Frank Pallone, Jr.

“I want the House to pass this bill. It gives officers in the Public Health Service the same paid leave that military members and other federal workers get.”

“Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 2846, legislation that would extend expanded leave benefits to members of the U.S. Public Health Service Corps. The U.S. Public Health Service Corps is one of eight uniformed services in the United States. There are more than 6,000 officers who serve as physicians, nurses, and scientists across agencies to advance public health. Right now, these officers are not guaranteed the same 12-week leave benefit as members of the military are entitled to under Federal law nor are they eligible for the 12 weeks of leave that all Federal Government employees are entitled to under the Federal Employee Paid Leave Act. This bill fixes this by extending leave benefits to Public Health Service officers, and this leave includes expanded parental leave, emergency leave of absence, and leave for rest and recuperation. I thank Representative Houlahan for her leadership on this legislation and my colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committee for working with us to bring this bill to the floor. I encourage all my colleagues to vote ``yes.’’ Before I reserve the balance of my time, I do want to take an opportunity to thank Una Lee, who is right here, for her more than 11 years here at the Energy and Commerce Committee, most of those years serving as chief counsel for the Health Subcommittee. Una has played a critical role in every major healthcare bill that has been signed into law during that time. Una has been a trusted adviser, and she will be missed. I don’t want her to leave, but what can I do. I wish her nothing but the best in her future endeavors and congratulate her for her tremendous work, truly tremendous work of making healthcare more affordable and accessible for every American. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.”

“I want the House to pass this bill, but it does not go far enough. Tech companies are building large data centers that drive up electric bills for regular people. This bill tells states to consider making data centers pay for the power grid upgrades they need. It is a good start, but we need much stronger rules to protect communities and lower power costs.”

“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 9340, the Ratepayer Protection Act. Everyone knows that data centers are helping drive electricity prices to record highs this year. Just in the mid-Atlantic over the past few years, data centers have increased electric bills by over $30 billion. By and large, it has not been the data centers that have been footing the bill. It has been our constituents. This problem is happening across the Nation, from Texas to California, from Florida to Washington State. It doesn’t matter if you are in a red State or a blue State. Your prices have gone up. Americans, Mr. Speaker, are concerned about what data centers and Big Tech’s push for more AI means for their communities, jobs, property values, and the future. Electricity prices are skyrocketing. The electric grid is strained. Our clean air and water are being polluted. Noise is wearing on our communities’ health and patience. People, frankly, are sick and tired of corporate special interests and Big Tech billionaires taking over their neighborhoods and threatening their utility bills, air, water, and property. Unfortunately, these very real concerns are repeatedly swept to the sidelines, minimized, or ridiculed by President Trump and Republican congressional leaders. Last month, Trump posted on social media that communities that opposed data centers must want to end up being backward and poor. The President, in my opinion, is out of touch on this issue, and the American people are demanding action. That is the reality we are living in right now, where President Trump wants to continue to give Big Tech free rein to build data centers, with no Federal guardrails. This bill is a start in addressing the impact that data centers have on our power bills, but this particular bill does not go far enough to ensure that Big Tech and other data center owners fully pay for the energy use and demand that they create. The bill requires State utility regulators to consider--and I say ``consider’’--mandating that the electricity prices that data centers pay fully account for all their costs that they impose on the grid. This includes new and upgraded power plants, high-voltage transmission lines, and local power lines. We can all agree that data centers must pay their fair share and that the data centers themselves allegedly agree, but this bill, I do believe, is one small step in that direction. The bill, as I said, isn’t perfect. It also only addresses one small part of the puzzle. It does not change how wholesale generation or transmission costs are allocated at the Federal level. It doesn’t push for the transparency and data-transfer mechanisms that State regulators need to ensure that data centers actually are paying their fair share. Data centers must bring their own clean electricity generation capacity onto the grid and be willing to get curtailed first when there are grid reliability issues. Now, Representative Landsman from Ohio has a bill that would kick FERC into gear to start studying some of those issues. It passed the Energy and Commerce Committee unanimously nearly 2 months ago, but unfortunately, House Republican leadership did not include that bill on the floor this week. Regardless of what happens with this bill in the Senate, I will make a commitment to the American people, Mr. Speaker. Americans across the country are furious about the unchecked development of data centers and artificial intelligence. They are furious about what it means for their communities, for their jobs, or even for their lives. I promise that this bill is not the end of our focus on these issues. It is only the beginning. I have repeatedly said that we need strong guardrails on data centers and the impact they have on our communities, our environment, and our bills. If we can’t establish those strong guardrails, then it is my belief that we will need to establish a moratorium on constructing new data centers. This bill by itself, or even in combination with a number of other bills we are considering this week, is simply not enough, but it is a start. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.”

