Lawmakers on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce have begun a debate over billions in “air pollution-related” funding, defined to include carbon and carbon dioxide, with many climate and environment-related provisions. Also includes new electric vehicle incentives. $20 billion toward the “Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund,” which Republicans called the “National Climate Bank.”
Air pollution funding falls under Subtitle A of $37 billion, one of only 16 subtitles the committee will consider. The committee’s debate on the title of full, $1.2 trillion reconciliation, which is just one part of a $3.5 trillion reconciliation package, is expected to last for days.
Rep. Paul Tonko (D.N.Y.) started by introducing new provisions that add millions in funding for states to adopt vehicle standards, as well as Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) biofuel grants.
“Other classes will grant to reduce diesel emissions and smoke exposure from wildfires,” Tonko said.
“We know that the consequences of climate change and conventional air pollution are significant,” he said. “The cost of our inaction is enormous and continues to grow with every passing Congress that fails to respond. This subtext is the foundation for a strong response.”
Representative Kathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), the ranking Republican member of the committee, pushed back, saying that “the average American knows the sound of a wrecking ball,” and emphasized that no one had said until a few days ago. Did not see modified language. .
McMorris Rodgers said the bill would eventually leave management of $85 billion to the EPA—”that’s $85 billion of taxpayer dollars for unelected bureaucrats”—and include potentially unnecessary funding for programs already addressed by Congress.
“Why are Democrats taking $20 billion from the American people to set up an unaccountable, private national climate bank?” He asked.
“This obscure program appears to pet projects and bribes to fund a political agenda at the expense of clean fossil energy, which Congress has worked hard to promote.”
Rep. Kelly Armstrong (RN.D.) later introduced an amendment to the subtitle Striking Section 30103, which Republicans called the “National Climate Bank.”
“First of all, we must recognize this program for what it is,” he said. “EPA will distribute funds for special interests” without accountability to taxpayers and Congress.
Armstrong argued that the program would enable private investors and states to “risk their own investments” in green technology while leaving taxpayers on the hook.
Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) rose in protest against Armstrong’s amendment.
“This program combines funding in two ways,” she said. “First, it invests in emissions reduction projects by leveraging funding from the private sector. And second, it invests in state and local financial institutions that tailor their own investments to local needs, priorities and priorities. can do.
She said the proposed fund was similar to other successful programs, which she did not name, adding that the fund will “expand access to financing for low and zero emissions projects, particularly in the environment”. [sic] justice communities. “
No other MPs rose in support or opposition to the amendment, which was voted 32-26 along party lines.
This News Originally From – The Epoch Times