Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I wish to correct the record on one small piece of the big, terrible bill that the Senate barely passed last week and which the President signed into law on July 4. There are many things to say about that legislation, and I will continue to daylight concerning provisions buried in it over the coming weeks.
But today, I want to focus on section 60002 of the so-called ``One Big Beautiful Bill Act,'' which repealed and rescinded all unobligated funds from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. There has been some spin put on this section, including in court filings. And so I aim to fix some misconceptions, with the help of the Congressional Budget Office and the relevant Republican House subcommittee chair.
I have spoken a lot about the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund over the past several months, on the floor and in the Judiciary and Environment and Public Works Committees. Most of the time, I have focused on the many red flags raised by outrageous behavior of top DOJ and EPA officials in their attempts to claw back nearly $20 billion in grant funds that were awarded in April 2024 and fully dispersed into private bank accounts by August. After terrorizing grantees with false allegations of fraud and trying to open bogus criminal cases that went nowhere, EPA froze and then announced the termination of these fully obligated and dispersed grants. The grantees, rightfully, sued EPA for these arbitrary and capricious actions. The dispute is being actively litigated in the D.C. circuit.
The Justice Department continues its mischief. On July 3, 2025, DOJ ran to the court with news of the repeal and rescission of unobligated funds from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, claiming that this was Congress rescinding a full $17 billion, including all of what EPA claimed to terminate on March 11, 2025. That simply is not so. The DOJ reads too much into the repeal of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund language. Two pieces of evidence support my contention here.
First, when this provision came up through the Environment and Public Works Committee, it was ``scored'' by the Congressional Budget Office. That means the Congressional Budget Office provided an estimate of the funds saved by rescinding unobligated funds. The CBO score for rescinding all unobligated funds from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, as provided to us by the majority on June 24, 2025, was $19 million. That is 19 with an m, not a b. CBO confirmed, further, that the repeal of the program language did not create any additional savings. The repeal and rescission together only saved the $19 million EPA had remaining to oversee the program. All of the grant funding was out the door, in private bank accounts, and in some cases, tied up in firm legal commitments with third parties. At no point in our discussions with the majority, directly or in our several conversations with the Parliamentarian, was this score disputed. The majority did express concern about EPA prevailing in litigation and suddenly having nearly $20 billion back and, for this reason, pushed to repeal the language. But the fact of the matter is, section 60002 only rescinded EPA's administrative dollars and not a cent of the grant funding.
Second, Republicans made clear that rescissions from environmental grant programs only touched funding that had not yet gone out the door. During the markup of the Energy and Commerce Committee title for the House version of this bill, the chair of the Environment Subcommittee Mr. Griffith of Virginia made the following statements:
On page 244, lines 5959-64:
I just want to point out that these provisions that we are talking about only apply as far, as this bill is concerned, to the unobligated balances. So if a grant was already given, as far as this bill is concerned, then that would still be going forward.
On page 244, lines 5968-70:
If the grant has already been granted and the money is obligated, then this--then our language does not affect that.
On pages 247-48, lines 6055-57:
. . . [W]e can't rescind expenditures that have already been obligated.
Neither CBO nor Republican Members understood the repeal and rescission of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to save anything more than EPA's unspent oversight dollars. Not a cent of the grant funding was touched by section 60002. Wishful thinking on the part of DOJ does not moot the ongoing litigation.
