Subcommittee Markup of Seven Pieces of Legislation
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 sittings
Paul Tonko
But again, I appreciate the majority's willingness to work with us on DERA and the three critical mineral bills. And with that, Mr. Chair, I thank you and yield back.
Brett Guthrie
Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky's second district, the chairman of the full committee, Representative Guthrie, for five minutes for an opening statement.
Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Palmer, and the members of this subcommittee for the important work that has gone into today's markup. I know there's been a lot of work between members, a lot of work between our staffs, and I really appreciate it. The Energy and Commerce Committee has a long history of working on a bipartisan basis to tackle important problems facing our country, and the recent work in the Environment Subcommittee has continued this tradition. Five of the seven bills on today's agenda are bipartisan, and our respective staff are continuing to work on the battery recycling bill being led by Representative Miller-Meeks to see if we can reach a bipartisan compromise before full committee markup.
Our staff have also been discussing a number of other environment bills that were not yet ready for today's markup, but I'm encouraged by the efforts and hope we will be able to mark up additional environmental bills in the near term. As we have discussed repeatedly before this subcommittee, the bills before us demonstrate how we can grow the economy and protect national security while maintaining a healthy environment. Three of the bipartisan bills we are marking up today demonstrate creative ways to address the critical minerals problem by shoring up supply chains for critical minerals and materials through EPA evaluation of regulatory barriers to the recovery of critical minerals from lithium-ion batteries and other materials and support technologies to recover critical minerals from contaminated land and other materials. The four other bills we are marking up continue the subcommittee's work on modernizing outdated provisions of the Clean Air Act. These common-sense reforms strengthen and protect America's transportation system that our economy relies upon, help maintain and grow manufacturing base, and reduce regulatory burdens and costs for consumers.
Three of the four Clean Air Act bills are bipartisan, and I thank members on both sides of the aisle for their contributions. I also appreciate the work of the EPA staff in providing technical assistance and the many stakeholders who have testified before the committee and otherwise provided their input to get these bills ready for markup.
And Mr. Chair, when you first took the chairmanship of this subcommittee, I remember us discussing the importance of critical and rare earth minerals, and how you have been driven, not this year, but through your time in Congress, to make sure America meets its moment in this area. And I fully understand that you saw it coming, that we had some issues and hiccups the year before last. And so we've continued, as some of us have had confidential briefings in a skiff, so we can't really share in public setting. But your leadership and commitment and drive to address this issue, I think all of us who have attended those hearings and all those who just know what's going on in the world know for America to continue to be the superpower that we are, we have to have access to our own or friendly groups from people that we can depend on critical minerals. And I really appreciate your leadership.
And I yield back.
Frank Pallone
I thank the gentleman. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey's sixth district, the ranking member of the full committee, Representative Pallone, for five minutes for an opening statement.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today we're marking up several good bills on battery recycling, critical mineral recovery from mining waste and discarded materials, and replacing dirty diesel engines. The subcommittee will also consider several bills that undercut vital clean air protections and drive up expensive fuel use. So starting with the critical mineral bills, domestic recycling of still viable critical minerals represents a creative and efficient way to reduce our dependence on foreign adversaries, namely China, for the critical minerals we need to power modern technologies and cost-cutting clean energy. And when we talk about bolstering our domestic critical mineral supply chain, it's vital that we also consider opportunities to boost recycling and recovery that increase resource efficiency, reduce the need for new mined materials, and reduce waste.
Now, since the June subcommittee hearing, we've worked with the majority to come to an agreement on three bills to address these important goals. First, there's H.R. 9615, the BRACE Act, that'll help us increase the domestic recycling of batteries while also keeping the critical minerals found in those batteries in the country for future use. And I appreciate the majority's willingness to address many of our concerns in the amendment in the nature of a substitute, particularly the AINS gets the EPA moving on a regulatory framework for battery recycling that addresses safety concerns while maintaining protections for the environment and public health. And this is a compromise, but I believe this bill is a reasonable path forward, so I plan to support it and urge my colleagues to do the same. Then we have H.R. 9616, the AMREI bill led by Representatives Landsman and Pfluger, is another bipartisan effort to ensure that as we clean up abandoned mines and Superfund sites, we collect any critical minerals from those sites.
And this is a win-win for our environment and domestic supply chain. And then we have H.R. 9617, another good bipartisan bill led by Environment Subcommittee Chair Palmer and Ranking Member Tonko, it directs the EPA to consider a national critical mineral recovery strategy to coordinate federal efforts to recover critical minerals from discarded materials. And while there's much more work to be done to boost battery recycling and bolster our critical mineral supply chains, these three bills are an important step forward. We're also considering H.R. 2140, the bipartisan reauthorization of the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act. I'm a long supporter of this popular program to help replace dirty diesel engines across the nation, cleaning the air while saving money on fuel costs, and I'm pleased the subcommittee is moving this bill forward.
Unfortunately, I can't say the same for the other Clean Air Act transportation bills on today's agenda. These bills will increase health-harming pollution, attack states' ability to protect their residents, and drive up fuel use at a time when Trump's reckless war of choice in Iran has sent fuel prices skyrocketing.
Americans have been abundantly clear at the hands of the Trump administration that life has become increasingly unaffordable. Hardworking American families are struggling financially and instead of looking to cut costs, Republicans are doubling down on America's reliance on volatile and expensive fossil fuels. HR 9317, the BUSES Act, would needlessly undermine state policies and allow school buses and motor coaches to idle for 15 minutes or longer. This is a massive waste of fuel when diesel prices are high from Trump's war in Iran and it's also especially harmful to children's health. Then there's HR 3194, the Locomotive Act, which attacks states' ability to meet air quality, public health, and climate goals by blocking them from setting more protective standards for older, dirtier locomotives in use today.
