Markup of 7 Bills
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
Cutting the EPA and its workforce, and carrying out a massive deregulatory agenda will have consequences indeed. And to complement the Trump administration's efforts to reduce agency capacity, these proposed bills would drastically limit its legal authorities. Ultimately, if these bills are enacted, it will be more difficult for the EPA to protect Americans from environmental health threats and enforce the rules against polluters even beyond this current administration. The second important piece of context is that earlier this year, congressional Republicans and President Trump enacted a partisan budget reconciliation bill that will result in millions of Americans losing their health care. Millions more are feeling the effects of significant premium increases.
House Republicans have no plan to address the expiration of the Affordable Care Act's enhanced premium tax credits. That comes at a time when so many Americans are losing access to health care. The proposal we will consider today simply add insult to injury. These bills will make it more likely that Americans will get sick and need to see a doctor or visit an emergency room. Republicans' policy preferences are pushing us toward a future where hospitals already under financial pressure will have to deal with more cases of asthma, COPD, and other health consequences of increased air pollution affecting millions of uninsured Americans.
The Clean Air Act has a 50 year track record of success, driving innovation in pollution control technologies and enabling the cost effective reduction of pollution. It is hard, it worked as intended, and it continues to protect Americans' health while enabling economic growth. The legislation we will consider today represents serious challenges and threats to both past and future progress, so I must oppose each of them. With that, mister chair, I yield back.
Speaker 1
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky's state or district. The chairman of the full committee, my friend, Mister Guthrie, for five minutes for an opening statement.
Speaker 3
I'm sorry. Tell you, thank you, Chairman Palmer, and I really appreciate the opportunity to be here. Members of the subcommittee for the important work of this markup. Over the past few months, this subcommittee has held two hearings to consider common sense permitting reform solutions or to modernize the Clean Air Act. During these hearings, we discussed proposals related to how to best protect public health while streamlining sprawling regulations that account for some of the most expensive and significant barriers in modern permitting processes, costs which are passed down to consumers and communities.
This morning, the environment subcommittee is considering seven pieces of legislation to modernize the Clean Air Act. These bills will reduce the permitting gridlock that is slowing American economic progress. It's been 35 years since we meaningfully amended the Clean Air Act, and the bills we are considering today address aging and inefficient provisions that require modernization. We can protect our environment while fostering economic growth. Local communities should not be penalized for poor air quality from foreign emissions, like the Canadian wildfires.
The Clean Air Act should be modernized so that states can continue to protect air quality while balancing the needs businesses have for regulatory certainty and streamlined processes to obtain permits without necessary delays in costs. Red tape and overburdensome regulations are stifling economic development and American innovation. Communities and companies are being punished for missions they have no control over. I look forward to discussing the bills today and the steps we can take to lessen regulatory burdens on Americans. And I hope I know that all Americans are aware that this is Army Navy week, so I'll conclude and yield back with, go Army, beat Navy.
I yield back.
Speaker 1
The gentleman yields. The chair now recognizes my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey 6th District, the ranking member of the full committee, representative Palom, for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today, we're marking up seven Republican bills that once again put corporate polluters over people, and will make the American people sicker. Republicans are eroding the foundation of the Clean Air Act and threatening our ability to ensure Americans have clean and healthy air to breathe. We know air pollution is dangerous and already poses serious and significant health risks to our communities every day. It's linked to cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and over 100,000 premature deaths every year.
Unfortunately, we're not here to consider any practical bipartisan solutions to address this problem, and instead, the majority is trying to rehash and rebrand the same tired, failed pro-corporate polluter ideas that they push every congress. And the result is that we're once again wasting time on these pro-polluter bills instead of tackling the real problems facing Americans, like the affordability crisis and skyrocketing health care costs resulting from Republicans' refusal to extend enhanced premium tax credits that make health care more affordable for millions of Americans. Now the Clean Air Act has a long history of working to drive economic development while at the same time protecting the health of our communities. In fact, under the Clean Air Act, air pollution has fallen over 78% since 1970, while at the same time, our gross domestic product has nearly quadrupled. Any potential changes to the law should continue to have those goals in mind.
We can't and should not sacrifice one in pursuit of the other, but unfortunately, that is exactly what these Republican bills would do. What my colleagues continuously ignore is that cleaner air results in healthier Americans, and a healthier American workforce means fewer missed workdays, fewer health care costs, and, in turn, a stronger economy. So there's no economic argument for tearing down the Clean Air Act. Four of the bills we're considering today will undermine the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, or NAAQS, a suite of health-based air quality standards that let us know what level of pollution is safe to breathe. HR 4218 will gut these protections by requiring the EPA to consider the economic impact and feasibility of implementing the standard.
In other words, weakening public health protections in favor of industry profits. It also removes critical incentives for states and contains problematic exemptions that will artificially reduce reporting, while leaving communities exposed to unsafe air. And Republicans like these provisions so much, they're duplicated in the other bills that we're considering today. So next is HR 4214, which gives new sources of pollution amnesty from new air quality standards, allowing new industrial facilities to emit more pollution with reckless abandon. This would raise the cost of cleaning up pollution, and worsen air quality overall.
Committee Republicans are also targeting the new source review program, HR 161, which allows polluters to cook the books on how they measure cancer-causing emissions and allow more pollution in communities already impacted by poor air quality. On top of that, we have HR 6398, which removes EPA's ability to review the public health and environmental impacts of major projects. And finally, there's HR 6373, which gives the president the ability to waive Clean Air Act permit requirements while simultaneously creating a pay-to-pollute scheme that lets large industrial sources of pollution off the hook for the harm they caused by simply paying their way into compliance. Now, instead of addressing deadly air pollution or offering solutions to the affordability crisis that the Trump administration is causing, they're pushing policies to help out their billionaire buddies. Republicans are already forcing Americans to foot the bill for skyrocketing health care costs, and they want to make people even sicker as they struggle to afford care.
So I've opposed these ideas before. I oppose these bills today. I strongly urge my colleagues to do the same. Let me just say in the last minute, you know, one of the arguments I keep hearing from the president is that, you know, we don't have to worry about the Clean Air Act anymore because air pollution has fallen significantly. And I did mention that air pollution has fallen over 78% since 1970.
But that doesn't mean you're supposed to reverse course. Just because things have improved doesn't mean we wanna go back to the days when the air was dirty, and there was smog in LA and everything else. And that's what really bonded me is this notion on the part of the president that somehow, because things are significantly improved in terms of air quality, that now is the time to weaken the protections and have dirty air. It makes no sense to me whatsoever, but that's what I hear from the president, and that's what I hear from my Republican colleagues, and it's just not acceptable. So with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields. The chair reminds members that pursuant to the committee rules, all members' opening statements will be made part of the record. Are there further opening statements?
Speaker 1
Chair, I recognize the gentleman from California, Mister Peters, for an opening statement for three minutes.
Speaker 5
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanna thank you for holding this hearing. I do recognize that the environmental laws are some decades old, and we should be open to modernizing them and realize that they're not given to us by Moses on tablets. They were given to us by people who, back then, were trying to solve the same kinds of problems we're trying to solve today. One of the reasons I'm so aggressive about trying to amend some of the process statutes is because we have the backstop of these substantive environment laws that prevent the emission of pollutants into the environment without a permit, and that's the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act.
So I think we should be specifically very much more thoughtful and targeted when we deal with these bills. But I do want to express my sympathy with two of these efforts. One is, mister chairman, your effort, the air permitting, improvements to protect the National Security Act. How do we prevent, how do we keep from penalizing facilities that are critical to our national security? I think that's a reasonable inquiry.
I'd say two points on that. One is I'm not willing to leave this definition problem to the president of The United States, particularly this president who's willing to use national security as an excuse to pull permits from existing wind facilities or to impose tariffs beyond, think, what his power is under the constitution. If we wanna deal with this issue, I would be happy to work on it in congress to define what those national security exceptions are, rather than leaving that discretion to the president. Think, you know, with a different president from our party, you know, you might be sympathetic to that protection as well. Second, with respect to Mister Evans' fire act, I think it's the concept of many of us in the West.
We can understand the idea that states should not be penalized for mitigating the risk of catastrophic wildfires. My issue here is that I think we already have a process for states to submit data to the EPA that they want excluded for good consideration from compliance of the national ambient air quality standards. That includes wildfire mitigation and prescribed burns. Rather than reinvent the wheel, I'd like to offer to work with mister Evans to figure out how to improve that existing prod process. I wanna make sure that it's understandable for the states who'll be responsible for navigating it. So, appreciate the issues being raised today.
I think we have more work to do, and I yield back my time.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields. Are there further opening statements? Seeing none, the chair calls up HR6409 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 6
HR6409, a bill to amend the Clean Air Act to clarify standards for emissions emanating from outside of the United States, and for other purposes.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. The bill will be open for amendment at any point, so ordered. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? Mister Fluger. The gentleman from Texas, Mister Fluger, is recognized.
Speaker 7
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I'd like to speak in favor of my bill, H.R. 6409, the Fences Act. Before I do, just wanna address one thing that I continue to hear. That this is a hearing on environmental issues. And, as we heard from the ranking member, there were a lot of health care concerns.
And I just wanna make it clear that not a single Republican has ever voted on the Affordable Care Act. That was done by Democrats. And so, rising cost are a result of the policy that you passed. And if you're gonna bring up health care in this hearing, let's just set the record straight that you guys passed this, and the rising costs are a result of your policy. So back to the topic, you can.
Across the country and the state, states are being unfairly penalized for emissions that they didn't create. Whether it's smoke drifting from Canadian wildfires or emissions carried over the border from Mexico, these foreign sources can push counties into nonattainment even when local communities and businesses are doing everything right. Congress has always recognized this reality, and that's why the Clean Air Act allows states to adjust their plans when foreign emissions prevent them from meeting the federal standards. But EPA guidance under the previous administration rewrote that understanding and narrowed the relief only to human-caused emissions from abroad, and that makes zero sense. The Fences Act, which is the foreign emissions nonattainment clarification for economic stability act, restores the original intent of the law. It makes clear that all foreign emissions, natural or human caused, must be excluded when determining nonattainment or when reviewing new facility permits.
And importantly, this bill lets states account for foreign emissions earlier in the regulatory process, instead of forcing them to wait to the very end and risk costly delays or federal sanctions. This matters in every region of the country, but let me highlight the consequences back home in my district in the Permian Basin. We saw this play out recently when the Biden EPA floated a possible non-attainment designation that created real uncertainty. Even the hint of nonattainment sends a signal that permits could slow down, costs could rise, and long-term planning becomes harder for producers and communities alike at no fault of their own. That experience made it clear that these designations are too consequential to get wrong.
Local communities should not be burdened by regulatory consequences tied to emissions that come from foreign sources or unavoidable natural events. The Fences Act levels the playing field, sets the table for fairness, and is about giving states regulatory certainty. It's about keeping American industries competitive, while still upholding environmental standards. And I'll remind everyone that the decision from the Biden administration, the hint of nonattainment was based on censors in New Mexico, not in Texas, but in New Mexico. I would urge my colleagues to support this bill and yield back.
Speaker 1
Is there any further discussion on the bill? Seeing none, the gentleman has an amendment at the desk. Court will state the amendment. You have to.
Speaker 6
Amendment to H.R. 6409 offered by Mister Ruiz. Add at the end the following. Section three, limitation.
Speaker 1
The minutes considered read without objection. The reading of the minute is dispensed with, and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment.
Speaker 8
Mister chairman. What this amendment does is straightforward. It prohibits implementation of the foreign emissions and nonattainment clarification for economic stability or the Fences Act if the provision in this bill will increase serious, life-threatening health problems for children, seniors, and other at-risk communities. In other words, if this bill will make air pollution worse and increase the likelihood of death from those illnesses for a community, the bill cannot go into effect, period. The reason is simple.
The Clean Air Act is a public health law meant to protect the health and safety of Americans. I think we can all agree with these goals, but this is not what this bill, the Fence Act, would do. This bill would allow areas to ignore air pollution and escape a nonattainment designation for a national ambient air quality standard or NAAQS by just blaming exceedances on sources outside of their borders or outside the country, while residents continue to breathe unhealthy air and suffer the consequences. Americans don't want us to just point the finger and shrug our shoulders. They want us to take action to cut pollution, protect their health, so the air is healthy to breathe.
The bill sponsors claim this is about fairness, protecting states from penalties for pollution caused by Canadian wildfires or dust from Mexico. But here's what they're not telling you. This bill makes it easier for areas to avoid accountability entirely, with no incentive to clean up pollution and leaving communities to suffer. And let me tell you what this means for my district. Imperial County has been designated a nonattainment area for ozone, in particular, matter, for over a decade.
One in five children in Imperial County suffer from asthma, double the state rate due to high levels of air pollution already. The Coachella Valley is classified as extreme nonattainment for ozone, with an attainment deadline that has been pushed all the way to 2032. Under the Clean Air Act, states aren't penalized if they've done their part, and foreign emissions keep them from meeting the standards. The Fences Act strips that safeguard, allowing polluted areas to avoid cleanup, and leaving residents with weaker protections. That's environmental malpractice.
Yes, we understand that cross-border pollution exists. EPA has already recognized that Imperial County would have attained the ozone standards, but for emissions from Mexico. The Clean Air Act already has provisions to address this. So the bill is completely unnecessary. And the existence of cross-border pollution doesn't mean we give up trying to provide clean and healthy air for already overburdened communities.
When a kid comes with an asthma attack to the emergency department, we're not debating where the stimuli for that asthma exacerbation came from, whether it was from our communities or from across the border. What we care about is that kid getting better, is saving the kid's life. That should be our focus. Here we are debating whether, you know, the pollution's coming from Mexico or coming from the United States or other places. You know, we need to address the pollution coming from Mexico.
But what we really need to focus on is the health of that child who already suffers from acute asthma exacerbations. And I've seen children who have died from asthma attacks. Do you think their parents are really gonna be concerned about where that pollution came from after their child dies? They want the air that they breathe in our local communities to be clean, and this bill will make that air dirtier. My amendment protects communities that are already overburdened, communities that have been asked again to bear the burden of pollution, illness, and higher health care costs.
