Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to this legislation. The bill before us is dangerous, unnecessary, and premature. It undermines the cornerstone of the administration's plan to tackle unchecked climate change, and the President has made clear that he will veto this legislation. Yesterday, we passed a bipartisan bill amending the Toxic Substances Control Act. That is the type of legislation that we should be spending our time on, not messaging bills aimed at gutting draft EPA rules. As we sit here today, climate change continues to reshape our world. According to NOAA, 2014 was the warmest year ever recorded, and 9 of the 10 hottest years have occurred since 2000, and that trend shows no sign of slowing down. We know this warming is due to carbon pollution from fossil fuels accumulating in the atmosphere, trapping more heat, and changing our climate. Last week, the Pope highlighted our worldwide moral obligation to address climate change. This week, EPA released a report which confirms what many in the country are already experiencing, that failing to address climate change will have enormous financial costs. Just look at the skyrocketing costs of fighting wildfires, the mounting costs to farmers of losing their crops and cattle to more frequent and severe droughts, the enormous costs of rebuilding infrastructure swept away by more intense storms or threatened by steadily rising seas. Ignoring these costs won't make them go away; and the longer we wait to act, the more we allow the risks to compound and accumulate, the more costly it will be to solve the problem. In fact, the projected costs of climate change impacts dwarf any projected short-term costs associated with transitioning to a clean energy economy, which is happening already. Mr. Chairman, EPA has proposed a workable plan to reduce emissions of carbon pollution from power plants, which are the largest uncontrolled source of manmade greenhouse gases in the United States. The clean power plan outlines a path to cleaner air, better health, a safer climate, and a stronger economy. The proposed rule also gives States a lot of flexibility to choose how to achieve their emission reduction goals, which are State specific and cost effective. This is a moderate and reasonable approach and falls well within the legal authority and responsibility of the EPA to address carbon pollution from power plants. This bill we are considering today would dismiss all of this progress and would cripple the efforts of the EPA to move forward in the fight against climate change. Effectively, this bill would amend the Clean Air Act in a harmful and dangerous fashion. This bill establishes an unprecedented extension for every clean power plan deadline until all litigation is concluded. This blanket extension would be given to all polluters, incentivizing opponents of the rule to run the clock on frivolous litigation, simply to put off having to reduce their carbon emissions. The bill also allows a Governor to say: ``The requirements of the clean power plan don't apply to me.'' Under the bill, a Governor can opt out of a Federal plan, giving certain States a free ride to pollute without any consequences. It is one thing to encourage States to just say no, but to let a Governor declare that his State is not subject to the Federal Clean Air Act at all? Mr. Chairman, I think that just goes too far. As I have said before, EPA's proposed clean power plan is both modest and flexible and will help us tackle our urgent need to reduce our carbon emissions. Just saying no, as this bill would have us do, and condemning future generations is simply not an option. I strongly oppose the bill and urge a ``no'' vote. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, the Newhouse amendment seeks to legislatively adjust an element of the EPA's clean power plan, but the amendment does nothing to fix the problems in the rest of the bill, which was actually designed to cripple the EPA's ability to curb emissions from power plants and allows Governors to thumb their noses at the Clean Air Act. The Newhouse amendment would make more sense if it were a comment submitted to the EPA on the proposed rule, rather than being attached to legislation that would gut the clean power plan altogether. In fact, the EPA is actively considering this issue already. The proposed clean power plan would have allowed new and incremental hydropower to count towards compliance with the rule, but it did not consider existing hydropower in either goal setting or for compliance. EPA received many comments on including hydropower in setting the clean power plan's goals and treating hydropower as an eligible measure to lower CO2 emissions. EPA has engaged in outreach to numerous stakeholders about hydropower, renewable energy, and other low- and zero-emitting sources of power to better understand issues raised in their comments; and it is giving careful consideration to all comments received. There are varying views on this topic, and it should be left, in my opinion, to the rulemaking process to sort out the best approach. Since EPA is actively considering the comments received on hydropower, the amendment is not necessary, and in fact, it could be counterproductive. Ultimately, approval of the Newhouse amendment would do nothing to change the fundamental flaws of the underlying bill. I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PALLONE. I yield myself the remainder of my time to close. Mr. Chairman, I would just say once again that, again, I respect my colleague from Kentucky a great deal, but I don't see how this amendment even says that climate change is a priority. It is simply saying that it should be addressed in the context of any Governor's effort to opt out. Now, I don't think that Governors should be opting out, but at least