mcclellan votes no. Chairman. Guthrie, chairman. Guthrie votes aye. >> well, how is Mr. hudson recorded? How is Mr. kean recorded? Kaine recorded. >> Mr. cain is not recorded. Mr. cain is, uh, recorded as I.
▶ 5:05:19>> no more votes. All right. The clerk will report the roll call. >> Mr. chairman, on that vote, there were 25 eyes and 23 noes. >> the ayes have it. Bill is adopted. That brings up, uh, 6398. The clerk will report the bill.
▶ 5:05:52>> h.r. 6398. A bill to amend the clean air act relating to review by the environmental protection agency of proposed legislation. >> without objection, the first reading 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? Doctor joyce, you're recognized for five minutes to present your bill. >> thank you. >> Mr. chairman, and thank you for holding this important markup for including my legislation, h.r.
▶ 5:06:206398, the reducing and eliminating duplicative environmental regulations, or the red tape act. This bill eliminates the requirement for epa to conduct a duplicative review and publicly comment on other agencies environmental impact statements. Very simply put, this will eliminate a bureaucratic and redundant secondary review that serves only to delay the permitting and construction of critical projects.
▶ 5:06:49By streamlining the permitting processes, we can accelerate the development of these projects, these projects that are so desperately needed to support consumers, to support innovation, and to support the economic growth of all of america. This bill properly balances the need for america to preserve and advance competition with a developed domestic economy, while at the same time maintaining commonsense environmental protections.
▶ 5:07:18I urge all of my colleagues to vote in support. And with that, Mr. chairman, I yield back. >> gentleman, yields back is for further discussion on the bill. Yes, Mr. dingle, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chair. I move to strike the last word. >> you're recognized. >> thank you. The so-called red tape act strips away one of epa's most important tools for protecting public health by silencing its independent voice on major federal projects.
▶ 5:07:50Under current law, epa plays a critical role in reviewing and publicly commenting on actions that may harm air quality, water quality, and community health, and this bill would effectively eliminate that role. Epa's review authority is essential. It ensures transparency, accountability, and oversight for projects to move forward.
▶ 5:08:13It gives communities access to information about how federal actions may impact their air, water and health. Communities already dealing with lead in drinking water, pfas contamination and dangerous air pollution deserve more scrutiny. Ability ability to notify the public of these impacts actually increases the risk that pollution will be ignored until it's too late.
▶ 5:08:43This bill also undermines public trust by cutting epa out of decisions when public health should be front and center, when environmental review is treated as an obstacle instead of a protection, our communities pay the price. Flint is something I keep bringing up, but flint is an example of our children that are paying a price for their lifetime a generation h.r.
▶ 5:09:116398 makes it easier for polluters to pollute, and makes it harder for the public to hold decision makers accountable. I just I don't think it's in the interest of the american people. I have to oppose this bill, though I love the sponsor of it. I just strongly disagree with him on this and urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. Thank you. And I yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. Any further discussion on the bill?
▶ 5:09:42Any further amendments to the bill? No further amendments. Seeing none, the question now occurs on adoption of h.r. 6398. Roll call has been requested. The clerk will call the roll. >> Mr. latta, Mr. lada votes. Aye. Mr. griffith. Mr. griffith votes aye. Mr. bilirakis. Mr. bilirakis votes aye. Mr. hudson. Mr. carter of georgia. Mr. carter of georgia, votes aye.
▶ 5:10:12Mr. palmer. Mr. dunn. Aye. Mr. dunn votes aye. Mr. crenshaw. Mr. joyce. Mr. joyce votes aye Mr. weber. Mr. weber votes aye Mr. allen. Mr. allen votes aye Mr. balderson. Mr. balderson votes aye. Mr. folger, Mr. folger votes aye. Mr. pfluger, Mr. pfluger votes aye. Mrs. harshbarger, Mrs. harshbarger votes aye Mrs. miller-meeks.
▶ 5:10:46Mrs. carmack. Mr. obernolte, Mr. obernolte votes aye. Mr. james. Mr. pence, Mr. pence votes aye. Mrs. houchin. Mr. frey. Miss lee. Mr. langworthy.
