This is not an official government website.
© 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Congressional Daily Record
This section captures a floor statement or debate entry. It mentions legislation such as Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6387) to amend the Clean Air Act to require revisions to regulations governing the review and handling of air quality monitoring data influenced by exceptional events or actions to mitigate wildfire risk; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6398) to amend the Clean Air Act relating to review by the Environmental Protection Agency of proposed legislation; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6409) to amend the Clean Air Act to clarify standards for emissions emanating from outside of the United States, and for other purposes; and providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 1156) expressing support for tax policies that support working families., committees such as Committee on Energy and Commerce, members such as Gary James Palmer.
Issued
April 15, 2026
house side of the record
People
3
Linked members mentioned in this section
Legislation
3
Bills and resolutions linked from this section
Committees
1
Committees connected to this section
Senate Holds
0
No hold activity linked here
Source Document
Connected Data
People mentioned
Bills and resolutions
Committees
Source Control
Reader mode is for comprehension. The linked government PDF is the official published source.
Download official House Record PDFReturn to issue contextFOREIGN EMISSIONS AND NONATTAINMENT CLARIFICATION FOR ECONOMIC
STABILITY ACT
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1174, I call up the bill (H.R. 6409) to amend the Clean Air Act to clarify standards for emissions emanating from outside of the United States, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1174, the bill is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 6409
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Foreign Emissions and
Nonattainment Clarification for Economic Stability Act” or
the “FENCES Act”.
SEC. 2. EMISSIONS BEYOND CONTROL.
(a) Clarification of Emissions Covered.—Section 179B of
the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7509a) is amended—
(1) by inserting “(regardless of whether such emissions
result from human activity)” after “but for emissions
emanating from outside of the United States” each place it
appears; and
(2) in subsection (d), by inserting “(regardless of
whether such emissions result from human activity)” after
“but for emissions emanating from outside the United
States”.
(b) Designations.—Section 179B of the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7509a) is further amended by adding at the end the
following:
“(e) Designations.—Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, an area within a State may not be designated as a
nonattainment area with respect to any new or revised primary
or secondary national ambient air quality standard for a
pollutant if such State establishes to the satisfaction of
the Administrator that such area would be in attainment with
such national ambient air quality standard for such pollutant
but for emissions emanating from outside of the United States
(regardless of whether such emissions result from human
activity).”.
(c) Applicability of Sanctions and Fees if Emissions Beyond
Control.—The Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) is
amended by inserting after section 179B the following new
section:
“SEC. 179C. APPLICABILITY OF SANCTIONS AND FEES IF EMISSIONS
BEYOND CONTROL.
“(a) In General.—Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, with respect to any nonattainment area that is
classified under section 181 as a Severe Area or an Extreme
Area for ozone or under section 188 as a Serious Area for
particulate matter, no sanction or fee under section 179 or
185 shall apply with respect to a State (or an area or source
therein) on the basis of a deficiency described in section
179(a), or the failure to attain a national ambient air
quality standard for ozone or particulate matter by the
applicable attainment date, if the State demonstrates that
the State would have avoided such deficiency, or such
standard would have been attained, but for one or more of the
following:
“(1) Emissions emanating from outside the nonattainment
area.
“(2) Emissions from an exceptional event (as defined in
section 319(b)(1)).
“(3) Emissions from mobile sources to the extent the State
demonstrates that—
“(A) such emissions are beyond the control of the State to
reduce or eliminate; and
“(B) the State is fully implementing such measures as are
within the authority of the State to control emissions from
the mobile sources.
“(b) No Effect on Underlying Standards.—The
inapplicability of sanctions or fees with respect to a State
(or an area or source therein) pursuant to subsection (a)
does not affect the obligation of a State, area, source, or
other entity under other provisions of this Act to establish
and implement measures to attain a national ambient air
quality standard for ozone or particulate matter.
