Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to congratulate Aaron Williams as the recipient of Inspire Life's Impact Award. Aaron and the Asbury Park Tennis Initiative were recognized at Inspire Life's 2024 Black Excellence Sneaker Ball on February 24, 2024. Founded by Aaron in 2021, the Asbury Park Tennis Initiative aims to introduce tennis to local children while instilling the values of discipline, self-confidence, sportsmanship, and leadership. Playing tennis throughout his life, Aaron knows firsthand the benefits of the sport. Recognizing the lack of access to the sport, Aaron established the Asbury Park Tennis Initiative to create opportunities for Asbury Park's students to experience tennis and the life skills it helps develop. He has partnered with local schools, churches, and community organizations to connect with the city's youth, providing not only tennis lessons but also mentoring and community involvement. Aaron's commitment to the success of the program is evident and his dedication is admirable. Aaron's work with the Asbury Park Tennis Initiative is indicative of his commitment to public service and as United States Marine Corps veteran and an LGBTQ advocate, he has dedicated his life to serving his community and Nation. His passion to help others and improve our communities is commendable and he exemplifies honor, integrity, and professionalism in each endeavor he undertakes. Mr. Speaker, I join Inspire Life in recognizing Aaron Williams and the Asbury Park Tennis Initiative for their impact on Asbury Park's youth. I sincerely hope that my colleagues will join me in thanking Aaron for his service to our Nation and local communities.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6544, the Atomic Energy Advancement Act. This bill makes important changes to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to ensure that our Nation will be able to license the advanced nuclear reactors that could play a vital role in combating the climate crisis. H.R. 6544 will ensure that developers of advanced reactors are not asked to pay more than their fair share of their licensing costs. It will also help create commonsense pathways to site nuclear reactors on brownfield sites and sites that already have a nuclear reactor. Most importantly, it will do these things while ensuring that nothing about the NRC's core mission of safety is compromised. Madam Speaker, the legislation will also help the NRC attract and retain staff, which is critical since the Commission needs to be at full capacity to license the fleet of new reactors that will apply for licenses over the next decade. This was a particularly important provision championed by Energy, Climate, and Grid Security Subcommittee Ranking Member DeGette, and I am very happy that it was included in this package. I also thank Chair Duncan for the bipartisan way in which this package of bills was assembled. This is how Congress should always work. We held bipartisan oversight hearings, issued a joint request for information, had a legislative hearing to solicit feedback on the proposals, and eventually moved the legislation through committee, with Democrats and Republicans working together every step of the way. As a result, the bill before us today is much stronger than the bill that was first introduced. The bill is certainly not perfect. It is a product of compromise, and like all compromises, no one got everything they wanted. Further compromise will be necessary as we work together with the Senate to find a path forward to get this bill to the President's desk. Madam Speaker, this is a strong bill that will protect communities while unlocking our Nation's nuclear potential. It will help lower emissions and ensure that new nuclear plants have a place in our Nation's energy economy, all while ensuring protection of public health and safety. I hope it is something all Members can support. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan), a member of the committee.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting H.R. 6544, the Atomic Energy Advancement Act. This bipartisan bill, which passed out of the Energy and Commerce Committee in December, includes a number of policies designed to facilitate the deployment of advanced nuclear reactor technologies while not compromising on safety. The bill will ensure that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is up to the job and prepared for the potential license applications for new reactor designs that are expected to come its way over the next decade. Included in this package are provisions co-led by Democratic Members, including language that would: First, allow the NRC to retain its current workforce and attract new talent to license new reactors; Second, lower the regulatory costs imposed upon new reactor developers so they are only paying for the expenses they are directly incurring; Third, ease the processes allowing for demonstration reactors at Department of Energy sites, sites with critical national security infrastructure, and brownfield sites; Fourth, make it easier to co-locate new nuclear reactors on sites with currently operating reactors; and Fifth, allow for DOE to enter into long-term agreements to purchase electricity from a new nuclear reactor. Now, I would say nuclear energy is a vital source of zero-carbon baseload power. It is imperative in our fight against the worsening climate crisis that we strengthen the NRC's regulatory processes so the agency is prepared to license 21st century reactors in a timely fashion that does not compromise on safety or public health. H.R. 6544 will do just that. Again, I intend to vote for the bill while it is on the floor under suspension, and we urge all Members to join us in supporting the legislation. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor and privilege to congratulate The Stone Pony on its 50th anniversary as its staff, patrons, and the community gather to celebrate ``Stone Pony Day'' as proclaimed by the City of Asbury Park. The Stone Pony is a landmark music venue in Asbury Park, New Jersey and this milestone and its historical significance are truly deserving of this body's recognition. Opened on February 8, 1974 by John P. ``Jack'' Roig and Robert ``Butch'' Pielka, The Stone Pony has become synonymous with Asbury Park. Its storied past has seen triumphs and tribulations, but throughout its 50 years, The Stone Pony's connection to rock and roll history has cemented its status and success as preeminent music venue. Its stage has been graced by a venerable list of talent, including New Jersey native Bruce Springsteen, Ronnie Spector, the Ramones, Joan Jett, Peter Frampton, Green Day, Kenny Chesney, and The Black Crowes. Many artists launched their careers at the Pony, including New Jersey rock band The Smithereens, who credit The Stone Pony for their start. One of the venue's first house bands, Southside Johnny and the Asbury Jukes, helped buoy the venue's following and still play there today. The venue is a mainstay of Asbury Park, and its history is woven into that of the city. The Stone Pony's commitment to promoting local and national musical acts has contributed to the thriving cultural landscape of the city. In addition, it has supported local charities and philanthropic efforts throughout its history, hosting benefit concerts for hunger initiatives, local youth programs, Parkinson's disease research, and music education, among others. Mr. Speaker, once again, it is with pride that I recognize the remarkable history and contributions of The Stone Pony and congratulate it on its 50th anniversary. The Stone Pony continues to bring local talent and renowned musical acts to residents and visitors, drawing crowds from across New Jersey and beyond. Its impact on the community and the music scene is undeniable, and its legacy has echoed throughout New Jersey and the country for five decades.

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 rise in strong opposition to H.R. 7176. This bill is nothing more than a handout to Big Oil and Gas that will enrich our adversaries, including China, and force American families to pay the price with higher energy bills. It removes a requirement that the Department of Energy first determine liquefied natural gas exports should be in the public interest before approving export applications. This defies logic. The Republican bill assumes that all LNG exports are automatically in the public interest. This is utterly absurd considering there is widespread consensus among researchers and economists that increasing LNG exports directly leads to higher natural gas prices here at home. Americans know this reality all too well because they have felt it firsthand. Our LNG exports quadrupled over the last 5 years. During that same time, in 2022, natural gas prices more than tripled. Make no mistake: If this bill ever becomes law, Americans will pay more for the gas that heats their homes and keeps their lights on. It is an affront to middle-class families who can't afford to deal with more fossil fuel price volatility. They are tired of our energy prices being manipulated by our adversaries simply because Republicans are in a mad rush to send it all abroad. Now Republicans also claim to be tough on China. I hear this every day in the Energy and Commerce Committee. We have to be tough on China. This bill is a gift to China. In 2021, China was the second-largest recipient of American LNG, and Chinese LNG purchasers have continued to snap up any long-term deal they can from American exporters. By removing the requirement that our exports be in America's best interests, this bill would allow China and other adversaries to purchase even more of our energy to use against us. Thankfully, the Biden administration is taking a different approach, one that prioritizes the needs of the American people rather than Big Oil and Gas. Last month, the administration announced a temporary pause on new LNG export authorizations while the Department of Energy confirms that they are in Americans' interests. This is just common sense. Before we send our energy resources abroad, it is only right that we first confirm that doing so will benefit Americans. Anyone who says this pause is a ban on LNG exports is also peddling in blatant disinformation. The temporary pause does not affect current exports and does not affect exports from facilities that are under construction. It doesn't even affect exports from facilities that haven't begun construction but are fully permitted. If the Department of Energy never approved another permit, our LNG exports are still on track to triple from now until the end of the decade, more than enough to ensure Europe gets all the gas that it needs. I note how ridiculous it is to have the same Republicans who refuse to support aid for Ukraine lecture us on being good allies. House Democrats are demanding that the House vote on legislation that has now passed the Senate that would provide funding to ensure Ukraine can continue to protect its democracy from Russia's unprovoked war of aggression. In stark contrast, House Speaker Johnson is shamefully blocking this urgent national security funding, siding with pro-Putin extreme Republicans. If House Republicans want to be good allies, they should join us in demanding a vote on that critical national security funding. Mr. Speaker, ensuring that LNG exports are in the American people's best interest is something we should all want. Instead, we are here considering a bill that does the opposite for a third time because Republicans are fresh out of ideas and resorting to bringing up old, tired bills that stand no chance of ever becoming law. Time and again they have proven completely dysfunctional and incapable of governing, and, in fact, they are making us vote on this same bill for a third time. Certainly, that is a testament to their inability to get things done. With nothing else to bring to the floor, they want to distract from reality that they have achieved nothing to improve the lives of the American people. This is just another Republican bill that puts polluters over people, and I, therefore, encourage my colleagues to oppose it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), the ranking member of our Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman), my wonderful colleague.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Casten).