[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 208 (Wednesday, December 10, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H5528-H5534]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ELECTRIC SUPPLY CHAIN ACT
general leave
Mr. GUTHRIE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on H.R. 3638.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 936 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3638.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Moylan) to preside
over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1844
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 3638) to direct the Secretary of Energy to prepare periodic
assessments and submit reports on the supply chain for the generation
and transmission of electricity, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Moylan in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 1
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective
designees.
The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie) and the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3638, the Electric Supply
Chain Act, sponsored by my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Latta).
This legislation directs the Department of Energy to conduct ongoing
assessments and report to Congress on the components and infrastructure
supply chain needed to secure the reliability and affordability of our
bulk power system.
It is no secret that we find ourselves in the middle of an electric
reliability crisis that is threatening the integrity of our bulk power
systems and an affordability crisis that burdens households with higher
energy bills.
Unfortunately, 4 years of the Biden-Harris administration and
excessive litigation, permitting delays, and far-left regulatory
decisions to attack baseload power sources in favor of expensive and
unreliable wind and solar have handicapped the ability of our bulk
power systems to respond to growing demands for energy.
Historic projections of increasing electricity demand from domestic
manufacturing, onshoring, and AI data centers have exposed systemic
challenges facing our electric sector and the supply chain for
components and infrastructure needed to power the system.
Meanwhile, our overreliance on China for manufacturing and critical
minerals has created a reliance on our own strategic adversary for our
supply chain needs.
Our electric grid is an essential tool for the national and economic
security of our Nation. Simply put, we need to work with the Trump
administration to make it easier to build in our country so that free-
market investment for the electric supply chain flow into communities
across the country, driving economic growth and creating good-paying
jobs for households.
That is why the Electric Supply Chain Act will ensure that our
Federal Government remains in a proactive posture to assess, identify,
and address any challenges to our supply chain grid for grid
components. H.R. 3638 takes a comprehensive look at the supply chain
for our electric grid and appropriately incorporates the advice and
views of experts spanning the power sector.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3638 requires the Department of Energy to conduct
an assessment and draft periodic reports on the state of the electric
supply chain.
I understand that our electric supply chain is important for national
security and grid reliability, but I have to question the Republicans'
seriousness in making this request and the ability of the Department of
Energy to conduct these assessments and draft the periodic reports.
President Trump has decimated and undermined our Federal agencies and
dedicated civil servants who fulfill their missions while also stealing
Federal funds promised to local communities all across the Nation. He
has created constant uncertainty for businesses with the
administration's ever-changing tariff regime.
Mr. Chair, as we consider this bill, it is important that we consider
the context in which it will be implemented, if enacted into law.
This bill is asking the Department of Energy to do more with less.
Elon Musk and the DOGE minions decimated the Department of Energy,
purging more than 3,500 dedicated and hardworking Department staff. On
top of that, just a few weeks ago, Secretary Wright unveiled a
reorganization of the agency that eliminated key offices, including the
Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains, which would have been
tasked with carrying out the very report required by this bill.
{time} 1850
Back in October, DOE canceled over $7 billion in energy project
awards throughout the Nation, including nearly $1 billion from projects
funded through the then Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply
Chains. My office heard from numerous awardees who were left confused
and frustrated by the complete lack of communication from DOE on this
matter. Many of these grantees heard about their grant cancellation by
reading stories in the media, and some still have not received any
formal communication from the Department of Energy.
If the Department of Energy doesn't even have the capacity to
communicate with grantees who were promised Federal support that has
now been stolen away, one really has to wonder if the Trump DOE would
prioritize staff time for the development of this report.
After all, the Trump Department of Energy does not respond to
inquiries from Congress. We have reached out to Secretary Wright on
several occasions, demanding answers about the staffing cuts and
project cancellations, and to date we have received zero response.
Mr. Chairman, this is entirely unacceptable. We need straightforward
answers from DOE on how these cuts have impacted the Department's
ability to do its job.
My opposition to this bill is common sense. We need to understand the
Department of Energy's current capacity constraints before we assign
the agency more work. Committee Democrats offered amendments during the
subcommittee and full committee markups of this bill to that effect,
which were voted down by committee Republicans.