And let be clear, while we're here debating giveaways to polluters, congressional Republicans have still taken no action to extend the enhanced premium tax credits beyond 2020. In fact, their big beautiful bill, also known as the big ugly law, increased premiums by stripping health care insurance away, cutting Medicaid by nearly 1,000,000,000,000, taking over $600,000,000,000 from rural hospitals that, by the way, treat this child who comes in with asthma exacerbation. And as a result, 2026 plan rates and premiums tax credit levels are already being set based on the expiration of these subsidies. People in my community would have to pay $18,000 more a year. That's impossible for working people.
And it would force families into devastating choices between putting food on their table, paying for their child's asthma medications, or their health insurance. We need to protect our clean air and protect our health care for our children and our communities. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Is there further discussion on the amendment? Beautiful. The gentleman from Texas, Mister Fluger, is recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 7
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, I'm in opposition to this amendment. And I'll remind this committee that, for four years under the Biden administration, we brought Democrat witnesses into this committee room and talked about transborder pollution. And you would probably not expect a Texan to rise in support of California, but that's what I'm gonna paint the picture with right now. That even in places like San Diego, that we are advocating for you, that the pollution that is in Tijuana across the southern border, you shouldn't be held accountable for that.
And that shouldn't be weaponized as a way to stop projects from happening and being built in San Diego or California. But that's exactly what happened under the Biden administration, is that there was not a clear-eyed, factual, scientific look at data. It was a very weaponized look. Whether it was in El Paso or San Diego or any other place, those were the data that the previous administration were using to stop projects. So I completely agree with my colleague that we want clean air, and the Clean Air Act does that.
And it was monumental legislation that was passed, but, unfortunately, we just have to go off the facts, and those facts are that the previous administration weaponized, which is why I'm in opposition to this amendment. This bill is tailored so that communities are not unfairly punished for air emissions that they don't have control over. And it doesn't change the underlying health protections in the Clean Air Act. In fact, it strengthens them and makes sure that we focus on what we can control. And you know what?
We need the administration to do what they should have done in the previous one, which was to deal with the worst of the worst polluters, which are countries like China and Mexico and other countries that don't care. But punishing our own communities is not the answer to that. The last thing I'll say is, so, obviously, I'm in opposition. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. And, a rhetorical question would be, why didn't the Democrats, when they had control of the House, the Senate, and the White House from '21 to the '22, extend as they tried to the enhanced premium tax credits.
They failed it. For the record, they failed that proposition. They wanted to make it permanent, and they couldn't even do it. They couldn't get the votes on their side of the aisle. So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I'll yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields. Is there further discussion on the amendment? The gentleman from Florida, mister Soto, is recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 10
Thank you so much, chairman. Utility bills are going up this year, 6 to 10%, in some states even higher, in 2025 under Trump's watch. He promised to lower energy bills. He's done the exact opposite. And the reasons are simple.
AI and data centers are spiking the demand. And by the way, we need them to help with commerce, to help with our AI advancement. But at the same time, he canceled $7,500,000,000 in renewable energy projects, 223 of them, mostly wind and solar. This is why your utility rates are going up, because we have demand spiking while he's pulling away projects that are either almost done or in the pipeline. What is not as big of a driver is the Clean Air Act right now.
And the irony is a lot of these projects would help make sure the air was cleaner, because they aren't using fossil fuels. And so we need to set the record straight about what's causing this rise in utility prices that's hurting the American people, and he yelled back.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Gentleman from Texas, Mister Crenshaw, is recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Move to strike the last word. Just say a few things about the bill and this amendment. This is a common-sense bill. I don't think that Americans should be punished for foreign pollutants.
And as Mister Pfluger pointed out, you know, we're talking about our state, Texas. We're talking about California. It's really difficult for me to see why this would be controversial at all. It's simply common sense. We should be responsible for what we can control, not what we cannot control.
As for the amendment itself, I mean, this lacks common sense. How on earth are they supposed to make this kind of assertion? Any scientific board that there's not going to be any more asthma attacks. And how do you even make that correlation? I might educate everyone with some statistics.
Turns out that since 02/2021, cases of asthma have remained flat. Did everyone know that? They remained flat despite a huge increase in GDP and productivity, and population growth remained flat. The data gets even better. Hospitalizations from asthma dropped by 75 percent.
ER visits for asthma dropped by half during that same period. So, what crisis are we trying to solve? And when you did what the Biden administration did and lower the PM 2.5 rate from twelve to around nine, which is very close to background levels, you're making it impossible for your constituents to even build anything new. And, by the way, meet those energy demands that we just talked about, which are, you're exactly right. We do have much higher energy demands than we ever thought possible because of things like data centers.
So, look, this amendment is designed to be a poison pill to a very common sense piece of legislation that we shouldn't have to take into account China's air pollution, Canadian wildfires, Mexican pollution, when we're looking at attainment zones to build the things we need to build so that our citizens can prosper. I really hope that we could come together on something like this, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Jim, is there further discussion on the amendment? Saying none, the clerk, oh, miss the gentleman reckon the chair recognized the gentleman from Virginia, mister Griffith, for five minutes.
Speaker 12
Very much, Mister Chairman. I hadn't planned to speak on this bill, but somehow we got into utility rates, and it just drives me crazy that somehow the policies that president Obama and president Biden brought into play are Republican's fault. President Obama said that if we passed his plans, and it was a cap and trade plan, but we've done similar things with the Green New Deal, that your electric rates would necessarily skyrocket. When you take existing coal and natural gas plants and you shut them down or limit them as a result of the policies, may be fine. People may like those policies.
But when you do that, which is what the Democrats have advocated doing in numerous administrations and when they were in control, you're gonna make electric prices go up. Everything they have done, even if you can point to what this administration has done in the last few months as being a minor increase, everything on energy policy that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have done has caused the American consumers' prices to go up. For example, in 2012, we opened up a new facility in my district, Mr. Chairman. It was the cleanest coal-fired burning plant in the world at the time it opened up. It has a 50 to 70 year life expectancy.
Let's go with 50. That makes it 2,062. A democratic legislature in Virginia wants to limit and has limited the life expectancy on that. I think it's to, like, 20 40 now, maybe 20 35. And what happens is in order to make up for that power that they're not gonna have in the future that they counted on, the company has to build additional facilities, generally looking at, based on policies in the Biden administration, wind and solar.
Now they don't wind and solar really provide base load power. You can look at it and say, that's great. You can do the batteries. But when they build the wind and solar, when they build a battery unit to back it up, when they do all of that, the ratepayer has to pay for it. And the already built plant, which could produce electricity because there's no additional cost in building it, could produce electricity at a lower rate.
That already existing facility still has to be paid for, even though legislators in the Commonwealth of Virginia have chosen to say we're gonna limit it, and that's happening across the country, and it's happening here in Congress. When you choose to take those offline, somebody has to pay. And I can assure you it's not the power companies. It's the ratepayer, the consumer. It gets passed along.
I'm sure it's the same in many other states. In Virginia, the publicly controlled, from a pricing standpoint, utility is entitled to a return on its investment. So they're gonna make a profit every year, and it's the consumer who pays the price. And what we are paying for today are the mistakes of Democrat administrations and Democrat congresses of the past. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields. Is there further discussion on the amendment? There's no further discussion? Mister Oh, didn't see.
Speaker 1
What Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mister Menendez, for five minutes.
Speaker 13
Thank you, chairman. It wouldn't be a committee hearing if we didn't have the opportunity to engage with each other. You know, listen. Every committee here, you're talking about prior administrations. Right?
You have a lot to criticize about the Biden administration. Now we're talking about the Obama administrations. And it's just fascinating that there's nothing that the Trump administration does that you feel the need to criticize or push back on. Right? He says that he'd give himself an a plus on the economy.
Right? He says affordability is a con job. Right? He has all these tariffs, and his way to address the affordability challenge is to unwind the tariffs that his administration put into place. And now, when we talk with our constituents, we know the affordability crisis is real.
Right? And I believe that you have solutions that would be good for your constituents. We believe we have solutions, but we know the affordability crisis is real. And the president is saying that he would give himself an a plus. Do you agree with that?
Do you think that's how this economy is performing? There's no room for an improvement because that's when an A plus grade would be. And I think there's a ton of room for improvement. Right? Whether it's on energy, whether it's on health care, there is a ton of room for improvement because people are suffering out there.
And I can't believe that you wouldn't say he's doing all right, but there's still room for improvement. So maybe it's not an a plus. Right? So if we're gonna talk about administrations, I would like to hear Republicans talk about things that they disagree with the Trump administration, things that the Trump administration can do better. And I'm happy to yield any of my time, because I think it's important that Republicans use their voices to push back on this administration.
Speaker 12
Thank you very much. So there are things that I have disagreed with the president on over time, but I would say that the president got this statement right. Democrats broke it. We're trying to fix it. And that's what these bills today are about.
That's what some of the other bills that we've dealt with are about. And I would remind the gentleman that he has not yet been in office a full year, and it takes a while to turn the ship of state around. It's not gonna get done in 11 months. So I ask the American people to be patient with us and to realize that we are trying to fix the problems that are out there, but we run into opposition every single time with a two-vote majority in the House. And our choices are to keep pushing forward, keep taking the incoming fire.
We will do that. Is the president perfect? No. I would say to the gentleman, he is not perfect. Would I say to the gentleman that there are always things that a legislative body and an administration can do better?
Of course, there are. But I would also say to the gentleman that we are trying to resolve the problems that the American people elected President Trump and us to try to solve and to obfuscate by saying that, you know, well, we've now had this administration. You can't point back. Look. Energy policy takes years before you see an impact.
Years. And we are now paying the price for the energy policies of the past.
Speaker 13
Because I appreciate it. I let you go, and I wanted to make be a good faith effort. Right? But, you know, when you start a new administration, we're trying to undo certain things. Right?
And you guys, one, you are in the majority. You have the right to take things in a different course. But, you know, on a project like Revolution Wind off the coast of Rhode Island, almost 90% done, and you have the president pull the permit on it. Right? That's not productive for creating more energy production.
You know, you talk about, you know, a year into this administration. Well, four years of President Biden, as I mentioned in one of our last hearings, has resulted in the Infrastructure Investment Jobs Act, a project in every single congressional district. And that clearly means that all the Republicans that didn't vote for the infrastructure investment jobs act have a project in their district funded by a bill signed into law by President Biden. I think that's a good thing. I think we've had conversations about how South Carolina is seeing this economic boom because of the Infrastructure Investment Jobs Act, the Inflation Reduction Act, and the Chips and Science Act.
So that's a great thing to see across the country, but that was President Biden. And I do see Republicans going to a lot of ribbon cuttings for federal money and federal projects that were delivered by the Biden administration. So I think there's an immense amount that they've done right, and I'm glad you don't think the president is doing a perfect job. I think that's an important thing to say, because there's an immense amount of work that we have to do. I look forward to you continuing to challenge the administration when you know that they're doing wrong by our constituents.
That, all you're aware of.
Speaker 9
Well, of those examples that you named earlier about projects that were started and then ended, would the Keystone XL pipeline be an example of that?
Speaker 13
Issue the national permit for the project. Okay. So you're saying that justifies what happened with Revolution Wind?
Speaker 9
No. No. I'm just asking, is that the type of example that you're referring to?
Speaker 13
Is it referring to projects that were funded by legislation signed into law by President Biden? I don't believe the Keystone Pipeline fits within that universe of things that I'm talking about. I'm talking about three major bills that were signed into law by President Biden, bringing federal dollars to all of your districts. Right? That's what I'm talking about.
So they don't think Keystone Pipeline's within that university.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields. Is there any other member wishing to speak on the amendment? If there's no further discussion, the vote will occur on the amendment. All those in favor shall signify by saying aye. All those opposed, nay.
Speaker 6
Là. Mister Latta of votes, no. Mr. Griffith. Mister Griffith votes no. Mr. Carter of Georgia.
No. Mister Carter of Georgia, votes no. Mr. Joyce. Mister Joyce votes no. Mr. Weber.
Mister Weber votes no. Mister Pfluger. Mister Pfluger votes no. Missus Miller Meeks. Missus Miller-Meeks votes no.
Miss Lee. Miss Lee votes no. Mr. Langworthy. No. Mister Langworthy votes no.
Mr. Evans? No. Mr. Evans votes no. Missus Fedorchak? Missus Fedorchak votes no.
Mister Guthrie? No. Mister Guthrie votes no. Mister Tonko?
Speaker 6
Mister Tonko votes aye. Miss Shukowski? Aye. Miss Shukowski votes aye. Mister Ruiz?
Mister Ruiz votes, aye. Mister Peters? Mister Peters votes aye. Miss Baragon? Aye.
Miss Baragon votes aye. Mister So? Aye. Mister So, to votes, aye. Mister Auconclaus?
Aye. Mister Auconclaus votes aye. Mister Carter of Louisiana? Aye. Mister Carter of Louisiana votes aye.
Mister Menendez, aye. Mister Menendez, votes, Mister Lansman, votes aye. Mister Pologne. Aye. Mister Pologne votes aye.
Chairman Palmer. No. Chairman Palmer votes no.
Speaker 1
Are there any other members who wish to, I don't know. I'm clerk of the report.
Speaker 1
The amendment is not agreed to. Are there further amendments? The question now occurs on adopting HR 6409 as, all those in favor, say, aye. Those opposed, no. No.
The ayes have it. The bill is adopted and forwarded to the full committee.
Speaker 6
Mr. Griffith votes aye. Mr. Carter of Georgia. Aye. Mr. Carter of Georgia votes aye. Mr. Joyce.
Mr. Joyce votes aye. Mr. Weber. Mister Weber votes aye. Mister Pfluger. Mister Pfluger votes aye.
Missus Miller Meeks. Missus Miller Meeks votes aye. Miss Lee. Miss Lee votes aye. Mr. Langworthy.
Mr. Evans. Mr. Evans votes aye. Missus Fedorchak. Missus Fedorchak votes aye. Mr. Guthrie.
Mister Guthrie votes aye. Mister Tonko?
Speaker 6
Mister Tonko votes no. Miss Shukowski? No. Miss Shukowski votes no. Mister Ruiz?
No. Ruiz votes no. Mr Peters. Mr. Peters votes no. Miss Bartergan.
