[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 15, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H2892-H2898]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6387, FIRE IMPROVEMENT AND
REFORMING EXCEPTIONAL EVENTS ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R.
6398, REDUCING AND ELIMINATING DUPLICATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS
ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6409, FOREIGN EMISSIONS AND
NONATTAINMENT CLARIFICATION FOR ECONOMIC STABILITY ACT; AND PROVIDING
FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 1156, EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR TAX POLICIES
THAT SUPPORT WORKING FAMILIES
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 1174 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1174
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House any bill specified in
section 2 of this resolution. All points of order against
consideration of each such bill are waived. Each such bill
shall be considered as read. All points of order against
provisions in each such bill are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on each such bill and
on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective
designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. The bills referred to in the first section of this
resolution are as follows:
(a) 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.
(b) The bill (H.R. 6398) to amend the Clean Air Act
relating to review by the Environmental Protection Agency of
proposed legislation.
(c) 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.
Sec. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order to consider
in the House the resolution (H. Res. 1156) expressing support
for tax policies that support working families. The
resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble
to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division
of the question except one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Ways and Means or their respective designees.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee reported
on a rule, House Resolution 1174, that provides for consideration of
four measures.
The rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 6387, H.R. 6398, and
H.R. 6409, each under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of
the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their designees, and provides
for each bill one motion to recommit.
The rule also provides for consideration of H. Res. 1156, expressing
support for tax policies that support working families, under a closed
rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair
and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or
their designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the
underlying legislation.
The rule before us provides an opportunity for Congress to rein in
regulatory overreach, to restore common sense for our environmental
policies, and to ensure that American communities are not punished for
circumstances beyond their control.
For far too long, States, workers, and job creators have been forced
to operate under a system that is overly rigid and increasingly
bureaucratic and disconnected from reality. Instead of working with
States, Federal regulators have imposed one-size-fits-all policies that
drive up costs, delay projects, and make it harder for communities to
grow and to prosper.
These measures begin to correct that course and put us on a more
practical and more predictable path forward.
Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 6409, the
FENCES Act. This legislation addresses a simple but important problem.
States are currently being penalized for emissions that they have
absolutely no control over. That includes pollution originating from
foreign countries like China, as well as natural events such as
wildfires beyond our borders. Yet under current policy, those emissions
can still count against a State's ability to meet Federal air quality
standards.
This is not how this should work, and we have seen the impact
firsthand. In my home State of New York, communities across western New
York and the southern tier have repeatedly experienced severe air
quality impacts from Canadian wildfires.
This has become a reoccurring issue year after year. Smoke from
wildfires in Ontario and Quebec have drifted south, triggering air
quality alerts across our State. Families have been told to stay
indoors. Schools, camps, and outdoor events have been disrupted and
canceled. What should be time spent outside during the summer has,
instead, meant staying inside because of conditions beyond anyone's
control locally.
{time} 1030
In parts of New York, we have seen some of the worst air quality
readings in the entire country on these days.
This does not affect just families. It affects local economies, as
well. Small businesses, outdoor workers, farmers, and manufacturers all
feel the impact when air quality restrictions tighten because of
pollution they did not create in the first place.
Yet, under the current framework, those same communities can still
face consequences--more regulation and more restrictions--for
conditions entirely outside of their control. It makes no sense.
The FENCES Act restores the original intent of the Clean Air Act by
making clear that foreign emissions, whether manmade or natural, should
not be used to penalize States when determining compliance.
It allows States to account for those emissions earlier in the
process instead of forcing them into costly delays, stricter
requirements, or potential Federal penalties at the very end because
the reality is simple, States like New York should not be punished for
smoke coming from wildfires in another country like Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 6387,
the FIRE Act. Across the country, communities are dealing with the
growing threat of wildfires. At the same time, States are taking
proactive steps to reduce the risk through prescribed burns, forest
management, and other mitigation efforts.
However, under current law, those efforts can count against them when
it comes to air quality compliance. Now think about that. States are
being penalized for trying to prevent catastrophic wildfires. This
isn't just backwards. It creates a system that punishes proactive
solutions and rewards inaction.
[[Page H2893]]
Part of the problem is how the current system treats those emissions.