“I want the House to pass this bill. It funds federal programs to research, track, and treat traumatic brain injuries through 2030. Millions of Americans live with disabilities from brain injuries, and these programs help protect patients, connect them to care, and save lives.”

“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1493, my bill to reauthorize the Traumatic Brain Injury Act of 1996. This bipartisan legislation reauthorizes through fiscal year 2030 the critical Federal programs dedicated to the prevention, detection, treatment, and surveillance of traumatic brain injuries. It also renames the national TBI surveillance program to honor the legacy of my dear friend, the late Representative Bill Pascrell, Jr., of New Jersey, who founded and led the Congressional Brain Injury Task Force for more than two decades after meeting his constituent Dennis Benigno of Clifton, New Jersey, whose son suffered a life-changing traumatic brain injury in a car crash. The Traumatic Brain Injury Act was signed into law in 1996. At that time, our understanding of these injuries was so limited that public health experts called TBI the silent epidemic, and we did not know how many Americans were affected each year, who was most at risk, or how many people were left with a permanent, life-altering disability. That first law authorized Federal support and programs to research TBI research and conduct surveillance, both directly and through grants to public and nonprofit organizations. Mr. Speaker, this initial Federal investment has transformed what we know now and identified what we still need to do. Because Congress chose to invest, we now know that traumatic brain injury sends more than 214,000 Americans to the hospital in a single year and that it takes roughly 69,000 lives annually, nearly 190 deaths every single day. We know that more than 5.3 million Americans are living today with a lifelong disability caused by a brain injury, and we know who is most at risk: older adults who fall, servicemembers and veterans, athletes on playing fields across the country, victims of domestic violence, and far, far too many children. There is also the economic toll of treating, rehabilitating, and caring for these individuals throughout their lives. Mr. Speaker, Congress’ investment gave us the tools to act on what the data revealed, from concussion guidelines to protect young athletes to targeted prevention for the older Americans who are most likely to be hospitalized. None of that existed before the Federal partnership and Representative Pascrell’s leadership. All of that is at risk if we continue to allow this work to lapse. Since the program’s inception in 1996, Congress has reauthorized this act on a bipartisan basis time and again. However, despite bipartisan efforts by our committee to continue reauthorizing these programs, the Federal authorization lapsed in 2024. Without reauthorization, research slows, surveillance weakens, and the support services that patients and families depend on are put in jeopardy. We cannot afford to lose momentum on an issue that touches veterans, athletes, survivors of violence, older adults, and countless other Americans in every one of our districts. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1493 renews three proven programs. First, it reauthorizes the CDC’s TBI program, which drives our national research, surveillance, and prevention efforts. Second, it reauthorizes the Administration for Community Living’s State partnership grant programs, which helps States, Tribal organizations, and their partners connect survivors to rehabilitation and community-based services. Third, it reauthorizes the State Protection and Advocacy program, which safeguards the rights of Americans living with brain injury. This is a modest Federal investment with an extraordinary reach. Since 1997, 48 States, 2 territories, and the District of Columbia have used these partnership grants to build the very systems that their residents now rely on. This bill does not simply extend those programs but strengthens them. It requires the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct a study and report to Congress on traumatic brain injury, and it directs the CDC to publish information on the populations at highest risk and on the strategies to protect them so that Congress and our public health officials can respond to the growing needs of these communities with better data and clear priorities. Mr. Speaker, this is a commonsense, bipartisan bill that benefits all Americans. It advanced out of committee without a single dissenting vote. This bill supports research. It strengthens care, and it helps ensure that Americans living with traumatic brain injuries are not left behind. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,’’ and I reserve the balance of my time.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 4 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →

“I want the House to pass this bill. Many Americans have untreated cavities and gum disease. This bill gives grants to states to train more dental workers and help more people get dental care.”

“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2001, the Action for Dental Health Act, led by Representative Kelly. Access to oral healthcare is critical to ensuring a person’s health and well-being. Too often, however, oral health is overlooked. Tooth decay is the most common chronic disease in both children and adults in the United States. In fact, more than one in four adults have untreated cavities, and nearly half of American adults show signs of gum disease. We need to expand access to oral healthcare, including strengthening the oral healthcare workforce. The Action for Dental Health Act reauthorizes State oral health workforce improvement programs. These programs seek to enhance dental workforce planning and development through the support of innovative programs that meet the individual needs of each funded State. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort to strengthen and expand access to oral healthcare. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``yes’’ on H.R. 2001, and I reserve the balance of my time.”

