REDUCING AND ELIMINATING DUPLICATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS ACT

On 2026-04-15, Representative Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ-6) delivered a floor speech titled "REDUCING AND ELIMINATING DUPLICATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS ACT" in the House. The speech addressed the economy and also covered the environment, trade policy. It referenced legislation including HR6398, HRES1174.

REDUCING AND ELIMINATING DUPLICATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS ACT

Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 66 (Wednesday, April 15, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 15, 2026)] [House] [Pages H2909-H2913] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] REDUCING AND ELIMINATING DUPLICATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS ACT 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. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1174, the bill is considered read. The text of the bill is as follows: H.R. 6398 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Reducing and Eliminating Duplicative Environmental Regulations Act'' or the ``RED Tape Act''. SEC. 2. POLICY REVIEW. Section 309 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7609) is amended-- (1) in subsection (a)-- (A) by striking ``and comment in writing'' and inserting ``, and comment in writing,''; (B) by striking ``Administrator,'' and inserting ``Administrator''; (C) by striking ``(1)''; and (D) by striking ``, (2) newly authorized Federal projects for construction and any major Federal agency action (other than a project for construction) to which section 102(2)(C) of Public Law 91-190 applies, and (3) proposed regulations published by any department or agency of the Federal Government''; and (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``, action, or regulation''. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama. General Leave Mr. PALMER. 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 include extraneous material on H.R. 6398. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Alabama? There was no objection. Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 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. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting the RED Tape Act, and I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6398, the so-called RED Tape Act. This bill deletes a section of the Clean Air Act that requires the EPA to review major Federal projects under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. As a result, major Federal projects and regulations will be exempt from any scrutiny of their impacts on air quality and public health from EPA experts. The bill would also make the permitting process less transparent by removing the requirements that EPA comments be made available to the public and, therefore, communities would be kept in the dark. Ignoring the consequences of major actions won't make them go away, but that is exactly what the RED Tape Act would do. For the communities who live near these major projects, turning a blind eye to problems won't protect their families from potentially toxic exposures. Worse yet, the RED Tape Act is billed as permitting reform when in reality it is a bill to let polluters run amok out of sight from the public and without proper safety and commonsense guardrails. Republican hypocrisy knows no bounds. They court the make America healthy again community, but then they move a bill forward that will take away the public's ability to simply know the potential toxic risks of large Federal projects. They then tout the importance of permitting reform but bring false permitting solutions to the floor instead of real proposals to make cleaner and cheaper energy sources more readily available to combat rising costs for Americans. This hypocrisy is just one of the many problems we have to confront as the House is set to vote on these blatant attempts to gut the Clean Air Act, one of the most successful environmental and public health laws ever enacted by Congress. House Republicans are working overtime to further the Trump administration's efforts to silence the scientific, medical, and public health experts at EPA from being able to alert other agencies about how their projects might cause harm to the health of our constituents and our neighbors. That is the type of critical assessment that EPA's expertise alone could offer and would be missing as a result of this bill. Contrary to the rhetoric of my Republican colleagues, they haven't offered any proof that these reviews were slowing or stopping projects. In fact, the EPA reviews thousands of environmental impact statements each year, with most other agencies taking their recommendations. Unfortunately, by removing the EPA from the overall process, we are losing out on the expertise of the scientists tasked with protecting public health and the environment. However, to the Republican majority, if you can turn a blind eye to the consequences, they will disappear. Well, they don't disappear just because you turn a blind eye, Mr. Speaker. {time} 1510 That is not how toxic pollution works for countless communities in your district and mine. They deserve to know how large Federal projects might impact their water, air, and soil, and they deserve to have the best and brightest EPA scientists analyze these projects and make comments for the public to scrutinize and to hold the government accountable. Any attempts to remove this simple level of government accountability is an attempt to [[Page H2910]] silence basic civic participation and transparency, nothing more. I don't have a problem with making government more efficient, but this bill is simply removing the voice of an important agency whose viewpoint Republicans happen to dislike. This ongoing attack on the EPA, on science and transparency cannot stand, so I urge my colleagues to stand with me in opposition to this misguided bill. One of the most important things that we have in Congress and that I try to achieve, and I think Democrats all try to achieve, is the right to know. If people know what is going on, then they can voice their opinion. They can go out and speak. They can protest. They can do what they have to do to protect their communities. However, by eliminating the right to know, we are making it impossible for people to actually express their opinion, which is a fundamental right, in my opinion, under our Constitution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Dr. Joyce), the sponsor of this bill. Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama for yielding. I rise today in support of my legislation, the RED Tape Act. The RED Tape Act removes an unnecessary and duplicative environmental review that the EPA currently conducts under the Clean Air Act. As it stands, the relevant department or agency prepares an environmental impact statement as part of the permitting of a new Federal project, a process in which the EPA is often already involved. After completion of that review, EPA is then asked to go back and provide additional comments on those same findings; hence, the redundant and duplicative nature of the process. This secondary review of an already-completed environmental impact statement only serves to slow down the critical projects, especially projects in the energy industry. This bill is about getting projects permitted and getting projects completed, projects that will help us compete with our adversaries in industries like AI and advanced manufacturing. This bill is not, as has been alleged, an attempt to undermine environmental review. The environmental impact statement must still be completed by the primary agency. This is a process that agencies already have the necessary expertise and capacity to carry out efficiently. In many cases, EPA will still have the opportunity to comment during the initial process as a cooperating agency. As the name implies, the RED Tape Act simply removes bureaucratic, redundant red tape. Projects will still need to comply with all applicable environmental laws. This is in no way giving a pass to polluters. It is ensuring that economic growth is not stifled by overly burdensome Federal regulations. Understand what thi

Referenced legislation: HRES1174, HRES1174, HR6398