Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1345, the NTIA Policy and Cybersecurity Coordination Act. Protecting our Nation's communications networks is of vital importance to our national security. This is particularly important now when a significant amount of our country's economic and social activity has moved online, and consumers are connecting more devices to these networks. We must build in safeguards to increase the safety of communications networks to protect Americans while also promoting innovation and competition. H.R. 1345 will help us achieve these goals. This legislation authorizes the existing Office of Policy Analysis and Development at the NTIA and renames it as the Office of Policy Development and Cybersecurity. It also codifies responsibilities of NTIA in administering parts of the Secure and Trusted Communications Network Act and requires the office to coordinate and develop policy initiatives to enhance cybersecurity efforts with respect to our communications networks. The office will also be tasked with developing and analyzing policies that promote innovation, competition, digital inclusion, and workforce development in the communications, media, and technology markets. I thank Representatives Wild and Curtis for their bipartisan work on this bill, which will ensure that there is a firm foundation within the Federal Government to oversee the security of our Nation's communications networks. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation that unanimously advanced out of the Energy and Commerce Committee early this year, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I think this is an important bill, and I urge everyone to support it on both sides of the aisle. 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 listened to what Mr. Beyer said, and I know that some of the leadership on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee are opposed to this bill. I will say that despite the Science, Space, and Technology Committee's claims, H.R. 1338, the Satellite And Telecommunications Streamlining Act does not infringe on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee's jurisdiction or grant the FCC new authority with respect to space safety and orbital debris. Instead, this bill streamlines existing FCC licensing procedures so the commercial satellite operators can more easily obtain the necessary spectrum rights to launch their satellite systems into space. Because the bill deals directly with access to spectrum and the FCC's management of it, this legislation falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Committee. To the extent the bill references space safety and orbital debris, it is in the context of ensuring that the FCC acts within the bounds of the rules adopted by the U.S. Government for orbital debris mitigation. Specifically, the language in the bill simply directs the FCC to align any licensing requirements that it may impose on satellite operators concerning orbital debris and space safety--which it can do today consistent with its existing authority--with the orbital debris and space safety practices established by NASA and others. Mr. Speaker, mandating such action is good government as it reduces the likelihood of conflicting standards or requirements and ensures that government continues to speak with one voice on these important matters. Nevertheless, recognizing the Science Committee's concerns, language has now been added to the bill to make it crystal clear that this legislation does not give the FCC any new authority on space safety and orbital debris. Finally, for those Members suggesting that the Department of Commerce does not support this bill, I want to be clear that this is not true. In reality, the Department of Commerce has not taken a position on this bill. For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1338 is a worthwhile bill, I urge all my colleagues to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this bill on a bipartisan basis. The committee voted this out, again, on a bipartisan basis. I think it is very important, and I assure my Science Committee colleagues this does not impinge on their jurisdiction. 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 in strong support of H.R. 682, the Launch Communications Act. Over the last decade, we have seen the costs of exploring space drop drastically. As a result, space launches in this country have increased dramatically. In 2013, the FAA authorized eight launches, but by 2022, less than a decade later, the number was 79. The number of space launches from the United States is only expected to increase in the years to come. We must foster and support this growth in order to enhance our national security capabilities and cement our Nation as a global leader in space and other cutting-edge technologies. Transporting satellites to space cannot happen without launch entities having reliable access to electromagnetic spectrum. Right now the FCC only temporarily allocates spectrum for space launches. Nevertheless, this process is becoming increasingly burdensome given rise in the number of space launches occurring in our country. For the United States to continue its leadership in space, it is imperative that the FCC develop an efficient and effective process to license spectrum for commercial space launches, as well as the space reentries that inevitably must follow. Now, H.R. 682 addresses these challenges. Specifically, this bill requires the FCC to streamline its process for allocating spectrum usage rights to commercial space launch providers. These efforts will better support these providers as they communicate with their launch vehicles during flight and upon reentry. The bill also directs the FCC to complete a rulemaking proceeding to adopt service rules for the spectrum bands identified in the bill for commercial space launches and commercial space reentries. Mr. Speaker, I commend Representatives Soto and Dunn for their bipartisan work on this bill. This important bill helps secure America's leadership in the commercial space industry by strengthening our country's position as a prime destination for launching satellites into space. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation in a bipartisan manner, I look forward to its consideration in the Senate, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Soto), the Democratic sponsor of this bill and a graduate of Rutgers University.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill coming out of the Energy and Commerce Committee. I urge support for this very important 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, H.R. 2544, the Securing the U.S. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Act, seeks to improve the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, or OPTN. This network, which is operated by the Health Resources and Service Administration, or HRSA, is responsible for maintaining a national registry for organ matching, and it is operated by a private organization under Federal contract. A number of investigations in the past few years have found that the OPTN struggles to obtain and distribute organs in a timely and efficient manner. In fact, more than 6,000 Americans die each year while waiting for organ transplants. This problem is even more pronounced for people of color and rural residents. More than 100,000 Americans are currently on the transplant waiting list, and 17 Americans die each day awaiting transplants. This is entirely unacceptable, and we need to do better for the many patients who rely on the OPTN. The OPTN needs to be improved and modernized in a number of ways. HRSA has undertaken a number of efforts to modernize the OPTN, and this bill, H.R. 2544, complements those efforts. It would ensure that HRSA has the authority to award multiple contracts to carry out the many functions of the OPTN. It would also make the OPTN contracts more competitive in order to increase oversight and transparency and to enhance the performance of the program. The organ transplantation network is a lifesaving system that is in desperate need of repair. This bill will go a long way to improve it, and it is a huge win for some of the most vulnerable patients in this country. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representatives Bucshon and Kelly for their bipartisan leadership on this bill. I am pleased that it is before us today, and I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important legislation. 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. 752, the Securing Semiconductor Supply Chains Act. Semiconductors are necessary for the production of everything from consumer electronics to automobiles to our national defense weapons systems. The United States was once a global powerhouse in semiconductor fabrication, but over the years, it has become dangerously reliant on other countries for the production of these chips, which are vital to both our national economic and security interests. That is why I was proud to lead the effort last Congress when Democrats were in the majority here in the House to pass and enact the CHIPS and Science Act. This law was transformational. It will strengthen our manufacturing base to grow our economy for the future, help create good-paying jobs for American workers, unleash more innovation, and lower costs for consumers. It does this by investing more than $52 billion into domestic semiconductor research, development, and production so that more of these semiconductors are built here in the United States by American workers. When you travel to the industrial heartland, spend time in our industrial communities, and talk to hardworking, middle-class Americans whose manufacturing jobs have been sent offshore, it is clear that we still have to do more. H.R. 752 will provide valuable information about how we can 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 Representatives Eshoo and Pence for their bipartisan leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), the Democratic sponsor of this bill and the ranking member of our Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Health.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close. I urge support for this bipartisan bill, which continues our efforts to deal with chips, basically a follow-up on the CHIPS and Science Act, which was so important in bringing back American manufacturing and American innovation. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill to extend the authority for the Department of Homeland Security's Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program for another two years. The CFATS program provides critical national security protections for chemical facilities and for the people who work and live near these facilities. We should all be alarmed that it is on the verge of lapsing. Unfortunately, we have come down to the wire again to reauthorize this program. Without passage of this bill, the CFATS program will expire in two days. The program is not perfect, but it should be continued. This two-year extension will give the committees of jurisdiction time to consider important improvements to the program without fear that the program will lapse. To that end, Homeland Security Committee Chairman Green has begun the process of creating a CFATS reauthorization working group and Energy and Commerce Committee Democrats plan to be vocal members. We are prepared to push for our jurisdictional priorities in those conversations, specifically advocating for environmental justice communities, first responders, and worker safety. Chemical facility safety is not only important to the Energy and Commerce Committee, but also to my home state of New Jersey, where the high concentration of industrial chemical facilities coupled with densely populated cities makes safety and security of these facilities of the utmost importance. Programs like CFATS and the EPA's Risk Management Plan program are critical to maintaining the health and safety of the people who live and work near these facilities, so the consequences of this program expiring are as personal to me as they are dire to the safety of our country. The last few weeks have brought record heat waves, Canadian wildfires, and catastrophic flooding, all markers of what is to come. And yet, House Republicans continue to turn a blind eye to the devastating impacts of the climate crisis. Instead, they work to rollback our historic investments in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act and make drastic cuts to critical programs across the board. It would be dangerous of Congress to believe that these same extreme weather events don't have the potential to undermine and threaten our nation's chemical facilities. We must work in a bipartisan fashion to ensure the safety and security of the workers, first responders, and communities living near our nation's chemical facilities. That means extending this program while taking serious steps to improve it for the future. So, I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Homeland Security Committee for working to ensure the continuity of this program. I urge my colleagues to support passage.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Terry Shlimbaum as he retires after 40 years as a family physician, most recently serving as Chief Medical Officer for the Visiting Nurse Association of Central Jersey Community Health Center. His dedication, contributions, and accomplishments are truly deserving of this body's recognition. Joining the Visiting Nurse Association of Central Jersey (VNACJ) Community Health Center during the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Shlimbaum brought a wealth of knowledge and expertise to the provider at a critical time. His leadership and approach helped guide the YNACJ Community Health Center and the community through the pandemic. His efforts to expand COVID testing and vaccination centers, and to ensure efficient test results and accountability of vaccine doses were essential to the well-being of our communities during an uncertain time. In addition to his COVID-19 measures, Dr. Shlimbaum also continually met the growing needs of the VNACJ Community Health Center, expanding staffing and access to vital services. Dr. Shlimbaum received his Doctor of Medicine degree from New York Medical College and his Bachelor of Arts in Biology from Harvard University. Prior to joining the VNACJ Community Health Center he held leadership roles at ArchCare, Summit Medical Group, and Hunterdon Medical Center, among others. Additionally, he has served on several boards and organizations, including the New Jersey Medical Society, and has been recognized for his contributions to the public health community. Mr. Speaker, once again, please join me in congratulating Dr. Terry Shlimbaum on his retirement and thanking him for his years of service.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to recognize Colonel Matthew W. Luzzatto on his retirement from the United States Army after more than 25 years of service. COL Luzzatto has exemplified honor, integrity, and professionalism throughout his career and his service is truly deserving of this body's recognition. Throughout his decorated career, COL Luzzatto has held various command and officer positions, including Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Charleston District, and Chief of the Host National Funded Construction for U.S. Forces Japan, Yokota Air Base, and has served the country in deployments to Kosovo and Kirkuk, among others. His experience, knowledge, and initiative have distinguished COL Luzzatto as an outstanding leader who has upheld the core values and mission of the U.S. Army and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. As Commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, COL Luzzatto has been a valuable partner to my office and the community. Together, we have worked on projects to reduce storm and coastal flood risks to protect residents, properties, and infrastructure. He has overseen vital beach replenishment, dredging, and flood control projects, working in coordination with federal, state, and local entities. It has been an honor to work with COL Luzzatto to protect our communities, and I thank him for his leadership. Mr. Speaker, once again, it is my sincere honor to pay tribute to Colonel Matthew Luzzatto for his years of service to the United States Army. I sincerely hope my colleagues will join me in thanking COL Luzzatto for his honorable service to our great nation.

Mr. PALLONE

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

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. PALLONE

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

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in strong opposition to H.R. 1615. This bill is an attempt to deliberately mislead the American people into thinking that they are at risk of losing their gas stoves. Let me be emphatically clear. The Consumer Product Safety Commission is not banning gas stoves. The idea that anyone is coming into American homes to remove gas stoves is ridiculous. They are not banning gas stoves. These facts have not stopped supporters of this bill from touting this false narrative to scare consumers and proposing legislation, like this bill, that will have detrimental impacts on our constituents' health and safety. By limiting the tools that the CPSC can use to protect consumers, H.R. 1615 puts politics over people and consumer safety. It puts slogans over science-based policy decisionmaking. The CPSC is an independent Federal agency with a long history of identifying and protecting children and adults from a wide range of products that are hazardous or that pose a risk of serious injury or death. The CPSC carries out its mission in numerous ways. It investigates safety allegations and recalls dangerous products to keep them off the market. It also works with industry to develop voluntary product safety standards. It issues and enforces standards for hazardous products so that it can ensure that these products are not dangerous for consumers. In recent years, the CPSC has removed hazardous infant sleeping products. It has adapted corded window coverings to protect children from strangulation. It has worked with industry to reduce the risk of fires from hoverboards and scooters. The CPSC's work saves life by protecting consumers--in many instances, children--from dangerous products, but H.R. 1615 will prevent the CPSC from doing its job. Last December, the agency issued a recall of a gas stove product that was found to be a serious risk of injury or death from carbon monoxide poisoning. The agency was doing its job in recalling a dangerous product, but H.R. 1615 would prohibit the agency from using its rulemaking authority to ban such hazardous products, which could endanger the lives of any American who has that dangerous product in their home. If you think about this, what you are basically saying is that this agency that protects our safety and health is just basically going to be emasculated and can't do its job. What possible help is that? Why would you do such a thing? Each and every American benefits from the work done by the CPSC, and it would be unconscionable to weaken the Commission's authority. This bill sets, in my opinion, a dangerous precedent, Mr. Chair, of stifling scientific investigation into health hazards and limiting the agency's authority to keep our children safe. Instead of taking actions to limit the agency's authority, we should encourage their work to explore allegations that consumer products put our children's health and safety at risk. We should give the agency all the tools that they need, not eliminate the tools they currently have, to address health and safety risks as they arise. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1615. We must protect the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the authority to protect the health and safety of all Americans, but particularly our children. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I listened to my colleague from North Dakota, who I respect a great deal, but he specifically said, and I wrote it down, that this legislation would prohibit the Consumer Product Safety Commission from regulating gas stoves as a hazardous product. Now, you listened to my colleague from Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky, who said that from a practical point of view, how does that make sense? This is the agency that is charged with basically looking at these products to see if they are hazardous, if they are unsafe for kids, if they are going to cause serious injury or death. Now, one person, one commissioner has made some statements suggesting that he might be interested in banning gas stoves. I don't know all the details, but I understand that there is one commissioner that keeps being quoted. First of all, this Commission has five members. There is one vacancy. Because one commissioner says that and doesn't have the power to effectuate it because he is only one person, you are then going to tell me that we should now take this sort of hatchet approach or severe approach of saying, well, then, because one commissioner thinks that, therefore, we should say that this commission cannot regulate gas stoves as a hazardous product? Frankly, that is like cutting off your leg because you decide that there is some threat or something. It makes no sense to me. We have the chairman of the Commission who actually used to work for the Energy and Commerce Committee; Chairman Hoehn-Saric. He has been crystal clear and has stated publicly that the Consumer Product Safety Commission is not conducting a rulemaking to ban gas stoves. Now, I use the analogy as a Member of Congress. I am one out of what, 435? I don't have the authority to say that because I want something done that that is what is going to happen--or even if there were 10 or 20 of us that said that; right? As a single Member of Congress, I don't have the unilateral authority to decide what action the House of Representatives is going to take. By the same token, one single member of the CPSC does not get to decide what action that body will take, and suggesting otherwise is just not accurate. Even if he said that--and I believe he said that he might want to ban them--why would you then say, now we are going to put a pox on the whole Commission and say that they don't have the authority to look at hazards and tell me whether or not certain stoves would be dangerous? I just think it is really contrary to protection of people's health and safety to take this kind of action just because one member of the Commission suggested it, but that is what you do. Again, I would urge that we be practical about this, and let's not just take a hatchet to this Commission and this agency that over the years has protected us in so many ways from faulty products. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), the ranking member of our Innovation, Data, and Commerce Subcommittee.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I don't know about these celebrity stoves and Hollywood. You can bring up all of this if you want, but the bottom line is, this legislation doesn't guarantee that anybody gets to use their gas stove. If a town in California or a State wants to prohibit it, they are still free to do so. Let's not give the impression that somehow this legislation is going to prohibit towns or States or any kind of municipality from prohibiting gas stoves if they want to do so. What this legislation says is that an agency that is basically told by Congress to protect us from hazardous utilities, hazardous equipment, and hazardous activity is going to be hamstrung so they can't protect us. That is all you are doing here. Let's be honest. You are not doing anything else. I think it is outrageous to say that if this agency finds out that there is something that is going to kill kids or cause them to be poisoned, that they can't do their job. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman keeps saying that this administration is banning gas stoves. That is simply not the case. Plus, he is talking about efficiency standards. This legislation is not about efficiency standards. This legislation is about saying that the Consumer Product Safety Commission cannot research and make decisions about hazards and whether a particular gas stove is hazardous to people's health or might explode. It is not about efficiency standards. Certainly we are not talking about saying that you have to move toward an electric stove as opposed to a gas stove. It just bothers me, Mr. Chair, that the other side continues to talk about banning gas stoves, about moving toward electric stoves, about efficiency standards. This is not what this bill is about. This is not what the Consumer Product Safety Commission is about. Mr. Chair, again, I would urge opposition because the gentleman is not talking about this legislation. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, I have to speak out against the misinformation that is being promulgated on the other side. It is simply wrong to argue, as the previous speaker did, that genuine concerns about the health effects of gas stove emissions are in any way tied to President Biden's clean energy agenda. The Consumer Product Safety Commission is an independent Federal agency that is tasked solely with protecting consumers, and especially children, from consumer products that pose an unreasonable risk of injury or death. The work of the Consumer Product Safety Commission has nothing to do with the Biden administration's clean energy policies, whether you agree with his policies or not, and we shouldn't let Republicans' fear of protecting our environment baselessly restrict CPSC's tools to protect America's children and their families' health and safety. I could just read the bill that Mr. Armstrong, the gentleman from North Dakota, said before, this bill says that the Commission cannot regulate gas stoves as a hazardous product or to impose or enforce any consumer product safety net standard on gas stoves. It has nothing to do with the environment. It is all about safety, so why do you talk about these other things? Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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