Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Let me be clear, what the Trump funding freeze does is to pause any funding to go to opioid prevention, treatment, and recovery programs. Fortunately, several Federal courts have enjoined this funding freeze from going into immediate effect, but make no mistake, if this freeze is allowed to go forward, substance use and mental health clinicians who dedicate their lives to helping those experiencing substance use disorder would go without their paychecks and close their doors. Clinics and programs such as certified community behavioral health clinics and the Drug-Free Communities Support Program funded by the CDC would be cut off from Federal funding. We just learned yesterday of community health centers closing in the State of Virginia, so it is already happening that some of the community health centers are closing. The millions of Americans who depend on these programs will be losing access to their care across the country. The HALT Fentanyl Act is a bill that is opposed by over 190 organizations. It is a box to check rather than having the hard, collaborative conversations that must be done to address a longstanding problem. Let me be clear again: The fentanyl-related substances do, in fact, pose a danger to public health. There is no question about it. That is why the DEA enacted a temporary classwide scheduling order in 2018, and we have voted to extend it over nine times since, most recently in December of last year. We included and supported it as part of a bipartisan end-of-year agreement to continue the temporary status for actually another 2 years. Don't be fooled by the majority's fear-mongering. The upcoming expiration of the temporary order on March 31 is a crisis of their own making. If they had adopted the bipartisan agreement at the end of the year, we wouldn't be facing this deadline. I hope that we can all agree that the substance use and overdose crisis impacts all of our districts. Those who are suffering deserve bipartisan solutions that protect public safety, support public health, and don't perpetuate criminal justice bias. As I said before, Democratic opposition is primarily based on the fact that there is nothing here to help with support and treatment. If anybody on the other side of the aisle thinks we are just going to criminalize ourselves out of this fentanyl crisis, they are just kidding themselves. A larger part of this problem is the fact that we need a lot more funding for support and treatment, so that the demand, if you will, for fentanyl is significantly decreased. Right now, the demand is so great, and that is a big part of why we have such a crisis. If we don't do something about treatment and behavioral health, we are never going to deal effectively with this crisis. For all of those reasons, I oppose this bill, and I ask my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the historical significance of the Highland Beach Resort in Sandy Hook, New Jersey which was once the birthplace of Northern Jersey Shore tourism. From 1888 through 1962, this historic location was beloved for its beautiful views and beachside amenities. This destination was a trailblazer for people to begin traveling by rail, excursion trains, steamboats, and automobiles. I would also like to applaud the Jersey Coast Heritage Museum for preserving this history. In a groundbreaking way, the Highland Beach Resort flourished with thousands of tourists every summer, and was home to four-towered carousels, arcades, and one of the first roller coasters in the country. Highland Beach Resort's ``great switchback railroad'' rollercoaster was constructed in 1889 by Highland Beach Resort using an original design by Mr. Thompson, the same inventor of the Nation's first carousel in 1876 and first roller coaster in 1884 nearby in Coney Island. It is truly honorable how this resort fostered innovation and business models that developers all along the Jersey Shore would eventually follow. Since 1893, William Sandlass has been denoted as the legendary developer and entrepreneur who led the construction of the historic Highland Beach Resort. When the remarkable ``great switchback railroad'' rollercoaster was called to be dissembled, Mr. Sandlass repurposed the timbers into a two-story building to be used to expand the resort, eventually becoming a home for his family, and now in service to the National Park Service. When considering the rare architectural characteristics of the home, along with a trace to the history of American and New York Harbor, it becomes clear that this nature-resilient 131-year-old house is truly historic. The geographical history of this location also includes when explorer Giovanni de Verrazano first laid eyes on The Highlands of Navesink in 1525. Evidently, Mr. Sandlass' home is the last remaining structure of the Jersey Shore's start to tourism at the northernmost point and will be remembered as a first-of-its-kind summer refuge for residents traveling for the first time since their immigration to the United States. Where some of the earliest citizens of the United States of America found comfort away from conditions of sweltering hot temperatures and poor sanitary systems of New York City. In many ways, this house symbolizes exploration, cultural heritage, and appreciation of the Jersey Shore. Mr. Speaker, once again, please join me in honoring the late Mr. Sandlass, his landmark home from the Highland Beach Resort, and the members of the Jersey Coast Heritage Museum. Their efforts to preserve the history of the Northern Jersey Shore are truly deserving of this body's recognition.