Foreign Emissions and Nonattainment Clarification for Economic Stability Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PFLUGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, the Foreign Emissions and Nonattainment Clarification for Economic Stability Act, also known as the FENCES Act.

States and communities are being pushed into nonattainment because of pollution that they don't control and they can't prevent. As was just mentioned by my colleague from New Jersey who said that we can't control pollution across borders, that is right. That is why we have to come up with this bill.

Smoke from Canadian wildfires, emissions drifting across our southern border, and other foreign sources can overwhelm local air quality readings even when the States are fully compliant and acting in good faith.

Congress has long recognized this reality. That is why the Clean Air Act allows States to account for foreign emissions when those emissions interfere with attainment, but that balance was disrupted when EPA guidance under the Biden administration sharply narrowed what counts as foreign emissions, limiting relief to certain human-caused sources while excluding events like wildfires. That distinction was arbitrary and unworkable. States cannot regulate another country, and they certainly cannot regulate natural disasters.

The FENCES Act corrects that mistake. In fact, let me change that phrasing. The FENCES Act corrects that overreach by the previous administration. It clarifies that all foreign emissions, whether natural or human caused, must be excluded when the EPA makes nonattainment determinations or reviews new source permits. Just as important, the bill allows States to raise these issues earlier in the process rather than years after the planning and investment have happened when the consequences are most severe.

Those consequences are significant. Nonattainment designations impose substantial regulatory burdens on States, communities, energy producers, and manufacturers. They trigger stricter permitting requirements, delay infrastructure projects, and raise the costs for businesses trying to expand or hire. For energy producers, it means slower approvals for drilling and processing. For manufacturers, it means uncertainty around whether a project will even move forward. For local communities, it means fewer jobs and less investment, even when they have done everything right to comply with the law.

The issue is not theoretical. In my area, the Permian Basin, we saw how even the possibility, the threatening of a nonattainment designation can create uncertainty. That uncertainty affects permitting timelines, capital planning, and long-term investment decisions for both producers and local communities. Companies begin to question whether new jobs will face delays or additional requirements, and local leaders are left planning around an unclear regulatory future. When the stakes are that high, EPA needs to get the analysis right. That is the way the law was written, and this bill gets us back to that intent.

It was said that this bill favors the dirty production in manufacturing and lowers the air quality. No, it actually holds our communities accountable. It holds them accountable, the communities that we care about domestically that should be held accountable, but shouldn't be penalized for cities in Mexico or wildfires that are happening in Canada or other foreign sources that they don't control. That is what this bill does.

When the Supreme Court decided on the Loper Bright case, that is the Chevron deference case, this is the decision they had in mind because the Biden administration overreached so often and so critically.

This bill is a targeted, commonsense measure that does not change air quality standards. In fact, it actually enforces them more accurately within our local communities, and it makes a narrow adjustment to ensure that compliance determinations are fair by excluding foreign emissions from EPA nonattainment designations.

American workers and businesses should not face regulatory penalties for pollution originating outside our borders or for uncontrollable natural events. I urge my colleagues to think about a commonsense solution and to get back to the intent of the law, which is exactly what the FENCES Act does.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source