Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it really bothers me that I never hear during this debate anybody on the Republican side of the aisle talk about clean air and the fact that we need to continue to make progress toward clean air because of the negative impacts of air pollution on people's health, particularly people who have health problems, asthma and other health problems. I want to talk a little bit about the Clean Air Act and why it is important, and then I will talk a little bit about the California standards. Thanks to the Clean Air Act, America has made massive strides in cleaning up our air, but we still have a long way to go. Nearly half of all Americans are breathing unhealthy air, and I think that that is unacceptable. Air pollution is a serious public health crisis. It can lead to health problems like lung cancer, asthma attacks, heart disease, and even premature death. Air pollution is associated with over 100,000 premature deaths in the United States every year. I have reiterated this statistic before, and I am not going to stop until I make my Republicans on the other side of the aisle understand that we are still trying to clean up the air and save people's lives. Tailpipe emissions from cars, trucks, and other vehicles are significant sources of air pollution. Burning gasoline and diesel fuel contributes particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and greenhouse gases into the air. The transportation sector is the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, making up nearly one-third of overall pollution. Therefore, strong vehicle emissions standards are necessary to combat these deadly trends. The three waivers under threat today in these three bills would yield $45 billion in health benefits and prevent 4,700 deaths in California alone. Why shouldn't it be the case that because California has unique air pollution problems that they can't have stronger regulations with regard to tailpipe emissions or decide to move toward electric vehicles over a period of years? They are doing this because of the unique circumstances of California. Eliminating these waivers would allow more than 1.5 billion metric tons of nitrogen oxides, 17,700 metric tons of fine particulates, and 1.6 billion metric tons of climate-harming emissions to poison our air. I know that President Trump says that climate change is not real, not human-induced, but the fact of the matter is that the pollution problem continues. Climate change continues. Nullifying the California waivers is going to wreak havoc on Americans' well-being and public health, leading to more premature deaths. There is no doubt about it. I find it deeply disappointing that in the first 100 days of the Trump administration, Republicans are continuing the trend of putting polluters over people by attempting to nullify health-protective vehicle emissions standards. What is worse is that, at the same time, Republicans are also plotting to cut hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicaid, take healthcare away from millions of people, all so they can secure tax breaks for their billionaire friends and big corporation cronies. I have heard the Republicans on the other side act as if the California standards are a mandate and that they are going to mandate electric vehicles. Members on the Republican side from Michigan, Texas, Virginia, Minnesota, and Ohio have all spoken. None of those States have adopted the California standards. I have no reason to believe that any of them ever intend to adopt the California standards. This is not a mandate. They can continue to sell internal combustion gas-powered cars in those States. Nobody is saying they can't, but they still have to meet the national standards, which are not really at issue today. They still have to meet the national standards for tailpipe emissions with those vehicles, as it should be because we want to have clean air. There is nothing in the law that says that other States can't continue to sell gas-powered cars. Even under the California standards, they can still sell hybrid vehicles. There are other options. For a hybrid, most of it is still being powered by gas. I just think that the Republicans are giving the impression that somehow California is dictating what we do in other States, and that is simply not true. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I will just stress that my Republican colleagues like to wrongfully assert that California standards set the vehicle emission policy for the whole of the United States, and it just demonstrates an inaccurate understanding of the Clean Air Act. So let me just close by explaining this. Through section 209 of the Clean Air Act, Congress provided the EPA the ability to grant California Federal preemption waivers to set more protective vehicle emissions standards to address the compelling need to reduce air pollution in that State. The resolutions at issue today are about one State's Clean Air Act waivers, California, not the entirety of the United States. Other States do have the flexibility to voluntarily adopt California standards in whole or in part, modify the standards to their specific needs, or just not adopt the standards entirely. As I have mentioned, most of the speakers on the Republican side, their States haven't adopted the standards at all. If your State doesn't want to follow California, you don't have to. Each State is allowed to decide what works best for them, but today's resolution threatens that choice and is basically an affront to States' rights. Now, just last week, the American Lung Association issued its annual ``State of the Air'' report, which shows that nearly half of all Americans breathe unhealthy levels of air pollution. Unhealthy air leads to hospitalization, increased infant and fetal mortality, impaired development in children, and the higher likelihood of illness and cancer, among other detrimental health impacts. We know that air pollution has serious impacts on the most vulnerable among us, especially pregnant women and children, populations my Republican colleagues claim to care a lot about. If you want women to have more children but can't muster the courage to ensure pregnant women and children have safe air to breathe, what are you talking about? The bottom line is, we have to do something about the air pollution in this country. If some States like California and mine want to have more strict standards, they should be allowed to do so because they have more air pollution problems. It is that simple. That is why I oppose this resolution and will oppose all three resolutions today. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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. 89, yet another extremist, and I believe illegal, Congressional Review Act resolution attacking a commonsense regulation to protect Americans' health and the environment. Now, H.J. Res. 89 would block the California waiver for the heavy- duty omnibus rule that sets stronger standards to lower nitrogen oxide and particulate matter emissions from heavy-duty engines. The trucking industry makes up just 10 percent of vehicles on the road, but 45 percent of nitrogen oxide and 56 percent of particulate matter pollution. Nitrogen oxide is a precursor for smog that can exacerbate numerous health conditions and is associated with premature death. People who live near ports, highways, and warehouses are disproportionately exposed to high concentrations of this pollution. Now, the California standard aims to address this pollution and reverse course on these deadly trends. This is based on California's unique circumstances. They have an air pollution problem that is a lot worse than many of the other States. Despite Republicans' false claims, the California program does not ban internal combustion engine trucks. Maintaining the California program is critical to improve public health outcomes and secure the right to clean air for everyone. Repealing California's Federal preemption waiver for its heavy-duty omnibus plan will rob Americans of over $23 billion of health benefits through 2050 and increase premature mortality, hospitalizations, and emergency room visits. This resolution is a waste of our time because, as I have said on the other two, both the GAO and the Senate Parliamentarian have concluded that this waiver is not a rule and, therefore, cannot be revoked using the Congressional Review Act. It is just another attempt by the Republicans to distract from the economic chaos and uncertainty that Trump is creating with our economy. This resolution is going nowhere, but for all these reasons, Madam Speaker, I oppose the resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 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 gentleman from California (Mr. Mullin), also a member of our committee.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, my Republican colleagues are really misleading the American people with their claims about the Heavy-Duty Low NOX Omnibus rule. This rule actually gives California and other States the ability to clean up pollution from dirty diesel trucks, protecting the health of Americans and saving lives. Heavy-duty engines emit harmful NOX and other toxic pollutants that are significant contributors to ozone and particulate matter. The health effects of this air pollution are well-documented and include respiratory illness, cardiovascular problems, and even death. Madam Speaker, the Clean Air Task Force recently issued a report showing the impacts of dirty diesel on communities. The figures are staggering, and here are just a few highlights. In 2026, dirty diesel is projected to cause nearly 500,000 lost workdays, impacting our Nation's productivity; over 3,500 heart attacks; thousands of cases of respiratory illness; and, yes, over 8,000 deaths. Dirty diesel will cost Americans over $90 billion in health damages. Republicans are fighting for resolutions that are hurting people's health and putting lives at risk. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support of H.R. 617, the American Music Tourism Act. Madam Speaker, I know Republicans want to pretend like it is business as usual around here, but the daily chaos and illegal activity that we are seeing from the Trump administration is not business as usual. The reality is that 15 of the 16 bills we are considering today from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, including this one, should already be law. They were already agreed to last year as part of a bipartisan, bicameral legislative package that was set to be passed and signed into law in December before Elon Musk intervened and killed the agreement. That package included important provisions that would have lowered costs for hardworking Americans, but instead of passing it and sending it to the President's desk to be signed into law, my Republican colleagues allowed Elon Musk to decide what becomes law. What is especially upsetting about this is that my Republican colleagues know this was a good agreement that would have helped people. It included provisions to lower prescription drug prices, crack down on junk fees, lower gas prices, ensure our water is safe to drink, and fund community health centers and teaching health centers. Instead, Speaker Johnson chose to cave to Elon Musk. Though it may be delayed, I am pleased to be supporting the passage today of the American Music Tourism Act. Americans are fortunate to have a rich musical heritage. Throughout the United States, you can find countless venues where talented musicians perform. These venues attract millions of people from around the country and the world who want to see their favorite artists or visit the place where famous musicians have launched their careers, all of which contribute significantly to our local communities. Music and musical venues are very important to my district in New Jersey. Asbury Park has been the home of the legendary Stone Pony for over 50 years, one of the places where New Jersey's famous son, Bruce Springsteen, got his start. Redbank, New Jersey, is the site of the Count Basie Theatre named in honor of William ``Count'' Basie, who revolutionized jazz music and whose legacy continues through the theater, which continues to support and inspire new generations of local musicians. This is why I am pleased to support the American Music Tourism Act. This bill would direct the National Travel and Tourism Office to promote domestic and international travel and tourism to U.S. venues like The Stone Pony and the Count Basie Theatre. It will help expand the already significant economic contributions that these venues bring to our local and national economies. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Barragan for her leadership on this issue and encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. These bills, for the most part, that we are going to be considering today were part of that original package that Elon Musk negated, but we are going to try to move those bills today despite what he did to try to scuttle everything. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this bill, as I said, was part of that bipartisan package that we had hoped would be passed last December but for Elon Musk. This bill is important. I know that back in Asbury Park, in particular, they will be very happy to know that our Congress is paying so much attention to American music tourism. Mr. Speaker, I ask for support on both sides of the aisle for the legislation, 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 to speak in support of H.R. 973, the Setting Consumer Standards for Lithium-Ion Batteries Act. This legislation will protect Americans from fires caused by lithium- ion batteries. It directs the Consumer Product Safety Commission to require manufacturers to comply with safety standards for rechargeable lithium-ion batteries in micromobility devices, like electric bicycles and scooters. Fires caused by faulty or misused batteries are on the rise. Between 2019 and 2023, there were more than 400 fires, 300 injuries, and 12 deaths from fires caused by lithium-ion batteries in New York City alone. In February, a fire caused by lithium-ion batteries at a recycling facility in my home State of New Jersey required the evacuation of over 100 residents from their homes and caused massive property damage. Last month, in California, a 6-year-old girl and her grandmother and great-grandmother were all tragically killed in a house fire caused by a lithium-ion battery. We are witnessing all of these tragic accidents in communities across the Nation, yet there is no mandatory Federal standard to ensure lithium-ion batteries are safe. As electric bikes and scooters grow in popularity, we must ensure that the CPSC adopts a strong Federal safety standard for lithium-ion batteries. Consumers deserve to know that the products they buy are thoroughly tested and safe, and this legislation would do just that. I have to say that compliance with this bill depends on enforcement by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Like other legislation we are considering this afternoon, it depends on the existence of a strong, bipartisan, and independent CPSC to protect Americans from unsafe products. At the same time that our Republican colleagues vote for this bill, they will continue to remain silent as President Trump's callous willingness to risk the safety of all Americans continues by his planning to eliminate the CPSC and fold its mission into the Department of Health and Human Services, which itself will have a dramatically smaller workforce and narrower mission. Eliminating the existing CPSC or stripping it of the independent and bipartisan structure that Congress has mandated puts children and all Americans' physical safety in grave danger. The CPSC is a small agency tasked with a massive job to protect consumers from hazards associated with a vast array of consumer products, from infant car seats to window blinds to home repair equipment. American consumers deserve to have peace of mind that the products we are bringing into our homes are safe. I hope my Republican colleagues will finally begin to speak up against President Trump's dangerous plan to consolidate power in the White House and eliminate the critical agency that does a lot of this enforcement work at the expense of our children's safety. Mr. Speaker, I commend Representative Torres for his leadership on this issue, and I also thank Representative Clarke for championing this bill in our committee. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Again, I will stress that without CPSC enforcement, this legislation is not going to mean much. Mr. Speaker, again, I don't want to take away from these bills. Each of the bills that we have today is bipartisan and came out of our committee, but it is a shame that they weren't passed already in December but for Elon Musk. It certainly would not be helpful--oh, I am sorry. Mr. Torres is here, so I can't close yet, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Torres), the Democratic sponsor of the bill.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Again, I hate to keep repeating, but these bills are all good that we are considering this afternoon, and they should have already become law but for Elon Musk. Again, it is important that we reauthorize these programs or authorize these programs for the first time. However, unless we have enforcement ability from agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission, they are not going to mean much because they require enforcement and investigation. Basically the agencies are the ones that make sure that this type of legislation is effective. I hope that my Republican colleagues will see fit to speak out against the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Putting it in another department is not going to help because they will have less workforce and less ability to function. 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 H.R. 1402, the TICKET Act. This bipartisan legislation creates a fairer and more transparent event ticketing marketplace. It ends the surprise fees on tickets for concerts and sporting events that understandably frustrate consumers. With this legislation, the price you see when you are shopping for event tickets will be the price that you pay. There will be no hidden fees raising the price at the checkout point. This bill also prohibits companies from selling tickets they don't have, requires refunds for events that are canceled or postponed more than 6 months into the future, and cracks down on fraudulent ticketing websites. American consumers need and deserve these commonsense protections. Yet, these protections are meaningless without strong and consistent enforcement. House Republicans are standing by in silence as the Federal Trade Commission, the agency entrusted with enforcing this bill and several others under consideration this afternoon, is compromised by the Trump administration and the President's illegal political attempt to fire the two Democratic commissioners. This unlawful decision undermines the legitimacy and transparency of the agency's decisions, sending a message that no commissioner, regardless of party, is safe, and no business that harms consumers should fear accountability, so long as it shows sufficient loyalty to the President. I urge my Republican colleagues to recognize that restoring the FTC as an independent agency, as this Congress intended, is essential to ensuring this bill and similar efforts to protect consumers are fully effective and enforced without fear or favor. I thank the wide range of stakeholders who worked on this bill, and particularly the consumer groups for their unwavering support of this bill. Of course, I particularly want to commend Subcommittee Chair Bilirakis and Ranking Member Schakowsky for their years of hard work on this legislation. Finally, I need to acknowledge, Mr. Speaker, the contribution of my late colleague and dear friend from New Jersey, Congressman Bill Pascrell. He was a tireless advocate and leader on improving the ticketing experience for consumers. I am proud to have partnered with him on his longtime efforts that are included in the bill we have before us today. When the TICKET Act was on the floor last year, Bill gave an impassioned speech in support of all-in pricing and the other consumer protections in this bill. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation, the TICKET Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), the Democratic sponsor of this bill, who has worked on this legislation for such a long time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I agree with Mr. Bilirakis. This is important consumer protection, and I am glad to see that our committee and the subcommittee headed by Mr. Bilirakis as chair and Ms. Schakowsky as the ranking member has taken on so many of these consumer issues today and in the future. I ask for support on both sides of the aisle, 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 to speak in support of H.R. 1442, the Youth Poisoning Protection Act. Sodium nitrite is a highly toxic substance. Ingesting even a small amount is likely to be fatal. Unfortunately, online forums are providing detailed instructions and real-time guidance on how to acquire and use this substance to take their own lives. Sadly, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, this has led to a sharp increase in self-poisoning using sodium nitrite. By banning the sale of high-concentrate sodium nitrite to consumers, H.R. 1442 will make it less accessible to people contemplating suicide. Experts have made it clear that there is no good reason for consumers to purchase sodium nitrite at such high concentrations. I commend Representative Trahan for her leadership on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan), the sponsor of the bill.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, as you can see, a lot of these consumer protection bills that we are considering today are actually very important, as is this. I urge bipartisan support and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise to speak in support of S. 146, the TAKE IT DOWN Act. The legislation addresses the nonconsensual sharing of intimate images online, one of the most significant harms proliferating on the internet in recent years. Advances in generative artificial intelligence and other photo manipulation software have enabled the creation of digital forgeries that place victims in sexually explicit situations that never actually occurred but can still cause massive reputational and financial damage to those who were targeted. Some of the platforms hosting actual and computer-generated nonconsensual intimate images have promised to address such abuses online and protect their users but, nevertheless, victims report great difficulty in getting such images removed from the internet. They tell us they feel powerless as it spreads or even resurfaces years later. The TAKE IT DOWN Act will require social media and other online public platforms to provide a mechanism for people to notify the platform of nonconsensual intimate images in which they are depicted. It also requires the platforms to take reasonable steps to remove the images from their platforms within 48 hours. I thank Representatives Dean and Dingell for their leadership on this issue, and I encourage my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell), a member of our committee.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I urge unanimous support for this legislation. Once again, this is another very important bill as part of this consumer protection agenda today. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.