Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. 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 hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the Republicans, talk about the demand for LNG in Europe and how we are not giving Europe or other allies enough LNG. The fact of the matter is that we are sending more LNG to our European allies and our other allies than ever before. DOE, the Department of Energy, has issued enough permits to triple our export capacity from what it is today, even if they never issued another permit. That will take us into the early 2030s, when European policy is set to reduce natural gas consumption. We have approved so many terminals that most forecasters are seeing a massive glut of LNG on the market starting next year and running well into the 2030s. If this bill never becomes law, our European allies, our allies--I think South Korea or Japan was mentioned--will be well supplied. What is really happening here with this bill is helping China. That is what this is about, Beijing, Communist China. In 2024 alone, the United States exported over 200 billion cubic feet of gas to China. At a time when Americans are struggling to pay their heating bills and our power grids are facing unprecedented demand, President Trump and his Republican Party care more about subsidizing China's economic development and basically lining the pockets of their fossil fuel friends. Republicans claim to be obsessed with beating China in the AI race. Why are they trying to advance a bill that makes it easier to send American LNG to China to fuel their data centers and AI tools? Why are they putting the profits of Chinese technology companies over the well- being of American families and the success of our American companies? I have said this before, but it bears repeating. Republicans on the Committee on Energy and Commerce have compared winning the AI race with China to the importance of winning the Cold War. If that is true, then why are we sending more energy and trying to send even more and more energy to China? It makes absolutely no sense. H.R. 1949 will enrich Big Oil and the Chinese technology companies that rely on LNG to fuel their data centers, all while worsening the energy affordability crisis that Americans are experiencing. The only Americans who benefit from this deal are the rich fossil fuel executives. H.R. 1949 squarely puts China first and America last. The President and the Republicans keep talking about putting America first. How does this bill do that? This bill does the opposite. 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 reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I respect the chairman of our committee so much. The last time he spoke, he said that we need the world energy price to come down. What about the price here in the United States? The price is higher in the rest of the world than it is here, and that is why the rest of the world wants more of our LNG, because it is cheaper for them. What about us, though? Shouldn't we be primarily concerned about Americans and the price here? This bill, in my opinion, is just a giant handout to Big Oil and Gas that enriches our adversaries, primarily China, and forces middle-class families to pay the price with higher home energy bills. The bill removes the requirement that the Department of Energy determine LNG exports to be in the public interest before approving any export applications. The bill assumes that all exports of LNG are automatically in the public interest. I think this is absurd, considering multiple analyses have found that increased LNG exports directly lead to higher natural gas prices here in America. Last year, the Department of Energy's own review was clear: Unfettered gas exports will hurt the American economy. It found that energy costs would go up by more than $100 per year for every individual. At the same time, that is on top of the costs imposed by Republicans' big beautiful or ugly bill. The Department of Energy also found that natural gas prices would increase by over 30 percent, so we are essentially, in this bill, removing crucial safeguards. What you are going to have instead is a Wild West, allowing all adversaries like China to purchase even more of our energy, essentially, to use against us. This is the same playbook that Republicans ran when they repealed the crude oil export ban in 2015. After that repeal went through, oil exports to China increased from 420,000 barrels per year to over 160 million barrels per year in 2023. Last year, the United States sent 213 billion cubic feet of LNG to China, but Trump says he wants to send even more. He says that all the time. All I am saying is if beating China is really as important as Republicans and President Trump claim, we shouldn't be raising our own energy prices just to fuel Chinese data centers. That is what this bill does. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no,'' 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 want my colleagues to understand that when the Affordable Care Act was adopted, it was adopted for middle- class people who could not afford health insurance. They had no other option. They had nowhere to go. You just would end up without health insurance. I have constituents coming to me now crying because their insurance is going from $500 a month to $1,500 a month. That is an increase of $1,000 a month. Who could afford that? No one in the middle class. At the end of 2024 last year during a Democratic administration, the number of insured Americans was at a record high of about 95 percent. Democrats worked for that. Then Trump comes in and the Republicans with their big, ugly bill, and they make cuts to Medicaid, cuts to hospitals and nursing homes, and no funding to extend the ACA tax credits. What is going to happen? More and more people have no health insurance. That is the bottom line. They will not have health insurance, and the Republicans don't seem to care. I want you to know that the Democrats care, and we will continue to fight for you.