Subcommittee Markup of Seven Peices of Legislation

The KT uh the committee will come to order. The chair recognizes himself for an opening statement. Welcome to today's market before the House Energy and Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Environment. Today we will consider seven pieces of legislation, most of which are bipartisan. Three bills we will be marking up support the recovery of critical minerals and materials from domestic sources, rather than continuing to rely on adversaries such as China, that dominate the critical mineral supply chain. H. R. ninety-six fifteen, the Battery Recycling for America's Competitive Economy, or BRACE Act, led by Representative Miller-Meeks, directs the Environmental Protection Agency to consider modernizing and clarifying its regulation of lithium ion batteries, updating its regulations implementing the Resource Conservation Recovery Act. These regulations predate the widespread use of lithium ion batteries and potentially inhibit the growth of the domestic battery recycling industry. H R ninety six sixteen, uh Environmental Monitoring and Remediation Technology Assessment Initiative or EMERTA, Act, which authorizes a program at EPA to support methods to identify and recover critical minerals at contaminated sites, contributing both to the discovery of new domestic sources of critical minerals and remediating contaminated sites. Additionally, we will consider H. R. ninety-six seventeen, the coordinating and harv- harnessing America's recovery of minerals, or CHARM Act, this bipartisan bill which I'm proud to lead with ranking member, Taco, channels EPA's expertise on materials recovery and recycling into our government-wide efforts to secure our access to critical minerals by directing the EPA to develop and execute a national critical mineral recovery strategy. We're also considering four Clean Air Act builds. As we've discussed before, the Clean Air Act has not been meaningfully updated to adjust to our present-day realities. As a result, outdated provisions currently result in overburden some standards hamper economic prosperity while doing little to reduce air pollution. The bills we will consider today provide common sense solutions that update narrow provisions of the Clean Air Act while continuing to protect the environment. H R twenty one forty, the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act is sponsored by Representative Langworthy and Representative Matsui. This bill reauthorizes through two thousand twenty nine the DERA grant program which facilitates updating and replacing old equipment with newer technology or engines, providing improving air quality while growing the economy. H. R. thirty-one ninety-four the Locomotives Act is led by Representative Molinar and Representative Obernalte. This bill amends the Clean Air Act to ensure that locomotive emissions are subject to a uniform federal framework, protecting our national supply chain and preventing increased operation costs from being passed down to consumers. H R ninety three seventeen the buses act is sponsored by representative Langworthy and representative Gottheimer. This legislation creates a national minimum standard for bus idling, preventing state and local governments from enforcing bus idling bans less than fifteen minutes, which will ensure that interstate carriers are not subjected to inconsistent local requirements or bounty driven enforcement schemes. The up to fifteen minutes of idling time is necessary for checks to predict protect the driver, and passenger safety, accessibility, and mobility. H R ninety six eighteen, the Diesel Engine Flexibility Act, is led by Representative Ferdorchik and Representative Don Davis. This bill provides regulatory certainty by creating a ten year safe harbor for actions taken relying on EPA guidance relating to diesel exhaust fluid quality monitoring and and selective catalytic reduction inducement standards. This bill gives manufacturers, equipment o- equipment, owners and independent technicians the certainty they need to move goods and protect supply chains. I appreciate the work on both sides to get these bills ready for today's mark-up. Thank you and I yield back. I now recognize the gentleman from New York's twentieth district and ranking member of the subcommittee, uh, Representative Tonko for five minutes for an opening statement.

Oh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Today the subcommittee will consider seven bills. three related to critical mineral recovery and four related to air pollution from mobile sources. I know the majority and minority staff have been working hard on these critical mineral bills, the CHARM Act, the Amarati Act and the BRACE Act, and I expect that by the end of today's mark-up, all three will have secured bipartisan support. I thank the chair and his team for working with us on these efforts. There is broad consensus that much more of our nation's growing critical mineral demands should come from secure domestic sources. And recovery from discarded and recycled materials is a tremendous opportunity to help meet those needs. I hope we can continue to work together to ensure that we unlock these supplies responsibly, and maintain a high level of environmental and worker protections. I also want to express my support for the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act reauthorization. DIRA has proven to be an incredibly popular and effective program to support the upgrade or retirement of the worst polluting diesel engines in service. This is a great model for how we should be tackling air pollution from mobile sources, while uh which continue to be a major public health threat for far too many Americans. Unfortunately, the other three bills to amend the Clean Air Act take a different approach. The Buses Act seeks to limit state and local governments from implementing anti-oddling bus laws while the Locomotives Act would prohibit states from regulating emissions from trains. State and local governments are on the front line of protecting Americans from dangerous air pollution. And I do not believe that limiting their ability, especially in the absence of a credible federal regulator, will result in better public health outcomes. Regarding the Deaf Act, I fully understand the need to provide long-term regulatory certainty. Regulatory certainty has the ability to drive technology innovation, while allowing manufacturers to plan appropriately. But I cannot support the claim of regulatory certainty to be used as an excuse to maintain the status quo or even take us backwards. This bill proposes locking in standards that are already more than fifteen year old's f- fifteen years old for a period of at least fifteen years from now. I continue to believe that we should be celebrating innovations in American-made pollution control technologies, such as selective catalytic reduction, which have improved fuel economy and have allowed liquid fuels to become less polluting. Unfortunately, the bill we are considering today is taking us further from the possibility of reaching a bipartisan agreement compared to the discussion draft, just considered last month. So, I must encourage members to oppose these three Clean Air Act regulatory bills. But again, I appreciate the majority's willingness to work with us on DERA and the three critical mineral bills and with that, Mister Chair, I thank you and yield back.

Chair, now I recognize this gentleman from Kentucky's second district, the Chairman of the full committee, Representative Guthrie, for five minutes for an opening statement.

Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Palmer, and the members of uh of this subcommittee for the important work uh that has gone in today's mark-up. I know there's been a lot of work between members, a lot of work between our staffs, and I really appreciate it. The Energy and Commerce Committee has a long history of working on bipartisan basis to tackle important problems facing our country, and the recent work in the Environment Subcommittee has continued this tradition. Five of the seven bills on today's agenda are bipartisan, and our respected staff are continuing to work on the battery recycling bill, represented represent being led by Representative Miller-Meeks, to see if we can reach a bipartisan compromise before a full committee mark-up. Our staff have been have also been discussing a number of other environment bills that were not yet ready for today's market but I'm encouraged by the efforts and hope we will be able to mark up additional environmental bills in the near term. As we have discussed repeatedly before this subcommittee, the bills before us demonstrate how we can grow the economy and protect national security while maintaining a healthy environment. Three of the bipartisan bills we are marking up today demonstrate creative ways to devel to address the critical minerals problem by shoring up supply chains for critical minerals and materials to EPA evaluation of regulatory barriers to the recovery of critical minerals from lithium ion batteries and other materials and support technologies to recover critical minerals from contaminated land and other materials. The four other bills we're marking, I'd continue the subcommittee's work on modernizing outdated provisions of the Clean Air Act. These common sense reforms strengthen and protect America's transportation system, their economy relies upon, help maintain and grow manufacturing base, and reduce regulatory burdens and costs for consumers. Three of the four Clean Air Act bills are bipartisan, and I thank members on both sides of the aisle for their contributions. I also appreciate the work of the EPA staff in providing technical assistance in the many stakeholders who have testified before the committee, and otherwise provided their input to get these bills ready for mark-up. Thank you and and Mister Chair, I when when you first took the chairmanship of this of this subcommittee, I remember us discussing the the portents of critical and rare earth minerals, and how you have been driven not this year, but through your time in Congress to make sure America meets uh its moment in this area. And I fully understand that uh you saw it coming, that we had some issues and hiccups the year before last. And so we're cont- as some of us have had confidential briefings when in uh and skiff, so we can't really share in public setting. But your leadership and commitment and drive to address this issue, I think all of us who have attended those hearings and all those who just know what's going on in the world know for America to continue to be the superpower that we are, we have to have access to our own or friendly groups, uh, for people that we can depend on, critical minerals, and I really appreciate your leadership. And I yield back.

Uh, thanks, gentlemen, the chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey's sixth district,

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today we're marking up several good bills on battery recycling, critical mineral recovery from mining waste and discarded materials and replacing dirty diesel engines and the subcommittee The subcommittee will also consider several bills that undercut vital clean air protections and drive up expensive fuel use. So starting with the critical mineral bills, domestic recycling is still viable critical minerals represents a creative and efficient way to reduce our dependence on a foreign adversaries, namely China, for the critical minerals we need to power to power modern technologies and cost cutting clean energy. And when we talk about bolstering our domestic critical mineral supply chain, it's vital that we also consider opportunities to boost recycling and recovery, that increase resource efficiency, reduce the need for new mined materials, and reduce waste. Now since the June subcommittee hearing, we've worked with the majority to come to an agreement on three bills to address these important goals. First is H R nine six one five, the BRACE Act. That'll help us increase the domestic recycling of batteries while also keeping the critical minerals found in those batteries in the country for future use. I appreciate the majority's willingness to address many of our concerns in the amendment and the nature of a substitute. Particularly, the AINS gets the EPA moving on a regulatory framework for battery recycling that addresses safety concerns while maintaining protections for the environment and public health and this is a compromise but i believe this bill is a reasonable path forward so i plan to support it and urge my colleagues to do the same then we have hr nine six one six uh emmer tie bill led by representatives landsman and flueger is another bipartisan effort to ensure that as we clean up abandoned mines and superfund sites we collect any critical minerals from those sites and this is a win-win for our and domestic supply chain. And then we have H R nine six one seven, another good bipartisan bill led by Environment Subcommittee Chair Palmer and Ranking Member Tonko it directs the EPA to consider our a national critical mineral recovery strategy, to coordinate federal efforts to recover critical minerals from discarded materials. And while there's much more work to be done to boost batteries, recycling and bolster our critical mineral supply chains, these three bills are an important step forward. We're also considering H R two one four O, the bipartisan reauthorization of the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act. I'm a long supporter of this popular program to help replace dirty diesel engines across the nation, cleaning the air while saving money on fuel costs, and I'm pleased this subcommittee is moving this bill forward. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for the other Clean Air Act transportation bills on today's agenda. These bills will increase health harming pollution, attack state's ability to protect their residents, and drive up fuel use at a time when Trump's reckless war of choice in Iran has sent fuel prices skyrocketing. Americans have been abundantly clear at the hands of the Trump administration that life has become increasingly unaffordable. Hardworking American families are struggling financially and instead of looking to cut costs, Republicans are doubling down on America's reliance on volatile and expensive fossil fuels. H. R. nine three one seven, the Buses Act, would needlessly undermine state policies and allow school buses and motor coaches to idle for fifteen minutes or longer. This is a massive waste of fuel when diesel prices are high from Trump's war in Iran, and it's also especially harmful to children's health. Then there's H R three one nine four, the Locomotive Act, which attacks state's ability to meet air quality, public health and climate goals by blocking them from setting more protective standards for older dirtier locomotives in use today. And this will lock in this harmful pollution for years to come. There is bipartisan agreement on the importance of ensuring clarity and certainty around emissions control technology for diesel engines. But H R nine six one eight, the Diesel Engine Flexibility Act, is not the way to go. Despite trying to work on a bipartisan compromise, the Republican majority chose to introduce a version of the bill that blocks EPA from setting more protective pollution standards for on and off road vehicles and engines and instead locks in decades-old weaker standards. The bill also includes hyper-partisan language attacking states' ability to set more health protective standards. And while I'm glad the aim's attempts to narrow the scope of the bill, I still have major concerns with the legislation's approach and will have to oppose it. And with that, uh, Mister Chairman, I yield I yield back the balance of my time.

Thanks, gentlemen. The chair reminds members that pursuant to the committee rules, all members' opening statements will be made part of the record of their further opening statements. Chair now calls up H R twenty one forty and asks the clerk to report.

H R two one four zero. A bill to amend the Energy Policy Act of two thousand five to reauthorize the diesel emissions reduction program. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America.

Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. And the bill will be open for amendment at any point, so ordered. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition?

Mister Chairman, I'd like to speak in support of H R twenty one forty.

