EPA California At-Berth and Harbor Craft Disapprovals; Fraud Bills

Good afternoon, everyone. The committee will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess at any time. Today, the rules committee is convening to consider five measures, HJ res two one O, HJ res two one three, HR ninety-five seventy-six, hr ten three twenty six and the senate amendments to hr five three three four hres two one o and two one three two congressional review act resolutions provide for congressional disapproval of two environmental protection agency rules pertaining to non-road engine pollution control standards together the biden error regulations serve as hidden climate taxes, and inflationary costs that are ultimately paid by energy consumers. Let these regulations serve as a good lesson on how Congress addresses affordability under the two political parties. Republicans want less red tape, more energy choices, and fewer energy dictates from socialists in California. Democrats seem poised to double down on excessive mandates that drive up cost. We cannot and will not regulate ourselves to affordability. It's high time our colleagues understand this. Passage of these two CRAs will continue our work in slashing the burdensome overreaching regulations that the previous administration chose to shove down the throats of hard-working Americans in industries across our nation. Over-regulation is the problem, never the solution. H. R. ninety-five seventy-six and H. R. ten three twenty-six build upon the progress achieved by the Trump administration in combating rampant fraud. This is an issue that the American people care about. Americans deserve to know that their hard-earned tax dollars are not being siphoned away by bad actors of any kind. The White House task force to eliminate fraud, headed by Vice President Vance, has already made tremendous strides in identifying and rooting out blatant fraud and mismanagement. This important work can and should continue. Congress can aid in this work by passing these bills, codifying President Trump's executive orders relating to fraud, and ensuring that taxpayer dollars are safeguarded. Finally, we turn to the Senate amendments to H. R. five three three four, the Lindsey O. Graham sanctioning Russia, and Iran Act of twenty twenty six. This bipartisan package of sanctions will bind the hands of Vladimir Putin, reinforce America's capacity to impose true economic repercussion upon our adversaries, and lead to deterrence on multiple fronts, for our nation and our allies. Peace through strength requires bold, decisive action. Such action is found within this package, And it reaffirms America's resolve and unshakable posture on the world stage. We should not hesitate to pass it. I understand my Democrat colleagues have concerns about the tariff provisions in this legislation and they don't want to give President Trump anything else. But this isn't about President Trump. It's about leveraging the tools of most powerful count- of the most powerful country in the world, the United States. to defend a sovereign nation, a nation my Democrat colleagues have consistently supported from foreign invasion. And I would say to them that if this bill is good enough for Tammy Duckworth, Adam Schiff, and Chris Van Hollen, no friends of the president at all, this should be good enough for them. I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses and hearing more from them about the importance of our slate of bills here in the Rules Committee. With that, I yield to the ranking member for any comments he wishes to make.

Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair. Um, this is our last week here, uh, before November, because Speaker Johnson is sending us home early yet again. We're not gonna be back for many, many weeks. And I look at this agenda and I have to ask, this is it? Really? More bills about fraud, but not a peep about the rich healthcare fraudsters who Donald Trump pardoned. who defrauded billions from medicare not a peep more resolutions overturning environmental rules and attacking the clean air act which is responsible for cleaning up pollution and getting rid of smoke and smog in our air yet another giveaway to the rich and powerful that will raise gas and diesel prices even more and another bill sanctioning russia and iran but let me be clear i stand with ukraine I've called out Putin's human rights abuses for decades. In fact, his corrupt regime banned me from stepping foot in Russia because I wrote and helped pass into law bipartisan legislation going after the Kremlin thugs, who abuse human rights. But let me also say that Donald Trump said fifty-three times on the campaign trail, that he would end Putin's invasion of Ukraine within twenty-four hours. I did the math. It's now been fourteen thousand four hundred fifty-two hours, and he still has not ended the war. Another broken promise. And let's look at uh what's not on the agenda, this rules meeting. The last one before Americans head to the polls in November. Nothing at all, nothing, nothing, nothing to make gas cheaper, nothing to lower rent or healthcare costs, nothing to get grocery prices under control, nothing on inflation, nothing to ease the burden, of tariffs nothing on the war in iran nothing not a thing this is your closing argument i mean really good luck with that well here and here's mine almost two years ago on the day trump was sworn in and republicans won total control of washington gas at that time was three dollars and twelve cents a gallon and inflation was around three percent today gas is four dollars and thirty one cents a gallon and inflation is up to three point four percent and just between you and me i think uh trump is cooking the books i think inflation is actually much higher than that and diesel is over six bucks a gallon the highest it's ever ever been ever let that sink in and i don't mean this year or this decade i mean it's the highest it's been in the recorded history of america when diesel goes up everything gets more expensive And people don't need an economist to get it. They feel it every single day. Meanwhile, Chevron announced in July its highest quarterly profits in six years. Refiners are benefiting from wider margins as global fuel supplies tighten. And Trump's own oil investments have gained millions, millions since he started the war in Iran. All that and the Republican message here today with this package of pathetic bills that you're advancing to the floor is that you just don't care that the issue of affordability is not a priority which i guess makes sense because you guys don't have an agenda of your own you just take your marching orders from trump and hope that nobody notices all the favors you're doing for the rich and powerful in this country the guy who says affordability is a hoax the guy who says he doesn't think about you and your family's financial situation the guy who says grocery prices aren't up the guy who says there is no war, the guy who says tariffs is his favorite word, the guy who says I love inflation. He's actually said that. The White House Press Secretary, the highest Republican spokesperson in Washington, told us in no uncertain terms what you guys do care about, though. She said, and I quote, " At this moment in time, of course, the ballroom is really the president's main priority." Let that sink in. And while he's out surveying the construction and renaming lakes, regular people are getting screwed thanks to his stupid tariffs and his illegal war. And now, since he knows people are fed up, he wants to bribe everyone with a fi- with five thousand dollar checks that are obviously never going to actually be sent out. The reason why people are fed up is not a mystery. It's because of the Republican agenda. It is your war It is your tariffs, it is your billionaire's first big ugly bill, it is your obsession with culture war garbage, uh, uh, while while people are hurting. We are in this mess because Republicans advanced no plan to make people's lives better. And quite frankly, our Republican friends here don't have the spine to tell the President no. Republicans have betrayed their so-called America First movement. You have betrayed the people you said you would help. And come November, and I really do hope and pray, for the sake of our future and for the sake of our country, that we're gonna correct course. And that the American people see through the corruption and the lies, it is time to hold this president, and especially this Republican Congress, responsible for steering our economy off a cliff and driving our country into the ground. And with that, I yield back.

Thank you, Mister McGovern. Without objection, any prepared statements that our witnesses will be included in the record. I now welcome our first panel, Representative Palmer and Ranking Member Pallone from the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Your full statements will be submitted for the record. We ask you summarize your statement in five minutes and address all legislation in your committee's jurisdiction in that time. Representative Palmer, I welcome your testimony.