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to recognize Joseph Seebode on his retirement from the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Seebode has dedicated 44 years of Federal service to USACE and his many achievements and contributions as an Environmental Engineer should be celebrated. As Deputy District Engineer and Chief of Programs and Project Management for the New York District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Joe oversaw a diverse team of engineers and scientists delivering major military and civil works construction, and regional infrastructure improvements in New York and New Jersey. Mr. Seebode's leadership has played a pivotal role in delivering life-saving technical expertise and environmental restoration during national crises. Together, we have worked on projects to reduce storm and coastal flood risks to protect residents, properties, and infrastructure. He has overseen vital beach replenishment, dredging, and flood control projects, working in coordination with federal, state, and local entities. It has been an honor to work with Joe to protect our communities, and I and the residents of the 6th Congressional District of New Jersey thank him for his leadership. In his early career, Joseph served as the official Corps liaison to the City of New York in the wake of the 9/11 World Trade Center tragedy. Throughout his tenure, he also was on the USACE Leadership Team leading immediate response actions in wake of Hurricane Sandy to include unwatering tunnels, emergency dredging and debris removal. As our communities worked to recover from these devastating disasters, Joseph Seebode led the way. Mr. Seebode has received numerous awards during his career including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civilian of the Year Award, the De Fleury Medal for engineering excellence, the Department of Army Civilian Award for Humanitarian Service, a Presidential Certificate of Merit for lifesaving while on official duty, the Department of Defense Environmental Engineer of the Year Award, and the State of New Jersey's highest Heroism Award. He has recently been recognized with the Distinguished Executive Award by the New York City Federal Executive Board and was inducted as a Hero of the Harbor. Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating Joseph Seebode on his retirement. It is my privilege to recognize his remarkable contributions to our Nation and offer my best wishes as he enters this new stage in life.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join The Ariel Club, the oldest women's club in the State of New Jersey, as it celebrates its 130th anniversary this year. Since its incorporation in 1895, The Ariel Club has provided a supportive social environment for women of Asbury Park to connect, share experiences, and foster friendships. Together, 10 women chartered and founded the first Asbury Park ariel cycles club to pair bicycle riding throughout the city with the community. Social clubs create a space for people to connect with their interests, hobbies, and businesses, and foster purposeful and influential partnerships. The Ariel Club's earliest rewarding community endeavors have transpired into a meaningful practice for several generations of women to follow. In 1896, members began a collective effort to raise funds, volunteer their time, and donate supplies to the Asbury Park Library. This renowned group of women raised $4,000 for the library of Asbury Park. Over the years, they have donated a beautiful large mahogany mantle clock, sponsored a beloved reading room, and continued to finance the clock's repairs today. It is a significant achievement that the Asbury Park Library could undergo several refurbishment projects and remain a fine resource for residents of Asbury Park after all these years. With forty current members, The Ariel Club remains a vibrant tight-knit group whose positive impact on the greater community stands as a special reminder of the value of neighborly connection. It is my privilege to honor The Ariel Club as its members mark this historic 130th anniversary, and I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating this milestone. The Ariel Club truly deserves this body's recognition.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Dr. Bruce Siegel on his retirement after an extraordinary career as a leader in public health, hospital administration, and health policy. Bruce has spent his entire career advocating on behalf of our Nation's most at-risk populations and the providers that care for them. For the past 14 years he has led America's Essential Hospitals, formerly the National Association of Public Hospitals, championing the cause of mission-driven safety net hospitals that serve communities facing the greatest social and financial barriers to care. During Dr. Siegel's tenure, he led efforts to preserve the 340B Drug Pricing Program, secured targeted safety-net hospital funding during the COVID-19 pandemic, and fought to close Medicaid payment gaps. He was instrumental in stopping harmful cuts to Medicaid DSH funding. Perhaps most notably, Dr. Siegel spearheaded a national campaign to incorporate social risk factors into federal value-based purchasing programs--an important step toward recognizing and addressing health disparities in policy and practice. Dr. Siegel's medical career began after graduating from the Joan & Sanford I. Weill Medical College of Cornell University and reflects a deep commitment to public service and health equity. From his early days as New Jersey's Commissioner of Health to his leadership of NYC Health+Hospitals and Tampa General Hospital, and later as a professor and director at The George Washington University, Dr. Siegel has consistently worked to improve care for the most vulnerable among us, performing pioneering research into health care quality, health care disparities, and the safety net. He has had a significant and positive impact on our health care system, and his contributions will be sorely missed. Mr. Speaker, my staff and I thank Dr. Siegel for his tireless dedication and leadership. His legacy will continue to inspire future generations of health care advocates and public servants.