Frank Pallone

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. 1479, the Hotel Fees Transparency Act. Far too often, when consumers go to check out of their hotel rooms, they are hit with surprise fees. Hotels and online travel agencies have many names for these types of fees: resort fees, amenities fees, and facilities fees, to name just a few. Regardless of what they are called, surprise fees that consumers do not expect make it impossible to comparison shop and impose undue burdens on household finances. H.R. 1479, the Hotel Fees Transparency Act, is a bipartisan bill that would ensure that companies disclose all mandatory fees when they advertise the price of a hotel room or other place of short-term lodging. This bill would also require hotels and other providers of short-term lodging to provide the total cost of a room to any internet website or other third party that the provider has allowed to advertise, market, display, or otherwise offer the short-term lodging for sale. By ensuring everyone in the short-term lodging ecosystem displays the full price of a stay, we will protect consumers from being caught paying extra when they go to check out. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representatives Castor, Mullin, Kim, and Fry for their bipartisan leadership on this issue, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), who is the Democratic sponsor of the bill and who is also the ranking member of our committee's Energy Subcommittee.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I urge bipartisan support for this legislation. It is another consumer protection bill, like the TICKET Act, that provides transparency where it doesn't exist right now. 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. 2480, the Securing Semiconductor Supply Chains Act. Semiconductors are a necessary component of everything from consumer electronics to automobiles to our national defense weapons systems. The United States, once a global powerhouse in semiconductor fabrication, has become dangerously reliant on other countries to manufacture these chips, which are vital to both our national economic and security interests. That is why I was proud to help lead the passage of the CHIPS and Science Act, a transformational law passed in 2022 that strengthens our manufacturing base and helps create good-paying jobs for American workers, unleashes more innovation, and lowers costs for consumers. That law is investing over $52 billion in domestic semiconductor production, research, and development. Reshoring America's semiconductor supply chains requires carefully crafted policy, economic and market stability, and State and Federal Government partners empowered to support the industry. The Trump administration is offering our country none of these things and is instead pulling the rug out from under this critical sector by increasing their construction costs with tariffs on critical trading partners, creating unstable market conditions through careless policy, in my opinion, and abruptly firing the government workers and domestic manufacturers who depend on it. This weakens our manufacturing sector and hinders our ability to bring good jobs back to the United States, and it will increase costs for American families who are already struggling to make ends meet. The legislation before us today will provide valuable information about how we can take well-informed steps to increase foreign direct investment to further advance our efforts to strengthen the semiconductor supply chains, create more jobs, and continue to revitalize American manufacturing. Mr. Speaker, I commend Representative Landsman for his leadership on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Landsman), who is the sponsor of this legislation and a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers. I urge support for this 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 in support of H.R. 1721, the Critical Infrastructure Manufacturing Feasibility Act. Our Nation's manufacturing base was once the envy of the world. Unfortunately, it faced steady headwinds for decades. The United States' share of global manufacturing activity declined from 28 percent in 2002 to less than 16 percent in 2021. Fortunately, the work we did under the Biden administration, passing the bipartisan infrastructure law, the Inflation Reduction Act, and the CHIPS and Science Act, started to turn the tide. Our Nation added over 700,000 manufacturing jobs during President Biden's time in office. However, we must not allow President Trump to put this great progress in jeopardy with his chaotic trade wars and uncertain tariff policies. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to stand with the domestic manufacturers they claim to support by speaking out against the uncertain market environment that this administration has thrown manufacturing into. We should be working together on commonsense investments and legislation to strengthen domestic supply chains and manufacturing, as we have done before, instead of allowing President Trump and his friends to crash our economy, including the manufacturing sector, with careless policies. H.R. 1721 will commission the Department of Commerce to study the costs, benefits, and feasibility of manufacturing products within critical infrastructure sectors so we can take well-informed and strategic next steps to bolster our Nation's supply chains. I thank our Democratic sponsor, Representative Schrier, for her work on this bill. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I support 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 in strong support of H.R. 2458, the Secure Space Act, bipartisan legislation that I introduced last month with Energy and Commerce Chair Guthrie. There is no question that we are once again in the midst of a new space age. It is opening a variety of new frontiers, curiosity, and innovation, including the use of satellites in space to provide broadband and other communications services. As the demand for satellite services increases, so does the need to protect these communications networks from untrusted actors and equipment. We can't risk having our satellite networks face the same challenges we have seen in some of our other communications networks, which may be more challenging given the fact that satellites operate globally. It is, therefore, imperative that we ensure the satellite marketplace and its relevant supply chains are protected from threats by nontrusted actors. H.R. 2458 helps meet these objectives. This legislation will extend the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act framework to the licensing of both geostationary and nongeostationary orbit satellites as well as the authorization of U.S. Earth stations. Effectively, this legislation will prevent entities identified as national security risks from gaining a license or authorization to access the U.S. satellite market. This is especially relevant given that the combined satellite fleets of China and Russia have grown by about 70 percent in the last few years. By applying the Secure and Trusted framework to the satellite industry, we will take another crucial step toward protecting the public from untrusted entities and our foreign adversaries. The requirements in this legislation will not only benefit our Nation but will also help further the United States' ability to protect our allies, as they, too, rely on these global satellite networks for broadband and emergency services. I thank Chair Guthrie for working with me on this bipartisan bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this timely legislation to protect Americans from untrusted actors seeking to use our communications networks against us. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I have heard my Republican colleagues today admit that they were extending the tax cut for the rich and the large corporations. I have heard them say they are worried about the debt. Certainly, this resolution would also increase the debt. What I have not heard the majority admit is that they are cutting Medicaid to pay for all this. They will not admit that. This is the second time now the budget resolution passed the House, and the budget resolution came over from the Senate. They are going to vote today on instructing my committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, to cut $880 billion at least. Mr. Boyle, our ranking member, pointed out that the CBO got back to us and said that most, if not all, of that has to come from Medicaid cuts. My Republican colleagues should please admit that they are voting today on Medicaid cuts. Do not deny it. Do not try to put it aside. That is what this is all about. What does that mean? It means there is less money to the States, so they are going to cut back on nursing home care and on the money that goes to hospitals. Hospitals and nursing homes will close, or they will have such terrible quality of service or, in the case of the hospitals, will pass on those extra costs to other people who have insurance, and their insurance premiums go up. What about people with disabilities? Most of them are dependent on Medicaid. Their services will be eliminated or cut back, as well. Please, understand that a vote for this by the Republicans today is a vote to cut people's healthcare, to reduce their services, to kick people out of nursing homes, and to make hospitals unavailable.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the American Hungarian Foundation (AHF) in New Brunswick, New Jersey as it celebrates its 70th Anniversary this year. Since its incorporation in 1955, AHF has provided a cultural bridge between Hungary and the Hungarian American community through history, arts, and tradition. In 1989, AHF established the Hungarian Heritage Center. The Center hosts a rich curation of historical archives which fosters a space for meaningful lectures, cultural events, and workshops for all to enjoy. Over the past few decades, AHF has amassed one of the most significant collections of Hungarian American artifacts and records in North America. Each artifact is a catalyst for cultural discovery, and often a chance to highlight lesser-known Hungarian artists. For those with an affinity for art and culture like me, frequenting the heritage center is truly an incredible experience. Since its founding, the foundation's museum has welcomed over 80,000 visitors. There have been more than ninety different exhibition areas ranging from `Budapest in the 1900s' with a focus on looking into the past to `40 years of the Hungarian Festival' to commemorate culture and community. With these resources, local schools, organizations, and residents can develop a deeper understanding to the folk immigrant experience. After 70 years, the foundation has stayed true to their mission: to preserve Hungarian American stories for future generations through collection, conservation, and celebration. By working to digitize their archive, AHF guarantees the long-term preservation of American Hungarian historical records for generations to come. Here, people can honor their roots and learn the special story of American Hungarians. I commend AHF for serving as a research hub for scholars, universities, and local organizations, and their unwavering dedication to this meaningful cause. These efforts for historic preservation are admirable, as such stewardship has really made our community a better place. Mr. Speaker, once again, please join me in celebrating the American Hungarian Foundation as its supporters gather to celebrate its 70th Anniversary. They are truly deserving of this body's recognition.