And this will lock in this harmful pollution for years to come. There is bipartisan agreement on the importance of ensuring clarity and certainty around emissions control technology for diesel engines. But HR 9618, the Diesel Engine Flexibility Act, is not the way to go. Despite trying to work on a bipartisan compromise, the Republican majority chose to introduce a version of the bill that blocks EPA from setting more protective pollution standards for on and off-road vehicles and engines and instead locks in decades-old, weaker standards. The bill also includes hyper-partisan language attacking states' ability to set more health-protective standards.
And while I'm glad the AINS attempts to narrow the scope of the bill, I still have major concerns with the legislation's approach and will have to oppose it. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Gary Palmer
Thanks to the gentleman. 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? The chair now calls up HR 2140 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 5
HR 2140, a bill to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to reauthorize the diesel emissions reduction program. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America.
Gary Palmer
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with and the bill would be open for amendment at any point, so ordered. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition?
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to speak in support of HR 2140.
You're recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.
Nicholas Langworthy
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. HR 2140, the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2025, is a straightforward bill that reauthorizes a program Congress first established in 2005 with broad bipartisan support. And at its core, DERA helps communities replace or upgrade older diesel-powered buses, trucks, heavy equipment with newer, more efficient models. Those through competitive grants and rebates, the program helps school districts, municipalities, ports, and other fleet operators modernize equipment that they would otherwise may not have the resources to replace on their own. For many local governments, replacing aging equipment is simply one of the largest capital investments that they face.
Whether it's a school bus, snowplow, a dump truck, or an emergency response vehicle. These vehicles keep our communities running. And DERA helps make those upgrades possible while allowing communities to stretch limited taxpayer dollars further. This program also has been an important driver of American manufacturing. In my district, Cummins operates its Jamestown engine plant, where more than a thousand hardworking men and women design and build some of the most advanced diesel engines in the world.
Those are good-paying manufacturing jobs that support families across Western New York and the Southern Tier and strengthen our domestic industrial base. The investments made by companies like Cummins don't stop at the factory gates. They support suppliers, machine shops, steel producers, transportation companies, and countless small businesses throughout the manufacturing supply chain.
When we support American engine manufacturers, we are supporting an entire manufacturing ecosystem and the skilled workforce that keeps it running. Programs like DERA help to create demand for engines and technologies that are researched, engineered, and built here in the United States of America, giving manufacturers the confidence to continue investing in innovation, production, and American workers. That is especially important as we work to strengthen domestic manufacturing and ensure that the next generation of engine technology is developed right here at home and not overseas. This isn't about creating new mandates or expanding government. It's about continuing a proven partnership that helps communities modernize critical equipment while supporting the manufacturers and skilled workers who make that equipment possible.
For communities looking to replace aging equipment and for manufacturers like Cummins that continue to invest in American innovation and American jobs, DERA has been a success story for more than 20 years. I urge my colleagues to support HR 2140 and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Gary Palmer
Gentleman yields. Is there further discussion on the bill? Gentleman from California, Mr. Ruiz, is recognized for five minutes.
Raul Ruiz
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As many of you know, before I came to Congress, I was an ER doc. I treated individuals who came into the ER struggling to breathe, adults and children gasping for air. There's nothing like watching the fear run across their parents' faces. Often times the cause was the pollutants in the air, pollutants that come from things like diesel exhaust.
Diesel exhaust contains nitrogen oxide and fine particulate matter that contribute to air pollution that negatively impacts the public's health. Pollutants are inhaled deep into the lung and for a kid whose airways are still developing, that alone is enough to trigger an asthma attack or make asthma even worse. In Imperial County, nearly 15% of the people have asthma, almost double the national average, in a region crossed every day by hundreds of thousands of diesel trucks and powered by diesel farm equipment. Kids are hospitalized for asthma at twice the rate of the rest of the state of California. In the Coachella Valley, more than 41,000 adults and over 10,000 children have been diagnosed with asthma.
As I mentioned, the cause is often the pollutants in the air, including from things like diesel exhaust. My district sees diesel engines run through our communities every single day because it sits at the intersection of major freight corridors and some of the most productive agricultural land in the country. The Calexico East Port of Entry alone processes roughly 450,000 commercial trucks a year with the border. Trucks carrying an estimated $20 billion in cross-border trade annually between Imperial Valley and Mexicali. Add to that the diesel-powered agricultural equipment running across hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland and you have a community bearing a disproportionate share of this country's diesel emissions burden without a proportionate share of the resources to address it.
You see, that's why I care so much about this issue, because I care very much about my constituents. And that is exactly the problem that the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act program, this bill, was built to solve. And that's why I support it and thank Representative Matsui and Latta for moving it forward. Since its creation, the Diesel Emission Reduction Act has provided grants, rebates, and loans that help fleets, agricultural operators, and public agencies replace or retrofit older diesel engines with cleaner technology, reducing the nitrous oxide and particulate matter emissions that drive up asthma rates and respiratory illness.
It is, by EPA's own account, one of the most effective clean air programs the federal government runs. 30% of its funding flows directly to states and territories, and the rest is awarded through a competitive process that has consistently rewarded well-designed, high-impacted projects. It reaches every state, every tribal nation, and every US territory, and it has done so with a two-decade track record of bipartisan support because reducing diesel pollution is not a partisan goal, it is a public health imperative that both parties recognize. This bill does one simple thing: it reauthorizes this program through fiscal year 2029. It simply renews a proven tool at the exact moment industry and community stakeholders are asking us to act.
So for the families in Imperial and Coachella Valleys who live with some of the worst air quality in this country, for the farmworkers and truck drivers on the front lines of that pollution every single day, and for the broader goal of protecting public health without imposing new burdens on our agricultural and freight economy, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.
