[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 21, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H3013-H3019]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FIRE IMPROVEMENT AND REFORMING EXCEPTIONAL EVENTS ACT
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1174, I call up
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, 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. 6387
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 ``Fire Improvement and
Reforming Exceptional Events Act'' or the ``FIRE Act''.
SEC. 2. AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA INFLUENCED BY EXCEPTIONAL
EVENTS OR ACTIONS TO MITIGATE WILDFIRE RISK.
Section 319(b) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7619(b)) is
amended--
(1) in the subsection heading, by inserting ``Or Actions To
Mitigate Wildfire Risk'' after ``Events'';
(2) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``Definition of
exceptional event'' and inserting ``Definitions'';
(B) in subparagraph (A), by redesignating clauses (i)
through (iv), as subclauses (I) through (IV), respectively;
(C) by striking ``(A)'' and all that follows through ``an
event that--'' and inserting the following:
``(A) Exceptional event.--
``(i) In general.--The term `exceptional event' means an
event that--'';
(D) by amending subclause (III) of subparagraph (A)(i), as
redesignated, to read as follows:
``(III) is an event that is--
``(aa) a natural event;
``(bb) caused by a human activity that is intended to
mirror the occurrence or reoccurrence of a natural event; or
``(cc) caused by a human activity that is unlikely to
recur; and'';
(E) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the
following:
``(ii) Exclusions.--In this subsection, the term
`exceptional event' does not include--
``(I) ordinarily occurring stagnation of air masses;
``(II) meteorological inversions; or
``(III) air pollution relating to source noncompliance.'';
and
(F) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Action to mitigate wildfire risk.--The term `action
to mitigate wildfire risk' means a prescribed fire or similar
measure, undertaken in accordance with State approved
practices, to reduce the risk and severity of wildfires.'';
(3) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by striking ``March 1, 2006'' and inserting ``18 months
after the date of enactment of the FIRE Act'';
(ii) by inserting ``revisions to'' before ``regulations'';
and
(iii) by adding ``or actions to mitigate wildfire risk''
before the period at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by inserting ``including proposed revisions to
regulations,'' after ``subparagraph (A),'';
(ii) by inserting ``or action to mitigate wildfire risk''
after ``an exceptional event''; and
(iii) by striking ``paragraph (3)'' and inserting ``this
section''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) Regional analysis.--When more than one State notifies
the Administrator of its intent to submit a petition pursuant
to this section for an exceptional event or an action to
mitigate wildfire risk for the same air quality event, or, if
the Administrator determines such a multistate air quality
event has occurred, the Administrator shall conduct regional
modeling and analysis sufficient to satisfy the demonstration
required for an exceptional event or an action to mitigate
wildfire risk petition for such air quality event.
``(D) Transparency.--Not later than 12 months after the
date of enactment of the FIRE Act, the Administrator shall
establish, and thereafter update monthly, a public website
describing the status of all petitions submitted pursuant to
this section for exceptional events and actions to mitigate
wildfire risk.'';
(4) in paragraph (3)(A)--
(A) by redesignating clauses (ii) through (v) as clauses
(iii) through (vi), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after clause (i) the following:
``(ii) the principle that actions to mitigate wildfire risk
can play an important role in reducing the magnitude and
frequency of wildfires;'';
(5) in paragraph (3)(B)--
(A) in clause (i), by inserting ``or action to mitigate
wildfire risk'' before ``must be'';
(B) by amending clause (ii) to read as follows:
``(ii) a clear causal relationship must exist, or be
reasonably expected to exist, between the measured
exceedances of a national ambient air quality standard and
the exceptional event or action to mitigate wildfire risk to
demonstrate that the exceptional event or action to mitigate
wildfire risk caused a specific air pollution concentration
at a particular air quality monitoring location;''; and
(C) by amending clause (iv) to read as follows:
``(iv) there are criteria and procedures for the Governor
of a State to petition the Administrator to exclude air
quality monitoring data that is directly due to exceptional
events or actions to mitigate wildfire risk from use in
determinations by the Administrator with respect to--
``(I) area or source exceedances or violations of the
national ambient air quality standards;
``(II) the designation, redesignation, classification, or
reclassification of an area;
``(III) the demonstration by a State of attainment of a
national ambient air quality standard;
``(IV) attainment determinations;
``(V) attainment date extensions;
``(VI) finding a State implementation plan to be
inadequate; or
``(VII) preconstruction demonstrations under section
165(a)(3).''; and
(6) by striking paragraph (4).
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 SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 insert extraneous material on H.R. 6387.
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. 6387, the FIRE Act, a
bipartisan bill introduced by Congressman Gabe Evans of Colorado and
co-led by Congressman Adam Gray of California.
The FIRE Act ensures that States are not penalized for wildfire
mitigation practices like prescribed or controlled burns and brush
clearing. States currently limit these practices for fear of falling
out of containment of national air quality standards.
Unlike wildfires, prescribed burns do not automatically qualify as
exceptional events under the current provisions of the Clean Air Act.