While naturally occurring wildfires can sometimes be considered
exceptional events, the very tools used to prevent those wildfires,
like prescribed burns, are often treated the same as emissions from a
factory. That is a clear gap in the law, and it leads to confusion,
inconsistent decisions, and unnecessary delays for States trying to do
the right thing.
The result is a system that discourages mitigation even though we
know that proactive land management reduces the severity of wildfires
and improves long-term air quality. The consequences are real. When
States are discouraged from carrying out these efforts, the risk of
larger, more destructive wildfires only increases, leading to worse air
quality, greater damage, and higher costs for communities.
The FIRE Act fixes this by ensuring that emissions from wildfire
mitigation activities are treated appropriately under the Clean Air
Act. It brings consistency on how we treat emissions from wildfires and
from the efforts used to prevent them, and it provides States with the
clarity and predictability that we need to plan and to act.
It also reduces unnecessary regulatory burdens on manufacturers and
local communities while still maintaining strong environmental
protections for communities. This is about encouraging smart land
management, reducing long-term risk, and recognizing that proactive
solutions should not be met with Federal penalties.
Mr. Speaker, the rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 6398,
the RED Tape Act. This measure takes aim at a specific and unnecessary
layer of Federal bureaucracy that continues to slow down projects
across the country.
Right now, when a Federal agency completes an environmental impact
statement, the Environmental Protection Agency is required to conduct a
separate review and publicly comment on that work, even in cases where
the EPA has already been involved in developing it.
That second review often covers the exact same ground. It adds time.
It adds cost. It adds uncertainty, without meaningfully improving any
outcomes.
We do not have to look far to see how duplication and delay affect
real projects. In upstate New York, Micron announced a historic
investment to bring advanced semiconductor manufacturing back to the
United States, an investment expected to support thousands and
thousands of good-paying jobs and strengthen our domestic supply chain.
This is exactly the kind of project we should be encouraging and
putting a rocket booster on, but like many large-scale projects, it has
to navigate a complex and very time-consuming environmental review
process across multiple levels of government. That is the broader
issue. It is not about identifying new risks. It is about how layers of
review can stack on top of one another, adding delay and uncertainty,
even when high standards are already being met.
The consequences are real. When projects like this one are delayed,
jobs are delayed, investment is delayed, and our ability to compete
globally, especially in critical industries like semiconductors, is put
at risk at a time when we are trying to onshore these critical
industries and strengthen our domestic supply chain. This is exactly
what is wrong with this approach.
The reality is that the agencies responsible for these projects
already have the expertise and the legal responsibility to conduct
thorough environmental reviews. They prepare detailed environmental
impact statements. They consult with experts and are accountable for
the decisions that they make. The EPA is often already involved in that
process as it develops.
What this bill addresses is the additional, duplicative step that
comes after the work has already been completed. Nothing in this
legislation prevents coordination or input during the review itself. It
simply removes a redundant requirement that adds delay without adding
value.
Recent Supreme Court precedent has reinforced this approach,
recognizing that the agencies responsible for a project are best
positioned to evaluate its environmental impacts that the scope of
review should remain focused and practical.
The RED Tape Act reflects that reality. It removes the duplicative
requirement. It streamlines the process, and it ensures that projects
that meet the standard can move forward without unnecessary delay
because right now too often projects are not being stopped, they are
just being slowed down by process.
Finally, the rule provides for consideration of H. Res. 1156. Mr.
Speaker, today is tax day, and families across the country are sitting
down to file their returns and take a closer look at what they owe and
what they keep. It is a significant day because it is a direct reminder
of how the decisions that we make here in Washington show up in
people's lives.
Last year, House Republicans passed and the President signed into law
H.R. 1, the Working Families Tax Cut Act, one of the largest tax cuts
for working and middle-class Americans in history. The law prevented a
$2.6 trillion tax increase on families making less than $400,000 a
year, and it continues to deliver real savings to millions of
Americans.
Today, as families file their taxes, they are seeing the impact of
these policies firsthand. For a family of four earning under $73,000,
it can mean no Federal income tax at all, and the relief is targeted
where it matters the most: no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, tax
relief for our senior citizens in their golden years. These are changes
that show up directly in what families owe, what they keep, and how
they plan for the year ahead.