You're recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. H R twenty one forty, the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of twenty twenty five, is a straightforward bill that reauthorizes a program Congress first established in two thousand five with broad bipartisan support. And at its core, DIRA helps communities replace or upgrade older diesel-powered buses, trucks, heavy equipment with newer, more efficient models. Those uh through competitive grants and rebates, the program helps school districts, municipalities, ports, and other fleet operators modernize equipment that they would otherwise, may not have the resources uh to replace on their own. For many local governments, replacing aging equipment is simply one of the largest capital investments that they face. whether it's a school bus, a snow plow, a dump truck, or an emergency response vehicle. These vehicles keep our communities running. Indira helps make those upgrades possible, while allowing communities to stretch limited taxpayer dollars further. This program also has been an important driver of American manufacturing. In my district, Cummins operates its Jamestown engine plant, where more than a thousand hard-working men and women design and build some of the most advanced diesel engines in the world. Those are good paying manufacturing jobs to support families across Western New York and the Southern Tier and strengthen our domestic industrial base. The investments made by companies like Cummins don't stop at the factory gates. They support suppliers, machine shops, steel producers, transportation companies, and countless small businesses throughout the manufacturing supply chain. When we support American Engine Manufacturers, we are supporting an entire manufacturing ecosystem in the skilled workforce that keeps it running. Programs like DIRA help to create demand for engines and technologies that are researched engineered and built here in the United States of America giving manufacturers the confidence to continue investing in innovation, production and American workers. That is especially important as we work to strengthen domestic manufacturing and ensure that the next generation of engine technology is developed right here at home and not overseas. This isn't about creating new mandates or expanding government. It's about continuing a proven partnership that helps communities modernize critical equipment while supporting the manufacturers and skilled workers who make that equipment possible. For communities looking to replace aging equipment and for manufacturers like Cummins, that c- continue to invest in American innovation and in American jobs, DERA has been a success story for more than twenty years. I urge my colleagues to support HR twenty one forty, And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Gentleman yields. Is there further discussion on the bill? Gentleman from California, Mr. Reed is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As many of you know, uh, before I came to Congress, I was an ER doc. Uh, I treated individuals who came into the ER struggling to breathe, adults and children gasping for air. There's nothing like watching the fear run across their parents' faces. Oftentimes the cause was the pollutants in the air. pollutants that come like from things like diesel exhaust. Diesel exhaust contains nitrogen oxide and fine particular matter that contribute to air pollution and negatively impacts the public's health. Pollutants are inhaled deep into the lung, and for a kid whose airways are still developing, that alone is enough to trigger an asthma attack or make asthma even worse. In Imperial County, nearly fifteen percent of the people have asthma. almost double the national average in a region crossed every day by hundreds of thousands of diesel trucks empowered by diesel farm equipment. Kids are hospitalized for asthma at twice the rate of the rest of the state of California. In the Coachella Valley, more than forty-one thousand adults and over ten thousand children have been diagnosed with asthma. As I mentioned, the cause is often the pollutants in the air, including from things like diesel exhaust. My district sees diesel engines run through our communities every single day because it sits at the intersection of major freight corridors and some of the most productive agricultural land in the country. The Colexical East Port of Entry, along with processes roughly four hundred and fifty thousand commercial trucks a year with with the border. Trucks carrying an estimated twenty billion dollars in cross-border trade annually between Imperial Valley and Mexicali. Add to that the diesel-powered agricultural equipment running across hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland, and you have a community bearing a disproportionate share of this country's diesel emissions burden without a proportionate share of the resources to address it. You see, that's why I care so much about this issue, because I care very much about my constituents. And that is exactly the problem that the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act program, this bill, was built to solve. And that's why I support it and thank Representative Matsui and Landworthy, for moving it forward. Since its creation, the Diesel Emission Reduction Act has provided grants, rebates, and loans that help fleets, agricultural operators, and public agencies replace or retrofit older diesel engines with cleaner technology, reducing the nitrous oxide and particular matter emissions that drive up asthma rates and respiratory illness. It is by EPA's own account one of the most effective clean air programs the federal government runs. Thirty percent of its funding flows directly to states and territories, and the rest is awarded through a competitive process that has consistently rewarded well-designed high-impacted uh projects. It reaches every state, every tribal nation, and every US territory, and it has done so with a two-decade track record of bipartisan support, because reducing diesel pollution is not a partisan goal, it is a public health imperative that both parties recognize. This bill does one simple thing, it reauthorizes this program through fiscal year twenty twenty nine. It simply renews a proven tool at the exact moment i- industry and community stakeholders are asking us to act. For the families in Imperial and Coachella Valleys who live with some of the worst air quality in this country for the farm workers and truck drivers on the front lines of that pollution every single day and for the broader goal of protecting public health without imposing new burdens on our agricultural and freight economy I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this this legislation I yield back the balance of my time thank you.

Gentlemen yields, is there further discussion on the bill? Are there any amendments? Seeing none, the question now occurs on adopting H R twenty one forty. All those in favor say aye.

Aye. Aye.

Those opposed, no. The ayes have it and the bill is adopted and forwarded to the full committee. Chair now calls up H R thirty one ninety four and asks the clerk to report.

H R thirty one ninety four. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit state standards relating to the control of emissions from existing locomotives and engines used in the coach.

Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will be open for amendment at any point. So ordered. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? Gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, H R thirty-one ninety-four is a common sense bill created in response to California's attempt to impose zero emission locomotive mandates that would dramatically increase the prices of goods and have serious consequences for freight rail. This bill will close a loophole which allows the California Air Resources Board to request waivers from EPA that allow the state to issue overreaching mandates. These mandates would empower California to impose its policies on the national rail system and govern interstate commerce. The CARB proposal would effectively ban a large portion of the national locomotive fleet from operating in California. This would mean higher prices for consumers, and it would not lead to cleaner air quality. The fact is that California is simply rushing to green without looking at the real-world consequences of their actions. Zero emission locomotive technology is simply not a reality yet. This technology is largely still in the prototype stage of development. Passing the Locomotives Act will ensure that we affirm only the federal government can regulate locomotives engaged in interstate commerce, protecting consumers from costly mandates and ensuring we operate on policy based on fact and not on fiction. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.

Gentleman yields. Is there further discussion on the bill? Gentlelady from California is recognized for five minutes.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I moved to strike the last word.

Gentlelady is recognized.

Uh, Mister Carter said this was a loophole, but in co- but Congress in nineteen ninety specifically gave California authority to regulate local motives because it faces air quality burdens the rest of the country doesn't have. The Local Motives Act isn't restoring the status quo, it's stripping power of Congress deliberately granted. I urge my colleagues to oppose HR three one nine four, the Local Motives Act, and it isn't common sense. This Republican bill would take away the ability of states to adopt stronger protections against pollution from local motives, operating in their communities. This is the wrong approach. And in my district, communities like Wilmington, California, San Pedro and the surrounding harbor area live next to some of the busiest ports, rail yards, and freight corridors in the nation. Everyday freight trains move goods through these neighborhoods. The economic benefits are shared across the country, but the pollution stays with the families who live next to the tracks. That pollution is linked to higher rates of asthma, heart disease, and other serious health problems. For too many families, Breathing dirty air is a part of daily life. But it doesn't have to be this way. States and local governments understand the unique challenges facing their communities. They should have the flexibility to address those challenges. We've already seen what that flexibility can accomplish. At our ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, Pacific Harbor Line is deploying zero-admission battery electric locomotives and investing and cleaner rail operations that reduce emissions in neighboring communities. That's exactly the kind of innovation that we should encourage. This bill moves us in the opposite direction. It would tie states' hands and prevent them from doing more to protect public health, when federal standards are not enough. I believe we should empower states to protect their residents, not take away their authority. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I yield back.