Miss Bartergan votes no. Mister So. Mister So to vote no. Mister Achenclaus. Mister Achenklaas votes no.
Mr Carter.
Speaker 6
Louisiana. Mister Carter of Louisiana votes no. Mr. Menendez. Mr. Menendez votes no. Mr. Landsman.
Mister Landsman votes no. Mister Pelon.
Speaker 1
Are there other members who wish to be recorded? Mister Langworthy? How's Mister Langworthy recorded?
Speaker 6
Mr. Langworthy is not recorded. Mister Langworthy votes aye. How's Mr. Crenshaw recorded? Mister Crenshaw is not recorded. Mister Crenshaw votes aye.
Speaker 1
The ayes have it. The bill is adopted and forwarded to the full committee. The chair now calls up HR 42 18 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 6
HR 42 18, a bill to amend the Clean Air Act to facilitate state implementation of national ambient air quality standards, and for other purposes.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. The bill will be open for amendment at any point. So ordered. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? The chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Carter.
Speaker 9
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mister chairman, EPA reviews national ambient air quality standards on five-year intervals. After establishing national ambient air quality standards, states assume the primary responsibility for implementing and enforcing them. This is an extremely time-consuming process, one that takes 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 in state implementation plans for the national air ambient quality standards before EPA can issue a federal implementation plan. The CLEAR Act offers common sense solutions to make attaining clear clean 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, as they should be. This is not about choosing between the environment and development.
This is about common sense. We should not penalize states that are impacted by events out of their control, and they should not be penalized for taking action to prevent exceptional events. Georgia is a top state for business in America. It has been for 12 years. Even with our growth, Georgia's air has never been cleaner since monitoring began years ago, as our witnesses stated in the legislative hearing we had on that bill.
If we give our state officials the time they truly need to implement regulations, while also ensuring that they are not punished for background levels from natural sources, we can have lasting, meaningful policy and economic growth. I urge my colleagues to support the CLEAR Act, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields. Any other members who wish to speak on the bill? Saying none, are there any amendments? Chair, I recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mister Palone, for five minutes.
Speaker 6
Amendment to HR 4218 offered by mister Colon. Page two, beginning on line 4. Strike subsection b and make such conforming changes as may be necessary. Necessary.
Speaker 1
Without objecting, first reading of the amendment is dispensed. Gentleman is recognized.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment is straightforward, and it fixes one of the most egregious provisions in the bill, the consideration of, quote, likely attainability in the next setting process. Now let's not pretend that we're tinkering around the margins or applying common sense here. This is a radical provision that would allow polluters to override scientists. The bill would make so-called likely attainability a factor in the scientific decision about how much pollution is safe for a child to breathe, thereby requiring EPA to set air quality standards based on corporate profits rather than public health.
I think it's outrageous to even consider this provision that will make Americans sicker, especially at a time when families across the nation are facing skyrocketing health-care costs. Requiring EPA to consider attainability or the potential cost of attaining an air quality standard is a dangerous precedent that ignores the purpose of the Clean Air Act. Since 1970, the law's science-based health protective standards keep our eye on the prize, healthy air for everyone. Cooperative federalism allows the EPA to set the clean air goals and states to decide how best to achieve them. Furthermore, this provision would overturn a unanimous Supreme Court decision written by Justice Scalia that bars cost considerations from the next setting process.
This is not to say that attainability and cost aren't considered at any point. The scientific determination of what is safe to breathe doesn't depend on the technology or the cost of cleaning up pollution. But these considerations come into play in a second step of the process when states decide on the most effective way to meet their air quality goals. But section two b turns this extremely effective approach upside down. The considerations set up by this section are equivalent to a doctor basing a patient's diagnosis on the course of treatment and likelihood of a cure.
It's unconscionable, and puts the health of all Americans at unnecessary risk. So my amendment ensures that the Clean Air Act continues to prioritize the health and safety of families and children by rejecting this dangerous change. And I urge my colleagues to stand with the American people and vote in favor of this amendment. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields as their discussion of the amendment. The gentleman from Georgia, Mister Carter, recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 9
Mister chairman, I seek to be recognized to speak in opposition to this amendment. Gentlemen's recognized. Mister chairman, this amendment will retain the status quo. The Clean Air Act currently requires the EPA administrator to establish an act 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 clear Clean Air Act's requirements that standards be protected above public health.
The text simply clarifies that the EPA administrator has the discretion in certain situations to consider technological feasibility when choosing among a range of levels identified and supported by the science advisory committee as protective of public health. I urge a no vote on this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields. Is there a further discussion of the amendment? Gentleman from New Jersey, Mister Menendez is recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 13
Thank you, chairman. Since 1970, the Clean Air Act has had several key features that have helped make it one of our country's most successful environmental laws and public health protections. One of those features is the law's science-based health protective standards that reflect its core mission, healthy air for everyone. And cooperative federalism allows the EPA to set the clean air goals, and states decide how best to achieve them. The Clean Air Act uses regulatory standards like National Ambient Air Quality Standards or NAAQS to drive innovation and pollution controls often called, quote, technology forcing standards.
The reality is it usually costs less to dump pollution than to prevent it. So businesses generally don't control pollution in the absence of regulatory requirements. Once an air pollution standard is in place, industry gets to work to meet it. We've seen this time and time again. And along the way, we develop more effective and less expensive pollution control technologies that then become the industry standard, which, in addition to benefiting public health, is good for business.
Not only is our air cleaner, but we also export tens of billions of dollars of pollution-control equipment all over the world. We have seen that happen over again. But section two b ignores this fact and rejects an approach that has been successful for over 50 years. The provision attempts to insert consideration of costs into the next setting process, setting a higher, less protective standard that will endanger public health, including the health of vulnerable populations like children, the elderly, low-income communities, and communities of color. Ultimately, this provision would mean the EPA must weigh the cost of polluting to polluting industries against the well-being of our communities, and that is entirely unacceptable.
As we have repeated time and time again in this committee, over 100,000,000 Americans live in counties with unhealthy levels of air pollution, and air pollution is responsible for over 100,000 premature deaths in America every year. So it's a mystery to me why our Republican colleagues attempt to turn the NACS process into a reflection of how much public health protection polluters can afford, instead of what is safe for our children, friends, and neighbors to breathe. Every aspect of life is impacted by the quality of our air. That is why it's important that we protect the EPA's ability to set air quality standards. Excuse me. To set air quality standards, are guided solely by public health.
Overall, this section is a radical rewrite of the health-based air quality standards that are the foundation of the Clean Air Act. It ignores decades of experience in cleaning up air pollution. It's an extreme and reckless approach. So I urge adoption of the amendment to protect our families and to ensure these critical standards are based on science and health alone. And with that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Seeing none. All those requests requested the gentleman has requested a recorded vote. The clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 6
Mr. Crenshaw. Mister Crenshaw votes no. Mister Lata. Mr. Griffith. Mister Griffith votes no.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. Mr. Carter of Georgia votes no. Mr. Joyce. Mr. Joyce votes no. Mr. Weber.
Mister Pfluger. Missus Miller Meeks. Missus Miller-Meeks votes no. Miss Lee. Miss Lee votes no.
Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Evans. Mister Evans votes no. Missus Fudorchak. Missus Fudorchak votes no.
Mr. Guthrie. Mister Guthrie votes no. Mister Tonko. I, Mister Tonko, vote aye. Miss Shukowski.
Mr. Ruiz. Mr. Ruiz votes aye. Mr Peters. Mr. Peters votes aye. Miss Baragon.
Miss Patagon votes aye. Mister So. Mister So votes aye. Mister Achenklaas. Mister Achenklaas votes aye.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes aye. Mister Menendez, Mister Menendez votes aye. Mister Lansman. Mister Lansman votes aye.
Mister Pologne. Mister Pologne votes aye. Chairman Palmer votes, no.
Speaker 1
Are there other members who wish to be reck chairman, how's recorded. How's Mister Lada recorded?
Speaker 1
The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to speak. The clerk will report the amendment.
Speaker 6
Amendment to HR 42 18 offered by mister Tonko. Page 12, beginning on line five. Strike paragraph one.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is absolutely critical that our environmental regulations are informed by the latest and best available science. That is why EPA is legally required to maintain a scientific advisory committee to inform the next standard-setting process. We've debated provisions included in the CLEAR Act numerous times in the past, including section four, which would change the composition of the EPA's Clear Air Scientific Advisory Committee or CASAC. The CASAC is required by law to consist of seven members, at least one of whom is required to be a physician, one a National Academy's member, and one a state representative.
The bill before us would change the state's representation from one seventh to three sevenths of the committee's makeup. In the past, I've been very clear that I am not opposed to having greater state representation on the case act, provided that the committee continues to have the technical and scientific expertise necessary to properly advise the administrator. States are important partners in understanding public health risks posed by air pollution, but they are far from the only voice that should be part of this process. My amendment seeks to recognize the potential for a greater role for states while maintaining the balance of the, case act's, composition. It would maintain the proposed increase in state seats from one to three, while also increasing the total number of committee members from seven to 13 and requiring that, along with the three state representatives, there are also three physicians and three National Academy members.
This would clearly allow more states the opportunity to participate in this aspect of the NACS process without risking erosion of the committee's technical expertise. So if members would like to have more states represented in this process, this amendment does that, while also allowing more public health experts and doctors to be able to advise the agency. I encourage you to support this amendment. With that, mister chair, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Chairman. Gentleman from Georgia, Mister Carter's recognized.
Speaker 9
Mister chairman, this amendment would undermine the purpose of the bill and dilute the role that state air regulators should play. Section four of this bill would require the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee, which helps advise the EPA administrator on technical issues impacting the NASC, to include additional expertise from state regulatory agencies. In both hearings before this committee, we heard about the impacts that resulted from an unbalanced CASAC board. It is essential to have members of CASAC who understand how scientific bad data is applied and what it would look like in practice. State air pollution control agencies are uniquely well qualified in this area, as they're responsible for applying the standards.
CASAC members have experience in the underlying science, but they do not have significant experience in how that science is translated in NACS 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, the practical knowledge, and skills needed for environmental management. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 15
Thank you. I just wanna speak in support of my colleague's amendment, and I do hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle will consider supporting this. This is a really simple sort of approach, which is to say, look. If you're gonna change the group that oversees or provides advice on critically important, clean air, clean water legislation policy, include scientists, include doctors, include physicians. This committee benefits.
Speaker 15
The fact that it has multiple physicians on both sides of the aisle. And what mister Tonko's saying is, you know, 100% include, you know, have these state folks lead this effort, but just expand the committee from seven people to 13 so that you can have physicians. You can have experts in the field so that we're getting the best possible policy for the people we serve. And that seems to make all the sense in the world. I can understand if mister Taco said, look, you know, I wanna amend this, to just in a way that ensures there's physicians and it undermines or dilutes the number of state leaders at the table.
But he didn't do that. He decided that, look, he wants to make sure that this is a science-based process, that we get all the data that we can possibly get. We're leveraging all the experts we can. And so it made sense. Just change it from 7 people to 13 people so that you can have both.
You can have the state leadership that you all are pushing for and the scientific and medical expertise to review and comment on the data, which I suspect if you filled this room with a cross section of Americans and you said, hey. What if we just added a few seats to make sure that we can balance both? We have the state folks at the table, and we have experts, including physicians and scientists. They would say, yeah. That makes sense.
So with that, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, Yields, is there further discussion on the amendment? There's no further discussion. The vote occurs on the amendment. All those in favor shall signify by saying.
Speaker 6
Mr. Crenshaw votes no. Mister Lada? No. Mister Lada votes no. Mr. Griffith.
Mister Griffith votes no. Mr. Carter of Georgia? Mr. Carter of Georgia votes no. Mr. Joyce. Mister Joyce votes no.
Mr. Weber. Mister Pfluger. Mister Pfluger votes no. Missus Miller Meeks. Missus Miller-Meeks votes no.
Miss Lee. Miss Lee votes no. Mr. Langworthy. Mister Langworthy votes no. Mr Evans.
Mister Evans votes no. Missus Fedorchak? No. Missus Fedorchak votes no. Mister Guthrie?
Mister Tonko?
Speaker 6
Mister Tonko votes aye. Miss Shukowski. Aye. Miss Shukowski votes aye. Mister Ruiz.
Mr. Ruiz votes aye. Mr. Peters. Mr. Peters votes aye. Miss Bettergon. Miss Bettergon votes aye.
Mister So. Mister So votes aye. Mister Achenclaus. Mister Auckland votes aye. Mr. Carter of Louisiana.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes aye. Mr. Menendez. Mr. Menendez votes aye. Mister Lansman. Mister Lansman votes aye.
Mister Pologne. Mister Pologne votes aye. Chairman Palmer votes, no.
Speaker 1
Are there other members who wish to be recorded? How's chairman Guthrie recorded?
Speaker 1
The amendment is not agreed to. Are there further amendments? General lady from California.
Speaker 6
Amendment to H.R. 4218 offered by Miss Paragon. Add at the end the following.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment.
Speaker 16
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My amendment prevents the CLEAR Act from taking effect unless the EPA finds that this bill will not increase harmful health outcomes for our communities, such as asthma attacks, emergency room visits due to respiratory disease, or babies born with low birth weight. This is critical because the Republican legislation before us guts the Clean Air Act, and the cost of turning back the clock on clean air is far too high for public health and for the affordability of health care across the country. Air pollution is a well-documented trailer for asthma, respiratory illness, cardiovascular disease, birth complications, and premature death. A weaker Clean Air Act threatens to make America sicker.
For communities already burdened by pollution, often low-income communities and communities of color, the consequences are severe. More pollution means more asthma attacks, more emergency room visits, worsened chronic illnesses, and more premature deaths. We see this clearly in the story of Caitlin, Joshua, and her twin sister Angel, who have suffered from chronic asthma since childhood. They grew up in Louisiana's Cancer Alley, surrounded by petrochemical facilities, refineries, and the pollution that comes from those plants. Caitlin's doctor prescribes multiple medications and breathing treatments to manage her asthma, yet she still spends significant time and money in urgent care.
Angel and Caitlin really shouldn't have to go through this. Caitlin's physician told her directly, it's where you live. It's the air quality. You're gonna have to move out of there. Now imagine being told that your only health care solution is to leave your home.