Thank you, Chairwoman Fox and Ranking Member McGovern and the members of the Rules Committee for the opportunity to testify before you today. I'm proud to speak and support two resolutions of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act. These resolutions continue the important work that the Energy and Commerce Committee led last year, nullifying actions taken by the Biden administration that allowed California to enact radical environmental policies that negatively impact the entire nation. The Clean Air Act section two O nine generally preempts states from imposing their own emission standards, but if certain conditions are met, the EPA administrator may grant a waiver of preemption allowing the state to impose its own regulations. California is the only state that may qualify for a waiver of preemption, but the Clean Air Act permits other states to implement California's regulations once a waiver is granted. This means the EPA's waiver decisions can have national implications. far beyond the local air pollution concerns that California purports to be addressing. House uh joint resolution uh two ten led by Representative Vince Fogg would overturn the waiver allowing California to regulate emissions from certain kinds of ships while they are at birth in California ports. The California rules impose impractical and costly emission requirements on tankers and roll-on, roll-off ships. House Joint Resolution two thirteen, led by Representative James Gallagher of California, would disapprove a waiver allowing California to regulate emissions from commercial harbor craft, including commercial fishing boats, ferries, and tugboats. The California rules would in effect have extended the state's EV, electric vehicle, and zero emission mandates to these vessels that keep our harbors running and people and goods moving. Madam Chairwoman, the Biden Administration's approval of these waivers allowed were needed to impose radical Green New Deal policies over entire industries, granting one state the authority to regulate entire segments of the U. S. economy. Allowing these overburdensome regulations to stand would raise the price for transportation and consumer goods, a price that families across the country are then forced to pay. The at-birth regulations would require ports, utilities and operators to spend billions of dollars to upgrade their facilities and equipment. including installing electric charging equipment to power tanker ships. These compliance costs are passed down to consumers and raise the price of all goods that move through California. According to California's own estimate, the cost of compliance would be around two point four billion dollars. Tanker vessels used to ship petroleum to California's ports and refineries will face at least one point seven billion dollars of compliance costs. Those costs will be passed along to consumers at the pump, raising gas prices, and impacting affordability more broadly. The commercial Harbor Craft regulations would bring the petroleum-delivered supply chain for the entire West Coast to a halt, raising gas prices throughout the country. We've already seen this type of negative impact. A twenty-twenty-five tugboat shortage resulted in prolonged waiting times for incoming cargo ships and additional fees for consumer goods. The commercial Harbor Craft regulations will impose over two point five billion in direct cost on top of the at-berth regulations. This would raise the price of gas anywhere from between eighteen and forty-eight cents per gallon, along the West Coast. Even if we put aside the colossal cost, the actions mandated by California regulations are unsafe. According to the Chamber of Shipping America, the at-berth shore power requirements for tankers pose a significant safety risk, jeopardizing crew and dock members alike. The filters required by the Commercial Harbor Craft regulations have The risk is so s- significant that the Coast Guard wrote to California highlighting this concern. They also raised considerable feasibility concerns over the regulations. Multiple maritime labor unions opposed California's regulations due to these safety concerns. These mandates are not limited to one state. Forty percent of our nation's imports pass through California's ports. Adding enormous regulatory burdens and compliance costs will increase the price of everyday goods. for all Americans. Forcing ocean vessels to retire or be pulled out of service for long periods of time threatens the stability of our national supply chain. The compliance costs associa- associated with these regulations make operations infeasible for several major operators that supply some of our nation's largest ports. California should not be allowed to dictate national policy, especially when their regulations can cripple American - the American supply chain. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these important resolutions. I thank you, uh, Mister Chairman, and I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Now we recognize Ranking Member Pilon for his time.