if they decide to do so, then they should be able to certify the reference to these various issues, including public health and climate change. Again, we talk about climate change. I understand what the gentleman is saying, but in terms of priorities, keep in mind that public health is a priority. The gentleman mentioned pancreatic cancer. I was thinking that the group that are advocates for trying to cure pancreatic cancer probably came to see him yesterday as they came to see me. We don't even know what the cause of it is. It may very well be that there are environmental causes in the air that lead to pancreatic cancer. So I think that it does need to be a priority. Climate change does need to be a priority. But again, you can vote for this amendment without saying that climate change is your biggest priority. We are simply saying that when a Governor decides to opt out, which I don't think they should, that they have to say that they certify that they have looked at the public health, that they have looked at climate change, that they have looked at increased use of clean energy and other issues. I see no reason why anyone on either side of the aisle shouldn't support the amendment for that reason. I yield back the balance of my time and urge passage of the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume in support of my amendment. Mr. Chairman, my amendment includes language identical to an amendment recently offered by Senator Bennet and approved during the Senate budget process. It is simple enough. In order to opt out, a Governor must certify that the State or Federal plan would ``promote national security, economic growth and public health by addressing human induced climate change through the increased use of clean energy, energy efficiency and reductions in carbon pollution.'' This clear and concise language passed the Senate in the budget bill with the support of seven Republican Senators along with all the Democratic Senators. Republican Senators like Dean Heller, Mark Kirk, and Rob Portman voted for this language, as did the chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Murkowski, who is from Alaska, where the impacts of climate change are undeniable. Let me just start by quoting pro-coal Senator Manchin from West Virginia: ``There is no question that climate change is real and that billions of people have impacted the world's climate. This amendment supports investment in clean energy technology, including advanced fossil energy, and supports energy efficiency, which reduces carbon while saving customers money. We can protect the environment for future generations while ensuring that we have affordable and reliable energy sources today.'' That is a quote from Senator Manchin from West Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I think we should be clear about where Members of this esteemed committee stand on the reality of human-induced climate change and whether or not it needs to be addressed. Senators have had to stand up and be counted, so we here in the House should do the same. Some on the Republican side of the aisle have said that they are not climate deniers. Well, if that is the case, then this should be a very easy vote for them, in my opinion. But it wouldn't surprise me if some or all on the Republican side oppose this amendment. In the Committee on Energy and Commerce, it was voted down twice: first in the subcommittee, and then in the full committee along party lines. Let me be clear, Mr. Chairman. This amendment still allows the Governor to opt out of the Federal plan. It doesn't really change the substance of the bill. This amendment is for anyone who believes in human-induced climate change, regardless of their views on various approaches to deal with the problem. You can vote for my amendment and, if you must, still oppose the clean power plan. But if you vote against my amendment, it can only mean, in my opinion, that you are against any solution to climate change. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. The other question that I keep hearing from the other side of the aisle is that, somehow, they just ignore the public health aspects of this. Obviously, we are concerned about climate change, but it is also the question of public health. There are consequences to inaction. In other words, if this bill were to pass and if the clean power plan were not to go into effect, there are consequences. The EPA estimates that, in 2030, the clean power plan will avoid up to 3,300 heart attacks, prevent 150,000 asthma attacks in children, lead to 2,800 fewer hospital admissions, and avert 490,000 missed work or schooldays each year. These benefits are worth an estimated $93 billion per year, Mr. Chairman. These are human health benefits that could be delayed or, perhaps, permanently lost if this bill takes effect. The health benefits potentially blocked by the bill are especially important for the most vulnerable among us, our babies, our kids, our seniors, and those with asthma. The legislation grants a blanket extension for all clean power plan compliant States until all opportunities for legal challenges have been exhausted, and this unprecedented suspension of critical clean air regulations would occur regardless of a lawsuit's merits or its likelihood of success. What the Republicans are doing with this bill is denying the health benefits that come from the clean power plan. I just want to close, Mr. Chairman, by reminding everyone that the President has said he will veto this legislation, so this effort with the legislation is totally in vain, as it probably won't pass the Senate. The President would veto it, and there are no votes to override his veto. Let me just read what the President says in his statement when he says he will veto the bill. He says: The bill is premature and