[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 15, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H2902-H2909]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FOREIGN 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.
[[Page H2903]]
``(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.
For far too long, burdensome regulations have stood in the way,
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.
The legislation considered today makes targeted and effective reforms
that will support American job creators while continuing to protect our
environment and the air we breathe.
The legislation produced by my colleague Congressman August Pfluger
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.
Currently, the Clean Air Act allows States to adjust their plans when
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.
This bill clarifies that all foreign emissions, whether natural or
man-made, are excluded from consideration when determining whether a
State meets national air quality standards.
Importantly, the bill allows States to account for foreign emissions
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.
Access to quality and affordable healthcare is an issue at the top of
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.
The Republican big, ugly bill cut more than a trillion dollars from
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.
There was a media report just yesterday that said 15 hospitals in my
State of New Jersey have the potential to close because of the
Republican big, ugly bill and the impact on hospitals.
Now, there are reports that Republicans intend to make further cuts
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.
Republican attacks on Americans' healthcare continue this week here
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.
These bills are an attack on the public health protections that are a
cornerstone of the Clean Air Act. They will ultimately make Americans
sicker and increase healthcare costs even more.
The health harms of air pollution are well-documented, being felt by
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.
Whether it is from reducing transparency, to artificially reducing
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.
The bill that we are talking about now, the FENCES Act, would
undercut the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, or NAAQS, which
tells us the amount of air pollution that is safe to breathe.
{time} 1420
The bill would have us ignore bad air quality in areas that
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.
If signed into law, this bill would require EPA to cook the books on
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.
Republicans also claim that the FENCES Act is part of their
permitting reform effort, but this bill would not speed up any
permitting. In fact, it
[[Page H2904]]
would cause complete permitting gridlock in areas with pollution that
exceeds an air quality standard. This is not permitting reform.
House Republicans are trying to use accounting gimmicks to make areas
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.
As a matter of fact, just this year, the State of New Jersey is going
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. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Pfluger), the sponsor of the bill.
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.
States and communities are being pushed into nonattainment because of
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.
Smoke from Canadian wildfires, emissions drifting across our southern
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.
It was said that this bill favors the dirty production in
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.
When the Supreme Court decided on the Loper Bright case, that is the
Chevron deference case, this is the decision they had in mind because
the Biden administration overreached so often and so critically.
This bill is a targeted, commonsense measure that does not change air
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.
American workers and businesses should not face regulatory penalties
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.
That acid rain was caused by polluting power plants in the Midwest,
and that pollution didn't stop in upstate New York. It also harmed
people and the environment in eastern Canada. 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.
In that case, American industries were the polluters, but it
demonstrates how international cooperation in pursuit of our common
environmental goals is, indeed, possible.
States and counties burdened by foreign pollution sources should be
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.
Of course, it should be a national imperative that we collectively
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.
I understand that States and counties may be frustrated by pollution
sources from outside their jurisdiction, but the lungs of the people
living and working in those areas don't care from whence that pollution
originated. It affects their health all the same.
I don't think the answer can be to simply ignore the problem of
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.
Thankfully, that is already how the Clean Air Act works, making this
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.
[[Page H2905]]
{time} 1430
Instead, this bill allows States to completely ignore international
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.
The bill blocks EPA's ability to impose sanctions on States that fail
to make progress toward reducing air pollution, including States that
are not even trying to improve air quality.
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.
In California, our communities are already working hard to meet some
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.
The FENCES Act clarifies that emissions coming from other countries,
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.
Right now, businesses across Central Valley and across our State face
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.
In some cases, these challenges actually push investment overseas to
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.
The FENCES Act helps to provide a level playing field by providing
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.
Then, Trump and congressional Republicans made things much worse when
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.
Then, they refused to give 24 million Americans a break on buying
healthcare, and now this. This week, congressional Republicans are
bringing three bills to the floor that will make it harder for people
to breathe.
One of those bills, the so-called FENCES Act, directs the EPA to use
accounting gimmicks that will allow industries to pollute our air
without consequences. It is an air pollution bill.
This bill will make Americans sicker while Trump and congressional
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.
These three bills are an essential part of the committee's broader
efforts on permitting reform and aligned with the White House
permitting priorities, which include modernizing the Clean Air Act.
A lot has changed since 1990, the last time that 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.
A lot has changed since 1990, the last time the Clean Air Act got a
substantial overhaul, and some parts of the law have become outdated,
contributing also to more gridlock.
These bills are foundational to our permitting reform efforts because
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.
The Energy and Commerce Committee has held multiple hearings this
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.
What is worse, these burdensome requirements fail to address the most
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.
Notably, over 70 percent of projects require Clean Air Act permits,
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.
The FENCES Act introduced by Congressman Pfluger ensures that States
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.
The FENCES Act protects manufacturers and communities from
unnecessary compliance burdens caused by events beyond their control,
such as pollution from China, foreign wildfires,
[[Page H2906]]
or dust storms, while upholding environmental standards under the Clean
Air Act.
The RED Tape Act, introduced by Congressman Joyce, eliminates a
duplicative environmental review for projects already subject to NEPA
environmental review. The duplicative process leads to additional
delays and costs in the NEPA process.
The FIRE Act, introduced by Congressman Gabe Evans and co-led by
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.
Prescribed burns are the most effective tool to decrease the severity
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.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about protecting
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.
We have communities that have some of the highest concentrations of
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.
Before I came to Congress, I served as the chief legal officer for
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.
The Federal Government has to hold these folks accountable when they
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.
This body lets pollution run rampant as our communities see poison in
the wind that blows and wonder ``Where did all the blue skies go?''
We should be standing up to make sure that every single person in our
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. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Ciscomani).
Mr. CISCOMANI. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Palmer for yielding me time
to speak in support of H.R. 6409, the FENCES Act.
This commonsense legislation ensures that American communities and
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.
The FENCES Act restores the original intent of the Clean Air Act by
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.
For border communities like those that I represent in southern
Arizona, this is about fairness. Our districts should not face economic
penalties for pollution originating beyond our own borders.
The FENCES Act strengthens regulatory certainty, supports American
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.
I strongly believe that when we manufacture here in America, we do it
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.
[[Page H2907]]
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.
Before the Clean Air Act was passed in 1970, pollution choked
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.
That is the reality my Republican colleagues are now trying to drag
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.
We have seen this play out time and time again, and today, I cannot
help but wonder when are we going to learn our lesson.
In places like Cancer Alley, families wake up every day knowing the
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.
I will not sit silently while this body rolls back lifesaving
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.
Washington has ignored a simple fact that every Arizonan knows
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.
Wildfire smoke from California, Canada, and Mexico, dust storms
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.
That makes no sense because Arizona--and Maricopa County
specifically--is home to economic and technological development that
will better the lives of Arizonans and Americans nationwide.
{time} 1450
From semiconductor manufacturing to aerospace and national defense
facilities, Arizona is building the industries that keep America
competitive.
These employers depend on fair, predictable permitting, not rules
that punish us for pollution blowing in from another country.
Arizona's leaders have invested in real outreach and compliance tools
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.
The FENCES Act restores the original intent of the Clean Air Act by
making clear that all foreign emissions, natural or man-made, are
excluded when EPA conducts air quality reviews.
Democrats would continue to penalize States like Arizona for these
uncontrollable sources. Democrats want to continue to impose costly
delays, Federal sanctions, and unnecessary burdens on manufacturers,
communities, and States.
Earlier this year, President Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin
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.
Congress must act so that no future EPA can arbitrarily punish
Arizona or any State for emissions beyond our borders.
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.
For over 60 years, the Clean Air Act has stood as our Nation's
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.
Despite this achievement, we still have more than 100,000 people
prematurely dying in the United States every year because of air
pollution. That is simply unacceptable.
We should be building on the progress of the Clean Air Act, not
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.
I understand my colleagues across the aisle are debating right now,
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.
The bill before us today is yet another attack on the Clean Air Act
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.
This bill is completely unnecessary because, under current law,
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.
It is important to remember that air pollution doesn't vanish when we
don't see it. It moves across national borders and has deadly impacts
on Americans here at home.
As a reminder, not too long ago, in the 1960s and 1970s, Los Angeles,
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.
Because of landmark laws like the Clean Air Act and efforts by State
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.
[[Page H2908]]
For these reasons, at the appropriate time, I plan to offer a motion
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.
My amendment would ensure that this bill does not go into effect
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.
I think with Republicans' policies, it is very clear that we have the
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 may not think of my home State of Idaho as a border State when
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.
Oftentimes, that smoke, those pollutants, blow right over the border,
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.
It is not fair for States to be penalized for something that is out
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.
I hear from my Republican colleagues all the time that the Federal
Government should be more transparent, but the literal and figurative
smog that would be created by the FENCES Act will only make Americans
sicker.
The FENCES Act goes an extra step to waive sanctions and fees for
States, not just for international pollution but also pollution from
mobile sources, exceptional events, and even from a different district
within the same State.
In other words, the FENCES Act removes all incentives for States to
work toward NAAQS attainment. This is a bad deal for the American
people.
Every year, over 100,000 Americans die prematurely as a result of air
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.
We can't just ignore air pollution and the very real health
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.
Earlier this year, the EPA announced that it will no longer consider
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.
This decision is entirely antithetical to the EPA's core mission to
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
However, our Republican colleagues seem to only answer to their
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.
The technology has improved dramatically since I left my work in the
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.
Vehicles miles driven are up 113 percent, and the population is up
over 50 percent, yet we have seen remarkable improvements in air
quality.
What we are trying to do with this long overdue effort to modernize
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.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1174, the previous question is ordered
on the bill.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
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
[[Page H2909]]
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.
____________________