FIRE Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1174 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee reported on a rule, House Resolution 1174, that provides for consideration of four measures.

The rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 6387, H.R. 6398, and H.R. 6409, each under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their designees, and provides for each bill one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H. Res. 1156, expressing support for tax policies that support working families, under a closed rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or their designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying legislation.

The rule before us provides an opportunity for Congress to rein in regulatory overreach, to restore common sense for our environmental policies, and to ensure that American communities are not punished for circumstances beyond their control.

For far too long, States, workers, and job creators have been forced to operate under a system that is overly rigid and increasingly bureaucratic and disconnected from reality. Instead of working with States, Federal regulators have imposed one-size-fits-all policies that drive up costs, delay projects, and make it harder for communities to grow and to prosper.

These measures begin to correct that course and put us on a more practical and more predictable path forward.

Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 6409, the FENCES Act. This legislation addresses a simple but important problem. States are currently being penalized for emissions that they have absolutely no control over. That includes pollution originating from foreign countries like China, as well as natural events such as wildfires beyond our borders. Yet under current policy, those emissions can still count against a State's ability to meet Federal air quality standards.

This is not how this should work, and we have seen the impact firsthand. In my home State of New York, communities across western New York and the southern tier have repeatedly experienced severe air quality impacts from Canadian wildfires.

This has become a reoccurring issue year after year. Smoke from wildfires in Ontario and Quebec have drifted south, triggering air quality alerts across our State. Families have been told to stay indoors. Schools, camps, and outdoor events have been disrupted and canceled. What should be time spent outside during the summer has, instead, meant staying inside because of conditions beyond anyone's control locally.

In parts of New York, we have seen some of the worst air quality readings in the entire country on these days.

This does not affect just families. It affects local economies, as well. Small businesses, outdoor workers, farmers, and manufacturers all feel the impact when air quality restrictions tighten because of pollution they did not create in the first place.

Yet, under the current framework, those same communities can still face consequences--more regulation and more restrictions--for conditions entirely outside of their control. It makes no sense.

The FENCES Act restores the original intent of the Clean Air Act by making clear that foreign emissions, whether manmade or natural, should not be used to penalize States when determining compliance.

It allows States to account for those emissions earlier in the process instead of forcing them into costly delays, stricter requirements, or potential Federal penalties at the very end because the reality is simple, States like New York should not be punished for smoke coming from wildfires in another country like Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 6387, the FIRE Act. Across the country, communities are dealing with the growing threat of wildfires. At the same time, States are taking proactive steps to reduce the risk through prescribed burns, forest management, and other mitigation efforts.

However, under current law, those efforts can count against them when it comes to air quality compliance. Now think about that. States are being penalized for trying to prevent catastrophic wildfires. This isn't just backwards. It creates a system that punishes proactive solutions and rewards inaction.

Part of the problem is how the current system treats those emissions. While naturally occurring wildfires can sometimes be considered exceptional events, the very tools used to prevent those wildfires, like prescribed burns, are often treated the same as emissions from a factory. That is a clear gap in the law, and it leads to confusion, inconsistent decisions, and unnecessary delays for States trying to do the right thing.

The result is a system that discourages mitigation even though we know that proactive land management reduces the severity of wildfires and improves long-term air quality. The consequences are real. When States are discouraged from carrying out these efforts, the risk of larger, more destructive wildfires only increases, leading to worse air quality, greater damage, and higher costs for communities.

The FIRE Act fixes this by ensuring that emissions from wildfire mitigation activities are treated appropriately under the Clean Air Act. It brings consistency on how we treat emissions from wildfires and from the efforts used to prevent them, and it provides States with the clarity and predictability that we need to plan and to act.

It also reduces unnecessary regulatory burdens on manufacturers and local communities while still maintaining strong environmental protections for communities. This is about encouraging smart land management, reducing long-term risk, and recognizing that proactive solutions should not be met with Federal penalties.

Mr. Speaker, the rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 6398, the RED Tape Act. This measure takes aim at a specific and unnecessary layer of Federal bureaucracy that continues to slow down projects across the country.

Right now, when a Federal agency completes an environmental impact statement, the Environmental Protection Agency is required to conduct a separate review and publicly comment on that work, even in cases where the EPA has already been involved in developing it.

That second review often covers the exact same ground. It adds time. It adds cost. It adds uncertainty, without meaningfully improving any outcomes.

We do not have to look far to see how duplication and delay affect real projects. In upstate New York, Micron announced a historic investment to bring advanced semiconductor manufacturing back to the United States, an investment expected to support thousands and thousands of good-paying jobs and strengthen our domestic supply chain.

This is exactly the kind of project we should be encouraging and putting a rocket booster on, but like many large-scale projects, it has to navigate a complex and very time-consuming environmental review process across multiple levels of government. That is the broader issue. It is not about identifying new risks. It is about how layers of review can stack on top of one another, adding delay and uncertainty, even when high standards are already being met.

The consequences are real. When projects like this one are delayed, jobs are delayed, investment is delayed, and our ability to compete globally, especially in critical industries like semiconductors, is put at risk at a time when we are trying to onshore these critical industries and strengthen our domestic supply chain. This is exactly what is wrong with this approach.

The reality is that the agencies responsible for these projects already have the expertise and the legal responsibility to conduct thorough environmental reviews. They prepare detailed environmental impact statements. They consult with experts and are accountable for the decisions that they make. The EPA is often already involved in that process as it develops.

