Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S.J. Res. 31. On the day that House Republicans have been planning to actively strip healthcare away from 13.7 million Americans, they are also seeking to make Americans sicker by giving some of the worst industrial polluters a free pass to pump dangerous chemicals into communities across the Nation. With this resolution, Republicans are repealing critical Clean Air Act safeguards that have been in place for decades. The regulatory rule Republicans are trying to repeal today is first and foremost a public health protection measure. It requires facilities that emit the worst of the worst hazardous air pollutants to monitor, report, and cut those emissions to the maximum degree of reduction achievable, even eliminating them entirely if possible. The rule also prevents any backsliding by major sources of the seven most dangerous hazardous air pollutants, including mercury and PCBs. By repealing this rule, Republicans are going to allow large facilities to increase their toxic emissions up to just below the legal limit, endangering the health of American communities. The cruelty of the Republican majority cannot be overstated. Let me be clear. The dangerous air pollution this rule protects us from can cause cancer, birth defects, developmental disorders, and neurological problems, even at small levels of exposure. Unfortunately, Republicans want to make it easier for large industrial polluters to increase their emissions of these chemicals, regardless of the harms. They want to make Americans sicker at the same time they are looking to strip away their health coverage. Allowing nearly 2,000 large industrial facilities to escape from their Clean Air Act compliance obligations, as this resolution allows, will not magically push them to invest in new technologies to clean up. There is zero evidence that giving facilities a free pass leads to less pollution. In fact, the opposite is certainly true. Passing this resolution will be a race to the bottom, giving these facilities the green light to permanently abandon their long-installed pollution control equipment that are currently saving lives. This Republican resolution will allow these facilities to spew hazardous air pollution into the air with reckless abandon, and increase cancer- causing pollutants without consequence. It will also allow these facilities to stop monitoring and reporting to the EPA which would end any chance of accountability for surrounding communities. The Trump EPA has been clear that enforcement of environmental laws is not a priority, so American families will be at the mercy of large corporate polluters. This resolution proves, once again, that Republicans are completely out of touch. Americans are struggling to make ends meet and facing the reality that Republicans may soon strip them and their families of healthcare, but their focus is on repealing commonsense protections that make the air safer to breathe. In the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, Congress recognized the clear and present danger caused by hazardous air pollution coming from large industrial sources across the country. It is because of the requirements put in place to address that danger that we have seen such sharp emission reductions and cleaner air over the past one-half century. To turn back now because of a CRA vote would be catastrophic, especially for anyone who lives near an industrial facility. It is not enough to gut the healthcare of millions of Americans. Republicans first want to make sure the air we all breathe will do us harm. S.J. Res. 31 is cynical, dangerous, and deeply irresponsible. Congress should be trying to protect Americans, not trying to make them sick. Mr. Speaker, for the health and safety of all Americans and for the sake of clean air, I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko) who is the ranking member of our Environment Subcommittee.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), the ranking member of the Energy Subcommittee.

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), the ranking member of our Communications and Technology Subcommittee.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the seven hazardous air pollutants that Republicans are apparently fine with pumping into the air we breathe. First is mercury. Mercury is quickly absorbed into the body through inhalation and skin contact. It moves quickly across the placenta and into a human fetus and can also cross the blood-brain barrier and remain in blood cells for decades. This is why it is linked to developmental deficits in children. It can impact the heart, lungs, central nervous system, reproduction, kidneys, and GI tract. It is also linked to cancer and autoimmune diseases. The Republicans want children to breathe more of this toxin. Next is alkylated lead. Alkylated lead is a combination of toxic lead and hydrocarbons from fossil fuels. It affects nearly every organ in the human body and reduces cognitive function in children. It is a known carcinogen, and as far as we know, there is no safe level of lead. Then we have dioxins, furans, polycyclic organic matter, hexachlorobenzene, and PCBs. Also, all of these would be increased because of this CRA. These are all known carcinogens. All are bioaccumulative, persistent, and toxic, even in amounts in fractions of a gram. It is really a shame to frame this rule simply as a so-called regulatory burden or a simple cost of doing business. EPA's rule is a public health rule, and we need to uphold it to protect the health and safety of our constituents, both adults and children. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, big polluters are the only people who will benefit from the rescission of this rule, not the American people. If this rule is blocked, industrial facilities would once again be allowed to escape the regulations of the Clean Air Act that are meant to curb the release of harmful and cancer-causing pollutants. Once they have escaped, most of these facilities would not be required to conduct monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting of what pollutants they are releasing into our communities. They certainly will not have any incentive to implement any type of reporting on their own, especially when over half of the States prohibit regulators from being more stringent than EPA regulations. This is all while the American people will bear the burdens of the rule's repeal, facing even higher risks of cancer, asthma, and other severe health conditions. Not once--and I will repeat that--not once in the history of the Clean Air Act has Congress rolled back its protections. I find it extraordinary that Republicans are attempting to do this at a time when they are also trying to gut Medicaid. We should be protecting this rule to defend the health of our constituents and to make sure that polluters are held accountable, not just trying to rescind this rule entirely. I think it is time that we stand up to big polluters and billionaires and re-center the health and needs of the American people. Mr. Speaker, for all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, for months President Trump and congressional Republicans have been promising that they would not cut Medicaid or Medicare. The reality is that Republicans are cutting both Medicaid and Medicare in this bill. They are essentially repealing parts of the Affordable Care Act. This bill will destroy the healthcare system of this country. It keeps getting worse with each GOP amendment. The GOP tax scam takes healthcare away from at least 13.7 million Americans so they can give giant tax breaks to billionaires and big corporate interests. It is a shameful reverse Robin Hood scheme. They are stealing from the American people to give to the rich. Republicans are stripping healthcare away from people by putting all sorts of burdensome and time-consuming roadblocks in the way of people just trying to get by. The vast majority of people on Medicaid are already working. This is not about work. It is about burying people in so much paperwork that they fall behind and lose their health coverage. If someone loses their health coverage through Medicaid, this GOP tax scam also bans them from getting coverage through the ACA marketplace. It is just one of the cruel ways that this bill basically repeals the ACA and makes it more difficult for people to get affordable health insurance. Now, the Republican bill also makes it more difficult for States to finance their share of Medicaid costs by preventing them from implementing new provider taxes. This will be catastrophic for States as their healthcare needs change over time and will force them to either increase taxes on their residents or cut healthcare services. For those of you who say it doesn't impact Medicare, the GOP tax scam will also cut Medicare, I repeat, Medicare. It is basically a $500 billion cut to Medicare because of the sequestration under the paygo. The Medicare cuts will lead to reduced access to care for seniors, longer wait times for appointments, and increase costs. Mr. Speaker, the GOP tax scam destroys America's healthcare system by cutting over $1 trillion dollars, and this bill should be defeated.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mrs. Emily McLaughlin Wisniewski and Mr. Branden Anton Ehrenreich, who were joined in marriage on Saturday, April 26, 2025. This special occasion celebrated the love between two remarkable individuals and marked the beautiful journey they have shared together. This union is a testament to the driven, thoughtful, and vibrant paths they have led to this important moment. Emily, native to New Jersey, is the daughter of John and Deborah Wisniewski. Born and raised in La Plata, Maryland, Branden is the son of Kurt and Tammy Ehrenreich. Emily is a graduate of New York University, where she earned a Bachelor of Arts in Economics and Political Science, and Georgetown University, where she obtained a Master of Science in Quantitative Economics and Econometrics. Emily has made significant contributions in her career, working for the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and as a statistician for the U.S. Census Bureau. The Royal Conservatory of Music has rated her an accomplished, certified pianist. Branden holds a Bachelor of Science in Computer Science from Mount Saint Mary's University and a Master of Science in Computer Science from Towson University. Branden is a talented research scientist at a research and engineering company. Together, Emily and Branden have built a strong, loving partnership that reflects their shared values and passions. Mr. Speaker, please join me in leading this body in recognition of Emily McLaughlin Wisniewski and Branden Anton Ehrenreich as they embark on their marriage together. It is with great pleasure that I join their friends and family in honoring their exceptional union. I wish them a lifetime of happiness, love, and adventure.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 87, 88, and 89, the three bills that we are considering this afternoon. Like much of what Republicans do here on the House floor, these three resolutions are a waste of time and are going nowhere. That is because both the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, and the Senate Parliamentarian have determined that Congress cannot nullify these waivers using the Congressional Review Act. Yet, here we are. Republicans are ignoring these rulings and moving ahead--again, a giant waste of time. These resolutions are nothing more than a ploy to basically distract hardworking Americans from the fact that President Trump is singlehandedly destroying our economy and driving up costs for American families, including on vehicles. Markets are in turmoil. The first quarter report indicated that the American economy is actually contracting. It is not growing. It is actually contracting, getting smaller. American retirement savings are in free fall. Prices for everyday goods continue to rise, all as a result of President Trump's trade war with the entire world. He is at war with the entire world. Trump's tariffs are also expected to drive up the costs of vehicles in the United States by up to $15,000, and Republicans silently sit back and let it happen, bringing up resolutions on the floor that are going nowhere. These illegal CRA resolutions threaten the Clean Air Act waivers of Federal preemption that allowed stronger pollution standards for cars and trucks for the State of California. My colleague from Virginia gives the impression that States have to follow California's lead. I don't know that he means that, but he gives that impression. That is not true. No one is telling any State that they have to follow California. My State of New Jersey decided to, but that is up to the Governor and the legislature. In fact, they could withdraw the California standards at any time. New Jersey