News

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment held a hearing titled Short-Circuiting Progress: How the Clean Air Act Impacts Building Necessary Infrastructure and Onshoring American Innovation. “Today’s hearing made it clear that bureaucratic red tape has limited our ability to expand American manufacturing,” said Chairman Griffith. “As we heard from our witnesses, Congress needs to take commonsense actions to ensure the Clean Air Act works as intended while not hampering our country’s retention of steady, well-paying jobs, or limiting our ability to lead in manufacturing innovation.” Watch the full hearing here . Below are key excerpts from today’s hearing: Congressman Buddy Carter (GA-01): “Balancing America's air quality with economic development begins with implementing common sense legislation. I think we would all agree on that. The EPA reviews the national ambient air quality standards, and on, on a five-year interval after establishing a national ambient air quality standard states assumed the primary responsibility for implementing it and enforcing these rules. This is an extremely time-consuming process, one that takes years and years. I've got a bill. It's called the CLEAR Act. Now we give states the time needed to implement standards without rushing the process, and I think that's very important. This bill also allows states the opportunity to correct deficiencies found by EPA and state implementation plans for NAAQS before EPA can issue a federal implementation plan. The CLEAR Act offers common sense solutions to make containing clean air standards realistic while giving states the time necessary to comply. Congressman John Joyce, M.D. (PA-13): “Important context for this hearing is understanding that America's air quality is among the best in the world, and that the U.S. emissions have steadily decreased over the past several decades, even as economic input and output has changed. We observed this trend because of the fact that reasonable clean air standards lead to economic growth and that this economic growth spurs innovation and investment in technology that ultimately reduces emissions without sacrificing output. We need to balance public health and clean air goals with the reality that unattainable standards will not only hurt the American economy, but also disincentivize development of the more efficient technologies necessary to continue to lower U.S. emissions.” Congresswoman Mariannette Miller-Meeks (IA-01): “The United States has proven that environmental progress and economic growth aren't mutually exclusive. We've dramatically improved air quality while expanding energy output in Iowa, our farmers and manufacturers rely on stable smart policy to keep innovating and growing and also to compete economically around the globe. As we look to the future. any new regulations must support, not stifle, the backbone industries of our heartland.”

Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Chair Buddy Carter (R-GA) delivered the following opening remarks at today’s hearing titled “Holding the Biden-Harris EPA Accountable for Radical Rush-to-Green Spending."  “I am pleased to welcome our sole witness today, the Inspector General of the Environmental Protection Agency, Sean O’Donnell.  “Mr. O’Donnell has held the position of Inspector General since early 2020 and is here to testify before this Subcommittee on the spending and activities of the Agency, especially those connected to the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, or IIJA and the misnamed Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA.”  MASSIVE INCREASE IN EPA BUDGET   “For context, the Environmental Protection Agency’s entire non-IIJA, non-IRA annual budget for fiscal year 2024 is $10.136 billion. This amount reflects an increase of 10.4 percent over EPA’s Fiscal Year 2021 funding level of $9.085 billion.  “The IIJA, alone, provided EPA $60 billion over five fiscal years or $12 million dollars in annual appropriations to EPA. Not only was it the single largest appropriation ever provided to EPA, but it also more than doubled annual spending at the Agency during the Biden-Harris administration.  “The IRA later came along and gave EPA another $41.5 billion dollars in new and expanded programs at EPA.  “That’s two bills, an additional $101.5 billion, and roughly ten times the amount of money normally dropped off at EPA to spend.  “This is a massive infusion of funding and outrageous level of spending and pressure on our national debt, particularly for many of my Republicans colleagues who represent almost two-thirds of congressional districts in America where the average median income is below the national average and whose children will be asked to pay for this spending.”  RIGOROUS OVERSIGHT PROTECTS AGAINST WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE   “Regardless of if you voted for these bills, though, I hope you will agree with me that it is imperative that Congress conducts robust oversight of all this money given to EPA and the other agencies—it is the right thing to do.  “That said, I realize that there may be some limits to how much information the Inspector General has for us today and may be able to get for us in the future.  “Congress clearly directed his office to oversee IIJA funding and gave his office $53 million a year to do it. Unfortunately, IRA provided the IG no requirement to police that spending and Congress has approved no funding to do it.  “Regardless, fulfilling these directives—or lack thereof—are dependent upon the willingness of EPA to allow real oversight to occur.  “The Committee has had uneven results in its own investigating of these programs.  Sometimes we have had success, sometimes we have met resistance, and usually we’ve been made to wait a long time to find out which it is.  “When Administrator Regan testified earlier this year, he assured us that he talks with the IG all the time when we asked him if he was fully cooperating on the oversight. I look forward to finding out if the Inspector General’s experience has been different than the Committee’s.  “If his experience is less than satisfactory, I would like to know what legal constraints he faces and what he needs from EPA to be successful.”  LEARNING FROM THE PAST   “I also think it is important to find out if EPA implemented any lessons that it should have learned from its spending experiences with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.  “And, if EPA made any changes based on this experience, what difference, if any, it made.  “We should know more about how much of the allocated IRA funding has already been spent, what type of quality control EPA and its grantees are placing on this on the disbursement and use of this funding—including by third-party vendors on the use of the money, and what objective measurements are being used to measure the results.  “Finally, I hope we are able to explore some of EPA’s interactions with the States, which also have a significant burden with these funds.  “This is especially important in light of the aggressive regulatory push by this Administration and it’s non-governmental, ideological allies.  “I look forward to an insightful discussion with our witness.” 

