[Pages S4281-S4283]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION FUND

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Environment
and Public Works Committee, I wish to correct the record on one small
piece of the big, terrible bill that the Senate barely passed last week
and which the President signed into law on July 4. There are many
things to say about that legislation, and I will continue to daylight
concerning provisions buried in it over the coming weeks.
But today, I want to focus on section 60002 of the so-called ``One
Big Beautiful Bill Act,'' which repealed and rescinded all unobligated
funds from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. There has been some spin
put on this section, including in court filings. And so I aim to fix
some misconceptions, with the help of the Congressional Budget Office
and the relevant Republican House subcommittee chair.
I have spoken a lot about the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund over the
past several months, on the floor and in the Judiciary and Environment
and Public Works Committees. Most of the time, I have focused on the
many red flags raised by outrageous behavior of top DOJ and EPA
officials in their attempts to claw back nearly $20 billion in grant
funds that were awarded in April 2024 and fully dispersed into private
bank accounts by August. After terrorizing grantees with false
allegations of fraud and trying to open bogus criminal cases that went
nowhere, EPA froze and then announced the termination of these fully
obligated and dispersed grants. The grantees, rightfully, sued EPA for
these arbitrary and capricious actions. The dispute is being actively
litigated in the D.C. circuit.
The Justice Department continues its mischief. On July 3, 2025, DOJ
ran to the court with news of the repeal and rescission of unobligated
funds from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, claiming that this was
Congress rescinding a full $17 billion, including all of what EPA
claimed to terminate on March 11, 2025. That simply is not so. The DOJ
reads too much into the repeal of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund
language. Two pieces of evidence support my contention here.
First, when this provision came up through the Environment and Public
Works Committee, it was ``scored'' by the Congressional Budget Office.
That means the Congressional Budget Office provided an estimate of the
funds saved by rescinding unobligated funds. The CBO score for
rescinding all unobligated funds from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Fund, as provided to us by the majority on June 24, 2025, was $19
million. That is 19 with an m, not a b. CBO confirmed, further, that
the repeal of the program language did not create any additional
savings. The repeal and rescission together only saved the $19 million
EPA had remaining to oversee the program. All of the grant funding was
out the door, in private bank accounts, and in some cases, tied up in
firm legal commitments with third parties. At no point in our
discussions with the majority, directly or in our several conversations
with the Parliamentarian, was this score disputed.

[[Page S4282]]

The majority did express concern about EPA prevailing in litigation and
suddenly having nearly $20 billion back and, for this reason, pushed to
repeal the language. But the fact of the matter is, section 60002 only
rescinded EPA's administrative dollars and not a cent of the grant
funding.
Second, Republicans made clear that rescissions from environmental
grant programs only touched funding that had not yet gone out the door.
During the markup of the Energy and Commerce Committee title for the
House version of this bill, the chair of the Environment Subcommittee
Mr. Griffith of Virginia made the following statements:
On page 244, lines 5959-64:

I just want to point out that these provisions that we are
talking about only apply as far, as this bill is concerned,
to the unobligated balances. So if a grant was already given,
as far as this bill is concerned, then that would still be
going forward.

On page 244, lines 5968-70:

If the grant has already been granted and the money is
obligated, then this--then our language does not affect that.

On pages 247-48, lines 6055-57:

. . . [W]e can't rescind expenditures that have already
been obligated.

Neither CBO nor Republican Members understood the repeal and
rescission of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to save anything more
than EPA's unspent oversight dollars. Not a cent of the grant funding
was touched by section 60002. Wishful thinking on the part of DOJ does
not moot the ongoing litigation.
I ask unanimous consent that the June 21, 2025, CBO score for the
Environment and Public Works title, including section 2, the repeal and
rescission of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, as well as excerpts
from the House Energy and Commerce Committee markup transcript be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was orderd to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Preliminary Estimated Budgetary Effects of MAZ25453
[Brett Jortland request by email, 6/21/25]----------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2025-2029 2025-2034
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change to Direct Spending

--------------Sec. _01 Recission of Funding for Clean
Heavy-Duty Vehicles------------
Budget Authority -423- 0 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 -423- -423
Estimated Outlays 0 -20 -65 -56 -79 -92 -70 0 0 0 -220 -382
Sec. _02 Repeal of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund-----------
-
Budget Authority -19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -19 -19
Estimated Outlays- -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -1 0 0 0 -15 -19
Sec. _03 Recission of Funding for Diesel Emissions
Reductions--------------
Budget Authority -60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -60 -60--
Estimated Outlays- -13 -16 -12 -12 -3 0 0 0 0 0 -56 -56
Sec. _04 Recission of Funding to Address Air Pollution-----
---------
Budget Authority -70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -70 -70--
Estimated Outlays -5 -20 -10 -5 -10 -10 -10 0 0 0 -50 -70
Sec. _05 Recission of Funding to Address Air Pollution at
Schools--------------
Budget Authority -14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -14 -14--
Estimated Outlays- 0 -3 -3 -3 -3 0 0 0 0 0 -12 -12
Sec. _06 Recission of Funding for the Low Emissions
Electricity Program--------------
Budget Authority -42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -42 -42--
Estimated Outlays -5 -7 -7 -7 -7 -9 0 0 0 0 -33 -42
Sec. _07 Recission of Funding for Section 211(O) of the
Clean Air Act--------------
Budget Authority -3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 -3--
Estimated Outlays 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 -1
Sec. _08 Recission of Funding for Funding for
Implementation of the American Innovation and
Manufacturing Act--------------
Budget Authority -3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 -3--
Estimated Outlays 0 0 0 -3 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 -3
***
Subtotal Changes in Direct Spending
Budget Authority -6,579 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -6,579 -6,579
Estimated Outlays -857 -936 -1,237 -887 -570 -360 -112 0 0 0 -4,487 -4,959
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change to Revenue