_01 Recission of Funding for Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicles------------ Budget Authority -423- 0 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 -423- -423 Estimated Outlays 0 -20 -65 -56 -79 -92 -70 0 0 0 -220 -382 Sec. _02 Repeal of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund----------- - Budget Authority -19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -19 -19 Estimated Outlays- -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -1 0 0 0 -15 -19 Sec. _03 Recission of Funding for Diesel Emissions Reductions-------------- Budget Authority -60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -60 -60-- Estimated Outlays- -13 -16 -12 -12 -3 0 0 0 0 0 -56 -56 Sec. _04 Recission of Funding to Address Air Pollution----- --------- Budget Authority -70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -70 -70-- Estimated Outlays -5 -20 -10 -5 -10 -10 -10 0 0 0 -50 -70 Sec. _05 Recission of Funding to Address Air Pollution at Schools-------------- Budget Authority -14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -14 -14-- Estimated Outlays- 0 -3 -3 -3 -3 0 0 0 0 0 -12 -12 Sec. _06 Recission of Funding for the Low Emissions Electricity Program-------------- Budget Authority -42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -42 -42-- Estimated Outlays -5 -7 -7 -7 -7 -9 0 0 0 0 -33 -42 Sec. _07 Recission of Funding for Section 211(O) of the Clean Air Act-------------- Budget Authority -3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 -3-- Estimated Outlays 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 Sec. _08 Recission of Funding for Funding for Implementation of the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act-------------- Budget Authority -3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 -3-- Estimated Outlays 0 0 0 -3 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 -3 *** Subtotal Changes in Direct Spending Budget Authority -6,579 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -6,579 -6,579 Estimated Outlays -857 -936 -1,237 -887 -570 -360 -112 0 0 0 -4,487 -4,959 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Change to Revenue Sec. _12 Recission of Funding for Methane Emissions and 0 0 0 0 0 -375 -300 -275 -275 -275 0 -1,500 Waste Reduction Incentive Program for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems Sec. _26 Project Sponsor Opt-in Fees for Environmental * * * * * * * * * * * * Reviews ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---Total Changes in Revenues 0 0 0 0 0 -375 -300 -275 -275 -275 0 -1,500 Net Effect on the Deficit -857 -936 -1,237 -887 -570 15 188 275 275 275 -4,487 -3,459----- --------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ * = between zero and $500,000. The estimates account for judicial decisions and administrative actions through April 10, 2025.-------------- Source: Congressional Budget Office. Staff Contacts: Aurora Swanson, Lilia Ledezma, Susan Yeh Beyer, David Hughes, Willow Latham-Proenca, Matthew Pickford, Molly Sherlock. --------------Markup of Budget Reconciliation Text (Tuesday, May 13, 2025) House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:37 a.m. in Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brett Guthrie [chair of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Guthrie, Latta, Griffith, Bilirakis, Hudson, Carter of Georgia, Palmer, Dunn, Joyce, Weber, Allen, Balderson, Fulcher, Pfluger, Harshbarger, Miller-Meeks, Cammack, Obernolte, James, Bentz, Houchin, Fry, Lee, Langworthy, Kean, Rulli, Evans, Goldman, Fedorchak; Pallone, DeGette, Schakowsky, Matsui, Castor, Tonko, Clarke, Ruiz, Peters, Dingell, Veasey, Kelly, Barragan, Soto, Schrier, Trahan, Fletcher, Ocasio-Cortez, Auchincloss, Carter of Louisiana, Menendez, Mullin, Landsman, and McClellan.
The Chair. The committee will come to order.
The Chair. The gentleman yields back. Is there anyone seeking recognition to speak on the amendment?
The gentleman from New Jersey seeks recognition. He is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment.
Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Chairman, and I want to thank my colleague Mr. Carter, for offering this amendment. You know, often when we talk about environmental justice our friends across the aisle roll their eyes. They scoff at the idea of what is environmental injustice. It is not a thing. We don't need to talk about it. So I want to just add a little context to it.
Environmental justice initiatives are lifelines for communities that are at a higher risk of adverse health impacts from exposure to pollution and other environmental challenges. So in my district the Ironbound section of Newark, 25 percent of children living there suffer from asthma. That is three times the state average.
And it isn't just their health that suffers. When we talk about environmental justice, we are talking about children's education. Asthma is the leading cause of absenteeism in school-age children, which is why it is so obscene that today Republicans want to cut funding that would address air pollution at schools. I would just ask the American people, like, what part of addressing air pollution at schools is controversial? I don't think there is anything controversial about.
And this is not just Democratic states or blue states. When we talk about environmental justice, we are talking about mining-related pollution in Appalachia. We are talking about water crises in Alabama and Michigan. We are talking about over-burdened communities that exist across the country and across party lines.
So speaking about across party lines, another one of our Republican colleagues from Oregon has a district that has been awarded multiple grants at risk from this reconciliation bill that would be saved by my amendment.
You are welcome.
First is the Columbia Gorge Early Learning and Resilience Center, located right outside of Portland in a rural, low- income community of The Dalles, Oregon. This grant-funded project would renovate a 70-year-old school building into a community center that protects public health and provides valuable resources for local residents. That sounds like a home run project to me. The center would provide childcare for up to 200 children, create an on-site learning laboratory, and provide vocational scholarships for students to pursue careers in fields such as engineering or agriculture. That is fantastic.
But the same party that claims to be the party of families wants to shut down a grant that would help some of those families with child care. The irony is staggering. This is all while also creating a renewable, energy-powered refuge that will protect our most vulnerable residents during extreme weather events like wildfires and winter storms. When the lights go out and the community needs critical heat and services, Republicans turn the other way, even at the risk of their own constituents' lives. Unfortunately, the $20 million EPA grant to carry out this valuable mission was unjustly and illegally terminated last month.
