Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. McClellan), a member of our committee.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on each side.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As I mentioned, I am very much opposed to this resolution, and a big part of it is because I think it will cost the American taxpayers and the Federal Government more money. The CBO has a preliminary cost estimate for this resolution, and it is a whopper. The CBO estimates that this resolution would cost American taxpayers $7.2 billion over the next 10 years. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an email from CBO regarding this. H.J. Res. 35 would disapprove a final rule published by the Environmental Protection Agency in November 2024 that implemented a requirement in the 2022 reconciliation act (Public Law 117-169). The rule detailed how the agency would collect fees from certain energy-related facilities whose methane emissions exceed a threshold specified by law. Estimated revenue effects of H.J. Res. 35, a joint resolution providing for Congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``Waste Emissions Charge for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems: Procedures for Facilitating Compliance, Including Netting and Exemptions''. As posted by the House Committee on Rules on February 24, 2025. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By fiscal year, millions of dollars--

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, again, $7.2 billion to have dirtier air, a more unstable climate, and waste more gas. I mean, it is really unbelievable. Republicans have spent years getting mad about the deficit, but as we saw yesterday, the first chance they got, they plan to increase the deficit by trillions of dollars in their budget resolution to give tax breaks to billionaires. This bill is more of the same. They are encouraging oil and gas companies to let their products go to waste to the tune of $7.2 billion rather than put them to work for American families just to line the pockets of their oil and gas allies. I listened to the gentleman from Alaska, and we are all in favor of developing our natural resources. There was more oil and gas pumped under President Biden than any other President since I have been here. We want to develop our resources but in a way that helps Americans save dollars. I heard Dr. Joyce on our committee talk about our allies. I mean, I have got to be honest with you. When I listen to Trump, he makes it sound like our allies are our adversaries, and our adversaries like Russia are our allies. He talks about investing in Russian resources and oil and gas. Again, I don't know what this administration is doing. I know that what the Republicans are doing today is definitely not a good thing for the American people. It is not good for our deficit. It is going to essentially cost Americans more, and it is only going to result in more pollution. When, in fact, this is working and this methane fee is actually getting the oil and gas industry to correct this problem and recycle the methane and not waste it. We are just trying to do what makes sense from every point of view here. The Methane Emissions Reduction Program is a win-win for everybody, and this resolution is a lose-lose for everybody, in my opinion. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I spoke before about how the Methane Emissions Reduction Program is a win-win and how this resolution is a lose-lose. The bottom line is that curbing methane waste is an opportunity for the oil and gas industry itself. The industry really wants to waste less methane. It is simple logic. Each molecule of methane saved is one they can sell to people. Oil and gas operators emit the equivalent of about $2 billion worth of wasted natural gas every year, and there is money to be made in that. On the other hand, repealing this program, which is what this resolution does, will cost us $7.2 billion and at the same time pollutes our air. It is a lose-lose scenario. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I really stress that the Republicans keep talking about how this Methane Emissions Reduction Program harms the industry. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are a whole bunch of incentives in this program to drive down excess methane pollution and remediate the effects of pollution that do occur, but the program provides over $1.5 billion to assist the industry with reducing current and legacy methane emissions, including $700 million of incentives for small producers. The methane charge, or fee, only applies to wasted methane above specific thresholds based on the oil and gas industry's own climate commitments and methane reduction targets. We worked with the industry to put this together. They are cooperating with us. It is the opposite of the idea that somehow they are harmed. They are benefiting. They are actually making money from it. Overall, the Methane Emissions Reduction Program recognizes the cleanest performers, holds companies responsible for their own leaks and wasted methane, drives innovation, and creates a lot of jobs. The whole idea is to get them to do the right thing. We even give them money in order to accomplish that with their equipment, and it is working. This idea that it is harmful is just nonsense. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the gentleman from Texas, and he described once for me his district, Midland, and the oil and gas production there. I must stress, I actually did spend a lot of time talking to the industry when we were putting this methane emissions program together. I can speak firsthand that I spoke to the industry. The main thing they were concerned about is they did not want this program to be punitive. They said: We want to correct this problem. We don't want to waste methane, but you have to give us some sort of incentive to do this. That is what we did. Rather than have a punitive program, we have $1.5 billion to assist industry with reducing current and legacy methane emissions. Mr. Speaker, $700 million of that is specifically set aside for small producers, which I know there are a lot of those in the district of the gentleman from Texas. Unfortunately, much of that $700 million to help the small producers has been stalled by President Trump with his funding freeze. That harms the small producers who are counting on those critical funds. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing. I just want to stress, Mr. Speaker, that the methane polluter fee corrects a market failure that currently makes it cheaper for owners and operators to waste methane instead of installing or upgrading their equipment to prevent leaks and flaring. In other words, what we want them to do is to upgrade their equipment, prevent the leaks and the flaring. If they do that, we give them money, including a set-aside for small producers so that this happens and they don't pay the fee. Leaked or intentionally wasted natural gas never makes its way to customers, but they are nevertheless stuck with the bill. They have to pay for that. The Methane Emissions Reduction Program will ensure that American consumers no longer pay for wasted energy or the harm that these emissions can cause. The bottom line is that wasted methane is bad for business. It is bad for consumers. It is bad for the climate. The problem with H.J. Res. 35 is it will allow this waste to continue unchecked. This is a program that is working. Don't kill it with this resolution. You are going to kill jobs. You are going to kill our efforts to try to reduce methane in the environment, and you are not helping anybody in the industry. For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' on H.J. Res. 35, 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. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this Republican budget resolution. Make no mistake about it, this budget will lead to millions of Americans losing their healthcare coverage, all so Republicans can give giant tax breaks to billionaires and big corporations. The only group that wants these tax breaks is Wall Street, not the average American. Mr. Chair, if Republicans pass this resolution today, we will be forced to cut a minimum of nearly $1 trillion from Medicaid, our Nation's largest healthcare program. For those who are saying that somehow the Medicaid program has a lot of waste, let me remind us that Medicaid is the leanest Federal healthcare program. Every independent study says that Medicaid is financially sound, the most financially sound Federal healthcare program. The consequences of these cuts will be devastating. Medicaid provides healthcare to one in three Americans, nearly half of the children in the United States, and it is the largest source of funding for nursing homes for seniors and people living with disabilities. This is a lifesaving program for 80 million Americans. They count on it every day. Yet, today, House Republicans are unnecessarily rushing forward with a budget resolution that will impose the largest healthcare cuts in our Nation's history. Millions of people will lose their healthcare, but that is just the beginning. Healthcare prices will sharply rise. Hospitals, particularly those in underserved and rural communities, will be forced to close-- so, too, will nursing homes. Seniors will lose the care that they rely on, and doctors and nurses will be laid off. Emergency rooms will once again be overflowing, as people are forced to delay care until absolutely necessary. States will be bankrupted and forced to make painful cuts to important healthcare services. This is the reality, not what the Republicans are telling you. Mr. Chair, it doesn't have to be this way. If just a few of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle take a stand today, we can stop this from happening. I implore my Republican colleagues to think about the harm, the devastating harm that will be done to their communities if this budget resolution is adopted. Stand up. I urge my colleagues to think twice and vote ``no.''