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 24, the fourth Republican resolution this Congress to dismantle energy conservation standards for appliances. This harmful resolution guts a Department of Energy efficiency rule for walk-in coolers and freezers, which will increase energy costs for businesses and consumers. Let me stress that again. If this rule is repealed, businesses and consumers will have increased energy costs. Since it is a Congressional Review Act resolution, it prevents the Department of Energy from ever issuing substantially similar standards in the future. Now, let me say, Mr. Speaker, at a time when Americans are struggling to make ends meet and facing the reality that Republicans may soon strip them and their families of healthcare, it is shocking that House Republicans are spending another day here on the floor focusing on repealing commonsense energy efficiency standards that save businesses and consumers money. This whole Congress has been a revolving door of resolution after resolution attacking conservation standards for different appliances. In fact, I should point out, we were on the floor just yesterday afternoon debating an effort to repeal another energy efficiency standard for commercial refrigerators and freezers. Instead of investigating--which is what they should be doing--the shocking and unprecedented breach of security and leaked military strikes from top Trump national security officials, which threatens our national security and our defense, we are here once again wasting valuable floor time debating energy efficiency standards. Maybe we should be taking action to protect Social Security from the Trump administration's funding cuts that could stop seniors from getting the benefits they earned through a lifetime of work. My constituents are already telling me they can't even call the Social Security office anymore. There is nobody there. They have cut the staff. They have cut the phone service. They can't even access the Social Security Administration anymore under the Trump administration. Maybe, Mr. Speaker, we should be reversing the Trump administration's actions to close the Department of Education and rip away funding from students, teachers, and schools. House Republicans are not likely to take on any of these actions that I suggested because they refuse to take on President Trump, even when he is breaking the law. It is clear that my Republican colleagues do not have their priorities in order. In fact, it seems to me their only priority is securing giant tax breaks for their billionaire buddies at the expense of American families and businesses. H.J. Res. 24 fits right into the Republican agenda of raising costs on hardworking Americans. Now, I would be remiss if I didn't point out the irony of this resolution. President Trump and Republicans ran on a promise to cut energy costs in half in his first year. Yet, here we are once again wasting precious time on the floor with a resolution that would raise energy costs for American businesses by wasting more energy. The energy efficiency standards under threat today for walk-in refrigerators and freezers will save American businesses up to $6.5 billion on utility bills over the next 30 years. These businesses include restaurants, convenience stores, and supermarkets across the country, and Republicans' anti-efficiency agenda will rob them of these cost savings. This is especially concerning at a time when we are hearing more and more stories about the damaging impacts of Trump's extreme tariffs, the rising cost of groceries, and the chaos and uncertainty that Trump is bringing every day to our economy. People are concerned about a Trump recession. That is what they are worried about today. That is what I hear when I go home. However, Republicans don't care about everyday Americans. They only care about doing the bidding of their billionaire corporate buddies at the expense of consumers and working families. Energy efficiency standards for appliances are designed to reduce energy use and climate pollution while also saving consumers and businesses money. Reducing an appliance's energy use also helps decrease stress on the electric grid. The resolution today is proof that my Republican colleagues' concern about grid stress--we had a hearing yesterday on that--and the increased load growth from data centers and American manufacturing are hollow and merely lip service. If Republicans truly cared about reducing stress on the electric grid, which is what they said yesterday at the hearing, they would stop dismantling energy efficiency standards designed to ease strain on future electric grid capacity. The true intent of this anti-efficiency resolution is not to help American businesses, but to line the pockets of their billionaire cronies and oil and gas friends. You guessed it, less efficient appliances means more profits for Big Oil and Gas. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Mullin), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), the ranking member of our Subcommittee on Energy.