Gary Palmer
Gentleman yields. Is there further discussion on the bill? Are there any amendments? Seeing none, the question now occurs on adopting HR 2140. All those in favor say aye.
Those opposed, no. The ayes have it and the bill is adopted and forwarded to the full committee. Chair now calls up HR 3194 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 6
HR 3194, a bill to amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit state standards relating to the control of emissions from existing locomotives and engines used in locomotives.
Gary Palmer
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will be open for amendment at any point. So ordered. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? Gentleman is recognized for five minutes.
Earl Carter
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, HR 3194 is a common-sense bill created in response to California's attempt to impose zero-emission locomotive mandates that would dramatically increase the prices of goods and have serious consequences for freight rail. This bill will close a loophole which allows the California Air Resources Board to request waivers from EPA that allow the state to issue overreaching mandates. These mandates would empower California to impose its policies on the national rail system and govern interstate commerce. The CARB proposal would effectively ban a large portion of the national locomotive fleet from operating in California.
This would mean higher prices for consumers, and it would not lead to cleaner air quality. The fact is that California is simply rushing to green without looking at the real-world consequences of their actions. Zero-emission locomotive technology is simply not a reality yet. This technology is largely still in the prototype stage of development. Passing the Locomotives Act will ensure that we affirm only the federal government can regulate locomotives engaged in interstate commerce, protecting consumers from costly mandates and ensuring we operate on policy based on fact and not on fiction.
Nanette Barragán
Is there further discussion on the bill? Gentlelady from California is recognized for five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word.
Gentlelady is recognized.
Nanette Barragán
Mr. Carter said this was a loophole, but in Congress in 1990 specifically gave California authority to regulate locomotives because it faces air quality burdens the rest of the country doesn't have. The Locomotives Act isn't restoring the status quo, it's stripping power Congress deliberately granted. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 3194, the Locomotives Act, and it isn't common sense. This Republican bill would take away the ability of states to adopt stronger protections against pollution from locomotives operating in their communities. This is the wrong approach.
And in my district, communities like Wilmington, California, San Pedro, and the surrounding harbor area live next to some of the busiest ports, railyards, and freight corridors in the nation. Every day freight trains move goods through these neighborhoods. The economic benefits are shared across the country, but the pollution stays with the families who live next to the tracks. That pollution is linked to higher rates of asthma, heart disease, and other serious health problems. For too many families, breathing dirty air is a part of daily life.
But it doesn't have to be this way. States and local governments understand the unique challenges facing their communities. They should have the flexibility to address those challenges. We've already seen what that flexibility can accomplish. At our ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, Pacific Harbor Line is deploying zero-emission battery-electric locomotives and investing in cleaner rail operations that reduce emissions in neighboring communities.
That's exactly the kind of innovation that we should encourage. This bill moves us in the opposite direction. It would tie states' hands and prevent them from doing more to protect public health when federal standards are not enough. I believe we should empower states to protect their residents, not take away their authority. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I yield back.
Gentlelady yields. Is there any further discussion on the bill?
Mr. Chairman.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Frank Pallone
I just want to associate myself with the remarks from the gentlewoman from California. Look, the bottom line is that people that live, we have the same phenomenon in New Jersey. You know, you have a situation where we have the Port of New York and New Jersey and many parts of our state or many towns in our state. And unfortunately, what happens is that the people that live there locally are the ones that are, that have the burden of all this pollution. And it is bad.
And the idea that we would restrict California or any state that might adopt California's standards, whatever, from doing that, I think is a huge mistake. And so I also want to express my opposition.
Gary Palmer
Gentleman yields. Is there further discussion on the bill? Are there any amendments? Seeing none, the question now occurs on adopting 3194. All those in favor say aye.
Aye. The ayes have it, and the bill is adopted and forwarded to the committee. Those opposed, no. The chair now calls up H.R. 9317 and asks the clerk to report. No.
Speaker 6
H.R. 9317, a bill to prohibit engine idling restrictions for over-the-road buses and school buses if an engine idles for less than 15 minutes and for other purposes.
Gentleman's recognized.
Nicholas Langworthy
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My bill H.R. 9317, the Buses Utilizing Safety and Environmental Standards Act, or the BUSES Act, is about bringing common sense to bus operations and preventing one city's extreme policies from becoming the standard for the rest of the country. Buses are one of the safest and most efficient ways to move large numbers of people. They transport children to school, connect rural communities, support our tourism industry, they move military personnel, and they provide critical transportation for millions of Americans every single year. The rules governing these operators should reflect what actually takes place to operate a bus safely, not create unnecessary obstacles.
Here's the problem. Buses don't idle because drivers want to. They idle because the job requires it. Before a bus can even begin its route, federal law requires drivers to complete safety inspections. They need to maintain brake pressure, operate wheelchair lifts and other accessibility equipment, and safely board passengers with disabilities.
And where I come from in Western New York, keeping passengers warm during the winter is often a matter of safety, not convenience. Unfortunately, New York, and particularly New York City, has gone in the opposite direction. New York City's adopted some of the country's most aggressive bus anti-idling policies, including a bounty hunter program that actually pays private citizens to report alleged idling violations. Some participants have reportedly earned hundreds of thousands of dollars through this program, while at least one bus company reportedly faced nearly eight hundred thousand dollars in potential fines. This is not common sense enforcement; it creates a financial incentive for people to look for technical violations instead of encouraging practical compliance.
And New York isn't the only state moving in this direction. California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Connecticut, they're all pursuing increasingly restrictive anti-idling policies, creating a growing patchwork of rules that interstate bus operators must navigate every day. That's exactly why the BUSES Act is needed. It establishes one clear national standard allowing covering buses to idle for up to fifteen minutes when necessary, giving operators enough time to complete required safety inspections, operate necessary equipment, and safely load their passengers. It also prevents bounty-style enforcement programs and excessive litigation from becoming the law of the land.
This bill doesn't eliminate anti-idling laws; it simply recognizes that buses are unique, that safety and accessibility matters, and that transportation providers shouldn't have to choose between complying with federal safety requirements and avoiding local penalties. I urge my colleagues to support this practical, common sense, and bipartisan legislation, and I yield back.
Gary Palmer
Gentleman yields. Is there further discussion on the bill? Gentleman from Louisiana's recognized for five minutes.
Troy Carter
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I respectfully have to rise in opposition to this bill, particularly with the explanation that you've given. Not that it's illegal, you just don't want it enforced. And it doesn't matter if it's enforced by a well-intended citizen, it doesn't matter if they are being incentivized to do so, what does matter is that we're not flooding the community with fumes that they shouldn't be flooded with. So the anti-idling, you are, you are deeply cutting into its efficacy by saying we don't want it enforced.
We want it, we just don't want it enforced.
I fail to see the logic in offering an amendment that guts what would be and has been a good measure to ensure that we don't have idling that is excessively causing pollution in our communities. So I would urge my colleagues to vigorously oppose this, maybe even for Mr. Longworthy to consider taking it back because of the intent, or certainly the outcome, would be catastrophic to our effort to have clean air for communities. Particularly when you say, we just don't want it enforced. We don't want people to go and tell what they see. In every other violation in life, we say, if you see something, say something.
But in this case, we want people to ignore it and not enforce it. Mr. Chair, I yield.
Gary Palmer
Gentleman yields. Is there any further discussion on the bill? Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, for five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to strike the last word.
Gentleman's recognized.
Paul Tonko
Thank you. Unfortunately, I must oppose the BUSES Act. This bill intends to limit the ability of state and local governments to prohibit bus idling for periods under 15 minutes. It also prohibits civil action against bus operators for any alleged violations of engine idling restrictions under 15 minutes. But perhaps most concerning is that the bill prohibits state and local governments from compensating people who help enforce their local anti-idling laws.
As far as I'm aware, New York City is really the only locality with such a program. Now I understand that bus operators may be unhappy with New Yorkers collecting evidence of buses in violation of the city's anti-idling laws, leading to fines on the operators. But I also recognize that New York City has significant air pollution challenges, particularly from mobile sources, and the city government is utilizing several legitimate and often innovative strategies to protect the public health of its residents. There can be no doubt that policy decisions can have consequences, and perhaps this policy will result in an unfortunate reduction in the amount of private bus service in New York City. It may also inspire some fleet operators to embrace zero-emission vehicles more quickly and help achieve the city's public health goals of reducing air pollution.
I honestly cannot say whether this is the right or wrong approach for New York City, but ultimately it is not mine nor anyone else's in Congress to place to decide that. This is a policy question for the people of New York City and their locally elected officials to determine whether their anti-idling laws are working as intended and whether the potential trade-offs are acceptable. New York City has determined a completely legitimate way to help enforce its local laws, and Congress has no business getting involved in the city's efforts to reduce local pollution. I encourage members to oppose this bill. With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Speaker 15
Gentleman yields. Is there any further discussion on the bill? The chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, for five minutes.
I move to strike the last word in opposition to the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentleman's recognized.
Frank Pallone
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The BUSES Act would inhibit states' rights to protect their residents from health-harming air pollution and expose children, a population especially susceptible to the impacts of air pollution, to even more diesel exhaust. Early exposure to air pollution in children can lead to long-term health challenges and interfere with lung growth, disrupt brain development, and block small airways. Allowing school buses to unnecessarily idle for 15 minutes or more would have devastating health consequences.
According to the American Lung Association's most recent state of the art report or state of the air report, I should say, nearly half of America's children are living in places with unhealthy levels of air pollution. We should be fighting to lower this alarming statistic, not make it worse like this bill would do. Schools are meant to be safe and healthy places of learning for children, not a source of toxic exposure to dangerous air pollution like particulate matter and nitrogen oxides. Additionally, excessive engine idling is a massive waste of fuel. Americans have already spent more than $65 billion more on gasoline and diesel fuel since the start of Trump's war in Iran, and HR 9317 would only exacerbate the fuel affordability crisis.
Not to mention school budgets are already strained with high diesel prices. Reporting from May found that Trump's increase in diesel fuel costs would add nearly $2 billion to the annual cost of operating school buses in the US, and this bill would only make these costs worse as well. The BUSES Act is not a safety solution. It sets a weak national standard for engine idling without any guardrails and would leave communities to foot the bill both with their health and their wallets. And I should also note that most state and local idling restrictions are limited to roughly three to five minutes, even less around schools, and already include a range of exemptions for things like safety and extreme low temperatures.
And the BUSES Act would be an extreme departure from these common sense protections. It would block states and localities from being able to address the unique needs of their communities. Overall, the BUSES Act undermines state and local authority and would allow for engines to unnecessarily idle, increasing pollution, harming public health, and wasting fuel in the process. There's no reason to vote for this, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill. I yield back.
Gary Palmer
Aye. Those opposed, no. No. The ayes have it, and the bill's adopted and forwarded to the full committee. Chair now calls up HR 9615 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 5
HR 9615, a bill to support the recycling and recovery of lithium-ion batteries. Be it enacted by the Senate and House...
Gary Palmer
Without objection, the first reading of the bill was dispensed with. The bill will be open for amendment at any point. So ordered. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? For what purpose does the gentlelady seek recognition?
I move to strike the last word and speak in support.
Gentlelady is recognized for five minutes.
Mariannette Miller-Meeks
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to speak in support of my bill, HR 9615, the Battery Recycling for America's Competitive Economy or BRACE Act. Demand for lithium-ion batteries in the United States has grown exponentially in recent years, in large part due to demand for rechargeable batteries for energy storage systems, electric vehicles, communication devices, and other consumer goods. As more lithium-ion batteries reach the end of their life, the recycling and recovery of critical minerals from these batteries provides a tremendous opportunity for the United States to boost its supply chains for certain critical minerals. Critical minerals such as nickel, cobalt, lithium, and copper can be recovered from lithium-ion batteries.
However, end-of-life batteries and scrap materials are largely sent overseas, often to China for processing. Our subcommittee has heard testimony at two hearings that our own regulatory scheme under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act or RCRA is contributing to these valuable minerals being sent overseas and to this missed opportunity to recover critical minerals already present in our country. The Environmental Protection Agency's EPA RCRA regulations predate the widespread use of lithium-ion batteries in the United States. EPA currently administers universal waste regulations first issued in 1995 to streamline hazardous waste management standards for certain common categories of universal waste.
While there are currently universal waste regulations for batteries, EPA announced an intention to develop a separate category of universal waste for lithium-ion batteries in 2023. In addition to lingering uncertainty resulting from the drifting deadline for specific lithium-ion battery universal waste rules, the current universal waste rules also impose unnecessary cost and burdens on recyclers of lithium-ion batteries. This legislation would address one of those problems with the current regulations by allowing destination facilities that recycle lithium-ion batteries to store the batteries prior to recycling them. Under the existing universal waste regulations, handlers of universal waste may store batteries under certain rules. However, destination facilities are regulated differently.
Destination facilities, such as facilities at which recycling occurs, face two options: they must store the batteries at a separate location than that at which they are recycled, incurring unnecessary cost, or they must obtain a hazard waste permit, a complex process. This common-sense modification would eliminate the unnecessary requirement for battery recyclers, allowing them to store lithium-ion batteries prior to recycling. This legislation would also address a lingering source of uncertainty by clarifying that the provisions of the 1996 Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Act that preempt state regulation of collection, storage, and transportation of rechargeable batteries also apply to successor EPA universal waste regulations, not simply the original 1995 versions referenced in that statute. Common-sense updates to federal lithium-ion battery regulations will encourage the growth of the domestic battery recycling industry. This legislation is a great first step and I encourage my colleagues to support it.
With that, I yield.
Speaker 6
Gentlelady yields. Is there further discussion on the bill? Are there any amendments? Gentlelady is recognized for an amendment.
Clerk will report the amendment.
Speaker 5
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9615, offered by Mrs. Miller-Meeks of Iowa. Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: Section 1, short title. This Act may be cited as the Battery Recycling for America's Competitive Economy Act, or the BRACE Act. Section 2, M...
Speaker 16
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes in support of her amendment.
Mariannette Miller-Meeks
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to offer an amendment to the bill that will address concerns from both sides of the aisle and that was negotiated on a bipartisan basis. This amendment directs EPA to finalize rulemaking on lithium-ion batteries as a category of universal waste no later than 18 months from enactment. As EPA announced its intention to promulgate such a rule back in 2023, it should be well on its way to meeting this deadline. This finalized rule should provide much-needed certainty for the lithium-ion battery recycling industry, which has wrestled with a lack of clarity and confusion surrounding current regulations.
This amendment requires EPA to consider, but not regulate on, several issues as part of this process. The EPA shall consider making permanent the interim policy specified in the bill that allows destination facilities that recycle lithium-ion batteries to store those batteries prior to recycling. As I previously explained, the current regulations require lithium-ion battery recyclers to store batteries at a separate location, incurring unnecessary cost. It also requires EPA to consider any regulatory changes needed to support the recycling of lithium-ion batteries and the recovery of critical minerals while still protecting health and the environment. Finally, it also directs EPA to consider whether additional safety requirements are needed to address gaps in existing protection.
Other standards and regulations from a variety of authorities already apply to lithium-ion battery management, and we want to make sure EPA is not imposing duplicative, redundant, unnecessary, or conflicting regulations. This is similar bills to what I've done before in the past on recycling of critical minerals and rare metals, and this amendment was drafted with the input from both the majority and minority and should enjoy bipartisan support. I'm proud to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to facilitate domestic battery recycling and the recovery of critical mineral elements.
Speaker 20
Gentlelady yields back. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez, for five minutes.
Robert Menendez
Thank you, Chairman. The amendment in the nature of a substitute for the Battery Recycling for America's Competitive Economy Act, or BRACE Act, while still a compromise, is a perfect example of a win-win for the environment and our supply chain. This language would require the EPA to develop a rule for lithium-ion battery recycling that protects both health and the environment. The new rule will consider critical safety measures for battery recycling, providing much-needed support for landfills and recyclers that have been forced to address the fire hazards associated with lithium-ion batteries without any agency guidance. I believe that the EPA will take an important first step with this rule.
The bill also creates parity between facilities that temporarily store lithium-ion batteries before recycling and recyclers who store battery waste on-site, all while maintaining safety at both. That is why the BRACE Act offers a meaningful path forward on lithium-ion battery recycling. The amendment in the nature of a substitute ensures we properly recycle lithium-ion batteries right here at home, keeping their critical mineral components in our domestic supply chain while protecting the health and safety of our workers, communities, and environment. To be clear, this amendment and the underlying bill represent a bipartisan compromise. While the text does not include everything that either side might have wanted, there is significant bipartisan work to reach this agreement.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying bill. Thank you, and I yield back.
Gary Palmer
Gentleman yields. Is there further discussion of the amendment? Seeing none, if there's no further discussion, the vote occurs on the amendment. All those in favor will signify by saying aye. Aye.
All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. The question now occurs on adopting H.R. 9615 as amended. All those in favor say aye. Aye.
Those opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the bill's adopted and forward to the full committee. Chair now calls up H.R. 9616 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 5
H.R. 9616, a bill to establish a program for the recovery of critical materials from contaminated sites and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Section 1.
Gary Palmer
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. Bill will be open for amendment at any point, so ordered. I will now recognize myself for five minutes in support of the bill. The Environmental Monitoring and Remediation Technology Assessment Initiative, or EMERTAI, Act of 2026. Critical minerals are essential to some of the most crucial technologies for communications devices, energy infrastructure, and defense equipment.
However, supply chains for some of these materials are incredibly vulnerable to disruption, and we are often forced to rely on foreign nations. Fortunately, cutting-edge technologies are emerging to identify and take advantage of unconventional sources of critical minerals right here at home. Legacy mine sites across the country contain valuable critical minerals and rare earth elements that were previously overlooked or too difficult to recover.
Nearly 100 legacy mining and mineral processing sites are included on the Environmental Protection Agency's National Priorities List of the nation's most contaminated sites. The EPA is already supporting the recovery of critical minerals at legacy hard rock mining sites through the AMRTAY program. This legislation before us today authorizes this program and broadens it to include other contaminated sites to support the recovery of critical minerals and remediation of environmental contamination across the country. It directs the EPA to investigate, evaluate, and support methods and processes to identify critical minerals at contaminated sites and to recover critical minerals from those sites. This legislation also includes guidance to the EPA in selecting the most beneficial projects that help identify new domestic sources of critical minerals, strengthen national security, and further the remediation of the contaminated sites.
New technologies are making the recovery of critical minerals from non-traditional sources increasingly feasible. Through this program, the EPA will provide support to entities with expertise to recover these valuable materials and eliminate health and safety standards, safety hazards posed by contaminated sites. I thank my colleagues, Mr. Pfluger and Mr. Landsman, for introducing this legislation, and I'm glad we have the opportunity to advance this bipartisan solution to address both a national security challenge and environmental threat. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. I yield back.
Is there any, are there any further discussion on the bill? Chair recognizes the gentleman and co-sponsor Mr. Landsman for five minutes.
Greg Landsman
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We can all agree that strengthening the domestic recovery and recycling of critical minerals is important for our economy, for jobs, our national security, and America's energy security. That's why I'm a proud sponsor of the Environmental Monitoring and Remediation Technology Assessment Initiative Act of 2026. The legislation establishes a program to identify and assess technologies for recovering critical minerals from legacy hard rock mine sites, Superfund sites, and contaminated areas, enhancing environmental monitoring and national security. This legislation shows we can improve domestic critical mineral sources while cleaning up some of our nation's most toxic sites.
As the committee continues to have conversations about domestic critical mineral recycling, I ask that my colleagues consider voting yes for this bill, and with that I yield back.
Speaker 24
Gentleman yields. Is there further discussion on the bill? Gentleman from Florida, Mr. Soto, is recognized for five minutes.
Darren Soto
Thank you, Chairman. Critical minerals seem to be in all sorts of technologies nowadays, from hybrid and electric vehicles to solar panels, cell phones, computers, and more. When you look at EVs themselves, they have cobalt, natural graphite, lithium, manganese, and nickel. Solar panels: lithium, cobalt, aluminum, gallium, zinc, selenium, cadmium, indium, silicon, and more. That is a lot of critical minerals that we have to look out for just in everyday items that Americans use.
And so that's why I'm thrilled to see a slate of bills dealing with critical mineral recycling, whether it's the BRACE Act, which is improving lithium-ion recycling, the AMRTAY Act, which would identify critical materials in contaminated sites, or the next act, the CHARM Act, which would help coordinate federal efforts to recover critical minerals from discarded materials. We know mining is essential to critical minerals. We can't rely on China, who is a rival of ours, for all of our critical minerals, but there's also other areas where we can find an abundance of critical minerals, like in landfills, even coal ash and other areas that are unfortunately right now contaminated sites that we could harness some of these critical minerals. But we must recycle responsibly. We have to protect the public health as we do that, and so these are first steps, critical steps to develop a national strategy for recycling and recovering these critical minerals that are already on US soil.
And with that I yield back.
Gary Palmer
Aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it and the bill is adopted and forwarded to the full committee. The chair now calls up HR 9617, the CHARM Act, and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 5
HR 9617, a bill to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to coordinate a national critical mineral...
Gary Palmer
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with and the bill will be open for amendment at any point. So ordered. I now recognize myself for five minutes to speak in favor of HR 9617, Coordinating and Harvesting America's Recovery Minerals Act, or the CHARM Act. It has never been more important to develop secure domestic supply chains of critical minerals. According to the US Geological Survey of the final 2025 list of critical minerals, the United States was 100% net import reliant for 13 of those mineral commodities, and an additional 20 of those critical minerals had an import reliance greater than 50% of apparent consumption.
Adversaries such as China have already demonstrated their willingness to exploit this dependence. Recycling and recovery of critical minerals from sources already located in the United States can play an important role in breaking our dependence on foreign rivals and addressing this alarming vulnerability. Securing our domestic critical mineral supply chains will require deliberate federal coordination. The Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, has already developed expertise in the recovery and recycling of valuable minerals as well as relationships with important partners. For example, EPA currently regulates the recovery of materials from solid waste, is preparing regulations to encourage the recycling of lithium-ion batteries, supports the development of new technologies to recover critical minerals from legacy mine sites, and manages the process for certain permits needed by critical mineral refining facilities.
The EPA administers multiple programs that could impact critical mineral recovery, as do other federal agencies. This legislation would require EPA to develop and implement a national critical mineral recovery strategy to coordinate federal government efforts to recover critical minerals from discarded materials. The EPA would play the leading role in harmonizing these efforts. This legislation would also require the EPA to consider legal, technical, or other barriers to recovering critical minerals from discarded materials. This national critical mineral recovery strategy would also direct the EPA to work with other agencies to identify non-traditional domestic sources of critical minerals.
The bill also requires the EPA to consider opportunities to recover critical minerals from discarded materials in a manner that minimizes risk to health and the human environment. I'm glad my colleague Ranking Member Tonko has joined me in putting forward this legislation, and I'm proud that we could work together to address the challenges in a bipartisan manner. I encourage my colleagues to support the legislation. I yield back. Is any other member seeking recognition to speak on the bill?
Chair recognizes gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, for five minutes.
Gentleman's recognized.
Paul Tonko
Thank you, Chair. I thank you for your leadership on this bill and share the sentiments that it's a pleasure to join in this effort. The CHARM Act would direct EPA to develop a national strategy to support critical mineral recovery. We know there are significant amounts of discarded materials that can become valuable, secure sources of domestic critical minerals, and there may very well be legitimate regulatory, technological, and economic barriers preventing the United States from tapping into these supplies. EPA has significant expertise to lead the national strategy effort.
The agency has already done considerable work to develop a framework for end-of-life management of batteries to result in the responsible collection, reuse, and recycling of these mineral-rich technologies. I do hope the CHARM Act might build upon that work to identify additional opportunities to recover critical minerals in a manner that maintains public health, worker safety, and, of course, environmental protections. Our critical mineral supply chain challenges are significant, and recovery must play an important role in meeting our national demands. So I do thank you and the majority and minority staff for working together on this bill, and I encourage members to support it. With that, I thank you, Mr. Chair, and yield back.
Gary Palmer
Gentleman yields. Is there further discussion on the bill? Are there any amendments? Question now occurs on adopting H.R. 9617. All those in favor say aye.
Aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it and the bill's adopted and forwarded to the full committee. Chair now calls up H.R. 9618 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 6
H.R. 9618, a bill to amend the Clean Air Act to preserve regulatory stability for motor vehicles, motor vehicle engines...
Julie Fedorchak
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment in the nature of substitute at the desk and an additional amendment at the desk that makes some minor technical changes. I would like to address both of those.
Gary Palmer
Gentlelady's recognized for five. The clerk will report the amendment.
Michelle Fischbach
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9618 offered by Mrs. Fischbach.
Julie Fedorchak
Thank you, Chairman Palmer and Ranking Member Tonko, for working with me to include my bill, the Diesel Engine Flexibility Act, or the DEF Act, in today's markup. Farmers, truckers, contractors, manufacturers, and equipment operators depend on reliable equipment to keep our economy moving. They shouldn't be sidelined by faulty sensors or unnecessary shutdowns that have nothing to do with actual emissions. The DEF Act provides the certainty needed while improving safety and keeping our economy moving. Modern diesel engines rely on diesel exhaust fluid, or DEF, to dramatically reduce emissions.
That's a goal that we all support. But the technology isn't perfect. Today, a faulty sensor or a minor system malfunction, often unrelated to actual emissions, can trigger a countdown that forces an engine into severe power restriction, slowing a vehicle to just five miles per hour.
That's not an emissions problem, it's a reliability and a safety problem. In North Dakota, farmers and ranchers are spraying fields in a rare calm day or harvesting grain before a storm. They might be hauling grain to market and livestock to an auction. Energy producers are moving equipment to well sites. Truckers and contractors are driving hundreds of miles across rural highways.
If one of those vehicles suddenly loses power because of a faulty sensor, especially in the middle of the winter when temperatures can reach 20 below zero, that isn't just frustrating. It can be disastrous and it can be dangerous. And it costs these folks time and money, often through no fault of their own. Our producers and workers deserve policies that don't cause this and things that they can rely on instead. I was pleased to see President Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin recognize this issue and take action.
The EPA issued updated guidance that gives operators more warning before power restrictions take effect. And they provided additional flexibility when these systems experience technical failures. Those common sense changes improve safety while maintaining the emissions performance systems, these performances, these systems were designed to achieve. My bill builds on that progress by putting those common sense reforms into law. It creates a stable 10-year regulatory framework so manufacturers, operators, and independent technicians have the certainty they need to invest, to innovate, and to keep equipment operating safely.
It also directs EPA to consider the real-world impacts of future regulations by reducing unnecessary shutdowns and giving manufacturers meaningful lead time before new standards take effect. The DEF Act provides long-term certainty while preserving the environmental benefits these systems were designed to achieve. Again, this is a practical, bipartisan solution. I want to thank my partner on this legislation, Congressman Don Davis of North Carolina, for his leadership and collaboration in advancing this bipartisan bill. And I urge my colleagues to support the Diesel Engine Flexibility Act and I yield back.
Paul Tonko
Gentlelady yields. Is there further discussion of the amendment? Gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko is recognized for five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Clean Air Act is clear that the Environmental Protection Agency has an obligation to protect Americans from dangerous pollution, including from the transportation sector. Vehicles and engines powered by diesel fuel account for more than 60% of all nitrogen oxides pollution from the transportation sector in the United States. Exposure to diesel exhaust can lead to serious health conditions and result in increased emergency room visits, absences from work and school, and even premature death. That is why EPA standards to drive down pollution from the transportation sector are so very vital.
EPA standards also spur innovation in new technologies. Selective catalytic reduction systems that use a urea-based diesel exhaust fluid are a prime example. These systems help cut tailpipe pollution, reduce fuel consumption, provide efficiency benefits and fuel savings to the driver, which is critical more than ever given Trump's fuel affordability crisis. To protect the engine and ensure compliance with EPA emission standards, manufacturers design engines to progressively derate or reduce power if there is an issue with the emissions control system, such as the DEF tank being empty.
Public health and environmental benefits of these systems are preserved. To address recent concerns with various DEF requirements, EPA put out a series of guidance documents on technical issues related to emissions control systems in diesel vehicles and engines for manufacturers. At the Environment Subcommittee legislative hearing in June, we considered a discussion draft that aimed to codify EPA's guidance. The bill also set a minimum derate inducement schedule for diesel engines and vehicles, preserving inducements as a necessary measure to protect our progress in cutting pollution from diesel engines. While I generally have concerns with codifying guidance on highly technical issues, the discussion draft's approach had bipartisan potential with some targeted changes.
Unfortunately, despite trying to work on a bipartisan compromise, the majority decided to include a version of the bill that is vastly different from what was discussed at the subcommittee hearing. Furthermore, the amendment in the nature of a substitute still includes a number of partisan poison pills. While the AINS narrows the scope of the bill to only block more protective standards or state waivers that relate to inducement strategies or DEF quality monitoring, it still allows the administrator to set weaker standards and unnecessarily targets existing state authority under the Clean Air Act to set more ambitious standards in order to protect public health. The AINS still adds a five-year lead time for any updated standards or state waivers after the 10-year safe harbor, effectively locking in older protections for 15 years. Freezing EPA vehicle standards in place for 15 years would stifle innovation to develop newer and more cost-effective emissions control technologies and leave American manufacturers far behind their global competitors.
Furthermore, this bill does not actually preserve EPA's guidance. It allows EPA to reverse course and undermine state authority in the process. The bill unnecessarily undermines long-standing efforts to ensure emissions control systems on diesel trucks operate as intended and fails to protect the health of the communities that these trucks drive through. While I hoped we could have come to a bipartisan agreement on a bill to address DEF requirements for diesel engines, this bill certainly is not it. I urge my colleagues to oppose this AINS and the underlying bill.
And with that, I thank you, Mr. Chair, and yield back.
Gary Palmer
Gentleman yields. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Evans, is recognized for five minutes.
Gabe Evans
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank my colleague, Representative Fodorchak, for bringing this bill because her leadership is sorely needed as we continue to make common-sense modernizations to the Clean Air Act. Let's be honest, farmers and ranchers, our agricultural producers, they have a tough job. Anybody who doubts that, just go look at the mental health rates in rural America. When you are working in an industry that's dependent on the weather, that's dependent on being able to make food literally come up and grow out of the ground, and then as I talked to one of my ag producers the other day, a hailstorm runs through and flattens 2,000 acres of feed, which is absolutely critical for your dairy, this is a tough job. My farmers and ranchers often tell me that the number one export that they have is their kids.
I'll say that again, my farmers and ranchers in my district often tell me their number one export is their kids who are not able to keep a third or fourth or fifth generation family farm going because of the regulatory burden that's being imposed on them. And that's why this piece of legislation is so important. Our farmers and ranchers need clarity and additional flexibility around emissions monitoring and repairs for their equipment and their vehicles. Again, I represent a top ag-producing district in the nation. Multiple billions of dollars every year in annual revenue and economic product come from my district in the ag sector.
That feeds the rest of our country.
And this Diesel Engines Flexibility Act simply provides a 10-year safe harbor for recently published guidance from the EPA around NOx sensors and maintenance protection. It also prevents activist states like Colorado and California from superseding these regulations with more restrictive policies and ultimately crushing our already struggling farmers and ranchers. You guys have heard this before. I have a kid with respiratory issues. No one wants clean air more than I do, but we have to follow the science.
If we regulate our own economy and our own industries to death, then we just become reliant on nations like China that pollute more than we do to produce the same amount of, in this case, food. Losing our farmers and ranchers because we are crushing them under regulatory burden, all it does is raises prices at the grocery store, makes food more expensive, drive jobs out of the United States, makes us dependent on others for our food security, and ultimately results in dirtier air, more expense, and poorer health outcomes because when we lose those jobs and food is more expensive and we have to import it from places that pollute more, nobody wins. Common sense approaches like what my colleague has brought forth is critical if we want to provide our economy with the stability it needs to continue to accelerate, create more jobs, protect our farmers and ranchers, produce our food here in the United States, lower prices at the grocery store, and ultimately allow our constituents to achieve the American dream. And so I am proud to support this bill. I am proud to support our farmers and ranchers, and I urge my colleagues to do the same and yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Gentleman yields. Does any other member wish to address the amendment? Seeing none. Gentlelady from North Dakota is recognized.
Gary Palmer
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, amendment number three.
Speaker 6
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9618 offered by Mrs. Foushee of North Dakota. Page six, line three, strike "or are available for".
Julie Fedorchak
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment is pretty simple. It clarifies the nature of this legislation by removing certain terms which could lead to confusion in how vehicles or equipment are treated or defined under the text. In doing so, it upholds the intent of the bill by reducing regulatory uncertainty felt by farmers, ranchers, truckers, and manufacturers across the country. I urge a yes vote on this technical amendment, and I yield back.
Gary Palmer
Gentlelady yields. Is there further discussion of the amendment? Seeing none, the vote occurs on the amendment. All those in favor shall signify by saying aye. Aye.
Those opposed, nay. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. We are now going to vote on the ANS. All those in favor shall signify by saying aye.
Aye. All opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. Is there any further discussion on the bill?
Seeing none, the question now occurs on adopting H.R. 9618 as amended. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. 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.