Sec. _12 Recission of Funding for Methane Emissions and 0 0 0 0 0 -375 -300 -275 -275 -275 0 -1,500
Waste Reduction Incentive Program for Petroleum and
Natural Gas Systems
Sec. _26 Project Sponsor Opt-in Fees for Environmental * * * * * * * * * * * *
Reviews
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---Total Changes in Revenues 0 0 0 0 0 -375 -300 -275 -275 -275 0 -1,500
Net Effect on the Deficit -857 -936 -1,237 -887 -570 15 188 275 275 275 -4,487 -3,459-----
---------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* = between zero and $500,000. The estimates account for judicial decisions and administrative actions through April 10, 2025.--------------
Source: Congressional Budget Office.
Staff Contacts: Aurora Swanson, Lilia Ledezma, Susan Yeh Beyer, David Hughes, Willow Latham-Proenca, Matthew Pickford, Molly Sherlock.

--------------Markup of Budget Reconciliation Text

(Tuesday, May 13, 2025)

House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington,
D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:37 a.m. in Room
2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brett Guthrie
[chair of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Guthrie, Latta, Griffith,
Bilirakis, Hudson, Carter of Georgia, Palmer, Dunn, Joyce,
Weber, Allen, Balderson, Fulcher, Pfluger, Harshbarger,
Miller-Meeks, Cammack, Obernolte, James, Bentz, Houchin, Fry,
Lee, Langworthy, Kean, Rulli, Evans, Goldman, Fedorchak;
Pallone, DeGette, Schakowsky, Matsui, Castor, Tonko, Clarke,
Ruiz, Peters, Dingell, Veasey, Kelly, Barragan, Soto,
Schrier, Trahan, Fletcher, Ocasio-Cortez, Auchincloss, Carter
of Louisiana, Menendez, Mullin, Landsman, and McClellan.
The Chair. The committee will come to order.
The Chair. The gentleman yields back. Is there anyone
seeking recognition to speak on the amendment?
The gentleman from New Jersey seeks recognition. He is
recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment.
Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Chairman, and I want to thank my
colleague Mr. Carter, for offering this amendment. You know,
often when we talk about environmental justice our friends
across the aisle roll their eyes. They scoff at the idea of
what is environmental injustice. It is not a thing. We don't
need to talk about it. So I want to just add a little context
to it.
Environmental justice initiatives are lifelines for
communities that are at a higher risk of adverse health
impacts from exposure to pollution and other environmental
challenges. So in my district the Ironbound section of
Newark, 25 percent of children living there suffer from
asthma. That is three times the state average.
And it isn't just their health that suffers. When we talk
about environmental justice, we are talking about children's
education. Asthma is the leading cause of absenteeism in
school-age children, which is why it is so obscene that today
Republicans want to cut funding that would address air
pollution at schools. I would just ask the American people,
like, what part of addressing air pollution at schools is
controversial? I don't think there is anything controversial
about.
And this is not just Democratic states or blue states. When
we talk about environmental justice, we are talking about
mining-related pollution in Appalachia. We are talking about
water crises in Alabama and Michigan. We are talking about
over-burdened communities that exist across the country and
across party lines.
So speaking about across party lines, another one of our
Republican colleagues from Oregon has a district that has
been awarded multiple grants at risk from this reconciliation
bill that would be saved by my amendment.
You are welcome.
First is the Columbia Gorge Early Learning and Resilience
Center, located right outside of Portland in a rural, low-
income community of The Dalles, Oregon. This grant-funded
project would renovate a 70-year-old school building into a
community center that protects public health and provides
valuable resources for local residents. That sounds like a
home run project to me. The center would provide childcare
for up to 200 children, create an on-site learning
laboratory, and provide vocational scholarships for students
to pursue careers in fields such as engineering or
agriculture. That is fantastic.
But the same party that claims to be the party of families
wants to shut down a grant that would help some of those
families with

[[Page S4283]]

child care. The irony is staggering. This is all while
also creating a renewable, energy-powered refuge that will
protect our most vulnerable residents during extreme
weather events like wildfires and winter storms. When the
lights go out and the community needs critical heat and
services, Republicans turn the other way, even at the risk
of their own constituents' lives. Unfortunately, the $20
million EPA grant to carry out this valuable mission was
unjustly and illegally terminated last month.
Similarly, another grant in Oregon, the Chiloquin Community
Resilience Hub and Municipal Center, would have remediated a
brownfield site into an emergency shelter, municipal space,
and community education center. We all sat here weeks ago and
touted the brownfields program as a bipartisan program, and
yet here we are trying to cut the funding for a brownfield
site that would serve as a critical community hub in a
Republican district. The center would also provide training
and education opportunities for a population that lives in a
rural and historically underserved area. The project was
awarded a $16.3 million EPA environmental justice grant--
great job getting that for your community--but it was also
illegally and arbitrarily canceled last month.
Now Republicans like that congressman from Oregon want to
get rid of the program entirely. To me, the conclusion is
clear. Republicans are willing to withhold nearly $40 million
from one congressional district alone, from his own
constituents, to give tax breaks to those who need them the
least.
So in addition to health care, we are not just talking
about Democratic environmental priorities. We are talking
about cutting funding for programs that will impact districts
across the country, and that is why everyone should support
this amendment to ensure that you bring those dollars home to
your district.
Thank you, and I yield back.
The Chair. Thank you. The gentleman yields back, and I will
recognize myself to speak on the amendment, and yield to my
good friend from Virginia.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to point
out that these provisions that we are talking about only
apply as far, as this bill is concerned, to the unobligated
balances. So if a grant was already given, as far as this
bill is concerned, then that would still be going forward.
The Chair. So would you yield back to me? So everyone that
was listed, if the grants had been awarded as projects or
not----
Mr. Griffith. If the grant has already been granted and the
money is obligated, then this--then our language does not
affect that.
Mrs. Fletcher. Will the gentleman yield?
The Chair. The--yes, it is my time. Yes, I will yield.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair. Yes.
Mrs. Fletcher. I just want to clarify. I understand the
statement to be that this particular legislation doesn't deal
with the already-obligated funds. But isn't it true that the
administration is rescinding the grants and pulling back the
money from the projects like my colleague from New Jersey was
just explaining?
I know that there have been grants under various programs
in my community. One, for example, to help build sidewalks
and tree canopy. It is amazing to think about. In my district
there is a 17-degree difference in the temperature during the
summer between the poorest neighborhoods and the wealthiest.
And they have no trees, they have no tree canopy. There is
this great program to try to build sidewalks, put in trees,
and address some of these challenges that--it gets real hot
in Houston, and this is a really important program. But I
know the funds for that have been revoked.
And so is the statement that this won't do anything to
those, but there are still these grants being revoked? Or are
we trying to preserve those grants in this legislation and
just--the already-obligated funds, are we protecting those in
this?
The Chair. Well, this legislation does not take--does not
close the grants on any obligated funds, and that--the
executive actions----
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Will the gentleman yield? The
Chair. My understanding--and I will yield to my friend from
Virginia, if you would like to answer that.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Griffith. I am happy to say that I don't--The Chair.
Louisiana, my friend from Virginia, and then I will yield to
you.
Mr. Griffith. I don't know what the administration is
doing, per se, to the specific----
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. I can help----
Mr. Griffith. --grants that were mentioned, but I would say
that this amendment specifically talks about the unobligated
amounts, as well, so that whether it be the bill or the
amendment, this action that we take does not impact that
action that may or may not be going on in the administration.
I know it is confusing for folks back home, as well, to
understand that not--the administration does not always tell
us everything they are doing because they are doing so many
things.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Will the gentleman yield briefly?
Mr. Griffith. And while I----
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. I will address that.
The Chair. I will yield to you in a second. Let him finish,
yes.
Mr. Griffith. I don't have the floor. I have been yielded
time, so I have to finish and then I yield back----
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Fair enough, sir.
Mr. Griffith. ----to the chair.
And so I can't speak for the administration on this. That
is a whole different ball game.
But what we are debating tonight is the bill in front of
us. And what we are debating right now is the amendment.
Neither the bill in front of us nor the amendment deal with
the issues that the gentleman previously raised. And so that
is why I ask folks to vote no on the amendment and yes on the
bill.
The Chair. Thank you.
The gentleman from Louisiana, I yield to you.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. And I am happy to have an
opportunity to address that, because those comments are not
exactly correct.
If the Administrator Zeldin is successful in terminating
these critical grant programs in his misguided attempt to gut
the agency, these grants will be subject to rescission. It is
very clear. So the notion that it has been awarded, it is not
going to be impacted, that is a little disingenuous. So I
want to clear that up for the record.
I yield.
The Chair. Thank you. I yield, but--to the--back to the
gentleman from Virginia.
You want to--okay I will--do you want to speak, the
gentleman from Virginia? Go ahead.
Mr. Griffith. And what I would say, Mr. Chairman, is that
that may be true for a future rescission, but we can't
rescind expenditures that have already been obligated.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Oh----
Mr. Griffith. And for purposes of this reconciliation, we
can't look at the crystal ball and decide what might happen
in the future.

____________________