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize His Eminence Metropolitan Apostolos of New Jersey as he is honored for his profound devotion to the Greek Orthodox Church and to the Greek American Community. I join the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of New Jersey as they commemorate the ordination of His Eminence Metropolitan Apostolos to the Holy Episcopacy. It is my privilege to join in celebration during the Metropolitan 10th Anniversary Gala, His Eminence Metropolitan Apostolos of New Jersey is truly deserving of this body's recognition. Metropolitan Apostolos began his service to the Greek Orthodox church on July 28, 1996, when he was ordained to the Holy Priesthood and received the Offikion of Archimandrite by Metropolitan Apostolos of Rhodes. In March of 2000, he continued his theological education at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, where he was granted the degree of Master of Divinity. To expand his studies and service globally, he attended Boston University School of Theology. His Eminence Metropolitan Methodios of Boston assigned Archimandrite Apostolos as the visiting priest at the Annunciation Church in Brockton, Massachusetts. Archimandrite Apostolos went on to serve many others throughout the country, including the historic parish of St. George in Southbridge, Massachusetts, the Saints Anargyroi parish of Marlborough, Massachusetts, Metropolis of San Francisco and more. Notably, Archimandrite Apostolos Koufallakis was granted the title of honorary president during his service as the Dean of the historic Cathedral of St. Demetrios in Astoria by the president and members of Society of Patmos. Metropolitan Apostolos was also recognized for his devotion to the community during the 2008 Greek Independence Day Celebrations by the President of the Borough of Queens, New York. His Eminence Archbishop Demetrios of America appointed Archimandrite Apostolos Koufallakis as the director of the Archdiocesan Hellenic Cultural Center. On July 24, 2023, His Eminence Metropolitan Apostolos upon the recommendation of His All Holiness, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew was unanimously elected by the members of the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate as the New Metropolitan of the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of New Jersey. His leadership is currently responsible for parishes in New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Delaware. Mr. Speaker, once again, please join me in congratulating Metropolitan Apostolos on another honorable year of his enthronement. The continued efforts to honor the Hellenic heritage are truly admirable.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague on the Republican side talk about the reduction in the number of pages in the bill. What I want to point out is by reducing the number of pages, which is not the issue, they reduced the help for the American people that is in this bill. That is what the Republicans have done. At the beginning of the week, we had a bipartisan bill that provided critical relief for the American people. From my perspective on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, what we have done over the last year was hear from our constituents. We had hearings to hear about what was necessary to lower costs, to provide relief for people that, as you know, feel very strongly that prices are too high, that there are all kinds of problems with corporate interests and websites that are not protecting their interests, not protecting their privacy, and soliciting all kinds of things with misinformation. We are the committee that deals primarily with healthcare, with consumer protection, with environmental concern. What we did is worked on a bipartisan basis to put together in this legislation proposals that would really make a difference from what we heard from our constituents around the country. Now, that is what has been taken out of this bill, and it has been taken out because one man, a billionaire, decided to tell my Republican colleagues that he did not want this bill. I am not going to try to figure out why he doesn't want it, but obviously, you know, the types of things that I am talking about are not the things that he would want in the bill. What are we talking about here? What was taken out of this bill? Well, first, my colleague, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, mentioned pediatric cancer and rare disease therapies, research for cancer for kids that are facing cancer problems; community health centers; teaching health centers to provide for more primary care doctors were extended for 2 years and then for 5 years with more funding for that purpose; and prescription drug reforms. One of the biggest problems that we face right now. Is called PBMs, pharmaceutical benefit managers. Theoretically what they are supposed to do is work between the insurer or the individual and the drug companies to reduce prices, but because there is no transparency, what they actually do is pocket the money that they have negotiated, the savings that they have negotiated for themselves, rather than give it back to the consumer. What we did on the Energy and Commerce Committee is we said, no, we want reform of PBMs. That basically is sort of a way of saying that if they negotiate savings, that has to go back to the consumer to lower costs, to lower the costs for prescription drugs, which is one of the biggest things that people are concerned about now, it is one of the biggest costs they have in healthcare.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, these are the types of things that have been taken out of this bill: healthcare protections, consumer protections, environmental protections, safety protections. These are the types of things that have been taken out of this bill because some billionaire, the richest man on Earth, decided that he didn't want those things. This has now become a bill that has taken out anything that is essentially important for consumer or health protection or for relief to lower costs for the American people.