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing. Mr. Speaker, again, I rise in opposition to this resolution. Republicans make it sound like no one supports these standards, like they came out of nowhere and are an incredible government overreach. Of course, that is not true. Manufacturers support these efficiency standards. They provide clarity to industry. Manufacturers support the Department of Energy's rule because it provides clear guidance. If this rule is revoked, it creates regulatory uncertainty for manufacturers. The Department of Energy worked with manufacturers and advocates to ensure that these standards were feasible and justifiable. Unlike my colleagues across the aisle, the Department of Energy went through a prolonged process that engaged extensively with experts and worked to address their concerns. In fact, in recently submitted comments regarding the delay and the effective date for the standards, the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, a trade group that represents many of the manufacturers of these walk-in coolers, asserted strong support for proceeding with the standards as published in the Federal Register in December of last year. Lennox, a manufacturer of these walk-in systems, also submitted comments asserting support for proceeding with the standards as finalized. Lennox's comments also state: ``The final rule provides regulatory predictability regarding . . . energy conservation standards through 2031, providing a stable planning horizon.'' These comments are an important reminder that regulatory uncertainty from killing a standard, as the resolution before us today would do, costs businesses money. My colleagues across the aisle are more concerned with slashing any and every regulation they can find than with engaging in thoughtful and well-reasoned policy. This is politics at its worst, so I oppose this resolution. I also want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that my colleagues across the aisle keep talking about the costs of these standards to businesses, but I think it is important to get the facts straight. The new standards for walk-in coolers don't go into effect until 2027 for some products and 2028 for others. This means that if a business needs to replace these units anytime in the next couple of years, the products on the market now will be available to them. They don't have to get rid of the refrigerators they want. It is when they buy a new one. Whenever a business does need to replace the units, the products on the market will save them money. Specifically, these standards will save, as I mentioned, $6.5 billion in utility bills over 30 years. DOE estimates the payback period for these products is 3 years for refrigerator systems and 1.6 years for non-display doors. After those 3 years or, in the other case, 1.6 years, you are actually saving money every year. This means that after the first couple of years of ownership, these products start saving businesses a lot of money. This is real money. The Republicans talked about upfront costs. There may be some upfront costs, but over the period of time after those first couple of years, businesses are saving money. If Republicans are actually concerned about the small businesses in their communities, and if they are really concerned about costs being passed down to consumers, they would be standing up to the Trump administration and pushing back on tariffs. I am mentioning the tariffs today because the President, again, is starting to impose new tariffs. The last one was on automobiles. Large appliances such as refrigerators and washing machines rely, in part, on steel, making them extremely vulnerable to price increases from Trump's tariffs on steel, which are already in place. In the aftermath of steel and aluminum tariffs during Trump's first term, talking about the first term now, not the new one, major appliances showed price increases of between 5 and 10 percent. If my colleagues are concerned about the prices, they should be speaking out against what Trump is doing with these tariffs, not to mention the fact that the tariffs impose additional costs on consumers. Again, the uncertainty--the back and forth, put the tariffs on, take the tariffs off--is the reason that the stock market has been so volatile. People don't know with certainty what is going on with this administration. We are facing policies from the Trump administration that will increase everyday costs for households and businesses. Instead of trying to fight these increases, Republicans are more concerned with the upfront costs of walk-in coolers in 2028. I don't know what to say except that it is ridiculous. Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to 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, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. Week after week, I find myself here on the House floor, not debating things that are important to American families like protecting Medicaid or Social Security. Instead, we are debating standards for appliances. We have got refrigerators, air conditioners, and washing machines. This one isn't even something for use in a household. It is for commercial use. Again, House Republicans have chosen this time to ignore the pressing issues that Americans face and to instead march forward with their anti-efficiency agenda that drives up energy costs for American businesses and consumers. Democrats, on the other hand, are here to defend these commonsense energy efficiency standards and the very real savings they provide Americans. My home State of New Jersey was recently recognized among the top 10 States doing the most to advance energy efficiency, and I am pleased by my State's progress and want to make sure that Americans in all States benefit from similar efforts. Today's resolution, like all the other anti-efficiency resolutions that we have seen recently from the Republicans, did not go through any regular order. I want to stress why that is important. We never received any expert witness testimony on the impact of the standards or on the impact of repealing them. Instead, we are left to trust a Republican Party that is decidedly antiscience on the impacts of energy conservation standards. Let me stress this. What do I mean by regular order? Well, a bill is introduced. We have a subcommittee hearing in Energy and Commerce. In this case, the Department of Energy would come in and show how there are so many savings and why these standards lead to more efficiency. Then if the Republicans disagree, they can bring in experts that say the opposite. Of course, they don't want to do that because there aren't any experts that are going to say the opposite. They are just making this stuff up. Today's resolution, H.J. Res. 75, targets a recently finalized energy conservation standard for commercial refrigerators and freezers. Again, this isn't even for households. These are commercial refrigerators and freezers. These are products that are primarily used in grocery stores and convenience stores. Now we are debating whether or not the refrigerators in grocery stores should be energy efficient. I can't imagine more of a waste of floor time. When there are so many other issues that have to be discussed here today, we are doing this instead. The energy conservation standard targeted by this resolution would save businesses $4.6 billion over 30 years. Republicans have already taken away options for households to save money on their energy bills. Now they are going to strip businesses of these options as well. Repealing these standards would also raise costs and increase demand on the electricity grid. It is also not necessary because two-thirds of the products on the market today already meet these new efficiency standards. The payback period for any up-front costs of the more efficient products is about 3.5 years, while the products themselves last for 12 to 14 years. To argue that there is some kind of major regulatory burden or imposition on small businesses is just false. At a time of increased energy costs, increased grid strain, tariffs, and rising household costs under the Trump administration, we have to ask ourselves: Why do Republicans keep targeting policies that save money and save energy? They ran on the fact they were going to make things more affordable. Things are less affordable, and this will also make them less affordable. The only answer I can come up with is that when more energy is consumed or more energy is wasted, the oil and gas industry benefits. We know that the Washington Republicans continue to do the bidding of Big Oil and Gas. This resolution proves that Republicans are completely out of touch. Americans are struggling to make ends meet and are facing the reality that Republicans may soon strip them and their families not only of healthcare but repealing commonsense energy efficiency standards. Republicans also continue to look the other way as the Trump administration and Elon Musk undermine Social Security, threatening the benefits seniors have earned over a lifetime of hard work. Instead, they are focusing on refrigerators. Mr. Speaker, I don't know what else to say. I oppose this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to disrespect the sponsor of the resolution. He is on our committee. He is from the great State of Texas. What I hear is that he said: ``The evidence is clear.'' The evidence is not clear that these standards for commercial refrigerators are actually worse or a burden on small businesses. He hasn't cited anything that says that. He says that we should have change. That is what we voted for in November but not change that is going to hurt people or that is actually going to cost them more money. The bottom line is and the way this works is that the Department of Energy, under the existing law, is required to look at appliances and see whether or not they can be made more efficient and more cost- effective. That is what they did. They found that these standards were more efficient and cost-effective. Mr. Speaker, I haven't heard from the other side or any experts they cite to, other than their own opinion, to say the experts at the Department of Energy made a mistake. The experts at DOE who established these energy conservation standards were not politicians. DOE's process involves extensive stakeholder engagement, working with manufacturers and advocates to establish standards that are economically feasible, economically justifiable, and result in significant energy savings. This is a highly technical process. My colleagues across the aisle are making claims that this resolution before us today reduces costs and cuts red tape, and nothing could be further from the truth. We know there are manufacturers out there that support these standards and support having consistent guidance from DOE, as opposed to ever- shifting goalposts. Again, even if my colleagues on the other side come up with testimony or documents today that say that the Department of Energy was wrong, it would have been helpful to hold a hearing where their experts could come in and challenge the Department of Energy experts who put these standards together. Then we as members of the Committee could look at this and say who is right. They didn't do that. There was no regular order. There was no hearing. We had no benefit of a hearing on this resolution and the implications of revoking these standards. Mr. Speaker, this resolution isn't some well-reasoned proposal that has been properly vetted. It is a way to kill floor time. It is a way to target any and every regulation without any assessment of the consequences. I spent last week in my district meeting with constituents and holding a townhall. What I heard was that people were really concerned that the economy was heading into a recession because of President Trump's policies. They were concerned about costs to Medicaid and threats from Elon Musk to dismantle Social Security. Nobody mentioned commercial refrigeration requirements to me. I didn't hear anybody mention that. Republicans have really lost the plot, and I think Americans are taking notice. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to clarify some of the numbers that we are hearing from the Republicans. The chairman keeps mentioning a 94-year payback period for one of the products impacted by the rule, and he claims that this number comes from the DOE's rule. However, this is really a total misunderstanding of what happened. There may have been some analysis of this 95 years, but the DOE did not propose or adopt efficiency levels like that for the product mentioned. In fact, for that particular product that he is mentioning, the final rule made no changes to the existing standards. Now, I am not surprised that my friends across the aisle are throwing this number around, this 94 years, even though it has nothing to do with the final rule. They are not interested in a good-faith debate on the merits of these standards. If they were, as I said, we would have had hearings on this resolution so Members could better understand the details. The truth is that the actual payback period for this particular class of products, since there were no updates to the standards, is zero because it wasn't changed. The average payback period for the other products impacted by the rule, as I mentioned earlier, is close to 3.5 years. So this 94-year analysis was not in the rule, it was not made for the product, and it wasn't proposed for the product. For everything else, it is about 3.5 years. What this means is that after the 3.5 years, every year you are saving money. So all this just goes to show that my colleagues across the aisle pretend to be experts in energy conservation standards, but they can't even read the final rule correctly. Again, this wouldn't be the case if we had a hearing and went through regular order, but that didn't happen. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I rise in opposition to this resolution. We have heard a lot today about upfront costs to businesses, the rising cost of doing business, and the slim margins under which businesses operate. First, let me say that no one is forcing businesses to replace their commercial refrigerator equipment. These standards don't go into effect until 2029, and even then it is only when existing products need to be replaced that businesses will be looking at the upfront cost of any new products. Many of these products already exist on the market, the ones with the new standards, so it is not like businesses will be faced with totally new and unfamiliar options. Sixty percent of the products on the market right now meet these efficiency standards. As I have already said, the payback period for these products is about 3 years. After that, businesses will be saving money every month on their energy bills. If Republicans were serious about reducing costs for businesses and for Americans, they would push back on Trump's tariffs. That is what they should be pushing back on is tariffs. They are the ones who are causing all the unrest, the possibility of recession, and raising costs. All of our economic indicators show that we are heading toward a recession and that consumer confidence is extremely low. Why aren't Republicans fighting policies like the tariffs that impact the cost of things now instead of the cost of commercial refrigerators in 2029? I don't know what else to say. Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to 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, I rise today to join Trinity African Methodist Episcopal Church, the historic Church in Long Branch, New Jersey as it celebrates its 145th Anniversary this year. Since its incorporation in 1880, Trinity AME has provided a center for spiritual and community development to Monmouth County residents. In 1995, the history of Trinity AME became nationally recognized when the church was added to the National Register of Historic Places. In 2015, Reverend Dr. Devereaux, Esq. made history as the first female pastor of Trinity AME. This congregation contributes generous efforts of outreach for our local community. Every week they show up for those in need with their Weekly Food Distribution program. Annually, they distribute turkeys to over 100 families and conduct a toy drive, which reached over 1,500 children last year. In addition to these efforts, existing programs to support seniors and women in leadership reflect their commitment to empower others at every stage in life. They have truly lifted and liberated their community. Under the leadership of Rev. Dr. Devereaux, the church has undergone several community and refurbishment projects. Thanks to their vibrant ministry, congregants have access to a new fellowship hall, an updated Handicap ramp, membership to the youth choir, and a chance to learn from the Annual Remarkable Women in Community Service Awards Program recipients. Rev. Dr. Devereaux has also made efforts to collaborate with the local mayor, myself, and other faith leaders with initiatives such as Police & Youth Unity and the creation of the Long Branch Think Tank, committed to collaborating on issues at a local level. I am pleased to join the Trinity AME Family in coining together to mark the many glorious years of faith. Mr. Speaker, once again, please join me in celebrating Trinity African Methodist Episcopal Church as its members and supporters celebrate its 145th Anniversary. Trinity AME is truly deserving of this body's recognition.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, one of my colleagues on the Republican side asked earlier what Democrats are fighting for. Mr. Speaker, I am a proud Democrat fighting for America's healthcare, and I stress that this partisan Republican bill cuts American healthcare. This bill slashes funding for our community health centers, which provide care for millions of people, as well as our Nation's teaching hospitals, which train the next generation of doctors. It fails to reverse the Medicare physician pay cut, which endangers access for seniors, especially for those in rural and underserved communities. It also does nothing to stop Republicans' planned catastrophic cuts to Medicaid. Rather than voting on this partisan bill, we should be working together to lower costs and expand access to healthcare like the bipartisan agreement we had in December. That bill provided long-term certainty and funding increases for our community health centers and our teaching health centers. It lowered drug costs by taking on unfair PBM practices and addressed the Medicare cuts to physicians. Unfortunately, Republicans walked away from this agreement because Elon Musk opposed it.