Reducing and Eliminating Duplicative Environmental Regulations Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1174, I call up the bill (H.R. 6398) to amend the Clean Air Act relating to review by the Environmental Protection Agency of proposed legislation, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALMER. 6398.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6398, the RED Tape Act, which would address burdensome regulations in the Clean Air Act and provide the permitting reform needed to support American innovation.

The legislation, which was introduced by my friend Congressman John Joyce of Pennsylvania eliminates the duplicative requirement in the Clean Air Act that requires the EPA to assess and provide feedback on environmental impact statements other agencies prepare under NEPA.

The primary agency preparing an environmental impact statement already possesses the expertise and resources necessary to evaluate the impacts of a project on our environment, and the EPA is often already involved in the NEPA review process as a cooperating agency. Requiring them to provide a secondary review under section 309 is unnecessary, duplicative, and inefficient, leading to more delays and higher costs for American job creators.

This legislation is an important step to streamline permitting, and it removes burdensome inefficiencies in the current NEPA process. This bill is an essential component in the committee's permitting reform efforts.

The Clean Air Act is long overdue for an update to eliminate outdated provisions that are holding back American manufacturing.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALMER.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I will point out is in 2025, the Supreme Court decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, ruled that upstream-downstream impacts of Federal action fall outside the scope of the environmental impact statement under NEPA. In light of this decision, the EPA's separate review and comment on broader environmental impacts of proposed Federal action are no longer appropriate.

It is really insulting to the American people to have my colleagues make outrageous statements in regard to what our intent is with this. We have the means to make sure that our air is clean. We are working on that. We do not want, in any form or fashion, to compromise the quality of life that we have here in this country.

It really is stunning to hear fellow Americans want to deny economic justice to whole communities throughout the country. I pointed out several times what each one of their States was receiving in funding from the Rural Health Transformation Fund, a historic effort to improve healthcare in rural areas where so many disadvantaged people live, that every one of my Democratic colleagues voted against.

We want to give people economic opportunity, not deny them. We want to dramatically improve the healthcare of people who have been denied the opportunity to have a good-paying job with good benefits. As one who grew up with few opportunities, I understand how important it is to have a job that allows people to live in better housing, to have access to better food, better healthcare, and to have something left over to save to meet future needs and eventually retirement.

My colleagues who oppose this bill literally oppose the economic opportunities that could lift millions of disadvantaged Americans into a much brighter future.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is high time that we recognize that we have a host of Federal regulations that need to be reviewed, to be modernized, not to compromise anyone's healthcare, not to compromise environmental quality, but to improve these to make them work better for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this excellent legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source