“(c) Periodic Renewal of Demonstration.—For subsection
(a) to continue to apply with respect to a State (or an area
or source therein), the State involved shall renew the
demonstration required by subsection (a) at least once every
5 years.”.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer).
General Leave
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and to include extraneous material on H.R. 6409.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Alabama?
There was no objection.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6409, the FENCES Act, which addresses the need for commonsense reforms on how emissions impact our Nation's ability to support domestic manufacturing and unleash affordable and reliable energy.
allowing investments to go overseas while Americans are forced to pay higher prices. Many of these costly regulations result from regulatory burdens associated with the Clean Air Act.
that will support American job creators while continuing to protect our environment and the air we breathe.
of Texas ensures that States and local communities are not penalized for foreign air emissions emanating from outside our borders. Across the country, States are being unfairly penalized for pollution that originates from foreign nations, including air emissions from natural events, like the Canadian wildfires.
foreign emissions prevent them from meeting Federal standards. However, the guidance from the EPA under the previous administration narrowed that relief, limiting it to only human-caused emissions from abroad.
man-made, are excluded from consideration when determining whether a State meets national air quality standards.
earlier in the regulatory process, instead of forcing them to wait until the very end and risk costly delays or Federal sanctions.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting these bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6409, the FENCES Act.
many Americans' minds right now as they struggle through the ever- worsening Republican affordability crisis. Republicans have demonstrated over the last year that they have no interest in improving healthcare for the American people.
Americans' healthcare. Insurance premiums spiked at the beginning of the year for 20 million people because Republicans refused to extend the ACA tax credits. Fifteen million people are predicted to lose their healthcare altogether. Hospitals are closing in record numbers around the country.
State of New Jersey have the potential to close because of the Republican big, ugly bill and the impact on hospitals.
and take healthcare away from more people to pay for Trump's reckless war of choice with Iran. In Trump's America, we can't afford healthcare, but apparently, we can spend a billion dollars a day on the war in Iran. In fact, Trump himself said that it is not possible for the Federal Government to pay for Medicaid and Medicare when we are fighting wars.
on the House floor by bringing three dirty air bills to the House floor, including this bill, H.R. 6409, the FENCES Act; and also H.R. 6398, the RED Tape Act; and, finally, H.R. 6387, the FIRE Act.
cornerstone of the Clean Air Act. They will ultimately make Americans sicker and increase healthcare costs even more.
communities across the country. Communities in areas with unsafe levels of air pollution see more diagnoses of diseases like asthma, COPD, heart disease, and certain types of cancer, all of which require long- term treatment and medication.
Air pollution, Mr. Speaker, is also responsible for over 100,000 premature deaths every year. It is ridiculous to even consider these bills when our constituents are demanding action on healthcare affordability.
air pollution reporting by ignoring climate change, to giving corporate polluters free passes on Clean Air Act requirements, these bills are evidence that Republicans are more interested in helping their pollution friends than the well-being of Americans.
undercut the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, or NAAQS, which tells us the amount of air pollution that is safe to breathe.
{time} 1420
experience any pollution beyond the jurisdiction of a State or city's borders. It removes the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to impose fees or sanctions on States that fail to make progress toward cleaning up the air.
Let me just explain this. If my hometown of Long Branch or my county of Monmouth or my State of New Jersey was getting pollution from outside that particular jurisdiction, it wouldn't count. They wouldn't have to account for that in terms of dealing with air pollution and trying to reduce it. To me, that is patently ridiculous because we know that air pollution travels across cities, across States, and even across countries. Giving States that are not even trying to improve air quality a free pass for pollution without any incentive to fix the problem is not the right way to proceed, and that is what this bill does.
air pollution in favor of industry, removing all accountability for States to clean up air pollution and leaving millions of Americans to breathe unhealthy air. The only winners here are corporate polluters who would get to save a few dollars in compliance costs.