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have to correct the record, not only about my colleague, Mr. Scalise, who I very much respect, but also some of the other comments that have been made. There was a reference to President Joe Biden. The bottom line is that President Biden, like myself, believes in an all-of-the-above energy policy. In fact, there has been record production of oil during President Biden's administration. More oil has been produced domestically here in the United States during his administration than any other President that we have had. The point is that we would like to move toward clean energy. Yes, we would like to have cleaner oil production, as well, but it doesn't mean that we are not in favor of more production. In fact, there is more production. Now, many of my Republican colleagues have referred to President Biden's recent action to pause LNG exports as a ban, and that is simply not true. The Natural Gas Act requires the President to determine whether or not new LNG exports are in the public interest. If the President and his administration feel like they do not have sufficient information to make that determination, then it is their responsibility and duty under the law to take time and gather that information. Even Politico highlighted the Republican misinformation machine in an article this week. They said: Other Republicans have settled on a more blunt strategy, falsely portraying the pause on new permits as a ban on exports. Thanks to already issued permits, exports are expected to increase rapidly in the coming years. Once again, the Republicans are peddling in misinformation to prop up their polluters-over-people agenda. The Biden administration pause makes sense. It is common sense. The last time the economic impacts of LNG exports were examined was in 2018, when LNG export volumes were one-quarter of what they currently are. The last time the greenhouse gas impacts of LNG exports were examined was in 2019. We know so much more now about emissions from gas leakage in the transportation, liquefaction, and regasification process. It would be foolish to review 2024 LNG exports now without looking at 2024 analysis and data, which we do not have. Therefore, frankly, it would have been massively irresponsible for President Biden to approve further exports without reexamining how the Department of Energy was making its determination. I thank the President for taking the action he did, and I look forward to the results of this review. I want to correct one more thing. Many of my colleagues have referred to radical environmentalists. I don't think it is radical to ask what is going on in people's ability to breathe. When the Clean Air Act was passed, it basically was passed because we wanted to make sure that people would be able to breathe clean air. It is not radical for me to try to correct air quality and, if there is pollution out there, to try to correct it so people can breathe when the list of all the health impacts of not being able to breathe clean air is so long. Again, all we are asking--all that this administration has asked and all the Democrats have asked--is that we continue to clean up our air so that we can breathe. That is it. That is all we are asking for here today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan), who is a member of our committee.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Frost).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the amount of time that remains.

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Casten).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, again, this bill is a massive valentine to the Communist Party of China. It would send untold amounts of American LNG to China to help continue to fuel its industrial rise, without ever allowing for a review as to whether these exports are actually in the public interest. Now, what is going on here? Why on Earth are Republicans eager to sell LNG to China when they know that LNG exports increase domestic natural gas prices for Americans? I will tell you why: Because the cost to American families means nothing as long as oil and gas companies profit. Numerous studies show that LNG exports result in increased costs to Americans. If we pass this bill, already volatile natural gas prices will be shaped by forces completely out of our control. It doesn't make any sense to me. Republicans are acting against American interests here. I wish my colleagues across the aisle would focus on what is important and not just on stalling tactics that pad the pockets of polluters. Mr. Speaker, Republicans claim that this bill helps our European allies. What a joke that is. The reality is that they don't care about our European allies who are currently going to the mat for democracy and facing down Vladimir Putin in Ukraine. On Tuesday evening in the Rules Committee, we heard over and over again from our Republican colleagues that LNG is crucial for our allies in Europe. Unfortunately, these same Republicans have made it clear they have no interest in actually providing aid to Ukraine. They use the war on Ukraine to argue for LNG exports and push the arguments of their oil and gas friends. But when it comes down to actually helping allies, they are at best silent, and at worst vocally against it. Last year, 21 radical House Republicans signed on to a letter opposing all supplemental funding requests for Ukraine in its struggle against Russian oppression. Weeks later, a majority of House Republicans voted against a bill offering a paltry amount of aid to Ukraine. Now, after the Senate has done its part, they totally refuse to bring a bill to the floor that would easily command a majority in the House. The behavior is unbelievable. I want to be clear: It will lead to the unnecessary deaths of Ukrainian soldiers and civilians. Mr. Speaker, I would simply ask my Republican colleagues: Which is it? Do they actually care about assisting Europe? Do they think current LNG volumes in Europe are insufficient? Do they think tripling LNG volumes to Europe without issuing another permit is insufficient, or do they really just want to protect the ability of Big Oil and Gas to price gouge Americans here at home? If they were serious about supporting our European allies, they would be supporting a bill on the floor that would spend money to do just that, not wasting time on this bill for the third time this Congress. If Republicans were serious about supporting our European allies, they would push back on Donald Trump's dangerous invitation to Russia to ``do whatever the hell they want'' if Europe doesn't spend more on its own defense. Is this what helping our democratic allies looks like? Are Republicans unable to see what is wrong here? How their inaction threatens European peace and security, and our own national security? House Republicans are unwilling to spend a single dollar to defend democracy in Europe but are happy to sit here and argue again and again about a bill that will drive up costs for everyday Americans while lining the pockets of their Big Oil and Gas friends. It is just unbelievable to me, Mr. Speaker, even for Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