unnecessary. It is premature because the clean power plan has yet to be finalized; it is unnecessary because EPA has made clear its commitment to address concerns raised during the public comment period (including concerns related to cost and reliability) when issuing the final clean power plan. The effect of the bill would, therefore, be a wholly unnecessary postponement of reductions of harmful air pollution. The bill is unprecedented. The administration is not aware of any instance when Congress has enacted legislation to stay implementation of a clean air standard before judicial review. To do so here, before the rule is even final, would be an unprecedented interference with EPA's efforts to fulfill its duties under the Clean Air Act. Once again, my colleagues on the Republican side have said that this is only a proposed rule. Why are they passing legislation to deal with a rule that hasn't even been finalized? I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It bothers me a great deal when I hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle acting as if we don't already have a Clean Air Act in place. The fact of the matter is the Clean Air Act was passed by both Democrats and Republicans back in 1970. It has been amended and changed several times since then, but the EPA is simply acting on a law that was passed by the Congress. There is no such thing here that the EPA is somehow doing something that they shouldn't be doing, which is what is being suggested by some of my colleagues on the Republican side and, I guess, is the basis for this legislation. The EPA is regulating based on laws that were passed by Congress-- that is what an agency does--but many of my colleagues on the Republican side continue to raise the false specter of job losses and high economic costs in order to try to block the President and the EPA from implementing the clean power plan to curb power plant carbon pollution. I just want to say again, in going back to the original Clean Air Act, the history of the Clean Air Act shows that they are wrong, that we can have both a clean environment and a strong economy. This is an argument that industry has used every time the Clean Air Act has been strengthened. Every time new regulations come out that are trying to address the problems with clean air and that are trying to make the air healthier for all Americans, we hear industry argue that somehow there are going to be job losses or that there are going to be huge rate increases. When Congress debated the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, the oil industry said that the technology to meet these standards simply does not exist today, and they predicted major supply disruptions, and chemical companies said the law would cause severe economic and social disruption. None of these gloom-and-doom predictions came true. Instead, our air got cleaner, and our economy flourished. The history of the Clean Air Act shows that the United States can reduce carbon pollution while creating jobs and strengthening the economy. Since its adoption in 1970, the Clean Air Act has reduced key air pollutants by two-thirds while the economy has tripled in size. The Clean Air Act has also made the United States a world leader in pollution control technology, generating hundreds of billions of dollars for U.S. companies and creating millions of jobs. I want to stress that I think we are at a critical crossroads here. If we continue to ignore the science, we will cause catastrophic climate change and saddle our economy with soaring bills for disaster relief; but, if we invest in the clean energy technologies of the future, we can protect our environment and grow our economy. This idea of juxtaposing jobs and the economy versus the environment is simply not true. The history of the Clean Air Act shows that it is not true. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Nearly four decades ago, Congress enacted the Toxic Substances Control Act to identify and regulate risks from dangerous chemicals. Unfortunately, the statute has never worked. Improvements to the law are long overdue, and I am happy to be here today with my Energy and Commerce colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this landmark reform legislation. Mr. Speaker, what brought us together is the failure of the current statute to keep the American public safe and to provide confidence in the safety of American products. Toxic chemicals can be found in the products we use every day and are steadily building up in our bodies and the environment. Consumers are worried about chemicals like BPA and triclosan, but they don't know how to avoid them. It seems like every day there is a new study about how chemicals are negatively affecting our health, and something needs to change. The Energy and Commerce Committee has held many hearings over the last 6 years to understand why TSCA isn't working. Some critical flaws were built into the statute, like the grandfathering of over 60,000 chemicals in 1976 without any safety review. Other flaws came to light only through litigation, like the impossible analytical burden of the statute's ``least burdensome'' clause. Even though we have recognized these flaws, forward progress has been elusive. When Chairman Shimkus and Chairman Upton approached Ranking Member Tonko and myself about working on a streamlined approach to address the essential components of reform, I was hopeful. The result is a bipartisan bill that will remove major obstacles to EPA action and give the Agency new authority and new resources. It will offer more protection and more implementation than current law. It is a strong compromise, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2576 will empower EPA to regulate the universe of chemicals that were grandfathered in 1976 by removing the requirement that EPA impose the ``least burdensome'' regulatory option and by establishing a risk-based standard for risk management, instead of a cost-benefit standard. For the first time, the decision of whether a chemical needs to be regulated will be based purely on the risk it poses. H.R. 2576 will improve EPA's access to information about potentially dangerous chemicals by allowing EPA to require testing through orders and consent agreements, not just rulemakings, and by authorizing EPA to seek data when needed for a risk evaluation without first demonstrating risk. H.R. 2576 will provide expedited action for the worst chemicals, those that are persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic. Under this bill, we can expect quick action to get these chemicals out of our environment and out of our bodies. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2576 will explicitly and directly protect vulnerable populations like children, workers, the elderly, and hotspot communities. The bill will provide more resources for EPA to carry out this important program by removing outdated caps on user fees. It would also ensure that those fees are deposited in a dedicated trust fund for TSCA implementation. Under the bill, all future confidential business information claims by industry would have to be substantiated, preventing abuse and ensuring greater transparency. H.R. 2576 would ensure that States maintain their important role as partners in chemical regulation. Under the bill, preemption of State laws would be more limited than current law and other proposals. No State law would be preempted until Federal requirements are in effect. Many State laws would be protected from preemption, including existing State laws, new State laws adopted to address air and water quality or implement other Federal laws, State tort claims, and State laws regulating uses not evaluated by EPA. In response to concerns raised by stakeholders and Members, a few additional important clarifications have been made following committee markup, and I thank the chairman for working with us to make those changes. There is now clear authority for EPA to set a schedule if manufacturer-requested risk evaluations exceed EPA's capacity, ensuring that such requests won't overwhelm the program. The grandfathering provision for existing State laws has also been clarified based on feedback from State attorneys general. Mr. Speaker, strong committee report language further clarifies the limited role of costs in risks management, the preservation of State monitoring and reporting requirements, and the expansion of EPA's testing authority. I know that tomorrow, we will get back to disagreeing on the importance of environmental protection and the essential role EPA plays in keeping America safe, but for today, we can all agree on the need for a strong and protective Federal regulatory program for chemicals. I want to thank Chairman Shimkus and Chairman Upton for their leadership and their willingness to work with Democrats and stakeholders to craft this legislation. I would also like to thank Jackie Cohen of my staff for her hard work on this legislation, as well as Dave McCarthy of the majority staff for his efforts. This is a true testament to what we can achieve when we work together. I look forward to supporting this bill, and I hope all my colleagues will join me in supporting this landmark legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, could I ask how much time is remaining?

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), the ranking member of the subcommittee.

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, I will just say thank you again to Mr. Shimkus, in particular, for reaching out to me and to Mr. Tonko on this legislation and for making it bipartisan. I almost feel anticlimactic today because I know how much hard work has gone into getting this bill to the floor. I know we are going to work hard after it passes in the House to get it passed in the Senate and to have a law that goes to the President, so I urge all of my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

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. 805, the Domain Openness Through Continued Oversight Matters, or DOTCOM, Act. I am pleased to support this bill, and I want to commend my colleagues for the bipartisan process in the Energy and Commerce Committee that brought us here. The Internet is a great American success story that has benefited billions of users around the globe. Over the last two decades, the United States Government has taken steps to get out of the way and empower a bottom-up approach to Internet governance. Thanks to the success of this multistakeholder model, the Internet has opened up new markets and economic opportunities and become an unprecedented platform for democratic free expression. Mr. Speaker, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, the U.S. Government has supported the idea that the Internet should be governed through a decentralized process, free from governmental control. Since the late 1990s, the U.S. Government has moved towards private sector management of the domain name system. To put it another way, we think that the future of the Internet should be determined by businesses, civil society, and technical experts. Congress has also explicitly embraced this vision. As recently as 2013, the House voted unanimously in support of a bill making it official U.S. policy to ``preserve and advance the successful multistakeholder model that governs the Internet.'' Mr. Speaker, completing the transition of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority advances that policy goal. The IANA transition reaffirms our two-decade commitment to the global multistakeholder community, but we have a responsibility to