That is the human cost of weaker clean-air enforcement. This story is not isolated. In California's San Joaquin Valley, families are experiencing a similar crisis. Recent reporting found that because of air pollution-driven asthma, residents are buying inhalers on the street for $70 apiece from other people because they cannot afford them at pharmacies. This is the cause of pollution on our health system.
Democrats have spent this year focused on lowering health-care costs. Affordable coverage is critical, which is why we have fought to extend health care tax credits and have opposed Republicans' massive cuts to Medicaid. When pollution makes people sick, it makes health care more expensive. Every unplanned hospital admission, every emergency asthma treatment, every chronic lung disease diagnosis translates directly into a higher cost. Secret communities mean higher premiums, missed school and work, and unaffordable medical bills.
The Republican bill to weaken clean air protections is not simply a debate about industrial permitting. It's a decision about who pays. Do large corporations and polluting industries pay for cleaner technology, or do low-income communities, workers, seniors, and children continue to pay with their health and their lives? That is what this vote is about. Republicans have already cut health care.
Now they propose to cut the clean air protections to keep people healthy in the first place. Instead, we can and should pursue economic growth while protecting public health. The Clean Air Act is not a burden. It's a foundation for healthier lives, fewer emergency room visits, and lower health-care costs. I strongly urge this committee to support my amendment and preserve the clean air protections our constituents depend on.
I yield back.
Speaker 1
Is there a discussion of the amendment? Gentlemen from Georgia, Mr. Carter's recognized.
Speaker 9
Mister chairman, we can protect public health and the environment while facilitating economic growth. But we need permitting reform to stay competitive in the global economy, as many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have recognized. Meaningful permitting reform cannot occur without modernizing the Clean Air Act. The consequences of our committee and congress' inaction are on the horizon, and they are significant. Continued permitting gridlock, prevention of growth, failure to build new bridges, roads, and other infrastructure projects.
American businesses forced to abandon or shutter their facilities. In fact, according to a recent report by the National Association of Manufacturers, the current overburdensome regulations threaten nearly $200,000,000,000 in economic activity and put 1,000,001 jobs at risk. These are real impacts that threaten the future of the youngest members of our population. Those impacts are tangible for women, for children, and for all Americans. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields. Is there further discussion of the amendment? Yes. Mister Carter from Louisiana is recognized.
Speaker 17
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support the general ladies' amendment. This bill, the CLEAR Act, would weaken air quality setting standards, delay implementation of stronger health-protective standards, and give polluters a free pass to contaminate our air. Republicans continue to peddle legislation with false narratives that we need to undermine the Clean Air Act in order to promote economic growth. This has been proven false time and time again.
For more than fifty years, the clean act has been successful in reducing pollution by nearly 80%, while the nation's GDP has almost quadrupled. This is incredible progress, but we cannot become complacent. Our air quality standards must reflect the latest scientific information. Unfortunately, this legislation would do just the opposite, undermining science in favor of industry profits. The CLEAR Act would force the EPA to set less protective standards, and will allow industry to continue polluting our air.
Under the Republicans' proposal, communities would be left to contend with the adverse effects of air pollution. More asthma attacks, heart attacks, lung disease, birth defects, neurological damage, and premature death. Miss Barragan's amendment would ensure that EPA prioritizes community health, especially that of the most vulnerable and historically marginalized, like in my district in Louisiana. The American people deserve clean, safe air. I urge my colleagues to support this very basic, common-sense, decent amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields. Is there further discussion of the amendment? The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Crenshaw, is recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 11
Mister chairman, we've strike the last word. I just wanna continue to address the what I think is a manufactured crisis here about public health. And so I'm gonna go back to the statistics. We didn't make these up. This is from the CDC.
This is not Trump's CDC. This is just the CDC under Biden, under Obama, under the same CDC. Same CDC statistics. So national surveillance shows current asthma prevalence went from 7.4 percent, which is about 20 million people in 2001, to 7.7 percent, about 25 million in 2021. You might look at that and say, it's increasing.
Here's the thing. When you actually account for population growth, that's a decrease on a per capita basis. So where is this crisis of air quality that we're talking about? And then there's the actual outcomes of having asthma. Those attacks are way down over the same period.
The share of people who had asthma had at least one attack in the past year substantially fell for children and adults. So with children, attack prevalence dropped from 62 percent to 39 percent in that twenty year period. Adults, it dropped from 54 percent to 40 percent. ER visits declined from 62.6 per 10,000 people in 2001 to 29.8 per 10,000 people in 2020. I said before that was a 50 percent drop.
I was wrong. It's more than a 50% drop, slightly more. Hospitalization rates fell from thirteen out of 10,000 to two point nine out of 10,000 over that same period. Again, in my earlier statements, I said that was a 75% drop. I was wrong.
It's more like a 78% drop. Deaths have fallen 15 deaths per million in 2001 to 10.6 per million in 2021. Separate peer reviewed study reports that age adjusted asthma mortality rates dropped from 2.46 to 1.33. I mean, the American Lung Association notes 2010 to 02/2022, and overall asthma prevalence has been flat, but the percentage of people with asthma who suffer an attack each year has fallen by about a quarter since 2001. I mean, we could keep going.
But in the end, like, we just have to be honest about this. We're scaring people into this idea that they can't have manufacturing, that they can't have basic power needs because their counties are in unattainment zones. And you're scaring them into believing that they're gonna die of asthma when all those statistics show the opposite. So we have to have honest debates about this stuff. We're not trying to keep saying we're trying to get rid of the air quality act.
That's just not true. There's no bills today about getting rid of the air quality act. We're trying to put some left and right limits on it that are completely sensible. Again, we can have it both ways. We can protect the environment.
We can continue to protect public health, which we all agree on. And we can also create a regulatory environment where we can actually build some stuff that we actually need for our own prosperity, and probably save more lives in the long run. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields. Is there further discussion on the amendment? The gentleman from Ohio, mister Lansman, recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 15
Yeah. Think it's really important to have a frank conversation about this in asthma and air quality in general. The idea that flat is victory is so problematic for the families and the children that are struggling with upper respiratory issues. Asthma. Asthma is one of, if not the leading cause, of kids missing school.
And it is, you know, one of the leading causes of serious, serious health issues for children. And so if you only look at the statistics, if that's your perspective, I'm just gonna look at a spreadsheet. Yes. The EPA works. The numbers are going down.
Science works. The interventions that have led to a I guess this sort of flattening of asthma rates in this country, those interventions have worked. You don't walk away from that, nor do you ignore the fact that these children, and it is children, are going to the hospital with upper respiratory issues for a whole host of reasons. Sewer backups, mold and dilapidated buildings, air quality, all of these things that the EPA and other agencies are working to address with local leaders. And if we get in their way or if we do anything other than support them, it is going to make matters worse.
But I just as I'm sitting here listening to these stats being rattled off, the idea that flat is victory, I'm thinking about the number of children in this in Cincinnati in my district that go to the hospital all the time with serious upper respiratory issues caused by crap in their walls, by crap in the air, all kinds of issues that if you strip away or undermine the power of the Environmental Protection Agency to help these children, it's only going to get worse. Flat is not victory, nor are these children statistics. This is a huge issue for families, particularly in low income communities. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, Yields, is there further discussion on the amendment? Gentlemen from Ohio is recognized. Five minutes.
Speaker 14
Well, thank you, Miss Sharon. I yield my time to the gentleman, the vice chairman of the subcommittee.
Speaker 11
Appreciate that. And I appreciate the discussion on this important subject on asthma. We're not saying flat is victory, and I just laid out a bunch of stats. It's really not flat. I mean, it comes to asthma when it comes to the important outcomes here, hospitalizations, ER visits, not only is it not flat, it's dramatically decreased despite a pretty substantial increase in population and manufacturing and power production and all of these things.
So, no, we are not making the argument that it's flat. And I gotta say just philosophically, there has to be some limiting principle to how we regulate, whatever it is we're talking about. There has to be some limiting principle. Just because one regulation is good doesn't mean 10 more are better. Eventually, you start to have trade-offs that are inconsistent with our ability to prosper as a nation.
And with all of the progress we've made, and you know, the argument could be made, oh, we should keep making more. Well, and we could keep making more, and we could all live in back in the stone age. We are at a point where we've done a pretty good job. We don't wanna get rid of the Clean Air Act. We don't want to get rid of the EPA.
We don't get a, we wanna get rid of all regulations. We wanna put them in a place of common sense. And when it comes to twenty years of industrial growth and yet the asthma rates have not changed,
Speaker 11
That does tell you something. It tells you that there might be other factors behind asthma. You know, especially when you consider that the vast majority, somewhere in here, like, sixteen percent of these particulate matters that we're talking about are actually due to these point of productions, places that we're that we're discussing. It's a very small number, and we're all to blame on asthma on that. That's not a reasonable, logical conclusion.
That should be part of this discussion, and I yield back to the gentleman. Thank you.
Speaker 1
I yield back. Gentleman yields. Is there further discussion of the amendment? There's no further discussion. The vote occurs on the amendment.
All those in favor, six five saying aye.
Speaker 6
Mr. Crenshaw. Mister Crenshaw votes no. Mister Lata. Mister Lata votes no. Mr. Griffith.
Mister Griffith votes no. Mr. Carter of Georgia. Mr. Joyce. Mr. Weber. Mister Fluger.
Mister Fluger votes no. Missus Miller Meeks. Missus Miller-Meeks votes no. Miss Lee. Miss Lee votes no.
Mr. Langworthy. Mister Langworthy votes no. Mr. Evans. Mister Evans votes no. Missus Fedorchak.
Mr. Guthrie. Mister Tonko. Mister Tonko votes aye. Miss Shukowski? Aye.
Miss Shukowski votes aye. Mister Ruiz? Mister Peters? Mr. Peters votes aye. Miss Bettergan.
Miss Bettergan votes aye. Mister So. Mister So votes aye. Mister Achengloss. Mister Achengloss votes aye.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes aye. Mister Benendez votes aye. Mister Lansman, Mister Lansman votes aye. Mister Pelon votes aye.
Chairman Palmer. No. Chairman Palmer votes no.
Speaker 1
Are there other members who wish to be recorded? House gentleman from Georgia, Mister Carter, recorded.
Speaker 1
Are there other members who wish to be recorded? Clerk will report the result.
Speaker 1
The amendment is not agreed to. Are there further amendments? Question now occurs on adopting HR 42 18. All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed, no.
The ayes have it.
Speaker 1
The gentleman requests the a's and a's. Roll call, the clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 6
Mister Crenshaw votes aye. Mister Lata? Mister Lata votes aye. Mister Griffith? Aye.
Mr. Griffith votes aye. Mister Carter of Georgia? Aye. Mr. Carter of Georgia votes aye. Mr. Joyce?
Speaker 6
Mr. Joyce votes aye. Mr. Weber. Mister Pfluger. Mister Pfluger votes aye. Missus Miller Meeks.
Missus Miller Meeks votes aye. Miss Lee. Miss Lee votes aye. Mr. Langworthy. Mister Langworthy votes aye.
Mr. Evans. Hi. Mr. Evans votes aye. Missus Fedorchak. Missus Fedorchak votes aye.
Mister Guthrie? Mister Guthrie votes aye. Mister Tonko? Mister Tonko votes no. Miss Shukowski.
Miss Shukowski votes no. Mr. Ruiz. Mr. Peters. Mister Peters votes no. Miss Bettergan.
Miss Bettergan votes no. Mister So. Mister So to vote no. Mister Achengloss. Mr. Carter of Louisiana.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes no. Mr. Menendez. Mr. Menendez votes no. Mister Lansman. Mister Landsman votes no.
Mister Palone. Mister Palone votes no. Chairman Palmer. Chairman Palmer votes aye.
Speaker 1
The bill is adopted and will be reported forwarded to the full committee. Chair now calls up HR 63 87 to ask the clerk to report.
Speaker 6
H.R. 6387, a bill to amend the Clean Air Act, requires revisions to the regulations governing the review and handling of air quality monitoring data influenced by exceptional events or actions to mitigate wildfire risk. Section one, short title. This act may be cited as the Fire Improvement and Reforming Exceptional Events Act or the Fire Act. Section two, air quality monitoring data influenced by exceptional events or actions to mitigate wildfire. Without
Speaker 1
Objection. The first reading of the bill is dispensed with. The bill will be open for amendment at any point, so ordered. Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Evans.
Speaker 18
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to speak today in strong support of my common sense bipartisan bill that will help address a long standing issue in Colorado and many other Western states that continues to drive up costs for families. The fire improvement in reforming exceptional events act, or FIRE Act for short, ensures that states are not punished for smoke and emissions that they cannot control, while still maintaining strong environmental protections. For years, my area, the Front Range of Colorado, has consistently struggled to meet ozone attainment levels set by the federal Clean Air Act, despite the fact that the bulk of emissions originate from sources outside of the state's control.
This includes sources like wildfires, Chinese pollution, and naturally occurring atmospheric events. The resulting red tape around air quality permitting and the regulations that states like Colorado slap onto industry, the economy, and consumers are a leading cause of the affordability crisis that working families in my district are facing. When the economy is strangled under the weight of costly, poorly designed ozone attainment standards, jobs are lost, prices spike, and financial stress increases negative health outcomes. Trust me. I have a kid with asthma.
I understand the struggles that many parents and many folks with asthma have. I want clean air as much as anyone. But when families and jobs are penalized for emissions outside of their control, that leads to unemployment, that leads to higher costs, and that does not promote healthy living. It instead promotes poverty, and poverty also leads to negative health outcomes. The clearest example of the economic strain that the current system is putting on my constituents is a reformulated gasoline mandate that Colorado has imposed.
In the summertime, commuters across the state are forced to buy reformulated gas that's typically 40¢ more expensive per gallon, despite the fact that this so-called mitigation effort produces negligible results, less than one part per billion, in actually reducing ozone levels. But don't take my word for it. The Democrat-appointed chair of the Denver Regional Air Quality Council admitted that we could, quote, ban oil and gas in Colorado and still not meet summertime ozone standards, end quote. Why? Well, I've got all of the slides right here, not my slides.
These are slides from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, which shows that in Colorado, only 29% of the ozone and the air pollution along the Colorado front range is human caused. The other 71% of the air pollution is things like naturally occurring. It's things like fire, and it's things that are outside the control of the state of Colorado, which in this slide are represented as the boundary and initial conditions. We need to follow the science. And in this case, the science from entities like the Democrat-controlled Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment shows that two thirds of the air quality in Colorado is not under the control of the state of Colorado.
And that's why the legislation the subcommittee is considering today is so important, and why my bill, the fire act, has garnered bipartisan support. It's a common-sense solution. It simply clarifies how emissions from wildfires, prescribed burns, and other exceptional events are treated in federal air quality reviews. It maintains the environmental protections that benefit Americans while allowing states the flexibility to comply with the Clean Air Act without punishing American jobs for international wildfire smoke, naturally occurring, exceptional events, and other things that fall into those categories. I'm proud to be leading this bill with Congressman Gray from California, whose district and state face similar challenges to mine when it comes to ozone nonattainment and wildfires, and I'm grateful to my colleagues on this committee who are championing their own legislation vital to modernizing the Clean Air Act.
I look forward to supporting the fire act and these bills that we are hearing today through the legislative process, and I urge my colleagues to join me in advancing them through markup today. And I yield back.
Speaker 2
Thank you, sir. I completely understand that many state and local governments are dealing with severe air pollution related to wildfires. And, of course, those challenges will only get worse, as we know, if we continue to ignore the threat of climate change, which is causing longer and more devastating fire seasons. I also appreciate the prescribed burns that can be used as an effective tool in limiting future wildfire risks. Our air pollution rules should acknowledge naturally occurring exceptional events, as well as tailored and proven methods to treat them.
However, we shouldn't lose sight that our constituents' lungs don't care where the pollution they are breathing comes from. Our environmental regulations should seek to create the conditions to maximize public health protections, even when conducting wildfire mitigation activities, and the current law clearly allows for this already. EPA already provides a pathway for states to exclude data influenced by exceptional events like wildfires and prescribed burns from being used when determining compliance with air quality standards. In 2019, EPA issued guidance addressing how prescribed fires can satisfy the statutory definition of exceptional events. And in 2024, EPA issued a number of other tools to assist our states in meeting the regulatory requirements.
This helps ensure that states are doing everything possible to follow best practices and limit health risks from prescribed fires causing unsafe air quality. This bill would also create a major loophole in the law by dramatically expanding the types of events that could be considered an exceptional event, including common occurrences like drought and hot days. Exceptional events should be limited to things that are truly exceptional. It is critical that during high temperature and low precipitation times, days that are more likely to experience poor air quality, we are still seeking to protect people. Exemptions, prescribe prescribed fire activities from NACS, not to mention the other commonly occurring conditions that would be considered exceptional under this bill.
Does not protect public health. Our constituents will breathe unsafe air whether or not an event is eligible for an exceptional event exclusion. This bill is seeking a quick fix that paper over legitimate pollution reduction issues. Instead, we should build upon the existing law and EPA's efforts to bring together all of the relevant partners from federal to state to local levels to work together to reduce wildfire risk, while also mitigating risk to public health. With that, I urge members to oppose the bill, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentleman Yields, is there further discussion on the bill? Saying none. Are there any amendments? Saying none. I got my yeah.
There is no further discussion. Question now occurs on adopting HR 6387.
Speaker 6
Mr. Crenshaw. Mister Lata. Aye. Mister Lata votes aye. Mr. Griffith.
Aye. Mr. Griffith votes aye. Mr. Carter of Georgia. Mr. Joyce. Mr. Joyce votes aye.
Mr. Weber. Mr. Weber votes aye. Mister Fluger. Mister Pfluger votes aye.
Speaker 6
Miss Lee. Miss Lee votes aye. Yes. Votes, aye. Mr. Langworthy.
Mister Langworthy votes aye. Mr. Evans. Aye. Mr Evans votes aye. Missus Fedorchak.
Aye. Missus Fedorchak votes aye. Mr. Guthrie.
Speaker 6
Mister Tonko votes no. Miss Shukowski. No. Miss Shukowski votes no. Mr. Ruiz.
Mr Peters. Mr. Peters votes no. Miss Bettergan. Miss Bettergan votes no. Mister So.
Mister So to votes no. Mister Achenklaas. Mister Achenklaas votes no. Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Mister Carter of Louisiana votes no.
Mister Menendez, Mister Menendez votes no. Mister Lansman, Mister Lansman votes no. Mister Palone, Mister Palone votes no. Chairman Palmer votes aye. Mr. Carter is not recorded.
Speaker 14
How are there any other members that you record? I was a gentleman from Texas.
Speaker 14
Are there any other members wishing to record their vote? Hearing none, the clerk will take the roll.
Speaker 14
Thank you very much. The ayes have it. The bill is adopted and forwarded to the full committee. Chair calls up HR 42 14 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 6
HR 4214, a bill to require the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Speaker 14
Objection. The first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will be open for amendment at any point, so ordered. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? For what purposes does the gentleman from Georgia wish to be recognized?
Speaker 9
Mister chairman, congressman Allen's Clean Air and Building Infrastructure Improvement Act is another common sense piece of legislation designed to fix our overly burdensome and NAC standards. This bill would require the EPA to publish implementing regulations and guidance when establishing or revising national ambient air quality standards. Too often, understaffed state agencies are forced to implement regulations on tight timelines with little or no guidance from the EPA. This bill also requires guidance on how to submit pre-construction permit applications under new or revised standards. If the EPA fails to do its job, then new standards would not apply to permit applications.
This legislation would also repeal the overly burdensome, economically devastating Biden-Harris PM 2.5 rule. This is about streamlining permitting and ensuring our state's agencies have the proper guidance needed to 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.
I wanna thank Congressman Allen for introducing this legislation, and I urge its adoption. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Speaker 14
Thank you very much. Gentleman yields back. Any further discussion on the bill? What person, gentleman from New Jersey, wishes to be recognized? Mister chairman, I.
Speaker 6
Amendment to HR 4214 offered by Mister Menendez. Page two, line 13. Strike.
Speaker 14
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the agenda is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment.
Speaker 13
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a simple targeted amendment that strikes a loophole created by section two of the bill, that would jeopardize the health of our families and the economic benefits that the Clean Air Act provides. Let me walk through why. The Clean Air Act requires major new or expanding sources of air pollution to obtain permits before they start construction. It's common sense.
To clean up ongoing pollution, we must minimize the amount of new pollution that is added to an area. To obtain a permit for a new source, a company must first determine which pollution controls it will install to reduce the facility's emissions. Then the applicant must estimate how much pollution the facility will emit and show that this quantity of pollution will not cause the area to exceed the standard. If the new facility's emissions cause a violation of an air quality standard, the applicant must take additional steps to cut its emissions or obtain offsets. The EPA updates and strengthens the national air quality standards when the science says it is necessary to protect human health with an adequate margin of safety.
But the bill allows certain facilities to disregard this science and ignore a new standard when obtaining a permit. Under this legislation, if the EPA doesn't issue rules and guidance at the same time it issues a new air quality standard, the old unprotective standard applies for the purposes of a preconstruction permit. This means that when a new facility is demonstrating whether its emissions will violate the air quality standard, it would use the old, weaker standard as a benchmark. In effect, this bill gives new polluters amnesty from the standard that protects public health. These facilities will be allowed to emit extra pollution at levels that could harm the well-being of our communities.
This provision, and frankly, the entire package of bills being considered today, parades as a solution to allow a more efficient implementation of the NACS program. But clearly, in this provision and others, implementation won't be faster or improve the actual permitting processes. It will create exemptions to allow polluters to pollute more. It seems that Republicans are willing to consider industry's bottom line more than they are willing to protect the health of American families, workers, and children. Yet this provision is also bad news for business.
If one facility emits more than its fair share of pollution, other facilities will eventually have to pick up the slack and control more. So by granting amnesty to new sources of pollution, the bill shifts the pollution control responsibility to the existing businesses. That will raise pollution control cost overall for the manufacturing sector. As the Clean Air Act has long recognized, it is generally far more efficient and cost effective to build pollution controls into a facility upfront rather than adding them later. But this provision does the opposite. It allows new facilities to be built with insufficient pollution controls, forcing more expensive upgrades on existing ones.
That makes no economic sense, and it makes no sense for the health and well-being of the people that we serve. Republicans are failing to deliver on efficiency, on affordability, on the real issues that are facing our working families. The amnesty provision in section 2 epitomizes those failures. It harms public health and burns existing manufacturing facilities by allowing new ones to pollute more than they would be allowed under current law. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to strike the amnesty provision from the bill.
And with that, I yield back.
Speaker 14
The gentleman yields back. Is there a further discussion on the amendment? For what purposes do gentlemen from Georgia seek recognition?
Speaker 9
Mister speaker, I ask. Mister chairman, I'll seek to be recognized to speak in opposition to this amendment.
Speaker 14
The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment.
Speaker 9
Mister chairman, this amendment would significantly gut the bill and ignore the testimony we received on ways to improve the NACS and the permitting process. The bill would require EPA to issue implementation guidance at the same time it updates a NASC standard. At our two hearings this summer, several witnesses testified that the 2024 PM 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 businesses and factories. This permitting gridlock would shut down our economy and could lead to 200000000000. Let me repeat.
$200,000,000,000 in lost economic activity and 1 million lost jobs. 1,000,000 lost jobs. This is a limited common sense approach that does not overturn the 2024 NACS, 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.
Speaker 14
Thank you. The gentleman yields back for the discussion. For what purposes? Chairman. Gentleman from New Jersey.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support my colleague from New Jersey's amendment. Proponents of this bill and some regulated entities claim that EPA isn't issuing implementation rules and guidance quickly enough after updating a national ambient air quality standard or NAAQS. The bill concludes that the solution is to sacrifice public health across the country by allowing newer, expanding facilities to just ignore the new air quality standard. Now this is very much in line, of course, with Republicans' polluter over people agenda.
Under the Clean Air Act, a company that wants to build a new facility must obtain a preconstruction 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. Now under this bill, if EPA issues a new national ambient air quality standard, that standard doesn't apply for permitting purposes unless EPA has issued implementation rules and guidance for the new standard. Witnesses have testified that concurrent guidance is not always practical or necessary. Besides allowing unhealthy levels of air pollution, this provision doesn't even help states speed up permitting.
In reality, this bill allows some facilities to pollute more, leaving existing facilities to foot the bill for cleaning up pollution in an area with poor air quality. And that just increases costs and is not, by any stretch of the imagination, permitting reform. So I reject the trade-off suggested by proponents of this provision, that we should be willing to expose our kids to unhealthy air and sacrifice air quality to speed up permits for corporate polluters. My colleague from New Jersey's amendment would strike the language in the bill that exempts facilities from complying with new air quality standards, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Yield back, mister.
Speaker 14
Thank you. The gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, a roll call has been requested on the amendment. The clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 6
Mr. Crenshaw. Mister Lada. No. Mister Lada votes no. Mr. Griffith.
Mr. Griffith votes no. Mr. Carter of Georgia. Mr. Carter of Georgia votes no. Mister Joyce. Mister Joyce votes no.
Mr. Weber. Mister Weber votes no. Mister Pfluger.
Speaker 6
Missus Miller Meeks. Miss Lee. Miss Lee votes no. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Langworthy votes no.
Mr. Evans. Missus Fedorchak. Missus Fedorchak votes no. Mr. Guthrie. Mister Guthrie votes no.
Mister Tonko. Aye. Mister Tonko votes aye. Miss Shukowski? Aye.
Miss Shukowski votes aye. Mister Ruiz? Mister Peters? Mister Peters votes aye. Miss Bettergan.
Miss Bettergan votes aye. Mister So. Mister So, to votes aye. Mister Achenclaus. Mister Achenclaus votes aye.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes aye. Mr. Menendez? Aye. Mr. Menendez votes aye.
Mister Lansman. Mister Lansman votes aye. Mister Pelon.
Speaker 6
Mister Pologne votes aye. Chairman Palmer? No. Chairman Palmer votes no.
Speaker 6
Mister Crenshaw votes no. Mr Evans is not recorded. Mister Evans votes no.
Speaker 14
Oh, and is the vice chairman of the energy subcommittee recorded? Recorded?
Speaker 14
Thank you. Any other members wishing to be recorded? Hearing none, the clerk will take the roll.
Speaker 14
The amendment is not agreed to. Are there further amendments to the bill? Hearing none, the question now occurs on adopting HR 42 14, and a recorded vote is requested. The clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 6
Mr. Crenshaw. Mister Lata. Aye. Mister Lata votes aye. Mr. Griffith.
Mr. Griffith votes aye. Mr. Carter of Georgia. Aye. Mr. Carter of Georgia votes aye. Mr. Joyce.
Mr. Joyce votes aye. Mr. Weber. Mr. Weber votes aye. Mister Pfluger. Mister Pfluger votes aye.
Missus Miller Meeks. Miss Lee. Miss Lee votes aye. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Langworthy votes aye.
Mr. Evans. Mr. Evans votes aye. Missus Fedorchak? Aye. Missus Fedorchak votes aye.
Mister Guthrie? Mister Guthrie votes aye. Mister Tonko? Mister Tonko votes no. Miss Shukowski.
Miss Shukowski votes no. Mr. Ruiz. Mr. Peters. Mister Peters votes no. Miss Bettergan.
Miss Bettergan votes no. Mister So. Mister So to votes no. Mister Achenklaas. Mister Achengloss votes no.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes no. Mr. Menendez. Mr. Menendez votes no. Mister Lansman.
Mister Lansman votes no. Mister Pologne. No. Mister Pologne votes no. Chairman Palmer.
Speaker 14
Are there members wishing to be recorded? How's the gentleman from Texas recorded?
Speaker 14
Thank you very much. The ayes have it. The bill is adopted and for the full committee. The chair now calls up HR 161 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 6
HR 161, a bill to amend sections 111, 169, and 171 of the Clean Air Act to clarify.
Speaker 14
The first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will remain open for amendment at any point, so ordered. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? What purpose does the gentleman from Virginia seek recognition for?
Speaker 12
Mister speaker or mister chairman, I ask to speak in favor of the bill.
Speaker 12
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am speaking in favor of my bill, H.R. 161, the New Source Review Permitting Improvement Act. My bill is simply clarifying that a modification of a power plant or industrial plant and factory shouldn't include projects to reduce emissions or to increase efficiency. Over the history of the Clean Air Act, there has been a lot of consternation over what the definition of a major modification or even a regular modification should be. And at what point should any work on a stationary source require more intensive EPA modeling and review?
Essentially, at some industrial plants, you have an owner who ends up not installing pollution controls or other efficiency improvements for fear of having to go through the complex and uncertain new source review permitting process, where they might lose their air permit. Earlier this year, we received testimony in this subcommittee about how new source review permitting uncertainty actually discourages installing additional emission control equipment and really drives away investment in domestic manufacturing. We can talk all we want about a desire to build, but without some tweaks in this area of the Clean Air Act permits, I am confident some manufacturing facilities will not be built, expanded, or improved and updated. More specifically, my bill is necessary in part because of how some courts have interpreted the word modification to have a different meaning depending on which section of the Clean Air Act the word appears in. My bill would clarify questions of interpretation by adopting the so-called maximum hourly emission rate test currently utilized under the same language in the EPA's new source performance standards program.
To ensure that this change to 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 in the preceding ten years. My bill also specifically says that plants have to reduce emissions per kilowatt hour or per unit such as a chest of drawers that is produced. Finally, when clarifying the term modification across the prevention of significant deterioration permitting program and in non-attainment areas, I include an annual actual emissions test for the entirety of the stationary source. Mister chairman, I ask unanimous consent to include for the record several letters of support for HR 161 from the American Cement Association, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the Electrical Power Supply Association, the American Public Power Association, the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, the US Chamber of Commerce, and the Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions.
Speaker 12
Further, mister chairman, the bill is supported by several labor unions, including the United Mine Workers of America, the transportation division of the Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, the Transportation Communications Union, the Iron Workers Union, and the Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Allied Workers. I would also say the National Mining and the National Aluminum are also in favor of the bill, Mr. Chairman. The reason I mentioned chest of drawers, and I apologize to those of you who've heard the story before, but this first came to my attention because of a United States manufacturer of furniture, case goods, chest of drawers, and other furniture goods in my district and in North Carolina. And in the facility in my district, they have a conveyor belt that runs from about here out to the front door of the building and back. Decades ago, mister chairman, they changed their processes. They no longer have a lacquer unit at the end of the conveyor belt.
So every piece of furniture in that facility in Galax, Virginia goes down the conveyor belt, circles around, and comes back. It adds about a minute, minute and a half, I think, to the production time on every piece of furniture that the facility manufactures. And time is money when you're dealing with these things because they're competing with, as you can guess, Asian countries that are producing these products at a much cheaper amount of money because they have so much lower labor costs. They're competitive. They're staying in business.
They're all American. Everything in their facility is in USA. But they're at a disadvantage because their lawyers consistently tell them that based on court rulings, they're afraid to modify that conveyor belt for fear they'd have to comply with the entire facility with an update and a review under the new source review. So they can improve their process, making them less competitive against our Asian competition, and that's just wrong. I'm trying to solve this problem with this bill, and I will yield back.
Speaker 14
I'm sorry. The gentleman will report well, I should say. Does the gentleman have the number for the clerk which amendment?
Speaker 6
Amendment 2 HR 161 offered by Mister Carter of Louisiana. Page two, beginning on line 11.
Speaker 14
Without direction, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment.
Speaker 17
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I urge my colleagues to support my common sense amendment that will protect public health, especially in communities near industrial facilities. This amendment requires that industry prove that their modifications to facilities do not increase emissions by installing air monitors at the facilities, that directly report their emissions to the EPA and to the public. If my Republican colleagues are serious about their new definition of modifications in this bill, they should wholeheartedly support my amendment. It provides transparency since under this bill of facilities, modification to the plant will not trigger new source review permitting.
This amendment simply makes sure there aren't any loopholes. These monitors and reporting requirements ensure that the facilities can't cook the books or manipulate their operations to make their emissions appear lower than they truly are under the bill's new, weaker definition of modifications and construction. The additional protections from this amendment are especially vital for the safety of communities like mine in South Louisiana, where emissions from industrial facilities are always at the forefront of their minds and in direct view of their backyards. Americans should be able to easily check the EPA website and see that the facility down the street is in compliance because it is measuring and reporting its emissions timely. My amendment also removes rather the use of maximum achievable hourly emissions rate and instead uses the standard measurement currently used in the new source review program, annual emissions.
Without this change, the program can be unenforceable and open to misinterpretation and actual omissions. We do not need to choose between supporting industry or constituents' right to breathe clean air. Let's hold these industries accountable and ensure families living next to them have the information they need to stay safe. This is not a matter of being pro or anti-industry. This is a matter of making sure that they can coexist.
That if you want industry to survive, industry can only survive if they have healthy, safe communities that have the ability to breathe clean air, to have access to clean water. And any modification that's being made should be real simple, real basic. Let's test it. If you believe it to be true, a simple test will prove your case, and there is, in that case, a win-win scenario. I urge my colleagues to please support this common-sense measure that will demonstrate that Republicans and Democrats can work together in providing clean air.
This is a great test. Let's do it today.
Speaker 1
Anyone else? The chair recognizes this gentleman from Virginia, Mister Griffith, for five minutes.
Speaker 12
Speaking in opposition to the amendment, I would submit the amendment is not necessary as we account in the bill for the annual emissions limit increases under the prevention of significant deterioration programs, and under the definitions of a nonattainment area. My friends also forget about the Title V permitting program for a facility's potential to emit limitations. And I would also point out that in so many cases, we're talking about things that are not that expensive to change, but they're afraid to move forward with the current language that we have. And so we're adding this amendment would add additional costs, again, limiting the ability of manufacturers in particular to make changes that would make them more competitive and yet not affect the air quality. This would add an additional cost.
And so I would ask my colleagues to vote no on the amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 12
The gentleman, I will yield to the gentleman to ask a question. I may have to get counsel to help me.
Speaker 17
No. It is going to be a very simple one. I would ask that if these modifications in your estimation are simple and you're saying they're gonna do better, then I fail to understand why there would be a concern with just putting belts and suspenders on to make sure that we are ensuring that we're not causing further harm to our neighborhood. I believe you in your statement that you wanna do the right thing, and I want us to do the right thing together. I think in the interest of safety and clean health for the people in the communities, demonstration from EPA and from this Congress that we want to ensure that they're safe. And to have this extra level of security and comfort by monitoring these modifications, I think, will go a very long way.
Thank you, sir.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, Yields, chair recognized. General Lady from North Dakota, Miss Fedorchak.
Speaker 19
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also would speak in opposition to Mr. Carter's amendment and in favor of the bill as a whole. Mister Carter's amendment, hard to know what the additional costs would be of that monitoring, the additional costs for the EPA as well for that monitoring. And I think all of those costs get baked right into the price of everything that consumers purchase. And so, you know, in an era where we're really concerned about affordability, I think that's just a risk I would not be willing to take in adding to this.
But when we talk about things that make sense and common sense and don't make sense, the current way that the new source review permitting is handled just simply makes zero sense at all. I've seen it personally multiple times where generators want to make improvements to increase their efficiency or reduce emissions, and they simply won't do it because of these new source review permitting standards. At a time where we should be encouraging our generators, our power generators, to maximize their output, we simply need to remove barriers like this that discourage those kinds of investments to improve their efficiency, improve their output, and reduce emissions. The new source review permitting act provides a clear, consistent standard for a major modification, which is, as Mr. Griffith has said, a major source of resistance for modifications today. Essentially, a plant doesn't have to go through the full NSR process as long as the project doesn't result in a net increase in hourly emissions.
This reform will reduce regulatory uncertainty, streamline permitting, and encourage modernization projects that improve environmental performance and public health. At the same time, the bill ensures that when facility changes would increase hourly emissions or harm the environment, they cannot move forward without undergoing the full NSR permitting review. Most importantly, this bill is fuel-neutral. It will apply to all the fuels on the spectrum of generation. And so I really encourage my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to support this and help our facilities maximize their output at a time when we've never needed more power.
Thank you. I yield back.
Speaker 1
General lady yields. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Saying none, vote occurs on the amendment. All those in favor shall signify by saying aye.
Speaker 6
Mr. Crenshaw. Mister Crenshaw votes no. Mister Lata? No. Mister Lata votes no.
Mister Griffith? Mr. Griffith votes no. Mr. Carter of Georgia? Mr. Carter of Georgia votes no. Mister Joyce, Mister Joyce votes no.
Mister Weber, Mister Weber votes no. Mister Pfluger, Missus Miller Meeks, Miss Lee. No. Miss Lee votes no. Mr. Langworthy.
No. Mister Langworthy votes no. Mr. Evans. No. Mr. Evans votes no.
Missus Fedorchak? No. Missus Fedorchak votes no. Mister Guthrie? Uh-huh.
Mister Guthrie votes no. Mister Tonko? Aye. Mister Tonko votes aye. Miss Tchaikovsky.
Aye. Miss Tchaikowski votes aye. Mr. Ruiz. Mister Ruiz votes aye. Mr. Peters.
Speaker 6
Mr. Peters votes aye. Miss Baragan. Miss Baragon votes aye. Mister So. Mister So votes aye.
Mister Achenclas. Aye. Mister Achenclas votes aye. Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Mister Carter of Louisiana votes aye.
Mister Menendez, mister Lansman, mister Palone. Mister Pelon votes aye. Chairman Palmer. No. Chairman Palmer votes.
Speaker 1
Are there members who wish to be recorded? Gentlemen from Ohio, how is he recorded?
Speaker 1
Are there any other members? Kurt will report the result. I asked the gentleman from New Jersey, recorded.
Speaker 1
The amendment is not agreed to. Are there further amendments? The question now occurs on adopting HR 161. All those in favor, say aye. Aye.
Those opposed, no. No. The ayes have it. The bill is adopted and forwarded to the full committee.
Speaker 6
Mr. Crenshaw. Mister Crenshaw votes aye. Mister Lata? Aye. Mister Lata votes aye.
Mr. Griffith? Mr. Griffith votes aye. Mr. Carter of Georgia? Mr. Carter of Georgia votes aye. Mister Joyce?
Mister Joyce votes aye. Mister Weber? Yes. Mr. Weber votes aye. Mister Pfluger.
Missus Miller Meeks. Miss Lee. Miss Lee votes aye. Mr. Langworthy? Aye.
Mister Langworthy votes aye. Mr Evans? Aye. Mr. Evans votes aye. Missus Fedorchak?
Missus Fedorchak votes aye. Mister Guthrie? Mr. Guthrie votes aye. Mister Tonko? No.
Mister Tonko votes no. Miss Shukowski? No. Miss Shukowski votes no. Mister Ruiz?
Mister Ruiz votes no. Mr Peters? Mr Peters votes no. Miss Bettergan? No.
Miss Bettergan votes no. Mister So? No. Mister So to votes no. Mister Achen Claus?
No. Mister Achenclas votes no. Mister Carter of Louisiana? No. Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes no.
Mr. Menendez? No. Mr. Menendez votes no. Mister Lansman? No.
Mister Lansman votes no. Mister Pelon? No. Mister Pelon met votes no. Chairman Palmer?
Aye. Chairman Palmer votes aye.
Speaker 1
The ayes have it. The bill is adopted and forwarded to the full committee. The chair calls up HR 6373 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 6
HR6373. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to establish authority for the president to waive the requirement.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. The bill will be open for amendment at any point, so ordered. I recognize myself for five minutes to speak on HR 6373, the air permitting improvements to protect national security act. Critical minerals and rare elements have become buzzwords around Capitol Hill in the last several months. Something I want to bring attention to is that our access to critical minerals and rare earth elements is not at the heart of the problem.
But the United States' lack of ability to process and refine them is the real issue. That is what we're relying on China for, and that is what HR 6373 aims to address. Increasing both manufacturing and critical mineral processing and refining capacity in the homeland is an understated endeavor. US isn't just reliant on China for the aggregate material. We're reliant on China for manufacturing anything from our pacemakers to dishwashers, automobiles, fighter jets, and the list could go on and on.
Section 173 of the Clean Air Act contains a provision allowing offset requirements to be waived for rocket engines or motors, related to our defense, which are essential for national security. This bill would expand that authority to include advanced manufacturing facilities and critical mineral refineries, which are vital to strengthening America's economic and national security. Under the bill, the president would have the authority to determine what a facility is exempt from certain offset admission credit requirements. This would provide flexibility, a clear pathway to production, and help increase investor confidence. I've said it over and over, but the critical minerals issue is this generation's space race.
I think we can take a three-tiered approach, focus on international agreements and investments such as the $9,500,000,000 deal with Australia and the deals with Japan, Malaysia, and Saudi Arabia to meet our immediate needs, turn our attention to domestic efforts identifying companies with some capacity for mining, separation, processing, and refining, including recycling materials from black mass, is the second tier. And the third, building out the processing and refinery infrastructure we need to eliminate any ability of China or any other adversarial nation to threaten the US or our allies by cutting us off from retaining refined materials and elements as they did earlier this year. This is where HR 6373, the Air Permitting Improvements to Protect National Security Act, comes into play. This bill will help reduce US reliance on China by prioritizing the development of crucial national security infrastructure. I yield back.
Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill?
Speaker 2
Thank you, sir. Americans deserve clean air, but this bill would undermine critical Clean Air Act protections for people already suffering from unhealthy air quality and nonattainment areas. And as we heard at the legislative hearing, by allowing some favored industries to escape certain acts, requirements, it would actually impose stricter requirements on other nearby sources to make up the difference. I understand the impulse to support certain strategic industries. My district, along with several other nearby districts in Upstate New York, is home to major chip manufacturing investments.
I've seen firsthand how these projects not only benefit us locally, but also support America's long-term national security and economic competitiveness interests. So I am extremely supportive of the notion that we should be doing all that we can to ensure the responsible construction and operation of advanced manufacturing facilities. But I do not think it's responsible or even reasonable to expect that people who live in the communities that host these facilities to sacrifice their health for the sake of letting an industrial site cut corners and avoid environmental protections. To make matters worse, this bill allows these favored industries to avoid environmental standards through a new, opaque exemption process. This is a complete nonstarter.