▶ 5:11:18Mr. cain, Mr. cain votes aye. Mr. rowley. Mr. evans, Mr. evans votes aye. Mr. goldman, Mr. goldman votes aye. Mrs. fedorchuk. Mr. fedorchuk votes aye. Mr. pallone. Mr. pallone votes no. Mr. get Mr. get votes. No. Miss. Schakowsky no. Mishkovsky votes no. Miss. Matsui Mr. matsui votes no.
▶ 5:11:50Miss. Kaster. No. Miss kaster, votes no. Mr. tonko. No. Mr. tonko votes no. Miss clark. Miss clark votes no. Mr. ruiz, Mr. ruiz votes no. Mr. peters, Mr. peters votes no. Mrs. dingell, Mrs. dingell votes no. Mr. veasey. Miss. Kelly. Miss.
▶ 5:12:20Barragan, miss. Barragan, votes no. Mr. soto, Mr. soto votes no. Miss schrier, miss schreyer, votes no. Mr. han. Mr. han votes no. Miss fletcher, miss fletcher votes no. Miss ocasio-cortez. Miss ocasio-cortez votes no. Mr. auchincloss. Mr. jake auchincloss votes no. Mr. carter. Louisiana. Mr. carter, louisiana. Votes no. Mr.
▶ 5:12:51Menendez, Mr. menendez votes no. Mr. mullen, Mr. mullen votes no. Mr. landsman, Mr. landsman votes no. Miss mcclellan. Miss mcclellan votes no. Chairman. Guthrie, chairman. Guthrie votes aye. >> house. Mr. hudson recorded. >> Mr. hudson is not recorded. Mr. hudson votes I. >> as Mr. james recorded. >> Mr. james is not recorded. >> Mr. james votes I Mrs. carmack is not recorded. Mrs. carmack votes I.
▶ 5:13:22>> as Mr. crenshaw recorded. >> Mr. crenshaw is not recorded. Mr. crenshaw votes I. >> no. All right.
▶ 5:13:56>> no more votes. All right. The clerk will report the vote. >> Mr. chairman, on that vote, there are 23 a's and 22 noes. >> the ayes have it. The bill is adopted, which brings up 2072. Ask the clerk to report. >> h.r. 2072. A bill to require the federal energy regulatory commission to extend the time period during which licensees.
▶ 5:14:26>> without objection, the first reading is dispensed with. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? Mr. lordi, you're recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. chairman. Uh, strike the last word on h.r. 2072. You're recognized. Thank you. Uh, this, uh, Mr. chairman, h.r. 2072 is sponsored by the gentleman from washingtons fourth district.
▶ 5:14:52This will require the federal energy regulatory commission to extend the time period during which licensees are required to commence construction of certain hydro power projects. Hydropower is critical to part of our nation's energy mix, supplying power to approximately 30 million homes and businesses and accounting for 40% of our black start capacity, which means they can restart themselves without external power.
▶ 5:15:20The legislation requires the federal energy regulatory commission to extend the time period in which licensees are required to commence construction of relevant hydropower projects. The extension of time to commence construction shall not consist of more than three consecutive two year periods, and only applies to projects issued a license from ferc prior to march 13th, 2020.
▶ 5:15:43This is when the covid 19 pandemic turned global supply chains upside down and halted many construction projects. As mentioned, current law requires projects to commence construction within ten years of receiving a license. This legislation allows ferc to authorize an additional six years for certain projects to ensure fully licensed infrastructure is not permanently halted.
▶ 5:16:08These projects in limbo will provide energy that is imperative to winning the in the intelligence race, powering our communities and lowering prices for our consumers. I'm glad to see this important legislation progress. Congress must address issues that continue to plague the federal power act licensing process for hydropower dams. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to modernize this outdated permitting process. And, Mr.
▶ 5:16:36Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support h.r. 2072, and I yield back the balance of my time. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further. Discussion on the bill? I move. >> to strike. >> the last word. >> for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. You know, I'm a co-sponsor of h.r. 2072, and I support this bill.