“I want Congress to pass this bill to make daylight saving time permanent. Congress tried this in the 1970s and reversed it, but life is different now. Schools start later, fewer kids walk, and more people work from home. People do not want to keep changing their clocks back and forth.”

“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just want to address the issue that was mentioned that in 1974 Congress voted to move to permanent daylight savings time and then reversed that decision. I think that 50 years later, things are different. First of all, in the 1970s, when that was the case, things have changed in the sense that schools have pushed start times later in many districts, including in my district and dramatically fewer kids walk to school. Also, remote and hybrid work has had significant impact on Americans’ commuting patterns. Things are not the same today as they were in the 1970s in terms of what people did and how they worked and how they went to school. Passing this bill now also in the peak summer months gives everyone-- and that is schools, workplaces, transit systems--time to plan for this change well in advance of the darkest winter months, and I think that is important also. I am also confident that we are setting ourselves up to succeed this time around so Americans can reap the benefits of eliminating the time change. Again, it is the time change that really is the problem. Most of us, whether you are for permanent daylight savings time or permanent standard time, don’t want to see the switching back and forth. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and, again, I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.”

“I support this bill to make daylight saving time permanent. Changing our clocks twice a year hurts our sleep and our health, leading to more strokes and heart attacks. Keeping daylight saving time gives us more evening sunlight, which helps local businesses, boosts tourism, and reduces crime.”

“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Sunshine Protection Act. This act addresses an issue on which many Americans actually agree, and that is stopping the biannual process of changing our clocks. Only 12 percent of Americans prefer to switch their clocks twice a year. Far more Americans recognize that the practice is inconvenient and, frankly, disruptive. Stopping the twice-yearly time change benefits the health and well- being of all Americans. The time change inevitably disrupts sleep patterns and is especially disruptive to the sleep of young children and pets. Time change also is associated with an increase in the rate of heart attacks and strokes in the days immediately following the change. Disturbingly, studies have shown that the increase in stroke rates after the time change is even higher for some of our most vulnerable populations. For example, cancer patients’ stroke rates increase by 25 percent, and people over the age of 65 are 20 percent more likely to have a stroke in the days following the time change. The Sunshine Protection Act would implement permanent daylight saving time and stop the twice-a-year change that disrupts our sleep and our health. Taking this action will increase the sunshine hours in the evening, allowing many Americans to leave work for more sunlight in the winter months, not darkness. The increased evening sunlight will also provide a needed boost to our tourism industry. Extra sunlight means more time at the beach, more time eating out at restaurants, and more time doing outdoor leisure activities. In my district along the Jersey Shore, tourists can enjoy beautiful coastal areas with serene beaches, embark on fishing ventures along the Atlantic Coast, enjoy a nice outdoor concert from iconic musicians in places like Asbury Park, and so much more. Last year alone, New Jersey welcomed more than 120 million visitors to our State, and they contributed more than $50 billion to our State’s economy. Our tourism industry needs the boost today more than ever. The Trump administration’s policies, including high visa fees and the detention and harassment of legal tourists, have discouraged travelers from visiting our country because they simply do not feel welcome. Meanwhile, Americans are facing an affordability crisis, forcing families to make difficult tradeoffs, including forgoing summer travel. For communities like mine that rely on tourism for our local economies, an extra hour of daylight can make all the difference. Extra daylight also helps to deter crime. Researchers at the Brookings Institution found that criminal incidents decreased during an hour of sunlight added to the evening following the springtime change. Making that extra sunlight permanent will help keep our communities safer. All of these benefits clearly explain why 19 States have already voted to adopt permanent daylight saving time if Federal law changed because, right now, it doesn’t allow them to do that. These States recognize the benefits, and it is time that Congress allows them to reap those benefits. For States that have already chosen to follow permanent standard time due to the unique needs of their climate or location--and that includes Arizona and Hawaii--under this bill, they can continue to do so. Other States are allowed under the legislation to adopt permanent standard time prior to the bill’s enactment. Ultimately, the benefits of stopping the biannual changing of the clocks are numerous and clear. Moving to permanent daylight saving time will bring much-needed evening sunlight to communities across the United States. It is time we finally end the process of springing forward and falling back. I urge my colleagues to support the Sunshine Protection Act, and I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 7 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →