Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I close by saying, again, that our committee is always concerned about hydropower. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I cannot overemphasize the level of enthusiasm that I and the New Jersey delegation express today on the swearing in of Congresswoman Mejia. I cannot. We are so enthusiastic, and I think you can tell from her own constituents who came here today. I just want you to understand that her leadership was so important, her reaching out to the grassroots, her reaching out and standing up for working families, but even more so for young people. Young people were so enthused by her. Many of us are concerned about the future of our democracy and whether younger people are going to vote, whether they are going to participate. Analilia made it clear that that was so important to her, and so we had--She got so many people who were younger to come out to vote, to actually participate in the election, to knock on doors, and all the things that are so important to our democracy. She talked about solutions. She didn't just say: We want you to come out. She talked about solutions for working people that would actually make a difference. This is what is really important. The reason that we are so enthused is that we see someone who reaches out to young people, who is a grassroots organizer, and who understands the problems of working families. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the new member of our New Jersey delegation, the gentlewoman, Congresswoman Mejia.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join the General Federation of Women's Club (GFWC) of Matawan as it celebrates its 110th anniversary this year. Since its incorporation, GFWC of Matawan has provided a supportive social environment for women of Matawan to connect and take strides towards supporting their community. Historically, the women involved in this organization were devoted to the betterment of their town, and Nation. During World War I, members volunteered to support schoolgirls at Camp Morgan and later, during World War II, members served as Air Wardens, Plane Spotters, Red Cross Volunteers, Rationing Board members and on all fund drives. Community volunteerism remains a core pillar of membership with this organization. Members have initiated the Public Health Association, and sponsored multiple meaningful organizations, including the local Parents Teacher League, YMCA, the first Girl Scout troop, and the creation of academic scholarships and cultural programs in town. The GFWC of Matawan has amplified their leadership, initiative, and generosity over many generations. Around Matawan, it is revealing how significant of an impact GFWC of Matawan has had on the town. The club accomplished several projects for locals to benefit from including planting trees around Veterans Memorial Park, creating Veterans Memorial Park, building the steps and landing at Park Avenue on Lake Matawan, and planting shrubs and dogwood around Terhune Park to honor club members. Perhaps their most notable effort to support the continuation of civic betterment is the ``Girl of the Year'' award. Annually, one High School Senior is awarded recognition for their academic advancements and significant community volunteerism. It is my privilege to honor the General Federation of Women's Club of Matawan as its members mark this historic 110th anniversary, and I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating this milestone. They are truly deserving of this body's recognition.

Mr. PALLONE

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

Mr. PALLONE

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

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6409, the FENCES Act. Access to quality and affordable healthcare is an issue at the top of many Americans' minds right now as they struggle through the ever- worsening Republican affordability crisis. Republicans have demonstrated over the last year that they have no interest in improving healthcare for the American people. The Republican big, ugly bill cut more than a trillion dollars from Americans' healthcare. Insurance premiums spiked at the beginning of the year for 20 million people because Republicans refused to extend the ACA tax credits. Fifteen million people are predicted to lose their healthcare altogether. Hospitals are closing in record numbers around the country. There was a media report just yesterday that said 15 hospitals in my State of New Jersey have the potential to close because of the Republican big, ugly bill and the impact on hospitals. Now, there are reports that Republicans intend to make further cuts and take healthcare away from more people to pay for Trump's reckless war of choice with Iran. In Trump's America, we can't afford healthcare, but apparently, we can spend a billion dollars a day on the war in Iran. In fact, Trump himself said that it is not possible for the Federal Government to pay for Medicaid and Medicare when we are fighting wars. Republican attacks on Americans' healthcare continue this week here on the House floor by bringing three dirty air bills to the House floor, including this bill, H.R. 6409, the FENCES Act; and also H.R. 6398, the RED Tape Act; and, finally, H.R. 6387, the FIRE Act. These bills are an attack on the public health protections that are a cornerstone of the Clean Air Act. They will ultimately make Americans sicker and increase healthcare costs even more. The health harms of air pollution are well-documented, being felt by communities across the country. Communities in areas with unsafe levels of air pollution see more diagnoses of diseases like asthma, COPD, heart disease, and certain types of cancer, all of which require long- term treatment and medication. Air pollution, Mr. Speaker, is also responsible for over 100,000 premature deaths every year. It is ridiculous to even consider these bills when our constituents are demanding action on healthcare affordability. Whether it is from reducing transparency, to artificially reducing air pollution reporting by ignoring climate change, to giving corporate polluters free passes on Clean Air Act requirements, these bills are evidence that Republicans are more interested in helping their pollution friends than the well-being of Americans. The bill that we are talking about now, the FENCES Act, would undercut the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, or NAAQS, which tells us the amount of air pollution that is safe to breathe. The bill would have us ignore bad air quality in areas that experience any pollution beyond the jurisdiction of a State or city's borders. It removes the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to impose fees or sanctions on States that fail to make progress toward cleaning up the air. Let me just explain this. If my hometown of Long Branch or my county of Monmouth or my State of New Jersey was getting pollution from outside that particular jurisdiction, it wouldn't count. They wouldn't have to account for that in terms of dealing with air pollution and trying to reduce it. To me, that is patently ridiculous because we know that air pollution travels across cities, across States, and even across countries. Giving States that are not even trying to improve air quality a free pass for pollution without any incentive to fix the problem is not the right way to proceed, and that is what this bill does. If signed into law, this bill would require EPA to cook the books on air pollution in favor of industry, removing all accountability for States to clean up air pollution and leaving millions of Americans to breathe unhealthy air. The only winners here are corporate polluters who would get to save a few dollars in compliance costs. Now Republican attempts to undermine the NAAQS aren't new. Every time the EPA strengthens an air quality standard, opponents complain that stronger public health standards will limit economic growth, but that has never been true, Mr. Speaker. Every time, industry has innovated better pollution control measures to meet the new standards. Republicans also claim that the FENCES Act is part of their permitting reform effort, but this bill would not speed up any permitting. In fact, it would cause complete permitting gridlock in areas with pollution that exceeds an air quality standard. This is not permitting reform. House Republicans are trying to use accounting gimmicks to make areas with poor air quality appear much better to benefit corporate polluters at the expense of the health of Americans across the country. Pushing the FENCES Act at a moment when millions of Americans are struggling to afford their utilities, their groceries, and healthcare, in my opinion, is unconscionable. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Landsman), a member of our committee.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Menefee).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas.

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Min).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. The FENCES Act, Mr. Speaker, is a bad faith attempt by Republicans to use accounting gimmicks to make areas with bad air quality appear safe at the expense of our communities. I hear from my Republican colleagues all the time that the Federal Government should be more transparent, but the literal and figurative smog that would be created by the FENCES Act will only make Americans sicker. The FENCES Act goes an extra step to waive sanctions and fees for States, not just for international pollution but also pollution from mobile sources, exceptional events, and even from a different district within the same State. In other words, the FENCES Act removes all incentives for States to work toward NAAQS attainment. This is a bad deal for the American people. Every year, over 100,000 Americans die prematurely as a result of air pollution. Doctors and scientists widely consider foreign particulate matter to be one of the most toxic air pollutants, as it can cause asthma, COPD, heart disease, and certain types of cancer. We can't just ignore air pollution and the very real health consequences that result from it to make permitting for industry easier. We shouldn't ignore the broader political landscape in which we are considering this bill, either. Earlier this year, the EPA announced that it will no longer consider the benefits of protecting public health when developing new rules for fine particulate matter and ozone pollution. Instead, the EPA will only consider the compliance costs for industry. This decision is entirely antithetical to the EPA's core mission to protect public health and the environment. The American people are asking us to lower healthcare costs, and our responsibility should be to them, not to the industry. However, our Republican colleagues seem to only answer to their corporate polluter friends who are asking for regulatory rollbacks to save a few dollars. The DEFENSE Act is a gift to industry that would come at the expense of the American people. For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the DEFENSE Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6398, the so-called RED Tape Act. This bill deletes a section of the Clean Air Act that requires the EPA to review major Federal projects under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. As a result, major Federal projects and regulations will be exempt from any scrutiny of their impacts on air quality and public health from EPA experts. The bill would also make the permitting process less transparent by removing the requirements that EPA comments be made available to the public and, therefore, communities would be kept in the dark. Ignoring the consequences of major actions won't make them go away, but that is exactly what the RED Tape Act would do. For the communities who live near these major projects, turning a blind eye to problems won't protect their families from potentially toxic exposures. Worse yet, the RED Tape Act is billed as permitting reform when in reality it is a bill to let polluters run amok out of sight from the public and without proper safety and commonsense guardrails. Republican hypocrisy knows no bounds. They court the make America healthy again community, but then they move a bill forward that will take away the public's ability to simply know the potential toxic risks of large Federal projects. They then tout the importance of permitting reform but bring false permitting solutions to the floor instead of real proposals to make cleaner and cheaper energy sources more readily available to combat rising costs for Americans. This hypocrisy is just one of the many problems we have to confront as the House is set to vote on these blatant attempts to gut the Clean Air Act, one of the most successful environmental and public health laws ever enacted by Congress. House Republicans are working overtime to further the Trump administration's efforts to silence the scientific, medical, and public health experts at EPA from being able to alert other agencies about how their projects might cause harm to the health of our constituents and our neighbors. That is the type of critical assessment that EPA's expertise alone could offer and would be missing as a result of this bill. Contrary to the rhetoric of my Republican colleagues, they haven't offered any proof that these reviews were slowing or stopping projects. In fact, the EPA reviews thousands of environmental impact statements each year, with most other agencies taking their recommendations. Unfortunately, by removing the EPA from the overall process, we are losing out on the expertise of the scientists tasked with protecting public health and the environment. However, to the Republican majority, if you can turn a blind eye to the consequences, they will disappear. Well, they don't disappear just because you turn a blind eye, Mr. Speaker. That is not how toxic pollution works for countless communities in your district and mine. They deserve to know how large Federal projects might impact their water, air, and soil, and they deserve to have the best and brightest EPA scientists analyze these projects and make comments for the public to scrutinize and to hold the government accountable. Any attempts to remove this simple level of government accountability is an attempt to silence basic civic participation and transparency, nothing more. I don't have a problem with making government more efficient, but this bill is simply removing the voice of an important agency whose viewpoint Republicans happen to dislike. This ongoing attack on the EPA, on science and transparency cannot stand, so I urge my colleagues to stand with me in opposition to this misguided bill. One of the most important things that we have in Congress and that I try to achieve, and I think Democrats all try to achieve, is the right to know. If people know what is going on, then they can voice their opinion. They can go out and speak. They can protest. They can do what they have to do to protect their communities. However, by eliminating the right to know, we are making it impossible for people to actually express their opinion, which is a fundamental right, in my opinion, under our Constitution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Menefee).

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Grijalva).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the RED Tape Act would exempt major Federal projects and regulations from any scrutiny of their impacts on air quality and public health from EPA experts. The bill would also make the permitting process less transparent by removing the requirement that EPA comments be made available to the public. Now, clean, safe air is a fundamental human right, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker. The Clean Air Act exists to protect that right. Air pollution is associated with over 100,000 premature deaths in the United States every year, and particulate matter is among the most dangerous forms of air pollution. Air pollution presents serious health risks to our communities every day. Over 100 million Americans live in counties with unhealthy levels of air pollution with children, the elderly, low-income communities, and communities of color being disproportionately at risk. You won't hear my colleagues focus on the transparency part of the RED Tape Act, but I will talk about that a little bit today as we conclude. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA's analysis and comments on major Federal projects and potential impacts must be made public. This transparency is a key feature to hold the government accountable and is the reason why most agencies take EPA's suggestions. If a major Federal project could expose the public to asbestos, lead, or PFAS under this bill, EPA would not be required to look at that project and provide scientific and public health-focused feedback and suggestions for making it safer. Equally as important, EPA's comments and suggestions on those risks and exposure would not be made available to the public. That only serves to shield Republican corporate polluters from any scrutiny and would do nothing to ensure Americans' health is protected. What I said before when we were talking about the FENCES Act, I will say it now on the RED Tape Act. The right to know is one of the most important things that we need to protect around here because then the public can look and see what the dangers are of pollution coming from a particular project and then they can act accordingly. A healthy America includes healthy air, water, and soil. The EPA is integral to achieving that goal. Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to protect transparency and the public health and vote ``no'' on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Virginia for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my bill to name the post office in Spring Lake, New Jersey, after my predecessor and mentor, Congressman Jim Howard. I thank Representative Smith and the rest of the New Jersey delegation for cosponsoring the bill. As Representative of New Jersey's Third District for over 20 years, from 1965 to 1988, Jim Howard was a strong force in Congress. Through his work as the chairman of the Public Works and Transportation Committee, he wrote and passed legislation that genuinely saved thousands of lives: laws to tackle drunk driving, passenger safety, and the first-ever 55-mile-per-hour speed limit on Federal highways. Jim also came up with his Howard Plan, which was the very first time mass transit and highway legislation were combined into one surface transportation bill, because he recognized that rebuilding our infrastructure wouldn't just improve people's lives, it would mean economic growth and jobs throughout the country. For his home State, he helped secure crucial Federal funding for beach restoration, the rebuilding of the Barnegat Inlet, and the electrification of the North Jersey Coast Rail Line, all projects that New Jerseyans still benefit from to this day. While Jim was a strong champion for revitalizing our Nation's infrastructure, he was an even stronger force for New Jersey's coastal communities and environmental protection. Through major legislation like the Superfund Act of 1986, the Groundwater Protection Act, and the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act, he never forgot that New Jersey suffered greatly from toxic waste sites, ocean dumping, or plastic pollution. He even successfully fought back against the Presidential veto by sponsoring and passing the 1987 Clean Water Act, which helped create the Clean Water State Revolving Fund that still provides millions of dollars in funding every year for a range of water quality infrastructure projects across the country. Now, before his passing, Jim resided in Spring Lake, New Jersey, with his wife, who still lives there. Marlene and the rest of Jim's family were critical to his success as a Congressman. His very first political campaign in 1964 was run from his kitchen table, using his family's savings of about $5,000 to run for office. With Marlene as his campaign manager, his slogan was: ``He cares about people. It is that simple.'' It really encapsulated Jim's work and demeanor. Being a Democrat from this part of New Jersey, which was very conservative at the time, he had to listen to anyone's opinion and always sought common ground. He never stopped fighting for working- class people. It is only right that Jim's important and lasting legacy in New Jersey and the rest of the country be recognized at his local post office. This is not being renamed. It never had a name, so it will be now named for him. I urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill to honor a great man and Congressman.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Republicans simply cannot help themselves. It is bad enough that they refuse to do anything to address the affordability crisis that American families are facing today. Republicans are doubling down on bills that will drive up energy costs for families when they are simply being stretched too thin. Yesterday, we were here on the House floor debating a bill that guts appliance efficiency standards which save families money on their power bills. Today, we are back to debate the gutting of another popular program that lowers upfront appliance prices. Mr. Speaker, this is the seventh bill about appliances that we have debated on the House floor this past year. When I am back home in New Jersey talking to my constituents, no one ever brings up showerhead flow or how much water their dishwasher uses. These folks want to know how we can put a stop to Trump's disastrous tariffs which are a tax on the American people and which raise the price of absolutely everything we buy. They want to know what Congress is doing to lower their skyrocketing healthcare premiums. They want to know why Congress is asleep at the wheel, while they struggle to make ends meet, watch their power bills go up every month, and have to start making impossible choices between paying for medicine or keeping their lights on. Sorry, folks, apparently Republicans in Washington don't have time for any of that. They are focused on passing another appliance bill instead--talk about out of touch. This bill repeals and rescinds funding for three important Department of Energy programs. First, it rescinds funding from the Home Electrification and Appliance Rebate program. This is a $4.5 billion program created by Democrats as part of the Inflation Reduction Act to lower the upfront costs of appliance upgrades for low- and moderate- income families. The families get a rebate. It helps families better afford appliances for their homes. With this bill, House Republicans are eliminating the funding for the rebate. Again, they are driving up costs on American families. The second thing this bill does is to rescind funding from a program designed to help with building energy code adoption. That might sound a little obscure, but it is also important from a cost point of view. Third, they repeal a program that provides assistance for contractor training. Even these two programs that might seem less important than the rebate are still programs that reduce costs for consumers. Mr. Speaker, I cannot stress it enough. This bill only worsens the affordability crisis for American families. Trump promised to cut Americans' power bills in half during his first year. That didn't happen. In fact, electricity prices are up 15 percent and increasing twice as fast as inflation just since Trump took office. More than 80 million Americans are struggling to pay their utility bills. Even though these price increases are a direct result of Republican policies, today House Republicans are choosing to double down. Rather than working on constructive solutions that help Americans, they are choosing to cut funding that helps homeowners and businesses save money. There is a reason why electrification rebates are popular. Again, these are rebates that help people. Some States have already rolled out their rebate programs and are seeing significant interest. Despite how Republicans try to frame them, rebates are not mandates. Rebates are optional, and they provide discounts to families who have crunched the numbers and made the decision that electrification would help them save money. Republicans want to take away that choice at a time of skyrocketing energy costs and energy demand. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. The programs that this bill targets are designed to lower costs, create jobs, and help Americans across the country. I only wish that Republicans cared more about that than wasting floor time with ridiculous antiefficiency and anticonsumer bills. 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 will debunk some comments that were made by my colleague from Texas. Both of the speakers on the other side of the aisle repeatedly cited the National Association of Home Builders' estimate that building a home to meet the 2021 International Energy Conservation Code standard would add as much as $31,000 in costs to a new home. This is flawed. It is intentionally misleading. Republicans are trying to demonize energy codes that actually save Americans money and deliver increased comfort, health, and climate benefits, all to prop up their fossil fuel buddies. This figure of $31,000 originally came from Kansas City. When you actually analyze the cost breakdown, it includes costs that are not required by the 2021 energy code. For example, the costs include over $18,000 for double-wall construction, but the code doesn't require double-wall construction. It includes $3,000 for a ventilation energy package. The code does not require this package. It only requires one of several energy options, like energy-saving water heaters. Mr. Speaker, I could go on debunking these claims, but hopefully you get the point that this fictitious figure is just meant to mislead the public about energy building costs. 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. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Last night, the President finally admitted that the American public is concerned about the price increases. If you care about affordability, why would you repeal a rebate program that helps Americans with their electricity bills, which is exactly what this bill unfortunately does? It repeals the rebate. That rebate is at the point of sale. When you go out and buy an appliance or a heat pump or something, you actually get a discount on the sale price. That is the rebate, at the point of sale. This bill targets this very popular electrification rebate program, a program that is already active in 12 States plus the District of Colombia. Those States include North Carolina, Georgia, Michigan, and Indiana. All but two States in the country have applied for the program funding. What they are essentially doing is eliminating this rebate program, which is clearly popular, in the very middle of it, while Americans are taking advantage of it. I think it is disingenuous to portray this as some kind of red State or blue State program. It is popular across the board amongst Republicans and Democrats. With this bill, House Republicans are voting to rip funding away from 12 States that have active programs and against the interests of 46 total States who have applied for the program and are about to put it in the process. At full deployment, the rebate program is expected to deliver $275 million in annual energy savings with participating families projected to save about $1,000 a year, and the installation of these appliances is projected to support 23,000 jobs. Why are you eliminating a program like this that puts money back into Americans' pockets when they are concerned about affordability? To date, electrification rebates have served 16,000 homes and resulted in $7.6 million in annual savings. This is across only the 13 active programs that I mentioned. These programs are all designed in unique ways to meet States' needs in local context, and obviously Americans are interested. If Republicans are successful in repealing this rebate program, they are not just scrapping some hypothetical program. They are removing real dollars from real States, real people, including the States that they represent. Again, we have this affordability crisis. Why eliminate a rebate that puts money back in Americans' pockets? Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.