Thank you. Thank you, Mister Griffith, and and Mister McGowan, and members of of the committee. Um, I believe the Republican majority is wasting their last week of session on CRAs that don't actually comply with the requirements of a CRA. Instead, The Republicans should actually be doing something about the affordability crisis that the American people are facing. That's what I hear when I go home. This week Congress should focus on lowering costs for all Americans. Trump is destroying our economy with his war in Iran and tariffs on our allies. The national average diesel price is over six dollars a gallon. Gas prices are thirty-five percent higher compared to this time last year. And inflation is at a three-year high. Republican choices have cost the average household more than thirty, eight hundred dollars in higher grocery prices, fuel costs and other expenses. Also they can also they can help the rich get richer and allow big corporations to take advantage of hard-working families. Now I say these congressional re- review acts are resolutions are legal and they target long-standing clean maritime policies that have spurred billions of dollars in investment in cleaner ports and engines saved billions in public health care costs and cut pollution and cancer risk, for those living and working near the ports. H. J. Rez two ten, the first one, repeals the twenty twenty ocean-going vessels at-berth amendments, which simply requires large vessels like container ships, tankers, cruise ships, and auto carriers docked to California ports to either connect to shore power or use an approved emission control strategy. Ships are required to take these measures instead of idling and continuously burning expensive diesel fuel at a time when the national average is soaring over six dollars. the highest in history thanks to Trump's reckless war of choice in Iran. And I should also note that this policy has been in place in some form since two thousand and seven and has cut pollution from large vessels by eighty percent, resulting in taxpayer savings on health care costs and lower cancer risk for American families so this policy that you're seeking to repeal actually works. The second bill, H. J. Rez two thirteen, repeals the twenty twenty-two commercial harbor craft amendments which have a similar story. The amendments simply require harbour craft vessels, such as excursion vessels, tugboats, workboats and ferries, operating within California waters, to upgrade to cleaner diesel engines or zero emission power depending on the vessel class. This standard has been in place since two thousand and nine, to help clean up harbour craft vessels, which are some of the largest sources of cancer causing pollution at ports. All told, the two the twenty twenty-two amendments are projected to deliver five point two five billion dollars in health benefits when fully implemented. So the resolutions, both of them are gonna take all these benefits away. Congress carefully crafted the Clean Air Act to recognize the diverse air pollution challenges facing each state. Due to a history of severe air quality problems, the EPA can grant California waivers to set vehicle emission standards that are more protective than those at the federal level. And EPA has granted dozens of these waivers over the last fifty years, like it did for multiple iterations of the at-birth and commercial harbor craft standards. These policies only apply to ports and vessels in California, and regulated entities are already complying with established and commercially available clean technologies. Uh essentially, Mister Mister Chairman, the the the Mister Griffith, the boat has left port in this matter, so to speak. And unfortunately, it must be said that my Republican colleagues are once again abusing the CRA process to retroactively target legally authorized Clean Air Act waivers. It's very clear that the CRA does not apply to these waivers, so Republicans' insistence on bringing them to the floor is a waste of Congress's time. Now let me just explain a little more about why I think that these CRAs are illegal. The Government Accounting Office concluded, and then reaffirmed, that waivers are adjudicatory orders, not rules, and only concern one specific entity, California, so they're ineligible for review under the CRA. The Senate parliamentarian agreed. And last week a judge granted a preliminary injunction blocking EPA from reclassifying Clean Air Act waivers as rules, and stopping the agency from sending waivers to Congress for nullification under the CRA. I don't know how that could not be more clear. So these resolutions are a waste of time. They once again show the Republicans have no interest in providing much needed relief to American families. And I strongly oppose these resolutions for all these reasons. And I look forward to your questions. I yield back, Mr. uh, Mr. Griffin.

Gentleman yields back, it's always good to see you.

You too, and I I guess I could quote you Mister Chairman, but I think of you as an energy and commerce person, so

It's it's fine. It's fine. I I I will now recognize Miss uh Fischbach for her time of questioning.

Thank you very much, and I I just want to say I I appreciate that the that the um in England, isn't it loyal opposition? But that you continue the these aren't words are time these are you know you continue that mantra in pushing that narrative about how um we're wasting time we're not doing what we need to do but but i think that the these it makes sense that we are addressing these things like this over regulation and um and maybe if uh the chairman would just you know how do these regulations impact fuel costs and maybe you could expand a little bit on that

well it's gonna have an enormous impact on fuel costs up and down the west coast uh particularly but it'll also impact fuel costs around the country and we already know in certain industries particularly in agriculture the fuel the transportation cost is greater than than the production of of of the agri agricultural products. So this'll just get passed on to consumers.

And and I appreciate that and so I that's I wanted to make sure that we you know if we if you hadn't already made the point strongly enough that we re reiterated that because um you know this this continually these are useless these are useless But this, I think it makes sense and we are trying to um do things that will help folks. And so I thank you for bringing it forward.

Well Yeah, I would add that obviously we're dealing with with uh a fuel price increase that's related to what I think is really a continu continuation of the war on terror. I mean, I think most of us agree that we shouldn't allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. We just remembered what happened on nine eleven twenty five years ago, if those people who carried out that that terrorist attack that had a a nuclear weapon,

well thank you very much and i appreciate you bringing it forward and appreciate both of you being here i yield back

channel eight of us back now recognize the ranking member of the rules committee mr. mcgovern