make sure that the transition is done right. The DOTCOM Act continues the longstanding congressional support for the global, open Internet while appropriately conducting oversight of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. We require NTIA to live up to the commitments the agency has made for the IANA transition and ensure that transparency and accountability mechanisms are in place before the U.S. Government can relinquish its stewardship role. In short, I believe our bill provides the necessary safeguards for the IANA transition to occur without unnecessary delay. Our vote on the DOTCOM Act today is timely for several reasons. Key meetings are taking place, as we speak, in Buenos Aires, Argentina, to finalize planning for the IANA transition. And quick action on the DOTCOM Act is needed to provide a better alternative to the language in the House Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill that blocks NTIA's ability to implement the transition. Unlike the appropriations rider, the DOTCOM Act provides a real opportunity for congressional oversight, so I urge all my colleagues to support it. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairmen Upton and Walden, Representative Shimkus, and their respective staffs, David Redl and Greta Joynes, for working with Congresswoman Eshoo and other Democrats on this bill. The DOTCOM Act shows what we can accomplish when our work is bipartisan from the start. I would also like to thank David Goldman and Margaret McCarthy of my staff for their hard work on this legislation. I look forward to working with you all and our colleagues in the Senate to see this bill become law. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers. I urge passage of the DOTCOM Act. 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 opposition to H.R. 1190. This bill would repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, and pay for it by drastically reducing our investment in prevention and public health. Mr. Speaker, I do not support IPAB. I oppose independent commissions playing a legislative role other than on the recommendatory basis. It is not the job of an independent commission to make decisions on healthcare policy for Medicare beneficiaries. Congress simply must stop ceding legislative power to outside bodies. However, IPAB remains an insignificant provision from the Affordable Care Act, as it has not even been convened. Because of how well other provisions of the ACA are working, Medicare cost growth rates are projected to remain beneath IPAB targets through the entire budget window, thereby not triggering the IPAB provisions until 2024 at the earliest. That said, I urge this House to oppose H.R. 1190, which would pay for IPAB repeal by effectively gutting the Affordable Care Act's prevention and public health fund, an incredibly significant provision from the ACA. The prevention and public health fund is a mechanism to provide expanded and sustained national investments in prevention and public health, to improve health outcomes, and to enhance healthcare quality. The fund has worked to reduce tobacco use, promote community prevention and use of preventive services, and combat healthcare associated infections. This year the fund will invest nearly $1 billion in programs that will benefit every State, and these dollars go to proven, effective ways to keep Americans healthier and more productive. In my home State of New Jersey, we have received more than $47.5 million for prevention and public health fund programs. This bill would walk back these and other important strides we have made in public health and prevention. This bill is yet another Republican attempt to attack and undermine the Affordable Care Act. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) manage the remainder of the Committee on Energy and Commerce time on the Democratic side.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mrs. Claire Knopf as she is honored by the Monmouth County Historical Association at its 40th annual Garden Party on June 28, 2015. Claire's exemplary leadership and contributions to the Monmouth County Historical Association and the greater Monmouth County area are truly deserving of this body's recognition. A resident of Monmouth County, New Jersey since 1986, Claire has been an active and charitable member of the community. She has been an outstanding leader of the Monmouth County Historical Association for many years, serving as a trustee, first vice president and 20th president of the Board of Trustees. In addition to her work with the Monmouth County Historical Association, Claire has volunteered on the Rumson Country Day School Executive Council, the Leon Hess Cancer Center at Monmouth Medical Center Women's Council, the Spring House, the Two River Film Festival and the Junior League of Monmouth County, among others. Her involvement with numerous local charities and organizations reflect her passion to help others and improve our communities. Her leadership and hard work have greatly benefited the Monmouth County area and her efforts are admirable. Claire received her Bachelor of Arts degree in English Literature from Boston University. She and her husband Woody reside in Rumson and are the proud parents of three beautiful children. For over 115 years, the Monmouth County Historical Association has provided Monmouth County residents and visitors with a vast background of our local history and heritage. Its efforts to preserve and promote our local history through programs, exhibits, and resources are valuable to our community and help to ensure that this important knowledge is available for future generations. Mr. Speaker, once again, please join me in thanking Claire Knopf and the Monmouth County Historical Association for their immeasurable contributions to our community.