Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

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

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

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from California such time as she may consume.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I know that the Republican side of the aisle keeps talking about costs. I saw the chart that they put up that talks about costs, and the last speaker talked about $55 billion. I think that was the cost to the truckers. The bottom line is that the EPA has an obligation to deal with and try to protect Americans' health and safety. I gave a figure before, which is four times what the gentleman said, about how the cost in terms of lives and the loss of job hours, the loss of education hours, the cost of having to go to the doctor, EPA estimates that all that comes up to $200 billion. We can argue about costs. I mean, I don't doubt that there are tremendous costs involved in not putting this rule into effect because of the impact on communities like that of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan) talking about the inhalers that are available in doctor's offices because of the impact on children and their ability to breathe. The one thing that I really want to stress is that it is almost as if the other side doesn't feel that the EPA has an obligation to address the health impacts because of the costs to the trucking community, and I would just say that that is not true. The reason that we have an EPA is so that they can study and see what the impact is of air pollution and smog. It is clear. No one has suggested that the EPA doesn't have the power to do this based on the facts and based on the surveys they have done to show what the harmful impact is to Americans of this air pollution that comes from trucks. This rule would eliminate 50 percent of that by 2045. I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that that is not a good thing to do. Furthermore, I don't hear any suggestion from the other side to say that, well, rather than do that, we would do something else. It is just: Don't do it. Don't do it. Don't do this rule that, in the opinion of the EPA and those of us on this side of the aisle, is important to save lives and to make Americans healthier. It bothers me tremendously to see that they are simply getting up on the other side and saying, Don't do this, let's get rid of this rule rather than even suggesting an alternative. 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 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that this EPA rule is promulgated by left-wingers, radicals; it is a radical rule. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just to give you an example, the Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association, which is a nonprofit group that provides technical information on emission control technologies for motor vehicles, concluded that a 90 percent reduction in NOX emissions is feasible by 2027. Not only are the heavy-duty NOX rule standards achievable, but they can be implemented in a cost-effective manner. Since the rule does not mandate the use of any specific technology, despite claims to the contrary, there are multiple compliance pathways available to reduce NOX emissions. There are existing technologies that help industry achieve the rule's NOX requirements, and with the years of lead time built into the rule, technology manufacturers will continue to innovate new and more cost-effective solutions. The rule also supports tens of thousands of supplier jobs dedicated to the commercialization of this technology by 2027. The problem is that with this CRA, House Republicans are throwing away decades of progress in the heavy-duty transportation sector. This is not radical. This is not leftwing. This is just practical in a way of trying to protect people's health, while at the same time being very conscious of the impact on the trucking industry and making it possible to move forward with this without any real harm to the industry. I urge my colleagues to support this innovation of our domestic, heavy-duty transportation technology industry and vote ``no'' on this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I want to stress--and I said this before the Rules Committee--that the concern that I have here is this process, in part. In other words, Mr. Speaker, when you do a Congressional Review Act-- which is being used today by the Republican side--to essentially get rid of this very important EPA rule to protect public health, if it is passed, not only does the rule disappear, but there can be no action by the agency in this space. As I continue to point out, the Republican side has not come up with an alternative. Everything that I hear is to say, ``We don't want this rule in effect, and we think the rule is not a good one,'' but they don't address the fact that this rule is seeking to address public health in such a significant way. Also, I heard my colleague from Georgia, whom I respect a great deal, say: Oh, this was passed by a Democratic Senate. The fact of the matter is that with the exception of one, every Democratic Senator voted against this resolution, and I think there was one absent. It is hardly the case that Democrats support this. There was only one Democrat who supported it in the United States Senate. The reason that I am so concerned is not only because this would get rid of such an important rule but because there would be no