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, have the Republicans forgotten that they are in the majority? The bill that was supposed to come up was posted and negotiated by the Republican Speaker. He posted it. He negotiated it. You know that the bill that you are bringing up instead tonight will not pass. We will leave here tonight. This bill will not pass, and so you are the ones who are creating the shutdown. You have the power to decide what bills come to the floor. You are putting a bill on this floor that you know will not pass and will lead to a Republican shutdown. It is on you because you have the majority. Mr. Speaker, I mention this other bill that was supposed to come up and that you refused to bring up. This bill was negotiated because we realized in the Energy and Commerce Committee that people were suffering. They were suffering from high drug prices because of pharmaceutical benefit plans, PBPs, and so we put in a bill on a bipartisan basis, a way of trying to bring prices down with PBP reform. We knew that consumers were being screwed all over the place with shady things on websites when they buy things, junk fees, and all kinds of deceptive practices. We put in on a bipartisan basis that we were going to get rid of junk fees, that we were going to get rid of deceptive practices, whether it went to a concert or a hotel or whatever it happened to be, because we cared on a bipartisan basis to try to bring prices down, to try to make things more fair for the consumer, for the American people. You took all of that out because a billionaire, Elon Musk, decided that the Republicans were supposed to act in favor of corporate interests, in favor of billionaires, and in favor of special interests. That is what is going on here. You jettisoned all of the things that we worked on, on a bipartisan basis, to try to bring prices down, be fair to the American people, protect the consumer, protect the environment, protect safety. Instead, you decided to simply go ahead with something that you know will not pass and that will shut the government down. Don't tell me that this is on our watch. This is on your watch. You are the majority. You are responsible. This is not going to pass. The government is going to shut down, and the American people are going to suffer because of you, as Republicans.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in commemoration of the life of Mr. Howard Chaim Tarlow. Mr. Tarlow, a resident of Edison, New Jersey, passed unexpectedly in his home following 16 years of valued service as a New Jersey Firefighter. It is my privilege to recognize Mr. Tarlow's life as an inspiring father of two girls and a son, who raised his family in Edison and gave back to the community as a dedicated member of distinction with the Edison Fire Department. Howard Tarlow was employed by the Edison Division of Fire, teaching a lifelong goal to be a career firefighter and give back to his community. This began in 2008, when he first joined the Highland Park volunteer the service. Two years later, Mr. Tarlow transferred to Raritan Engine Company 1 to courageously serve the community in which he and his family reside. Mr. Tarlow was known for his continuous pursuit of fire service education, regularly attending naming classes, and earning a Bachelors in Fire Science from New Jersey City University. The community is deeply saddened for the loss of Mr. Tarlow as they now miss a beloved friend, changemaker, and community leader. He will be remembered for his selflessness serving as a delegate for the Local 1197 Professional Firefighters Association of NJ State (PFANJ) union, leading as Treasurer, charity account administrator, and team problem solver. Perhaps the most exemplary impact Mr. Tarlow brings to the Edison community is the inspiration he shared with his son, Mark (Mordy). In 2020, Mark was appointed to be a member of the Edison Division of Fire, following in his father's footsteps. At age 47, Howard Tarlow is forever a valued community member, beloved father, and generous labor rights advocate for New Jersey firefighters. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that my colleagues will join me in honoring Mr. Howard Tarlow for his lifetime dedication to his family and community.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we are quickly approaching the final days of this Congress, and after spending a year on the campaign trail promising to lower prices for working families, today House Republicans are bringing up a bill that will raise energy bills for those very same families. H.R. 7673 guts popular energy efficiency standards for laundry machines, standards that save Americans money on their utility bills and reduce dangerous greenhouse gas pollution at the same time. These efficiency standards create certainty for manufacturers, and they protect consumers from rising costs. In the case of these laundry machine standards, they also reduce water use, a benefit that could greatly aid drought-prone regions around the Nation. What is more, Mr. Speaker, the Biden administration's energy efficiency actions are projected to save Americans $1 trillion and reduce greenhouse gas pollution by more than 2.5 billion metric tons over the next 30 years. The laundry machine standard that this bill guts is on track to save Americans $18 billion on their utility bills over the next 30 years, as well. However, today's Republican Party is unpersuaded by things like facts and cost savings. With this bill, Republicans are proving that their vow to lower costs was nothing more than an empty campaign promise. This legislation actively works to raise Americans' energy bills, all so they can curry favor with their special interest friends and do the bidding of their fossil fuel industry friends. Absolutely no one else stands to benefit from this legislation, proving once and for all that Republicans only pay lip service to lowering costs when it is campaign season. That is why this bill conveniently ignores the efficiency standards- setting process that already exists at the Department of Energy, which already requires that these standards result in significant savings, be technologically feasible, and economically justifiable. In fact, DOE's process works so well that the laundry machine standard targeted by this bill was actually the result of a consensus agreement between the appliance industry, efficiency advocates, and consumer advocates. They actually embrace reality. The reality is that laundry machine standards haven't been updated in more than a decade, many models that meet the new standard already exist, and appliance manufacturers have said they do not feel burdened by it at all. All this begs the question--why are Republicans trying to undermine a process that brings everyone to the table to lower costs? Who, exactly, is asking for this bill? Mr. Speaker, H.R. 7673 would effectively overturn the Department of Energy's recently finalized efficiency standards and prohibit the Department from enforcing any standard that increases upfront costs by even a single penny, completely ignoring the massive savings that Americans would enjoy on their home energy bills over the long run. I oppose the bill because it will increase energy costs for American families and undermine our ongoing efforts to combat the worsening climate crisis. Republicans will go out of their way to cut taxes for their wealthy billionaire friends, but when it comes to taking actions that actually lower costs for everyday Americans, they are nowhere to be found. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), the ranking member of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Duncan for all that he has done for many years in Congress, particularly on the Energy and Commerce Committee. We were at the Rules Committee last night, and we actually said that we enjoyed being at the Rules Committee and sparring back and forth. I think we really meant it. Not too many people would say that when they go to the Rules Committee, to be perfectly honest. That is because he has always been a gentleman. He is always concerned about doing the right thing. One of the things in the Energy and Commerce Committee that we do all the time is try to come to a consensus. It is not always possible. That is certainly not possible on this bill, but we really try to get things done. We try to build a consensus and do what we think is going to make a difference to improve the lives of the American people. I thank him for the comments he made and for his service, and I know we are going to see each other after this year as well, hopefully a lot. Mr. Speaker, maybe this bill is a good example of what I just said. I understand where the Republicans are coming from, but I just strongly disagree, frankly, because I think for many years now the Department of Energy has had the obligation to try to come up with better efficiency standards for appliances. Usually, it is done on a consensus basis with industry, and it has to, under the current law, save money. In this case, it is not only saving money over the life of a washing machine, if you will, but also saving water, reducing the amount of greenhouse gases that go into the atmosphere. I think the one thing where we differ is Mr. Duncan has talked about maybe--I don't want to put words in his mouth--the price goes up a dollar or a few dollars from where it is right now, but over the life of a machine, you actually are saving money. That is exactly what the Department is supposed to look at when they look at not only the energy savings but the reduced costs to the consumer. That is maybe where the difference lies here. The bottom line is that this standard doesn't go into effect until 2028. It certainly is my experience--and you know they have done focus groups and other things on this to show that people actually want more efficient machines and the new technology that goes with it. I think it really makes no sense to simply say we are going to wipe away these efficiency standards for laundry machines. We have had similar bills on refrigerators and other appliances because what we are all about in this country is using technology to make things more efficient, make things cheaper, and make things better for the future. That is essentially why I oppose the bill and would ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 2781. To be clear, I strongly support cleaning up abandoned mines, but this bill contains language that would undermine the cleanups it aims to support. It opens the floodgates for bad actors to take advantage of Superfund liability shields and loopholes created by this legislation for the very first time. Providing broad Superfund exemptions undermines our ability to protect the communities we are elected to serve. For example, during a cleanup, a so-called Good Samaritan may do an inadequate job or make the toxic contamination at a site worse. Under this bill, they would not be held responsible for the harm that they caused. By exempting polluters from liability, Congress would be shifting the costs of these cleanups onto the taxpayers, and I don't think that is right. I fear that Congress is opening a Pandora's box, where every corporation and polluter will be asking for their own sweetheart Superfund exemption. What is more, this bill gives the incoming Trump Environmental Protection Agency Administrator unilateral power to decide which entities are Good Samaritans and which are not. The Trump EPA also has sole power to choose which sites get selected for the program and to determine if a site is truly cleaned up in a reasonable amount of time under vague terms that make it difficult to ensure that adequate protection for human health and the environment takes place. Mr. Speaker, EPA, the agency in charge of implementing the provisions of this bill, has also expressed serious concerns. The bill opens the program to additional litigation, takes