Washington, D.C. — The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations today released a new staff report titled “Majority Staff Report: Examining the Environmental Protection Agency’s Electric School Bus Program.” House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA), and Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Chair Earl L. “Buddy” Carter (R-GA) released the following quote about the report’s findings:   “It is clear the $5 billion Clean School Bus Program is overall a failure and, in many cases, a waste of Americans’ hard-earned taxpayer dollars. The program, led by the radical Biden-Harris EPA, props up a market that relies heavily upon a supply chain dominated by the Chinese Communist Party. Further, the program was constructed without the necessary safeguards to prevent fraud and incentivizes schools to use buses they otherwise would not choose. It’s also important to note that the EPA refuses to tell us how many of these school buses are on the road. As the official tasked with ensuring the success of the program, Vice President Harris bears great responsibility for its significant shortcomings.”  The Chairs also added,  “We commend EPA Inspector General Sean O’Donnell for his assistance in our investigation as well as his own work as the EPA’s watchdog.”  OVERVIEW OF REPORT :  Executive Summary    Introduction to the Clean School Bus Program   Creation of the Clean School Bus Program  2022 Clean School Bus Rebate Program  2023 Clean School Bus Grant Program  2023 Clean School Bus Rebate Program  Concerns with Electric School Buses   Cost   Environmental Impact  Battery Production   Battery Recycling   Increased Risk of Fires  Performance  ESB Supply Chains  National Security  Human Rights Issues in the Supply Chain  Problems with the Clean School Bus Program   Lack of Verification Procedures Leads to Waste, Fraud and Abuse   Delay Issues  Program Imbalance  Conclusion   Appendix   OVERVIEW OF INVESTIGATION :  September 13, 2023 : Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations convenes hearing titled "Making the Grade?: Audit of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean School Bus Program"  October 31, 2023 : Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations sends first round of surveys to school districts participating in the Clean School Bus Program.  January 9, 2024 : House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) issues statement after the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced an additional $1 billion in grants for President Biden’s electric school bus plan  April 5, 2024 : E&C Republicans Press EPA for Information on Clean School Bus Program that Picks Winners and Losers  September 17, 2024 : E&C Republicans Release Staff Report on Clean School Bus Program

Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Subcommittee Chair Buddy Carter (R-GA) today announced a hearing titled “Holding the Biden-Harris EPA Accountable for Radical Rush-to-Green Spending.”  “The Biden-Harris Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the most extreme EPA to date. Since President Biden took office, the EPA has been given $109 billion in additional funding and grown its workforce to over 15,000 employees. The Biden-Harris EPA’s spending and regulatory policies—created by the so-called ‘Inflation Reduction Act’ and ‘Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act’—continue to put America on a dangerous path that threatens our economic and national security, while enriching our adversaries, like China,” said Chairs Rodgers and Carter. “The EPA must return to its core statutory functions—which do not include undermining the economic prosperity of the United States or driving costs up across the board for Americans.”  Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials titled “Holding the Biden-Harris EPA Accountable for Radical Rush-to-Green Spending.”   WHAT: A subcommittee hearing to hold the Biden-Harris EPA accountable for its radical rush-to-green spending and regulatory policies.  DATE: Thursday, September 19, 2024  TIME: 10:00 AM ET LOCATION: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building  This notice is at the direction of the Chair. The hearing will be open to the public and press and will be live streamed online at https://energycommerce.house.gov . If you have any questions concerning the hearing, please contact Kaitlyn Peterson at Kaitlyn.Peterson@mail.house.gov . If you have any press-related questions, please contact Kate Roberts at Kate.Arey@mail.house.gov .