What this bill addresses is the additional, duplicative step that comes after the work has already been completed. Nothing in this legislation prevents coordination or input during the review itself. It simply removes a redundant requirement that adds delay without adding value.

Recent Supreme Court precedent has reinforced this approach, recognizing that the agencies responsible for a project are best positioned to evaluate its environmental impacts that the scope of review should remain focused and practical.

The RED Tape Act reflects that reality. It removes the duplicative requirement. It streamlines the process, and it ensures that projects that meet the standard can move forward without unnecessary delay because right now too often projects are not being stopped, they are just being slowed down by process.

Finally, the rule provides for consideration of H. Res. 1156. Mr. Speaker, today is tax day, and families across the country are sitting down to file their returns and take a closer look at what they owe and what they keep. It is a significant day because it is a direct reminder of how the decisions that we make here in Washington show up in people's lives.

Last year, House Republicans passed and the President signed into law H.R. 1, the Working Families Tax Cut Act, one of the largest tax cuts for working and middle-class Americans in history. The law prevented a $2.6 trillion tax increase on families making less than $400,000 a year, and it continues to deliver real savings to millions of Americans.

Today, as families file their taxes, they are seeing the impact of these policies firsthand. For a family of four earning under $73,000, it can mean no Federal income tax at all, and the relief is targeted where it matters the most: no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, tax relief for our senior citizens in their golden years. These are changes that show up directly in what families owe, what they keep, and how they plan for the year ahead.

Mr. Speaker, this is just the beginning. In 2026 alone, this law is expected to deliver $191 billion in additional tax relief, putting more money back in the pockets of American families, including roughly $1,000 more in refunds. Taxpayers are projected to take home an additional $91 billion in refunds and keep another $30 billion in their paychecks through reduced withholdings.

The benefits don't stop there. This law locks in lower tax rates; strengthens the standard deduction; expands the child tax credit to $2,200, and indexes it to inflation; and provides continued relief through policy like no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, and expanded support for childcare, paid leave, and savings. These policies are helping families keep more of what they earn, plan for their future, and build greater financial stability.

This resolution recognizes the impact of H.R. 1 and reaffirms our commitment to making sure working families come first. I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Once again, the Democrats are trying to distract from the facts by recycling the same class warfare talking points, even as Americans across the country are sitting down this week to file their taxes and see the reality for themselves. Families are running the numbers. They are looking at what they owe and what they keep. Filing is simpler. For working people, that matters.

Republicans passed this bill without a single Democratic vote. It was signed into law by President Trump, and 91 percent of tax filers now have a simpler tax code. Families pay no Federal income tax on the first $31,000 that they earn. The standard deduction is locked and loaded and expanded, which means less paperwork, less time spent dealing with the IRS, and more money staying in families' budgets.

According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the biggest beneficiaries of this relief are workers and families making less than $50,000 a year. That is why the rhetoric we keep hearing from Democrats doesn't line up with reality, especially for Americans sitting at their kitchen table filing their taxes right now.

This is relief for the server pulling a double, the factory worker on the line trying to work a few extra hours of overtime, the barber running a small shop, and families trying to get ahead.

Unfortunately, while Republicans fought to ensure that hardworking Americans keep more of their paychecks, because it is their money and not Uncle Sam's, Democrats under President Biden chose a different path. They flooded the post-COVID economy with trillions of dollars in new spending. They overheated the economy and drove inflation to 40- year highs. Working families were left to carry that burden that they still have a hangover on today.

Rather than empowering the American people, Democrats prioritized massive giveaways to political allies through Green New Deal-style programs that layer costly, ineffective regulations. Those policies were not paid for in Washington. They were paid for by families at the gas pump and the grocery store.

Mr. Speaker, President Trump and House Republicans have consistently worked to unleash the full potential of the American economy so that every American who works for a living can benefit.

In stark contrast, Democrats in the last administration chose runaway spending, regulatory access, and leaving everyday Americans to pay the price through skyrocketing costs for basic necessities. Their policies hurt working families. Republican policies have helped working families, and that brings us back to the rule before us today.

This legislation before us makes sure that States are not punished for what they cannot control, supports efforts to prevent disasters before they happen, not after, cuts through red tape that delay jobs and investment, and reinforces policies that help working families keep more of what they earn.

That is what is before the House today. We are hearing concerns that this bill somehow weakens air quality protections or harms public health, but that misses what this legislation actually does. At its core, it is about fairness.

Right now, States can be penalized for emissions that they have absolutely no control over. No one in Buffalo, New York, or western New York, or the southern tier has any impact on Canadian policy on how they manage their forests or why their forests catch on fire every summer. Whether it is pollution coming from those foreign countries or background conditions beyond our control, that is not a system that makes sense.

When that happens, entire regions can fall out of compliance through no fault of their own, making it harder to build new facilities, modernize infrastructure, or bring jobs back to communities that need them the most.

That has real consequences not just for economic growth but for the well-being of the people that live there.

This bill fixes that problem. It ensures that States are judged based on what they can actually control while keeping the same underlying health-based air quality standards fully in place.

Let's be clear: Nothing in this legislation changes those standards. The protections remain. What we are addressing is how those standards are applied in the real world so that communities are not unfairly punished and locked out of economic opportunity. That matters because modernizing facilities here at home means cleaner technology, stronger environmental oversight, and fewer emissions being outsourced overseas.

While there are efforts to frame this as a rollback, it is actually about making the system workable, more predictable, and more grounded in reality. That is what this bill does and that is why it is needed.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the Democrats want to lecture us on the environment, but let's take a look at their record.