This is because prescribed burns are human caused, likely to recur, and
preventable. As a result, prescribed burns are often counted against
States for the purpose of national air quality standards.
In 2016, the EPA amended the exceptional events rule in an effort to
include prescribed burns, but the attempt failed. Only one prescribed
fire qualified for the exceptional events exception in the last decade.
Congress must amend the Clean Air Act to allow wildfire mitigation to
be included as an exceptional events exception.
{time} 1320
Time has taught us that agency action is not enough to address the
current statutory obstacles. The FIRE Act directly amends the Clean Air
Act so that prescribed burns are treated as exceptional events and
States are not penalized for wildfire mitigation measures. It provides
clarity and predictability for air quality planning and encourages
proactive wildfire measures.
[[Page H3014]]
There is nearly unanimous agreement that increasing the use of
prescribed fire and other wildfire mitigation practices is necessary to
reduce the growing wildfire threats across the country.
With what is projected to be a severe wildfire season around the
corner, Congress must modernize the Clean Air Act to ensure that
wildfire mitigation practices are eligible for the exceptional events
rule. The FIRE Act allows States to perform prescribed burns and
wildfire mitigation activities without severe economic consequences,
protecting their communities from the devastating impact of wildfires.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting
this bill, 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. 6387, the FIRE Act. The
FIRE Act is yet another dishonest attempt, in my opinion, by
Republicans to weaken the Clean Air Act, which will make Americans
sicker while healthcare costs skyrocket.
Republicans are peddling this dangerous bill as an attempt to promote
prescribed burns and combat wildfires. As has been true for the other
dirty bills that we considered over the last week or so, this bill
fails to address the stated goal and instead provides overly broad
exemptions to the Clean Air Act that will harm American families and
children.
The FIRE Act does little to make it easier for States to use
prescribed burns as a tool for wildfire management. Instead, it expands
the definition of exceptional events that States can claim when
demonstrating compliance with air quality standards, to include
regularly occurring weather like drought and heat. To put it simply,
the FIRE Act would give corporate polluters a free pass on the Clean
Air Act and use a hot day as an excuse to ignore the harm inflicted on
the health of Americans.
Prescribed fire is an essential tool for wildlife management,
particularly as climate change increases the occurrence of large, high-
intensity wildfires. When done properly, prescribed fires can
effectively manage wildfires while reducing smoke exposure to wildfire-
prone communities. When disaster strikes and wildfires occur, States
should not be punished for pollution that is beyond their control.
Fortunately, the Clean Air Act already gives EPA the flexibility to
qualify wildfire and prescribed burns as exceptional events under the
Clean Air Act, which States can claim when demonstrating compliance
with air quality standards. In fact, Trump's EPA issued a memo clearly
stating that the agency will not count emissions from prescribed fires
toward attainment designations under the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, making provisions of this bill essentially redundant and
unnecessary.
It is worth highlighting that this bill goes much further than
wildfires and prescribed burns. As I mentioned, the FIRE Act
drastically changes the definition of exceptional events to include
regularly occurring weather events, like drought and hot days. If
signed into law, the FIRE Act would allow States to write off all
pollution that occurs during a dry spell or heat wave, events we know
will occur more often due to climate change.
I find this provision to be deeply troubling. We know climate change
is making drought and heat waves more persistent. Republicans want to
use them as justification to increase pollution, which will worsen
public health and accelerate climate change, without any consequences.
It is another line of evidence that Republicans are more interested
in helping out their polluter friends than protecting the health and
well-being of Americans.
Unfortunately, Republican attempts to undermine the public health
protections at the core of the Clean Air Act are commonplace. The
health harms of air pollution are well documented and being felt by
communities across the country.
Today, over half of Americans live in an area with unsafe levels of
air pollution. These communities see more diagnoses of diseases like
asthma, COPD, heart disease, and certain types of cancer, all of which
require long-term treatment and medication.
These things are becoming more common, but now Republicans and the
Trump administration want to make it easier for industry to pollute
more. Worse, they want to cover up these harms.
House Republicans are doing nothing to lower costs or address the
affordability crisis. Instead, over the last week, they have had us
debating bills that gut the Clean Air Act's public health protections,
and this bill is no exception. It is a retread of old ideas that would
drive up pollution above levels that are safe to breathe. The bill does
nothing to improve the lives of the everyday Americans we are elected
to serve.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this dangerous,
damaging, and, essentially, dirty air bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am constantly amazed at what my colleagues across the
aisle say in response to these bills. They make this claim that
prescribed burns will increase air pollution, when the fact is that we
are trying to prevent wildfires.
When you compare the emissions from a prescribed burn to the
emissions from a wildfire, it could be as little as 17 percent of what
a wildfire produces. They both emit fine particulate matter and carbon
dioxide and carbon monoxide, but prescribed burns are managed to ensure
more complete combustion and less overall polluted output per acre,
whereas a wildfire consumes more fuel and produces denser and more
toxic smoke.
What they are arguing for is more pollution and more dangerous fires.