Mr. Speaker, this is just the beginning. In 2026 alone, this law is
expected to deliver $191 billion in additional tax relief, putting more
money back in the pockets of American families, including roughly
$1,000 more in refunds. Taxpayers are projected to take home an
additional $91 billion in refunds and keep another $30 billion in their
paychecks through reduced withholdings.
The benefits don't stop there. This law locks in lower tax rates;
strengthens the standard deduction; expands the child tax credit to
$2,200, and indexes it to inflation; and provides continued relief
through policy like no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, and expanded
support for childcare, paid leave, and savings. These policies are
helping families keep more of what they earn, plan for their future,
and build greater financial stability.
This resolution recognizes the impact of H.R. 1 and reaffirms our
commitment to making sure working families come first. I urge my
colleagues to support this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, at the end of March, last month, Speaker
Johnson gaveled out this Chamber and sent Members of Congress home for
a 2-week recess. He did so despite the fact that the Department of
Homeland Security has been shut down for 60 days and counting, despite
the fact that President Trump had made a reckless and unlawful
declaration of war without congressional authorization, despite soaring
gas prices and the ongoing cost-of-living crisis stretching from New
York, the home of my distinguished colleague, to Colorado, despite the
heat, the drought, and the wildfire records being shattered in the
Western United States. Despite all of that, Speaker Johnson made the
decision to gavel the House out of session and send everybody home.
{time} 1040
Now, we are back. The 2-week recess has concluded. What has the
Republican majority decided is the most pressing challenge and issue
for this august body to debate?
I will tell you, Mr. Speaker. Apparently, it is a resolution
commemorating a bill that Republicans passed last year. That is what we
are here to debate.
Republicans control the floor. They could put a bill on the floor to
address cost-of-living issues. They could put a bill on the floor to
address soaring gas prices. They could put a bill on the floor to
address rising healthcare costs. Instead, we are here to debate a
commemorative resolution. It is absurd.
I have, over the course of the 7 years that I have had the privilege
of serving in the United States House, never seen something quite like
this. It doesn't
[[Page H2894]]
really take a resolution, Mr. Speaker, for them to extol what they
believe to be the benefits of the bill that they passed last year, the
tax bill, which we will talk about today.
My point, Mr. Speaker, is that this resolution is wholly unnecessary.
There are better ways to spend our time.
I heard the gentleman from New York's long description of the many
reasons why that particular resolution that I referenced merits this
body's passage. What I found interesting is that over the last 12
months that I have come down here to the House floor, I have heard
Republicans use the same refrain in describing this bill: the One Big
Beautiful Bill Act. It is in the law.
For a year, I have heard nothing but tweets, Truth Social posts, and
floor speeches extolling the virtues of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
What is fascinating is that I didn't hear those four words this
morning. I suspect I am not going to hear them the rest of today
because Republicans spent some time and have come up with a new name--a
new name, a rebrand.
This bill that President Trump signed into law, which gave tax cuts
to the richest Americans among us, is so unpopular that Republicans
decided that they had to change the name.
I hate to break it to you, but I don't think the rebrand, Mr.
Speaker, is going to work. I don't think the name is what the American
people were frustrated by. What they are frustrated by is a bill that
kicked off 15 million Americans from their healthcare, a bill that
amounted to the largest cut in SNAP in the history of our country, a
bill that added $5 trillion over the next decade to the Federal debt.
That is what they are frustrated about.
They can call this bill, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act--what is the
name now? Maybe the gentleman from New York will indulge me. The
working families tax cut, that is what they are calling it now. I
suspect, in a few months, they will change the name again because it is
not going to change the unpopularity of their policies.
I know this isn't the only resolution that we are debating today, as
the gentleman from New York mentioned at great length. We are going to
consider three bills from the House Committee on Energy and Commerce,
which seek to amend the Clean Air Act in an effort to scale back
regulations that protect air quality from pollutants and polluting
industries.
There is no debate that these policies could have wide-ranging
implications that would allow large swathes of the United States to be
exempt from various rules under the Clean Air Act.
I don't, to be candid, Mr. Speaker, really follow the argument that
my friend from New York is making. As I understand it, what he is
saying is that there are wide swathes of the country, including in his
home State--by the way, this applies to my home State as well--where
you have pollution that exceeds the standards that have been set by
regulators at the national level. That pollution is causing asthma and
respiratory diseases in children.