▶ 5:16:57Um, but there needs to be some congressional intent clarifications in order to avoid any future misunderstandings or mishaps. Extending the construction deadline for hydropower licenses can be an important tool to help viable projects overcome legitimate delays and move forward, especially when those delays are outside of a developer's control. Like many of the delays that project suffered in the wake of covid.
▶ 5:17:24Uh, that said, I want to be very clear for the federal energy regulatory commission or ferc, who will be charged with implementing this bill about the congressional intent here. Uh, this legislation is meant to provide ferc with authority and discretion, not write developers a blank check. Extensions to construction deadlines should be granted only when warranted, on a case by case basis, and with careful consideration of environmental impacts and local concerns.
▶ 5:17:52As the federal power act demands. I raise this because of an example in my district, the eagle crest, uh, pumped storage project, located immediately adjacent to joshua tree national park. Uh, that project has already received the maximum extensions allowed under the prior law and has not broken ground more than a decade after being licensed.
▶ 5:18:18Way before covid, um, it also raises serious concerns related to groundwater use in an arid region, the desert in proximity to a national park. My support for this bill should not be interpreted as congressional endorsement of perpetual extensions for projects like eagle crest. So I expect ferc to use the authority provided here judiciously and consistent with our responsibility to protect sensitive public lands and water resources.
▶ 5:18:44And with that understanding and clarification, I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Further discussion on the bill. Uh, Mr. bentz, you are recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. chair. I move to strike the last word and speak in strong support of this bill. You're recognized.
▶ 5:19:04This bipartisan legislation, sponsored by congressman newhouse of washington, simply allows ferc to extend licenses for certain hydropower projects for up to an additional six years. In 2022, 37 projects were identified on ferc's licensed project list that had been licensed prior to covid 19 pandemic, but had yet to commence construction due to pandemic related delays, these projects fell behind and faced the ten year construction deadline under their licenses.
▶ 5:19:33There are two projects in my district that benefit from this extension the mason dam project on the powder river in baker county, oregon, and the swan lake closed loop pump storage project in klamath county, oregon. Together, these projects represent billion over $1 billion in construction investment in local communities, millions of dollars in annual tax revenue for local governments, and more than 2.6gw of baseload energy and storage capacity. If these deadlines are not extended, those benefits would disappear.
▶ 5:20:00This bill would allow ferc to grant up to three two year extensions without requiring additional congressional approval. I want to thank senator daines for leading this effort in the senate last july. The senate passed this bill by unanimous consent. I urge my colleagues to support h.r. 272, I yield back. The gentleman. Yields back. >> further discussion on the bill. Doctor schrier, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 5:20:25I am really happy to co-sponsor and, of course, strongly support the biltmore hydro bill. It is pragmatic and it is simple. Uh, hydropower projects take years of work to reach completion. And that's after a lot of advance work like licensing, which itself can take 7 to 10 years. And in addition, contracts have to be agreed to, engineering and design has to be finalized, and then it must be financed.
▶ 5:20:52And due to the covid pandemic and the supply chain issues that came with it, new hydropower projects encountered new challenges like rising costs and material shortages. And these challenges set them back. So now, without a timeline extension for construction, these licenses could actually expire before construction even begins. And that's why we need this bill.
▶ 5:21:17It is an easy fix to ensure that these projects meet projected demand, lower costs, and ensure reliability of the grid. I am happy to support it. And in addition, I urge my colleagues to bring a separate bill, the hydropower licensing transparency act, under consideration as a perfect companion to this one. That bill furthers transparency with regard to the the current status of all licensing and relicensing applications at ferc.
▶ 5:21:46Uh, on that note, I just also want to stress how important hydropower relicensing is to ensuring grid reliability and affordability of energy, particularly in the northwest, but also all across the country.
▶ 5:22:00Um, by the end of the decade, hundreds of hydropower project licenses representing gigawatts of affordable, reliable non ghg emitting energy are set to expire and burdensome, costly and inefficient processes will only bog down those license renewals. So I want to encourage my colleagues to vote yes on this simple, pragmatic, very necessary bill. Thank you. Yield back. >> the gentlelady yields back.
▶ 5:22:30Is there further discussion on the bill? Further discussion. Mr. soto from florida. You're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. A great bill to help increase energy output, especially clean energy like hydropower. We know this flexibility is going to help get more energy on the grid. Mr. chairman, prices are going up for energy. Utility bills are going up. Uh, we see tariffs um from trump has hurt with construction and equipment.
▶ 5:23:01Then we have rising demand from data centers, which we need to help store data from our cell phones and our computers and keep ai moving forward. But we need to add more electrons to the system. This bill will do that. Uh, we also see that the trump administration eliminated billions in clean energy projects over this last year. Um, this is a step in the right direction to buck that trend.
▶ 5:23:28The courts are trying to stop this, uh, unlawful withholding of funds from these clean energy projects, especially wind and some of the solar projects. But the court shouldn't have to. The congress should be stepping up to reassert our authority. Clean energy is cheap energy. And doing this for pure politics is unnecessary. We need an all of the above approach, or at least a forward thinking one with solar, wind, natural gas, hydrogen, nuclear, hydro like in this bill, and geothermal. Lastly, we saw the big ugly law.
▶ 5:24:00It pulled back a lot of these incentives for electric vehicles, for residential clean energy, for solar and wind facilities in central florida. We're building one of the biggest green energy, uh, hydrogen plants in the nation to help really solve the solar storage issue. We can do this. We need more energy on the system. And bills like this are a step in the right direction. And I yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. Further discussion on the bill. Any amendments to the bill?
▶ 5:24:31Hearing none. The question now occurs on adoption of h.r. 2072. And roll call has been requested. Clerk will call the roll. >> Mr. lada. >> aye. >> Mr. lada votes. Aye, Mr. griffith. Mr. griffith votes. Aye. Mr. bilirakis. Mr. bilirakis votes aye. Mr. hudson. Mr. hudson votes aye. Mr. carter of georgia. Mr. carter of georgia. Votes aye. Mr. palmer, Mr. dunn. Mr.
▶ 5:24:59Dunn votes aye. Mr. crenshaw. Mr. crenshaw votes aye. Mr. joyce. Mr. joyce votes aye Mr. weber. Mr. weber votes aye Mr. allen. Mr. allen votes aye Mr. balderson. Mr. balderson votes aye. Mr. folger, Mr. folger votes aye Mr. pfluger. Mrs. harshbarger, Mrs. harshbarger, votes aye. Mrs. miller-meeks, Mrs.
▶ 5:25:28Miller-meeks, votes aye Mrs. cammack. Mr. obernolte, Mr. obernolte votes aye. Mr. james. Mr. pence, Mr. pence votes aye. Mrs. houchin. Mr. frey, miss lee, Mr. langworthy, Mr. cain, Mr. cain votes aye. Mr. woolley, Mr. evans, Mr.
▶ 5:26:00Evans votes aye. Mr. goldman, Mr. goldman votes aye. Mrs. fedorchuk. Mr. pallone. Mr. pallone votes aye Mr. get Mr. get votes aye Mr. makowski. Schakowsky votes aye. Miss. Matsui miss. Matsui votes I miss castor. Miss castor votes aye, Mr. tonko. Aye. Mr. tonko votes I miss clark. I miss clark votes aye. Mr. ruiz. Mr.
▶ 5:26:31Ruiz votes aye Mr. peters. Mr. peters votes aye. Mrs. dingell. Mrs. dingell, votes aye. Mr. veasey, miss. Kelly, miss. Miss. Votes aye. Mr. soto. Mr. soto, votes aye. Miss schreyer, miss schreyer, votes aye Mr. han. Mr. han votes aye. Mr. fletcher, miss fletcher votes aye. Miss ocasio-cortez. Miss ocasio-cortez votes aye, Mr. kloss. Mr. claus. Yes. Mr.
▶ 5:27:03Claus, votes aye. Mr. carter. Louisiana. Mr. carter, louisiana votes aye. Mr. menendez, Mr. menendez votes aye. Mr. mullen. Mr. mullen votes aye, Mr. landsman. Mr. landsman votes aye. Mr. mcclellan. Miss mcclellan votes aye. Chairman. Guthrie. >> Mr. pfluger recorded.
▶ 5:27:35>> Mr. pfluger is not recorded. Mr. pfluger votes aye. >> how's Mr. james recorded? >> Mr. james is not recorded. Mr. james votes aye. >> anybody else. Anybody else. >> seeing no further. One more, Mr. cammack is how is she recorded? >> Mrs. carmack is not recorded. Mrs. carmack I. >> any more votes? All right.
▶ 5:28:03Seeing now clerk will report the roll call.
▶ 5:28:41>> Mr. chairman, on that vote there were 44 eyes and zero noes. >> the ayes have it. The bill is adopted. We now bring up h.r. 5200 and ask the clerk to report. >> h.r. 5200, a bill to direct the federal communications commission to issue reports. After. >> without objection, first reading the bill is dismissed.
▶ 5:29:09The bill will be open for amendment at any point so ordered. Is there any discussion? Does anybody wish to be recognized on the bill? Miss. Bill. >> um my goodness. Okay. This is a. >> miss you.
▶ 5:29:39You're recognized for five minutes. >> okay. Um, I'm proud to be leading this bill along with, um, with representative bilirakis. It's a wonderful bill. It's, um, it really sent this about reliable connectivity that saves lives. You know, emergencies can happen anywhere, at any time. And there's moments every second counts. So when a family dials 911, they shouldn't be met with silence.
▶ 5:30:04And unfortunately, we've seen this happen during disasters too often. We never get clear answers about where communications fail, why they failed, and how to prevent it from happening again. Our bill brings transparency and accountability to these gaps, and directs the fco to fcc to recommend stronger outage reporting, better resiliency, and tighter coordination with state and local officials.
▶ 5:30:28That includes requiring the fcc to issue public reports after major natural disasters on how people couldn't reach 911. It also tackles a dangerous blind spot. Unreported outages the fcc will review disruptions that never made it to the record, and recommend ways for mobile carriers to better notify 911 centers when services compromised, so first responders are never left in the dark.
▶ 5:30:57This is a practical, bipartisan step to modernize emergency communications to save lives. It's a great bill, and I urge support. >> gentlelady yields back any further discussion. Further discussion. Uh, Mr. carter of louisiana, you're recognized for five minutes. >> I move to strike. The last word recognized. Thank you, Mr. chairman. I want to thank my colleagues, ranking member matsui and chair bilirakis, for introducing h.r.
▶ 5:31:265200, the emergency reporting act, which I fully support in louisiana. We know all too well how devastating natural disasters can be to our communities. My state has faced some of the nation's most devastating hurricanes and flooding disasters, which stress our outdated 911 systems. That's why having reliable, resilient, and modern public safety communication infrastructure is so critical to protecting lives and ensuring effective emergency responses.
▶ 5:31:56Our communities must be equipped with the latest technologies and be prepared to respond quickly when disasters or emergency strike, especially our rural and underserved communities, which can face unique challenges, including continued reliance on outdated systems. This legislation is much needed for louisiana and communities all across our country, and I urge my urge my colleagues to vote yes.
▶ 5:32:24Thank you. And I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Further discussion on the bill. Any amendments to the bill? Seeing none. The question is on adoption. The roll call has been requested. The clerk will call the roll. >> Mr. lada, Mr. lada votes. Aye, Mr. griffith. Mr. griffith votes. Aye. Mr. bilirakis. Mr. bilirakis votes aye. Mr. hudson. Mr. hudson votes aye. Mr. carter of georgia. Mr.
▶ 5:32:53Carter of georgia votes aye Mr. palmer. Mr. dunn, Mr. dunn votes aye. Mr. crenshaw. Mr. crenshaw votes aye Mr. joyce, Mr. joyce votes aye Mr. weber. Mr. weber votes aye Mr. allen. Mr. allen votes aye Mr. balderson. Mr. balderson votes aye Mr. fulcher. Mr. fulcher votes aye. Mr. pfluger. Mr.
▶ 5:33:23Pfluger votes I Mrs. harshbarger, Mr. harshbarger votes I Mrs. miller-meeks. Mrs. carmack, Mrs. carmack votes I. Mr. obernolte. Mr. obernolte votes aye. Mr. james. Mr. james votes aye Mr. pence. Mr. pence votes aye. Mrs. houchin. Mr. frey, miss lee. Mr. langworthy, Mr. cain, Mr. cain votes aye. Mr.
▶ 5:33:54Woolley, Mr. evans, Mr. evans votes aye. Mr. goldman, Mr. goldman votes I Mrs. fedorchuk. Mr. pallone. Mr. pallone votes aye Mr. get Mr. get votes I miss schakowsky. I miss schakowsky votes I miss matsui Mr. matsui votes I miss castor miss castor votes I Mr. tonko I Mr. tonko votes I miss clark.
▶ 5:34:24Miss clark votes I Mr. ruiz. Mr. ruiz votes I Mr. peters. Mr. peters votes I. Mrs. dingle. Mrs. dingle votes I. Mr. marc veasey. Miss kelly, miss. Barragan miss barragan votes I Mr. soto. Mr. soto, votes I miss schreyer, kim schrier votes I Mr. han. Mr. han, votes I miss fletcher. Miss fletcher votes I miss ocasio-cortez. Miss ocasio-cortez votes I Mr.
▶ 5:34:56Kloss. Mr. jake auchincloss. Mr. votes I Mr. carter of louisiana. I Mr. carter of louisiana votes I Mr. menendez Mr. menendez votes I Mr. mullen. Mr. mullen votes I Mr. landsman. Miss mcclellan. Miss mcclellan votes I chairman guthrie, chairman guthrie votes I. >> how is miss miller-meeks? Uh.
▶ 5:35:28>> Mrs. meeks is not recorded. Mrs. miller-meeks votes I. >> uh, how's miss for, uh, Mrs. >> is not recorded. Mrs. fedorchuk votes I. >> any other votes? Seeing none. The clerk will report the roll call.
▶ 5:36:07>> Mr. chairman, on that vote there were 45 eyes and zero noes. >> the ayes have it. The bill is adopted. That brings up h.r. 5201. We ask the clerk to report. >> h.r. 5201, a bill to direct the federal communications commission to publish a report on implementation. >> without objection, the first reading of bills dispenses, and the bill will be open for amendment at any point so ordered. Uh, does anybody wish to be recognized on the bill?
▶ 5:36:38Miss matsui, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, Mr. chairman. I move to strike the last word on h.r. 5201 recognized. Thank you. In a crisis, there's no room for confusion or delay when trying to call out for help. That's why congressman bilirakis and I are proud to lead the carries law reporting act to improve access to 911 when it matters most.
▶ 5:37:01In 2018, congress passed the landmark harry's law to require multi-line telephone systems to allow direct dialing of 911 without needing to dial an extra digit for an outside line. That common sense protection was inspired by the heartbreaking death of carrie hunt, when her daughter couldn't reach 911 from a hotel phone.
▶ 5:37:24Our bill builds on the progress of the original law by directing the fcc to report on compliance so we can ensure hotels, offices and other facilities are meeting the law's intent. This is about modernizing 911, improving public safety, and saving lives. I urge everyone to vote for this. And with that, I yield back. >> the gentlelady yields back any further discussion?
▶ 5:37:51Further discussion? Any votes I mean amendments? No. Okay. Roll call has been requested. >> uh, yeah. Well, I'll go ahead and strike the last word. >> oh, god. I'm sorry. Uh, chairman. >> bill, I just first of. >> all, five minutes. >> yeah. Thank you, Mr. chairman, I appreciate it. I want to thank, uh, the chair of the subcommittee, uh, Mr. hudson. And also, it's been a pleasure to work with Mr. matsui on this particular bill.
▶ 5:38:22It's a good common sense, bill. Uh, and I appreciate all the support we can get. Let's make it unanimous. It's a really good bill, folks. Thank you very much. And I yield back. >> all right, uh, the gentleman yields back. Any any further discussion, comments, amendments. The roll call has been requested. The clerk will call the roll. >> Mr. lada, Mr. lada votes. Aye. Mr. Mr. griffith. Mr. griffith votes. Aye. Mr.
▶ 5:38:52Bilirakis. Mr. bilirakis votes. Aye. Mr. hudson. Mr. hudson votes aye. Mr. carter of georgia. Mr. carter of georgia. Votes aye. Mr. palmer. Mr. dunn. Mr. dunn votes aye. Mr. crenshaw. Mr. joyce. Mr. joyce votes aye Mr. weber. Mr. weber votes aye. Mr. allen. Mr. allen votes aye Mr. balderson. Mr.
▶ 5:39:24Balderson votes aye Mr. fulcher. Mr. fulcher votes aye. Mr. pfluger. Mr. pfluger votes aye. Mrs. harshbarger, Mrs. harshbarger votes aye. Mrs. miller-meeks. Mr. miller-meeks votes aye. Mrs. cammack, Mr. obernolte, Mr. obernolte votes aye. Mr. james. Mr. bence, Mr. bent votes aye. Mrs. houchin. Mr. frey, miss lee, Mr.
▶ 5:39:57Langworthy, Mr. cain, Mr. cain votes aye. Mr. rowley. Mr. evans, Mr. goldman, Mr. goldman votes aye. Mrs. fedorchuk Mrs. fedorchuk votes aye. Mr. malone. Mr. pallone votes aye. Mr. get Mr. get votes I miss schakowsky schakowsky votes I miss matsui miss. Matsui votes I miss casper. Yes. Miss. Votes aye. Mr. tonko. Mr.
▶ 5:40:27Tonko votes I miss clark. I miss clark votes aye. Mr. ruiz. Mr. ruiz votes aye Mr. peters. Mr. peters votes aye Mrs. dingell. Mr. veasey. Miss. Kelly. Miss. Barragan, miss. Barragan votes aye. Mr. soto, Mr. soto, votes I miss schreyer, miss schreyer, votes aye Mr. han. Mr. han votes I miss fletcher.
▶ 5:40:57Miss fletcher votes I miss ocasio-cortez. Mr. cortez votes aye. Mr. claus. Mr. claus votes aye. Mr. carter of louisiana. Mr. carter of louisiana votes aye. Mr. menendez. Mr. menendez votes aye. Mr. mullen. Mr. mullen votes aye Mr. landsman. Mr. landsman, Mr. landsman votes aye. Mr. mclellan. Mr. mcclellan votes aye. Chairman. Guthrie, chairman.
▶ 5:41:26Guthrie votes aye. Mr. james is not recorded. Mr. james votes aye. >> as Mr. palmer recorded. >> Mr. palmer is not recorded. Mr. palmer votes I. >> house Mr. crenshaw reported Mr. >> Mr. crenshaw is not recorded. Mr. crenshaw votes I. >> Mr. >> uh how's Mr. dingle? >> Mrs. dingle is not recorded.
▶ 5:41:58Mrs. dingle votes I. >> how about, Mr. chairman how she recorded. >> Mrs. carmack is not recorded. Mrs. carmack votes I. >> any more votes seeing none. The clerk will report the vote.
▶ 5:42:30>> Mr. chairman, on that vote there were 46 eyes and zero noes. >> the ayes have it. The bill is adopted. This brings up one more bill. 2076. The clerk will report. >> h.r. 2076, a bill to require the federal communications commission to issue an order providing that a shark attack is. >> without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. The bill will be open for amendment at any point so ordered.
▶ 5:42:59Does anyone wish to be recognized on the, uh, on the bill, Mr. palmer, you recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. speaker. I rise in support of the bill. Uh, and I want to recognize myself to speak on it. On lulu's law.
▶ 5:43:16Lulu's law is named after lulu griffin, uh, who at 15 years old, lost part of her left arm and her hand and her right leg, um, during a shark attack last year. Um, lulu's law would enable authorities to quickly deploy wireless emergency alerts to the public if someone is attacked by a shark, or conditions for a shark attack are present nearby.
▶ 5:43:43About 90 minutes before lulu's lulu was attacked, another woman about a mile down the beach had suffered critical injuries from the same shark. Uh, passage of this bill will allow an alert system that will go out to cell phones to let people know to get their children out of the water, to get out of the water themselves in the event of a shark attack nearby.