well i wanna thank both gentlemen for being here and um mister pomer i wanna thank you for acknowledging that the reason why fuel costs are through the roof right now is because of this uh what i think is an illegal war in iran i mean it is and uh we there's no end in sight um and you know and a and i think that really what we should be talking about right now given the fact that the president seems determined to keep the war going is how do we how do we ease the burden on consumers i mean it's the consumers in this country that are paying these high gas prices it is our farmers who are getting screwed over by the high cost of diesel i think i read a figure that our farmers collectively have paid an additional one point three trillion dollars uh in higher uh diesel cost because of uh what's happening in iran we need to that's where the relief uh and and it's just kind of ironic to me that rather than addressing issues that are gonna actually help regular people uh our constituents um were actually addressing uh matters that quite frankly big oil wants um i mean i i just noticed that the american fuel and petrochemical manufacturers association is urging everybody to uh embrace this bill so we're we're we're we're we're helping we're helping make their their profits even bigger uh but we're not doing anything to ease the um the the cost and the burden on on consumers so in any event that's I don't really have any questions. This is i it is what it is. And, uh, again, I appreciate you both being here and I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Now I recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mister Scott, for his time.

Well, thank thank you, Mister Chairman. And I know that, uh, while the Democrats are talking about the blame of of why fuel prices are high, I would remind the American citizens it was the Democrats that killed the Keystone pipeline. It is the Democrats that has objected to the building of additional refineries in the united states of america and i commend the president of the united states for having the guts to do what a hundred and fifty democrats said should have been done back in um twenty twenty three and so i i would just um read read part of this provision to you but this you know in twenty twenty three uh international atomic energy agency investigators found uranium particles enriched to eighty three point seven percent at iran's fordau nuclear facility in january twenty uh uranium orange to ninety percent as weapons grade material. And it goes on uh to say that a nuclear Islamic Republic of Iran is not acceptable. Uh, they should not be ab- able to obtain a nuclear weapon. And we should use any and all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. And and a hundred and fifty Democrats supported that. The hundred and fifty Democrats, some of which are on the rules committee, supported that. And so the president did uh, what had to be done, Iran was not gonna stop there in Richmond, they proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they had missile capabilities far beyond what they were allowed to have and what they had said they could have, and so, uh, you can blame President Trump all you want, but the fact of the matter is the Democratic Party that opposed the Keystone pipeline, if it wasn't for the Democratic Party, the Keystone pipeline would have been built, if it wasn't for the Democratic Party, additional refineries would be built, and if it wasn't for the Democratic Party, the price of fuel and energy in this country would be significantly lower, and that would benefit everybody. I appreciate the fact, Mister McGovern, that you said when diesel goes up, everything gets more expensive. I wish that you had governed uh based on that policy,

I do I do I do blame Trump.

because that's true.

I do blame Trump.

Gentleman's time.

Yes.

I can hear you.

I do blame Trump.

How old are and old are the gentlemen's?

But but when when diesel goes up, everything gets

It's gentleman's time he has to yield. Does the gentleman yield?

Yes.

The gentleman yields.

Yeah, y- I do blame Trump.

Okay.

This war in Iran has I mean we've all seen we've I just I just told you,

Yep. Okay. Okay.

gas prices have skyrocketed more because of it.

Okay. All right, I'm gonna reclaim my You blame him for the health care crisis too. I went and I did this. I got the Georgia Hospital Association,

I do too.

I got the Georgia Hospital Association to survey their hospitals. And this is nineteen hospitals in the state of Georgia have three hundred and ninety-six million seven hundred and ten thousand in outstanding claims on Medicare Advantage plans alone you know who the biggest culprits are? United Health Care is the biggest culprit. Humana is the second biggest culprit. Aetna is the third biggest culprit. The same companies that you demanded that we give fifty billion dollars in subsidies to are the ones that don't pay the claims to the hospitals. I represent rural America. I appreciate the fact that you people that represent metro areas think you know better about what's happening than we do, but in my part of the world, the same companies that you wanted to give the fifty billion dollars to, so they could distribute it to their executives and their shareholders, they're the ones that don't pay the claims. So.

Will the gentleman yield?

You know. No, I won't.

Oh, I just wanted to point that out.

You did this.

The gentleman didn't yield. The frog the frog. Yeah, I'm like,

You did this. You did this and when you all passed the laws, you could have made the prompt pay laws apply to um to Medicare Advantage, and you chose not to because you're on the side of the big insurance companies.

Y- we don't

We're gonna fix that though.

gentlemen did not yield. We don't hardly get a price, sir.

We're we're gonna fix that.

Gentlemen did not yield.

I'm I'm not yielding, I got three and a half minutes. Mister Palmer.

Yes, sir.

You do an exceptionally good job up here. I listened to the word salad that was put out by um, Mister Palone, but the fact of the matter is I think this - this - this is a good piece of legislation. It's not actually legislation, but a good resolution that needs to pass. I just - before - before I yield the time back to the Chair, do you have anything further that you - you would like to clarify, uh, from the word salad?

Well, I think the - the key thing here is - is that we - we continue to impose burdens on - on working class Americans. And and it's unnecessary. Uh, some of the uh the things that Californians are doing from a technology perspective is is not possible. I mean, I I I call this black box technology. There's nothing in the box. Uh, as you know, Mister Scott, I've worked uh for two international engineering companies and and one of them, uh, combustion uh engineering, I worked in the environmental systems division. So I have a pretty good understanding of what it takes uh in terms of environmental protection, whether it's air quality or water or or whatever and and states like California continue to push things that just frankly, the technology to do it does not exist. And that that makes uh the uh capital more expensive because it it creates uncertainty. Uh, and one example that I read uh of one of these uh boats, the the the boat captain had to replace his engine six times.

Oh yeah.

So, uh, I I do think that

Mr. Palmer, I had a nineteen ninety-nine F two fifty. It got better gas mileage than my twenty-twenty-two does. If they would have left industry alone, we would have significantly better fuel economy today. We would.

Well,

How how is it that a that an ninety-nine got better fuel economy than a than a twenty-two?

um Well, the other point that the other point that you made to,

Was it better engine?

uh, Mister Scott is in regard to the refineries. We haven't built a new refinery since the nineteen seventy four

mmm

there's one under way in in texas but but refineries for uh general fuel uh and and diesel are little bit different because diesel is a distilled fuel uh we're not doing what we need to do to meet the the economic demands energy demands fuel demands that the country has and if we did i think uh prices would be considerably lower

they'd be lower for everybody their power bills would be lower uh the power bill would be lower at the grocery store You know that the, and I know this because of my my committee work, but um the spread between the retail and the wholesale price of protein has never been higher in this country. And a significant portion of that is what the grocery stores are having to pay in in in their power bill because the Democrats are just infatuated with wind and solar, won't let us build nuclear, won't let the heat stone pipeline come in, won't let us build refineries, um, you know. I i'm gonna yield back to the chair but i appreciate you mister palmer being here with this this good resolution

gentleman yields and i recognize gentlelady from pennsylvania miss cannon for her time of questioning

thank you mister chairman uh i'm glad that we're at least talking a little bit about the burdens on working class families but specifically what we have before us are two resolutions to strip away california's protections designed to reduce harmful air pollution at some of the busiest ports in our country. And these are communities that already bear an enormous burden from dirty air. And those protections, they do relieve burdens on our working class families, because without those protections, those working class families breathe that dirty air and they end up paying the health care costs the the price in shortened lives et cetera. But, you know, instead of working the lower costs for American families, our Republican colleagues are harder for states to protect their own residents from harmful pollution. And that fits the broader pattern of Republican priorities that we've seen for this term. Trump administration and congressional Republicans have spent the past year and a half putting their thumbs on the scale to increase corporate profits, dismantle environmental protections, roll back pollution standards, and abandon investments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So the consequences of weakening those environmental protections do hit our working class families every single day. We should be focused on making our constituents' lives safer, healthier, and more affordable. Instead, as our Republican colleagues decide to leave Washington for another seven weeks, they're once again using our limited time to weaken protections for our kids' and our communities. So, uh, ranking member Pallone, you're on the Energy and Commerce Committee. Um, uh, could you just give us one or two possible environmental or affordability issues within your committee's jurisdiction, that Congress could spend its time on instead of repealing air pollution regulations?

Well, the biggest, um, uh, concern that I hear at home is about, uh, health care.

Mm-hmm.

Um, And I know that was relevant. I think Georgia was talking about that briefly too. But I mean the bottom line is when we, when the Republicans refused to uh, to reauthorize the um, enhanced premium tax credits, uh, health insurance for uh, many of my constituents and around the country went up two times, sometimes three times, right?

Mm-hmm.

And so we find that many people have simply decided to drop health insurance. Um, and um, You know, the other major issue would be to try to reduce, uh, the cost of prescription drugs. We did pass legislation, which is now law, that says that when you're dealing with Medicare, uh, that the government can negotiate, uh, lower prices, which they have, even under, you know, using that legislation, even under this administration that's happened. But I'd like to see it expanded to the commercial, to the private insurance sector, not not just, uh, not just, uh, uh, Medicare. And, you know, I, uh, met last week with the hospitals, uh, in my district, and they're all concerned about the cuts to hospitals. What's happening now, Miss Ganelon, which is amazing to me, is I didn't even know that under New Jersey law a hospital can get a license, and it's not required to have OBG one, not to, not even to deliver babies, not to have pediatrics. And so not only do we have hospitals closing, but we hosp- we have hospitals now that don't deliver babies, don't do pediatrics. I mean all these things that were in the big, I call it the big ugly bill, are coming home to roost now. And these cuts are impacting hospitals, nursing homes, people not having insurance, lack of access.

Mm-hmm.

Um, so this is one of the biggest things that people care about. Um, and they certainly don't want uh, pollution standards reduced, which of course the Trump administration is doing not only for the ports in California but across the board. I mean he i think today if i'm not mistaken the administration is gonna announce that they're not even enforce the uh the clean air act uh standards uh for power plants for utilities

yeah it it's crazy and you know begging to differ with my colleague from georgia these um cuts to uh health care funding and everything don't just effect the royal hospitals we lost an entire health care system in my district because it was dependent on medicaid people are losing access to medicaid it was also being run by a private equity firm which is another issue we have to address but I completely agree we should be looking at expanding access and affordability of health care expanding access to Medicare to Medicaid to these things instead of not just restricting access to health care and affordability of health care but by rolling back pollution laws giving people more health issues to contend with so thank you for your testimony I think the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I don't wanna belabor the point, uh, but I think uh, we touched a nerve uh, when we talked about uh, what the realities are that have been caused directly by this administration and by this congress. I just wanna remind people uh, Democrats didn't uh, pardon, Medicare fraudsters. Republicans did. Uh, Democrats didn't cut Medicaid by a trillion dollars. Republicans did. Uh, Democrats didn't start a war in Iran, an illegal war in Iran. uh republicans did a war by the way that has jacked up uh uh fuel prices uh to the point that uh you know not only are consumers being uh adversely impacted but our business community is being adversely affected democrats didn't start these uh these tariff wars with like our allies like canada which by the way uh we are paying a price for that right now um uh all over the country uh republicans did that and democrats didn't say that affordability was a hoax because the bottom line is i don't care whether you go to blue states or red states or purple states people are struggling they're struggling like never before uh affordability is not a hoax it is a real issue people uh can buy less at the grocery store they're having trouble making their rents they're having trouble filling up their gas tank and they're having trouble uh affording health healthcare so i i point all of that out because we're in a crisis right now and i think what you're hearing on our side is in the with all of this happening you guys say let's let's let's start our recess two weeks early let's not do anything on any of these issues um oh and by the way uh we have the ceo of anthropic telling us that ai is an issue that needs to be addressed immediately this is an emergency um and then the speaker of the house is on tv saying ah no big deal you know we'll we'll get you know we'll we'll get to it when we get to it i mean i think what the american people want whether you're a democrat or republican is like to have their congress have a sense of urgency that were actually wanna do something to help make their life better. And unfortunately, this Congress has failed. I thank the General Lady. I yield back.

Thank you. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back to the lady who yields back to the chair now. Recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mister Nguz, for his time of questioning.

I thank the uh I thank the chairman and I certainly echo the sentiments of the ranking member and my colleague from Pennsylvania. Mister Palmer, i wanna get a better sense of of the procedural posture of the cras that you're submitting to the house for its full consideration and wanna make sure that i understand the permissibility of what you all are proposing so my understanding is that the government accountability office the gao has concluded that these waivers are not subject to the cra Is that your understanding as well?

They wouldn't ordinarily be, unless the EPA determines that they're not waivers but regulations.

Unle- I'm sorry, could you repeat that part?

They, uh, ordinarily would not be, unless the EPA determines that they're not waivers but regulations. And at that point then, uh, they would come under the Congressional Review Act.

Has the EPA, under any Republican, or a democratic presidential administration previously submitted waivers as rules to the Congress?

Uh, I wouldn't know. I I just know what's going on now.

My understanding, just to kind of put brass tacks here, is that the GAO has said these waivers are not permissible to be considered under the CRA. The Senate parliamentarian has indicated that these waivers are not permissible to be modified rescinded through the CRA and that no democratic or republican administration prior to trump in his second term have made this argument that waivers are subject to the CRA which is precisely why a federal district court two weeks ago concluded that these waivers would ultimately were not it the process by which the epa was pursuing to repeal them was improper which i'm sure you're aware of

well i i understand that waivers are not subject to the cra but once they've been deemed to become regulations by the epa which has jurisdiction over this uh then they are subject to review by congress which i think

and did the epa

the american public would would want us to do our due diligence in reviewing a regulation.

When did the EPA make that determination?

Um, uh, earlier this summer, I believe.

Correct. Not when this initial when these initial waivers were granted.

Well, I don't know exactly when the waivers were granted,

The waivers were granted in January of twenty twenty five.

but Then that but

So

that means that the EPA did their due diligence to review the waivers to make a determination as to whether or not their waivers are regul- are regulatory in nature.

Mr. Palmer, what happened, what what intervening event happened between the initial waivers being granted and the EPA reaching a different conclusion sixteen months later?

Well, you would ask have to ask the people who did the review at the EPA.

A presidential election happened, Mr. Palmer. I'm not there's no the initial waivers were granted by the prior administration. And at that time, the EPA did not indicate to the Congress this argument that you're making, that somehow this waiver now functions as a regulation. It was not until the Trump administration, post facto, sixteen months down the road, then concluded and made this argument that you're making, that somehow the CRA covers this type of waiver because they're submitting it to the Congress as a regulation. Which, by the way, I don't, is an unprecedented stance for the presidential administration to take, and has not been taken before, is my understanding in the context of any regulation.

I think my friend, though, said that the waivers were granted in January of twenty-five. Was that right before the Trump administration began?

Correct.

Well, that's consistent with what, uh, uh, previous Democratic administrations have done. Uh, and and I say this to my friend from Colorado, uh, it was clearly political. Th- these are, uh, another example of midnight, uh, regulations through a waiver process. My my estimation would be that they chose to go to deem these waivers because they knew that the waivers wouldn't be subject to congressional review, and that's why they did them at the last minute. So once uh the Trump administration came in, the EPA began to review all of these midnight regulations, they had an opportunity to determine whether or not it's a waiver or regulation.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on the motives of the uh the prior folks at the epa who i believe i presume were trying to address the pollution concerns of folks in southern california that being said what i would suggest to you is that even if this resolution were to pass the house it is going nowhere fast because we know from the senate parliamentarians prior indications that the cra will be considered impermissible in the united states senate so in effect this passes later this week, nothing happens. Fair enough?

Well, again, to my friend, one of the things that indicates to me that they haven't given a lot of thought to this, that these were passed through at the last minute midnight, is that some of the requirements, the technology simply does not exist, uh, to achieve, uh, what they're trying to, to do through the waivers. And if you were really thoughtful about, uh, your regulations, one of the, the things you'd wanna make sure of, before you ever issued one, is that the technology exists to actually achieve what what you're trying to achieve, and that that simply didn't happen.