Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

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. I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 42. This resolution is a deliberate distraction from the fact that Republicans cannot govern and have no ideas for lowering costs or helping everyday Americans. Rather than debating things that actually impact our constituents, it appears as if House Republicans opened the Federal Register, searched for what fell within the Congressional Review Act window, and then randomly selected an obscure, noncontroversial rule, one that is, by the way, supported by American manufacturers. That is why we are here today. We are not here to talk about Republican cuts to Medicare or DOGE's raid of the Federal Government or Trump's tariffs that are tanking the stock market and threatening a recession. We are not even here to consider a government funding bill when government funding runs out in less than 10 days. No, we are here to talk about appliance labels. Let me talk about them. Let me start with the fact that the recently finalized Department of Energy rule that Republicans want to strike from the books isn't even an efficiency standard. It is a set of technical updates to certification requirements and labels for select products that fall under the appliance standards program. Now, you might say: Congressman Pallone, what does this mean? It means that Republicans are simply out of ideas. The Republican majority seems to be under the impression that by removing this rule from the books, they are somehow alleviating a major burden for manufacturers and consumers. The problem is that manufacturers have been submitting certification information to the Department of Energy for decades, and none of this is new. This Republican resolution will only create regulatory confusion for American manufacturers because they will still have to make products that meet efficiency standards, but they won't have updated guidance from the Department of Energy on how to prove that they are compliant. As a result, these companies will likely have to waste valuable time and resources on communications with lawyers and the Department of Energy as everyone tries to figure out how to move forward. My colleagues on the other side are suggesting they are cutting red tape, but it seems to me they are creating more red tape with this resolution. Absolutely no one opposed the Department of Energy's final rule on this topic, no one. In fact, manufacturers are on record saying that consistent and clear certification guidance is helpful and necessary to them. Today's resolution is the opposite of consistent and clear. They are asking for this, the manufacturers are, and you are saying no. You don't even know what you are talking about, frankly. I refuse to believe that--I can't believe that they think on the other side that this is a pressing issue facing Americans. In case they have forgotten, Republicans are right now moving forward with a budget that includes devastating cuts to Medicaid, all so they can give tax breaks to their billionaire buddies. Every day for the last 6 weeks, we have heard horror stories of mass firings across the Federal Government, funding freezes, and Elon Musk and his minions having access to every American's private, personal financial and healthcare information. This is what I hear about when I go home. The list goes on. Now, there is a looming government shutdown next week. Rather than tackling these real issues that are impacting the lives of everyday Americans, Republicans are wasting time with this resolution. As far as I can tell, the only beneficiaries of today's resolution are foreign manufacturers. If Republicans create chaos and uncertainty by revoking this Department of Energy rule, they will create an opportunity for cheap foreign imports, with misleading claims about performance, to flood our appliance market. That would hurt consumers and American manufacturers alike. The Republicans have made their choice. They have sided once again with the foreign manufacturers. They have chosen to push through a resolution that doesn't reduce regulatory burdens, doesn't lower costs, and doesn't improve consumer choices. The only thing it does is create chaos and confusion, from what I can see. For all these reasons, I oppose the resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to clarify some of the comments that we are hearing today from the other side. My colleagues across the aisle said at one point it costs the Department of Energy a little over $200,000 to implement this rule, and they have described what sounds like onerous associated paperwork and a big administrative burden. Now, understand, that is $200,000 total, across all manufacturers throughout the country. I mean, we are not talking about a huge amount of money here. The thing is that the Department of Energy already has certification requirements for manufacturers, and this resolution doesn't remove those requirements. It just includes technical updates that bring those requirements up to date. The manufacturers, as I said before, have been submitting this information to the Department of Energy for decades. There is nothing new here. In fact, if this resolution passes, the Department of Energy and manufacturers will be left with a new administrative burden to navigate. They will have to figure out how to use old testing requirements for new standards even when technically these things don't go together. The manufacturers, who, as I said, support the rule, will have to work with their lawyers to figure out if they are compliant with standards and will have to identify ways to prove they are compliant. The Department of Energy will have to wade through confused outreach from stakeholders. This is what happens if the resolution passes. The rule is not a problem for any of the manufacturers, the underlying rule they are trying to repeal. Since the Department of Energy will be barred from issuing substantially similar rules, they won't be able to officially update these requirements ever again. I know this sounds very bureaucratic. I don't know where they came up with this resolution, so I have to explain how they are creating more bureaucracy for the manufacturers who actually like the underlying rule they want to repeal. In what world is removing clear and consistent guidance, creating regulatory uncertainty, and reducing costs and administrative burdens a bad thing? It doesn't make any sense. Why are we creating a scenario where manufacturers must report outdated information and risk penalties for noncompliance? If my colleagues across the aisle are worried about administrative burdens at the Department of Energy, perhaps they should speak up for the employees that Musk and President Trump have fired at the Department of Energy, or maybe they should speak out against all the administrative confusion of turning funding on and off again--you know, freeze one day, thaw the next day, freeze again. I just think that this resolution is a distraction, Mr. Speaker. It doesn't accomplish what my colleagues across the aisle want to accomplish. In fact, it creates so much confusion that it accomplishes exactly what we should be trying to avoid, and that is increased costs and delays. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, as I said before, but I think it bears repeating, Republicans have cited about $200,000 in costs for manufacturers associated with this rule that they seek to repeal, but understand that is the total cost of the rule for all affected manufacturers combined. If you break that down, the Department of Energy estimates the costs per manufacturer at about $2,555. That is a ridiculous amount to even discuss at this point. We actually heard from one manufacturer that they have already redone their certification reports to comply with the rule. If this resolution is enacted, they will have to redo their certifications to the old, out-of-date rules, and that will cost them more money. The details of these certification rules are obscure, but they are important for establishing a level playing field and ensuring the products meet U.S. standards, whether they are imported or made here in the U.S. Repealing the certification would increase costs for the manufacturers that play by the rules and can make it harder on the DOE to enforce standards against those that don't. The good guys all like the rule and don't want it repealed. Only the bad foreign manufacturers might like to get rid of the rules. I just find it, Mr. Speaker, deeply ironic that my Republican colleagues are hell-bent on attacking anything even remotely related to energy efficiency standards or bringing up things like administrative burdens on the Department of Energy during a time when they have been praising Elon Musk's destructive government efficiency efforts through DOGE. I guess my Republican colleagues only care about efficiency improvements, if we can even call it that, when it means indiscriminately slashing our Federal workforce. If Republicans cared about government efficiency, then they wouldn't be rescinding rules that provide clear and consistent guidance for American companies. They wouldn't look the other way when the DOE workforce is slashed without evaluating the impacts. I don't think Republicans care about reducing costs for American families or helping government work better for our families and industries. Mr. Speaker, just look at their budget that they adopted last week. The only thing they care about is cozying up to greedy billionaires. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to vote against this resolution, it absolutely makes no sense for anyone, 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Dexter.)

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Sykes).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I can't stress enough that the EPA's rule, which the Republicans are trying to repeal, would remove 171 tons of hazardous air pollution per year, including some of the worst air toxins. This critical rule is, first and foremost, a public health rule, seeking to help both the workers and the communities surrounding these facilities. We heard a very impassioned speech by the gentlewoman from Akron, Ohio, who talked about how much, in Akron, they depend on this industry and want it to thrive. They have suffered over the years, not only the people who work in the factory but the people of Akron and the surrounding areas, from hazardous air pollution. Essentially, that is why she is opposed to the repeal of this rule that helps people breathe. Again, this is not only something that the EPA is required to do under the Clean Air Act, which is to look at whether or not particular industries are causing health problems for the American public, but in addition to that, the EPA was compelled to regulate these specific air toxins by a 2020 court case that required the agency to close loopholes for unregulated hazardous air pollution that they are legally required to manage under the Clean Air Act. My colleagues on the other side suggested that somehow this is a Biden administration midnight rule and that it was rushed at the last minute. The reality is that the EPA has been regulating the process involved in tire manufacturing since 2002. That is over 20 years ago. Rubber processing, which is really what we are talking about here, had gotten a free pass, as I said, for over 20 years. This rule that the EPA promulgated seeks to ensure that the workers and communities like those in Akron near these facilities aren't put in harm's way any longer. I think House Republicans are really minimizing these critical public health protections decades in the making by using the CRA to repeal this title and block the EPA from further action. Instead of funding our government, lowering prices, or finding ways to help everyday Americans, House Republicans are wasting Congress' time by rescinding a long-awaited rule that will reduce 171 tons of harmful, cancer-causing emissions a year. While this rule was finalized in November, the 11 rubber processing facilities have 3 years to make the necessary technology upgrades. Any doomsday claims about the EPA rule simply ignore the very real experiences of people who have been forced to breathe toxic pollution while coming into work or walking out of their front door for far too long. Mr. Speaker, for all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose 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 strong opposition to H.J. Res. 20, the second Republican resolution in just 2 days that will raise energy prices on Americans. This harmful resolution guts a Department of Energy efficiency rule on gas instantaneous, or tankless, water heaters. Energy efficiency standards, like the one Republicans are going after today, are a popular, commonsense tool to save Americans money on their energy bills. President Trump ran on a promise to cut energy costs in half his first year, but now Republicans and their billionaire friends are only making themselves richer while sending Americans' utility bills through the roof. Unfortunately, I guess it should not come as a surprise considering that earlier this week Republicans moved forward with a budget that includes devastating cuts to Medicaid and food assistance for our kids, our seniors, and our veterans, all so Republicans can give tax breaks to their millionaire buddies. Let me start off by dispelling a few myths about the water heater standards targeted by this resolution. First, these standards do not ban water heaters. Regardless of what the rightwing media and fossil fuel groups say, DOE cannot ban appliances based on their fuel type. Second, these standards do not remove consumer choice. American families can still walk into a store, pick out a gas tankless water heater, and have it installed in their homes. In fact, these standards preserve consumer choice. They ensure that all products on the market meet a certain level of energy efficiency so consumers can shop with confidence. The standards impact less than 10 percent of the gas water heater market, and right now, 60 percent of all models on the market already meet these standards. This isn't an effort to pull products from shelves. Instead, it is an effort to raise the quality of the products on the shelves. That is what we are trying to do with the standards. Third, and most importantly, these standards do not increase costs for consumers. They reduce total costs over the life of a water heater and save $3.31 billion for consumers over 30 years. They are also projected to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 32 million metric tons over 30 years. To summarize, these standards allow gas tankless water heaters to stay on the market, they preserve consumer choice, they lower costs for Americans, and they reduce emissions. So it is no wonder that these efficiency standards are supported by consumer advocates and American manufacturers--I stress American manufacturers--who want to preserve the standards. The Republican resolution before us today completely nullifies these energy efficiency standards. It steals, essentially, $3.1 billion in savings from Americans. Because it is a Congressional Review Act resolution, it goes one step further and prevents DOE from issuing substantially similar standards in the future. Now, why are Republicans pursuing something that is bad for consumers? It is because it is good for the gas industry. The American Gas Association and foreign manufacturers are on the side of this Republican resolution that will terminate the standards. Why? It is because inefficient appliances mean that gas companies sell more gas. Now, Mr. Speaker, if you look at where the manufacturers stand on this, three out of four major water heater manufacturers are in favor of the standards and are opposed to this resolution. All three of the manufacturers that support the efficiency standards are American manufacturers, and they have factories in many Republican districts across the country. Foreign manufacturers, however, are lobbying against these standards because they don't want to spend a comparatively small amount of money to retool their factories to produce more efficient water heaters. I understand that companies are reluctant to spend money, but what I don't understand is why Republicans are willing to rob Americans of $3.1 billion in savings, all to help multibillion dollar foreign companies save a few million dollars. Republicans have made their choice. They have basically sided--and I guess that is not surprising--with their oil and gas friends, and they have sided also in this case with foreign manufacturers. So, Mr. Speaker, for the sake of American families, American manufacturers, and our climate, I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution, and 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) who is the ranking member of our subcommittee.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I listened to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer), who I greatly respect. When he talks about prices, since President Trump was inaugurated, prices have gone through the roof. Grocery prices, egg prices, meat prices, fish prices, and poultry prices are all up even more than ever. Electricity costs are way up, along with housing prices. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman mentions American jobs. As I mentioned earlier, I think it needs to be reiterated that American manufacturers support these water heater standards. Three out of four major water heater manufacturers are against today's resolution, and all three are American companies. The manufacturers that are in favor of this resolution and against the standards are foreign manufacturers. If this resolution is successful, Republicans are giving foreign manufacturers an advantage over domestic manufacturers. Foreign manufacturers are against the standards because they don't want to spend a bit of money on retrofits to their factories in order to switch their production over to products that meet the standards. Republicans have decided that it is more important to save foreign manufacturers some money than it is to save $3.1 billion for American families. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have decided to listen to the lobbying efforts of foreign companies over domestic companies, many of whom have factories in Republican districts. Madam Speaker, it just doesn't make any sense to me. The Trump administration is all about America first, but the words are meaningless when it comes down to it. Republicans aren't here to stand up for American families and American companies. It is very much the opposite. My colleagues are here to attack regulations and help out their Big Oil and Gas friends. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand with American companies and families and to vote against this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I respect the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jack) for looking out for his district, but this plant that he is talking about in his district is the Japanese company. This is the one non-American manufacturing company. All of the other companies that manufacture these products are American, and they are the ones that support these energy efficiencies because they have made the investments and created more jobs when they retrofitted their companies for this product. Madam Speaker, this company is a multibillion-dollar Japanese company in Georgia. It is estimated that it would cost them about $10 million to retrofit their plant so that they could produce more efficient tanks, and they don't want to do it. They don't want to make that investment, which would create more jobs. Madam Speaker, I understand where my friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jack), is coming from, but we have to look at this as the total picture. Most of these tanks are manufactured in the United States by American companies, and they are in a lot of the red States. They are in Tennessee, for example. They are saying: This is fine. We want the more efficient standards. We want to save Americans money. We are the good actors, not the bad actors. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. McClellan), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I will call out some of the problems that I see on the Republican side in terms of their arguments that we have heard this morning. Over the last 2 years, Republicans have claimed that they care about energy costs. On the campaign trail, they repeatedly promised to lower costs and lower inflation, but, again, none of their actions line up with their promises. If you are paying attention to energy load growth in this country, you know that, in addition to increasing generation, we have to incorporate ways of reducing energy demand. Energy conservation standards are one of the tools that help lower costs and help reduce demand. The previous administration's efficiency standards are estimated to save consumers $1 trillion over 30 years. That is a trillion dollars. The water heater standards alone would save $3.1 billion--that is, if Republicans don't kill the standards right here today, which is what they are doing. Republicans don't want Americans to realize those savings. They want Americans to be stuck with older, energy-guzzling appliances that cost more money every time you turn them on. I think that is ridiculous and so should everyone else in this Chamber. Republicans claim they are concerned about the higher upfront costs of these appliances, but 2\1/2\ years ago, when we voted on the Inflation Reduction Act, which contained $9 billion in rebates and other investments in lowering the costs of energy-efficient appliances, Republicans all voted no. Madam Speaker, let's review. They don't want to make positive economic investments because they are concerned about the upfront costs, but then they also refuse to take action to lower those costs. If you brought that mentality to the private sector, you would be fired in a heartbeat, but that is the orthodoxy in today's Trump-Musk Republican Party. Lowering energy costs for consumers via efficiency gains used to be a bipartisan issue. We made real progress on this in 1992 and again in 2005, but somewhere along the way, Republicans decided to become the party of higher energy costs rather than the ones fighting for the American homeowner. That is a real shame. For that reason, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 35, a resolution that will drive up energy prices in the United States. It is a radical measure that will gut one of the Inflation Reduction Act's most critical programs: the Methane Emissions Reduction Program. With this resolution, Republicans are doubling down on their commitment to lining the pockets of their special interest corporate polluter friends at Americans' expense. Of course, we shouldn't be surprised that the House Republicans continue to prioritize billionaires and big corporations over everyday Americans. Just last night, Republicans moved forward with a budget that includes devastating, life-altering cuts to Medicaid and food assistance for our kids, our seniors, and our veterans, all so Republicans can give tax breaks to their billionaire buddies. Mr. Speaker, H.J. Res. 35 is just another giveaway that saddles Americans with higher energy bills, plain and simple, all to help Republicans' corporate polluter friends. What is more, repealing the Environmental Protection Agency's methane polluter fee slashes revenue for the government, meaning this bill will cost American taxpayers a whopping $7.2 billion. This is really shameful and a massive waste of money and resources because the reality is that, without the methane polluter fee, it is cheaper for the oil and gas industry to waste valuable methane rather than install or upgrade equipment to control that pollution. Currently, oil and gas companies waste enough natural gas from leaks, venting, and flaring to meet the energy demand of 14 million households every year. In other words, the oil and gas industry is throwing $2 billion worth of American energy down the drain every year, which Americans then have to pay for. That wasted methane has grave consequences for our environment and for public health. Methane is an extremely dangerous greenhouse gas that accounts for nearly a third of today's global warming and is a key contributor to smog. That is why key pollution control programs, such as the Methane Emissions Reduction Program, are so pivotal. The program includes a suite of incentives to drive down excess methane pollution, including $1.5 billion to help industry reduce methane emissions. Mr. Speaker, at the heart of this program is the methane polluter fee, which is targeted by the resolution before us today. This fee is meant to correct the market failure that makes it cheaper for operators to waste methane rather than capture and sell it. It ensures that polluters pay for their own wasted energy and the harm that it causes, not American consumers. It is not a tax. It is not at all. Unlike a tax, the methane polluter fee only applies to wasted methane above specific thresholds. These achievable thresholds are based on the oil and gas industry's own climate commitments and methane reduction targets. I have to stress that we worked with the industry when we were putting this together as part of the Inflation Reduction Act. EPA then applies a fee for wasted methane that exceeds these thresholds, and the best part is that companies could avoid the fee altogether by simply not wasting methane. Members should understand that they don't even pay the fee if they don't waste the methane, and we actually have a fund to help them upgrade their equipment so that they do not waste the methane and actually improve the situation. Many industry leaders are already meeting these thresholds that H.J. Res. 35 is trying to get rid of. Essentially, what my colleagues are seeing here is that the good actors are actually doing the right thing. They are not wasting methane anymore. Some of them have gotten help in order to upgrade their equipment, and then they don't pay any fee. It is the bad actors, the dirtiest oil and gas companies and producers, I should say, that this helps because they don't want to have to upgrade. They don't care. They just want to pollute. That is really the unfortunate part of all of this. Instead of encouraging the good actors, we encourage the bad actors. Mr. Speaker, addressing methane pollution can yield tremendous financial, climate, and public health benefits across the country. By incentivizing companies to capture lost revenue, the Methane Emissions Reduction Program and the methane polluter fee spur American innovation, strengthen businesses, and boost local economies. In fact, in the 10 years between 2014 and 2024, there was an 88 percent increase in manufacturing firms in the methane mitigation industry, so this mitigation spurs industry and growth in the economy. This sector employs thousands of Americans across the Nation with high-quality, good-paying jobs. Yet, in my opinion, this Republican resolution threatens those jobs and undermines American innovation. It also not only blocks the EPA from implementing the program's waste emissions charge, also known as the methane polluter fee, but also prevents the EPA from ever taking similar action in the future. Controlling methane pollution is a win-win for all Americans. It is unfortunate that my Republican colleagues are willing to throw all of this away in order to line the pockets of their corporate polluter friends, raising costs on hardworking Americans and the middle class in the process. Make no mistake: President Trump, Elon Musk, and congressional Republicans have no intention of doing anything to lower energy bills for Americans, and H.J. Res. 35 is just the latest proof of that. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask about this parliamentary inquiry. I yield myself such time if I can that there was a ruling on.

Mr. PALLONE. Well, the problem that I have, Mr. Speaker, unless I misunderstood--yes, it would be a parliamentary inquiry. Unless I misunderstood, Mr. Griffith was criticizing Mr. Tonko because he mentioned Elon Musk in the context of this debate. I was in the back room before this debate started and the President had his first Cabinet meeting and Elon Musk was in charge of the Cabinet meeting, talking about every topic in the Federal Government. As you know, he has used his position with DOGE to fire people at the EPA.

Mr. PALLONE. My question is, could you repeat that ruling and what it was about? Was it about Elon Musk?

Mr. PALLONE. All right. I don't have an--

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, I am a little confused. If the gentleman--if Mr. Griffith's comment was about the fact that we cannot bring up Elon Musk, who is essentially in charge of so many government programs, including everything at the EPA--again, I was in the back room. He was addressing the Cabinet. No one was saying anything. He was talking about every government policy. He has fired people at the EPA. He has commented on every government policy, including EPA policy. Again, I don't understand what the ruling was. I don't want to get into it again, but we certainly will continue to talk about Elon Musk and the negative impact of DOGE on the EPA, on methane, on everything else. That is what we are going to do. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Peters), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.