▶ 5:44:11Um, one of our top priorities in congress should be keeping americans safe. And like I said, had this alert gone out, the attack could could have been prevented. Um, I met lulu. Um, we have a poster back here. If someone will hold up the poster. Um, her favorite color is purple. And she had these shirts made during her rehabilitation that.
▶ 5:44:42I don't know if you all can see it, but it says before you ask, it was a shark. Uh. When they got her out of the water, uh, she almost bled out. It wasn't certain that that she would make it. Um, I got her to a hospital. They had to do the amputations. And when she woke up. And saw our family, she said I made it.
▶ 5:45:08So I urge my colleagues to vote yes. In doing so, we will vote to create a common sense solution to prevent these tragic incidents and to keep beachgoers out of harm's way. Thank you, Mr. chairman. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. Any further discussion on the bill? Further discussion? Any amendments on the bill? No amendments. Uh, the roll call vote has been requested. The clerk will call the roll. >> Mr. lado. Mr. lado votes.
▶ 5:45:39Aye, Mr. griffith. Mr. griffith votes aye. Mr. bilirakis. Mr. bilirakis votes aye. Mr. hudson. Mr. hudson votes aye. Mr. carter of georgia. Mr. carter of georgia votes aye Mr. palmer. Mr. palmer votes aye. Mr. dunn. Aye. Mr. dunn votes aye Mr. crenshaw. Mr. joyce, Mr. joyce votes aye Mr. weber. Mr. weber votes aye Mr. allen. Mr.
▶ 5:46:09Allen votes aye Mr. balderson, Mr. balderson votes aye Mr. fletcher, Mr. fulcher votes aye Mr. pfluger. Mr. pfluger votes aye. Mrs. harshbarger. Mr. harshbarger votes aye Mr. miller. Meeks. Mr. miller-meeks votes aye Mrs. kat cammack. Mr. obernolte. Mr. obernolte votes aye. Mr. james. Mr. james votes aye. Mr. bentz. Mr. bentz votes aye. Mrs. houchin. Mr.
▶ 5:46:38Frey, miss lee, Mr. langworthy, Mr. cain, Mr. cain votes aye. Mr. rowley. Mr. evans, Mr. goldman, Mr. goldman votes aye. Mrs. fedorchuk Mrs. votes I Mr. pallone. Mr. pallone votes aye. Mr. Mr.
▶ 5:47:03Get votes I miss schakowsky schakowsky votes I miss matsui miss. Matsui votes I miss castor miss castor votes aye. Mr. tonko. Aye. Mr. tonko votes aye. Miss. Clark. Miss clark votes aye. Mr. ruiz. Mr. ruiz votes aye. Mr. peters. Mr. peters votes aye. Mrs. dingell. Mrs. dingell, votes aye. Mr. veasey. Miss. Kelly. Mr. betagan, miss.
▶ 5:47:33Betagan votes aye. Mr. soto. Mr. soto, votes I. Schreyer. Schreyer. Votes aye Mr. han. Mr. han votes aye. Mr. fletcher, miss fletcher votes aye. Mr. ocasio-cortez. Miss ocasio-cortez votes aye Mr. claus. Mr. claus, votes aye. Mr. carter. Louisiana. Mr. carter, louisiana votes aye. Mr. menendez. Mr. menendez votes aye. Mr. mullen, Mr. mullen votes aye. Mr. landsman, Mr. landsman votes aye. Mr. mclellan.
▶ 5:48:02Miss mcclellan votes aye. Chairman. Guthrie. Mrs. kat cammack is not recorded. Mrs. campos I chairman. >> guthrie. >> chairman. Guthrie. How is he recorded? >> chairman guthrie is not recorded. Chairman guthrie votes aye. >> how about chairman griffith?
▶ 5:48:33>> Mr. griffith is recorded as I. >> okay. How's the report? >> carter crenshaw is not recorded. Mr. crenshaw votes. Aye. >> anybody else? >> okay. Uh, seeing no further votes, the clerk will report the roll call.
▶ 5:49:04>> Mr. chairman, on that vote, there were 46 eyes and zero noes. >> the ayes have it. The bill is adopted without objection. The staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes to the legislation approved by the committee today. So ordered and without objection, the committee stands adjourned.