alternative at this point and no likely alternative in the future. Let me say that the science could not be more clear. NOX emissions are dangerous, and they have significant detrimental impacts on public health. The respiratory impacts, which have been mentioned by my colleagues on the Democratic side, associated with this air pollution include wheezing, coughing, shortness of breath, asthma attacks, and even lung cancer. If those are not serious enough, other health impacts include susceptibility to infections, heart attacks, strokes, metabolic disorders, preterm births, low birth weights, and premature deaths. In the United States, air pollution is associated with over 100,000 deaths every year. Despite the severity of these negative health outcomes associated with NOX pollution, my Republican colleagues remain committed to rolling back the very standards that would protect Americans from these harmful impacts. It is hard for me to imagine that the majority is so set on repealing a rule that would literally save lives and improve the health of millions of Americans across the country, but unfortunately, that is what we face here. Mr. Speaker, 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, it is my honor to recognize Captain Edward L. Callahan on his retirement from the United States Navy after 40 years of service. CAPT Callahan's retirement was celebrated during the Naval Weapons Station Earle Change of Command Ceremony on April 21, 2023. Throughout his decorated career, CAPT Callahan has exhibited the principles of duty and valor. He has served at sea extensively and completed several strategic deterrent patrols. From his service onboard USS Henry S. Stimson (SSBN 655) (GOLD) and USS Mariano G. Vallejo (SSBN 658) (GOLD) to his sea duty onboard USS Topeka (SSN 754) as Weapons Officer, CAPT Callahan has bravely helped maintain the security of our country. Since reporting to active duty in 1983, CAPT Callahan advanced through the ranks and was promoted to CAPT 1 in 2018. From July of 2020 until today, CAPT Callahan has served as Commanding Officer of Naval Weapons Station Earle in New Jersey. Navigating the COVID-19 pandemic during his leadership at Naval Weapons Station Earle, CAPT Callahan ensured continuous operations of the base while maintaining the health and well-being of officers and personnel. He has been a valuable partner to my office and the community, maintaining open lines of communication and graciously hosting my Service Academy Day information session for students and their families. It has been an honor to work with CAPT Callahan and I thank him for his hospitality, leadership, and service. CAPT Callahan has exemplified honor, integrity, and professionalism throughout his Navy career. His experience, knowledge, and steadfast initiative have distinguished CAPT Callahan as an outstanding leader who has upheld the core values and mission of the U.S. Navy. Mr. Speaker, once again, it is my great honor to pay tribute to Captain Edward Callahan for his 40 years of service to the United States Navy. I sincerely hope my colleagues will join me in thanking CAPT Callahan for his honorable service to our great Nation.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the same class, the ranking member, for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, House Republicans are manufacturing a crisis to justify cruel cuts that will raise costs for American families, kick millions of people off their health insurance, and reverse the historic progress we have made in combating the worsening climate crisis. The Republicans' default on America act cuts $100 billion from Medicaid, which will have devastating consequences on every beneficiary, provider, and plan. The Republicans' Medicaid work requirements are about one thing; stripping healthcare away from vulnerable people. The majority of adults on Medicaid are already working, oftentimes in part-time jobs that do not offer healthcare coverage. Those who are not are often dealing with caregiving responsibilities, physical or mental health issues, or experiencing other barriers to employment. These Republican cuts are not about jobs. They are a Trojan horse intended to use red tape and onerous paperwork to kick millions of people off their health insurance simply because Republicans have always opposed Medicaid. Republicans also oppose our efforts to outcompete the world in the transition to a clean energy economy. The default on America act continues the Republicans' polluters over people agenda. The bill repeals key climate provisions that Democrats delivered with the Inflation Reduction Act last year that are already making a huge difference in the clean energy transition. Since its passage, we have seen about $28 billion in new domestic manufacturing investments. Companies have announced $242 billion in new clean power capital investments, and more than 142,000 clean energy jobs have been created across this Nation. These are impressive results in less than a year, and yet, House Republicans now want to reverse this progress with a grab bag of Big Oil giveaways and loopholes. Mr. Speaker, this is a dangerous bill that is going to strip healthcare away from millions of Americans and undermine our efforts to combat the worst in climate crisis. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, again, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill that, as I mentioned, unanimously passed out of the Energy and Commerce Committee last month. It is important. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1343, the Institute for Telecommunication Sciences, or ITS, Codification Act. The Institute for Telecommunication Sciences, or ITS, is the premier engineering laboratory of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. Among its many responsibilities, ITS manages various technology development programs for NTIA and the Department of Commerce and oversees cutting-edge studies concerning the use of our country's airwaves. ITS has played a significant role in furthering telecommunication advancements for our country's benefit. H.R. 1343 recognizes the numerous contributions of ITS by providing it with additional statutory authority. Under this legislation, ITS will serve as the primary laboratory for the executive branch of the Federal Government. It will be charged with studying the use of innovative sharing technologies for our airwaves and improving the interference tolerance of Federal systems operating with, or using, Federal spectrum. The legislation also will allow the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, acting through the head of the ITS, to enter into agreements needed to carry out the functions of the laboratory. This bill also requires the Assistant Secretary to establish an initiative to support the development of emergency communication and tracking technologies. These technologies will then be used to locate people trapped in areas where mobile connectivity may not be available due to natural disasters and other devastating events. I commend Representatives Pettersen and Carter for their bipartisan work on this bill. It will ensure that one of our Nation's key telecommunications facilities has the necessary tools and resources to not only continue its work but also expand its activities. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill, which unanimously passed the Energy and Commerce Committee last month, and I reserve 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. 1353, the Advanced, Local Emergency Response Telecommunications Parity Act, or the ALERT Parity Act. This bipartisan bill will enhance wireless connectivity in remote and hard-to-reach places to ensure that people can always reach out to emergency services and family during emergencies. H.R. 1353 will help the Federal Communications Commission utilize satellite technology to deliver emergency connectivity service to remote areas or areas experiencing service outages caused by natural disasters. This is particularly important for rural and Tribal areas that have been particularly devastated by the lack of access to 911 and emergency alerts due to limited wireless coverage. This bill is needed now because over the last few months many 5G mobile providers and equipment manufacturers have announced partnerships with satellite operators to deliver emergency communication to consumers where wireless coverage is lacking or nonexistent. These efforts are likely to offer tangible benefits to consumers as the partnerships will enable wireless service providers to offer consumers universal coverage and enhance access to emergency services. It is likely that consumer demand for satellite services will grow in the future as wireless carriers and phone manufacturers continue to build this capability into their networks and phones. This additional layer of protection is also a welcome sign given that the worsening climate crisis is causing more frequent and extreme weather events. Mobile service is essential for receiving emergency alerts with lifesaving information. Resilient communications networks can be the difference between life and death when the unexpected strikes. Satellite systems will be crucial in helping ensure that consumers have the necessary details to navigate through these emergency situations. To help advance these efforts, H.R. 1353 directs the FCC to issue rules so that satellite providers can offer emergency connectivity services in areas that currently do not have access to such services or areas that have been impacted by a disaster. The legislation also requires the FCC to annually report to Congress on the instances where satellite providers utilized the rules to provide emergency services and where such providers were denied the opportunity to offer these lifesaving services. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representatives Schrier and Johnson for their bipartisan work on this bill. With this legislation, consumers can rest assured that if they find themselves in an area without service, whether it is because of lack of coverage, the result of natural disaster, or for some other reason, they will continue to have the ability to reach first responders and loved ones during an emergency. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation that unanimously advanced out of the Energy and Commerce Committee last month, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill that was reported out of our committee unanimously last month, and I would ask everyone to support the 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 in strong support of H.R. 1339, the Precision Agriculture Satellite Connectivity Act. The innovations we are seeing in the commercial satellite industry have the potential to transform so many aspects of daily life, especially for those in more rural and remote areas. For years, Americans have relied on satellites for a variety of services, including the Global Positioning System, radio, and television. However, now satellites are helping deliver faster broadband speeds, providing critical communications services and enabling scientists and nonprofits to monitor challenges like the climate crisis and deforestation. This satellite evolution is also touching American farms by facilitating advancements in precision agriculture. H.R. 1339 promotes the innovation of satellite technology for precision agriculture, which uses satellite images to help farmers yield better crops and maximize their yield profitability. The legislation directs the Federal Communications Commission to review its satellite service rules to assess whether there are any rule changes that could better enable satellites to deliver precision agriculture solutions. If the FCC finds that such rule changes exist, then this legislation requires the FCC to develop recommendations for implementing them. It also instructs the FCC to report its findings to Congress, including any recommendations. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representatives Kelly and Latta for their bipartisan work on this bill, which unanimously passed out of the Energy and Commerce Committee last month. With this legislation, we ensure that the FCC and its satellite service rules are enabling technological advances in the important area of precision agriculture as much as possible. Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, this bill is bipartisan and passed out of our committee unanimously last month. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), who is the ranking member of our Environment Subcommittee.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1. The Republicans call it the Lower Energy Costs Act. In fact, it does the opposite, and it puts polluters over people, so we call it the polluters over people act. That is justified because that is exactly what it does. This bill is nothing more than a grab bag of Big Oil giveaways and loopholes that endanger the health, safety, and security of Americans. It does absolutely nothing to lower energy costs for American families. In fact, it will actually drive up costs while doubling down on costly fossil fuels. Now, does the GOP really believe that Big Oil cares about Americans? During the COVID crisis in the last 3 years, we had a hearing where we brought in some of the large oil companies. It was quite clear that they wanted to keep prices high. It was quite clear that they were benefiting from OPEC and the fact that Russia had invaded Ukraine and that oil supplies had become more limited because of that invasion of Ukraine and that as a result, prices for oil and gasoline were going up. They didn't care. They liked it. We actually asked them at the hearing whether or not they would increase production because they have so many leases on Federal lands that they don't use, and they said no. They said maybe eventually they would do that, but they haven't gotten around to it yet. I don't think they have gotten around to it still. So this notion that somehow by benefiting Big Oil, the major American so-called oil companies, that this is going to help the American people, that is not their goal. Last year, Big Oil's profits in 2022 were $451 billion, a record high. The dividends they gave out and the stock buyouts amounted to $163 billion. They only care about the stockholders. They don't care about the price of gasoline. They want it to stay high. They don't care whether Americans can afford gasoline. Chairwoman Rodgers, who I really respect a lot, talked about LNG. One of the things in the bill is it removes the requirement--and I am going to talk about other things it does--but it removes the requirement that liquified natural gas exports be determined to be in the public interest before being sent overseas. That is going to lead to more American LNG being sent to our adversaries, including China. This helps China. This doesn't hurt China. This helps China. We know that there was a time a few years ago when LNG exports were limited because of--I forget what caused it--and during that period of time, the evidence shows the price for American gasoline or American crude was actually going down. When you send LNG overseas, it is not available here in the United States. That actually lowers gas prices when you have more gasoline available or more refineries available to process gasoline here in the United States. I debunk this idea that somehow this bill is going to lower prices here, that somehow benefiting Big Oil benefits Americans, that somehow exporting more LNG hurts China. These things simply are not the case. The evidence proves very much to the contrary. This bill, H.R. 1, I will call it the polluters over people act, rescinds several transformational climate programs that the Democrats enacted as part of the Inflation Reduction Act last year. What I am trying to get across today is that at the same time that they are helping Big Oil, not driving down prices, and helping China, the Republicans are also tearing down all of the environmental laws that we have had for the last 50 years and putting all the emphasis on fossil fuels rather than clean energy. The bottom line is, the only way that we are going to lower costs is by encouraging clean energy. Yes, I agree with Chairwoman Rodgers that the United States has to be a bigger energy producer, but the future for that is with clean energy, not with pumping more oil and gas. It is by encouraging clean energy because that is where we can be the big producer. That is where the future is. That is where we can outcompete the rest of the world. What does this bill do? It foolishly repeals the $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which invests in high-impact projects that reduce pollution, creates good-paying clean energy jobs, and improves public health. They obviously do not want to do anything for clean energy. It also repeals the methane emissions reduction program, which protects the health of our communities and ensures that polluters, not taxpayers or customers, pay for wasted methane. Let me use that as an example. I want everyone to understand that when we passed the Inflation Reduction Act and we were trying to cut back on greenhouse gases which lead to global climate problems and the increase in global warming, we worked hard to deal with those industries here that could be affected. The Methane Emissions Reduction Act is a perfect example that we worked with the independent oil producers because they said, well, if you cause the methane that is wasted now and goes into the atmosphere and causes this increased number of greenhouse gases, if you work with us, we can accomplish capturing this methane and then it can be recycled, but we need some money to accomplish that. We provided them with a fund so they could make that transition. We also said that if it took them time to get a permit to capture the gas and provide a recycling program for the methane, that they would not be penalized by doing that. This has been characterized by the GOP as some sort of tax or fee on the industry. It is really a penalty if they don't do what is necessary to capture methane and avoid it going into the atmosphere. The same is true for almost every provision that they seek to repeal here. These are provisions that try to protect the public health, reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but at the same time don't have a negative impact on those industries that are hiring people and that create jobs. At the same time, try to move toward new clean energy things like wind, solar, and more hydropower, and other things that actually do create more jobs, as we have proven that they have. There are so many other things that repeal--I won't go through all of them because I know that we have other speakers. The bill also repeals the popular home electrification rebates that are specifically designed to lower energy bills for American families. These are popular incentives that will save families money and are urgently needed to help us fight the climate crisis. Republicans are rejecting all these things that help people save money, help reduce greenhouse gases so they can double-down on the old pro-polluter policies that they have had for years. This bill also does nothing to meaningfully address permitting reform. Its vision of permitting consists of letting polluters do whatever they want, and instead, the bill becomes a sweetheart deal. The bill, for example, doesn't include any changes to the transmission policy necessary to ensure that clean energy can reach all corners of the country. Let me also give you a couple of other examples. The biggest thing that they do to basically endanger all of our environmental protections is they exempt so-called critical energy resources from the Clean Air Act and hazardous waste permitting requirements. They say if we label a refinery or if we label a utility as a critical energy resource, then they don't have to follow the Clean Air Act, they don't have to follow the Clean Water Act, and they don't have to follow the Hazardous Waste Act. It is a roundabout way of saying that we are just going to let all these industries do whatever they want, even though it undercuts public health protections. They do the same thing with toxic chemicals. We had a major toxic chemical bill to try to cut back on toxic chemicals that needlessly expose families and children to health risks. They basically get rid of that by saying, oh, those facilities don't have to worry about releasing toxic chemicals. Mr. Chair, I end by saying this. Democrats understand that the transition to clean energy is important. In fact, projects already underway are valued at tens of billions of dollars and have already created more than 100,000 good-paying jobs. Our Inflation Reduction Act is estimated to create 9 million new jobs over the coming decade and reduce energy costs by an average of $1,800 per year. What we have done in the last few years as Democrats is to try to move toward clean energy, understanding that you still have to have fossil fuels and nuclear and other things, but understanding that the future in terms of the U.S. being a major energy producer is in clean energy, not in fossil fuels. To just wreck and put a bulldozer through all our environmental protections in order to encourage fossil fuels is just a huge mistake. It is not going to lower energy costs. It is going to make it much more difficult for us to reduce greenhouse gases and all the negative impacts of climate change. There is nothing in here. In my opinion, this bill is also going to hurt us from a national security point of view because it does actually help China and help our adversaries rather than making it more difficult for them to compete with us. Mr. Chair, I would urge opposition to the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), who is the ranking member of the Energy, Climate, and Grid Security Subcommittee.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Fletcher), who is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.