Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to the amendment because it peddles in gross xenophobia and fear of immigrants that has become the calling card of Republicans during the Trump years. The amendment would require the Department of Energy to add to its study vulnerabilities from the employment of non-U.S. citizens at generation or transmission facilities. Now, I agree with the gentleman that our electric system needs to be secure, but I do not agree with him that every electrical engineer who comes to this country for a better life needs to live in fear of ICE and DOE showing up and harassing them at their place of work. There are enough real threats to our grid. Congress does not need to concern itself with imaginary threats as well. Mr. Chair, I urge opposition to the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, while I have grave concerns about the Department of Energy's ability to carry out and execute on the studies and reports required by this bill, if we are going to ask them to do those studies, then I think this addition is harmless. I would point out that, while the gentleman's amendment focuses explicitly on efforts by foreign entities of concern to exploit supply chain disruptions to undermine our leadership in the field of AI. I am concerned about any effort by foreign entities of concern to exploit energy supply chain disruptions. That is why I have been dismayed at the fact that President Trump and the Republican Party have totally dismantled the infrastructure that we built up to strengthen our energy supply chains. The reality is that there are more threats to our energy supply chains today than there were a year ago because of the big, ugly bill and the sledgehammer that DOGE and Secretary Wright took to the Department of Energy. That is a large reason why I oppose the overall bill. But this amendment isn't about that. While I still oppose the underlying bill, I do not oppose the amendment, even though I think it is too narrow. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment recognizes that it is not enough for us to manufacture critical grid and supply chain components, they must be able to be actually delivered and installed on the grid. This is a worthwhile addition to the bill. However, I lament that while my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can recognize the equal importance of manufacturing supply chain components and transporting and delivering them, they are unable to recognize the same when it comes to electricity. To do anyone any good, electricity must not only be generated, it must be carried to its destination on the grid. However, House Republicans, especially those on the Energy and Commerce Committee, have been completely unwilling to acknowledge the role that expanding the grid must play in any serious, bipartisan conversation on permitting. The bills this week and next week aren't a serious attempt at permitting reform, far from it. One of them tells us that, despite Democrats talking for the last 3 years about the need to strengthen the grid in the face of rising demand, Republicans have still failed to acknowledge that need or that reality for that matter. Again, I think this is a bad bill. I think the Department of Energy has not made clear to us that it has the resources or the ability to carry out this bill. I think that instead of trying to get the DOE to maybe write us a report telling us what we already know, we should focus on concrete actions that could shore up our supply chain: restoring the Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains, and restoring the incentives to build in America that were killed by the big, ugly bill. All these things are really what we need to do. However, Republicans are not willing to do that, so I don't know what else to say. Mr. Chair, 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, I thank the sponsor of this legislation on the Democratic side, the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell), for yielding. I rise today in support of this legislation, the Mikaela Naylon Give Kids a Chance Act, sponsored by Representatives Dingell and McCaul. This bill includes several strong, bipartisan pieces of legislation to help expand access to care for patients with rare diseases and complex medical needs. It increases research and development into rare pediatric diseases, improves regulatory certainty, strengthens the medical product supply chain, and enhances patient access to lower-cost medicines. This bill will help in our efforts to bring new treatments to pediatric patients with more advanced forms of cancer. It also includes important enforcement authority for the Food and Drug Administration to take action against companies that do not conduct required studies for pediatric patients. The bill also includes critical language to clarify the FDA's long- held treatment of orphan drug exclusivity and bring new treatments to more patients suffering from rare diseases. It will also allow for disclosure of certain information related to drug formulations to generic drug manufacturers to bring lower-cost medications to patients more quickly. These provisions all advance our goal of accelerating the development of novel, safe, effective, and affordable treatments while improving outcomes for patients. I am also pleased that the legislation provides the Health Resources and Services Administration, or HRSA, with the authority to modernize the organ transplant system. This language will allow HRSA to collect registration fees and distribute them among the multiple contractors that will be supporting the OPTN. The system is lifesaving for Americans, and I am glad that we can continue to support these much- needed reform efforts. Mr. Speaker, this bill also includes important provisions to ensure that our medical product supply chain can be strengthened by working with international partners that believe in both tolerance and respect for every person, as well as advancement of science and medicine. As a whole, this bill is going to make a difference, but I continue to believe that additional guardrails are needed for the PRV program to function the way Congress intended it to. Previous reports from the Government Accountability Office on the program and continued research from academics show that there is little evidence that it incentivizes the products that Congress intended to help come to market. This is especially