We have seen what has happened in California and other States, where
wildfires have gotten out of control. Look at Paradise in California,
the number of lives lost and the amount of destruction there. Those
fires actually produced more pollutants, more toxins, and more
tremendous damage.
I am, again, amazed. I guess they doubt the common sense of the
average American about these issues, when the fact of the matter is
that prescribed burns reduce the amount of pollutants that are emitted
into the atmosphere.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleagues of the cost of air
pollution to the American people because it seems they are only focused
on the cost to their polluter friends.
More than 26 million people, including over 4.5 million children, in
the U.S. live with asthma. Asthma causes nearly 1.8 million emergency
department visits, more than 94,000 hospitalizations, and an estimated
$80 billion in healthcare costs annually. Air pollution is known to
cause and exacerbate asthma.
Republicans claim that existing regulatory processes, like
exceptional events demonstrations, are too hard and take too long. They
don't acknowledge why we have these processes in the first place, and
that is to protect the health of our families, our children, and the
most vulnerable among them.
The FIRE Act would worsen health harms to our communities. While the
Clean Air Act has successfully cut air pollution in the U.S. by nearly
80 percent in its over 50-year history, nearly half of the U.S.
population still lives in areas with poor air quality. We should be
taking action to protect public health, not rolling back safeguards
that the Republicans find inconvenient.
The FIRE Act has serious problems that allow industry to exploit hot
days and drought to drive up pollution without consequence. That is the
problem.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, once again, it is as though we are debating
two different bills. I have no idea where industry comes into this.
This is about protecting forests. It is about promoting wildlife. It is
about reducing emissions by prescribed burns.
If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are interested in
looking up this data, what they are saying is in direct contradiction
to what the science
[[Page H3015]]
shows: A prescribed burn reduces the amount of emissions compared to a
wildfire.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Kiley).
Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, the best way to protect air
quality is to stop catastrophic wildfires. This is a statement that
should not be controversial and is one the truth of which we know all
too well in California.
For years in my State, the State piled on regulation after regulation
after regulation, piled on new forms of litigation, new fuel blends,
all things that raise the cost of living for people in our State. Yet,
even more perversely, at the same time, they made it more difficult to
proactively mitigate the risk of wildfire through active forest
management.
Let me tell you what the perverse result of that was. Between 2004
and 2020--this is a period of 16 years--you can aggregate all the
emissions that were reduced through emission reduction policies in
California--a period of 16 years leading up to the year 2020--take
every single emission that was reduced as a result of State policy over
those 16 years, and double that number of emissions were released into
the atmosphere because of the fires that occurred just that year.
{time} 1330
All of the sacrifices Californians had made over the preceding 16
years were wiped out two times over because of these devastating
wildfires that, of course, on top of the environmental damage that they
inflicted, caused untold damage to life and property and our
communities.
The measure that we have before us today could not be more
commonsensical. It is that we should not disincentivize States from
taking steps that have been proven by the best science to reduce the
risk of wildfires that are an absolute catastrophe for the environment.
That includes the use of prescribed burns, which should not be
considered a detriment to air quality when the entire point is to
improve air quality over the long term.
This bill, in addition to other measures like the Fix Our Forests
Act, which will allow us to do better forest management without as many
arbitrary delays and hurdles to jump over, are vitally needed to assure
that we don't continue to have wildfires that devastate our communities
and devastate our environment.
I will say it again: The best way to protect air quality is to stop
fires from happening, and this bill will help us do that.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Oregon (Ms. Dexter).
Ms. DEXTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the
FIRE Act, a bill that undermines the protections that keeps our air
safe to breathe.
In 1970, Democrats and Republicans came together to pass the Clean
Air Act and put public health at the center of our national
policymaking. That was a promise to the American people, and it is a
promise we cannot forget. That law has delivered cleaner air and longer
lives, but our work is not finished.
More than 100 million Americans live in counties with unhealthy
levels of pollution. Our children, our seniors, low-income communities,
and communities of color continue to carry the heaviest burden. The
public has been clear with us. Nearly 70 percent of Americans believe
everyone should be held to the standards set by the Clean Air Act.
The question before us is simple: Why would we disregard the
commonsense policy that protects the very communities we are here to
serve?
The FIRE Act undermines a centerpiece of the Clean Air Act: the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards program. Right now, there are
narrow exceptions to the rules that set limits on how polluted our air
can be. Republicans want to blow those exceptions wide open, so even
routine conditions like hot weather or drought could be used as an
excuse to ignore pollution limits.
I represent Oregon, where wildfires are a constant and defining
challenge. We manage wildfires and conduct prescribed burns every year
to protect our forests and communities. I have spoken directly with the
people doing that work, and this is not a bill they want.
They have asked for clarity and precision. This bill offers neither.
Instead, it creates a vague, sweeping policy that risks turning
``exceptional'' into ``routine.''
As a physician and lung doctor, I know exactly what that means. It
means more asthma attacks, more heart attacks, more strokes, and more
cancer diagnoses.
We know better than this, and it is not why my constituents sent me
here. They sent me here to fight for clean air, for healthy
communities, and for a future where public health is not compromised.
For these reasons, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to
recommit this bill to committee. If the House rules permitted, I would
have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill. My
amendment would ensure this bill does not take effect until EPA and
CASAC certify that it will not increase health harms or the cost of
treating them.
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
gentlewoman from Oregon?
There was no objection.
Ms. DEXTER. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in voting
for the motion to recommit.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman).
Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6387 to ensure
States are not unjustly penalized under the Clean Air Act for engaging
in responsible, proactive wildfire mitigation activities.
Mr. Speaker, wildfires are, unfortunately, all too common in my home
State of Wyoming and across the intermountain West.
According to the Office of State Lands and Investments, approximately
250,000 acres of land in Wyoming were burned in 2025 due to more than
1,600 wildfires. The numbers were even worse in 2024, with around
850,000 acres burned through more than 2,000 fires. With just one fire,
it burned 25,000 acres in 3 hours, giving an indication of the fuel
load in the Bighorn National Forest.
Wildfires have profound effects on all of my constituents, including
threatening the livelihoods of our farmers and ranchers, endangering
our courageous first responders, and causing serious respiratory and
other health complications for Wyoming families.
Given these life-altering consequences, we must use every tool at our
disposal, including responsible forest management--which has
historically been hampered by bad policies coming out of Washington,
D.C.--to minimize the scale and damage caused by these destructive
forces of nature.
Active forest management through prescribed burns and mechanical
thinning is essential to supporting healthy ecosystems, preventing
catastrophic wildfires, and improving the long-term air quality.
Unfortunately, as it currently stands under the Clean Air Act, the
use of these individual wildfire mitigation measures can create
uncertainty, discouraging their use out of concern that doing so would
lead to noncompliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Failure to meet these standards can result in nonattainment
designations, which can come with a host of immediate and downstream
challenges, including excessive fees and sanctions, delayed
infrastructure projects, and slowed economic growth, all of which can
lead to immeasurable harm for smaller Wyoming communities.
By reforming the Clean Air Act to ensure these wildfire mitigation
activities are appropriately treated as exceptional events, we are
incentivizing their use and putting a stop to unfair and
counterproductive regulatory punishments.
I thank Representative Evans and Chairman Guthrie for their steadfast
leadership on this legislation and urge all of my colleagues to support
H.R. 6387.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I again am at a loss to understand where my Democratic
colleagues are coming from with this argument about all of these
problems
[[Page H3016]]
with our air quality. We have only had one exceptional event approved,
and I am not sure that it was actually executed since the exceptions
were put in, the exceptional event provision was adopted by the EPA.
If you are talking about pollution from fires, it is from wildfires,
uncontrolled wildfires. As I have pointed out, if they are interested
in looking it up, it is clear that we reduce air pollution by having
these prescribed burns.
The other thing they keep talking about is public health. Most of
these wildfires occur in rural areas. The Republicans in the Working
Families Tax Cut Act put in $50 billion to transform rural healthcare,
and every one of my Democratic colleagues voted against it. The State
of Oregon got $197.3 million this year. Again, I am just at a loss to
understand where they are coming from on some of this. It is in direct
conflict with what the science shows.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Carter.)
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the
FIRE Act.
This bill ensures that actions taken to prevent wildfires, such as
prescribed burns, are not used to penalize a State when determining
nonattainment. Under the FIRE Act, States will no longer miss
nonattainment status solely for trying to reduce the impact of
wildfires through wildfire mitigation activities.
{time} 1340
Nonattainment status has significant consequences. New or expanding
businesses in the State would face more restrictions, tougher
permitting, and expensive pollution control measures that would cause
economic development to move to States without nonattainment status.
Since EPA allowed prescribed burns to qualify for exceptional events,
only one prescribed fire has been granted an exceptional events
exemption. These concerns aren't hypothetical. They are measurable and
prevent States from engaging in wildfire mitigation.
This is the epitome of commonsense legislation. Why should American
businesses and workers be penalized for efforts to reduce air
pollution? Again, I ask you: Why should American businesses and workers
be penalized for efforts to reduce air pollution?
A recent study found that wildfires are reversing the progress made
in air quality by this country over the last 40 years. Prescribed burns
produce only a tenth of the PM 2.5 produced by wildfires.
Prescribed or controlled burns are our greatest and most effective
tool for preventing wildfires. By discouraging wildfire mitigation,
this outdated provision in the Clean Air Act undermines efforts to
improve air quality.
Hopefully, improving air quality and reducing the devastating impact
of wildfires is more important to the Members of this Chamber than
thwarting Congress' efforts to make necessary updates to outdated
provisions of the Clean Air Act.
Legislation like the FIRE Act and my bill, the CLEAR Act, will
modernize the Clean Air Act to work in the 21st century, protecting us
from pollution without strangling business development and job
creation.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend Representative Evans for introducing
this bill, and I urge its immediate adoption.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).
Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, it is Earth Day tomorrow, and yet here we
are today in front of the House Chamber with yet another bill attacking
our fundamental environmental health bills.
Mr. Speaker, I stand here in strong opposition to H.R. 6387, the FIRE
Act, but more importantly, I rise in fierce defense of the
environmental laws that protect our people and our planet. Because on
Earth Day, instead of celebrating progress, we are watching a
coordinated effort to dismantle the very safeguards that generations of
Americans, Democrats and Republicans, have put in place.
The Clean Air Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the
Endangered Species Act are all on the chopping block this week of all
weeks.
They are the reason our air is safer to breathe, our water is cleaner
to drink, and our national heritage still exists for us today and for
future generations. These laws were not passed in this Chamber lightly.
They were enacted with overwhelming bipartisan support because leaders
on both sides of the aisle understood something fundamental, that
protecting the public health, that protecting the environment, that
protecting planet Earth is not a partisan issue, but it is a patriotic
duty.
They created a simple but powerful framework: follow the science,
measure honestly, inform the public, and give communities the
opportunity to weigh in.
Today, that framework, and so many of our environmental laws, are
being systematically weakened here, bill by bill, loophole by loophole.
Today, the FIRE Act is another clear example of that approach as this
bill does not actually reduce pollution but changes the way we measure
it by expanding what qualifies as an exceptional event like heat and
drought, allowing States to exclude air pollution from official
records.
These are not rare anomalies anymore. This is the very heart of
climate change evident in the data itself. Instead of addressing the
crisis, this bill is trying to erase it by obscuring it in the data, in
the science.
Why does this matter? Because accurate data is the foundation for
every protection we have under our environmental laws. It determines
whether our communities can meet basic standards, whether it is safe
for us to be outside, whether it is safe for us to drink water, whether
it is safe for us to consume products, whether it is safe for us to
continue to protect the fundamental basis of our natural ecological
heritage.
Whether it is bypassing environmental review under NEPA, rolling back
species protections under the Endangered Species Act, or trying to
redefine the very foundation for how we carry out the Clean Air Act, as
this bill does, the result is the same: less accountability, more risk
for Americans, and chipping away piece by piece at the protections that
generations before us fought for in this body to protect the planet and
our communities.
Mr. Speaker, I have to say, especially in 2026 as our communities are
not only facing more intense heat waves but some of the most
catastrophic snowpack and drought conditions certainly in my lifetime,
this is not a time to be rolling back environmental protections.
Let's be honest about who this is really about. It is not for the
American people. It is not for families who are worried about whether
or not their children will be able to breathe. It is not for the
communities that are on the frontlines of climate change. It is not for
the people of this planet and this country. It is for powerful
interests, industries that have worked to weaken protections and avoid
accountability.
This week, on Earth Day week, we have a choice: Do we stand with the
bedrock laws that have protected this country and our communities for
decades? Do we uphold the bipartisan legacy of our air, our land, our
wildlife, and our water, or do we walk away from it?
I will tell you this, Mr. Speaker: I stand with science, with our
communities, and with our future generations.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at what my Democratic colleagues say about
these issues as far as quoting data. The data shows, as I have already
pointed out, that the emissions from controlled burns, from prescribed
burns, could be as low as 17 percent of what would come from a
wildfire.
As a matter of fact, controlled burns consume one-sixth of the fuel
per acre as an intense wildfire. As I pointed out numerous times about
my Democratic colleagues and their talking about what they want to do
for healthcare and worried about people's health, we put $50 billion
into the Working Families Tax Cut Act to help rural healthcare, to
transform rural healthcare. Every one of my Democratic colleagues voted
against it.
As a matter of fact, the State of New Mexico received $211.5 million,
and they voted against it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Kennedy).
[[Page H3017]]
Mr. KENNEDY of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Colorado and
my friend from Alabama for the opportunity to speak in favor of the
FIRE Act. I appreciate the important work that is being done, which is
critical for my home State of Utah.
Last year, Utah saw over 1,000 wildfires burn 160,000 acres. I
represent a district that has watched wildfires tear through our
communities. I have seen what fire does to our land, and I have heard
from the land managers, the ranchers, and the State officials who want
something done about it.
In many cases, we actually know what to do about it. We know what
steps we can take to mitigate the risk, how to proactively manage the
land before a fire even begins. The problem isn't the will or the
answers. The problem is too often the regulations. It is regulations
that actually limit our ability to take the steps needed to protect
ourselves.
The FIRE Act gives States the regulatory certainty they need to act
before fires grow out of control, and it has my full support.
Mr. Speaker, the communities I represent cannot afford continued
inaction. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the FIRE Act.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Tonko), who is the ranking member of our Environment
Subcommittee.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I completely understand that many State and local
governments are dealing with severe air pollution related to wildfires,
but as we approach Earth Day, it is important for us to recognize that
efforts like the Clean Air Act should be continued to be implemented to
the fullest and even enhanced where necessary.
I will be crystal clear: The Clean Air Act already allows States to
submit data for air pollution caused by exceptional events, preventing
these emissions from penalizing them when determining compliance with
air quality standards. Now, exceptional events are events that are
typically uncommon and not easily within the State's control.
{time} 1350
Air pollution due to wildfires, including prescribed burns for
wildfire mitigation, can definitely count as exceptional.
In 2019, EPA issued guidance addressing how prescribed fires can
satisfy the statutory definition of ``exceptional events.'' In 2024,
EPA issued a number of other tools to assist States in meeting the
regulatory requirements.
Mr. Speaker, it is true that this guidance does require States to
take steps to allow prescribed burns to qualify as an exceptional
event, including making certain that appropriate mitigation and
monitoring measures are taken to reduce risks to people in a given
area.
If Members of the majority stop to think about this for a moment,
they would appreciate the need for such guidance. Not every man-made
fire should be able to qualify automatically as an exceptional event.
EPA's requirements ensure that States are doing everything possible
to follow best practices and limit health risks from prescribed fires
that cause unsafe air quality. Yet, despite the bill's name,
eliminating these safeguards for prescribed burns isn't the only change
to the Clean Air Act included in this order of legislative change.
The FIRE Act allows and greatly expands what could be considered an
exceptional event in the first place, including meteorological
conditions that are commonly occurring, such as high-temperature days
and drought, which tend to have worse air quality. We know that these
types of days are becoming more common due to climate change, meaning
that this bill would make it much easier for States to essentially
write off air pollution on days with increasingly normalized
conditions. It is just a poor sense of timing for this bill to arrive
on the scene.
Exceptional events should be limited to things that are truly
exceptional. It is critical that during high-temperature and low-
precipitation times, days that are more likely to experience poor air
quality, we are still seeking to protect people.
Exempting prescribed fire activities from air quality standards, not
to mention the other commonly occurring conditions that would be
considered exceptional under this bill, simply does not protect public
health.
This bill is seeking to legislate a quick fix that papers over
legitimate pollution-reduction issues. Instead, we should build upon
the existing law and EPA's efforts to bring together partners from the
Federal, State, and local levels to work together to reduce wildfire
risks, including addressing climate change, while also mitigating risks
to public health.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose this bill.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Evans).
Mr. EVANS of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I personally thank the chairman
for his leadership and partnership on this legislation and Congress'
broader efforts to modernize the Clean Air Act.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my bill, the
bipartisan Fire Improvement and Reforming Exceptional Events Act, or
FIRE Act for short. This commonsense bill ensures that States like
Colorado are not punished for smoke and emissions that they cannot
control while still maintaining strong environmental protections and
incentivizing good forest management practices to prevent wildfires.
The Front Range of Colorado has consistently struggled to meet ozone
attainment levels set by the Federal Clean Air Act, despite the fact
that data and science show that more than 70 percent of emissions
originate from sources outside of Colorado.
My mission when I came to Congress was to find a streamlined,
nonpartisan solution to this problem, to cut red tape, and to help
lower costs and protect the economy for my constituents.
My proposal simply clarifies how emissions from wildfires, prescribed
burns, and other exceptional events are treated in Federal air quality
reviews. It maintains environmental protections that benefit Americans
while allowing States the flexibility that they need to comply with the
Clean Air Act without needlessly enacting punitive regulations on the
economy, job creators, and consumers.
Mr. Speaker, I have heard some of my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle argue that this bill is unnecessary because there is already
enough flexibility under the Clean Air Act for exceptional events and
prescribed burns. Allow me to address that.
Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago this week, four Western State Governors, two
Republicans and two Democrats, including my Governor, Jared Polis, and
the Democratic Governor from Arizona, sent a letter to President Biden
highlighting challenges that Western States face in complying with the
Clean Air Act and asking for greater flexibility.
I have the letter. Their number one request was for the Biden EPA to
``identify how the exceptional events framework can more appropriately
be implemented given increased wildfire activity and provide more
consideration for the emissions benefits of wildfire mitigation
strategies in reducing air pollution in the West and nationally.''
Mr. Speaker, two Republican and two Democratic Governors agree that
good wildfire mitigation reduces air pollution.
The FIRE Act does exactly this, and I am proud that it has been
endorsed by the Western Governors' Association, whose members range
from Greg Abbott to Gavin Newsom.
Additionally, 3 years ago, 25 Democratic Members from California,
including both current Senators, wrote to the EPA under President
Biden, claiming that the Clean Air Act, as written, jeopardizes their
State's ability to deploy prescribed burns and comply with the Clean
Air Act.
Part of the letter reads: ``While we appreciate the possibility that
our concerns could be addressed through the use of EPA's exceptional
events rule, the reality is that this process is unworkable for the
scale of prescribed fire that will be necessary to protect our
communities from increasingly catastrophic wildfires. The exceptional
events rule is specifically designed for `unusual or naturally
occurring events that can affect air quality but are not reasonably
controllable.' This simply does not describe prescribed fires.''
[[Page H3018]]
Mr. Speaker, legislation like the FIRE Act has been asked for time
and again by Members of both parties, and it is why I am so proud to
lead this bill alongside my good colleague, Adam Gray, a California
Democrat.
Mr. Speaker, while I have heard that some claim that the bill is
unnecessary and accomplishes nothing, I have heard others say that the
bill would do too much and fill our air with pollution. This also could
not be further from the truth. As the father of a son who struggles
with asthma, no one wants clean air more than I do. I want a healthy
environment for all Coloradans and all Americans.
That is why this bill is narrowly tailored to maintain strong
environmental protections. It actually reduces negative health outcomes
that result from catastrophic wildfire smoke by encouraging more
mitigation practices that reduce emissions through better wildfire
prevention.
I will illustrate this point. A 2024 report compiled by fire experts
and Tribal leaders asserts that the severe health and economic harms of
wildfire smoke are ``largely neglected, if not inadvertently caused by
Clean Air Act regulations themselves.''
I would also add that, under current law, working families are
penalized for emissions that they are not responsible for, which leads
to unemployment and higher costs--in a word, poverty. Poverty also
worsens health outcomes.
The FIRE Act is a commonsense, bipartisan solution to existing air
quality regulations, and it is sorely needed. That is why the bill has
been endorsed by more than 25 different national, State, and local
organizations that transcend industries, interests, and partisan
divides. It protects the environment and promotes clean air by cutting
red tape and allowing us to do a better job of reducing fuel loads and
reducing damaging emissions from wildfire smoke.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Representative Gray, for his
support and leadership, as well as the chairmen of the Energy and
Commerce Committee and the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
for all of their work advancing this bill. I encourage my colleagues to
vote in favor of the FIRE Act.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I need to respond to the comments made by the gentleman
from Colorado. The EPA promulgated an exceptional events rule in 2016
to allow States and Tribes to use prescribed burns for fire management
and exempt emissions from wildfire from regulatory requirements. This
was reinforced by a 2025 EPA memo titled ``EPA Policy on Provisions to
Allow Wildland Prescribed Fire in Clean Air Act State Implementation
Plans.''
This bill is unnecessary, and I am going to repeat that. Republicans
are claiming that the process is so burdensome and that very few
determinations are made by the EPA. That is misleading. The value of
prescribed burns is to mitigate wildfire and to minimize air quality
impacts on communities.
{time} 1400
That is why forest managers conduct prescribed burns under particular
weather conditions. Under these conditions, prescribed burns do not
contribute significantly to the area's ambient air quality, which means
an exceptional event demonstration may not be necessary in the first
place.
Proponents of this bill have lots of complaints about the current
program. However, the FIRE Act does nothing to reform the exceptional
event demonstration process for States or the EPA. Instead, it just
provides broad exemptions, which is not what should be done.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALMER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Evans).
Mr. EVANS of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I want to briefly respond.
One exceptional event waiver has been approved, clearly not workable.
As was just discussed, bipartisan Governors--two Democrats from
Colorado and Arizona, and two Republicans from Utah and Wyoming--wrote
a letter in 2024 saying that this exceptional event process, as it is
currently written under the Clean Air Act, is not workable.
Madam Speaker, while I greatly appreciate references to a 2016
letter, this is a problem that was still impacting folks in 2024,
prompting a bipartisan outcry from Western Governors on both sides of
the aisle to modernize the exceptional events waiver--the same thing
from members of the delegation from California.
In a letter in June 2023, 25 Members signed a letter saying that the
exceptional events waiver is not workable, asking for these updates and
for modernization. That is borne out by the data and by the science,
which say that we have only had one exceptional events waiver approved.
The science is clear. The data is clear. The environment is crying
out for reducing emissions through better forest management and
wildfire prevention, which, as we have heard, reduces emissions
anywhere on a scale from 1 to 6 to 1 to 10. If you do the controlled
burns and the mitigation now, you have fewer emissions from damaging
wildfires in the future.
Madam Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALMER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Crank).
Mr. CRANK. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama, and I
thank my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Evans) for sponsoring this bill.
Colorado, my home State, is facing years of severe drought. Last
year, Colorado saw one of the worst wildfire seasons since 2020, with
more than 200,000 acres burned statewide.
This past winter didn't deliver the snowpack that Colorado relies on
to help tamp down that wildfire risk. As many Coloradans already
expect, this year could be even worse.
At the same time, wildfire mitigation has not been carried out at the
pace or scale needed to reduce the risk of catastrophic fires. Across
the West, wildfires are becoming more intense. They are destroying
homes and businesses, damaging soil and watersheds, and making it
harder for the land to recover.
Of course, they produce more emissions, and that creates a real
problem for States like Colorado that are struggling to maintain
compliance with the Federal air quality standards.
Along the Front Range, ozone levels already exceed Federal limits,
and wildfire smoke has contributed to some of the highest ozone days on
record. Yet, the EPA's current process for handling wildfire emissions
does not provide States with enough certainty to secure exemptions for
these so-called exceptional events.
In fact, some of Colorado's highest ozone readings have been driven
by wildfire emissions, pollution that is entirely outside the State's
control. If those wildfire days were excluded in 2024, Colorado's
highest ozone reading would have been 73 parts per billion instead of
88, well within the Federal standard of 75.
Without these exemptions, States and local communities are forced to
bear the consequences of nonattainment, whether that means new
regulatory burdens, higher costs for consumers, or barriers for
businesses trying to operate and grow.
It also makes it harder to carry out the very actions that would
reduce wildfire risk in the first place. Prescribed burns, one of the
most effective tools we have, become more difficult because their
emissions count against compliance.
Research from Stanford University shows that prescribed burns can
reduce wildfire severity by 16 percent and net smoke pollution by an
average of 14 percent. That is backward.
I am proud to cosponsor the FIRE Act, led by my colleague, Gabe
Evans, which brings much-needed clarity to how the Clean Air Act treats
wildfire emissions and ensures that States aren't penalized for taking
proactive steps to reduce risk. We should not have environmental
policies that lead to worse environmental outcomes.
Right now, by discouraging prescribed burns, we are making it harder
for States like Colorado to do proper fire mitigation. We are
contributing to more emissions, not less, and that just doesn't make
sense.
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his leadership on this issue,
[[Page H3019]]
and I urge my colleagues to support the FIRE Act.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, in closing, the FIRE Act is a bad faith attempt by
Republicans to let industry pollute without consequence under the guise
of expanding the use of prescribed fire.
In reality, it would allow everyday occurrences, like hot days and
droughts, to be excluded from air quality determinations. We know that
these events are occurring more often and with more intensity.
Excluding these now common events all but ensures that communities
across the country will continue to breathe unhealthy air and suffer
the health consequences.
The Clean Air Act is one of the most successful laws to protect
Americans ever enacted by Congress because it prioritizes public health
and gives States flexibility to foster economic growth simultaneously.
We have made significant progress, but still too many people live in
areas with dangerous air pollution. Every year, over 100,000 Americans
die prematurely as a result of air pollution. Doctors and scientists
widely consider fine 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 ignore the broader political landscape in which we are
considering this bill, either. Earlier this year, EPA announced it will
no longer consider the benefits of protection of public health when
developing new rules for particulate matter and ozone pollution.
Instead, EPA will consider only the compliance costs for industry. That
makes it even more important that any Clean Air Act legislation taken
up by Congress ensures that public health protections remain at the
center of the law.
The American people are asking us to lower healthcare costs. They are
asking us to ensure that our families have safe water to drink and
healthy air to breathe. Our responsibility is to them, but our
Republican colleagues seem to only answer to their corporate polluter
buddies who are asking for regulatory rollbacks to save a few dollars.
That is just a bad deal for the American people.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this dirty air
bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PALMER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, once again, I want to point out some of the
inconsistencies in the argument.
They have talked about healthcare, and I pointed out three or four
times already that Congress put $50 billion into the Working Families
Tax Cuts Act specifically to modernize and improve rural healthcare.
They are largely the ones who suffer the most from uncontrolled
wildfires. Every Member of the Democratic side of the aisle voted no.
I pointed out before that they talk about impact on senior citizens.
This year, 51.4 million senior citizens paid no income tax on their
Social Security. However, every one of my Democratic colleagues voted
against that.
They talk about families. In the Working Families Tax Cuts Act,
Congress eliminated taxes on tips. These are some of the hardest
working people in the country living largely off of tips. I think, on
average, they are going to get about $3,000 back. That could be used to
buy needed school supplies for their children, to pay a bill, to maybe
even make a repair on an automobile, or to improve their housing, which
is one of the leading factors in asthma.
{time} 1410
According to the CDC, there is no single definitive known cause for
the development of asthma but indoor air quality is a significant
factor that is related to housing. This is what troubles me about the
opposition to this bill. The science, the data, shows that controlled
burns mitigate the intensity of wildfires. It reduces the amount of
emissions into the atmosphere. This is a way to improve air quality,
not make it worse.
They cite climate change in the frequency and intensity of wildfires.
That is exactly what we are trying to mitigate against by doing these
prescribed burns.
I am amazed at how many of the policies that they propose stifle the
formation of new businesses, providing more jobs and better
opportunities for families when the data, particularly on this issue,
is clear. This is good for the local communities. It is good for rural
communities. It is good for air quality.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 6387, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Malliotakis). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1174, the previous question is ordered
on the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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
Ms. DEXTER. Madam 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:
Ms. Dexter of Oregon moves to recommit the bill H.R. 6387
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Dexter is as follows:
Ms. Dexter moves to recommit the bill H.R. 6387 to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith, with the following
amendment:
Add at the end the following:
SEC. 3. LIMITATION.
This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall not
take effect until the date on which the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, in consultation with the
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, publishes a
certification that implementation of this Act, and the
amendments made by this Act, will not increase, including for
vulnerable populations such as seniors, children, and
minority and low-income communities, any of the following:
(1) Asthma attacks.
(2) Hospitalization and emergency room visits for those
with respiratory disease or cardiovascular disease.
(3) The risk of preterm birth, babies born with low birth
weight, or impaired fetal growth.
(4) The risk of heart attacks, stroke, or premature death.
(5) Reproductive, developmental, or other serious harms to
human health.
(6) The costs of health care 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.
Ms. DEXTER. Madam 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.
____________________