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to H.R. 27, the HALT Fentanyl Act. Mr. Speaker, throughout this debate today, House Republicans will claim that they are committed to tackling fentanyl, but their actions show that simply is not true. As the Trump administration illegally stole billions of dollars from Federal programs dedicated to helping people who are fighting a substance use disorder, House Republicans buried their heads in the sand. Last week, the Trump administration froze virtually all Federal funding, stealing billions of dollars in funding for critical opioid prevention, treatment, and recovery programs. Clinicians have been left wondering if they would receive a paycheck for their work. Patients have been left worrying about whether their access to treatment and recovery had been cut off indefinitely. Fortunately, several courts have already ruled in favor of parties seeking to put a stop to this unconstitutional power grab. Make no mistake, there are still real concerns about Federal funding not getting out the door to help us combat the drug overdose epidemic. Moreover, if this freeze is allowed to go forward, substance use and mental health clinicians who dedicate their lives to helping those experiencing substance use disorder would be forced to shut down, and millions of Americans would lose access to care. This is not the way to combat this epidemic. House Republicans are now considering trillions of dollars in cuts to Medicaid so they can give tax breaks to billionaires and big corporations. Medicaid covers nearly 40 percent of all people with an opioid use disorder. Republican plans to cut Medicaid will further limit access to care for substance use disorders leading to more deaths. Again, Mr. Speaker, when you hear Republicans talk about their commitment to fighting this epidemic, remember their actions over their words. Let's go to the bill before us today. Two years ago, my Democratic colleagues and I shared deep concerns with the partisan approach Republicans were taking with this legislation. Last Congress, Democrats offered a commonsense alternative to achieve a shared goal of tackling fentanyl and offered solutions to improve the HALT Fentanyl Act. Unfortunately, none of our priorities were included in the legislation, and, again, we find ourselves debating the same bill that stalled in the Senate and still exacerbates inequities in our criminal justice system. In 2018, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the DEA, first issued a temporary class-wide scheduling order of fentanyl-related substances under schedule I, which is the strictest classification for drugs. Since that administrative action, Congress has voted to extend the temporary order numerous times, most recently in the American Relief Act where we voted to extend the scheduling until March 31 of this year. House Republicans know we cannot simply schedule our way out of this crisis, but they have refused to pass bipartisan solutions that address prevention, treatment, and recovery to help stop overdose deaths. This is not just a criminal justice issue. We must combat this crisis through a multipronged public health approach. That is exactly what we did in an end-of-year bipartisan deal that would have extended temporary fentanyl-related substances scheduling for 2 years. However, it also reauthorized a wide range of prevention and treatment programs to help address the opioid overdose crisis. The deal has bipartisan support, but it was squashed by Speaker Johnson so he could please Elon Musk, the unelected billionaire who is now illegally stealing Americans' personal private information from inside of Federal agencies. Again, Mr. Speaker, actions speak louder than words, and Republicans are not serious about combating this fentanyl crisis. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill. I encourage my colleagues to oppose it, as well, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his comments, but I want to inform him that the Trump administration's funding freeze could impact as much as $164 million in funding for substance abuse and mental health services and research in the Commonwealth of Virginia that his constituents rely on. Cutting this vital funding will greatly hamper our response to the opioid epidemic and result in more overdose deaths in Virginia. I urge my colleagues to work together with Democrats to ensure that the Trump administration end this illegal funding freeze and work together to pass bipartisan, evidence-based legislation to address this intractable crisis. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), who is the chair and ranking member of our Energy Subcommittee.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) but inform him that the Trump administration's funding freeze could impact as much as $304 million in funding for substance abuse and mental health services and research in the State of Ohio that his constituents rely on. Cutting this vital funding will greatly hamper our response to the opioid epidemic and result in more overdose deaths. I urge my colleagues to work together with Democrats to ensure that the Trump administration ends this illegal funding freeze and work together to pass bipartisan, evidence-based legislation to address this intractable crisis. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Gillen).

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Hayes).

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

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think you have heard many statements on the Democrat side of the aisle about how this legislation that is before us today only looks at one aspect of the fentanyl crisis and ignores funding, if you will, for treatment. Right now, Medicaid cuts could and actually would seriously undermine our ability to address the opioid epidemic so they can give tax breaks to billionaires and big corporations. What I want to emphasize is that not only is there nothing in this legislation to deal with treatment, but in addition to that, what we assume is going to happen, based on statements that have been put out by Republicans, is they are going to cut the Medicaid program in order to pay for their tax cuts for corporations and the very wealthy. Last week, in case anyone doubts it, the Trump administration temporarily suspended Federal Medicaid payments, and now we are hearing that congressional Republicans are considering up to $2.5 trillion in Medicaid cuts. Keep in mind that Medicaid is the single largest payer for behavioral health services in the United States and covers nearly 40 percent of all individuals with opioid use disorder. Medicaid covers a full array of services and supports for people with behavioral health needs, including services and supports that typically are not covered by other health programs. As the opioid crisis continues, States can draw down Federal funds to cover medication-assisted treatment, MAT, medications and therapy, expand coverage of community-based benefits to support treatment and recovery, and to integrate behavioral health services into primary care and other settings. All that will stop with the Medicaid cuts that we are hearing that the Republicans want to implement. Republican plans to cut Medicaid will further limit access to care for substance use disorders, jeopardize treatment for Medicaid beneficiaries, and lead to more deaths as a result of termination of treatment. Again, I understand that the Republicans are talking today about law enforcement and penalties, but they are completely ignoring the fact that for many people this crisis is really dependent upon the fact that people continue to seek out fentanyl, and if they don't get treatment, then there are going to be more people that are doing the same. Part of the reason that we are opposed to this bill today is because it doesn't say anything about treatment, which is one of the major aspects of this crisis. What we hear is cuts, cuts, cuts on all these treatment programs, which are totally unacceptable if you actually want to deal with this epidemic. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Iowa for her comments, but I want to inform her that the Trump administration's funding freeze can impact as much as $57 million in funding for substance abuse and mental health services and research in the State of Iowa that her constituents rely on. Cutting this vital funding will greatly hamper our response to the opioid epidemic and result in more overdose deaths. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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