Gentlelady yields. Is there any further discussion on the bill?

Mr. Chairman.

Uh, the chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey for five minutes.

I just want to uh associate myself with the remarks from the gentleman from California. Um, look, the the bottom line is that people that live, we have the same phenomenon in New Jersey. Um, you know, you have the situation where we have the port of New York and New Jersey and many parts of our state or many towns in our state. And unfortunately what happens is that the people that live there locally are the ones that are that have the burden of all this pollution. And it is bad. And the idea that uh we would restrict um California or any state that might adopt California's standards, whatever, from doing that I think is a huge mistake. And so I also wanna express my opposition.

And on yields, is there further discussion on the bill? Are there any amendments? Seeing none, the question now occurs on adopting thirty one ninety four. All those in favor say aye. Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed no.

No. No.

The ayes have it and the bill is adopted and forwarded to the committee. The chair now calls up hr thir uh ninety three seventeen and asks the clerk to report.

H R ninety three seventeen. A bill to prohibit engine idling restrictions for over the road buses and school buses, if an engine idles for less than fifteen minutes, and for other purposes.

Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will be open for amendment at any point, so ordered. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? For what purpose does this gentleman seek recognition?

Uh, Mister Chairman, I'd like to speak in support of H R ninety three seventeen.

Gentleman is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My bill, HR ninety three seventeen, the Buses Utilizing Safety and Environmental Standards Act, or the Buses Act, is about bringing common sense to bus operations and preventing one city's extreme policies from becoming the standard for the rest of the country. Buses are one of the safest and most efficient ways to move large numbers of people. They transport children to school, connect rural communities, support our tourism industry. They move military personnel and they provide critical transportation for millions of Americans every single year. The rules governing these operators should reflect what actually takes place to operate a bus safely not create unnecessary obstacles. Here's a problem. Buses don't idle because drivers want to, they idle because the job requires it. Before a bus can even begin its route, federal law requires drivers to complete safety inspections. They need to maintain brake pressure. Operate wheelchair lifts and other accessibility equipment. And safely board passengers with disabilities. And where I come from in Western New York, keeping passengers warm during the winter is often a matter of safety, not convenience. Unfortunately, New York, and particularly New York City, has gone in the opposite direction. New York City has adopted some of the country's most aggressive bus anti-idling policies, including a bounty hunter program that actually pays private citizens to report alleged idling violations. Some participants have reportedly earned hundreds of thousands of dollars through this program while at least one bus company reportedly faced nearly eight hundred thousand dollars in potential fines. This is not common sense enforcement, it creates a financial incentive for people to look for technical violations instead of encouraging practical compliance. And New York isn't the only state moving in this direction, California, Massachusetts, Jersey, Connecticut, they're all pursuing increasingly restrictive anti-idling policies, creating a growing patchwork of rules that interstate bus operators must navigate every day. That's exactly why the Buses Act is needed. It establishes one clear national standard allowing uh allowing covering buses to idle for up to fifteen minutes when necessary, giving operators enough time to complete required safety inspections, operate necessary and safely load their passengers. It also prevents bounty style enforcement programs and excessive litigation from becoming the law of the land. This bill doesn't eliminate anti-idling laws, it simply recognizes that buses are unique, that safety and accessibility matters, and that transportation providers shouldn't have to choose between complying with federal safety requirements and avoiding local penalties. I urge my colleagues to support this practical, common sense, and bipartisan legislation And I yield back.

Gentleman yields, is there Gentleman yields, is there further discussion on the bill? Gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, I I I respectfully have to rise in opposition to this bill particularly with the explanation that you've given. Not that it's illegal, you just don't want it enforced. And it doesn't matter if it's enforced by a well-intended citizen It doesn't matter if they are being incentivized to do so. What does matter is that we're not flooding the community with fumes that they shouldn't be flooded with. So the anti-idling, you you are you are deeply cutting into its of efficacy by saying we don't want it enforced. We want it, we just don't want it enforced. Respectfully, I just I fail to see the logic in offering an amendment that guts what would be and has been a good measure to ensure that we don't have idling that is excessively causing pollution in our communities. So I would urge my colleagues to to vigorously oppose this, uh maybe even for Mister Longworthy to consider taking it back, um because of the intent, uh certainly the outcome would be catastrophic to our our effort to have clean air for communities, particularly when you say we just don't want it enforced. We don't want people to go and tell what they see. In every other violation in life we say, if you see something, say something. But in this case we want people to ignore it and not enforce it. Um, Mister Chair, I yield.

Gentleman yields. Is there any further discussion on the bill? Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mister Tonico, for five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I move to strike the last word.

The gentleman is recognized.

Thank you. Unfortunately, I must oppose the Buses Act. This bill intends to limit the ability of state and local governments to prohibit bus idling for periods under fifteen minutes. It also prohibits civil action against bus operators for any alleged violations of engine idling restrictions under fifteen minutes. But perhaps most concerning is that the bill prohibits state and local governments from compensating people who help enforce their local anti-addeling laws. As far as I'm aware, New York City is really the only locality with such a program. I understand that bus operators may be unhappy with New Yorkers collecting evidence of buses in violation of the city's anti-addeling laws, leading to fines on the operators. But I also recognize that New York City has significant particularly from mobile sources. And the city government is utilizing several legitimate and often innovative strategies to protect the public health of its uh of its residents. There can be no doubt that policy decisions can have consequences. And perhaps this policy will result in an unfortunate reduction in the amount of private bus service in New York City. May also inspire some fleet operators to embrace zero emission vehicles. more quickly and help achieve the city's public health goals of reducing air pollution. I honestly cannot say whether this is the right or wrong approach for New York City, but ultimately it is not mine, nor anyone else's in Congress to place that uh to to place to decide that. This is a policy question for the people of New York City, and their locally elected officials to determine whether their anti-oddling laws are working as intended and whether the potential trade-offs are acceptable. New York City has determined a completely legitimate way to help enforce its local laws. And Congress has no business getting involved in the city's efforts to reduce local pollution. I encourage members to oppose this bill. With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.

Gentlemen yields, is there any further discussion on the bill? The chair recognizes gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I move the strike of the last word in opposition to the bill. Uh, the Buses Act.

So much recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Buses Act would inhibit states' rights to protect their residents from health-harming air pollution, and expose children, a population especially susceptible to the impacts of air pollution, to even more diesel exhaust. Early exposure to air pollution in children can lead to long-term health challenges and interfere with lung growth disrupt brain development, and block small airways. Allowing school buses to unnecessarily idle for fifteen minutes or more would have devastating health consequences. According to the American Lung Association's most recent state of the art report, or state of the air report, I should say, nearly half of America's children are living in places with unhealthy levels of air pollution. We should be fighting to lower this alarming statistic not make it worse like this bill would do. Schools are meant to be safe and healthy places of learning for children, not a source of toxic to dangerous air pollution like particulate matter and nitrogen oxides. Additionally, excessive engine idling is a massive waste of fuel. Americans have already spent more than sixty-five billion dollars more on gasoline and diesel fuel since the start of Trump's war in Iran. And H R nine three one seven would only exacerbate the fuel affordability crisis. Not to mention school budgets are already strained with high diesel prices. Reporting from May found that Trump's increase in diesel fuel would add nearly two billion dollars to the annual cost of operating school buses in the us and this bill would only make these costs worse as well the buses act is not a safety solution it sets a weak national standard for engine idling without any guardrails and would leave communities to put the bill both with their health and their wallets and i should also note that most state and local idling restrictions are limited to roughly three to five minutes even less around schools and already include a range of exemptions for things like safety

Gentlemen yields, is there further discussion on the bill? Gentlemen yields, is there further discussion on the bill? Are there any amendments? Saying none, the question now occurs on adopting HR ninety seven se ninety three seventeen. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no.

No. No.

The ayes have it and the bill is adopted and forwarded uh to the full committee. Chair now calls up HR ninety six fifteen and asks the clerk to report.

H R ninety six fifteen, a bill to support the recycling and recovery of lithium ion batteries. Be it enacted by the Senate in house.

Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. The bill will be open for amendment at any point. So ordered. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? For what purpose does gentlelady seek recognition?

I move to strike the uh last word and speak in support.

Gentlelady is recognized for five minutes.

Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to speak in in support of my bill hr ninety six fifteen the battery recycling for america's competitive economy or brace act demand for lithium ion batteries in the united states has grown exponentially in recent years in large part due to demand for rechargeable batteries for energy stored systems electric vehicles communication devices and other consumer goods as more lithium ion batteries reach the end of their life the recycling and recovery of critical minerals from these batteries provides a tremendous opportunity for the United States to boost its supply chains for certain critical minerals. Critical minerals such as nickel, cobalt, lithium and copper can be recovered from lithium ion batteries. However, end of the life batteries and scrap materials are largely sent overseas, often to China for processing. Our subcommittee has heard testimony at two hearings that our own regulatory scheme under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or RCRA, is contributing to these valuable minerals being sent overseas and to this missed opportunity to recover critical minerals already present in our country. The Environmental Protection Agency's IPA RCRA regulations predate the widespread use of lithium ion batteries in the United States. EPA currently administers universal waste regulations, first issued in nineteen ninety-five, to streamline hazardous waste management standards for certain common categories of universal waste. While there are currently universal waste regulations for batteries, EPA announced an intention to develop a separate category of universal waste for lithium ion batteries in twenty twenty three. In addition to lingering uncertainty resulting from the drifting deadline for specific lithium ion battery universal waste rules, the kernel current universal waste rules also impose unnecessary cost and burdens on recyclers of lithium ion batteries. This legislation would address one of those problems with the current regulations by allowing destination facilities that recycle lithium ion batteries to store the batteries prior to recycling them. Under the existing universal waste regulations, handlers of universal waste may store batteries under certain rules. However, destination facilities are regulated differently. Destination facilities, such as facilities at which recycling occurs, face two options. They must store the batteries at a separate location, then that at which they are recycled, and create unne unnecessary cost, or they must obtain a hazard waste permit, a complex process. This common sense modification would eliminate the unnecessary requirement for battery recyclers allowing them to store lithium ion batteries prior to recycling. This legislation would also address a lingering source of uncertainty by clarifying that the provisions of the nineteen ninety-six Mercury Containing and Rechargeable Battery Act that preempt state regulation of collection, storage, and transportation of rechargeable batteries, also apply to successor EPA universal waste regulations. not simply the original nineteen ninety-five versions referenced in that statute. Common sense updates to federal lithium ion battery regulations will encourage the growth of the domestic battery recycling industry. This legislation is a great first step and I encourage my colleagues to support it. With that, I yield.

Gentlelady yields. Is there further discussion on the bill? Are there any amendments? Gentlelady is recognized for an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have amendment at the desk.

Clerk will report the amendment.

Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R ninety six fifteen, offered by Mrs. Miller-Meecks of Iowa. Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following. Section one, short title. This act may be cited as the battery recycling for America's competitive economy act, or the brace act. Section two, end of

Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentlelady is recognized

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to offer an amendment uh to the bill that will address concerns from both sides of the aisle and that was negotiated on a bipartisan basis. This amendment directs EPA to finalize rulemaking on lithium ion batteries as a category of universal waste no later than eighteen months from enactment as EPA announced its intention to promulgate such a rule back in twenty twenty three it should be well on its way to meeting this deadline. This finalized rule should provide much needed certainty for the lithium ion battery recycling industry which has wrestled with a lack of clarity and confusion surrounding current regulations. This amendment requires EPA to consider, but not regulate on, several issues as part of this process. The EPA shall consider making permanent the interim policy specified in the bill that allows destination facilities that recycle lithium ion batteries to store those batteries prior to recycling. As I previously explained, the current regulations require lithium ion battery recyclers to store batteries at a separate location, incurring unnecessary cost. It also requires EPA to consider any regulatory changes needed to support the recycling of lithium ion batteries and the recovery of critical minerals while still protecting health and the environment. Finally, it also directs EPA to consider whether additional safety requirements are needed to address gaps in existing protections. Other standards and regulations from a variety of authorities already applied to lithium ion battery management, and we wanna make sure EPA is not imposing duplicative duplicative redundant unnecessary or conflicting regulations. This is uh uh similar bills to what I've done before in the past, on recycling of critical minerals and rare metals, and this amendment was drafted with the input from both the majority and minority and should enjoy bipartisan support. I'm proud to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to facilitate domestic battery recycling and the recovery of critical mineral elements. Um, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and I yield back.

Jen Levy yields back. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mister Min Mister Menendez for five minutes.

Thank you, Chairman. The amendment in the nature of a substitute for the battery recycling for America's competitive economy act or brace act, while still a compromise, is a perfect example of a win-win for the em- environment and our supply chain. This language would require the EPA to develop a rule for lithium ion battery recycling that protects both health and the environment. The new rule will consider critical safety measures for battery recycling providing much needed support for landfills and recyclers that have been forced to address the fire hazards associated with lithium ion batteries without any agency guidance. I believe that the EPA will take an important first step with this rule. The bill also creates parity between facilities that temporarily store lithium ion batteries, before recycling and recyclers who store battery waste on-site, all while maintaining safety at both. That is why the BRACE Act offers a meaningful path forward on lithium-ion battery recycling. The amendment in the nature of a substitute ensures we properly recycle lithium-ion batteries right here at home, keeping their critical mineral components in our domestic supply chain, while protecting the health and safety of our workers, communities, and environment. To be clear, this amendment and the underlying bill represent a bipartisan compromise. while the text does not include everything that either side might have wanted, there is significant bipartisan work to reach this agreement. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying bill. Thank you and I yield back.

Gentleman yields, is there further discussion of the amendment? Saying none, if there's no further discussion, the vote occurs on the amendment, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. Question now occurs on adopting H R ninety six fifteen as amended. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Those opposed, no.

Aye.

The ayes have it, the bill is adopted and forwarded to the full committee. Chair now calls up H R ninety six sixteen and asks the clerk to report.

H R ninety six sixteen, a bill to establish program for the recovery of critical materials from contaminated sites and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, section one

Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. Bill will be up for amendment at any point so ordered. I will now recognize myself for five minutes in support of the bill. The Environmental Monitoring and Remediation Technology Assessment Initiative or EMERTA, Act of twenty twenty six. Critical minerals are essential to some of the most crucial technologies for communications devices, energy infrastructure and defense equipment. However, supply chains for some of these materials are incredibly vulnerable to disruption, and we are often forced to rely on foreign nations. Fortunately, cutting edge technologies are emerging to identify and take advantage of unconventional sources of critical minerals right here at home. Legacy mine sites across the country contain valuable critical minerals and rare earth elements that were previously overlooked or too difficult to recover. Nearly one hundred legacy mining and mineral processing sites are included on the Environmental Protection Agency's national priorities list of the nation's most contaminated sites. The EPA is already supporting the recovery of critical minerals legacy hard rock mining sites through the IMITE program. This legislation before us today authorizes this program and broadens it to include other contaminated sites to support the recovery of critical minerals and remediation of environmental contamination across the country. It directs the EPA to investigate, evaluate, and support methods and processes to identify critical minerals at contaminated sites and to recover critical minerals from those sites. This legislation also includes guidance to the EPA in selecting the most beneficial projects that help identify new domestic sources of critical minerals, strengthen national security, and further the remediation of the contaminated sites. New technologies are making the recovery of critical minerals from nontraditional sources increasingly feasible. Through this program, the EPA will provide support to entities with expertise to recover these valuable materials and eliminate health and safety standards. uh safety hazards posed by contaminated sites. I thank my colleagues, Mister Bluger and Mister Lansman, for introducing this legislation, and I'm glad we have the opportunity to advance this bipartisan solution to address both a national security, challenge and environmental threat. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. I yield back. Is there any wa- uh are there any further discussion on the bill? Chair recognizes the gentleman that co-sponsored Mister Lansman for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, we can all agree that strengthening the domestic recovery and recycling of critical minerals is important for our economy, uh, for jobs, our national security, and America's energy security. That's why I'm a proud sponsor of the Environmental Monitoring and Remediation Technology Assessment Initiative Act of twenty twenty six. The legislation establishes a program to identify and assess technologies for recovering critical minerals from legacy hard rock mine sites, Superfund sites, and contaminated areas enhancing environmental monitoring and national security. This legislation shows we can improve domestic critical mineral sources while cleaning up some of our nation's most toxic sites. As the committee continues to have conversations about domestic critical mineral recycling, I ask that my colleagues consider voting yes for this bill, and with that I yield back.

Gentleman yields. Is there further discussion on the bill? Gentleman of Florida, Mister Soto is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Chairman. Critical minerals seem to be in all sorts of technologies nowadays, from hybrid and electric vehicles to solar panels, cell phones, computers, and more. Um, when you look at EVs themselves, they have cobalt, natural graphite, lithium, manganese, and nickel, solar panels, lithium. cobalt, aluminum, gallium, zinc, selenium, cadmium, indium, silicon, and more. Uh that is a lot of critical minerals that we have to look out for just in everyday items that Americans use. And so uh that's why I'm thrilled to see a uh slate of bills dealing with critical mineral recycling uh whether it's the BRACE Act and which is improving lithium ion recycling, uh the EMERTI Act which would identify critical materials in contaminated sites, Or the next act, the CHARM act, which would help coordinate federal efforts to recover critical minerals from discarded materials. We know mining is essential to critical uh minerals. Uh, we can't rely on China, who is a rival of ours for all of our uh critical minerals. But there's also other areas um where we can find an abundance of critical minerals, uh like in landfills, uh even coal ash and other areas that uh are unfortunately right now uh uh contaminated sites. uh that we could harness some of these critical minerals um but we must recycle responsibly the we have to protect the public health as we do that and so these are first steps critical steps to develop a national strategy uh for recycling and recovering these critical minerals that are already in US soil and with that i yield back

gentleman yields is there any further discussion on the bill saying none are there any amendments Seeing none, the question now occurs on adopting H R ninety six sixteen. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it and the bill is adopted and forwarded to the full committee. Chair now calls up H R ninety six seventeen, uh the CHARMA Act, and asks the clerk to report.

H R ninety six seventeen. A bill to amend the solid waste disposal act to direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to coordinate a national critical mineral

Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will be open for amendment at any point so ordered. I now recognize myself for five minutes to speak in favor of HR ninety six seventeen, coordinating and harvesting America's Recovery Minerals Act, or the CHARM Act. It has never been more important to develop secure domestic supply chains of critical minerals. According to the US Geological Survey of the final twenty twenty-five list of critical minerals, the United States was one hundred percent net import reliant for thirteen of those mineral commodities, and an additional twenty of those critical minerals had an import reliance greater than fifty percent of apparent consumption. Adversaries such as China have already demonstrated their willingness to exploit this dependence. Recycling and recovery of critical minerals from sources already located in the United States, can play an important role in breaking our dependence on foreign rivals and addressing this alarming vulnerability. Securing our domestic critical mineral supply chains will require deliberate federal coordination. Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, has already developed expertise in the recovery and recycling of valuable minerals, as well as relationships with important partners. For example, The EPA currently regulates the recovery of materials from solid waste. It's preparing regulations to encourage the recycling of lithium ion batteries, supports the development of new technologies to recover critical minerals from legacy mine sites, and manages the process for certain permits needed by critical mineral refining facilities. The EPA administers multiple programs that could impact critical mineral recovery, as do other federal agencies. This legislation would require EPA to develop and implement a national critical mineral recovery strategy to coordinate federal government efforts to recover critical minerals from discarded materials. The EPA would play the leading role in harmonizing these efforts. This legislation would also require the EPA to consider legal, technical, or other barriers to recovering critical minerals from discarded materials. This national critical mineral recovery strategy but also direct the EPA to work with other agencies to identify nontraditional domestic sources of critical minerals. The bill also requires the EPA to consider opportunities to recover critical minerals from discarded materials in a manner that minimizes risk to health in the human environment. I'm glad my colleague, Ranking Member Tonko, has joined me in putting forward this legislation. I'm proud that we could work together to address the challenges in a bipartisan manner. I encourage my colleagues to support the legislation, I yield back. Is there is there any other member seeking recognition to speak on the bill? Chair recognizes gentleman from New York, Mister Taco, for five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I move to strike the last word.

Gentleman is recognized.

Thank you, Chair, I thank you for your leadership on this bill and share the sentiments, and it's a pleasure to join in this effort. The CHARM Act would direct EPA to develop a national strategy to support critical mineral recovery. We know there are significant amounts of discarded materials that can become valuable secure sources of domestic critical minerals and there may very well be legitimate regulatory technological and economic barriers, preventing the United States from tapping into these supplies. EPA has significant expertise to lead the national strategy effort. The agency has already done considerable work to develop a framework for end of life management of batteries to result in the responsible collection, reuse and recycling of these mineral rich technologies. I do hope the CHARM Act might build upon that work to identify additional opportunities to recover critical miner uh mater minerals in a manner that maintains public health, worker safety and of course environmental protections. Our critical mineral supply chain challenges are significant. and recovery must play an important role in meeting our national demands. So I do thank you, and the majority and minority staff, for working together on this bill, and I encourage members to support it. With that, I thank you, Mr. Chair, and yield back.

Gentlemen yields, is there further discussion on the bill? Are there any amendments? Question now occurs on adopting HR s ninety six seventeen. All those in favor say aye. Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the bill is adopted and forwarded to the full committee. Chair now calls up HR ninety six eighteen and asks the clerk to report.

HR ninety six eighteen. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to preserve regulatory stability for motor vehicles, motor vehicle engines,

Without objection,

I'm

the first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will be open for amendment at any point so ordered. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? For what purpose does this gentlelady seek recognition?

Mister Chairman, I have an amendment in the nature of substitute at the desk and an additional amendment at the desk that makes some minor technical changes. I would like to address both of those.

I'm sure she can call one amendment at a time. call You can only call up one mem a mem at a time. At a time.

Okay, I'll just talk about the aims then.

General Lady is recognized for fi The clerk has reported. uh the clerk will report the amendment.

Sure.

Amendment to the n- amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR ninety six eighteen, offered by Mrs. Fidelecchia.

Without objection, the reading amendment is dispensed with and the General Lady is recognized for five minutes of support of the amendment.

Thank you, uh, Chairman Palmer and Ranking Member Tonko for working with me to include my bill, the Diesel Engine Flexibility Act. or the DEF Act in today's mark-up. Farmers, truckers, contractors, manufacturers, and equipment operators depend on reliable equipment to keep our economy moving. They shouldn't be sidelined by faulty sensors or unnecessary shutdowns that have nothing to do with actual emissions. The DEF Act provides the certainty needed while improving safety and keeping our economy moving. Modern diesel engines rely on diesel exhaust to dramatically reduce emissions. That's a goal goal that we all support. But the technology isn't perfect. Today, a faulty sensor or a minor system malfunction, often unrelated to actual emissions, can trigger a countdown that forces an engine into severe power restriction, slowing a vehicle to just five miles per hour. That's not an emissions problem, it's a reliability and a safety problem. In North Dakota, farmers and ranchers are spraying fields in a rare uh calm day, or harvesting grain before a storm. They might be hauling grain to market and livestock to an auction. Energy producers are moving equipment to well sites. Truckers and contractors are driving hundreds of miles across rural highways. If one of those vehicles suddenly loses power because of a faulty sensor, especially in the middle of the winter, When temperatures can reach twenty below zero, that isn't just frustrating. It can be disastrous, and it can be dangerous. And it costs these folks time and money, often through no fault of their own. Our producers and workers deserve policies that that don't cause this and things that they can rely on instead. I was pleased to see President Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin recognize this issue and take action. The EPA issued updated guidance that gives operators more warning before power restrictions take effect. And they provided additional flexibility when these systems experienced technical failures. Those common sense changes improved safety while maintaining the emissions performance systems, these syst- performances these systems were designed to achieve. My bill builds on that progress by putting those common sense reforms into law. It creates a stable ten-year regulatory framework, so manufacturers, operators and independent technicians have the certainty they need to invest, to innovate, and to keep equipment operating safely. It also directs EPA to consider the real-world impacts of future regulations by reducing unnecessary shutdowns and giving manufacturers meaningful lead time before new standards take effect. The Deaf Act provides long-term certainty while pr- preserving the environmental benefits these systems were designed to achieve. Again, this is a practical, bipartisan solution. I want to thank my partner on this legislation, Congressman Don Davis of North Carolina, for his leadership and collaboration in advancing this par- bipartisan bill. And I urge my colleagues to support the Diesel Engine Flexibility Act, and I yield back.

General Lady Yields, is there further discussion of the amendment? Someone from New York, Mister Tonko, is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chair. The uh Clean Air Act is clear that the Environmental Protection Agency has an obligation to protect Americans from dangerous pollution, including from the transportation sector. Vehicles and engines powered by diesel fuel account for more than sixty percent of all nitrogen oxide's pollution from the transportation sector in the United States. Exposure to diesel exhausts can lead to serious health conditions and result in increased emergency room visits absences from work and school and even premature death that is why EPA's standards to drive down pollution from the transport s- transportation sector are so very vital. EPA's standards also spur innovation in new technologies, selective catalytic reduction systems that use a urea-based diesel exhaust fluid are a prime example. These systems help cut tailpipe pollution, reduce fuel consumption, provide efficiency benefits, and fuel savings to the driver, which is critical more than ever given Trump's fuel affordability crisis. To protect the engine and ensure compliance with EPA emission standards, manufacturers design engines to progressively de-rate or reduce power. If there is an issue with the emissions control system, such as the death tank being empty. This is critical to protect the engine and ensuring the vital public health and environmental benefits of these systems are preserved. To address recent concerns with various uh death requirements, EPA put out a series of uh guidance documents on technical issues related to emissions control systems in diesel vehicles and engines for manufacturers at the environmental subcommittee legislative hearing in June. we considered a discussion draft that aimed to codify epa s guidance. Excuse me. I don't know. The bill also set a minimum derate inducement schedule for diesel engines and vehicles, Okay. preserving inducements as a necessary measure to protect So, yeah, it's our progress in cutting pollution from diesel engines. I didn't know it was While I generally have concerns with codifying guidance on highly technical issues the discussion drafts approach had bipartisan potential, with some targeted changes. Unfortunately, despite trying to work on a bipartisan compromise, the majority decided to include a version of the bill that is vastly different from what was discussed at the subcommittee hearing. Furthermore, the amendment, in the nature of a substitute, still includes a number of partisan poison pills. While the aims narrows the scope of the bill to only block more protective standards or state waivers that relate to inducement strategies or depth quality monitoring, It still allows the administrator to set weaker standards, and unnecessarily targets existing state authority under the Clean Air Act to set more ambitious standards in order to protect public health. The aim still adds a five-year lead time for any updated standards or state waivers, after the ten years safe harbor effectively locking in older protections for fifteen years freezing EPA vehicle standards in place for fifteen years would stifle innovation to develop newer and more cost-effective emissions control technologies and leave American manufacturers far behind their global competitors. Furthermore, this bill does not actually preserve EPA's guidance, it allows EPA to revert course and undermine state authority in the process. The bill unnecessarily undermines long-standing efforts to ensure emissions control systems on diesel trucks operate as intended and fails to protect the health of the communities that these trucks drive through. While I hoped we could have come to a bipartisan agreement on a bill to address death requirements for diesel engines, this bill certainly is not it. I urge my colleagues to oppose this aims and the underlying bill. And with that, I thank you, Mister Chair, and yield back.

Gentlemen yields, is there further discussion on the amendment? Senator from Colorado, Mister Evans is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and I wanna thank my colleague, um uh Representative Fedorchek for bringing this bill, um because her leadership is sorely needed uh as we continue to make common sense modernizations to the Clean Air Act. Uh let's be honest, farmers and ranchers or agricultural producers, they have a tough job. Anybody who doubts that, just go look at the mental health rates in rural America. When you are working in an industry that's dependent on the weather, dependent on being able to make food literally come up and grow out of the ground and then as i talked to one of my ag producers the other day a hailstorm runs through and flattens two thousand acres of feed which is absolutely critical for your dairy this is a tough job my farmers and ranchers often tell me that the number one export that they have is their kids i'll say that again my farmers and ranchers in my district often tell me their number one export is their kids who are not able to keep third or fourth or fifth generation family farm going because of the regulatory burden that's being imposed on them. And that's why this piece of legislation is so important. Our farmers and ranchers need clarity and additional flexibility around emissions monitoring and repairs for their equipment and their vehicles. Again, I represent a top ag-producing uh district in the nation. Multiple billions of dollars every year in annual revenue and economic product come from my district in the ag sector. That feeds the rest of our country. And this diesel uh engines flexibility act simply provides a ten year safe harbor, uh for recently published guidance from the EPA around knock sensors and maintenance protection. It also prevents activist states like Colorado uh and California from superseding these regulations with more restrictive policies and ultimately crushing our our all, our already struggling farmers and ranchers. You guys have heard this before. I have a kid uh with respiratory issues. No one wants clean air more than I do, but we have to follow the science. If we regulate our own economy and our own industries to death, then we just become reliant on nations like China that pollute more than we do to produce the same amount of, in this case, food. Losing our farmers and ranchers because we are crushing them under regulatory burden, all it does is raises prices at the grocery store, makes food more expensive, drive jobs out of the United States, makes us dependent on others for our food security, and ultimately results in dirtier air, more expenses, and poorer health outcomes, because when we lose those jobs and food is more expensive, and we have to import it from places that pollute more, nobody wins. Common sense approaches like what my colleague has brought forth is critical if we wanna provide our economy with the stability it needs to continue to accelerate, create more jobs, protect our farmers and ranchers, produce our food here in the United States, lower prices at the grocery store, and ultimately allow our constituents to achieve the American dream. And so I am proud to support this bill, I am proud to support our farmers and ranchers, and I urge my colleagues to do the same and yield back. Mister Chairman.

So anyone yields? Does uh any other member wish to uh address the amendment? Seeing none,

Mister Chairman.

General Lady from North Dakota is recognized.

Mister Chairman,

I am.

I have an amendment at the desk, amendment number three.

The clerk will report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR ninety six eighteen, offered by Mrs. Fedorchik of North Dakota. Page six, line three, strike, or are available for sale.

Without objection, the reading of the amendment is disp um dispensed with And the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment is pretty simple. It clarifies the nature of this legislation by remoo moving certain terms, which could lead to confusion in how vehicles or equipment are treated or defined under the text. In doing so, it upholds the intent of the bill by reducing regulatory uncertainty felt by farmers, ranchers, truckers, and manufacturers across the country. I urge a yes vote on this technical amendment and I yield back.

gentlelady yields as there further discussion of the amendment. Seeing none, the vote occurs on the amendment. All those in favor shall signify by saying aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to.

And they do nothing of the aims,

We're now going to vote on the aims that uh all those in favor Shall signify by saying aye. Aye.

Aye.

All opposed, no.

No.

The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. Uh, is there any further discussion on the bill? Seeing none, the question now occurs on adopting HR ninety six eighteen as amended. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no.

No.

The ayes have it and the bill is adopted and forwarded to the full committee. Without objection, the staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes to the legislation approved by the committee today. So ordered. Without objection, the committee stands adjourned.