The solution that they propose is to allow communities that are
experiencing this kind of pollution to essentially exempt foreign
sources of pollution from those standards so that they don't have to do
anything about it.
That is their solution. The air quality is not going to get any
better. There will be no prophylactic steps taken by those communities.
It is just a way for those communities to no longer have to do anything
about pollution. It is absurd, and the American people know it.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply say--and I imagine we will have a robust
debate about the three bills and the resolution that I referenced.
Fundamentally, I suppose if I were to conclude with one overriding
sentiment, it is that I am simply asking my Republican colleagues to
get serious.
There are a lot of challenges facing the country. It is a difficult
time for the families that I represent in northern Colorado and in
western Colorado. Times are tough. This House, I believe, could rise to
the occasion and actually work together to get some things done for the
American people, for the constituents that we all serve. This is not
that.
Spare us the commemorative resolutions honoring bills that you all
have passed. Let's just skip those, and let's get back to doing the
business that the American people expect us to do.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' on this rule, and I will reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Once again, the
Democrats are trying to distract from the facts by recycling the same
class warfare talking points, even as Americans across the country are
sitting down this week to file their taxes and see the reality for
themselves. Families are running the numbers. They are looking at what
they owe and what they keep. Filing is simpler. For working people,
that matters.
Republicans passed this bill without a single Democratic vote. It was
signed into law by President Trump, and 91 percent of tax filers now
have a simpler tax code. Families pay no Federal income tax on the
first $31,000 that they earn. The standard deduction is locked and
loaded and expanded, which means less paperwork, less time spent
dealing with the IRS, and more money staying in families' budgets.
According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the biggest
beneficiaries of this relief are workers and families making less than
$50,000 a year. That is why the rhetoric we keep hearing from Democrats
doesn't line up with reality, especially for Americans sitting at their
kitchen table filing their taxes right now.
This is relief for the server pulling a double, the factory worker on
the line trying to work a few extra hours of overtime, the barber
running a small shop, and families trying to get ahead.
Unfortunately, while Republicans fought to ensure that hardworking
Americans keep more of their paychecks, because it is their money and
not Uncle Sam's, Democrats under President Biden chose a different
path. They flooded the post-COVID economy with trillions of dollars in
new spending. They overheated the economy and drove inflation to 40-
year highs. Working families were left to carry that burden that they
still have a hangover on today.
{time} 1050
Rather than empowering the American people, Democrats prioritized
massive giveaways to political allies through Green New Deal-style
programs that layer costly, ineffective regulations. Those policies
were not paid for in Washington. They were paid for by families at the
gas pump and the grocery store.
Mr. Speaker, President Trump and House Republicans have consistently
worked to unleash the full potential of the American economy so that
every American who works for a living can benefit.
In stark contrast, Democrats in the last administration chose runaway
spending, regulatory access, and leaving everyday Americans to pay the
price through skyrocketing costs for basic necessities. Their policies
hurt working families. Republican policies have helped working
families, and that brings us back to the rule before us today.
This legislation before us makes sure that States are not punished
for what they cannot control, supports efforts to prevent disasters
before they happen, not after, cuts through red tape that delay jobs
and investment, and reinforces policies that help working families keep
more of what they earn.
That is what is before the House today. We are hearing concerns that
this bill somehow weakens air quality protections or harms public
health, but that misses what this legislation actually does. At its
core, it is about fairness.
Right now, States can be penalized for emissions that they have
absolutely no control over. No one in Buffalo, New York, or western New
York, or the southern tier has any impact on Canadian policy on how
they manage their forests or why their forests catch on fire every
summer. Whether it is pollution coming from those foreign countries or
background conditions beyond our control, that is not a system that
makes sense.
When that happens, entire regions can fall out of compliance through
no fault of their own, making it harder to build new facilities,
modernize infrastructure, or bring jobs back to communities that need
them the most.
[[Page H2895]]
That has real consequences not just for economic growth but for the
well-being of the people that live there.
This bill fixes that problem. It ensures that States are judged based
on what they can actually control while keeping the same underlying
health-based air quality standards fully in place.
Let's be clear: Nothing in this legislation changes those standards.
The protections remain. What we are addressing is how those standards
are applied in the real world so that communities are not unfairly
punished and locked out of economic opportunity. That matters because
modernizing facilities here at home means cleaner technology, stronger
environmental oversight, and fewer emissions being outsourced overseas.
While there are efforts to frame this as a rollback, it is actually
about making the system workable, more predictable, and more grounded
in reality. That is what this bill does and that is why it is needed.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, a couple of points. First, again, we have heard ad
nauseam about the various ways, in the view of my colleagues, that the
bill that they passed last year has benefited the American public. I
disagree. My constituents disagree, but we are not debating that bill
today. We are debating--for those who might be watching this, I
encourage everybody to look it up--H. Res. 1156. It is a two-page
resolution. It is not particularly long. This resolution does nothing,
achieves nothing, and changes nothing. It is a commemorative resolution
honoring a law that they passed last year. It is a waste of time.
What are we doing? Seriously. This is how the Republican majority
chooses to spend its time?
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, what are we going to do next week? Are you
going to introduce a different commemorative resolution that honors
maybe this resolution that passes today? Maybe that is what we should
count on, I guess.
If this resolution passes today, Mr. Langworthy and I will debate
next week a second resolution that honors this resolution.
Give me a break. There are better ways for the House of
Representatives to spend its time. These are serious issues.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico
(Ms. Stansbury).
Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I don't even know if I can dignify a
response to the things that I have heard here this morning. Perhaps we
will do another showerhead resolution or utilities or something like
that. But it is very clear that there is a war in the Middle East,
runaway inflation, out-of-control costs, a partial government shutdown,
and a madman in the White House. What are our colleagues across the
aisle calling us here today to do? They are calling us here to gut the
Clean Air Act. Mr. Speaker, this is why I rise in opposition today to
all three of these bills and in the strongest defense of the Clean Air
Act, which is the bipartisan legislation that has protected the health
of the American people and our planet for more than a half-century.
It was passed in 1970 with bipartisan support from both Republicans
and Democrats. It was born out of necessity when smog choked our cities
and our communities suffered from unchecked pollution. It has delivered
on a promise to the American people that no matter who you are or where
you live, you have a fundamental human right to breathe clean air.
There is nothing more basic than that right.
It is a promise that has delivered. It has saved millions of lives,
prevented countless illnesses, and improved air quality across the
country. As we know, it is under a threat not just in this Chamber but
by an administration that has rolled back standards, weakened
emissions, undermined the authority of the EPA, and gutted our climate
commitments.
Now, at a time, especially in the West when we are facing record
drought, record heat, and dangerously low snowpack, what are you all
doing with your time on the floor? You are trying to further gut the
fundamental program that protects our communities and our planet.
That is why I rise today to oppose these bills. This is not
permitting reform. This is gutting our right to breathe clean air. The
FENCES Act strips the EPA's authority, the FIRE Act manipulates how air
pollution is measured, and the RED Tape Act is perhaps the most
alarming of all as it would silence communities and allow Federal
projects to move forward without consideration to our public health and
to the planet.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say this: The consequences of these bills
are not abstract. They are measurable, and they will be measured in
lives, in the well-being of our people, and damages to our planet.
The Clean Air Act exists to protect the fundamental right of every
American, every human, to breathe clean air. That is why I oppose these
bills unequivocally. For the sake of our children, our communities, and
our future, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on these bills today.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Democrats want to lecture us on the environment, but
let's take a look at their record.
For 4 years in the last administration, they pushed policies that
were more about ideology than results. They drove up costs. They added
layers of bureaucracy. They made it harder for States and communities
to actually manage real environmental challenges.
They created a system that punishes States for factors outside of
their control. It discourages proactive solutions and slows down
projects with duplicative and unnecessary reviews. That is not
environmental leadership. It is regulatory overreach.
Now, under President Trump's leadership, we are taking a more
practical approach. We are focusing on policies that actually work by
supporting States, encouraging prevention, and cutting through red tape
that has held back progress for years. The difference is very clear.
Democrats defend a system that is more complicated, more expensive,
and less effective. Republicans are focused on making environmental
policy more predictable, more efficient, and more grounded in reality.
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what the legislation in this rule does.
It makes clear that States shouldn't be penalized for emissions they
can't control, including pollution from foreign countries and wildfire
smoke drifting across our borders. It supports proactive wildfire
mitigation instead of punishing States for taking steps to prevent
catastrophic fires. It removes duplicative Federal review processes
that slow down projects without improving environmental outcomes.
It is not partisan. It is common sense. We have heard a lot from the
other side that the EPA already has the tools to deal with wildfire
emissions and that this bill is unnecessary. If that were true, we
would not be here today.
The reality is, the current system doesn't work. It is broken, and
while EPA can exclude certain emissions as exceptional events, the
process is complicated, time consuming, and, in many cases, unworkable
for States.
Mr. Speaker, here is the real problem. Under the current law,
emissions from wildfire can only qualify as exceptional events, but
emissions from prescribed burns used to prevent those wildfires do not.
{time} 1100
Think about that. States are effectively penalized for taking
proactive steps to reduce wildfire risk. That is just totally backward.
As a result, many States don't even attempt to use the existing
process because it is too burdensome, too uncertain, and too resource
intensive. In fact, for years, States and local agencies were unable to
successfully use this process for prescribed burns.
Mr. Speaker, this isn't about creating a loophole. It is about fixing
a system that is clearly not working. The FIRE Act removes this
barrier. It gives States the certainty that they need to carry out
responsible wildfire mitigation without risking noncompliance with
Federal air quality standards.
That matters because prescribed burns are not the problem. They are
[[Page H2896]]
part of the solution. They reduce the intensity of wildfires. They
lower long-term emissions, and they help prevent the devastating
economic and environmental damage that we see from large-scale fires
like we saw in California.
States should not have to choose between meeting air quality
standards and preventing wildfires. This bill makes sure that they
don't have to.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, just to be clear, I co-chair the Bipartisan Wildfire
Caucus. I have worked with my Republican colleagues on a number of
wildfire resiliency and forest management bills, proposals, and
securing funding. I will not be lectured by my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle as they work to defund the Forest Service, literally,
about wildfire resiliency and prescribed burns.
There is no question that, at least with respect to the FIRE Act--I
understand we are debating multiple bills with respect to the Clean Air
Act, but in terms of the FIRE Act, Mr. Evans' bill, it does nothing. I
mean, existing processes within the EPA provide for precisely the type
of relief that he is seeking in this bill.
The bill is, again, completely unnecessary. It is also not going
anywhere. We, of course, know that to be the case. In any event, I
digress.
Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the distinguished ranking member of
the Appropriations Committee and thank her for her leadership, I might
just say, Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague from New York wax very
poetically about the importance of the big or not the Big Beautiful
Bill Act--whatever they are calling it now--the working families bill
or something like that that they have come up with.
There are 218 Republicans in the House of Representatives, give or
take. I presume, given the importance of this commemorative resolution,
that there perhaps might be some colleagues who are going to join my
colleague from New York to talk on this bill?
Mr. Speaker, might I ask you to pose that question to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Langworthy)? Does he anticipate any colleagues
coming to the floor or just him?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bean of Florida). The inquiry of which
you describe, it is not a proper parliamentary inquiry, but the
gentleman from New York will be able to respond during his time.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I hope he does. I suspect the answer is
``no.'' I suspect that Mr. Langworthy is here alone and that he will be
the only Republican who has been tasked with arguing in favor of this
really important commemorative resolution that we are all so eager to
vote on.
Mr. Speaker, in any event, if we defeat the previous question, I will
offer an amendment to the rule to adopt the Senate amendment to H.R.
7417, the bipartisan compromise bill that the Senate unanimously passed
twice now--twice--to fund the law-abiding agencies within DHS.
Mr. Speaker, this is the deal. You know it. I know it. At the end of
the day, the compromise legislation that the Senate passed twice was
deprived of a vote on this floor by Republicans. Not a single Senator
objected to this bill, twice.
The Republican Senate majority leadership authored the motion, but
House Republican leadership refuses to take it up. As a result, it is
perpetuating the shutdown of DHS by not putting that deal on the floor.
Members who want to end the shutdown ought to join us in defeating
the previous question to put this bipartisan compromise on the floor
today.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment into the Record along with any extraneous material
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of West Virginia). Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the Appropriations
Committee. We are grateful to her for her leadership.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.
Madam Speaker, it has been more than 20 days since the United States
Senate reached a unanimous agreement to all but end the shutdown of the
Department of Homeland Security. Yet, Republican House leadership
refuses to bring the measure up for a vote on the House floor. It would
pass overwhelmingly here, without question. Without question.
The White House has only recently decided to start paying workers
throughout TSA, FEMA, Coast Guard, and our cybersecurity agencies after
refusing to do so for weeks. They claim they have the authority to do
this.
Madam Speaker, if the administration believes that they have the
authority to use this money, then every paycheck that a TSA worker was
forced to miss was because the White House made an active choice not to
pay them.
Imagine. Imagine the turmoil in people's lives due to no paycheck at
the end of the week or at the end of 2 weeks. How do you pay your rent?
How do you buy groceries? We know the stories of people being evicted,
sleeping in their cars, and donating their plasma for money. This is
reality.
The White House had the authority to pay them so that they didn't
have to go through this. A number of people left their jobs because
they were not getting paid. It really defies imagination that people's
lives and economic security was being held up for purely political
reasons.
Madam Speaker, I will just add that this money will probably run out
at some point, and our job and the job of the Appropriations Committee
is to make sure that these agencies are funded through the end of the
year. That can be done because there is no disagreement on both sides
of the aisle on funding Coast Guard, TSA, FEMA, cybersecurity, and the
Secret Service.
The issue is what we do in our cities and our towns nationwide with
the terror that ICE--and there will be a lengthy debate on dealing with
this. That is going to be a lengthy debate about the reforms and the
overhaul, as it should be. In the meantime, everyone should continue to
be paid. Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, they made an
agreement.
The public wants to know why you can't get together. I will generally
say that we can't get unanimous consent on whether or not the sky is
blue in this institution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, we had unanimous consent not once but
twice. I think I read that the Speaker of the House had agreed that
this is what they would do, but that was turned around. That was
upended.
We know, and I have said a moment ago, that rank and file would
support it, as well, if we were allowed to receive a vote. The only
people who do not want to reopen this government and this Department
are House Republican leadership, who continue to block the bill.
The madness must end, and if we defeat the previous question, I will
offer an amendment to the rule to bring up the Senate bill that passed
unanimously so that we can end the shutdown. Let's get back to work for
the American people, and I encourage my Republican colleagues to join
us in this effort.
{time} 1110
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I heard the words ``purely political gain,'' and I
completely respect the work that the Committee on Appropriations has
done this year. Chairman Cole and Ranking Member DeLauro did a
beautiful job navigating a process that has led us for fiscal year 2026
to get all but one of our appropriations bills passed with bipartisan
support.
They had a bipartisan agreement on how to fund the Department of
Homeland Security, but it wasn't until the Democrats on the other side
of the aisle figured that they had to answer to their political base
that they decided to throw the biggest political temper tantrum in the
history of the
[[Page H2897]]
country. Here we sit with a Department still shut down, and they still
won't agree to fund the entire Department. In fact, nearly every one of
the Members, all but a few courageous Democrats, have voted against
funding the Department of Homeland Security in its entirety time and
time again right here in the House of Representatives. It is a matter
of public record.
Let's be honest about who is responsible for the shutdown.
Republicans have put forward serious, good-faith efforts to fund the
Department of Homeland Security and keep these critical operations
running. It is Democrats that chose to walk away time and again, over
and over. It is Democrats who chose to play politics with funding for
agencies that protect the American people every single day. They did
that knowing full well what is at stake: funding for FEMA and disaster
response, our Coast Guard operations, and other core Homeland Security
functions.
That was all put at risk because Democrats refused to engage. They
made the decision to do that. They were willfully aware that certain
parts of the Department, like ICE, were already funded through the end
of the year. This wasn't about policy. It was all about political
theatrics, and it is all that we have had for the last 40, 50 days.
The consequences are real. Since Democrats shut down DHS, we saw
violent attacks at Old Dominion University, the Temple Israel synagogue
in Michigan, and in Austin, Texas, and we saw a massive cyberattack on
the Stryker Corporation. This is no time to be playing politics with
the safety of our homeland. Instead of stepping up, Democrats chose to
step back, and now they come to the floor trying to shift the blame,
hoping the American people will forget who actually walked away from
funding the very agencies responsible for protecting them.
The facts are clear: Republicans are working to fund the government
and keep Americans safe. Democrats chose to shut it down.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, a lot of political rhetoric again. I think the
American people know the facts. They know that the Senate passed a bill
twice on a unanimous basis to fund DHS. It is not complicated. The
United States Senate passed the bill. Not a single Senator objected.
The United States Senate passed the bill again. Not a single Senator
objected. Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, the most conservative Senators in the
United States Senate, approved of this bill. They sent it here. It is
sitting at the Clerk's desk. If we voted on it today, my guess is 90
percent of the House of Representatives would vote for it. The only
reason we are not is because the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson,
has decided we are not going to vote on it. That is it.
The rest of it, they can try to confuse the American public and
describe to them the play-by-play of the last 65 days. Again, it is not
complicated. There is a bill sitting at the Clerk's desk to fund DHS
that every Republican Senator, every Democratic Senator, and 90 percent
of this body support. The only reason we are not voting on it is
politics because Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has
decided that he won't allow it. That is it.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am prepared to close, but I will say that I am doing this very
begrudgingly because I was hoping that we might be able to have some
colloquies with my colleague from New York with his colleagues on H.
Res. 1156. I know how important this commemorative resolution is to the
Republican Conference, and I would be loath to deprive my colleague
from New York with the opportunity to have a fulsome debate on it.
Is there no Republican in the House of Representatives who is willing
to come down to the floor to extol the virtues of the big, beautiful
bill--or the working families bill that they have renamed? None, Madam
Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. I think that was the original name on the
bill.
Mr. NEGUSE. Was that--
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Speaker, I wish to clarify something that the
Speaker said. That is not the name of the bill. Just to be clear, I
encourage anybody who is watching to go online and pull up the bill. It
is, I think, about 350 pages. The one phrase that you will not find in
the entirety of the bill is ``Working Families Tax Cuts,'' Madam
Speaker. It is nowhere.
I checked. I checked yesterday during the Committee on Rules. I
checked again before I came to the floor just to be sure, so I don't
know where you came up with that name, Madam Speaker. I am not even
really sure who has come up with it in the Republican Conference.
Somebody, a marketing guru in the Republican Conference I think
convinced the Speaker, and I suppose said to him: ``Look, this bill is
deeply unpopular. President Trump is deeply unpopular, more unpopular
than any President in the modern history of our country. We have got to
do something different, and I have got an idea. We will just come up
with a new name for the bill; a new name, resolution honoring that new
name that will convince them. I am sure that will get the American
public on our side.'' Fascinating.
Madam Speaker, week after week, my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle have opted to take up a variety of legislation. The one
common thread is that it fails to meet the moment.
Americans sent us here to work on the issues that they care most
about, that have the most impact on their everyday lives: the rising
affordability crisis, expanding access to affordable healthcare,
protecting our environment and public resources; not to gut air
pollution standards and pass commemorative resolutions patting
themselves on the back. That is not how Congress should be spending its
precious time.
The bills before us do nothing to improve the lives of working
families in our country. It is why I would encourage my colleagues to
oppose the previous question, the rule, and the underlying bills.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
For years, Democrats have told the American people not to believe
what they can see with their own eyes. They have defended a system that
penalizes States for emissions they don't control, discourages wildfire
prevention, and buries job-creating projects under layers of
unnecessary bureaucracy.
The legislation under this rule today takes real steps towards fixing
those failures--restoring fairness to our air quality standards,
supporting proactive wildfire mitigation, cutting red tape that delays
jobs and investment, and reaffirming tax relief for working families
through H.R. 1.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the rule before us today.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Neguse is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 1175 Offered by Mr. Neguse of Colorado
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R.
7147) making further consolidated appropriations for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, and for other
purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and consider in
the House, without intervention of any point of order, a
motion that the House recede from its amendment and concur in
the Senate amendment. The Senate amendment and the motion
shall be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable
for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or
their respective designees. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without
intervening motion.
Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX and clause 8 of rule XX
shall not apply to the consideration of the motion.
Sec. 5. The Speaker is directed to sign the enrolled bill
no later than one calendar day after adoption, and the Clerk
is directed to present the bill to the President immediately
upon signature by the Senate President.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and
I move the previous question on the resolution.
[[Page H2898]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Onder). The question is on ordering the
previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. NEGUSE. 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.
____________________