could if they wanted to. No one is forcing any State to follow California's lead. My colleague from Virginia, I love him, but he is talking about Big Government. It used to be that the Republicans believed in States' rights, meaning that the States, little or large, would have their own rights and be able to do their own thing. He is the one who is talking about Big Government now because he is suggesting that the Federal Government is going to preempt everything that California and some other States have done. These resolutions are a direct attack on over 50 years of Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency recognizing California's, and other States that follow, longstanding authority to set stronger vehicle emission standards to protect the public health of its residents from the State's unique air quality challenges. Why do we let States like California and New Jersey decide this on their own? Because there are different problems in those States with regard to air quality. Right now, over 90 percent of California residents live in an area plagued by poor air quality. If California decides that we need more stringent standards because we don't want people to get sick in their State, then they should be allowed to do so. This isn't like pie in the sky. This is based on the fact that the air quality in California is not good. I mean, I hate to say it, but it is true. That is why they need more stricter standards, and they decided to do that. California started regulating tailpipe emissions actually in 1966 before the Federal Clean Air Act was even enacted. In drafting the Clean Air Act decades ago, Congress recognized California's air quality challenges that demonstrated compelling and extraordinary circumstances, justifying more protective standards. This waiver mechanism also allows other States with challenging air pollution conditions to voluntarily adopt California standards if they feel that it is appropriate. This has allowed States to be a laboratory of innovation for the auto industry and pioneer emission reduction technologies, such as check engine dashboard lights or even the development of zero-emission vehicles, and the standards under threat today would continue that legacy. These resolutions would completely dismantle that progress at a time when the Trump administration appears to be determined to cede our global leadership in clean transportation to China. None of this has to happen. These resolutions are illegal, plain and simple. My Republican colleagues were informed weeks ago by the independent, nonpartisan GAO that California's waivers cannot be revoked using the CRA for two reasons. First, EPA's waiver decisions are not rules. Second, even if the waivers were considered rules, they would be rules of particular applicability since they only concern one specific entity; i.e., California. These two factors disqualify the waivers from review under the CRA, and the Senate Parliamentarian agreed. That should have been enough. In other words, the Senate says they can't do this. The GAO says they can't do this. Again, the Republicans are taking their cues from Trump, and he doesn't care what the law says. He just says do it. That is why we are here today. None of this is going to matter. EPA has granted dozens of waivers over five decades, and there is a long bipartisan history of recognizing these waivers as orders, which House Republicans are determined to ignore. What I am saying, Madam Speaker, is they can't do what they are suggesting to do today because it is illegal. Even if they were able to, it sets a terrible precedent for other waivers and other abilities of States to decide on their own what they want to do. If the theory behind these resolutions were to be successful--in other words, using the CRA to nullify orders--House Republicans would set a dangerous precedent that expands the applicability of the CRA. That would mean countless numbers of executive actions made across the Federal Government would be at the mercy of the political winds of a vocal few in Congress. States seeking approvals for energy infrastructure projects would be under threat. Leasing decisions for major oil and gas fields could be targeted. States that submit waivers for their Medicaid programs could be up for congressional review under this newly expanded applicability. This opens up a Pandora's box for Republicans to invalidate other State programs that they deem unfit for their extremist agenda. They are trying to impose a very extremist Federal national standard and basically preempt the States. It is not what Republicans historically do, but this is the age of President Trump. I think this should ring an alarm bell for everyone in this Chamber. Today, it is waivers for California's clean vehicle standards; tomorrow, it could be a program or project in another State out of favor with Trump or the Republicans. To be clear, the transportation sector is the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, making up nearly one- third of overall pollution. Passing these resolutions would allow more nitrogen oxides, fine particles, and climate-disrupting emissions to poison our air. While it is disappointing that my Republican colleagues are attempting to tear down health-protective standards, it is not surprising. Just look at their plans to strip healthcare from millions of Americans with hundreds of billions of dollars in devastating Medicaid cuts, which I expect next week in our committee. Instead of attacking clean vehicle programs, opposing investments in American electric vehicle manufacturing, and pushing regressive anti- electrification policies, Congress should focus on supporting market innovation, preserving U.S. competitiveness, and providing regulatory certainty for the clean vehicle industry. My colleagues on the other side talk about China and competition from China, but everything that President Trump is doing is giving China even more of a runway to be competitive and to win, in this case, in the transition to a clean energy economy, especially across the electric vehicle supply chain. Madam Speaker, I strongly oppose all of these misguided resolutions, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), who is the ranking member of our Environment Subcommittee.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), the ranking member of our Communications and Technology Subcommittee.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Dexter).