We have had a front row seat to the Trump administration's abuse of an existing Clean Air Act exemption in section 112 of the act. Before we create a new opportunity for abuse, this committee should exert its oversight responsibilities to understand what the administration has already done, and what the public health consequences of those decisions might be. Because, truthfully, we don't fully know. The exemptions issued this year have had virtually no transparency. The administration has not needed to develop a public record or to seek comments.
They haven't even needed to publish a meaningful analysis to demonstrate that the statutorily required conditions for an exemption, such as technology availability, have been met. Under normal circumstances, I would question the wisdom of creating a new Clean Air Act exemption. But seeing how the Trump administration is so willing to exploit existing exemptions that benefit its political supporters with little to no justification, means that I cannot support this bill. So with that, I urge members to oppose it, and, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Is there any further discussion on the bill? Gentleman from Florida, mister So to is recognized.
Speaker 10
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do think it's an admirable effort to try to improve the ability to process new rare earth minerals here in The United States. Well, this may go a little too far. You may find some allies on other issues. We do have to avoid our reliance on China, which is why Trump's attempt to allow NVIDIA h 200 chip sales to China right now, which have a military aspect, which are our competitive advantage, seems to be the real issue facing microchips right now.
The end product where we have the most advanced chips in the world are being given to China because of Trump's fair tariff war against China, that has caused soybean farmers and has hurt local retailers across the nation. It's raised inflation. And to fix that, rather than removing the tariffs to help lower costs and helping our local agriculture folks, at the same time that you're doing your best to try to avoid us being beholden to China, Trump is giving away the store, the most complex microchips we have. And so I'd hope, since while it's not the jurisdiction of this subcommittee, it is the jurisdiction of this committee, the full committee, that these NVIDIA H200 chips will be the subject of the same vigor that we see with this effort on critical rare earth minerals. And I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields. Is there further discussion on the bill? Seeing none, are there any amendments? Gentlemen from Arizona is recognized.
Speaker 8
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to introduce amendment SCAMD HR 673601.
Speaker 12
Mister chairman. I might reserve an objection to the amendment, please.
Speaker 6
Add at the end the following, section three limitation. This act and the amendments made by this act shall not take effect until the administrator of the.
Speaker 1
No objection. The reading amendment is dispensed with. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Just become.
Speaker 8
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to be crystal clear about what we have witnessed this year. Republicans sat in this very chamber and voted to rip health care away from millions of Americans. Gut, our resources to hospitals and clinics, long term care, take away health and nutrition for millions of individuals through their massive historic cuts to SNAP. And so now these same members are gutting air quality protections that are literally helping people breathe.
They are removing protections that save lives in communities like mine. Let's not pretend we don't see the pattern here. Benefit the CEO, billionaires, and multi corporations at the expense of working people and at-risk communities. When it comes to the health and well-being of working people and vulnerable communities, Republicans have made their priorities abundantly clear. They side with billionaires, with their massive historic tax cuts in the billions for billionaires, while increasing costs for working people.
This amendment is straightforward and necessary. If health care costs increase by more than 25% for American families, the implementation of this unhealthy bill must be paused. That threshold gives Congress a clear checkpoint to reassess before moving forward with a policy that affects millions of Americans nationwide. These are not just abstract federal concerns. They have real consequences in our state.
California, Medi-Cal costs have increased by approximately $20,000,000,000 over recent projections. The state's own budget document shows that unexpected cost growth in our Medicaid program is straining our fiscal capacity. And let me tell you what that means on the ground. When health care costs spike, it means higher premiums for working families, reduced services for those who need them most, and increased pressure on our safety net hospitals and community health centers, those same ones that are experiencing $600,000,000,000 cut by the beautiful, big, beautiful bill. In my district, in communities like Imperial County and the Valley, we cannot afford to gamble with people's health.
Imperial County already has some of the worst air quality in the nation, with asthma hospitalization rates that exceed the state average by over 50 percent. There is a correlation proven scientifically between air pollution and asthma exacerbation, ED visits, and hospitalization. There's no refuting that data. In fact, I can go into the data which my colleague on the other side, I also misconstrued. The Coachella Valley faces similar challenges with elevated rates of respiratory disease and cardiovascular illnesses linked to environmental factors.
These are families who are already struggling. Any policy that could drive up health care costs or exacerbate health burdens in these vulnerable areas demands automatic reassessment if expenditures balloon beyond expectations. This amendment does not obstruct our national security goals. It does not prevent us from strengthening critical supply chains or enhancing our industrial capacity. What it does is ensure fiscal responsibility and protect public health.
As a physician, you know, I have seen firsthand what happens when health systems are strained, and when vulnerable communities don't get the protections they need. And as a member of Congress, I have a responsibility to those communities and to the American taxpayers. And as a physician who understands science and understands the correlation between risk factors and diseases and disparities, you know, my colleague on the other side has mentioned on multiple occasions this study or, based on self-reporting surveys, and likes to make the claim that somehow there's more pollution and less ED visits. And that's a wild extrapolation. I think any doctor on the other side can correlate that if you have a noxious stimulus in the air like pollution, there's emphysema, COPD, and asthma exacerbation.
And we know that's true. In fact, the reason why towards the end years of this study that ended in 2021, you saw ED reports of asthma coming down was because of COVID. Many people wanted to stay away from the emergency departments. And two, when people went in with respiratory distress, the initial diagnosis and which remained was COVID and not necessarily due to asthma. I didn't make it up.
The authors explained it here. But my colleague on the other side wants to misrepresent this and try.
Speaker 8
Wild extrapolation to kinda say, there is no problem with asthma if we allow companies to continue to pollute the air. And that's wrong, and we have to call it out for what it is. I yield back.
Speaker 12
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I raised my point of order in that the amendment is clearly not germane. And let me explain briefly if I might, mister chair.
Speaker 12
This amendment has the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency certifying information about group health plans, group or individual health insurance coverage by health insurance issuers, and the EPA has no expertise there. The bill doesn't say anything about health insurance plans, group plans, or individual health plans. It has no relevance to the underlying bill, mister chairman. I mean, nice try to get the favorite talking points in there. And as a matter of comedy, and that's c o m i c y.
Had a mistake one time. Didn't understand my accent and thought I was talking about something humorous. This is not humorous. But in the sake of trying to be friendly, we have adopted over the years the policy of letting people explain their amendment before we raise a parliamentary objection. But, initially, when we first had these,
Speaker 12
Meant to be, the objection was meant to be a matter of efficiency so that you didn't have to go through the debate on the matter that didn't have anything to do with the underlying bill. But this clearly is not germane, and I would ask the chairman to so rule. Will the gentleman yield?
Speaker 8
Thank you very much. The reason why this is germane is because this is a bill that focuses mostly and primarily on open mining, which increases, as we know, pollution for the surrounding communities. Our whole session is about protecting the air quality and the public health of the communities in our country. When you have an exacerbation of illness, that drives up costs. When you have cuts to hospitals like you all voted on.
Speaker 12
The big beautiful bill, but I might be coming back my time just briefly. I'll give you another second. So but this bill doesn't deal with those cuts that were made, that you claimed were made earlier. But this bill doesn't deal with health insurance plans. It deals with regulations. This is not in the purview of the EPA.
They probably have to hire another 25 employees. It's a whole new section of the EPA. We'll be expanding the EPA into whole new arenas never before that have existed, and it has nothing to do with the underlying bill other than a claim that the underlying bill affects health, and therefore Gentlemen, your health that could affect health insurance.
Speaker 12
This totally blows up the hold your maintenance rule. We might as well just have any bill mean anything.
Speaker 8
It's the secretary of the HHS. You were wrong. It's not the EPA director. It's the secretary of the HHS.
Speaker 12
What it says right here, the amendment that I'm looking at says the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. And it's in consultation. It's the EPA. I'm sorry. It's not germane.
I yield back.
Speaker 1
The gentleman insists on the point of order. Is there anyone else wishing to speak briefly on the point of order? The chair will now rule on the point of order. As the gentleman from Virginia noted, clause seven, rule 16 of the rules of the House prohibit the committee from considering non-germane amendments. The presidents of the house set forth several general tests for germane-ness.
These include the fundamental purpose test, the jurisdiction test, and the subject-matter test. Having reviewed the amendment and listened to the arguments, the chair finds that the amendment violates the subject matter test with respect to the underlying bill. Therefore, the chair sustains the point of order. Are there further amendments? Mister chairman?
Gentleman from Louisiana, mister Carter's right.
Speaker 20
Amendment to H.R. 6373. At the end of the following, section three, limit
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment.
Speaker 17
Mister chairman, my amendment is simple. It ensures that none of the waivers and exemptions provided in this bill to allow additional industrial emissions disguised under the vague pretext of national security are used to further enrich the president's family and his business. This amendment also ensures that no one can buy one of these waivers by funding lavish renovations to the White House. Attending fancy dinners, handling the president's cold gold bars, and offering to fund gold painted decor of the White House shouldn't get you special treatment when it comes to clean air and its protections. I wish this amendment weren't necessary, but the blatant cronyism in this administration is overwhelming and, quite frankly, disgusting to Republicans and Democrats alike.
So I'm offering my Republican colleagues an opportunity to reach out across the aisle and make sure that no Trump crypto mind schemes gets a leg up on using these abusive extrajudicial waivers offered in this bill. This amendment is a chance to show that congressional Republicans can push back against big money interests and represent regular Americans who just want to breathe clean air. Shouldn't be that difficult to just want to breathe clean air. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting yes on this amendment. Yes, to the American people.
Yes, to fairness. Yes, to doing things the right way. Yes, to regaining the confidence of the American people that we can rise above cronyism, favoritism, and trickery, and demonstrate to the American people that we are brave enough, strong enough to support our constitution, our rule of law, and every semblance of fairness. I yield.
Speaker 1
General Yields, chair recognizes himself to speak in opposition to this amendment. This is not a serious amendment. It mocks the importance of permitting reform measures, specifically in regard to where we are in terms of our reliance on China for processing and refining rare earth elements and critical minerals. We need to recognize that this is an economic security issue. It's a national security issue.
There are real consequences for not putting ourselves in a position to provide for ourselves what we are now dependent on time for. As I noted earlier in introducing the bill, we can't make anything. A car, a fighter jet, a naval vessel. This impacts job opportunities. It impacts, like I said, our economy, but specifically impacts our national security.
I urge my colleagues to approach this problem with the seriousness it deserves and work toward a solution for the overall problem that we're trying to address with this bill. I urge a no vote on the amendment. I yield back. Is there anyone else or any other member who wishes to speak on the amendment? The chair recognized the gentleman from New York, Mr. Langworthy.
Speaker 21
Mister chairman, I'd like to strike the last word and speak in opposition to the amendment.
Speaker 21
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The EPA's own data shows that 84% of PM 2.5 emissions now come from sources like wildfires and road dust that are costly and hard to control. Non attainment under the national ambient air quality standards is primarily the result of non-mobile sources. America's ability to build has always been central to our strength, from factories that power our industrial revolution to the technology that's made us the global leader in innovation. But today, that strength is being tested, and we are no longer moving at the pace of our competitors.
While countries like China can break ground on massive projects in just a matter of months, here in the US, we struggle to turn around even the simplest approvals. What used to be a straightforward process has now become one of the biggest barriers to growth in this country. A company can secure financing. It can line up its workforce and have the technology ready to go. But it will wait years, and maybe years after that, before breaking ground because of permitting delays.
Federal agencies pile review on top of review, each one demanding more time, more paperwork, more money, without providing any real additional benefit. In New York State, Micron is making one of the largest private investments in the country to build a state-of-the-art semiconductor facility. That project represents thousands of jobs and a cornerstone of America's supply chain resilience. Yet these kinds of investments constantly run the risk of delay or derailment because of overlapping reviews that add time and expense, but no real environmental gains at all. If we want America to lead, we cannot allow outdated processes to block our future.
Every project that stalls is another opportunity lost to our competitors. Every delay is another family waiting for a good job that never materializes. The bills we are discussing today are about fixing that broken system so that the next generation of factories, energy infrastructure, and advanced manufacturers can break ground here in the United States of America. I urge you to no vote on this amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields back. Anyone else, any other member wish to be con? Mister, the gentleman from Farmers So to is recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 10
Thank you, chairman. You know, the American people are absolutely outraged by massive amounts of corruption in the Trump administration. And so I applaud my dear friend from Louisiana for bringing forward this important good government amendment to make sure that if these pollution waivers are granted, they're not granted under a corruption scheme. So, to, Mister Carter, if you would yield to a question? Certainly.
Would, I just wanna make sure with this, pollution waiver protection apply to the $2,000,000,000 cryptocurrency pay-to-play scheme that the Trump administration has right now? Absolutely. Second question, would it apply to donors to the billionaire ballroom he's building? Especially. And then, what about pardons?
We've seen a lot of pardons granted in. And every
Speaker 17
Possible way that you can imagine, we want to close any loophole that will allow a pay to play, that will allow the American people's health and welfare to be put in second, third, or fourth place to favoritism, cronyism, or lackeyism to the president.
Speaker 10
Now would this stop giving away our most advanced chips to China to make up for his big blenders with tariffs?
Speaker 17
This is just another one of those loopholes that we're trying to close.
Speaker 10
Well, we'll have to worry about that with an anti incompetence amendment next, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields. Any other member wishes to be recognized? The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Evans. Recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 9
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Move to strike the last word. Gentleman's recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I spent 12 years in
Speaker 18
the US Army. I deployed overseas as part of the global war on terror. And so, in this piece of legislation, we're talking about national security here. And national security is critically important, and connected to our ability to manufacture and make things here in The United States. I'm an army guy.
And so when I throw out navy statistics, you know how serious this is. We built and delivered less than 10 commercial ships in 2023. China's built and delivered somewhere around a thousand, depending on how you crunch those statistics. We can't build and manufacture things in the United States because of the permitting delays and the bureaucratic quagmires that are being imposed through just a lot of this overlapping legislation and the current process. And so that's where this piece of legislation is so important.
And so the amendment here, just to me, this looks like, unfortunately, just a political stunt that is missing the point, which is to make sure that we can actually produce things in The United States again and make sure that we are protecting and promoting our national security through our industrial capacity to manufacture things. And whenever we hear the conversation, as I've heard so many times from my colleagues on the other side, we always hear the conversation around public health. Well, I just wanna point out my area of the country is a major producer of energy and is under major, major regulations from the Clean Air Act. And here's what we're actually seeing in Colorado. In my part of the stadium, major producer of oil and gas.
From NASA, NASA sounder, data says that between 2000 and 02/19 2013 to 2019, methane enhancements, so enhancements are things that come from human cause. These are above the background concentration. Methane enhancements decreased 52%. The state of Colorado's public health and environment ground level Platteville monitoring site, again, that's in my district, heart of oil and gas country, says that oil and gas emissions, ethane, fell 65% between 2013 and 2019, and that's when production was actually increasing in Colorado. And so when we're talking about the Clean Air Act, we're talking about producing energy.
We're talking about national security and making sure that we can actually promote the national defense of The United States through industry and through manufacturing. We have to make sure that we have the ability to build things in the United States, because if we don't build it here, it will be built in places like China. We've seen the data. I've held up the papers. I'll hold them up again here.
From the state of Colorado showing that 70% of the air pollution in Colorado doesn't come from sources under Colorado's control. It comes from places like China. China has a perverse incentive to increase pollution because as pollution from China goes up, as they manufacture and build more things, that pollution comes to the United States. And our jobs, our producers, our energy is held accountable for that pollution. And so what this piece of legislation does before us is make sure that our producers aren't held responsible for those things, particularly in the national security space.
And, unfortunately, this amendment that I'm looking at here, is just an end run, to gut those critical national security protections. And so I oppose this amendment, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment as well. Yield back.
Speaker 1
The gentleman yields. Does any other member wish to be recognized? The gentleman from Kentucky, the chairman of the full committee, Mister Guthrie, is recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 1
The gentleman yields. Thank you. I'm appalled at some of the, particularly this amendment. And what's appalling about it is a lack of regard for the seriousness of the situation that we have right now in The United States because of our reliance on China for processed and refined rare earth elements and critical minerals. Just earlier this year, China embargoed rare-earth elements.
We were able to work with them to get them to extend it for 6 months. And then December 1, they planned a full embargo, not only of The United States, but of our allies. You're, I mean, you're making arguments about health care in regard to some of the legislation that's come before the committee today. Do you not understand that if we don't have the ability to reprocess, refine our own rare earth elements and critical minerals, that people are not gonna be able to get things that we've come to just consider routine and basic, like an MRI, a CAT scan, a CT. Because we'll get to a point where we can't repair equipment because we don't have the materials that we need.
We're talking about building chip, microchip and semiconductor facilities in The United States. If we don't have these materials available for us, we're not making anything. This is I said this earlier in my comments. This is the generation space race. We have a window that's closing rapidly on us to secure our own supply chain.
It is absolutely imperative that we do that, not only for ourselves, but to work collaboratively with allies around the world. I've been working for the last five years trying to get this congress's attention on this issue. During COVID, I don't know how many of you were here during COVID, but China cut us off from personal protective equipment. You know what we had to do? We had to use the Defense Production Act to order companies that were making one product to stop making that product, to start making PPE.
That's when I started looking at this. I thought, oh my God. What else are we reliant on China for? And when I started seeing how dependent we were, I realized we had to do something. I've spoken time and time again in this committee about this.
I also launched a Western Hemisphere Alliance because it's not just us. You realize that there's not a single major refinery for rare elements in the Western Hemisphere. Not one. If I said there wasn't one in the United States, that'd be problematic enough. But there's not one in the Western Hemisphere.
There's only 9 in the world. Eight are in China. The other one's in Malaysia. And it's owned by an Australian company, Linus. This is one of the greatest challenges facing this country in terms of our national security that we've ever faced.
And it's not just, so as Mister Evans pointed out, that we have the materials that we need to produce our weapon systems, our fighters, our ships, our missiles, our guidance systems. It's not just that. It's our ability to compete in the arms race for artificial intelligence and quantum computing. And I've said this time and time again, that whoever wins the arms race for artificial intelligence and quantum computing will not be a superpower. They will be a superpower.
And we're right on the precipice of this. We have to act with the seriousness that is justified for this moment in time. So, you know, I really I don't mind the politics and the amendments. Both sides do that. I don't mind that at all.
And I think, all both sides are justifiable in doing that, but there are certain bills where it's totally inappropriate, and I think that applies this time. We have to take this seriously. We have to do the things that we need to do, and expediting permitting, in this case, is consistent with what we've done in regard to building rocket engines and motors for military vehicles, for our armored vehicles. So it's this is not something that we ought to be in opposition to. It's something that we ought to work together on to make sure that we have provided for our nation the very basic things that will allow us to maintain our national security and our economic security. I will yield back and recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, mister auction clause, for five minutes.
Speaker 22
Thank you, chairman. I appreciate the spirit of seriousness to which the chairman is bringing the question of competition with China. I served last term on the select committee on China, which was a bipartisan strategic committee carving out a number of areas where the United States needs to invest and outcompete the Chinese Communist Party. And I also hear the chairman's expectation that we not be partisan about the issue. I would invite the chairman then to offer his thoughts on the president's recent national security document released last week that has been cheered in Beijing for watering down language about our commitment to Taiwan, and his decision to greenlight exports of our highest capability semiconductor chips to the Chinese Communist Party.
The spirit of being nonpartisan about our commitment to outcompete the Chinese Communist Party, would the chairman like to weigh in on those decisions of this administration?
Speaker 1
I thank the gentleman for the question. I have not seen the report, but I'd be happy to have a serious discussion about these things because I have great concerns about China's ambitions toward Taiwan. There was an article, I think, in the last few days in The Wall Street Journal in anticipation of a Chinese invasion, which, obviously, as the gentleman, and I think would agree on, raises very serious consequences, not only for us but worldwide.
Speaker 22
Yeah. But my concern is that starting with TikTok, then with a failure to address fentanyl despite bipartisan legislation on fentanyl interdiction here in Congress, moving on to cutting edge AI chips, moving on to Taiwan, tariffs that he had to tuck tail and run on, and ended up putting our farmers in the crosshairs, decision to wedge Japan away from the United States as Japan is trying to counter Chinese belligerence now. Fuck. This president has repeatedly failed to be strong when strength is the only language that the Chinese Communist Party understands, and when there is bipartisan commitment in Congress to be strong against what is the pacing adversary of the twenty-first century. And so I do encourage the chairman to review this administration's actions and to weigh in publicly, because goodness knows we need to build some bipartisan pushback.
I believe the gentleman from Louisiana wanted to yield to the gentleman.
Speaker 17
Thank you very much. Mister chairman, you suggested that we should be serious. And I'm gonna give you and every other member of the school made the benefit of doubt that you're not suggesting that health care for the American people isn't serious, that you aren't suggesting that we should short circuit or give shortcuts in health care and the ability for one to breathe clean air. Listen. I would be the first to tell you that I'm supportive of permit reform for expediting processes so people can get steel in the ground, and get people back to work faster.
But I will also tell you that I would never sacrifice the health or the well-being of the American people to accomplish that. We should never be so quick in any of our efforts that we put the American people's health at risk. And, yes, sir, we are serious. And we're very serious about every comment that's made about health care, about environmental justice, about making sure that when we allow these shortcuts to expedite probation processes, that we do not do it at the expense of the American people. I represent Louisiana where people are living in close proximity to petrochemical plants, and I have said consistently, we must coexist.
But you can only coexist if you put the health and welfare of the people who are made to breathe these chemicals, who are made to drink water that may be contaminated. Yeah. We should expedite permits, but we should not expedite permits that may hurt or damage the health of the American people. Yes. We should make sure that we are competitive with China, and that we're pushing back against those things that would put America's security at risk.
But we should always make sure that the American people are in the thought process. Yes, sir. Very respectfully. I am very serious. There's nothing unserious about fighting for the American people and their health care, and we will continue to use this perch to advance those discussions every time there's something that I or others believe is anti the health care of the American people.
Yes. We should expedite, but not at the expense of the American people. Now yield back.
Speaker 20
Mr. Crenshaw. Mister Lada, Mister Griffith. Mister Griffith votes no. Mr. Carter of Georgia. Mr. Joyce.
Mr. Weber. Mister Weber votes no. Mister Pfluger. Missus Miller Meeks. Missus Miller-Meeks votes no.
Miss Lee. Miss Lee votes no. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Langworthy votes no. Mr. Evans.
Mister Evans votes no. Missus Fedorchak. Missus Fedorchak votes no. Mr. Guthrie.
Speaker 20
Guthrie votes no. Mister Konko. Mister Konko votes. I. Miss Szechowski. Miss Szechowski votes "I."
Mr. Ruiz. Mister Ruiz votes. I Mr. Peters. Mr. Peters votes aye. Miss Baragon.
Mister So. Mister So to votes I. Mister Achenklaas. Mister Achenklaas votes. Mr. Carter of Louisiana.
Mister Carter of Louisiana votes aye. Mr. Menendez. Mr. Menendez votes aye. Mr. Landsman. Mister Landsman votes aye.
Mister Palon. Mister Palon votes aye. Chairman Palmer. Chairman Palmer votes no. Mister Ladder's not recorded.
Mr. Latta votes no. How.
Speaker 20
Mister Crenshaw is not recorded. Mister Crenshaw votes no. How's Mr. Joyce recorded? Mr. Joyce is not recorded. Mister Joyce votes no.
Speaker 1
The amendment is not agreed to. Are there further amendments? Question now occurs on adopting HR 63 73. All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed, no.
Aye. A roll call vote has been requested. The clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 20
Mister Crenshaw? Mister Crenshaw votes aye. Mister Lata? Aye. Mister Lata votes aye.
Mister Griffith? Aye. Mister Griffith votes I. Mister Carter of Georgia. Mr. Joyce.
Mister Joyce votes I. Mr. Weber. Mister Weber votes. Mister Pfluger. Missus Miller Meeks.
Miss Lee. Miss Lee votes. I. Mr. Langworthy. Miller Meeks. Mister Langworthy votes I.
Mr. Evans. Mister Evans votes. I. Missus Vidorshek? Missus Vidorshek votes I. Mister Guthrie?
I. Mister Guthrie votes aye. Mister Tonko? Mister Tonko votes no. Miss Szekowski?
No. Miss Shikowski votes no. Mister Ruiz? Mister Ruiz votes no. Mr. Peters?
Mister Peters votes no. Miss Baragon? Mister So? Mister So to vote no. Mister Achenklaas?
Mister Achenklaas votes no. Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes no. Mr. Menendez? Mr. Menendez votes no.
Mister Lansman? Mister Lansman votes no. Mister Pelon? No. Mister Pelon votes no.
Chairman Palmer? Aye. Chairman Palmer votes aye.
Speaker 1
The ayes have it. The bill is adopted and forwarded to the full committee. Chair calls up HR6398 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 20
HR 6398, a bill to amend the Clean Air Act relating to review by the Environmental Protection Agency. A proposal.
Speaker 1
Objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. The bill will be open for amendments at any point. So ordered, does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill?
Speaker 1
The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mister Joyce, is recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 23
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to speak in support of my bill. Thank you for holding this important markup and for including HR 306398, the reducing and eliminating duplicative environmental regulations or the Red Tape Act. This bill eliminates the requirement for the EPA to conduct a duplicative review and to publicly comment on other agencies' environmental impact statements. This legislation keeps in place the initial environmental review required for federal projects and regulations under NEPA.
It simply eliminates a bureaucratic and redundant secondary review that only serves to further delay the permitting and construction of critical projects. In order for America to remain competitive in the global economy, we must take steps to ensure timely and predictable outcomes for any new projects or regulations. Very simply, my legislation, the Red Tape Act, directly accomplishes this goal, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
Thank you, sir. I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation. The Red Tape Act would block a critical public health agency from simply reviewing environmental impact statements from major federal projects. These reviews weren't slowing down the projects. They weren't stopping projects.
But by removing them from the overall process, we are losing out on the expertise of EPA scientists tasked with protecting public health and the environment. I often say that NEPA is one of our most critical laws because it makes you look before you leap. I don't have a problem with making government more efficient, but this bill is simply removing the voice of an important agency whose viewpoint you happen to dislike. An EPA assessment might find a major project could harm the health of your constituents, your town, or your neighbors. That's the type of critical assessment that EPA's expertise alone could offer, and would be missing as a result of this bill.
This broader attack on expertise and the EPA cannot continue to stand, and I urge my Republican colleagues to stand with me in opposition. So I urge all my colleagues to vote no on this misguided bill. Mister Chair, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields. Is there any further discussion on the bill? Do any members wish to offer an amendment? Question now occurs on adopting HR 6398. All those in favor, say aye.
Aye. All those opposed, no.
Speaker 20
Mister Crenshaw votes aye. Mister Lata. Mr. Griffith. Mr. Griffith votes aye. Mr. Carter of Georgia.
Mr. Joyce. Mister Joyce votes. I. Mister Weber. Mister Weber votes. Mister Pfluger.
Missus Miller Meeks. Missus Miller Meeks votes I. Miss Lee. Miss Lee votes. Mr. Langworthy.
Mr. Langworthy votes aye. Mister Evans? Aye. Mr Evans votes aye. Missus Fedorchak?
Aye. Missus Fedorchak votes aye. Mister Guthrie? Mister Guthrie votes aye. Mister Tonko?
Mister Tonko votes no. Miss Szekowski? No. Miss Szekowski votes no. Mister Ruiz?
Mister Ruiz votes no. Mr. Peters. Mister Peters votes no. Miss Baragon. Mister So.
Mister So to votes no. Mister Achengloss. Mister Achengloss votes no. Mister Carter of Louisiana? Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes no.
Mr. Menendez? Mr. Menendez votes no. Mister Landsman? Mister Pelon? Mister Palone votes no.
Chairman Palmer. Chairman Palmer votes aye.
Speaker 20
How is Mister Lansman recorded? Mister Lansman is not recorded. Mister Lansman votes no.
Speaker 1
The ayes have it. The bill is adopted and forwarded to the full committee. Without objection, the staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes to the legislation approved by the committee today. So ordered. Without objection, the committee stands adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.