away the possibility of downstream communities' holding Good Samaritans accountable in case of a spill, and leaves taxpayers on the hook to pay for cleaning up pollution that is discovered after a permit expires. Mr. Speaker, for decades, the Superfund program has worked to clean up toxic sites across the Nation, particularly those contaminated with radioactive material and heavy metals. It has a strong bipartisan history of cleaning up sites, regardless of location and regardless of who is responsible or which political party controls Congress or the White House. I believe allowing the Trump EPA to politicize this successful law is a mistake. Giving the Trump EPA additional tools to undermine Superfund cleanups should not be the way to close out this Congress. Mr. Speaker, I have consistently been willing to work with bill supporters to address deficiencies and recognize the critical role that Good Samaritans play in mine cleanups while also making sure we don't create new toxic Superfund sites in the process. Unfortunately, attempts by me and others to improve this bill or alleviate those concerns have not been granted or didn't take place. Mr. Speaker, I simply cannot support the way this bill is phrased. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I don't know where to begin. I think of Chair Cathy Rodgers as a friend. I truly mean that. We use that term a lot, but in her case, it is truly true. I consider her a real friend. The other thing I wanted to say is that you hear me a lot on the floor and in the committee talking about how I often blame Republicans for being in the pocket or somehow beholden to corporate interests, to big corporations, to the wealthy. Forgive me for saying that tonight because I do say it a lot, but I have to say it is never the case with her. She has a set of values that I don't know if it is just her, it is from eastern Washington, or what it is, but she is always looking out for what I call the little guy, particularly the children. You never get the impression with Cathy that she is here because she wants to cater to some special interest group or somebody who is wealthy. She is always looking out for the average person in a way that--I am not saying there aren't other Republicans that do that; of course, there are, many who are on the floor tonight--but there is something very special about the fact that she always looks out for the little guy. Everything that she does is oriented to trying to help the average American and not thinking about any trade association or lobbying association, at least from what I have seen. I know she was a trailblazer. The very first day she walked in, I said I guess I always had hoped that somehow the Democrats would have the first chairwoman--not that I would want anybody to replace me as chairman or ranking member--but the fact that she was the first woman chair as a Republican I thought was rather significant, not only that she was the first chair but also that she is a Republican and in that capacity as the first chair. Our committee has this tradition of being bipartisan. It is easy to say, but it is not always easy to make sure it happens because it is very easy in the way things are today with the media, social media, whatever, for us all to digress into shouting matches, hollering at each other, and saying bad things about each other. Cathy would never let that happen. Oftentimes, if it was going to happen at a hearing or a markup, she would come over to me, or if she was sitting next to me, she would say: Look, what can we do to kind of calm this down so people don't go after each other? We maintained not only bipartisanship when we can but also dignity and respect for each other. There were many occasions when, if it wasn't for the fact that she was willing to step in and do that with my help, we would have digressed into the kind of the law of the jungle or whatever you want to call it. I know a lot has been said tonight about the legislation that she shepherded through. I missed part of it in the beginning, but a lot of it was significant. In all honesty, the nuclear package--we were at the White House, I guess in the summer, when the President signed the nuclear package. That wasn't easy. There are a lot of people who are opposed to nuclear energy, even the President himself in the past has often been against nuclear energy. We managed, through her efforts, to get that bill passed on a bipartisan basis. It was a major achievement. Other bills that I think were very significant was the hospital transparency bill. We call it that, but it actually went way beyond hospitals. It dealt with PBMs. It dealt with insurance companies. It dealt with so many other things. Again, this goes back to, I think, her championing the idea that if we pass legislation where people can sort of be empowered themselves to do things, that that works. That is what that bill was all about. We haven't passed the Senate, but we will get it passed at some point. It was the idea that we would empower the consumer, the individual, or the group to actually be able to do comparison shopping, create competition, which is the American way, to create that competition. I think that was, again, to her credit that she championed this, made it bipartisan, and it passed out of our committee and also passed the floor of the House. I have to say, Cathy, that many times you would bring up China. Oftentimes, we would have a hearing and she would start going after not China per se, but Beijing, Communist China. I would often laugh and say: Here we go again. She is going to talk about Beijing and the Communist Party in China. The fact of the matter is, I agreed with her. I mean, I do think that the biggest threat that we face is from Beijing, from China, militarily. In terms of trade, the competition is there. That culminated in the TikTok bill and the data brokers legislation, which I know is still being