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I say it is good to see the gentlewoman from Utah in the chair. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 61, another attempt by House Republicans to ensure workers and communities continue to breathe toxic air pollution. This harmful Republican resolution puts the profits of billionaire corporate polluters over the health and welfare of the American people, and it makes a mockery of Republican promises to make America healthy again. I really believe, Madam Speaker, that this resolution is a distraction. I listened to the President's speech last night, and it is clear to me that neither he, nor the Republicans in the House, have found a way to lower grocery prices. They haven't found a way to lower energy prices. They haven't found a way to fund the government. Now they are on the cusp of stripping millions of people of their healthcare, all so they can shower these giant tax breaks on billionaires and big corporations. Using the Congressional Review Act hatchet to carve away critical protections from an agency that has already been decimated by DOGE's indiscriminate firing demonstrates how unserious Republicans are about keeping Americans safe from dangerous pollution, and another week of nonsense CRAs, in my opinion, shows how unserious House Republicans are about governing. Madam Speaker, I will directly address what the gentleman said. Under the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency is required to reduce hazardous air pollutants from large industrial sources like rubber tire manufacturers to protect Americans across the country from harm. They have to do this. They are obligated in the EPA to look at the things that might be hazardous under the Clean Air Act. To be clear, hazardous air pollutants are air toxics that are known or suspected of causing cancer and other serious health impacts like heart attacks, worsening asthma, reproductive and birth defects, as well as severe impacts on the environment. EPA is obligated under the law to set pollution limits based on what is already being achieved at similar facilities using readily available technologies. Basically, under the Clean Air Act, the EPA has to say what is harming the public and is there a technology out there in this industry that is innovative and does not achieve that level of harm? The bottom line is, there are industries that are already retrofitting and meeting these standards, otherwise, the EPA couldn't establish the standards. I have had this discussion before with my colleague. There are good actors and bad actors. The good actors want innovation, want to retrofit their manufacturing companies to do the right thing and cause less pollution. By repealing this, all the Republicans are doing is basically helping the bad actors, in this case, mostly foreign manufacturers or foreign-based companies that just want to save money by not eliminating this harm. I don't want to get into the specifics of whether the rubber tire manufacturers will address this, but it is cost-effective, protects public health, and ensures the industry stays competitive. It is long overdue. In fact, the Court ruling required the EPA to finalize this rule to close the loophole that allowed rubber processing facilities to spew unlimited hazardous air pollution. When fully implemented, the rule will cut these harmful emissions by 171 tons per year. That includes over 100 tons of toxic organic chemicals and over 60 tons of particulate matter that will be removed from the air of the workers and the communities near the impacted facilities. However, H.J. Res. 61 will throw all of these benefits away. This resolution would hamstring EPA's ability to fulfill its obligation to protect the health and welfare of Americans from air pollution. Unfortunately for everyone with lungs, Republicans can't leave commonsense environmental protections in place. As the House Republicans move to strip healthcare from millions of Americans to fund tax breaks for billionaires and big corporations, they also want to make people sicker by rolling back regulations meant to keep people safe from cancer-causing air pollution. It is outrageous. I don't know what else to say. Contrary to what my colleagues on the other side claim, EPA's rule was developed in close consultation with industry, using industry data. It also proposes emissions reduction technology that the best performers in the industry are already using. Overall, it is estimated to cost less than a fraction of 1 percent of the company's annual revenue and facilities have years to comply. This should be a no-brainer, a win-win scenario of reducing cancer- causing emissions and promoting innovative technologies to modernize industry and provide regulatory certainty. I really don't understand why House Republicans are so fixated on trying to repeal and block the work of the EPA. Madam Speaker, for the health of workers and the surrounding communities and for the sake of clean air, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution that puts the whims of billionaires and corporate polluters before the American people. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), who is the ranking member of our Environment Subcommittee.