concerning as the FDA has introduced a new priority review program with potentially massive financial benefits for pharmaceutical companies without any transparency or congressional authorization. That is why I am pleased that this bill includes a requirement for the GAO to conduct a new study and report on the effectiveness of the PRV program in achieving our original intent. Let us not overstate the impact of this bill, however. While we are working together to advance the bill forward on incremental but important bipartisan legislation to advance both drug discovery and drug affordability, the Trump administration continues its devastating attacks on public health, including in cancer research. The Trump administration's substantial cuts to research funding for the biomedical community is chilling the innovation that we are trying to promote through this bill. The Trump administration is decimating research and endangering the pipeline of new cancer therapies that could come to FDA for approval. Their actions are putting patients at risk and leaving pediatric patients without the treatments that we are trying to ensure can be tested and brought to them. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is using the FDA as a tool to provide lucrative gifts to drugmakers and allies of President Trump, undermining the Agency's science-based review process, and endangering the health of the American public with potentially unsafe and rushed drug reviews. The Trump administration is also decimating our vaccine infrastructure, from the programs that cover our vaccines and ensure that patients can afford them to destroying the pipeline to future vaccines through their ideological, pseudoscience agenda. Mr. Speaker, one day, I hope that my Republican colleagues will join us in calling on the Trump administration to reverse these terrible policies that are only harming the public health.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the National Organization for Women of New Jersey (NOW-NJ) as they celebrate their historic 50-year milestone of promoting equal rights for women and girls. It is my privilege to recognize the powerful impact made by NOW- NJ to build a New Jersey where everyone, regardless of race, gender identity, or background has the freedom and opportunity to thrive. Since 1975, this multi-issue, multi-strategy organization has gone above and beyond for marginalized communities and stands as one of the oldest and largest women's organizations in our country. NOW-NJ continues to lead the charge in efforts to combat violence and harassment against women, and push back against renewed attacks on reproductive rights, civil rights, and LGBTQ+ rights. I commend NOW-NJ for their outstanding holistic approach to advocate for social change. For half a century, this group has led with purpose, through intersectional, anti-racist grassroots activism, to expand opportunities in education and the workforce. It is valuable for New Jersey residents to have NOW-NJ as a resource for guidance and leadership. NOW-NJ's legacy of resilience will live on for generations. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope my colleagues will join me in honoring NOW-NJ for their exceptional contributions to the community and congratulating them on their 50th anniversary of service.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, which is a complete and utter waste of the House of Representatives' time. It asks the National Petroleum Council to do a study, and that is it. That is the entire bill. In my opinion, to ask the National Petroleum Council to do something it can already do on its own makes absolutely no sense. The House was out of session for over 50 days because Speaker Johnson refused to bring Congress back to resolve the healthcare crisis created by Republicans and to reopen the government. Now, Speaker Johnson claims we will be working day and night on important problems. I certainly agree that we should be doing that. We should be working on problems that Americans care about, but millions of Americans are seeing their healthcare costs skyrocket because the President and Republicans refuse to extend critical tax credits that make healthcare more affordable for millions of Americans. Millions more are paying thousands of dollars more a year for everyday goods because of the President's tariffs. These tariffs are attacks on the American people, and they are expected to cost families more than $2,000 each year when they take full effect. Meanwhile, prices on everything from utilities to food to energy, even prices for Thanksgiving dinner next week, are going up. You would think that House Republicans would be doing something, anything, anything at all to fight these high prices. Instead, we are here talking about a bill that requires a Big Oil and Gas lobby group to put together a report. That is it. I cannot stress enough that this report is simply not needed, regardless of who does it. In fact, it is almost an insult, particularly to refinery workers on the East Coast, including my State of New Jersey, who don't need a study to tell them why refining capacity here has dropped by over one third in the last decade. It all goes back to the repeal of the crude oil export ban in 2015. You don't have to take my word for it. The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office found in a 2020 report--that was a report--that domestic refinery margins suffered in the wake of the repeal. This bill only asks for the report to assess executive actions, regulations, or policies that have impacted refineries, not a change in the law. If it were dealing with a change in the law, I think that would make sense. It is a massive, massive oversight to not talk about the law and what happened when the crude oil export ban was lifted 10 years ago. That is what caused the problem with refineries. The most ridiculous part of this bill is that it demands the study not be done by the Department of Energy but by the National Petroleum Council, an industry advisory body for Big Oil and Gas. I have no doubt that the National Petroleum Council will produce a biased report that will likely complain about every environmental regulation that they don't like, but that protects the American people. That is what Republicans have been doing: repealing all the environmental regulations. If Republicans wanted an unbiased view of domestic refining challenges, they would have asked the Department of Energy to craft a report. That is not what they are looking for because Republicans just want to sanction fossil fuel propaganda. That is what they are doing with this bill. It is a waste of everyone's time, Mr. Speaker. It is just another example of how Republicans have absolutely no ideas to help American families lower everyday costs. We need to be working on real solutions, Democrats and Republicans, to address the affordability crisis. That is what the American people want, not this report. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, my point is that this report does not ask the people that are doing it to look into the change of law that would be necessary in order to bring refineries back. The reason why we lost so many refineries, particularly on the East Coast and New Jersey, was because the ban on the export of crude oil was lifted 10 years ago. You don't need a refinery if you can export the crude, but this report doesn't address that at all. 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. Speaker, listening to my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle, this report obviously does absolutely nothing to address the prices of power and electricity that continues to go up. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a document from the Joint Economic Committee, as well as a link to the document located at: https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/22e24fd6-4db7-44c6-93a9- 9710c6f48b85/electricity-bills-report.pdf [From the Joint Economic Committee Minority, Nov. 2025] State-by-State Data: Annual Electricity Bills Up $100 Per Family in 2025 Last year, President Donald Trump repeatedly promised that energy bills across the country would be ``cut in half'' within 12 months. However, this new Joint Economic Committee--Minority analysis finds that electricity costs are increasing significantly, with households in nearly every state on track to pay more for electricity this year compared to last year. The Committee estimated full-year 2025 electricity costs per state based on the monthly electricity bill data released by the federal Energy Information Administration (EIA) for January-August of 2025. The Committee projects that annual electricity costs will be at least 5 percent higher than last year in 37 states plus D.C., and at least 10 percent higher than last year in 10 states plus D.C. On average, the Committee projects that American households will pay approximately $100 more per household in electricity costs this year.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, last year, as I think everyone knows, President Donald Trump repeatedly promised that energy bills across the country would be cut in half within 12 months of his taking office. This shows a State-by-State analysis of how much electricity bills have gone up instead of being cut. Just to mention to my two colleagues, here in Kentucky, it says that they have gone up 11.8 percent; in Ohio, 9.9 percent; in New Jersey, 13.6 percent. Certainly nothing like the cut in half that President Donald Trump promised. This report projects that American households will pay approximately $100 more per household in electricity costs this year. We are going to deal with this pricing issue when we get to the next bill about LNG, which, again, is only going to increase prices. It is clear that the Republicans have no intention of dealing with this crisis of affordability with electric or power bills, as well. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier).

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

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, I urge President Trump and my Republican colleagues to start taking the American affordability crisis seriously. President Trump is simply out of touch with the reality that American families are facing. Earlier this week, he seemed to mockingly suggest that ``affordability'' is a word the Democrats made up to attack him. Well, that is rich coming from a man who has declared bankruptcy six times. The American people are hurting because of President Trump and the Republican policies, and they should not be mocked for that. Even FOX News reported last night that 76 percent of Americans view the economy negatively. Americans are struggling to afford basic necessities. A new report from The Century Foundation found that utility prices are up 32 percent since 2022. That is nearly three times the rate of inflation. Nearly a quarter of that jump occurred just this year alone. These rising costs are debilitating to the middle class. Nearly 1 in 20 households are in severe utility debt. Roughly 4 million Americans are at risk of having their utility bills sent to collections. It is an incredible number. They have done nothing wrong. They just can't afford to keep up with the exponential rise in electricity prices. They can't afford to pay the bill. Now, the two bills that are on the floor today, in my opinion, will only increase the average utility bill even further. Just last week, the U.S. Energy Information Association found that natural gas prices will rise by 16 percent in 2026, primarily due to increased LNG exports amid flat production growth. Secretary Chris Wright promised to double LNG exports to countries like China within 5 years. The next bill that we are going to consider is all about giving more LNG to China, to Beijing, to Communist China. Why are we helping them? The American people desperately need a solution to lower energy costs at home. Why does the President or the Secretary refuse to take care of the American people that the Trump administration is supposed to represent? Now, I have said it before, but it bears repeating: The Trump administration only cares about bailing out themselves and their fossil fuel friends. It is time for Republicans to come to the table to work with Democrats on a solution to this affordability crisis, and it can begin here with the Energy and Commerce Committee. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

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 strong opposition to this bill. This bill would allow unlimited amounts of our liquefied natural gas, or LNG, to be sent abroad to any designation in the world including to our adversaries like China. This is all about China. The President gets up on a regular basis and says we need to export more LNG to China. My Republican colleagues say they worry about Beijing and what Beijing is doing to challenge us. Yet, they are going to allow with this bill unlimited exports to Communist China. By sending more American LNG abroad, this bill would reduce our energy resources at home, raising our constituents' utility bills at a time when they can least afford it. It just makes common sense that if we send liquefied natural gas abroad, it is going to raise the price here because there will be less here. It is just Economics 101, in my opinion. Americans are already being crushed by the rising cost of living. Now Republicans are making matters worse by pushing legislation that will only drive up monthly power bills even further. It is quite the departure from President Trump's campaign promise to cut American power bills in half. He said that during the course of the campaign that in the first year he would cut power bills in half. Instead, they keep climbing. Right now, thanks to the congressional Republicans' backward energy policies, electricity prices are climbing more than twice as fast as inflation. More than 80 million Americans are struggling to pay their utility bills, with many having to make the impossible choice of either paying for medicine and food or keeping their lights on. I think it is a disgrace that, instead of offering up solutions to this affordability crisis, Republicans are here today to just make it worse. Let's be clear, Mr. Speaker. It is a well-established fact that unlimited LNG exports would increase prices here at home. If my colleagues don't believe me, last year the Secretary of Energy noted: ``Unfettered exports of LNG would increase wholesale domestic natural gas prices by over 30 percent.'' Mr. Speaker, if you are a Republican who perhaps didn't trust the Democratic Department of Energy, I would certainly assume you could trust your own current Department of Energy. Just last week, the Energy Information Administration noted that it expects natural gas prices to increase by 16 percent next year due largely to increased exports of LNG. Mr. Speaker, 16 percent is on top of the 15 percent increase in natural gas costs that Americans already suffered this year. It is all due to the LNG export approvals that President Trump made in his first term. All this bill does is make that problem worse by ensuring there are zero restrictions on how much of our own LNG we are shipping out to other countries. The only ones who stand to benefit are fossil fuel companies, proving that Republicans care more about padding the profits of their rich fossil fuel friends than they do about lowering costs for the average American. Mr. Speaker, I want to stress the China part again. China is one of the top recipients of American LNG, and not only the President but LNG companies are openly bragging about how they can sell to Chinese buyers. This bill completely removes any review of whether exporting more of our LNG to China is in the public interest. The chairman said that that is a presumption that the public interest has met. I argue it is more than a presumption. There is no longer any review of the public interest. When I talk about the public interest, I am talking about price. I am talking about national security. I am talking about impact on the environment, the air, and whatever people breathe. This bill completely removes any review of what is in the public interest before we export to China or anyone else. To me, it is the very reversal. The President talks about America First. This is putting America last in my opinion. Mr. Speaker, I don't know what to say. We have seen this story before. Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago, Congress removed the ban on exporting American crude oil. I already mentioned that. Before that, we were only sending China 420,000 barrels of oil each year. We now send China more than 160 million barrels of oil a year. Clearly, Republicans have learned nothing from that, despite constantly proclaiming the importance of beating China in the AI race and so many other things. Republicans consistently say that losing the AI race to China would be like losing the Cold War to Russia. The bill they are proposing today is like selling rocket fuel to the Soviets during the space race. It defies all logic. Finally, I want to point out a basic fact. We have already approved enough permits to triple our LNG exports by the end of the decade, and that is on top of the more than quadrupling of LNG exports we have already seen over the last 6 years. When my colleagues on the other side talk about Europe and our allies, there is no way that at this point with the permits that have already been approved that the Europeans or any of our allies have to worry about not getting enough LNG from us. Mr. Speaker, I think it makes sense to ask the Department of Energy to keep an eye on this to ensure that all these exports are actually a good thing and are in our public interest: For our economy, for our national security, and for the communities that we here represent. All this bill does is get rid of all of that and say we don't care and we should export whatever we want to China or whoever else. The American people are tired of these antics. They don't have time for them. They need us to get serious about addressing the skyrocketing cost of living. Today they will see that Republicans are making it worse, while Democrats are fighting to make it better to try to reduce prices. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), who is the ranking member of the Energy Subcommittee.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz), a member of our committee.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), a member of the committee.

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

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I will mention to my colleagues on the other side that the Biden administration did not ban LNG exports. There was a pause because they were concerned about the public interest, in particular, because the price was increasing for power, for natural gas, and so many other things. It made sense to take a review and see what that meant for price, what that meant for national security, what that meant for the environment and climate. The reality is that the amount of natural gas permits and LNG permits continue to rise and rise every day. This idea that somehow they banned it is simply not the case. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Casten).