Washington, D.C. — In a new letter to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans are pressing for answers regarding Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) awards. The letter to Administrator Regan, signed by Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA), and Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Chair Earl L. "Buddy" Carter (R-GA), requests an unredacted copy of all GGRF award agreements that have been finalized.  It follows up on an Oversight Subcommittee hearing from earlier this year, where Mr. Zealan Hoover, Senior Advisor to the Administrator, assured Committee Members that the award agreements that EPA entered into with recipients to receive GGRF program awards would address the concerns raised.   LETTER TEXT BELOW:   Dear Administrator Regan,  We write to you as part of the Energy and Commerce Committee’s (the Committee) continued oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF). As you know, Committee Members have many questions regarding this first-of-its-kind, $27 billion program, including those discussed at a January 30, 2024, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing on the GGRF, with Mr. Zealan Hoover, Senior Advisor to the Administrator, testifying on behalf of the EPA. In numerous instances, Mr. Hoover assured Members that the award agreements that EPA would enter into with recipients that the EPA selected to receive GGRF program awards would address the concerns they raised.   For example, in response to a question from Committee Chair Rodgers about what conflicts of interest policies would govern funding recipients responsible for further distributing this money, Mr. Hoover responded that “they will be subject to all of the terms and conditions of their financial assistance agreement.” After Representative Guthrie pressed for more information on whether organizations with foreign ties could receive GGRF funding, Mr. Hoover stated that “one of the terms and conditions in each of the award agreements is going to be a prohibition against entering into any form of contractual relationship with a foreign entity of concern.” Mr. Hoover also replied to Representative Lesko, “[e]ach grantee is applying with a rigorous investment plan, proposed project pipeline, and timeline for a wide array of necessary activities covering their investment work, their governance, their organizational structure. All of that will be enshrined in our terms and conditions of the grant agreement.”   Members also submitted follow-up questions for the record after the hearing. Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chair Griffith requested more detail about performance audits, and the EPA responded, in part, “[w]e expect that the terms and conditions of GGRF grants, as provided in 2 C.F.R. § 200.208, will authorize the project officer to closely monitor recipient performance and compliance with grant requirements.” Additionally, in response to Chair Griffith’s inquiry on how the EPA could evaluate the past performance of applicants that included new organizations or coalitions, the EPA stated that it required applicants to submit risk management plans, and that awardees would have to comply with specific terms and conditions in their award agreements. In response to a question on Build America, Buy America Act (BABA) compliance, the EPA stated that it was “including terms and conditions in the award agreements to reinforce that all grants are subject to [BABA] by statute,” and that “EPA will hold selected applicants accountable to BABA requirements through the terms and conditions of the award agreements.” Finally, the EPA also responded to a question from Representative Crenshaw, saying that “EPA will include a term and condition in all award agreements to protect against federal funds flowing to entities with certain connections to the People’s Republic of China.”  In short, the EPA repeatedly sought to reassure the Committee that its award agreements with selected recipients would address the issues of concern and potential risks. The Committee seeks additional detail on how these award agreements will address the issues of concern and potential risks.    As such, please provide a complete and unredacted copy of the award agreement, including all of the attachments, appendices, and any amendments, that the EPA executes with each funding recipient under the GGRF. By no later than August 29, 2024, please provide a copy of all award agreements that have been finalized as of the date of this letter, and please provide a copy of all remaining agreements as soon as they are finalized. 

Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Energy, Climate, and Grid Security Subcommittee Chair Jeff Duncan (R-SC), and Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Subcommittee Chair Buddy Carter (R-GA) yesterday sent a letter to Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Jennifer Granholm urging the Department of Energy to prioritize the onshoring of our critical mineral supply chains following the Chinese Communist Party’s July 1 declaration that rare earth metals were the “property of the state.” CLICK HERE to read exclusive coverage by E&E News. KEY QUOTE “Critical minerals are essential to America’s economy and to America’s capacity to manufacture goods and high-tech devices. Many critical minerals are essential to the energy sector, as they are needed to manufacture solar panels, batteries, and electrical equipment. As the DOE is aware, the CCP announced limitations on gallium, germanium, natural and synthetic graphite last October. These critical minerals are vital for our defense and energy technologies and are listed as critical and at high risk of supply disruption. On November 21, 2023, the Committee on Energy and Commerce sent a letter raising security concerns over the CCP limiting exports of gallium, germanium, natural graphite, and synthetic graphite. Your response to that letter failed to address these concerns and lacked basic information to help Members of Congress assess the risks of America’s increasing dependence on CCP controlled minerals.” [...] “The administration should prioritize the onshoring of domestic mining and processing industry for these critical minerals and materials. The answer to a lack of mining and processing is not to extend credits to companies using minerals from a major geopolitical adversary that relies on child labor and exploitation.” Chairs Rodgers, Duncan, and Carter asked Secretary Granholm to answer the following questions by August 13, 2024: Are you concerned by reports that the Chinese government has declared rare earth metals property of the government of China? What actions will the DOE take in response to the Chinese government’s announcement? Please describe any actions DOE has taken to prioritize onshoring domestic mining and processing of synthetic and natural graphite. Please describe any actions DOE has taken to prioritize onshoring domestic mining and processing of gallium and germanium. How will DOE work to expedite projects to ensure a secure and stable supply chain of these critical minerals and materials given these recent announcements? What actions will DOE take to mitigate potential domestic supply shortages of these minerals? Were you consulted about the Treasury Department’s decision to extend the graphite exemption through 2027? Did you advise or recommend that the White House extend the graphite exemption through 2027? Please explain. CLICK HERE to read the letter to Secretary Granholm. CLICK HERE to read the November 21, 2023, letter to Secretary Granholm raising concerns over the CCP’s decision to limit exports of gallium, germanium, natural graphite, and synthetic graphite.

Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Subcommittee Chair Buddy Carter (R-GA) sent Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Michael Regan a letter demanding additional details regarding the agency’s efforts to designate additional per- and polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) substances as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). KEY LETTER EXCERPT: “We are particularly concerned with the scope of any new designations made by EPA, including the EPA’s ability to obtain and use the data necessary to understand the technical and economic feasibility of such a designation. “The Agency’s purposeful cooperation with scientific experts, who know these substances, is relevant to the cleanup levels for which those sites might be subject and will, ultimately, determine how quickly these sites will be cleaned up under CERCLA’s strict, joint and several, and retroactive liability scheme. For these reasons, it is imperative this Committee follow up with you and seek additional information about the potential scope of additional actions under CERCLA to address PFAS releases.”   BACKGROUND: PFAS are not a single chemical, but rather an entire group of 14,000 synthetic chemicals used in a wide variety of common applications.   On April 17, 2024, the EPA designated two PFAS substances, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), as “hazardous substances” under CERCLA.   During Administrator Regan’s appearance before the Committee on Energy and Commerce’s Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials, he was asked if the EPA would designate PFAS substances beyond PFOA and PFOS as “hazardous substances.” In response, he stated, “We will.” Later, the EPA stated the agency “will go through a rulemaking process” for the designation of additional PFAS chemicals as CERCLA hazardous substances.  Given that PFOA and PFOS are just a fraction of the entire PFAS class, the Chairs are demanding details regarding the EPA’s efforts to designate additional PFAS chemicals as hazardous substances under CERCLA, and whether they will be transparent with the public regarding those efforts. CLICK HERE to read the full letter.

Washington D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Chair Buddy Carter (R-GA) delivered the following opening remarks at today’s subcommittee hearing titled “Securing America’s Critical Materials Supply Chains and Economic Leadership.”  RUSH-TO-GREEN POLICIES JEOPARDIZE AMERICAN SUPPLY CHAINS “Critical minerals and rare earth elements are fundamental to modern life, the American economy, and our national defense.  “Cell phones, vehicles, batteries, satellites, renewable energy technologies, missile systems and numerous other products are all reliant on the secure supply of these critical materials. “Unfortunately, the US supply chain to procure and use these essential materials is, at best, compromised. “According to the US Geological Survey. The US is 100 percent import-reliant for 12 critical minerals, almost 25 percent of all critical minerals. We also are more than 50 percent import-reliant for another 17 critical minerals. “Additionally, nearly all of our extracted rare earths are exported to China due to a lack of domestic processing. “Today we will examine these pressing shortfalls and the opportunities that exist to secure the supply chain for these materials through domestic extraction, processing, recycling and trade with Allied nations. “We are faced with a choice. “We can choose to support American development of critical mineral supply chains through sound permitting reforms, strategic investments, and responsible trade. “Or we can continue the status quo, perpetuating the policies and permitting roadblocks, which will delay the start of new mines, strengthening China's stranglehold on the processing sector and forcing us to turn to the world's polluters and human rights abusers for the critical materials we need. “We should choose the former and pursue in all-of-the-above strategy for the procurement of these resources while developing and implementing policies to enhance American security.” UNDERMINING AMERICAN MANUFACTURING “We must also examine the impact current policies are having on the US economy. We are concerned that the current federal policy direction has put the proverbial cart ahead of the horse. “Lavish green product mandates and subsidies for technologies that support only those products are sending us headlong into the waiting arms of China, Russia and others in their maligned foreign influence. “Critical minerals and rare earths are environmentally insensitive resources. “We should not allow the development of these materials to be further offshored to countries that do not uphold the environmental and labor standards we have in the United States. “For instance, China's mining district, which contains some of the largest rare-earth mines in the world, has improperly lined tailing ponds that are leaching toxic sludge at a pace of 20 to 30 meters annually towards the nearby Yellow River.” ENSURING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY “Not only are policies that offshore our supply chains to China terrible for the environment, but they also place us at a severe strategic disadvantage. “Last year, China announced it would be suspending exports of gallium, germanium, and graphite to the United States. They followed this up by announcing restrictions on the export of rare earth processing technologies. “At a time when our national defense stockpile of critical materials has enough supply to meet less than half the demand for military requirements, this is a dangerous situation to find ourselves. “We must remedy this shortfall and bolster our strategic position to secure our supply chains. “While mineral recycling and responsible trade presents an opportunity to diversify our procurement, solely relying on these methods is not a substitute for the extraction of virgin minerals domestically. “Estimates show that recycled quantities of critical minerals from used energy technologies have the potential to reduce future supply requirements by just 30 percent. “Additionally, the concept of 'friend-shoring' only takes us so far and that goes for processing and refining of these materials, as well as for mining. “China's average share of foreign direct investment in the countries with the US Free Trade Agreement soared from 4 percent before the passage of the IRA to 31 percent post-IRA and is expected to grow. It is evident that to secure our supply chains for critical materials we must increase dramatically the amount of domestic extraction and processing taking place. “There's no silver bullet for supplying the critical materials we need. Instead, we must pursue a comprehensive strategy that supports American workers in rewards those who responsibly produce and process these essential products. “Today we will hear from multiple experts on the state of the critical mineral and rare earths market, which could help shape our thinking on these issues.”

Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Subcommittee Chair Buddy Carter (R-GA) announced a hearing titled “Securing America’s Critical Materials Supply Chains and Economic Leadership.” “If America is going to continue its manufacturing and energy leadership, we must significantly increase our domestic supply of the necessary critical materials," said Chairs Rodgers and Carter. "These materials are crucial for manufacturing everything from batteries, electric grid components, and semiconductors, to advanced energy technologies. Our current regulatory landscape runs counter to the reasonable predictability necessary for permitting the mining, processing, and refining of these materials domestically. We look forward to hearing from stakeholders and experts on how to grow and secure our critical material supply chains—while maintaining our environmental leadership—and also ensure America isn’t dependent on adversaries like China, which pose a threat to our national and economic security.” Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials hearing titled “Securing America’s Critical Materials Supply Chains and Economic Leadership” WHAT: Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Subcommittee hearing on securing our critical materials supply chains and reducing our dependence on foreign adversaries, like China. DATE: Thursday, June 13, 2024 TIME: 10:30 AM ET LOCATION: 2322 Rayburn House Office Building This notice is at the direction of the Chair. The hearing will be open to the public and press and will be livestreamed online at https://energycommerce.house.gov/ . If you have any questions concerning the hearing, please contact Kaitlyn Peterson at Kaitlyn.Peterson@mail.house.gov . If you have any press-related questions, please contact Sean Kelly at Sean.Kelly@mail.house.gov .