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

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 485, the so-called Protecting Health Care for All Patients Act, a bill that, unfortunately, does not live up to its name. This legislation is not about protecting healthcare for patients. Instead, it is a Trojan horse intended to undermine the progress that President Biden and Democrats have made in lowering prescription drug costs for American families. My Republican colleagues say this bill is intended to prevent the Secretary of Health and Human Services from using a measure called ``quality-adjusted life years,'' or QALYs, which could be discriminatory against Americans living with disabilities, but Federal law, including the Inflation Reduction Act, already prohibits Medicare from using QALYs in its coverage determination, and State Medicaid programs are required by law to cover all drugs. Instead, H.R. 485 goes further than current law and opens a back door that will be used to bar the use of any value measures by the Federal Government. These measures are used by Federal agencies such as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and by States to negotiate fair prices for prescription drugs. When this bill came before the Energy and Commerce Committee, I sought to clarify its intent through an amendment during markup. My amendment would have ensured the legislation could not be construed to undermine Federal agencies or the Biden administration's ongoing work to lower prescription drug prices for Americans, but that amendment was rejected on a party-line vote. I still do not understand why the Republican majority would be opposed to clarifying that the bill before us today is not intended to undermine the Federal Government's efforts to determine fair prices for prescription drugs. Now, I respect the chairman of our committee a great deal, but she keeps talking about how she is banning similar discriminatory measures. Well, the fact of the matter is that the bill doesn't say ``similar discriminatory measures.'' If she had said during the markup that she was willing to ban things that were discriminatory, it might have been a different situation. We might have had a consensus, but that is not what is going on here. This says ``QALYs or similar measures,'' not similar discriminatory measures. Some may say: Well, what is the difference? The difference is the word ``discriminatory'' is not in the language of the bill. We have no problem banning things that are discriminatory, like QALYs or similar discriminatory measures, but that is not in there. So the problem is that this will be used by pharma to raise prices. The vagueness of the language opens up the door to pharma and the drug companies to sue and say that negotiated prices and efforts to try to reduce costs are not acceptable. I am not suggesting that that is what the Republicans have in mind necessarily, but that is the reality of it. This is backed by pharma, by the pharmaceutical industry because they want to use it to undermine every effort the Democrats have made to try to bring down costs for prescription drugs in the Medicare market, in the Medicaid market, in Veterans Affairs, and on down the list. I am deeply concerned that the ambiguity in the bill text would be a prime target for litigation by the pharmaceutical industry, an industry that has already shown a willingness to sue to keep outrageously high prescription drug prices in place. We know that Big Pharma is already using similar tactics to try to fight the implementation of the Medicare drug price negotiation program enacted by the Inflation Reduction Act. This bill could give them yet another point of entry to undermine Medicare's ongoing work to negotiate prescription drug prices. Now, in addition, the Congressional Budget Office agreed that this legislation will hinder the ability of our Federal health programs to lower costs. CBO estimates that this bill will increase spending for prescription drugs in Medicare, Medicaid, and other Federal health programs, including the Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs' health programs by $1.1 billion in the next 10 years, and potentially tens of billions in the years that follow. So because of the fact that this bill raises prices for the Federal Government, increases costs for prescription drugs, the Republicans had to put a pay-for in the bill. The Republican bill before us today would gut the Affordable Care Act's Prevention and Public Health Fund in order to pay this $1.1 billion for the legislation. It has long been the goal of Republicans to decimate the ACA's essential funding stream to lower healthcare costs through prevention. This funding in the prevention fund goes to our State and local partners to improve public health and prevent chronic diseases. The prevention fund encourages smoking cessation, prevents childhood lead poisoning, and enhances infectious disease control. This fund plays a critical role in our efforts to help the American people live healthier lives. House Republicans' decision to cut the prevention fund in order to throw more money at their Big Pharma friends makes it clear that they are not interested in reaching consensus or finding a bipartisan solution. Instead, they would rather jam through a partisan bill that would hurt the very communities that they claim to be helping. Mr. Chair, this bill is nothing more than a giveaway to Big Pharma at the expense of the American people and our Nation's public health. I strongly oppose the bill and urge my colleagues to oppose it, as well. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee.