[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 15, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H2909-H2913]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REDUCING AND ELIMINATING DUPLICATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS ACT
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1174, I call up
the bill (H.R. 6398) to amend the Clean Air Act relating to review by
the Environmental Protection Agency of proposed legislation, 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. 6398
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 ``Reducing and Eliminating
Duplicative Environmental Regulations Act'' or the ``RED Tape
Act''.
SEC. 2. POLICY REVIEW.
Section 309 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7609) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``and comment in writing'' and inserting
``, and comment in writing,'';
(B) by striking ``Administrator,'' and inserting
``Administrator'';
(C) by striking ``(1)''; and
(D) by striking ``, (2) newly authorized Federal projects
for construction and any major Federal agency action (other
than a project for construction) to which section 102(2)(C)
of Public Law 91-190 applies, and (3) proposed regulations
published by any department or agency of the Federal
Government''; and
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``, action, or
regulation''.
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.
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. 6398.
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. 6398, the RED Tape Act,
which would address burdensome regulations in the Clean Air Act and
provide the permitting reform needed to support American innovation.
The legislation, which was introduced by my friend Congressman John
Joyce of Pennsylvania eliminates the duplicative requirement in the
Clean Air Act that requires the EPA to assess and provide feedback on
environmental impact statements other agencies prepare under NEPA.
The primary agency preparing an environmental impact statement
already possesses the expertise and resources necessary to evaluate the
impacts of a project on our environment, and the EPA is often already
involved in the NEPA review process as a cooperating agency. Requiring
them to provide a secondary review under section 309 is unnecessary,
duplicative, and inefficient, leading to more delays and higher costs
for American job creators.
This legislation is an important step to streamline permitting, and
it removes burdensome inefficiencies in the current NEPA process. This
bill is an essential component in the committee's permitting reform
efforts.
The Clean Air Act is long overdue for an update to eliminate outdated
provisions that are holding back American manufacturing.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting the
RED Tape Act, 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. 6398, the so-called RED
Tape Act. This bill deletes a section of the Clean Air Act that
requires the EPA to review major Federal projects under the National
Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. As a result, major Federal projects
and regulations will be exempt from any scrutiny of their impacts on
air quality and public health from EPA experts.
The bill would also make the permitting process less transparent by
removing the requirements that EPA comments be made available to the
public and, therefore, communities would be kept in the dark.
Ignoring the consequences of major actions won't make them go away,
but that is exactly what the RED Tape Act would do. For the communities
who live near these major projects, turning a blind eye to problems
won't protect their families from potentially toxic exposures.
Worse yet, the RED Tape Act is billed as permitting reform when in
reality it is a bill to let polluters run amok out of sight from the
public and without proper safety and commonsense guardrails.
Republican hypocrisy knows no bounds. They court the make America
healthy again community, but then they move a bill forward that will
take away the public's ability to simply know the potential toxic risks
of large Federal projects. They then tout the importance of permitting
reform but bring false permitting solutions to the floor instead of
real proposals to make cleaner and cheaper energy sources more readily
available to combat rising costs for Americans.
This hypocrisy is just one of the many problems we have to confront
as the House is set to vote on these blatant attempts to gut the Clean
Air Act, one of the most successful environmental and public health
laws ever enacted by Congress. House Republicans are working overtime
to further the Trump administration's efforts to silence the
scientific, medical, and public health experts at EPA from being able
to alert other agencies about how their projects might cause harm to
the health of our constituents and our neighbors. That is the type of
critical assessment that EPA's expertise alone could offer and would be
missing as a result of this bill.
Contrary to the rhetoric of my Republican colleagues, they haven't
offered any proof that these reviews were slowing or stopping projects.
In fact, the EPA reviews thousands of environmental impact statements
each year, with most other agencies taking their recommendations.
Unfortunately, by removing the EPA from the overall process, we are
losing out on the expertise of the scientists tasked with protecting
public health and the environment. However, to the Republican majority,
if you can turn a blind eye to the consequences, they will disappear.
Well, they don't disappear just because you turn a blind eye, Mr.
Speaker.
{time} 1510
That is not how toxic pollution works for countless communities in
your district and mine. They deserve to know how large Federal projects
might impact their water, air, and soil, and they deserve to have the
best and brightest EPA scientists analyze these projects and make
comments for the public to scrutinize and to hold the government
accountable. Any attempts to remove this simple level of government
accountability is an attempt to
[[Page H2910]]
silence basic civic participation and transparency, nothing more.
I don't have a problem with making government more efficient, but
this bill is simply removing the voice of an important agency whose
viewpoint Republicans happen to dislike. This ongoing attack on the
EPA, on science and transparency cannot stand, so I urge my colleagues
to stand with me in opposition to this misguided bill.
One of the most important things that we have in Congress and that I
try to achieve, and I think Democrats all try to achieve, is the right
to know. If people know what is going on, then they can voice their
opinion. They can go out and speak. They can protest. They can do what
they have to do to protect their communities.
However, by eliminating the right to know, we are making it
impossible for people to actually express their opinion, which is a
fundamental right, in my opinion, under our Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Dr. Joyce), the sponsor of
this bill.
Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Alabama for yielding. I rise today in support of my legislation, the
RED Tape Act.
The RED Tape Act removes an unnecessary and duplicative environmental
review that the EPA currently conducts under the Clean Air Act.
As it stands, the relevant department or agency prepares an
environmental impact statement as part of the permitting of a new
Federal project, a process in which the EPA is often already involved.
After completion of that review, EPA is then asked to go back and
provide additional comments on those same findings; hence, the
redundant and duplicative nature of the process.
This secondary review of an already-completed environmental impact
statement only serves to slow down the critical projects, especially
projects in the energy industry.
This bill is about getting projects permitted and getting projects
completed, projects that will help us compete with our adversaries in
industries like AI and advanced manufacturing.
This bill is not, as has been alleged, an attempt to undermine
environmental review. The environmental impact statement must still be
completed by the primary agency. This is a process that agencies
already have the necessary expertise and capacity to carry out
efficiently. In many cases, EPA will still have the opportunity to
comment during the initial process as a cooperating agency.
As the name implies, the RED Tape Act simply removes bureaucratic,
redundant red tape. Projects will still need to comply with all
applicable environmental laws. This is in no way giving a pass to
polluters. It is ensuring that economic growth is not stifled by overly
burdensome Federal regulations.
Understand what this legislation will do. This is a commonsense bill
that leaves basic environmental protections in place while eliminating
artificial barriers. I urge all of my colleagues to support its passage
on the floor later this week.
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. It is worth reiterating just how effective the Clean Air Act
has been at protecting our public health.
In the past 50-plus years, the Clean Air Act has proven time and time
again that environmental protections and economic growth can, indeed,
go hand in hand.
Between 1970 and 2022, major air pollutants dropped by 78 percent,
while the U.S. gross domestic product nearly quadrupled. However,
despite this progress, there is still much more work to do to ensure
that all Americans can breathe healthy air.
More than 156 million Americans are living in places with unhealthy
levels of ozone or particle pollution, and that air pollution is
associated with over 100,000 premature deaths in the United States each
and every year. I find it disheartening that the majority continues to
advance bills that would make the Clean Air Act less effective at
protecting people from dangerous pollution.
The RED Tape Act is the latest Republican effort to claim that the
rules are too burdensome on industry. This bill amends section 309 of
the Clean Air Act to eliminate the requirement for EPA to review and
provide written comments on major Federal construction projects and
actions in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
This could allow major Federal projects and actions to be approved
without proper consideration of their impacts on air quality and public
health.
The bill also removes the ability for the public to be informed of
potential public health concerns stemming from these projects.
I really do not think Americans are opposed to the Federal Government
considering the potential health, economic, and environmental impacts
of major decisions before they are made. Yet, this bill would limit
that consideration while making it harder for the public to understand
the consequences of major projects.
I know some Members will claim this review is duplicative of NEPA,
but many of these same Members are also pushing parallel efforts to gut
NEPA, claiming that NEPA isn't necessary because our underlying
environmental laws will sufficiently protect public health and the
environment.
You can have it both ways. You cannot end both parts of a supposedly
duplicative process unless the goal of this effort is to severely limit
environmental reviews of projects entirely. That is not about cutting
red tape. That is about ending decades-old public health protections so
that industry doesn't need to worry about how pollution mitigation
might cut into their profits.
The bottom line is that the EPA is our Nation's foremost expert at
assessing projects' impacts on air quality and is responsible for
protecting the air that we breathe and the water that we drink. I
cannot support efforts to undermine EPA's expertise and eliminate the
agency's efforts to carry out reasonable environmental reviews, and so
I encourage my colleagues to join me in opposing this legislation.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from
Alabama, for yielding the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6398, the RED Tape Act.
Under current law, as we have heard here today, the EPA is required to
review and comment on the environmental impacts of Federal projects
from other Federal agencies.
Perhaps this would make sense if the EPA wasn't already involved in
the initial environmental review and development of the environmental
impact statement for Federal projects. What we have here is another, as
we said, duplicative and inefficient government process that for
decades has delayed development, slowed economic growth, and only hurt
American families and businesses in making it more unaffordable for the
American people.
Furthermore, in the 30 years since Congress enacted section 309 of
the Clean Air Act, agencies have developed their own expertise in
preparing environmental impact statements. That is why the Supreme
Court ruled that EPA's separate review and comment on broader
environmental impacts of proposed Federal actions are no longer
appropriate.
I come from the construction industry. I understand how unpredictable
timelines and Federal red tape can increase costs and negatively impact
job creators. Let me be clear: The RED Tape Act in no way undercuts the
environmental review of Federal projects. In no way does it remove
EPA's expertise from the process.
It simply streamlines the Federal review process by eliminating
duplicative requirements. It seems that my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle are just fundamentally opposed to efficiency and a sense
of urgency.
This legislation is a commonsense solution that benefits job creators
and the communities we represent. It makes life more affordable for the
American people, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 6398.
[[Page H2911]]
{time} 1520
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Menefee).
Mr. MENEFEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the so-
called RED Tape Act.
This bill clearly harms our communities. Right now, when the Federal
Government approves a major construction project, like a highway or a
Federal facility, the EPA has the legal authority to review it and to
flag public health concerns. It can say that this project will harm air
quality in this community. It can put that on the record, and
regulators can act on it.
This bill eliminates that EPA review entirely. The one agency whose
job it is to protect human health and air quality gets cut out of the
process--no EPA air quality check, no independent public health voice
at the table, major Federal projects approved with zero input from the
people whose mission it is to protect the air we breathe.
That is not cutting red tape. That is cutting public health
protection.
This bill hits different for my district back in Houston. I remember
walking through a neighborhood in my district that for years had been
fighting a cancer cluster as a result of environmental contamination.
The woman who lived there told me: ``In that house, two grandparents
passed away. In that house, it was a child. In that house, it was a
mother.'' She said it matter-of-factly, the way people do when grief
becomes routine.
I later walked that same neighborhood with the EPA Administrator
under President Biden. I showed him what I had seen. EPA under that
leadership showed up. They did the work, and they provided a line of
protection for the community that they never had before.
The Trump administration and my Republican colleagues are now rolling
all of that back. They have already fired thousands of EPA employees,
roughly one in four people in the agency. They shut down the Office of
Environmental Justice. They took down the EPA's environmental justice
mapping tool that communities and local governments were beginning to
rely on. One in three EPA staffers who were there on Inauguration Day
will be gone by the time this is all over. That is not reform. That is
demolition.
Today, the air quality in Houston is unhealthy for sensitive groups.
The experts routinely tell us to reduce our time spent outside. It just
happened this morning. Houston already ranks among the worst cities in
the entire country for toxic air pollutants: ethylene oxide, benzene,
and fine particulate matter from petrochemical plants and heavy
traffic.
Black and Brown communities in Houston are more than twice as likely
as White residents to live in neighborhoods that fail on multiple
pollution metrics.
Those are the communities that this bill will hurt. Those are the
communities that need EPA review of major Federal projects, not less of
that, but more.
People across this country are dying and having horrible health
outcomes because of hyperconcentration of pollution in their
communities. This body's response is to present a bill that removes the
one Federal agency charged with protecting public health and the
environment from the room entirely.
Before I came to Congress, I stood up to the Trump administration in
court when they tried to roll back environmental protections, and I
plan to do the exact same thing in the Halls of Congress, as well. We
owe it to our communities to make sure they have access to clean air,
clean land, and clean water, regardless of where in this country they
live.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote
``no'' on this bill.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Idaho (Mr. Fulcher).
Mr. FULCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6398, the RED
Tape Act.
In my home State of Idaho, we have more than 34 million acres of
federally controlled land. I just want to put that in perspective for a
minute. My good friend on the other side of the aisle is from the great
State of New Jersey. You can put more than six New Jerseys just within
the Federal land mass in the State of Idaho. That is how big it is.