For 4 years in the last administration, they pushed policies that were more about ideology than results. They drove up costs. They added layers of bureaucracy. They made it harder for States and communities to actually manage real environmental challenges.

They created a system that punishes States for factors outside of their control. It discourages proactive solutions and slows down projects with duplicative and unnecessary reviews. That is not environmental leadership. It is regulatory overreach.

Now, under President Trump's leadership, we are taking a more practical approach. We are focusing on policies that actually work by supporting States, encouraging prevention, and cutting through red tape that has held back progress for years. The difference is very clear.

Democrats defend a system that is more complicated, more expensive, and less effective. Republicans are focused on making environmental policy more predictable, more efficient, and more grounded in reality.

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what the legislation in this rule does. It makes clear that States shouldn't be penalized for emissions they can't control, including pollution from foreign countries and wildfire smoke drifting across our borders. It supports proactive wildfire mitigation instead of punishing States for taking steps to prevent catastrophic fires. It removes duplicative Federal review processes that slow down projects without improving environmental outcomes.

It is not partisan. It is common sense. We have heard a lot from the other side that the EPA already has the tools to deal with wildfire emissions and that this bill is unnecessary. If that were true, we would not be here today.

The reality is, the current system doesn't work. It is broken, and while EPA can exclude certain emissions as exceptional events, the process is complicated, time consuming, and, in many cases, unworkable for States.

Mr. Speaker, here is the real problem. Under the current law, emissions from wildfire can only qualify as exceptional events, but emissions from prescribed burns used to prevent those wildfires do not.

Think about that. States are effectively penalized for taking proactive steps to reduce wildfire risk. That is just totally backward.

As a result, many States don't even attempt to use the existing process because it is too burdensome, too uncertain, and too resource intensive. In fact, for years, States and local agencies were unable to successfully use this process for prescribed burns.

Mr. Speaker, this isn't about creating a loophole. It is about fixing a system that is clearly not working. The FIRE Act removes this barrier. It gives States the certainty that they need to carry out responsible wildfire mitigation without risking noncompliance with Federal air quality standards.

That matters because prescribed burns are not the problem. They are

part of the solution. They reduce the intensity of wildfires. They lower long-term emissions, and they help prevent the devastating economic and environmental damage that we see from large-scale fires like we saw in California.

States should not have to choose between meeting air quality standards and preventing wildfires. This bill makes sure that they don't have to.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I heard the words ``purely political gain,'' and I completely respect the work that the Committee on Appropriations has done this year. Chairman Cole and Ranking Member DeLauro did a beautiful job navigating a process that has led us for fiscal year 2026 to get all but one of our appropriations bills passed with bipartisan support.

They had a bipartisan agreement on how to fund the Department of Homeland Security, but it wasn't until the Democrats on the other side of the aisle figured that they had to answer to their political base that they decided to throw the biggest political temper tantrum in the history of the

country. Here we sit with a Department still shut down, and they still won't agree to fund the entire Department. In fact, nearly every one of the Members, all but a few courageous Democrats, have voted against funding the Department of Homeland Security in its entirety time and time again right here in the House of Representatives. It is a matter of public record.

Let's be honest about who is responsible for the shutdown. Republicans have put forward serious, good-faith efforts to fund the Department of Homeland Security and keep these critical operations running. It is Democrats that chose to walk away time and again, over and over. It is Democrats who chose to play politics with funding for agencies that protect the American people every single day. They did that knowing full well what is at stake: funding for FEMA and disaster response, our Coast Guard operations, and other core Homeland Security functions.

That was all put at risk because Democrats refused to engage. They made the decision to do that. They were willfully aware that certain parts of the Department, like ICE, were already funded through the end of the year. This wasn't about policy. It was all about political theatrics, and it is all that we have had for the last 40, 50 days.

The consequences are real. Since Democrats shut down DHS, we saw violent attacks at Old Dominion University, the Temple Israel synagogue in Michigan, and in Austin, Texas, and we saw a massive cyberattack on the Stryker Corporation. This is no time to be playing politics with the safety of our homeland. Instead of stepping up, Democrats chose to step back, and now they come to the floor trying to shift the blame, hoping the American people will forget who actually walked away from funding the very agencies responsible for protecting them.

The facts are clear: Republicans are working to fund the government and keep Americans safe. Democrats chose to shut it down.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I yield myself the balance of my time.

For years, Democrats have told the American people not to believe what they can see with their own eyes. They have defended a system that penalizes States for emissions they don't control, discourages wildfire prevention, and buries job-creating projects under layers of unnecessary bureaucracy.

The legislation under this rule today takes real steps towards fixing those failures--restoring fairness to our air quality standards, supporting proactive wildfire mitigation, cutting red tape that delays jobs and investment, and reaffirming tax relief for working families through H.R. 1.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the rule before us today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, at the end of March, last month, Speaker Johnson gaveled out this Chamber and sent Members of Congress home for a 2-week recess. He did so despite the fact that the Department of Homeland Security has been shut down for 60 days and counting, despite the fact that President Trump had made a reckless and unlawful declaration of war without congressional authorization, despite soaring gas prices and the ongoing cost-of-living crisis stretching from New York, the home of my distinguished colleague, to Colorado, despite the heat, the drought, and the wildfire records being shattered in the Western United States. Despite all of that, Speaker Johnson made the decision to gavel the House out of session and send everybody home.

Now, we are back. The 2-week recess has concluded. What has the Republican majority decided is the most pressing challenge and issue for this august body to debate?

I will tell you, Mr. Speaker. Apparently, it is a resolution commemorating a bill that Republicans passed last year. That is what we are here to debate.

Republicans control the floor. They could put a bill on the floor to address cost-of-living issues. They could put a bill on the floor to address soaring gas prices. They could put a bill on the floor to address rising healthcare costs. Instead, we are here to debate a commemorative resolution. It is absurd.

I have, over the course of the 7 years that I have had the privilege of serving in the United States House, never seen something quite like this. It doesn't

really take a resolution, Mr. Speaker, for them to extol what they believe to be the benefits of the bill that they passed last year, the tax bill, which we will talk about today.

My point, Mr. Speaker, is that this resolution is wholly unnecessary. There are better ways to spend our time.

I heard the gentleman from New York's long description of the many reasons why that particular resolution that I referenced merits this body's passage. What I found interesting is that over the last 12 months that I have come down here to the House floor, I have heard Republicans use the same refrain in describing this bill: the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. It is in the law.

For a year, I have heard nothing but tweets, Truth Social posts, and floor speeches extolling the virtues of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. What is fascinating is that I didn't hear those four words this morning. I suspect I am not going to hear them the rest of today because Republicans spent some time and have come up with a new name--a new name, a rebrand.

This bill that President Trump signed into law, which gave tax cuts to the richest Americans among us, is so unpopular that Republicans decided that they had to change the name.

I hate to break it to you, but I don't think the rebrand, Mr. Speaker, is going to work. I don't think the name is what the American people were frustrated by. What they are frustrated by is a bill that kicked off 15 million Americans from their healthcare, a bill that amounted to the largest cut in SNAP in the history of our country, a bill that added $5 trillion over the next decade to the Federal debt. That is what they are frustrated about.

They can call this bill, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act--what is the name now? Maybe the gentleman from New York will indulge me. The working families tax cut, that is what they are calling it now. I suspect, in a few months, they will change the name again because it is not going to change the unpopularity of their policies.

I know this isn't the only resolution that we are debating today, as the gentleman from New York mentioned at great length. We are going to consider three bills from the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which seek to amend the Clean Air Act in an effort to scale back regulations that protect air quality from pollutants and polluting industries.

There is no debate that these policies could have wide-ranging implications that would allow large swathes of the United States to be exempt from various rules under the Clean Air Act.

I don't, to be candid, Mr. Speaker, really follow the argument that my friend from New York is making. As I understand it, what he is saying is that there are wide swathes of the country, including in his home State--by the way, this applies to my home State as well--where you have pollution that exceeds the standards that have been set by regulators at the national level. That pollution is causing asthma and respiratory diseases in children.

The solution that they propose is to allow communities that are experiencing this kind of pollution to essentially exempt foreign sources of pollution from those standards so that they don't have to do anything about it.

That is their solution. The air quality is not going to get any better. There will be no prophylactic steps taken by those communities. It is just a way for those communities to no longer have to do anything about pollution. It is absurd, and the American people know it.

Mr. Speaker, I would simply say--and I imagine we will have a robust debate about the three bills and the resolution that I referenced. Fundamentally, I suppose if I were to conclude with one overriding sentiment, it is that I am simply asking my Republican colleagues to get serious.

There are a lot of challenges facing the country. It is a difficult time for the families that I represent in northern Colorado and in western Colorado. Times are tough. This House, I believe, could rise to the occasion and actually work together to get some things done for the American people, for the constituents that we all serve. This is not that.

Spare us the commemorative resolutions honoring bills that you all have passed. Let's just skip those, and let's get back to doing the business that the American people expect us to do.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, and I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of points. First, again, we have heard ad nauseam about the various ways, in the view of my colleagues, that the bill that they passed last year has benefited the American public. I disagree. My constituents disagree, but we are not debating that bill today. We are debating--for those who might be watching this, I encourage everybody to look it up--H. Res. 1156. It is a two-page resolution. It is not particularly long. This resolution does nothing, achieves nothing, and changes nothing. It is a commemorative resolution honoring a law that they passed last year. It is a waste of time.

What are we doing? Seriously. This is how the Republican majority chooses to spend its time?

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, what are we going to do next week? Are you going to introduce a different commemorative resolution that honors maybe this resolution that passes today? Maybe that is what we should count on, I guess.

If this resolution passes today, Mr. Langworthy and I will debate next week a second resolution that honors this resolution.

Give me a break. There are better ways for the House of Representatives to spend its time. These are serious issues.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, just to be clear, I co-chair the Bipartisan Wildfire Caucus. I have worked with my Republican colleagues on a number of wildfire resiliency and forest management bills, proposals, and securing funding. I will not be lectured by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle as they work to defund the Forest Service, literally, about wildfire resiliency and prescribed burns.

There is no question that, at least with respect to the FIRE Act--I understand we are debating multiple bills with respect to the Clean Air Act, but in terms of the FIRE Act, Mr. Evans' bill, it does nothing. I mean, existing processes within the EPA provide for precisely the type of relief that he is seeking in this bill.

The bill is, again, completely unnecessary. It is also not going anywhere. We, of course, know that to be the case. In any event, I digress.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee and thank her for her leadership, I might just say, Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague from New York wax very poetically about the importance of the big or not the Big Beautiful Bill Act--whatever they are calling it now--the working families bill or something like that that they have come up with.

There are 218 Republicans in the House of Representatives, give or take. I presume, given the importance of this commemorative resolution, that there perhaps might be some colleagues who are going to join my colleague from New York to talk on this bill?