Similarly, another grant in Oregon, the Chiloquin Community Resilience Hub and Municipal Center, would have remediated a brownfield site into an emergency shelter, municipal space, and community education center. We all sat here weeks ago and touted the brownfields program as a bipartisan program, and yet here we are trying to cut the funding for a brownfield site that would serve as a critical community hub in a Republican district. The center would also provide training and education opportunities for a population that lives in a rural and historically underserved area. The project was awarded a $16.3 million EPA environmental justice grant-- great job getting that for your community--but it was also illegally and arbitrarily canceled last month.
Now Republicans like that congressman from Oregon want to get rid of the program entirely. To me, the conclusion is clear. Republicans are willing to withhold nearly $40 million from one congressional district alone, from his own constituents, to give tax breaks to those who need them the least.
So in addition to health care, we are not just talking about Democratic environmental priorities. We are talking about cutting funding for programs that will impact districts across the country, and that is why everyone should support this amendment to ensure that you bring those dollars home to your district.
Thank you, and I yield back.
The Chair. Thank you. The gentleman yields back, and I will recognize myself to speak on the amendment, and yield to my good friend from Virginia.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to point out that these provisions that we are talking about only apply as far, as this bill is concerned, to the unobligated balances. So if a grant was already given, as far as this bill is concerned, then that would still be going forward.
The Chair. So would you yield back to me? So everyone that was listed, if the grants had been awarded as projects or not----
Mr. Griffith. If the grant has already been granted and the money is obligated, then this--then our language does not affect that.
Mrs. Fletcher. Will the gentleman yield?
The Chair. The--yes, it is my time. Yes, I will yield.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair. Yes.
Mrs. Fletcher. I just want to clarify. I understand the statement to be that this particular legislation doesn't deal with the already-obligated funds. But isn't it true that the administration is rescinding the grants and pulling back the money from the projects like my colleague from New Jersey was just explaining?
I know that there have been grants under various programs in my community. One, for example, to help build sidewalks and tree canopy. It is amazing to think about. In my district there is a 17-degree difference in the temperature during the summer between the poorest neighborhoods and the wealthiest. And they have no trees, they have no tree canopy. There is this great program to try to build sidewalks, put in trees, and address some of these challenges that--it gets real hot in Houston, and this is a really important program. But I know the funds for that have been revoked.
And so is the statement that this won't do anything to those, but there are still these grants being revoked? Or are we trying to preserve those grants in this legislation and just--the already-obligated funds, are we protecting those in this?
The Chair. Well, this legislation does not take--does not close the grants on any obligated funds, and that--the executive actions----
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Will the gentleman yield? The Chair. My understanding--and I will yield to my friend from Virginia, if you would like to answer that.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Griffith. I am happy to say that I don't--The Chair. Louisiana, my friend from Virginia, and then I will yield to you.
Mr. Griffith. I don't know what the administration is doing, per se, to the specific----
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. I can help----
Mr. Griffith. --grants that were mentioned, but I would say that this amendment specifically talks about the unobligated amounts, as well, so that whether it be the bill or the amendment, this action that we take does not impact that action that may or may not be going on in the administration.
I know it is confusing for folks back home, as well, to understand that not--the administration does not always tell us everything they are doing because they are doing so many things.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Will the gentleman yield briefly?
Mr. Griffith. And while I----
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. I will address that.
The Chair. I will yield to you in a second. Let him finish, yes.
Mr. Griffith. I don't have the floor. I have been yielded time, so I have to finish and then I yield back----
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Fair enough, sir.
Mr. Griffith. ----to the chair.
And so I can't speak for the administration on this. That is a whole different ball game.
But what we are debating tonight is the bill in front of us. And what we are debating right now is the amendment. Neither the bill in front of us nor the amendment deal with the issues that the gentleman previously raised. And so that is why I ask folks to vote no on the amendment and yes on the bill.
The Chair. Thank you.
The gentleman from Louisiana, I yield to you.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. And I am happy to have an opportunity to address that, because those comments are not exactly correct.
If the Administrator Zeldin is successful in terminating these critical grant programs in his misguided attempt to gut the agency, these grants will be subject to rescission. It is very clear. So the notion that it has been awarded, it is not going to be impacted, that is a little disingenuous. So I want to clear that up for the record.
I yield.
The Chair. Thank you. I yield, but--to the--back to the gentleman from Virginia.
You want to--okay I will--do you want to speak, the gentleman from Virginia? Go ahead.
Mr. Griffith. And what I would say, Mr. Chairman, is that that may be true for a future rescission, but we can't rescind expenditures that have already been obligated.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Oh----
Mr. Griffith. And for purposes of this reconciliation, we can't look at the crystal ball and decide what might happen in the future.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source