challenged in the courts, but it seems like we are doing pretty good. That was a recognition of the fact that the Communist Party in China was really out to spread misinformation and lead us down a path that was contrary and dangerous to our national security. I would laugh when she talked about the Communist Party in China, but I agreed with her. I totally agreed with her every time she talked about it because it is absolutely true. There is no question about it. I know another bill that we didn't have complete success on was data privacy, but again, that goes back to her caring about kids. I remember when she had all of her children. I often wondered: How is she going to do this? How is she going to have all these kids while she is in Congress? How is she going to have these children and how is she going to continue to be a leader? She was head of the Conference, I think, part of the time, but she just managed to do it all. Mr. Speaker, she managed to be the mother, to be the example for women as a mother, as a leader in politics, and as a legislator. I don't know how you did it, but you did manage to do it all. Of course, when we talk about data privacy, a lot of that was her concern for social media and how it is negatively influencing kids. I think you felt the same way about fentanyl and the drugs and how young people were being hooked on fentanyl and other drugs and that we had to do something about it. We have done some things about it in my opinion. I thank you, Cathy. I don't want to keep going on. I know there are others who want to speak. Thank you, Cathy. Thank you to your husband, Brian, your three kids, Cole, Grace, and Brynn, who basically sacrificed a lot while you were here. I know you want to get back to them and to eastern Washington, which you love so dearly. I also thank Nate, Sarah, and the entire team. They not only made it possible for her to accomplish what she did but they really loved her, too. That showed, as well. We are going to miss you. I know we are going to see you again and hopefully see you often.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on S. 3791, the American Conservation Enhancement (ACE) Act. The ACE Act helps to preserve ecosystems, restore habitats, and conserve wildlife by reauthorizing the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act, and the Chesapeake Bay Program, among others. I strongly support these programs and the vital conservation efforts they undertake across the Nation and that's why I will support this bill. Unfortunately, it also includes an exemption for lead-containing sport fishing equipment under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Section 107 of the bill would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating lead tackle under TSCA even if the agency determines that it poses an unreasonable risk to human health. This section is a solution in search of a problem. To date, EPA has not taken steps to regulate lead tackle under TSCA, and if they did, it would not necessarily result in a ban. In fact, TSCA provides EPA a range of options to protect public health short of a ban--like labeling. TSCA exists to protect human health, and only authorizes EPA to take action when the agency finds an unreasonable risk. If EPA finds that lead tackle poses an unreasonable risk to human health, we should not take away its authority to address it. The toxicity of lead to humans and wildlife is well-established. Ingestion of lead can sicken and kill wildlife and can pose a risk to humans handling lead. Considering the risks, several states have banned the use of lead tackle and sinkers, and, in 2023, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service finalized a rule to phase out lead ammunition and tackle in national wildlife refuges by 2026. Blocking any potential EPA action on lead tackle under TSCA will not stop these regulatory efforts. But it will lock in the uneven patchwork of protections from the harms of lead tackle across the United States. Congress provided EPA with the authority to regulate dangerous chemicals with the goal of protecting public health and the environment. We should let EPA do its job. Congress should not make it standard practice to provide exemptions from our bedrock environmental laws at the expense of public health. Especially for something as dangerous for humans and wildlife as lead. While I continue to strongly oppose this section, I do support the other provisions in this bill and therefore vote in favor of S. 3791.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join Cathedral International, the historic Second Baptist Church in Perth Amboy, New Jersey as it celebrates its 120th Anniversary this year. Since its incorporation in 1904, Cathedral International has provided a center for worship, family life, and community development to Middlesex County residents. The rich history of this church began when an honorable group of 34 African Americans expanded on their membership with the predominately white congregation of First Baptist Church in Perth Amboy, New Jersey. They established an independent assembly that would become officially incorporated as The Second Baptist Church, later renamed Cathedral International in 2004. The mission of this Church is to Evangelize, Educate, Emancipate, Empower, and Expand in the name of the Lord, Jesus Christ. In 2024, Cathedral International's Mercy House Food Pantry assisted 25,000 people through their food distribution events. Through dynamic leadership, they have lifted and liberated their community. Over their 120-year history, the work of their vibrant ministry is evident in the glorious expansion of their houses of worship. In New Jersey, Cathedral International has churches in Perth Amboy, Asbury Park, and South Plainfield. The church has an admirable devotion to fostering divine connections between the congregation and the local community. It is believed that American Baptist Churches in the United States are inspiring models for growth, and I join the entire Cathedral International family in acknowledging their 120 years of faith. Currently, Bishop Hilliard stands as the Senior 14th Pastor and is recognized for leading the church through momentous growth. In honor of the unveiling of their Cathedral Legacy Museum this October 2024, I applaud Cathedral International's ongoing commitment to providing soulful service. Mr. Speaker, once again, please join me in celebrating Cathedral International, as its members and supporters gather to celebrate its 120th Anniversary on September 20, 2024. Cathedral International is truly deserving of this body's recognition.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to congratulate the YMCA of Greater Monmouth County on its 150th Anniversary and continued endeavor to strengthen the individuals, families and communities it serves. During their 150th Anniversary Dinner, they plan to commemorate this milestone with the pursuit of offering expansive access to fitness, mental health, and education. It is my privilege to recognize the outstanding efforts of the YMCA of Greater Monmouth County. Since March 16, 1874, this commendable organization has nurtured children and families while fostering strong connected communities throughout the Monmouth County area. The long history of this YMCA providing youth enrichment to families includes access to summer camp, preschool, and before and after care. It is truly honorable to fathom the transformation of countless lives across generations from this last century and on. It is honorable to recognize the community organizers who have demonstrated resilience and unity, as this remarkably shapes the impact of their chapter. Begun in efforts to support youth in the local area, the YMCA of Greater Monmouth County now stands as a community center. The acquisition of resources necessary and otherwise inaccessible can be attributed to invaluable growth. Affordable childcare is one of the most appreciated programs, with therapeutic counseling, tutoring, teen leadership and college pathways tightly following. I applaud this organization's beloved endless engagement and remarkable success in reaching the Monmouth County community. Once again, I sincerely hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating the YMCA of Greater Monmouth County on its 150th Anniversary of service. The commitment to wellness has contributed support to help families thrive in our community, and therefore is truly deserving of this body's recognition.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of H.R. 6829, the HEARTS Act. I am proud to have sponsored this legislation, which is inspired by two New Jersey families who each tragically lost a child to sudden cardiac arrest during high school sporting events. Sadly, more than 2,000 children and adolescents die this way, unfortunately, every single year, and the bill aims to prevent future deaths of cardiac arrest by preparing schools to respond to cardiac emergencies when they occur. It directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop guidelines on the placement of automated external defibrillators, or AEDs, in schools and to provide resources to help schools create and implement cardiac emergency response plans. The legislation also supports CPR education and training among students, school personnel, coaches, and volunteers. It would also support the development of cardiac emergency response plans, which, along with AEDs and CPR, are integral to a coordinated, immediate, and effective response in the crucial minutes between the time when a victim collapses and when emergency medical services arrive. The HEARTS Act will raise awareness about the causes of sudden cardiac arrest and ensure schools are more prepared to deal with cardiac emergencies so we can save lives. This legislation has the support of the American Heart Association and the Smart Heart Coalition, among others. It is my hope the Senate will consider this legislation and restore the authorization level, which we reluctantly were required to remove in order to get this bill before us today to comply with the Speaker's CutGo protocol. The Speaker's protocol, in my opinion, is arbitrary, selectively enforced, and ill-advised because it hampers our ability to address the pressing public health issues of the day. I am disappointed that although the bill as originally written was cleared in committee on a bipartisan basis with the funding authorization, the House Republican leadership reversed course and determined before floor consideration that it was not in compliance with the Speaker's protocol. We are, nonetheless, moving forward today because we believe it is imperative to move this policy forward for the parents and student athletes who have suffered from this sudden cardiac arrest, and I remain committed to ensuring the enduring success of this program and to seek funding for it. I thank Chair Rodgers for working closely with me on the legislation, as well as the New Jersey families who shared their stories with me and have advocated tirelessly for safer cardiac health and resources in our schools. Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support for the bill, and I thank all the members of our committee for reporting this bill out on a bipartisan basis. It is important for our kids. Mr. Speaker, I ask everyone to vote in support of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 8108, a bill that would amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to add a Medicaid State plan requirement regarding the determination of residency of people serving in the armed services. Medicaid is the primary payer for home and community-based services, serving as the safety net for people with long-term care needs, including military families. Medicaid provides coverage for home and community-based services when other insurers, including TRICARE, do not. Military families face unique stressors when a family member has a need for home and community-based services and needs to relocate for military service. For example, when a child with disabilities is receiving home and community-based services covered by the Medicaid program in the same State in which they live, there is no guarantee that the child will continue to receive care in the State where the family is being relocated. In many States, families wait years on a waiting list to receive these services, and once they are finally able to access the care they need, the time may come to move again. Military families in this position may face a difficult choice: Do they keep their family together, knowing that their child may lose access to care in the State in which they are moving, or do they separate the family to ensure their child is able to access the care they need? These are decisions that military families simply should not have to make. H.R. 8108 would lessen the burden military families face by requiring States to continue to provide Medicaid coverage to dependents of Active-Duty military servicemembers who are receiving Medicaid home and community-based services and must move out of State due to military service. It also allows families that are on waiting lists to maintain their place on those lists so they, too, are not forced to start over. While H.R. 8108 does not address the many underlying issues with our patchwork long-term care system, including those that have led to the existence of waiting lists, I am pleased that it will help ease some of the challenges that military families face in receiving the care they need. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representatives Kiggans and Kaptur for their leadership on this very important issue, and I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 8108. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill for individuals serving in the Armed Forces and their families, so I urge my colleagues to vote for it on a bipartisan basis. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 133, the NAPA Reauthorization Act, which would reauthorize the National Alzheimer's Project Act through 2035. In 2011, our Nation made addressing Alzheimer's disease a priority when we passed the National Alzheimer's Project Act. This law called for a national plan to accelerate research and improve care and services to those living with Alzheimer's. Since the establishment of the national plan, we have made enormous strides in strategy implementation to address Alzheimer's disease and other dementia. The national plan has also allowed us to make progress in Alzheimer's research, care and services, and public awareness about the disease. S. 133 will build on the progress we have made through the national plan by reauthorizing the law through fiscal year 2035. The bill will also allow the national plan to address healthy aging and risk reduction issues related to Alzheimer's disease. This reauthorization will build on the progress brought forward by NAPA and allow the Department of Health and Human Services to continue long-term planning for a strategic approach to addressing Alzheimer's and other dementia. This bill is the Senate counterpart of legislation led by Representative Tonko, who shepherded this bipartisan reauthorization through the Energy and Commerce Committee this past spring. Since the beginning of his time in Congress, Representative Tonko has led the push to address Alzheimer's and related dementia, and I thank him for his continued leadership. I also thank my colleague from New Jersey, Representative Smith, who is the Republican sponsor. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on S. 133 so we can continue our commitment to combat Alzheimer's disease. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of us to support this bill on a bipartisan basis. Whatever we can do to fight Alzheimer's is very important. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of S. 134, the Alzheimer's Accountability and Investment Act. This bill would require the National Institutes of Health to annually submit an estimate of its budget and personnel needs for carrying out initiatives related to the National Alzheimer's Project. The Energy and Commerce Committee reported out this bipartisan bill sponsored by Representatives Chris Smith and Paul Tonko this spring. According to the Alzheimer's Association 2024 report, the annual cost of caring for people with Alzheimer's or other types of dementia will be about $360 billion this year alone. That is $15 billion higher than in 2023. The report also found that 6.9 million Americans aged 65 and older have Alzheimer's dementia, with nearly 185,000 residing in my State of New Jersey. Nationwide, between 2000 and 2021, the number of deaths from Alzheimer's disease more than doubled, increasing 141 percent. In order to make sure we meet the goals set out by the National Alzheimer's Project, which the House is also considering today, we must make sure that NIH has our support. S. 134 will require that the NIH submit a professional judgment budget for the National Alzheimer's Project so that we can identify the needs of the agency. With this information, we can be assured that the Nation's experts are speaking directly to Congress on resources they need to effectively treat the disease and effectively communicate the capacity needs of NIH. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on S. 134 so that we can continue our commitment to combat Alzheimer's disease. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, again, whatever we can do to help prevent or deal with more effectively with the Alzheimer's disorder cases, we should support it. For that reason, I ask all my colleagues to support this bill on a bipartisan basis. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.