PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6387, FIRE IMPROVEMENT AND REFORMING EXCEPTIONAL EVENTS ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R.

On 2026-04-15, Representative Melanie A. Stansbury (D-NM-1) delivered a floor speech titled "PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6387, FIRE IMPROVEMENT AND REFORMING EXCEPTIONAL EVENTS ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERA" in the House. The speech addressed immigration and also covered taxes, the environment. It referenced legislation including HR6387, HR6398, HR6409, among other bills.

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6387, FIRE IMPROVEMENT AND REFORMING EXCEPTIONAL EVENTS ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R.

Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 66 (Wednesday, April 15, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 15, 2026)] [House] [Pages H2892-H2898] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6387, FIRE IMPROVEMENT AND REFORMING EXCEPTIONAL EVENTS ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6398, REDUCING AND ELIMINATING DUPLICATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6409, FOREIGN EMISSIONS AND NONATTAINMENT CLARIFICATION FOR ECONOMIC STABILITY ACT; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 1156, EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR TAX POLICIES THAT SUPPORT WORKING FAMILIES Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1174 and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 1174 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House any bill specified in section 2 of this resolution. All points of order against consideration of each such bill are waived. Each such bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in each such bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on each such bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit. Sec. 2. The bills referred to in the first section of this resolution are as follows: (a) 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. (b) The bill (H.R. 6398) to amend the Clean Air Act relating to review by the Environmental Protection Agency of proposed legislation. (c) The bill (H.R. 6409) to amend the Clean Air Act to clarify standards for emissions emanating from outside of the United States, and for other purposes. Sec. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 1156) expressing support for tax policies that support working families. The resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or their respective designees. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 1 hour. Mr. LANGWORTHY. 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. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? There was no objection. Mr. LANGWORTHY. 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. {time} 1030 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. [[Page H2893]] 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 improvin

Referenced legislation: HR1, HRES1156, HRES1174, HRES1175, HR6387, HR6398, HR6409, HR7147, HR7417