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this bill. President Trump and congressional Republicans have created a healthcare crisis and waged a war on the American healthcare system. On the 4th of July, President Trump celebrated our Nation's birthday by signing Republicans' big, ugly bill into law, cutting more than a trillion dollars from our healthcare system. You can't cut a trillion dollars without creating devastating consequences for our constituents. Their new law will cruelly take healthcare coverage away from 15 million Americans. We are already seeing the chaotic impacts of their actions. Just 2 months after enactment of the big, ugly bill, we are hearing from hospitals, clinics, and nursing homes across the country that are being forced to close their doors and cut services. St. Mary's Sacred Heart Hospital in Lavonia, Georgia, recently announced it will shut down its maternity unit next month, and they pointed to ``recent congressional cuts to Medicaid'' as the reason for the closure. In rural Virginia, August Medical Group is closing an urgent care and two primary care clinics, citing their ``ongoing response'' to Republicans' healthcare cuts. This is only going to get worse. Congressional Republicans are also taking away tax credits that help millions of Americans afford their health insurance through the Affordable Care Act. Thanks to enhanced tax credits included in the Inflation Reduction Act, a record 24 million Americans have coverage through the ACA marketplaces, but Republicans refuse to extend these tax credits for middle-class Americans in their big, ugly bill. If we don't act now, millions of Americans are going to be hit with huge premiums for the upcoming year. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that these premium increases will lead to 4.2 million Americans losing their health insurance. Trump and congressional Republicans had no problem giving their billionaire friends tax breaks in their big, ugly bill, but they refuse to extend tax credits that make healthcare more affordable for millions of middle-class families. This is an outrage. We can't allow this to happen. Democrats believe we must address this healthcare crisis before millions of people lose their health coverage, see their costs spike, and their hospitals close. Mr. Speaker, I call on my Republican colleagues to join us in ending the chaos. This has to be addressed in this spending bill. It doesn't. The Republican spending bill does not address the healthcare crisis, and for that reason I am opposed.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this trio of pro-polluter bills that we are debating today. These bills just double down on the Trump administration's commitment to raising American electricity prices by discriminating against clean, cheap energy. They prove that Republicans have never been for an all-of-the-above energy strategy and that they don't care about fixing the insanely high cost of living that is crushing families across this country right now. The only thing Republicans care about is making their fossil fuel friends even richer. All of this comes a few months after Republicans passed their big, ugly bill. That law will cause Americans' utility bills to go up by about nearly $300 per year. That is on top of the nearly $29 billion in electricity bill rate hikes that utilities have requested just since the start of President Trump's term. All this from a President who promised to cut Americans' electricity bills in half. That is just one of President Trump's broken promises. President Trump and House Republicans also claim to care about China, particularly about beating China in the artificial intelligence race. That requires getting as much power on to the grid as quickly as possible, but the big, ugly bill will do the opposite. It will instead cause electricity capacity to decrease by more than 2\1/2\ times the size of the entire Midwestern electric grid, and Trump's law will render the United States unable to meet growing power demand or to compete with China. All this doesn't factor in the enormous toll that Trump's tariffs will take on America's energy bills. A recent analysis found that Trump's tariffs will cost your average American family $2,300 each year. That is $2,300 that families need to pay rent, to buy groceries, and to afford clothes and school supplies for their kids. Trump decided to make everything more expensive, even the energy we buy. The inconvenient truth that Republicans don't want to acknowledge is that clean energy can compete with fossil fuels. They don't like that. They are trying to put their thumb on the scale, and that is where this week's bills come into play. The first bill we are discussing right now, H.R. 3062, the cross- border energy bill, was first proposed way back in 2013 to respond to the energy politics of the 2010s. It is simply irrelevant in this day and age. The Keystone Pipeline has been dead for 4 years. The Canadians are not interested