Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I listened to the gentleman from Colorado, but I just want to stress that this bill isn't about resolving conflicting standards or regulatory confusion on the part of the Federal Government. This is about the fact that the Department of Housing and Urban Development failed to act for decades on energy efficiency, leaving a 1994 energy code untouched for over 30 years. Now, when the Department of Energy is seeking to put in place a standard, well, what happens? First of all, when it was supposed to go into effect, President Trump this summer basically postponed it. Now, they are trying to remove the standard entirely, but removing the Department of Energy's authority to set efficiency standards will only leave residents unprotected from high energy costs. The Department of Energy is required by statute to consult with HUD in setting efficiency standards, and DOE has worked extensively with HUD on this for years. Technically, HUD can still update the energy code for manufactured homes, but they have been severely delinquent in doing so. Just as I mentioned, HUD has had over 30 years to set a stronger standard, and they just choose not to. H.R. 5184 does not magically rewrite history. Giving HUD sole authority now does not take away the fact that the agency left manufactured housing residents with energy bills that are 70 percent more per square foot compared to site-built homes for decades. DOE's energy sector experts are best positioned to set efficiency standards for manufactured homes, and it is the only agency that has successfully produced modernized standards. Those standards would save $475 a year on utility bills and have a real impact on Americans' wallets, safety, and security. Of course, though, President Trump doesn't want that, so he set aside the standard, and now they want to eliminate it completely. All that is going to do is raise utility bills tremendously for people who live in manufactured homes. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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 think we can all agree that we need to do a lot more to address housing affordability, but let me assure everyone that this bill is not the solution because it doesn't do anything to bring down costs. In fact, it only raises costs on hardworking American families, particularly hurting low-income, rural, and senior households. I think there is a misunderstanding on the other side of the aisle about the Department of Energy's process in setting efficiency standards for manufactured homes, so let me just clear a few things up. The Department of Energy would not issue an energy conservation standard if the benefits of the rule did not far outweigh the costs. DOE is required by statute to consult with the Department of Housing and Urban Development. It is also specifically required to ensure that the standards are cost effective based on the impact on the purchase price of the home as well as the total life cycle construction and operating costs. Affordability is really at the core of the statute that directs the Department of Energy to set efficiency standards for manufactured homes, and as such, affordability is a guiding principle in the Department's May 2022 final rule that set the efficiency standards. In fact, in order to accommodate price-sensitive, low-income purchasers, DOE adopted a tiered approach in the final rule based on the size of the manufactured home. This standard is projected, as I have said, to save manufactured housing residents $5 billion, even when you include the upfront costs. In fact, in the first year of home ownership, energy savings greatly exceed the marginal increase that might come from the initial purchase. The bottom line is that the benefits in energy savings to the consumer immediately offset any increase in purchase price. I think it is important to reiterate that affordability is about more than just the purchase price. A lower purchase price doesn't mean anything if you are spending 70 percent more per square foot on energy bills like manufactured housing residents currently are. Over 40 percent of manufactured housing residents face a high energy burden, meaning that more than 6 percent of their income is going toward energy costs. Given the recent trends in energy costs, it is more important now than ever that we maintain the Department of Energy's standard to protect these residents from even higher energy bills. I think if my Republican colleagues really wanted to address housing affordability, they would be speaking out against Trump's tariffs. These are tariffs that the President has put on essential building materials. That is the problem right now. Hopefully, today, the Supreme Court eliminates these tariffs, but right now the increased costs of manufactured housing is primarily based on the tariffs. That is what is driving up the costs. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side keep talking about efficiency standards driving up costs but, in fact, it is not the case. The costs that are driving up manufactured home prices is because of Trump's disastrous tariffs. President Trump has issued tariffs on essential building materials on inputs, like lumber, gypsum, steel, and even appliances and cabinets. These tariffs are driving up the costs of new construction, renovations, and affordable housing development. Tariffs are raising construction and renovation costs and disrupting supply chains, placing upward pressure on home prices. Trump's tariff policies are not only undercutting the supposed goal of reducing the cost of living for Americans but they are also exacerbating the housing crisis by slowing the production of housing and adding exorbitant costs to the process. The ever-changing tariff landscape, because we don't even know what it is from one day to the next with him, is creating uncertainty for homebuilders and putting the dream of buying a new home out of touch for perspective home buyers. Even the National Association of Home Builders has criticized Trump's tariffs as harming housing affordability and driving up costs. American consumers are feeling the pinch and paying the price for Trump's tariffs. Mr. Speaker, I think it is time for my Republican colleagues to look in the mirror because what is really contributing to the housing crisis in a major way is Trump's tariffs, not energy conservation standards that save American consumers money. Stop demonizing efficiency standards, not only in this bill but on so many occasions, and start addressing the root of the problem. Mr. Speaker, that is President's Trump's bad policies. I don't know if anything has come forward yet. Hopefully, today the Supreme Court is going to throw these tariffs out, and maybe we will have some relief. That is the problem here. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I want to stress again the nature of this bill is totally the opposite of what the Republicans say. It should be titled the unaffordable homes act because electricity prices are rising across the country. Americans are going into debt to heat their homes this winter. President Trump has failed on his day one promise to bring down prices for American families. Instead, his big, ugly bill is projected to increase electricity prices by an additional 61 percent. How are American families supposed to shoulder the financial burden as they struggle to afford the cost of their daily necessities that have been inflated by his senseless tariff policies? I hear from my constituents every day that affordability is their top concern, and we should be focused on advancing bipartisan legislation to end this affordability crisis. Instead, my Republican colleagues are trying to repeal the Department of Energy's energy efficiency standards for manufactured housing through this bill. Mr. Speaker, these standards were thoughtfully developed in consultation with HUD to balance upfront costs and long-term affordability. These standards are sorely needed as energy efficiency standards for manufactured housing haven't been updated for over 30 years. As a result, electricity bills for manufactured homes are 70 percent higher than site-built homes. It is cruel and senseless to try to overturn energy efficiency standards for manufactured housing as families are facing unprecedented increases in their electricity bills. The Department of Energy's manufactured home efficiency standards are estimated to save homeowners $475 per year on their utility bills. Collectively, these standards would save 17 million Americans $10 billion over 30 years. These efficiency standards are good for our wallets, and they are good for the economy. It is really unconscionable for Congress to consider overturning these standards amid this affordability crisis. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to oppose this legislation, 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, there is no more important bill than Leader Jeffries' bill to make healthcare more affordable for more than 20 million Americans whose monthly health premiums have skyrocketed because of Republican inaction and indifference. When I was home during the holidays, all I heard from my constituents was that their healthcare premiums were doubling and tripling in the State of New Jersey. This bill is a godsend. I am not exaggerating. This bill is a godsend for people who are concerned that they are not going to have health insurance or already don't have health insurance because they weren't able to buy it on January 1. What happens when they don't get health insurance? Mr. Speaker, the effects of this don't just affect the 20 million people who don't get it because of the Affordable Care Act or ObamaCare. The effects are on everyone who has health insurance because emergency rooms will once again be overflowing with people who are forced to wait until they are so sick that they have no choice but to go to the ER because they don't have a doctor. Patients will be sicker. Doctors and nurses will be stretched thin. Hospitals will be left with large sums of uncompensated care, which will be passed on to everyone with insurance in the form of higher monthly premiums. This isn't just about the ACA, but it is most important for those people who had the ACA and perhaps don't have it anymore. Unfortunately, the Republican majority has known these price hikes were coming all along, but they didn't do a single thing to stop this from happening. Last year, Republicans instead spent their time giving permanent tax breaks to billionaires and large companies, but refused to extend the ACA enhanced premium tax credits to help lower healthcare costs for everyday people. Today, we have a chance to right that wrong and help out our hardworking Americans. Mr. Speaker, Republicans may not want to admit it publicly, but they know that the ACA has resulted in historically low insurance rates, helped millions of families stay covered, and saved lives--and I stress saved lives. If we don't take action, all of this progress could be reversed as the American people are priced out of the ability to see their doctors. Vote for this bill.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The American people are struggling to make ends meet. They are feeling the pinch of the affordability crisis and bearing the brunt of rising costs at the hands of Republicans. Yet my colleagues continue to turn a blind eye to the cost-of-living crisis. In fact, President Trump has called the affordability crisis a con job and a Democratic scam. That is how out of touch they are, Mr. Speaker. Healthcare costs are skyrocketing, and electricity bills are through the roof. Meanwhile, President Trump just illegally invaded Venezuela, and Secretary Kennedy is putting children's lives at risk by restricting access to vaccines. There is a lot this Congress could be doing this week, but the first bill Republicans bring to the floor in 2026 is about showerheads. It is almost impossible to believe. To make matters worse, this bill will actually drive up monthly utility bills for American families. Electricity prices are up 13 percent across the country. Eighty million Americans are struggling to pay their utility bills, and Republicans want to make that financial pain even worse. Meanwhile, grocery prices are surging, and, of course, monthly healthcare premiums are skyrocketing across the Nation, thanks to the healthcare crisis Republicans created by failing to extend the Affordable Care Act's enhanced premium tax credits. As a result of their inaction, more than 20 million Americans are now facing skyrocketing monthly healthcare premiums. In many cases, and I will say in my home State of New Jersey, Mr. Speaker, they are double or triple the cost that they paid last year. We just heard a debate on the discharge petition a few minutes ago, and as a result of that discharge petition, and no thanks to most of the Republicans and the leadership, we are going to have an opportunity to vote on the premium tax credits. The bottom line is that that has nothing to do with the Republican leadership. This was a Democratic initiative that a few Republicans finally joined with us so that we have an opportunity to vote on it. There isn't a single thing that the Republicans can point to about dealing with the affordability crisis that they have created. President Trump and his Republican accomplices are completely out of touch with the alarming reality millions of Americans are facing. Republicans have no plans to address affordability, and I think today proves it. They are beginning this new Congress with a bill that changes the definition of ``showerhead'' in order to open the door for the Trump administration to increase already rising monthly utility bills and to waste our scarce water resources. This bill would actually increase costs for consumers. In Trump's first term, he redefined ``showerheads'' to allow them to use significantly more energy and water. Showerheads with multiple nozzles could vastly exceed the current limits. For example, a showerhead with eight nozzles could use up to 20 gallons of water per minute under Trump's 2020 definition. Think about this, Mr. Speaker: You are raising the costs. You are increasing utility bills not only for electricity but also for water. You are wasting energy, and you are wasting water. The bottom line is that manufacturers didn't want this. They largely rejected this move by President Trump and didn't produce showerheads that exceeded the limit that existed. That was because they knew that consumers value money-saving and water conservation showerheads that are good for both their wallets and the environment. Energy and water conservation standards, Mr. Speaker, save consumers money. The only reason that we have these energy-efficient standards both for showerheads and for so many other things is that Congress, on a bipartisan basis, decided to establish a program where if the Department of Energy or other Departments, mostly the Department of Energy, could show that, in fact, you could save money for consumers and eliminate a lot of waste in terms of water and energy, then they would put forth these standards. These are bipartisan standards. In 2024 alone, energy and water conservation standards slashed $576 off Americans' utility bills while cutting our energy and water consumption. I am just trying to point out, Mr. Speaker, that Republican priorities are completely out of touch with the concerns of everyday Americans. They are out of touch with the manufacturers and out of touch with the average American. The only Republican priority is pleasing President Trump with whatever he wants. They give in to his every wish, even if it means driving up utility bills for American families. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida.

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

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Riley).

Mr. PALLONE. I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I have to respond to the chairman of our committee who, of course, I respect a great deal. The Republicans have never supported the Affordable Care Act. When we passed it--and I was one of the drafters how many years ago now--I think there were none--certainly almost no Republican votes. They were not there when we tried to expand tax credits because we knew that in order for people to be able to afford their health insurance, we would have to reauthorize the tax credits from time to time or expand them for certain incomes. They were never there. Frankly, I don't want to go into this in any great deal or depth today, but the bottom line is that I and most Democrats believe that healthcare is a basic right and that we, as a Congress, have a responsibility to make it so that most people, if not all Americans, can have health insurance because, otherwise, they can't see a doctor. They end up in the emergency room. They get sicker, and our society suffers for it, either financially, healthwise, or whatever. I don't really want to get into this debate about who, when, and where because the bottom line is that the Republican Party has never supported any of this. Many of them don't even believe, I think, that somehow we should be helping Americans pay for their health insurance. In any case, they have never supported the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare. They have never supported the enhanced premium tax credits, and so talking about when you did it or didn't do it, to me, is irrelevant. The bottom line is that the majority had the opportunity to extend it during the reconciliation bill. My colleagues did not. Republicans had the opportunity right through the end of this year to extend it before it expired, and all these double and triple costs per month for health insurance started on January 1. My Republican colleagues didn't do it and are not doing it now. We had the debate just a half hour or 1 hour ago about the bill that is finally coming to the floor, not because of the Republicans but because every Democrat in this House signed a discharge petition and we got a handful of Republicans to sign the discharge petition, overturning the right of the Speaker to determine what bills come to the floor. So it will come to the floor tomorrow, but when I was here for the debate on the rule, there was only one Republican who got up and said that they were supportive of extending the tax credits. I am going to see tomorrow how many Republicans come to the floor and say that they are going to extend the tax credits or vote to extend the tax credits. There will be very, very few, unfortunately, because this is not what Republicans support. In any case, I will talk a little bit about the affordability crisis in general. Across the country, the American people are trying to find ways to afford the rising prices of groceries, electricity, and their water bills. We hear from our constituents--I do every day--that affordability is their top concern. As democratically elected Members of Congress, I think it is our job to address these concerns--not only health insurance, but electricity costs, water costs, and so many things that deal with affordability. I see my Republican colleagues only seem to be interested in fighting the Trump administration's latest culture war on showerheads. Mr. Speaker, I have tried not to laugh about this because I think the issue has a level of seriousness, but it is incredible that not only are they bringing up this bill as their first bill of the new year, but the fact is that the bill does nothing to help the American people. If the majority was doing something with showerhead bills to bring down costs, I would say ``fine,'' but that is not the case. This is only being done because President Trump has been complaining about efficiency standards for everything since his first term. I think he is completely out of touch with the realities that everyday Americans face. The truth is simple that efficiency standards lower costs for Americans. I have said it before, but it is worth repeating: In 2024 alone, energy and water conservation standards slashed $576 off of American utility bills while cutting our energy and water consumption. Why is that a bad thing? It is a good thing. It is totally, in my opinion, kind of dishonest for Republicans to claim that the cost of compliance with environmental regulations and efficiency standards drive up prices. They do not. It is not conservation that is driving up prices for Americans. It is Republican policies, and I would particularly point to Trump's tariffs that are driving up costs for the average American. The Republican Party let the Affordable Care Act enhanced premium tax credit expire without any safety net, so millions of Americans are going to lose their health insurance. Some have already decided not to sign up because they can't afford it. They are going to lose their health insurance. We will have more tomorrow and the next day and the next day. Until we pass this enhanced tax credit bill, more and more Americans will have no health insurance and the negative consequences from that. Let's also talk about the big, ugly bill--Republicans call it the big, beautiful bill--that is projected to increase electricity prices for American families by 61 percent. Nearly 1 in 20 American households are in severe utility debt. This winter, families are forced to make the impossible choice of heating their homes or putting food on the table. We have to address this issue, but somehow that is not enough for my Republican colleagues. They now are trying to pass partisan legislation to increase utility bills, too. That is what this bill does. Again, all I can say is that the Republican Party's priorities are senseless, cruel, and misguided. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is shamelessly bold for Republicans to bring a bill to the floor called the Do No Harm in Medicaid Act. That is today's Republican Party. They simply lack any shame. They say that they are doing no harm to Medicaid when their big, ugly bill earlier this year cut nearly $1 trillion from the Medicaid program. That is a huge cut that will leave millions of low-income families without any health coverage at all. We already see the devastating effects of their big, ugly bill. States, which are already facing budget shortfalls, stare down a reduction of as much as 20 percent of their Federal Medicaid funding. They are being left with an impossible challenge. We are seeing across-the-board cuts that are crippling hospitals, maternity units, home care providers, and clinics. We are seeing healthcare providers close their doors and cut their services. We are seeing States scale back benefits, leaving those who are able to keep their Medicaid coverage with less of the healthcare that they need. Now, even with all of that, Republicans have the audacity to bring a bill to the floor that they claim is about doing no harm in Medicaid. That is not what this is about. H.R. 498 is an extreme attack on medically necessary healthcare for children. The bill bans Medicaid funding for gender-affirming care for minors and strips States of even more Medicaid funding if they choose to cover this medically necessary care with their own State dollars. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are once again reaching into the doctor's office and taking deeply personal and private medical questions out of the hands of doctors, parents, and patients. They are putting it into their own hands, as if anyone wants politicians making medical decisions for them and their children. As Members of Congress, we ought to be focused on bringing down healthcare costs and ensuring people have access to the healthcare they need, not getting in the way of doctors and parents who know what is best for their patients and their children. The reality is this floor debate is nothing more than political theater, aimed at distracting from the devastating healthcare crisis Republicans created and are making worse every day. They are trying to distract from the fact that their healthcare cuts are going to strip healthcare away from 15 million Americans and close hospitals all across the Nation. They are trying to distract from the fact that they are letting the Affordable Care Act's enhanced premium tax credits expire on January 1. Republican inaction is driving up healthcare costs for more than 20 million Americans who are facing double, triple, or even quadruple premium increases. Mr. Speaker, Republicans can't distract from this cruelty. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill. I also call on Speaker Johnson to immediately bring up the Jeffries discharge petition that now has the support of a majority of House Members and that would extend the ACA premium tax credits for 3 years. A majority of this House--Democrat and Republican--wants to act to extend these tax credits. It is time for Speaker Johnson to bring that bill to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), who is the ranking member of our Environment Subcommittee.

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington State (Ms. Randall).

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

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