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Liccardo).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Rivas).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan).

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

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I was listening attentively to my colleague from Virginia and what he has been saying. I have to correct some things. First of all, this idea that California is imposing a national mandate is not the case. Only certain States, a minority of States, have adopted the California standards, and there is a lot of flexibility in that. His own State, Virginia, hasn't adopted the California standards. Maryland has modified the standards. My State adopted the California standards a year after California. So this idea that there is no flexibility or one size fits all is simply not the case. You don't have to adopt the California standards at all. In fact, if you don't adopt the California standards in your State, you can continue to sell internal combustion, gas-powered vehicles. Essentially what California is doing is, because of the fact that they have a major air pollution problem, they have adopted more stricter standards, and the Federal Government lets them do so. As I mentioned during debate on the last resolution, this resolution--this one now is about cars, primarily--is a waste of time, because both the GAO and the Senate Parliamentarian have concluded that this waiver is not a rule and, therefore, can't be revoked using the Congressional Review Act. This is just another attempt by the Republicans to distract from the economic chaos and uncertainty that Trump is creating with our economy as they stand by and let it happen. Now, in the case of California, their program builds on the success of previous standards and scales down light-duty vehicle emissions to reduce smog-forming pollution and greenhouse gases starting in the model year 2026 through 2035. This program has been in the works since 2020, and it provides a clear, planned, and gradual approach to transitioning to cleaner vehicles. No State has to adopt it. The California standard only applies to new on-road vehicles. It does not impact cars already on the road or used cars. It is not an EV mandate. A wide variety of currently available vehicles, like hybrids, for example, which allow you to use gas, obviously most of the time, continue to be allowed. I really had to laugh when I heard my colleague talk about--I think he said EVs are like a left-wing thing. I assure you that a lot of the people, maybe a majority of the people, driving around my district with electric vehicles are not voting for me. It is not a left-wing thing. People buy these whether they are Republican or Democrat, whether they are liberal or conservative. That is simply not true. It is estimated that in California, their program will result in $13 billion in savings from reduced health costs, and the standards will save clean vehicle drivers $7,500 in maintenance and fuel costs over the first 10 years of use. These are real cost savings that will make a difference in people's lives. Again, California is doing this because they are concerned about pollution. It does save money. It saves fuel costs. These savings are needed now more than ever because Trump's tariffs are wreaking havoc on our economy and particularly on car sales. Trump's tariffs are expected to drive up the cost of vehicles in the United States by up to $15,000. Republicans silently sit by and let it happen and keep bringing up these resolutions on the floor that are going nowhere. A little more about California's advanced clean car program. It is forward-looking, it slashes harmful pollution and the associated health costs, and it also drives up investments, innovation, and job creation. They have proven to be a leader in improving air quality but also enabling significant economic growth. Again, I don't want to take away from California. I think they are doing a good job, and I think my State of New Jersey, by following them, is doing a good job in trying to protect people from the health effects of dirty air. There is nothing in any of this that requires other States to follow, and they haven't for the most part. They can continue to sell cars pursuant to the Federal standards that are for internal combustion, gas-powered vehicles. I don't understand what the Republicans are talking about, but it is a waste of time. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), who is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Environment.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), who is the ranking member of our Communications and Technology Subcommittee.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).