Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the Polis amendment. It is common sense, and it certainly improves the bill in the way that Mr. Polis set forth. I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, on its face, Mr. Gosar's amendment seems innocuous enough, having EPA also consider the contribution of wildfires in the bill's required study on ozone formation, wintertime ozone formation, and control strategies. But in reality, this study is a wolf in sheep's clothing. So adding further criteria, as this amendment would do, only makes it worse. First, many of the aspects of this proposed study are already covered by EPA's integrated science assessment. Integrated science assessments are reports that represent concise evaluations and synthesis of the most policy-relevant science for reviewing National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Essentially, these assessments form the scientific foundation for the review of the NAAQ Standards. All integrated science assessments are vetted through a rigorous peer-review process, including review by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and public comment periods. Furthermore, the EPA is already doing a comprehensive review of wildfires and ozone, so additional study of this issue is not necessary, in my opinion. But this study is more than a duplication of work already being done, Mr. Chairman. The bill would inject costs into this scientific review process by requiring the assessment of cost-effective control strategies to reduce ozone. While this is certainly worthy as an issue to review, EPA's scientific assessments are the wrong venue for such a discussion. Requiring EPA to do additional assessments of cost-effective control strategies would, of course, pull the Agency's limited staff and resources away from the public health priorities of implementing and reviewing the NAAQ Standards in a timely manner outlined in the Clean Air Act. When viewed in connection with the other provisions of this bill, like the requirement that implementing regulations and guidance must be issued concurrently with an air quality standard for preconstruction permits, expanding this study would only serve to further delay implementation of the 2015 ozone standard. The 2015 ozone NAAQS update is long overdue, and the bill before us doesn't need any further procedural hoops for EPA to jump through before a more protective ozone standard can be put into effect. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have listened to what the gentleman has said. It seems to me that he is essentially making an argument as to why we don't need this change. If he is saying that the underlying bill--the current law, the current statute--allows for the consideration of technological feasibility and if we know that the Clean Air Act has essentially worked in protecting the environment and in putting health as a priority with these other issues as simply being something that can be considered and, as I said, is considered when the States actually decide how to carry out the law, then I do not understand why he finds it necessary to change the law, say, with regard to this issue. It seems to me that the argument you are making, which is that this is already something that can be considered but is not a priority-- health being the priority--would negate the very need for the legislation and support the amendment that I am putting forward. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member of our subcommittee for his kind remarks. Once again, the House is considering a bill to undermine one of our most successful public health and environmental laws, the Clean Air Act. And clean air isn't a luxury, it is a necessity. Before the Clean Air Act became law 43 years ago, thousands of Americans experienced the consequences of unhealthy air, respiratory disease, severe asthma attacks, and premature deaths. This landmark legislation, for the first time, ensured that hazardous air pollution would be controlled. But in spite of the overwhelming evidence of the success of this law and its many vital public health benefits, the Clean Air Act continues to be a favorite target for my Republican colleagues. This bill, H.R. 4775, is, unfortunately, the latest in an ongoing attempt to undermine the progress we have made on cleaning the air and protecting public health. The bill's sponsors claim their goal is to help States to implement the National Ambient Air Quality Standards set by the EPA, yet this bill fails to provide the one thing that would be most helpful to States in their efforts to implement air quality standards, and that is additional resources. In fact, Chairman Whitfield will be offering an amendment to the bill to ensure that EPA receives no additional funding to implement the provisions of this legislation, or any of the requirements under existing law. H.R. 4775 is not a package of minor changes to minor provisions of the Clean Air Act. These changes are radical revisions intended to roll back the progress we have made in public health. This bill alters the fundamental premise of the act, that standards should be set to ensure the air is safe and healthy to breathe. H.R. 4775 would bring economic costs, technological feasibility, and other non-risk factors into the standard-setting process. These things are important, to be sure, and that is why they are already considered when the States develop their plans to achieve the health-based standards set by EPA, and that is appropriate. They should, however, never come into play in setting these standards. Let's just use technology as an example. Technology is always evolving. What is technologically feasible today does not define what is possible tomorrow. For example, air pollution from automobile emissions was recognized as a serious problem in southern California as early as 1959. At that time, there were no pollution-control devices for cars. Auto manufacturers said that it couldn't be done, the technology was impossible, and that even if it were possible, it would be far too expensive. But California passed laws requiring pollution control anyway. We all know the rest of the story: it was not impossible or prohibitively expensive. People still bought cars. And we have cleaner, more efficient cars today because regulation pushed technology forward. The only reason to make technological feasibility a factor in setting the standard is to avoid setting the standard, and that is the goal of the supporters of this legislation. The history of the Clean Air Act is one of great success: the economy has continued to grow; the air has gotten cleaner; and most importantly, public health has improved. So, Mr. Chairman, my Republican colleagues refuse to accept the fact that we can continue to improve the air, have a vibrant economy, and give everyone the opportunity for a long and healthy life. So I urge my colleagues to reject the false choice between jobs and clean air. The fact is that we can have both. H.R. 4775 is a dangerous bill, and I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on increased ozone pollution.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, my amendment is straightforward, and it fixes one of the most egregious provisions in the bill: the consideration of technological feasibility in the NAAQS-setting process. The bill's approach would make feasibility a factor in the scientific decision about how much pollution is safe for a child to breathe without experiencing an asthma attack. Requiring the EPA to consider technological feasibility when setting an air quality standard is a dangerous precedent that ignores the history of the Clean Air Act. Frankly, it is not even necessary. Since 1970, the Clean Air Act has had several key features that have helped make it one of the most successful environmental laws in our country. The law's science-based, health-protective standards keep our eye on the prize, which is healthy air for everyone. Cooperative federalism allows the EPA to set the clean air goals and States to then decide how best to achieve them. The Clean Air Act uses regulatory standards, like the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, to drive technological innovation in pollution controls. The act recognizes that it is usually less costly to simply dump pollution rather than to clean it up, so businesses generally don't control pollution absent regulatory requirements. We know from decades of experience that the Clean Air Act drives innovations in pollution controls that then become the industry standard. Once an air pollution standard is in place, industry gets to work to meet it, and, along the way, we develop more effective and less expensive pollution control technologies. Not only is our air cleaner, but we also export tens of millions of dollars of pollution control equipment all over the world. We have seen that happen over and over again. Mr. Chair, section 3(b) ignores this fact and rejects an approach that has been successful for over four decades; so my amendment would restore current law, preserving the NAAQS as purely health-based standards and leaving the consideration of costs and feasibility to the States. If you truly believe that this bill is not an attack on the Clean Air Act and its critical public health protection, then supporting my amendment should not be a problem. In closing, almost every time the EPA proposes a significant new requirement, opponents tell us it can't be done, that it is going to cost too much, or that it will destroy our economy. The Republicans are once again raising the false specter of job losses and high economic costs to try to block the implementation of stronger ozone standards. These doomsday claims about the costs of clean air are nothing new. The history of the Clean Air Act is a history of exaggerated claims by industry that have never come true. Section 3(b) is just the latest in a string of reckless legislative attacks on these purely health-based air quality standards, which could unravel the entire framework of the Clean Air Act. It ignores decades of experience in cleaning up air pollution, and it is an extreme and, in my opinion, irresponsible proposal that would put the health of all Americans at risk. I urge the adoption of my amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I thank my friend from Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to echo what Mr. Capuano said about the bipartisan nature of this bill and in our working together between the two committees to achieve success. The vast network of energy pipelines in this country is essentially out of sight, out of mind for most Americans, but when something goes wrong, these facilities can make themselves known in devastating and sometimes deadly ways. This is something that both Representative Capps and Representative Sherman, unfortunately, have experienced since the start of this Congress. My own district experienced the devastation of a pipeline failure in 1994 when a pipeline exploded in Edison, New Jersey, and destroyed about 300 homes. Ever since then, I have sought to make our Nation's pipelines safer by making the law and its regulator stronger. The legislation before us, while not the bill that maybe we would have written, as Mr. Capuano said, is a good proposal that moves the ball forward on safety. It is the result of a number of weeks of bipartisan, bicameral negotiations. While some compromises were made, this is a product that in many ways is greater than the sum of its parts. I am particularly pleased that it includes versions of important provisions that were authored by a number of Energy and Power Subcommittee members, including Mrs. Capps, Messrs. Green, Engel, McNerney, and Welch, and Ranking Member Bobby Rush. In particular, the House amendment gives the Secretary of Transportation, for the first time ever, emergency order authority to address the threats to public health, safety, and the environment that are posed by dangerous pipelines on a comprehensive, industrywide basis. It also changes the existing pipeline safety information grant program, which helps ensure adequate funding of pipeline safety technical assistance grants to communities and nonprofit organizations. I am pleased that the legislation improves the protection of coastal beaches and marine coastal waters--areas that are vital to my district and to the districts of many others--by explicitly designating them as areas that are unusually sensitive to the environmental damage that is caused by pipeline failures. It also contains a provision that establishes a program for regulating underground natural gas storage facilities. I urge the passage of the bill.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Rush for managing the opposition to the bill so successfully. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering the House amendment to S. 2012, the mistitled North American Energy Security Act of 2016. This legislation once again shows us the vastly different paths taken by the two Chambers of Congress. On the one hand is the Senate energy bill that the House intends to go to conference on. It passed by a vote of 85-15 because it is balanced and because it contains a number of nonenergy provisions that the public supports overwhelmingly, such as permanent funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. On the other hand, the House energy bill was the result of a highly partisan process that the President threatened to veto. As we prepare to head to conference, we have a second chance to do things right and to produce a new, bipartisan energy bill. Unfortunately, that is not what we are doing today. The Republican majority has decided to replace the consensus Senate bill with a new pro-polluter package that dwarfs the original H.R. 8. When crafting the House amendment before us today, the Republican caucus decided to tack on over 30 extraneous bills to an already bad piece of energy legislation that the President promised to veto. While a number of these new additions are noncontroversial bills, many of these provisions are divisive, dangerous, and have drawn veto threats of their own. The House amendment to S. 2012 weakens protections for public health and the environment, undermines existing laws designed to promote efficiency, and does nothing to help realize the clean and renewable energy policies of the future. And, of course, this so-called energy infrastructure bill provides absolutely no money to modernize the grid or our pipeline infrastructure. The House amendment is a backward-looking piece of energy legislation at a time when we need to move forward. Let me highlight some of the most harmful provisions solely from the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Committee. This bill eliminates the current Presidential permitting process for energy projects that cross the U.S. border. Such action would create a new, weaker process that effectively rubber-stamps permit applications and allows the Keystone pipeline to rise from the grave. It makes dangerous and unnecessary changes to the FERC natural gas pipeline siting process at the expense of private landowners, the environment, and our national parks. It harms electricity consumers at all levels by interfering with competitive markets to subsidize uneconomic generating facilities. These facilities would otherwise be rejected by the market in favor of lower cost natural gas and renewable options. It strikes language in current law that requires Federal buildings to be designed to reduce consumption of fossil fuels. It creates loopholes that would permit hydropower operators to dodge compliance with environmental laws, including the Clean Water Act, and gives preferential treatment to electric utilities at the expense of States, tribes, farmers, and sportsmen. It contains an energy efficiency title that, if enacted, would result in a net increase in consumption and greenhouse gas emissions compared to current law. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, this is not a legitimate exercise in legislating, and it speaks volumes about the total lack of seriousness with which House Republicans are approaching this conference. We should be trying to narrow the differences and move closer to the bipartisan Senate product. Instead, we are going in the opposite direction, voting on an 800- page monstrosity energy package that the Republican leadership has stitched together from pieces of pro-polluter bills that passed the Senate only to die in the Senate or on the President's desk. Voting once on these fundamentally flawed ideas was more than enough. We shouldn't make a mockery of the conference process and be using the House floor to try to raise the dead. The House amendment to S. 2012 has one central theme binding its energy provisions: an unerring devotion to the energy of the past. It is the Republican Party's 19th century vision for the future of U.S. energy policy in the 21st century. I strongly oppose the House amendment, obviously, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Long Branch Fire Department's Neptune Hose Company No. 1 on the 150th anniversary of its founding. Neptune Hose Company No. 1 continues to live up to its motto ``Semper Paratus'' (``Always Ready'') to ensure the safety of Long Branch residents and its dedication is truly deserving of this body's recognition. The first organized fire company in Monmouth County, Neptune Hose Company No. 1, originally known as the Neptune Hook and Ladder Company No. 1, was founded by Dr. James O. Green in 1866. The name was changed in September 1877 to reflect Long Branch's new public water system and fire hydrants. Initially maintained by share and stock holders, the company chartered as Neptune Hose Company No. 1 on November 10, 1877. Over the years, the company was housed at different locations, finally settling at its current property in January 1906. It underwent renovations from 1974 until 1975 to update and expand the structure and again in 2007 to repair and restore the second floor. Neptune Hose Company No. 1 was one of the three fire companies, along with Oceanic Fire Engine Company No. 1 and the Atlantic Fire Engine and Hook and Ladder Company No. 2, to organize the Long Branch Fire Department on November 2, 1878. Since the inception of the department, sixteen members of Neptune Hose Company No. 1 have served as Chief. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing the 150th anniversary of Neptune Hose Company No. 1 and thanking its members for upholding the duty to serve and protect the community.

Mr. PALLONE

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation named after the late Senator Frank R. Lautenberg from New Jersey, a great friend of mine and a longtime environmental champion. The Toxic Substance Control Act, or TSCA, has not been updated since it was adopted 40 years ago. For decades we have known that the law is broken. So this legislation is long past due, and I hope that it will soon become law. Had the law worked effectively from the beginning, we might never have had BPA in baby bottles or toxic flame retardants in children's pajamas and in our living room couches. Workers may have also been protected from exposure to asbestos decades ago. Let me stress that last point. In 1989, after more than 10 years of study and analysis, the EPA banned asbestos under TSCA, but the ban was overturned by the courts because of serious flaws in the statute and serious limitations on the EPA's authority. That court decision came down 25 years ago. Imagine the lives that could have been saved and the injuries that could have been prevented if that ban had stood. Now, reforming this law is about preventing injuries and saving lives. It is about protecting vulnerable populations: infants, children, workers, the elderly, and communities that are disproportionately exposed to toxic chemicals. It is about getting dangerous chemicals like lead, mercury, and asbestos out of our consumer products, out of commerce, and out of the environment. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today is a step forward in reaching this important goal. Let me briefly describe some of the improvements. This bill would make it easier for the EPA to require testing of chemicals by allowing them to act through orders instead of rulemakings. It will also make it easier for the EPA to regulate chemicals by removing procedural hurdles in current law and providing more resources through user fees. It will ensure that new chemicals are reviewed and regulated, if necessary, before they go on the market, and it will improve transparency by requiring manufacturers to substantiate their claims that information should be protected as confidential business information. These are all major improvements over current law, but this is a compromise bill. It is not the bill that Democrats would have written if we were in the majority. I understand that some of my colleagues will oppose this legislation today, and I certainly respect their position. On the substantive side, the bill could make it harder for the EPA and citizens to use some of the tools that have proven effective under current law, including significant new use rules and citizen petitions. I would have preferred to leave those tools intact, but, hopefully, the new tools we are giving the Agency will more than make up for those changes. We also work to reduce the role of animal testing in ensuring that chemicals in commerce are safe. While there has long been broad agreement that animal tests should be a last resort, I had concerns, as did others, that past versions of this bill would keep necessary science out of the EPA's hands. I am pleased that the language has been improved and now states explicitly that scientific studies should not be kept from the EPA once they are done. If the studies are done, animals are not helped by keeping the data from the EPA. Now, on the issue of preemption, which is so important to so many of my colleagues, including myself, the bill creates a significant new type of preemption which many call pause preemption. Under the bill, States will be barred from acting when the EPA starts evaluating a chemical instead of when Federal regulations are in place. This is unprecedented and has raised significant concerns from many Members, myself included. In recent weeks, House Democrats have secured several important changes to reduce the impact of pause preemption. Some were included in the Rules Committee print that was filed on Friday, and some were included in the manager's amendment that was filed yesterday. I just want to briefly describe these changes. First, we have made changes to ensure that States would have lead time and notice before EPA begins to study a chemical so that they can propose or finalize restrictions before the pause begins. Those changes particularly benefit States that act through regulation as opposed to legislation. Second, we worked to exclude from the pause the first group of chemicals that the EPA will review. Since the EPA must begin those reviews in the next 6 months, States will not have lead time to finish their work on those chemicals. This change helps States that are currently working on restrictions for chemicals that are likely to be top EPA priorities. Third, we were able to exclude top-priority chemicals from the pause if the manufacturer of the chemical requests EPA review. This change is complicated, but important. Without this change, manufacturers would be able to abuse the system and seek EPA review as a way to cut off a pending State action. Finally, Mr. Speaker, we clarified the scope of preemption in order to make clear that States are only preempted from regulating the uses that the EPA has studied or regulated. In total, these changes are enough to allow me to support the bill. So, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank three of my colleagues who worked tirelessly over the last week to get these changes included in this final bill. First is our Environment and the Economy Subcommittee ranking member, Paul Tonko. I also want to thank Leader Pelosi and our whip, Mr. Hoyer. All three of them played an integral part in strengthening the package before us today. I am happy to support this bill to move forward with more protection for public health, for the environment, for vulnerable populations, and for vulnerable communities. While this is a compromise bill, it is a long overdue step forward in protecting families and communities from toxic chemicals. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), the ranking member of the subcommittee.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire as to how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip, who has been extremely helpful in the last few days in dealing with this legislation. (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. So many people have been involved on our staffs in this bill over the last several years, certainly prior to the time that I was the ranking member. I want to, in particular, thank Jackie Cohen. Jackie is sitting here to my right. She, more than anybody else, worked on this bill and made it possible to bring this bill to fruition. I think she knows more about TSCA than anybody else I know; so, I want to thank her in particular. I also want to thank Jean Fruci, Rick Kessler, Tuley Wright, Timia Crisp, and Alexander Ratner. From Mr. Tonko's staff, I want to thank Brendan Larkin and Clinton Britt. Mr. Speaker, this bill is named the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act for the 21st Century. One of the things that was so important to me in the process of negotiating this bill was that it would live up to Senator Lautenberg's legacy. Senator Lautenberg was always a mentor to me. I worked on his first campaign back in 1982. He was always looking out for the little guy. One of the most important things to him in that respect was health and safety because he always felt that the primary function of the Federal Government was to protect people's health and safety. One of the biggest things that was important to him was what I call the right to know. He always felt, if we passed laws that allowed people to know what they were facing in the health and environment sphere, that that would be good because they or even their organizations that they might be involved with on an activist level locally--citizen groups--would have the ability, if you will, to effectuate and carry out those laws through their own efforts. I think one of the greatest regrets that he had was that, when you dealt with toxic chemicals over the time that he was in the Senate--he was the longest serving Senator, actually, in New Jersey history--he was never able to say what chemicals were dangerous and, basically, give people the right to know about toxic chemicals. I think that this is an important part of his legacy, and I am very proud to say that today we can support a bill that is named in his honor. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would just inform my colleague that I have no additional speakers.