Mr. Speaker, might I ask you to pose that question to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy)? Does he anticipate any colleagues coming to the floor or just him?

Mr. Speaker, I hope he does. I suspect the answer is ``no.'' I suspect that Mr. Langworthy is here alone and that he will be the only Republican who has been tasked with arguing in favor of this really important commemorative resolution that we are all so eager to vote on.

Mr. Speaker, in any event, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to adopt the Senate amendment to H.R. 7417, the bipartisan compromise bill that the Senate unanimously passed twice now--twice--to fund the law-abiding agencies within DHS.

Mr. Speaker, this is the deal. You know it. I know it. At the end of the day, the compromise legislation that the Senate passed twice was deprived of a vote on this floor by Republicans. Not a single Senator objected to this bill, twice.

The Republican Senate majority leadership authored the motion, but House Republican leadership refuses to take it up. As a result, it is perpetuating the shutdown of DHS by not putting that deal on the floor.

Members who want to end the shutdown ought to join us in defeating the previous question to put this bipartisan compromise on the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record along with any extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. We are grateful to her for her leadership.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, a lot of political rhetoric again. I think the American people know the facts. They know that the Senate passed a bill twice on a unanimous basis to fund DHS. It is not complicated. The United States Senate passed the bill. Not a single Senator objected. The United States Senate passed the bill again. Not a single Senator objected. Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, the most conservative Senators in the United States Senate, approved of this bill. They sent it here. It is sitting at the Clerk's desk. If we voted on it today, my guess is 90 percent of the House of Representatives would vote for it. The only reason we are not is because the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, has decided we are not going to vote on it. That is it.

The rest of it, they can try to confuse the American public and describe to them the play-by-play of the last 65 days. Again, it is not complicated. There is a bill sitting at the Clerk's desk to fund DHS that every Republican Senator, every Democratic Senator, and 90 percent of this body support. The only reason we are not voting on it is politics because Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has decided that he won't allow it. That is it.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am prepared to close, but I will say that I am doing this very begrudgingly because I was hoping that we might be able to have some colloquies with my colleague from New York with his colleagues on H. Res. 1156. I know how important this commemorative resolution is to the Republican Conference, and I would be loath to deprive my colleague from New York with the opportunity to have a fulsome debate on it.

Is there no Republican in the House of Representatives who is willing to come down to the floor to extol the virtues of the big, beautiful bill--or the working families bill that they have renamed? None, Madam Speaker?

Was that--

Madam Speaker, I wish to clarify something that the Speaker said. That is not the name of the bill. Just to be clear, I encourage anybody who is watching to go online and pull up the bill. It is, I think, about 350 pages. The one phrase that you will not find in the entirety of the bill is ``Working Families Tax Cuts,'' Madam Speaker. It is nowhere.

I checked. I checked yesterday during the Committee on Rules. I checked again before I came to the floor just to be sure, so I don't know where you came up with that name, Madam Speaker. I am not even really sure who has come up with it in the Republican Conference. Somebody, a marketing guru in the Republican Conference I think convinced the Speaker, and I suppose said to him: ``Look, this bill is deeply unpopular. President Trump is deeply unpopular, more unpopular than any President in the modern history of our country. We have got to do something different, and I have got an idea. We will just come up with a new name for the bill; a new name, resolution honoring that new name that will convince them. I am sure that will get the American public on our side.'' Fascinating.

Madam Speaker, week after week, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have opted to take up a variety of legislation. The one common thread is that it fails to meet the moment.

Americans sent us here to work on the issues that they care most about, that have the most impact on their everyday lives: the rising affordability crisis, expanding access to affordable healthcare, protecting our environment and public resources; not to gut air pollution standards and pass commemorative resolutions patting themselves on the back. That is not how Congress should be spending its precious time.

The bills before us do nothing to improve the lives of working families in our country. It is why I would encourage my colleagues to oppose the previous question, the rule, and the underlying bills.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6387, the FIRE Act. The FIRE Act is yet another dishonest attempt, in my opinion, by Republicans to weaken the Clean Air Act, which will make Americans sicker while healthcare costs skyrocket.

Republicans are peddling this dangerous bill as an attempt to promote prescribed burns and combat wildfires. As has been true for the other dirty bills that we considered over the last week or so, this bill fails to address the stated goal and instead provides overly broad exemptions to the Clean Air Act that will harm American families and children.

The FIRE Act does little to make it easier for States to use prescribed burns as a tool for wildfire management. Instead, it expands the definition of exceptional events that States can claim when demonstrating compliance with air quality standards, to include regularly occurring weather like drought and heat. To put it simply, the FIRE Act would give corporate polluters a free pass on the Clean Air Act and use a hot day as an excuse to ignore the harm inflicted on the health of Americans.

Prescribed fire is an essential tool for wildlife management, particularly as climate change increases the occurrence of large, high- intensity wildfires. When done properly, prescribed fires can effectively manage wildfires while reducing smoke exposure to wildfire- prone communities. When disaster strikes and wildfires occur, States should not be punished for pollution that is beyond their control.

Fortunately, the Clean Air Act already gives EPA the flexibility to qualify wildfire and prescribed burns as exceptional events under the Clean Air Act, which States can claim when demonstrating compliance with air quality standards. In fact, Trump's EPA issued a memo clearly stating that the agency will not count emissions from prescribed fires toward attainment designations under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, making provisions of this bill essentially redundant and unnecessary.

It is worth highlighting that this bill goes much further than wildfires and prescribed burns. As I mentioned, the FIRE Act drastically changes the definition of exceptional events to include regularly occurring weather events, like drought and hot days. If signed into law, the FIRE Act would allow States to write off all pollution that occurs during a dry spell or heat wave, events we know will occur more often due to climate change.

I find this provision to be deeply troubling. We know climate change is making drought and heat waves more persistent. Republicans want to use them as justification to increase pollution, which will worsen public health and accelerate climate change, without any consequences.

It is another line of evidence that Republicans are more interested in helping out their polluter friends than protecting the health and well-being of Americans.

Unfortunately, Republican attempts to undermine the public health protections at the core of the Clean Air Act are commonplace. The health harms of air pollution are well documented and being felt by communities across the country.

Today, over half of Americans live in an area with unsafe levels of air pollution. These communities see more diagnoses of diseases like asthma, COPD, heart disease, and certain types of cancer, all of which require long-term treatment and medication.

These things are becoming more common, but now Republicans and the Trump administration want to make it easier for industry to pollute more. Worse, they want to cover up these harms.

House Republicans are doing nothing to lower costs or address the affordability crisis. Instead, over the last week, they have had us debating bills that gut the Clean Air Act's public health protections, and this bill is no exception. It is a retread of old ideas that would drive up pollution above levels that are safe to breathe. The bill does nothing to improve the lives of the everyday Americans we are elected to serve.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this dangerous, damaging, and, essentially, dirty air bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleagues of the cost of air pollution to the American people because it seems they are only focused on the cost to their polluter friends.

More than 26 million people, including over 4.5 million children, in the U.S. live with asthma. Asthma causes nearly 1.8 million emergency department visits, more than 94,000 hospitalizations, and an estimated $80 billion in healthcare costs annually. Air pollution is known to cause and exacerbate asthma.

Republicans claim that existing regulatory processes, like exceptional events demonstrations, are too hard and take too long. They don't acknowledge why we have these processes in the first place, and that is to protect the health of our families, our children, and the most vulnerable among them.

The FIRE Act would worsen health harms to our communities. While the Clean Air Act has successfully cut air pollution in the U.S. by nearly 80 percent in its over 50-year history, nearly half of the U.S. population still lives in areas with poor air quality. We should be taking action to protect public health, not rolling back safeguards that the Republicans find inconvenient.

The FIRE Act has serious problems that allow industry to exploit hot days and drought to drive up pollution without consequence. That is the problem.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Dexter).

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), who is the ranking member of our Environment Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I need to respond to the comments made by the gentleman from Colorado. The EPA promulgated an exceptional events rule in 2016 to allow States and Tribes to use prescribed burns for fire management and exempt emissions from wildfire from regulatory requirements. This was reinforced by a 2025 EPA memo titled ``EPA Policy on Provisions to Allow Wildland Prescribed Fire in Clean Air Act State Implementation Plans.''

This bill is unnecessary, and I am going to repeat that. Republicans are claiming that the process is so burdensome and that very few determinations are made by the EPA. That is misleading. The value of prescribed burns is to mitigate wildfire and to minimize air quality impacts on communities.

That is why forest managers conduct prescribed burns under particular weather conditions. Under these conditions, prescribed burns do not contribute significantly to the area's ambient air quality, which means an exceptional event demonstration may not be necessary in the first place.

Proponents of this bill have lots of complaints about the current program. However, the FIRE Act does nothing to reform the exceptional event demonstration process for States or the EPA. Instead, it just provides broad exemptions, which is not what should be done.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, in closing, the FIRE Act is a bad faith attempt by Republicans to let industry pollute without consequence under the guise of expanding the use of prescribed fire.

In reality, it would allow everyday occurrences, like hot days and droughts, to be excluded from air quality determinations. We know that these events are occurring more often and with more intensity. Excluding these now common events all but ensures that communities across the country will continue to breathe unhealthy air and suffer the health consequences.

The Clean Air Act is one of the most successful laws to protect Americans ever enacted by Congress because it prioritizes public health and gives States flexibility to foster economic growth simultaneously.

We have made significant progress, but still too many people live in areas with dangerous air pollution. Every year, over 100,000 Americans die prematurely as a result of air pollution. Doctors and scientists widely consider fine particulate matter to be one of the most toxic air pollutants, as it can cause asthma, COPD, heart disease, and certain types of cancer.

We can't ignore the broader political landscape in which we are considering this bill, either. Earlier this year, EPA announced it will no longer consider the benefits of protection of public health when developing new rules for particulate matter and ozone pollution. Instead, EPA will consider only the compliance costs for industry. That makes it even more important that any Clean Air Act legislation taken up by Congress ensures that public health protections remain at the center of the law.

The American people are asking us to lower healthcare costs. They are asking us to ensure that our families have safe water to drink and healthy air to breathe. Our responsibility is to them, but our Republican colleagues seem to only answer to their corporate polluter buddies who are asking for regulatory rollbacks to save a few dollars. That is just a bad deal for the American people.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this dirty air bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1174, I call up the bill (H.R. 6387) to amend the Clean Air Act to require revisions to regulations governing the review and handling of air quality monitoring data influenced by exceptional events or actions to mitigate wildfire risk, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 6387.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6387, the FIRE Act, a bipartisan bill introduced by Congressman Gabe Evans of Colorado and co-led by Congressman Adam Gray of California.

The FIRE Act ensures that States are not penalized for wildfire mitigation practices like prescribed or controlled burns and brush clearing. States currently limit these practices for fear of falling out of containment of national air quality standards.

Unlike wildfires, prescribed burns do not automatically qualify as exceptional events under the current provisions of the Clean Air Act. This is because prescribed burns are human caused, likely to recur, and preventable. As a result, prescribed burns are often counted against States for the purpose of national air quality standards.

In 2016, the EPA amended the exceptional events rule in an effort to include prescribed burns, but the attempt failed. Only one prescribed fire qualified for the exceptional events exception in the last decade.

Congress must amend the Clean Air Act to allow wildfire mitigation to be included as an exceptional events exception.

Time has taught us that agency action is not enough to address the current statutory obstacles. The FIRE Act directly amends the Clean Air Act so that prescribed burns are treated as exceptional events and States are not penalized for wildfire mitigation measures. It provides clarity and predictability for air quality planning and encourages proactive wildfire measures.

There is nearly unanimous agreement that increasing the use of prescribed fire and other wildfire mitigation practices is necessary to reduce the growing wildfire threats across the country.

With what is projected to be a severe wildfire season around the corner, Congress must modernize the Clean Air Act to ensure that wildfire mitigation practices are eligible for the exceptional events rule. The FIRE Act allows States to perform prescribed burns and wildfire mitigation activities without severe economic consequences, protecting their communities from the devastating impact of wildfires.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am constantly amazed at what my colleagues across the aisle say in response to these bills. They make this claim that prescribed burns will increase air pollution, when the fact is that we are trying to prevent wildfires.

When you compare the emissions from a prescribed burn to the emissions from a wildfire, it could be as little as 17 percent of what a wildfire produces. They both emit fine particulate matter and carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, but prescribed burns are managed to ensure more complete combustion and less overall polluted output per acre, whereas a wildfire consumes more fuel and produces denser and more toxic smoke.

What they are arguing for is more pollution and more dangerous fires. We have seen what has happened in California and other States, where wildfires have gotten out of control. Look at Paradise in California, the number of lives lost and the amount of destruction there. Those fires actually produced more pollutants, more toxins, and more tremendous damage.

I am, again, amazed. I guess they doubt the common sense of the average American about these issues, when the fact of the matter is that prescribed burns reduce the amount of pollutants that are emitted into the atmosphere.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, once again, it is as though we are debating two different bills. I have no idea where industry comes into this. This is about protecting forests. It is about promoting wildlife. It is about reducing emissions by prescribed burns.

If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are interested in looking up this data, what they are saying is in direct contradiction to what the science

shows: A prescribed burn reduces the amount of emissions compared to a wildfire.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I again am at a loss to understand where my Democratic colleagues are coming from with this argument about all of these problems

with our air quality. We have only had one exceptional event approved, and I am not sure that it was actually executed since the exceptions were put in, the exceptional event provision was adopted by the EPA.

If you are talking about pollution from fires, it is from wildfires, uncontrolled wildfires. As I have pointed out, if they are interested in looking it up, it is clear that we reduce air pollution by having these prescribed burns.

The other thing they keep talking about is public health. Most of these wildfires occur in rural areas. The Republicans in the Working Families Tax Cut Act put in $50 billion to transform rural healthcare, and every one of my Democratic colleagues voted against it. The State of Oregon got $197.3 million this year. Again, I am just at a loss to understand where they are coming from on some of this. It is in direct conflict with what the science shows.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at what my Democratic colleagues say about these issues as far as quoting data. The data shows, as I have already pointed out, that the emissions from controlled burns, from prescribed burns, could be as low as 17 percent of what would come from a wildfire.

As a matter of fact, controlled burns consume one-sixth of the fuel per acre as an intense wildfire. As I pointed out numerous times about my Democratic colleagues and their talking about what they want to do for healthcare and worried about people's health, we put $50 billion into the Working Families Tax Cut Act to help rural healthcare, to transform rural healthcare. Every one of my Democratic colleagues voted against it.

As a matter of fact, the State of New Mexico received $211.5 million, and they voted against it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Evans).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Evans).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Crank).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, once again, I want to point out some of the inconsistencies in the argument.

They have talked about healthcare, and I pointed out three or four times already that Congress put $50 billion into the Working Families Tax Cuts Act specifically to modernize and improve rural healthcare. They are largely the ones who suffer the most from uncontrolled wildfires. Every Member of the Democratic side of the aisle voted no.

I pointed out before that they talk about impact on senior citizens. This year, 51.4 million senior citizens paid no income tax on their Social Security. However, every one of my Democratic colleagues voted against that.

They talk about families. In the Working Families Tax Cuts Act, Congress eliminated taxes on tips. These are some of the hardest working people in the country living largely off of tips. I think, on average, they are going to get about $3,000 back. That could be used to buy needed school supplies for their children, to pay a bill, to maybe even make a repair on an automobile, or to improve their housing, which is one of the leading factors in asthma.

According to the CDC, there is no single definitive known cause for the development of asthma but indoor air quality is a significant factor that is related to housing. This is what troubles me about the opposition to this bill. The science, the data, shows that controlled burns mitigate the intensity of wildfires. It reduces the amount of emissions into the atmosphere. This is a way to improve air quality, not make it worse.

They cite climate change in the frequency and intensity of wildfires. That is exactly what we are trying to mitigate against by doing these prescribed burns.

I am amazed at how many of the policies that they propose stifle the formation of new businesses, providing more jobs and better opportunities for families when the data, particularly on this issue, is clear. This is good for the local communities. It is good for rural communities. It is good for air quality.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 6387, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6409, the FENCES Act.

Access to quality and affordable healthcare is an issue at the top of many Americans' minds right now as they struggle through the ever- worsening Republican affordability crisis. Republicans have demonstrated over the last year that they have no interest in improving healthcare for the American people.

The Republican big, ugly bill cut more than a trillion dollars from Americans' healthcare. Insurance premiums spiked at the beginning of the year for 20 million people because Republicans refused to extend the ACA tax credits. Fifteen million people are predicted to lose their healthcare altogether. Hospitals are closing in record numbers around the country.

There was a media report just yesterday that said 15 hospitals in my State of New Jersey have the potential to close because of the Republican big, ugly bill and the impact on hospitals.

Now, there are reports that Republicans intend to make further cuts and take healthcare away from more people to pay for Trump's reckless war of choice with Iran. In Trump's America, we can't afford healthcare, but apparently, we can spend a billion dollars a day on the war in Iran. In fact, Trump himself said that it is not possible for the Federal Government to pay for Medicaid and Medicare when we are fighting wars.

Republican attacks on Americans' healthcare continue this week here on the House floor by bringing three dirty air bills to the House floor, including this bill, H.R. 6409, the FENCES Act; and also H.R. 6398, the RED Tape Act; and, finally, H.R. 6387, the FIRE Act.

These bills are an attack on the public health protections that are a cornerstone of the Clean Air Act. They will ultimately make Americans sicker and increase healthcare costs even more.

The health harms of air pollution are well-documented, being felt by communities across the country. Communities in areas with unsafe levels of air pollution see more diagnoses of diseases like asthma, COPD, heart disease, and certain types of cancer, all of which require long- term treatment and medication.

Air pollution, Mr. Speaker, is also responsible for over 100,000 premature deaths every year. It is ridiculous to even consider these bills when our constituents are demanding action on healthcare affordability.

Whether it is from reducing transparency, to artificially reducing air pollution reporting by ignoring climate change, to giving corporate polluters free passes on Clean Air Act requirements, these bills are evidence that Republicans are more interested in helping their pollution friends than the well-being of Americans.

The bill that we are talking about now, the FENCES Act, would undercut the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, or NAAQS, which tells us the amount of air pollution that is safe to breathe.

The bill would have us ignore bad air quality in areas that experience any pollution beyond the jurisdiction of a State or city's borders. It removes the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to impose fees or sanctions on States that fail to make progress toward cleaning up the air.

Let me just explain this. If my hometown of Long Branch or my county of Monmouth or my State of New Jersey was getting pollution from outside that particular jurisdiction, it wouldn't count. They wouldn't have to account for that in terms of dealing with air pollution and trying to reduce it. To me, that is patently ridiculous because we know that air pollution travels across cities, across States, and even across countries. Giving States that are not even trying to improve air quality a free pass for pollution without any incentive to fix the problem is not the right way to proceed, and that is what this bill does.

If signed into law, this bill would require EPA to cook the books on air pollution in favor of industry, removing all accountability for States to clean up air pollution and leaving millions of Americans to breathe unhealthy air. The only winners here are corporate polluters who would get to save a few dollars in compliance costs.

Now Republican attempts to undermine the NAAQS aren't new. Every time the EPA strengthens an air quality standard, opponents complain that stronger public health standards will limit economic growth, but that has never been true, Mr. Speaker. Every time, industry has innovated better pollution control measures to meet the new standards.

Republicans also claim that the FENCES Act is part of their permitting reform effort, but this bill would not speed up any permitting. In fact, it

would cause complete permitting gridlock in areas with pollution that exceeds an air quality standard. This is not permitting reform.

House Republicans are trying to use accounting gimmicks to make areas with poor air quality appear much better to benefit corporate polluters at the expense of the health of Americans across the country. Pushing the FENCES Act at a moment when millions of Americans are struggling to afford their utilities, their groceries, and healthcare, in my opinion, is unconscionable.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), the ranking member of our Environment Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Landsman), a member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Menefee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Dexter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Min).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

The FENCES Act, Mr. Speaker, is a bad faith attempt by Republicans to use accounting gimmicks to make areas with bad air quality appear safe at the expense of our communities.

I hear from my Republican colleagues all the time that the Federal Government should be more transparent, but the literal and figurative smog that would be created by the FENCES Act will only make Americans sicker.

The FENCES Act goes an extra step to waive sanctions and fees for States, not just for international pollution but also pollution from mobile sources, exceptional events, and even from a different district within the same State.

In other words, the FENCES Act removes all incentives for States to work toward NAAQS attainment. This is a bad deal for the American people.

Every year, over 100,000 Americans die prematurely as a result of air pollution. Doctors and scientists widely consider foreign particulate matter to be one of the most toxic air pollutants, as it can cause asthma, COPD, heart disease, and certain types of cancer.

We can't just ignore air pollution and the very real health consequences that result from it to make permitting for industry easier. We shouldn't ignore the broader political landscape in which we are considering this bill, either.

Earlier this year, the EPA announced that it will no longer consider the benefits of protecting public health when developing new rules for fine particulate matter and ozone pollution. Instead, the EPA will only consider the compliance costs for industry.

This decision is entirely antithetical to the EPA's core mission to protect public health and the environment. The American people are asking us to lower healthcare costs, and our responsibility should be to them, not to the industry.

However, our Republican colleagues seem to only answer to their corporate polluter friends who are asking for regulatory rollbacks to save a few dollars. The DEFENSE Act is a gift to industry that would come at the expense of the American people.

For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the DEFENSE Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.