in building energy infrastructure connecting our two nations thanks to Trump's tariffs, yet this bill would gut the Federal Government's ability to review the environmental impact of oil and gas pipelines that cross into Canada and Mexico. Currently, the Federal Government reviews the entirety of a cross- border oil pipeline, but under this bill, the review would be limited to only 1,000 feet crossing the border. There would be virtually no Federal review for natural gas pipelines running from Texas to Mexico. This will make it easier to export American natural gas to liquid natural gas facilities in Mexico, which, again, will drive up utility prices here at home in the United States. Finally, the bill creates a massive loophole allowing any existing cross-border facility to expand without any review whatsoever. A pipeline could be expanded by 10 times, dramatically increasing its environmental impact, and there would still be no review. If Republicans want to get serious about permitting reform, they need to work with Democrats to advance policies that will fix the way we permit and plan our Nation's grid. Later today, we are going to consider another bill, H.R. 3015, that would reestablish the National Coal Council, something that Energy Secretary Wright has already done. Instead of using floor time on anything important, like maybe trying to fix the affordability crisis that is strangling middle-class America, Republicans are wasting time passing a bill to do something that has already happened. Then after that, the third bill, H.R. 1047, the GRID Power Act, would require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to allow electric grid operators to prioritize connecting fossil fuel plants to the grid over connecting clean energy power plants to the grid. Now, this is just another way Republicans are tipping the scales toward fossil fuels over wind and solar energy. Taken together, Mr. Speaker, these three bills will only continue to raise America's energy bills and, in some cases, do so while also removing the guardrails that keep our communities safe and healthy. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge opposition to all three bills, including the one we are debating right now, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. 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, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. McClellan), who is a member of the committee.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on what the gentleman from Georgia said. I know he is not here. I don't like to comment on people when they are not here, but I am not really being critical personally, just substantively. The gentleman from Georgia and my colleagues on the other side keep talking about how they are going to use this legislation to address another pipeline from Canada. References were made to Keystone. Keystone is dead. There is no reason to believe in any way that the Canadians are looking to work with us to build a pipeline and export more fossil fuels to the United States. Right now, we barely have a relationship with Canada because of the tariffs. The fact of the matter is that there is a tariff on Canadian exports. The bottom line, I guess, is the only way that we could get Canada to maybe send us more oil or gas is if we did what President Trump says and annex them and make them the 51st State. I am not an advocate for that. I don't think that is going to happen. It is unrealistic right now to talk about any kind of additional oil or gas coming to the United States through a Canadian pipeline. That is just not going to happen. What I think is really happening here is that there is going to be an effort, because of the way the bill reads, to double, triple, or even 10 times the amount of gas that would go from the United States to Mexico, because the bill doesn't have any review with regard to that. If you have an existing pipeline, you can just double, triple, or quadruple it, or whatever, and send American gas to Mexico, where it is going to be made into LNG and shipped throughout the world. That is only going to increase our gas prices here in the United States. That is what is going to happen here. Again, we on the Democratic side have been stressing the fact that when it comes to energy prices, they are going through the roof. The Republicans don't seem to care at all about dealing with the issue. All they want to do is make it possible for more of our gas to go abroad. The way this bill is tailored, there would be basically no review, other than, I think, for 1,000 feet, or something, into the other country. The suggestion that somehow there is still going to be some significant review here before these pipelines are permitted is simply not the case, based on what this legislation says. Mr. Speaker, for all of these reasons, I ask my colleagues to vote in opposition to this bill. I will talk more about the two that are following, but the same is true: They are not helpful to Americans. They are going to increase energy prices. They are another indication that the Trump administration and House Republicans don't care at all about the increased costs of energy for the American consumer. Mr. Speaker, 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 yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3015. This bill would require the Department of Energy to reestablish the National Coal Council, something that President Trump already did 3 months ago. It goes further than that. House Republicans don't just want to reestablish the National Coal Council. They want it to play by different rules than the 27 other advisory councils that the Department of Energy maintains by making it permanent. Of course, they offer no justification as to why this council and only this council is special. There isn't one. I also want to point out that among DOE's other 27 advisory councils, not a single one is focused on clean energy. There is no solar council, no wind council, no battery council, and not even a geothermal energy council. All of those could be very useful. Instead of using their floor time to prompt the Department to develop a council for some of our cheaper, cleaner energy, Republicans are focused on giving coal special treatment. Frankly, it is ridiculous. I think it is a waste of time. Mr. Speaker, the country is in turmoil. We are facing a national healthcare crisis. Republicans are actively taking healthcare away from millions of Americans. Meanwhile, millions more are about to watch their healthcare premiums skyrocket and their local hospitals close, not to mention the astronomical cost of living that is rising more and more each day, thanks to Trump's tariffs. Rather than addressing one of these real crises, Republicans have us wasting time on a bill that would order the DOE to do something it has already done. Republicans could be using the floor time to ensure millions of Americans don't get priced out of their healthcare plans. They are not doing that. Republicans could use floor time to rein in Trump's tariffs, which are projected to cost hardworking families thousands of dollars each year. They are not going to do that. Republicans could use floor time to pass an energy policy that would bring electricity bills down. Clearly, they are not doing that. The reason is simple. Republicans care more about signaling their love of coal than they care about fighting for hardworking families struggling to make ends meet. They don't care about the hardworking families who are trying to make ends meet. They are just signaling that they love coal. That is particularly shameful when we consider coal consumption has declined by nearly two-thirds since its peak in 2007. Instead of celebrating the newer sources of cleaner and cheaper energy, Republicans are frantically trying to turn back the clock and ignore Americans' pleas for real and meaningful help in the process. Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this bill and to this massive waste of time. It is completely meaningless. I hope they will do something else. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, once again, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), who is our ranking member of the Energy Subcommittee.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), who is the ranking member of our Subcommittee on Communications and Technology.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. McGarvey).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I have heard my colleagues on the other side talk about how long it takes to bring energy plants or energy sources online. I have heard about the suggestion that the Democrats are trying to close fossil fuel plants. President Trump is a President who, in the 8 months now since he has been President, has proceeded to try to cut off almost any source of clean energy. Just a few weeks ago, he announced that he was going to stop the offshore wind projects that were over 90 percent constructed in Rhode Island. He has done the same throughout the eastern seaboard. I think it was the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie) who said that it takes a long time to build these energy facilities, and either the gentleman or one of the other Republicans today said that Republicans favor all of the above, which means that the majority favors fossil fuels, would like to see clean energy, and would like to see nuclear energy, presumably. Mr. Speaker, that is not what we are getting. That is not what we are getting from the Trump administration. That is not what we are getting with these bills. Everything favors fossil fuels. Every effort is being made by this President to cut off clean energy, not only windmills but also solar, et cetera. The bottom line is that everything is being done to prioritize dirty fuels, in particular, whether it is coal, oil, or whatever it is, at the expense of clean energy. Clean energy is cheaper. Even if my colleagues didn't believe that, we need more energy, regardless of the source. Why would Republicans want to just cut off offshore windmills in Rhode Island that are over 90 percent complete? It makes no sense unless they are trying to favor the oil and gas and the fossil fuel interests. Mr. Speaker, Republicans say that they want to save the coal industry. Secretary Wright recently implied that he doesn't want a single fossil fuel plant to close. This is ridiculous for several reasons, the most important being that keeping these plants open is more expensive than building new sources of clean energy. The proof is really in the pudding here. The Trump Department of Energy recently forced two fossil fuel plants that were days away from retiring to remain open and is directly forcing homeowners hundreds of miles away from these plants to pay to keep the plants online. The Consumers coal plant in Michigan was slated to close and save Michigan residents $600 million on their power bills, but Donald Trump pulled the rug out from everyone and, instead, is increasing families' power bills. The administration pulled the same trick with the Eddystone oil and gas plant in Pennsylvania, where two units that were nearly 60 years old were set to expire. Pennsylvania's grid operator determined that taking the plants out of service would not impact grid reliability, but President Trump didn't care. The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission chairman noted that ``the price tag for consumers could grow quickly.'' Consumers aren't getting a say in this process. President Trump dictates that a coal plant stays online, and homeowners have to pay for it. A recent study by Grid Strategies found that, if the administration refused to let a single fossil fuel plant close, Americans would be on the hook for $6 billion per year and increased costs by the end of the Trump administration. Republicans' obsession with coal is going to cost Americans billions of dollars and pollute our air and water for nothing except some additional cash for Republicans' friends in the coal industry. It is really a rotten deal for the average American. Mr. Speaker, I also want to say in opposition to this bill that Republicans claim that the National Coal Council is so important that it demands floor time in the House of Representatives, even though the President has already reestablished it. We could be passing legislation to lower energy costs or avoid a spike in health insurance premiums instead. If Republicans believed that the National Coal Council is such a priority, then surely the Trump administration does, as well. Yet, the Trump administration has let the National Coal Council languish for 3 months. They reestablished it back in June. It hasn't met. No one has been appointed to lead the council. Remember, those positions don't require a Senate confirmation or even consultation with the Office of Presidential Personnel. There are no meetings scheduled. It should at least have some members if Republicans think that it is important. Unfortunately, none of those things has happened. If you look on the website for the National Coal Council, it says that all of this is coming soon: members, meetings, or whatever. That is like the neighborhood coffee shop not quite ready to open to visitors. They put up a ``coming soon'' sign. The reality is that all of this is a charade. Republicans can try to sell to donors that they are rescuing the coal industry, but in fact, they are doing nothing, not even with the National Coal Council. It is not like it was that great under the previous Trump administration, either. The National Coal Council operated in the previous Trump administration as some kind of bizarre organization that was intertwined with a trade association that went by the same name, funded by private contributions from companies that made up the real government coal council. It got so bad that a Federal judge found that the shadowy trade association was the alter ego of the real coal council, with no clear lines of separation between the Federal entity and its mirror image. Official Coal Council events were funded by the trade association. At a meeting of the government's Coal Council, a speaker called upon members to become dues-paying members of the trade association. You can't make this stuff up. You really can't. This idea that the National Coal Council will be important and that anyone really cares about it is just a joke. The Trump administration obviously doesn't think the National Coal Council is important. The last time it existed, it didn't even seem to do anything. I don't understand the point of advancing a bill to reconstitute it without adding guardrails to prohibit the mixing of industry priorities with legitimate research. This is what the court pointed out to us. I only mention these things because I am trying to emphasize that this bill is a complete waste of time and a disservice to our constituents that we are even here talking about it. Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the bill, 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, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. After their big, ugly bill made energy more expensive for American families already struggling to make ends meet, Republicans are attempting to finish the job by further continuing their nonsensical attack on clean energy. This bill would aim to make it harder to hook clean power up to the electric grid and would remove safeguards intended to ensure that the entities in charge of our power grid can't discriminate against clean energy. While the regulatory processes that power grid operators use to hook power plants up to the grid does not make for riveting television time, it is still very important, especially at a time when power demand is rising and we must get more clean energy onto the electric grid. If you listen to Republicans, they will tell you that the main point of this bill is to allow grid operators to prioritize resources they can get on the grid as quickly as possible, yet they are conveniently ignoring the fact that grid operators can already do that. This isn't some hypothetical power. Grid operators from the mid- Atlantic, the Midwest, and the Great Plains have this year all made tweaks to the processes they use to hook power plants up to the grid. In reality, the point of this bill, in my opinion, is to prioritize fossil fuel plants by allowing them to jump to the front of the line ahead of wind, solar, and battery storage. This is really preposterous when you consider that 94 percent of proposed power generation waiting to be interconnected is zero-carbon clean energy. Republicans want grid operators to be able to discriminate against renewable power, continuing Trump's war against clean, cheap energy, and Republicans are trying to kill off the only realistic source of electricity growth and of our Nation. That is clean energy. There is nothing here more complicated than that. That is what they are trying to do, kill clean energy. It is a real shame because we do need to find ways to add more energy to the grid. Prices have skyrocketed in my home State of New Jersey, largely because of decisions that the PJM, our grid operator, made 5 to 10 years ago that created a clogged queue for power plants waiting to hook up to the grid. It has been a disaster. While recent rules from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission have helped, we have to do more. Instead of focusing on picking winners and losers in the interconnection queue, we should focus instead on speeding up the processing of the entire queue so power plants can get online as quickly as possible because we need more power from all sources. We should focus on making it easier to build the necessary grid infrastructure upgrades so power can get online. We should do it all in a way that is fair to American families paying the bills. This bill does none of that. It simply gives a fast pass to Big Oil and Gas, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. 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, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Energy and Commerce Committee has jurisdiction over a number of issues, including energy, but we also have jurisdiction over the FCC. Beyond that, this House, in my opinion, and the Members of this House have an obligation to guarantee free speech in our democracy at all times. Yesterday, FCC Chairman Carr used his position to launch a swift and decisive campaign to remove Jimmy Kimmel from the Nation's airwaves. Let's not kid ourselves about what happened. President Trump has been openly trying to get Jimmy Kimmel fired since his first term. Press reports detail White House staff calls to Disney as far back as 2018 to complain about Kimmel's jokes, but now, President Trump has a willing partner at the FCC with Chairman Carr. An agency that once prized its independence is now overtly being used as the personal speech police of the President of the United States, a cudgel against dissent. Mr. Speaker, Chairman Carr issued a public threat to Disney, ABC. He said: ``We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.'' Given that the FCC licenses all ABC stations, both stations owned and operated by Disney and third-party-owned ABC affiliates, this threat carried real weight. Licenses can be revoked by the agency, wrecking a company. The threat sparked Nexstar and Sinclair, two affiliate owners, to preempt Kimmel's show from the ABC programming stream and leaving Disney with no other choice but to suspend Jimmy Kimmel indefinitely. It is no surprise that these affiliate companies also seek regulatory favor from the FCC. Mr. Speaker, there was a time when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would be outraged by this government overreach. They would not condone this assault on free speech. There was a time when companies, particularly American broadcasters, would hold the line and assert their constitutional rights for all of us. Apparently, that time is over. It is a dark day indeed. We need to be clear about two things: One, all Jimmy Kimmel did was speak. Two, it is not freedom when a private company decides to shut down speech to avoid punishment from the government. That needs to end now, and that means that Chairman Carr should resign. I urge my colleagues to keep in mind that the First Amendment is the most important amendment and probably the most important part of our Constitution to guarantee free speech. Not only does this need to end now, but we have to continue to speak out when we see violations of free speech, both by the President, by the FCC, or by anyone else, frankly, who we have jurisdiction over. I feel very strongly about this, but I do want to go back to the energy issue in the bill that is before us today. Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle claim they are for all of the above. I have heard that over and over again from the Republicans. They are for all of the above with regard to energy consumption. The bills today show that is simply not true. It is not accurate when they say that. I have to thank Secretary of Energy Chris Wright for being honest about this. At a Committee on Energy and Commerce hearing in June, he was very blunt. He said: ``These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.'' Mr. Speaker, there we have it. The Trump administration is staunchly against all of the above. That makes sense because their actions at least match their rhetoric. They are doing everything they can to put their thumb on the scale for dirty energy and cancel every clean energy project they possibly can, no matter how helpful it might be to keep electricity bills down or keep the lights on. We have a duty to ensure that our power grid can keep the lights on. Even if Republicans don't like to admit it, that means adding clean energy to the grid. It is the quickest source of energy to add to the grid, given the current multiyear gas turbine shortage. Grid reliability regulators have been clear that renewable energy and batteries were critical in allowing the grid to endure multiple heat waves this summer. That is why Texas added more solar and wind energy to their power grid than any other State in the country in the wake of the blackouts during Winter Storm Uri 4 years ago. Solar and wind helps keep the lights on. Unfortunately, Republicans seem uninterested in acknowledging the basic reality that solar and wind, partnered with batteries, can be an essential part of a reliable power grid. Instead, they have done everything they can to increase the costs for these technologies and make it harder to add clean energy to the grid. Mr. Speaker, between this bill and the big, ugly bill, every time Americans open their power bill or see their lights flicker, Republicans are responsible. I think the American people will hold them accountable. For all these reasons, I oppose this bill, as I oppose the other two energy bills today. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.