Now Republican attempts to undermine the NAAQS aren't new. Every time the EPA strengthens an air quality standard, opponents complain that stronger public health standards will limit economic growth, but that has never been true, Mr. Speaker. Every time, industry has innovated better pollution control measures to meet the new standards.
permitting reform effort, but this bill would not speed up any permitting. In fact, it
with poor air quality appear much better to benefit corporate polluters at the expense of the health of Americans across the country. Pushing the FENCES Act at a moment when millions of Americans are struggling to afford their utilities, their groceries, and healthcare, in my opinion, is unconscionable.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote “no” on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to me to hear my Democratic colleagues talk about where Republicans are on healthcare when, in fact, it was Republicans who initiated the $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Fund that every Democrat voted against.
to get $147,250,806 from the Rural Health Transformation Fund. I think that is a pretty good investment in trying to improve healthcare for people all over the country.
Mr. PFLUGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, the Foreign Emissions and Nonattainment Clarification for Economic Stability Act, also known as the FENCES Act.
pollution that they don't control and they can't prevent. As was just mentioned by my colleague from New Jersey who said that we can't control pollution across borders, that is right. That is why we have to come up with this bill.
border, and other foreign sources can overwhelm local air quality readings even when the States are fully compliant and acting in good faith.
Congress has long recognized this reality. That is why the Clean Air Act allows States to account for foreign emissions when those emissions interfere with attainment, but that balance was disrupted when EPA guidance under the Biden administration sharply narrowed what counts as foreign emissions, limiting relief to certain human-caused sources while excluding events like wildfires. That distinction was arbitrary and unworkable. States cannot regulate another country, and they certainly cannot regulate natural disasters.
The FENCES Act corrects that mistake. In fact, let me change that phrasing. The FENCES Act corrects that overreach by the previous administration. It clarifies that all foreign emissions, whether natural or human caused, must be excluded when the EPA makes nonattainment determinations or reviews new source permits. Just as important, the bill allows States to raise these issues earlier in the process rather than years after the planning and investment have happened when the consequences are most severe.
Those consequences are significant. Nonattainment designations impose substantial regulatory burdens on States, communities, energy producers, and manufacturers. They trigger stricter permitting requirements, delay infrastructure projects, and raise the costs for businesses trying to expand or hire. For energy producers, it means slower approvals for drilling and processing. For manufacturers, it means uncertainty around whether a project will even move forward. For local communities, it means fewer jobs and less investment, even when they have done everything right to comply with the law.
The issue is not theoretical. In my area, the Permian Basin, we saw how even the possibility, the threatening of a nonattainment designation can create uncertainty. That uncertainty affects permitting timelines, capital planning, and long-term investment decisions for both producers and local communities. Companies begin to question whether new jobs will face delays or additional requirements, and local leaders are left planning around an unclear regulatory future. When the stakes are that high, EPA needs to get the analysis right. That is the way the law was written, and this bill gets us back to that intent.
manufacturing and lowers the air quality. No, it actually holds our communities accountable. It holds them accountable, the communities that we care about domestically that should be held accountable, but shouldn't be penalized for cities in Mexico or wildfires that are happening in Canada or other foreign sources that they don't control. That is what this bill does.
Chevron deference case, this is the decision they had in mind because the Biden administration overreached so often and so critically.
quality standards. In fact, it actually enforces them more accurately within our local communities, and it makes a narrow adjustment to ensure that compliance determinations are fair by excluding foreign emissions from EPA nonattainment designations.
for pollution originating outside our borders or for uncontrollable natural events. I urge my colleagues to think about a commonsense solution and to get back to the intent of the law, which is exactly what the FENCES Act does.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote “yes.”
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), the ranking member of our Environment Subcommittee.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, when we debated this bill in committee, I was reminded of the environmental history of the Adirondack Mountains, which are located just to the north of my district in upstate New York. The Adirondacks are known for their beauty as well as the ecological damage they suffered from acid rain.
and that pollution didn't stop in upstate New York. It also harmed people and the environment in eastern Canada. The international pressure brought by the Canadian Government helped motivate the Bush administration and Congress to enact the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, which included a program to control sources of acid rain pollution.
demonstrates how international cooperation in pursuit of our common environmental goals is, indeed, possible.
able to rely upon their Federal Government to address these issues through bilateral discussions with the polluting country. We should be able to have a bipartisan consensus in Congress that we would like our environmental and diplomatic efforts to prioritize these issues in our international relations.
demand polluters in Mexico, China, or any other country that may be proven to be contributing to an area's nonattainment of a Clean Air Act standard, to do something to control their pollution.
sources from outside their jurisdiction, but the lungs of the people living and working in those areas don't care from whence that pollution originated. It affects their health all the same.
Americans breathing unsafe levels of air pollution. States and local air agencies should continue to work with EPA to find ways to better protect people by also allowing for opportunities to prove when emissions originate from outside their borders.
bill unnecessary. Section 179B of the Clean Air Act currently gives States that opportunity to prove emissions came from an international source and provides regulatory relief when an area would have otherwise achieved the National Ambient Air Quality Standard.
{time} 1430
pollution in their State implementation plans, and it provides free passes on pollution that comes from outside the area, from exceptional events, and from mobile-source pollution.
to make progress toward reducing air pollution, including States that are not even trying to improve air quality.
Mr. Speaker, I agree that we should be working to better protect our constituents from having to breathe pollution from foreign sources, but pretending that pollution doesn't exist simply cannot be the answer.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose this bill.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao), a distinguished Member.
Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge support for the FENCES Act, a commonsense bill that brings fairness and clarity to how we evaluate air quality in the United States.
of the most stringent environmental standards in the country. Yet, too often, they are penalized for factors completely outside of their control, like pollution or wildfire smoke that comes from outside our borders.
whether caused by human activity or natural events, cannot be used to determine whether a State is meeting Federal air quality standards. The bill also strengthens existing law under the Clean Air Act by allowing States to account for foreign emissions earlier in the process rather than waiting until final stages of their State implementation plans. For California, wherein nonattainment designations can have serious economic consequences, reliability is important.
significant permitting delays and regulatory uncertainty. I hear from small businesses all the time who want to invest and hire in our region, but they are stuck navigating a system that doesn't reflect today's global realities.
countries with much weaker environmental standards, which ultimately undermines the very goal that we are trying to achieve here in the United States. I think we can all agree that we want our communities to be healthy while also providing opportunities for economic investment.
regulatory clarity, streamlining the permitting process, and giving States like California a fair shot at compliance, while still maintaining our commitment to clean air.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, which strikes the balance between reasonable environmental standards and allowing industry to invest in America to help build our economy and create jobs.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Landsman), a member of our committee.
Mr. LANDSMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, Mr. Pallone, for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, America is in the middle of a healthcare crisis. More and more Americans can't afford their healthcare. They just can't pay for it. Hospitals are cutting back services. Many of them are closing their doors.
they spent trillions of dollars on tax cuts that mostly benefited the wealthy. To pay for it, they kicked about 15 million Americans off of their health insurance, a cut of approximately $1 trillion to healthcare for tax cuts for the wealthy.
healthcare, and now this. This week, congressional Republicans are bringing three bills to the floor that will make it harder for people to breathe.
accounting gimmicks that will allow industries to pollute our air without consequences. It is an air pollution bill.
Republicans have cut healthcare for millions of Americans. Congress should be focused entirely on expanding healthcare and protecting our air and water. Fortunately, the Senate won't take these bills up, and they are not going anywhere.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, again, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to talk about Republican positions on healthcare. I will remind them again that, in particular, the State of Ohio received $202,030,262 from the Rural Health Transformation Fund that every Democrat voted against. I remind my colleagues that the Republicans have made a major investment in healthcare.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), the chairman of the full committee.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Alabama for yielding, and I appreciate his hard work going into the Rural Transformation Healthcare Fund that was in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The gentleman originated the idea, and we certainly appreciate his hard work on that.
Today, I rise to support H.R. 6409, the FENCES Act; H.R. 6398, the RED Tape Act; and H.R. 6387, the FIRE Act.
efforts on permitting reform and aligned with the White House permitting priorities, which include modernizing the Clean Air Act.
got a substantial overhaul. Some parts of the law have become outdated, contributing to the regulatory gridlock that is stifling American growth and innovation.
substantial overhaul, and some parts of the law have become outdated, contributing also to more gridlock.
they illustrate ways that we protect public health and the environment while removing outdated provisions that are slowing energy production and manufacturing, ultimately preventing job creation.
Congress on the process for establishing and implementing national air quality standards and improving the preconstruction permitting program without sacrificing environmental protections. Some of the most expensive and significant barriers in the permitting process are the result of the law's outdated provisions.
significant sources of pollution and create disincentives for companies to invest in cost-efficient and effective technology that would actually improve air quality.
In the U.S., it takes 80 percent longer to permit projects than elsewhere in the world. America's outdated permitting system costs manufacturers in the U.S. approximately $7.9 billion each year. While a reasonable level of permitting is, of course, needed, without commonsense reforms, our Nation risks falling behind our adversaries, like China.
which have the most burdensome approval process of any permitting requirement. Notably, over 70 percent of projects require these permits, and these three bills remove regulatory uncertainty and bureaucratic hoops that impact what and where job creators build new businesses, but they do not change the underlying environmental protections in the law.
and local communities are not penalized for foreign air emissions emanating from outside of the U.S. The FENCES Act clarifies that all foreign emissions, whether natural or manmade, are not considered when determining whether a State meets national air quality standards.
unnecessary compliance burdens caused by events beyond their control, such as pollution from China, foreign wildfires,
duplicative environmental review for projects already subject to NEPA environmental review. The duplicative process leads to additional delays and costs in the NEPA process.
Congressman Adam Gray, updates the Clean Air Act to address the biggest threat in air pollution that this country faces today: wildfires. Bipartisan legislation ensures that States are not punished for prescribed burns or emissions that they cannot control.
of wildfires and public health problems associated with wildfire smoke. Despite the widespread acceptance of benefits of prescribed burns, they are underutilized across the U.S. due to perverse regulatory burdens under current air quality laws.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 6409, the FENCES Act; H.R. 6398, the RED Tape Act; and H.R. 6387, the FIRE Act. These bills provide commonsense solutions and long-needed updates to the Clean Air Act.
{time} 1440
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Menefee).
Mr. MENEFEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Pallone for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition of the FENCES Act.
public health and the environment and without sacrificing environmental protection in this country, but I want to point out that it is this administration currently in office that has eviscerated the EPA. Time after time, we have seen these bills filed that are intended to weaken our environmental protection.
Let me be clear about what the FENCES Act actually does. It weakens the Clean Air Act. It removes the EPA's ability to hold States accountable when they fail to reduce air pollution, and it gives polluters a free pass in communities that can least afford it.
I represent Houston, Texas. In my district, environmental justice is not a talking point; it is a reality that people wake up to each and every day.
industrial pollution in the entire country: communities with more than five polluting facilities in a 2-mile radius, cancer clusters, high rates of lung disease and heart disease, lower life expectancies, children and seniors breathing in some of the most contaminated air in America.
These communities don't need us here in Washington making it worse. I know firsthand what happens when you take the pressure off of State environmental regulators.
Harris County, the largest county in Texas. I watched the State's environmental regulators look the other way when pollution ran rampant in underserved communities.
They sat on cancer clusters. They let polluting facilities concentrate in neighborhoods that had no political power to fight back, and they handed passes to industry while residents got sick. I had to sue them to get them to act, but that is not how our government should work.
put industry over people and put our communities' health at risk, but this bill would add yet another obstacle to holding those in power accountable.
Here is what the FENCES Act actually does. Under current law, States already get credit when pollution blows in from other countries or from out of State. They are not penalized for pollution that they cannot control. That protection exists today.
This bill doesn't fix a gap. It tears open a new one. It expands that exemption so broadly that States can point to foreign pollution as a reason to stop making progress on air quality altogether.
It removes the EPA's ability to hold them accountable. It is a built- in excuse to look the other way. State regulators and polluters both know exactly how to exploit it, and they will.
That is why I tried to change this bill by submitting an amendment. It said one simple thing: that before this law takes effect, the Secretary of Health and Human Services must certify that the impacts will not harm children and the elderly. That is it. Prove that this is safe for our kids and our seniors before it takes effect.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle blocked it. They would not allow that vote. They couldn't say yes to that because this bill was never about clean air. It is about giving corporate polluters cover while the people in our districts pay with their health.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kennedy of Utah). The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. MENEFEE. Over 100 million Americans already live in counties with unhealthy air quality. Air pollution contributes to more than 100,000 premature deaths in this country each and every year. The people in our communities are not abstractions. They are already on the wrong side of these numbers.
the wind that blows and wonder “Where did all the blue skies go?”
communities has clean land, clean air, and clean water, regardless of their ZIP Code or socioeconomic status.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote “no” on the FENCES Act.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman bringing up the situation that people in rural America find themselves in. What we tried to do with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act with the Rural Health Transformation Fund was meet a lot of those needs. The State of Texas got more money than any other State, $281,319,361, to try to improve healthcare opportunities for people who live in disadvantaged areas. What we are also trying to do is improve those conditions, to give people an opportunity to have a better job, to have better options in food, and have better healthcare options, as well. That is a big part of what we are trying to do with the modernization of the Clean Air Act and these bills that we bring before the House today.
Mr. CISCOMANI. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Palmer for yielding me time to speak in support of H.R. 6409, the FENCES Act.
manufacturers are not penalized for pollution that they cannot control. Emissions from foreign countries, wildfires, and dust storms should not determine whether our States meet Federal air quality standards.
clarifying that foreign emissions, whether natural or man-made, are excluded from compliance determinations and permitting decisions. It also allows States to account for these emissions earlier in the regulatory process, providing certainty and preventing costly delays.
Arizona, this is about fairness. Our districts should not face economic penalties for pollution originating beyond our own borders.
jobs, and upholds our Nation's environmental standards. It is also widely supported by the business community and will ensure we are creating an environment in which industry can thrive.
better and cleaner than anywhere else in the world, and this legislation is essential in supporting American innovation and excellence across a wide variety of sectors, from mining to chips manufacturing.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Dexter).
Ms. DEXTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New Jersey for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong and vehement opposition to these bills, specifically the FENCES Act, that gut the Clean Air Act's core public health protections.
American cities. It blanketed entire communities in a toxic haze so thick that residents were reported to believe they were under chemical attack.
In Los Angeles, people had smog-burned eyes and seared lungs. In my hometown of Portland, an industrial hub, smokestacks filled the skies with black plumes. Children walked to school clutching handkerchiefs over their faces. Drivers crashed on the highway because they couldn't see more than a few feet ahead. Families were scared. They were sick, and they were desperate for change.
us back to. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards are one of the most important tools we have to protect health. They set limits on dangerous pollution and ensure communities know when the air they breathe is unsafe. These bills would undermine those standards, allowing States to sidestep them and leave the public in the dark about real health risks.
As a lung doctor, I know exactly what that means. It means more asthma attacks, more heart attacks, more strokes, more cancer diagnoses, and more children in the ER.
air they breathe is making them sick. Communities are living with higher rates of cancer, respiratory illness, and premature death—real people, real families bearing the cost of decisions made right here.
It is not just one place. Across the country, in communities living near the major sources of pollution, we see the same pattern. When standards are weakened and accountability disappears, people pay with their health.
This is not what the people of Oregon sent me here to do. They sent me here to fight for healthy communities, for clean air, for safe water, and a better future for our children.
protections that have put polluters on watch. I urge my colleagues to reject these bills. Our children are watching. History is watching, and the air we breathe is on the line.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6409, the FENCES Act.
firsthand. Eighty percent of the air pollution in Maricopa County, Arizona's largest county, with a population of approximately 5.5 million people, is caused by natural phenomena or international transport.
across the desert, and emissions drifting in from China and Mexico are all outside our control. Yet Arizona was penalized with stricter Federal mandates, threatening jobs and growth in one of the fastest growing regions in America.
specifically—is home to economic and technological development that will better the lives of Arizonans and Americans nationwide.
{time} 1450
facilities, Arizona is building the industries that keep America competitive.
that have cut controllable emissions by 50 percent since 2000, but no State should be forced to impose more regulations on families and small businesses for pollution that they did not cause nor can they remedy. That is exactly where the FENCES Act is necessary.
making clear that all foreign emissions, natural or man-made, are excluded when EPA conducts air quality reviews.
uncontrollable sources. Democrats want to continue to impose costly delays, Federal sanctions, and unnecessary burdens on manufacturers, communities, and States.
recognized the impact of these onerous rules and stopped their negative effects in Maricopa County, but no State should have to rely on the unpredictability and capriciousness of any administration.
The FENCES Act is grounded in sound science and common sense. It protects jobs, supports investment, and ensures environmental rules focus on what States can actually control.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the FENCES Act. Let's pass it today.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Min).
Mr. MIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 6409, the FENCES Act, which would gut the Clean Air Act.
landmark air pollution law, serving as our most effective tool to try to keep the air that our children and families breathe safe and to hold polluters accountable.
prematurely dying in the United States every year because of air pollution. That is simply unacceptable.
gutting it. We should be decarbonizing transportation, regulating carbon emissions, acknowledging that climate change is happening and that the science is real, and trying to improve air quality and reduce the climate trends that we are seeing that are so alarming. Instead, we are debating another bill that would give yet another free pass to corporations and billionaires at the expense of working families.
and will introduce later today, a bill to rename the big, ugly bill to something maybe more palatable to the masses. They are doing that because the big, ugly bill is so unpopular right now that they are trying to run away from it as fast as possible.
I have a news flash for y'all. It is not the name that is the problem. It is the substance of the bill that helps, again, the Epstein elites that y'all are protecting so hard. It does so at the expense of the working class—in this case, with the FENCES Act gutting the Clean Air Act and polluting our air and water.
that we cannot afford. The FENCES Act would pave the way for States to avoid their responsibility to improve air quality and protect public health by claiming air pollution in their State as a foreign source.
States are not penalized for pollution they can't control, such as from foreign sources or other States. This is a solution in search of a problem.
don't see it. It moves across national borders and has deadly impacts on Americans here at home.
just up the 405 from where I live in Orange County, was one of the most polluted cities in the world, with smog so pervasive that people reported burning eyes and extremely low visibility.
and local governments, air pollution in Los Angeles has been significantly reduced, driving down chronic health impacts and having notable and statistically proven quality-of-life improvements for millions of Californians in southern California.
to recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill.
until the EPA and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee certify that the act will not increase health harms or the costs associated with treating those harms.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. MIN. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the motion to recommit.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I don't think we want to follow the California model for America's economic future, with their high energy prices, the highest poverty rate in the country, and destructive economic policies driving businesses out of the State.
best interests of the people at heart.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr.
Fulcher).
Mr. FULCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6409, the FENCES Act. I thank my good friend from Alabama for holding this debate.
you start thinking about border States, but Idaho is a border State. We share an international border with Canada in the northern panhandle of the State of Idaho.