Why is that pertinent here? It is pertinent because, with that much
land mass, you have a seemingly endless flow of processes going on from
departments or agencies for approvals for one thing or another: energy
impact statements, the NEPA process. Everything ongoing all the time
takes years each time.
We had a recent situation with a wind farm project in my home State.
Regardless of what you think about wind farms, this was just an actual
occurrence. There was a long process of approval where an EIS, an
environmental impact statement, was required, and the EPA was a part of
that statement every step of the way, running in parallel as part of
that EIS. As soon as that was completed by mandate, the EPA had to go
back and publicly comment on the process it just went through itself.
That is just one example, Mr. Speaker, of the duplicative situation
that we have. This is really problematic when you have a lot of these
projects going on. In my home State, that is a prime example.
All the RED Tape Act does is eliminates that duplicative mandate.
There is still the process. We are still going through all the areas of
concern. It just eliminates the duplication of it.
Mr. Speaker, I would just add, as I close, that this is potentially
even more important now than ever before, to make this easier to deal
with, because our energy needs as a country are taking a hockey stick
in the demand curve. It is only going one way.
So much of the energy needs have to go through these processes. A lot
of it is coming right out of my home State. We see this as a real
problem. Again, I rise in support of H.R. 6398, and I encourage my
colleagues to do the same.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Rivas).
Ms. RIVAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Pallone for yielding
to me and for his continued leadership on the Energy and Commerce
Committee, especially on environmental justice.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose the Republicans' RED Tape Act because it guts
the Clean Air Act and strips the EPA's ability to inform the public of
potential health concerns that they will face because of Federal
projects.
The Clean Air Act makes sure that the EPA considers the health and
environmental impacts of communities before a project begins. It has
helped communities like mine in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles
breathe cleaner air.
My district has some of the highest asthma rates in the country
because of generations of poor land-use decisions. These decisions have
placed freeways, landfills, and warehouses next to homes, schools, and
parks.
I know that my community is not alone. Over 100 million Americans
live in counties with unhealthy levels of pollution. In particular,
children, the elderly, low-income communities, and communities of color
are disproportionately at risk for serious health conditions.
Air pollution is already associated with over 100,000 premature
deaths in our country every year. Trump and Republicans will make this
problem worse by ignoring the needs of environmental justice
communities across the country. Trump and Republicans are prioritizing
the profits of their billionaire and corporate interest friends over
the health of our communities.
The RED Tape Act allows polluters to contaminate the air that we
breathe without regard for the lives or livelihoods of communities that
would be impacted the most.
There is a reason that all Democrats on the Energy and Commerce
Committee voted against the RED Tape Act, and that is because it is a
harmful bill for everyone, except for Donald Trump and Republicans'
billionaire friends.
This bill will increase levels of air pollution and send more people
to the hospital at a time when Republicans have already gutted working
families' healthcare. This bill does not make life safer or more
affordable for working families in my district.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the RED Tape Act
and to stand up for environmental justice communities.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H2912]]
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Arizona (Mrs. Grijalva).
{time} 1530
Mrs. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Pallone for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the RED Tape Act is a blatant sacrifice of human health
for corporate profits. It will allow major Federal projects to move
forward without any consideration for impact on air quality or public
health. This is a clear attempt to hide the truth about the health
impacts of pollution.
I will make this crystal clear: Our constituents do not want to
increase the risks of their children developing asthma or cancer so
that billionaires can fast-track polluting projects. This notion is
obscene. As a parent, I can tell you, we will not stand for putting
polluters over our children's right to breathe in clean air. Not now,
not ever.
For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will 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. My amendment
would ensure that section 309 reviews still occur for major Federal
projects or actions that may increase public exposure to mercury, lead
compounds, asbestos, or any other hazardous air pollutants.
Air pollution is associated with over 100,000 premature deaths in the
United States each year. These are not just numbers. They are people
taken from families far too soon. There must be no sidestepping
protections for human health.
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, and I urge my colleagues to support the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Arizona?
There was no objection.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the RED Tape Act would exempt major Federal projects and
regulations from any scrutiny of their impacts on air quality and
public health from EPA experts.
The bill would also make the permitting process less transparent by
removing the requirement that EPA comments be made available to the
public.
Now, clean, safe air is a fundamental human right, in my opinion, Mr.
Speaker. The Clean Air Act exists to protect that right. Air pollution
is associated with over 100,000 premature deaths in the United States
every year, and particulate matter is among the most dangerous forms of
air pollution. Air pollution presents serious health risks to our
communities every day.
Over 100 million Americans live in counties with unhealthy levels of
air pollution with children, the elderly, low-income communities, and
communities of color being disproportionately at risk.
You won't hear my colleagues focus on the transparency part of the
RED Tape Act, but I will talk about that a little bit today as we
conclude.
Under the Clean Air Act, EPA's analysis and comments on major Federal
projects and potential impacts must be made public. This transparency
is a key feature to hold the government accountable and is the reason
why most agencies take EPA's suggestions.
If a major Federal project could expose the public to asbestos, lead,
or PFAS under this bill, EPA would not be required to look at that
project and provide scientific and public health-focused feedback and
suggestions for making it safer.
Equally as important, EPA's comments and suggestions on those risks
and exposure would not be made available to the public. That only
serves to shield Republican corporate polluters from any scrutiny and
would do nothing to ensure Americans' health is protected.
What I said before when we were talking about the FENCES Act, I will
say it now on the RED Tape Act. The right to know is one of the most
important things that we need to protect around here because then the
public can look and see what the dangers are of pollution coming from a
particular project and then they can act accordingly.
A healthy America includes healthy air, water, and soil. The EPA is
integral to achieving that goal.
Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to protect
transparency and the public health and vote ``no'' on this bill, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, one of the things I will point out is in 2025, the
Supreme Court decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v.
Eagle County, Colorado, ruled that upstream-downstream impacts of
Federal action fall outside the scope of the environmental impact
statement under NEPA. In light of this decision, the EPA's separate
review and comment on broader environmental impacts of proposed Federal
action are no longer appropriate.
It is really insulting to the American people to have my colleagues
make outrageous statements in regard to what our intent is with this.
We have the means to make sure that our air is clean. We are working on
that. We do not want, in any form or fashion, to compromise the quality
of life that we have here in this country.
It really is stunning to hear fellow Americans want to deny economic
justice to whole communities throughout the country. I pointed out
several times what each one of their States was receiving in funding
from the Rural Health Transformation Fund, a historic effort to improve
healthcare in rural areas where so many disadvantaged people live, that
every one of my Democratic colleagues voted against.
We want to give people economic opportunity, not deny them. We want
to dramatically improve the healthcare of people who have been denied
the opportunity to have a good-paying job with good benefits. As one
who grew up with few opportunities, I understand how important it is to
have a job that allows people to live in better housing, to have access
to better food, better healthcare, and to have something left over to
save to meet future needs and eventually retirement.
My colleagues who oppose this bill literally oppose the economic
opportunities that could lift millions of disadvantaged Americans into
a much brighter future.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is high time that we recognize that we have a
host of Federal regulations that need to be reviewed, to be modernized,
not to compromise anyone's healthcare, not to compromise environmental
quality, but to improve these to make them work better for all
Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this excellent
legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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
Mrs. GRIJALVA. 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:
Mrs. Grijalva of Arizona moves to recommit the bill H.R.
6398 to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The material previously referred to by Mrs. Grijalva is as follows:
Mrs. Grijalva moves to recommit the bill H.R. 6398, as
Reported to the Committee on Energy and Commerce with
instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith,
with the following amendment:
Amend section 2 to read as follows:
SEC. 2. POLICY REVIEW.
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7609(a)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(a)(1) The Administrator shall review, and comment in
writing, on the environmental impact of--
``(A) any matter relating to duties and responsibilities
granted pursuant to this Act or other provisions of the
authority of the Administrator contained in any legislation
proposed by any Federal department or agency; and
``(B) any matter relating to duties and responsibilities
granted pursuant to this Act or other provisions of the
authority of the Administrator contained in--
``(i) any newly authorized Federal project for construction
or any major Federal agency action (other than a project for
construction) to which section 102(2)(C) of National
[[Page H2913]]
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 applies that the
Administrator determines may result in an increase in the
release of, or public exposure to, mercury, a lead compound,
asbestos, or any other hazardous air pollutant; or
``(ii) any proposed regulation published by any department
or agency of the Federal Government that the Administrator
determines may result in such an increase.
``(2) Any such written comment shall be made public at the
conclusion of any such review.''.
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.
Mrs. GRIJALVA. 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.
____________________