There is a lot of timber on both sides of that borderline. Especially in a dry year like this—and this is going to be a dry year for us—it is not uncommon to have wildfire break out on one side or the other. It has happened many times before. Unfortunately, it will probably happen again, where, on the Canadian side, a wildfire breaks out.
and there is absolutely nothing that the State of Idaho can do with that. Sometimes, we share some firefighting resources, but the bottom line is that it didn't break out in our forest.
It is true that the Clean Air Act has a provision to address that. What is not being brought up, at least consistently, is that there is also a conflict with that through the EPA. The EPA guidance, largely enforced with the previous administration, conflicts with the Clean Air Act provision allowing States to adjust their emission plans. Every time one of those fires breaks out, we become at risk of falling out of our emissions standards.
Mr. Speaker, this is really a pretty simple bill. All it does is ensure a fair and consistent ability for these air quality designations to be put in place.
I stand in strong support of that. That is just one example. There are many other examples that some of my colleagues have brought up already.
of their control. This simply takes steps in order to put fair and consistent air quality designations in place. That is it.
Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of H.R. 6409, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The FENCES Act, Mr. Speaker, is a bad faith attempt by Republicans to use accounting gimmicks to make areas with bad air quality appear safe at the expense of our communities.
Government should be more transparent, but the literal and figurative smog that would be created by the FENCES Act will only make Americans sicker.
States, not just for international pollution but also pollution from mobile sources, exceptional events, and even from a different district within the same State.
work toward NAAQS attainment. This is a bad deal for the American people.
pollution. Doctors and scientists widely consider foreign particulate matter to be one of the most toxic air pollutants, as it can cause asthma, COPD, heart disease, and certain types of cancer.
consequences that result from it to make permitting for industry easier. We shouldn't ignore the broader political landscape in which we are considering this bill, either.
the benefits of protecting public health when developing new rules for fine particulate matter and ozone pollution. Instead, the EPA will only consider the compliance costs for industry.
protect public health and the environment. The American people are asking us to lower healthcare costs, and our responsibility should be to them, not to the industry.
{time} 1500
corporate polluter friends who are asking for regulatory rollbacks to save a few dollars. The DEFENSE Act is a gift to industry that would come at the expense of the American people.
For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote “no” on the DEFENSE Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out that no one wants polluted air and polluted water. We have made tremendous advances in pollution control. As a matter of fact, I worked for two international engineering companies, one of which was in environmental systems. We built the pollution control equipment that has made our air demonstrably cleaner. We built flue gas scrubbers. We built electrostatic precipitators and baghouses.
field of engineering. Since 1980, we have reduced pollution from the six criteria gases monitored by the EPA by 78 percent. That is despite the fact that the economy has grown over 240 percent. That is $2.9 trillion to an economy of $30.6 trillion adjusted for inflation.
over 50 percent, yet we have seen remarkable improvements in air quality.
the Clean Air Act is to not only continue to keep our air clean and our water clean, but to improve economic opportunity to people, particularly people who are disadvantaged such as I was growing up.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues, Democratic and Republican, to support this commonsense legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Issa). All time for debate has expired.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. MIN. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Min of CA moves to recommit the bill H.R. 6409 to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Min is as follows:
Mr. Min moves to recommit the bill H.R. 6409 to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith, with the following
amendment:
Add at the end the following:
SEC. 3. LIMITATION.
This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall not
take effect until the date on which the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, in consultation with the
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, publishes a
certification that implementation of this Act, and the
amendments
made by this Act, will not increase, including for vulnerable
populations such as seniors, children, and minority and low-
income communities, any of the following:
(1) Asthma attacks.
(2) Hospitalization and emergency room visits for those
with respiratory disease or cardiovascular disease.
(3) The risk of preterm birth, babies born with low birth
weight, or impaired fetal growth.
(4) The risk of heart attacks, stroke, or premature death.
(5) Reproductive, developmental, or other serious harms to
human health.
(6) The costs of healthcare treatment for respiratory
disease, cardiovascular disease, or any other serious disease
or condition.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. MIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question are postponed.