While I agree that it is important to understand the vulnerabilities
in our electric supply chain, we must first understand the
vulnerabilities and constraints of the agency that is tasked with
completing the report.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Latta), the sponsor of this bill and the distinguished
chairman of the Energy Subcommittee.
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my legislation, H.R.
3638, the Electric Supply Chain Act.
[[Page H5529]]
My legislation would direct the Department of Energy to conduct
ongoing assessments and report to Congress on all matters affecting the
supply chain for the power sector.
The Electric Supply Chain Act will seek to uncover risks,
vulnerabilities, and security considerations in the availability of
manufactured grid components that are necessary to maintain and expand
our electric infrastructure.
As part of the comprehensive evaluation of supply chains, the
Secretary would maintain discretion over the appropriate office in DOE
with the right expertise necessary to complete the assessment.
In addition, the legislation will leverage power sector experts
spanning the industry to improve DOE's understanding and strengthen
supply chains that are essential to meet the growing needs of our bulk
power system.
During my tenure in Congress, I have remained focused on the security
of the bulk power system and have championed efforts to enhance the
resilience of our systems, particularly for small and rural utilities.
The Electric Supply Chain Act will boost these efforts by putting DOE
in the driver's seat to attentively monitor emerging threats and allow
the Department to utilize their existing authorities to address
vulnerabilities.
In recent years, we have seen how supply chain constraints and
bottlenecks for key grid components, such as distribution transformers
and natural gas turbines, can stifle infrastructure development.
By establishing periodic assessments under this legislation, the
Department will remain in a proactive posture to identify and address
matters affecting our power sector supply chain as they arise. In fact,
in the last 2 months, DOE has taken 52 actions to secure our grid and
lower energy prices.
It is clear that our Nation is on the precipice of great
technological advancements that are straining our electricity supplies,
primarily driven by energy-intensive users such as data centers and
domestic manufacturing.
The timing of projected demands is occurring as historic levels of
baseload power are leaving the system due to a confluence of State and
Federal actions that have attacked fossil fuels and subsidized
preferred sources of intermittent generation.
In fact, while 115 gigawatts of baseload power is expected to retire
over the next few years, U.S. electricity demand is projected to
increase by over 170 gigawatts.
These job-creating industries remain vital to economic prosperity and
our national security. We cannot sit idly by while our adversaries seek
to gain competitive advantage to control the next-generation economy.
This legislation takes an important step to prepare our Federal
agencies against supply chain constraints that could occur as our
Nation seeks to address timely development of electric generation and
transmission infrastructure.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3638.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. McClellan).
Ms. McCLELLAN. Mr. Chair, I rise today to oppose H.R. 3638, which
places an unnecessary burden on an already understaffed Department of
Energy and does nothing of substance to support and secure America's
electric supply chain.
The Electric Supply Chain Act must be examined in the broader context
of this administration's reckless workforce reductions and funding cuts
at the Department of Energy and surging electric prices across the
Nation. Already, as a result of DOGE buyouts or early retirements, the
slashing of our workforce has forced over 3,500 Department of Energy
staff out of office.
In fact, the key offices responsible for implementing this very bill
have lost a significant portion of their staff. The Office of
Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains has lost about two-thirds of its
staff and was eliminated from the Department of Energy's organizational
chart altogether. The Loan Programs Office has similarly lost a
significant number of staff and was further gutted under the
Republicans' big, ugly bill.
The effects of these cuts have far-reaching implications on the
Department of Energy's ability to perform and meet expectations. Across
the country, businesses and community partners are waiting to hear from
the Department of Energy about critical contracts and access to
funding. Congressional offices inquiring on their behalf are still
waiting for answers.
My office has heard that in some cases the Department of Energy can't
even determine who is responsible for certain projects because too many
experienced staff have been pushed out of office. With the Department
of Energy already struggling to meet its current obligations, how can
we pretend that it is business as usual and justify piling on
additional duties when there is no one to perform them?
Unfortunately, this bill represents much of the same failed energy
policy that we have seen this year from our Republican colleagues. It
adds busywork to the Department of Energy's already overfilled plate in
the name of shoring up America's electric supply chain while doing
nothing to address the active harm done to that very same supply chain
by Republican attacks on clean energy, the cancellation--authorized by
the big, ugly bill--of grants and programs that invest in American
energy and tariff policies that make it difficult to complete some
projects.
If Republicans were serious about supporting and protecting our
energy supply chain, they would not have canceled $8 billion worth of
grants to over 300 energy projects across the country.
They would not have decimated the 45X Advanced Manufacturing
Production Credit, which sought to encourage more domestic
manufacturing and production of clean energy components.
Instead, my colleagues across the aisle should have invested more in
developing domestic sources of clean energy, invested more in domestic
manufacturing, and invested more in producing and refining rare earth
minerals, either domestically or with our close allies.
What we have before us today is an empty messaging bill with unfunded
mandates for busywork that will not provide the clarity and direction
that we need to support and protect America's clean energy supply
chain.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and refocus on
efforts that will actually strengthen our energy supply chain and
reduce energy costs for our families.
I implore the Members of Congress to stand up for the Federal
workforce that has been traumatized and decimated this year, while we
continue to put bills forward that put more work on the backs of those
that are left and ignore the fact that there is not a sufficient
workforce to do any of the work that we have in these bills that keep
coming to the floor. It is lunacy, and we need to get back to reality.
{time} 1900
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Weber), the vice chairman of the Energy Subcommittee of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chair, the things that make America great are
the things that America makes.
How do we do that?
We have an electric grid, Mr. Chair, and that electric grid is under
real pressure. Demand is climbing fast and driven by manufacturing, by
technology, and the needs for a modern economy while large amounts of
dependable thermal generation are scheduled to retire.
Mr. Chair, when you put those two trends together, you get a grid
that must work harder than ever and cannot afford any weak links. That
is exactly why the Electric Supply Chain Act is on this floor this day.
The bill directs the Department of Energy to regularly assess the
supply chains for the components that keep our bulk power system
running--not after a crisis, not after a breakdown, but proactively.
We know the risks are real, Mr. Chair. Our Nation's electric grid is
the largest machine ever built, and it depends on thousands of
specialized parts: transformers, inverters, control systems, many of
which have long lead times or limited manufacturers.
Any bottleneck, any shortage, any compromised component puts
reliability at risk and drives costs higher for families and
businesses.
This legislation strengthens our posture. It gives us the visibility
we need
[[Page H5530]]
to stay ahead of threats, support domestic production, and ensure
Americans have access to secure, dispatchable, and reliable power.
The things that America makes are the things that make America great.
We do this with dispatchable power.
Mr. Chair, this is exactly the kind of forward-looking policy
Congress should be doing. I thank Chairman Latta and Chairman Guthrie
for their leadership.
Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to support the Electric Supply
Chain Act now.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I find it deeply ironic that congressional Republicans are
supportive of a study to assess matters impacting the supply chain for
the power sector, yet remain completely silent on the Trump
administration policies that are currently negatively impacting the
electric supply chain.
Let's look at Trump's disastrous tariffs on steel and aluminum. These
materials are essential components in our electric infrastructure from
power lines to transformers. Slapping a hefty tariff on steel and
aluminum only exacerbates current supply chain issues and could cause
grid infrastructure costs to skyrocket.
For example, we know that there is already a shortage of
transformers, which are crucial to our electric system as they
transport energy to our homes and businesses. Yet President Trump's
tariffs on steel are only serving to complicate an already fragile
supply chain that is already complicated by long lead times.
These additional costs from tariffs could also be passed on to
consumers, which is especially concerning at a time when electricity
prices are up 13 percent across the country. While I appreciate the
intent of the bill to understand the current state of our electric
supply chain, I will just point out that if Republicans are asking DOE
to study these issues while also failing to call out the Trump
administration for continuing to enact policies that only make the
problem worse--including the mass firings at the Department of Energy,
the haphazard recent reorganization of DOE that seemingly eliminated
the very offices that would carry out this study, and Secretary
Wright's problematic project cancellations impacting dozens of grant
recipients--if my Republican colleagues are serious about assessing and
addressing vulnerabilities in our electric supply chain, it is time
they speak out against harmful Trump administration policies that
threaten our electric supply chain.
Mr. Chair, I also urge President Trump and my Republican colleagues
to stop turning a blind eye to the affordability crisis.
American families are struggling, and President Trump and
congressional Republicans are to blame. Yet, they continue to bring
forth bills that will do nothing to meaningfully address the issue of
affordability in this country. Don't be mistaken, they have no real
plans to address it.
Just last week, President Trump called the affordability crisis a con
job crafted by the Democrats. Even FOX News reported that 76 percent of
Americans view the economy negatively. That is how truly out of touch
President Trump is with the alarming reality millions of American
families are facing.
Let me help paint the picture for President Trump and his Republican
accomplices: Utility bills are skyrocketing across the country, grocery
prices are up, and the cost of buying a new home feels out of reach for
far too many Americans. This is all exacerbated by the fact that
millions of Americans are facing the sobering reality that their
healthcare premiums are surging because Trump and congressional
Republicans refuse to extend the premium tax credits to help keep costs
down for millions of families.
Electricity costs are now up 13 percent, as I mentioned. That figure
is even higher in some parts of the country, and more than 80 million
Americans are struggling to pay their utility bills. In fact, since
2023, household utility debt has risen over 30 percent.
This should be a red flag to President Trump and Republicans that
this is, in fact, not a con job--affordability--devised by the
Democrats, but a frightening and worsening reality.
These rising costs are debilitating to American families, and the
Republican response is a slate of bills that assign busywork to an
already thinly stretched agency and a bad-faith attack on the
deployment of clean energy and battery storage.
I have said before, but it bears repeating: The Trump administration
only cares about addressing affordability for their fossil fuel
friends. It is time for Republicans to come to the table to work with
Democrats on the solution to this affordability crisis for the sake of
American families.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I appreciate my friend bringing up the enhanced or COVID-
era premium tax credits that are expiring at the end of this month.
Since we are talking energy tonight, we need to understand that they
were set to expire, without a single Republican vote, to expire them in
the Inflation Reduction Act, which was spent money on the Green New
Deal.
So when you put in context what President Trump said--when the
premium tax credits were set to expire, we had a hearing on that and we
were talking about it. We asked: Why in the world did the Democrats set
them to expire? They said: We thought the price of insurance was going
to go down at the end of 5 years. That is what somebody said in the
committee. The price of insurance has gone up because of the policies
they put in place. The price of energy has gone up because of policies
put in their place.
What President Trump was talking about--I don't know if it was that
exact speech that was referred to, Mr. Chair, but a speech where he had
a chart up to show where high energy prices are. They are in States
with general assemblies that have progressive ideas on energy that have
put restraints on energy that have driven up the price.
Unfortunately, we have friends across the Atlantic we can look at.
They put these kind of policies in place, and Europe has three times
the energy prices that we have. What we are saying over here is that we
need to have policies that lower the prices for everybody, not raise
the cost and just subsidize it, but to lower the cost for everybody.
That is what we are trying to do. That is what we are working to do.
What frustrates President Trump is when we are trying to fix the
problems that were created by the policies of the previous
administration. They say we are not addressing affordability when they
created the affordability crisis, when they made the premium tax
credits expire. They didn't deal with the fact that health insurance
premiums are continuing to rise. Here we are dealing with it and trying
to get it right for the American people.
When you say that wind and solar is cheaper and then complain because
you took away the tax--people aren't doing it because you take away the
tax credits and subsidies. If it is cheaper and more reliable, then you
don't have to subsidize it.
Those are the kind of frustrating things in the context of what
President Trump was trying to say. Since States have a lot of influence
in this, what we are doing here in the first bill is ensuring that
States focus on how do you make it reliable and affordable,
particularly in States like Colorado where my colleague, Mr. Evans, who
put the bill forward, is from. Their rates continue to go up because of
policies of their general assembly in their State. He just wants to
ensure that their State factors in affordability when they make those
kinds of decisions. That is what we are here to talk about.
Then, in order to build again after years of delaying building, we
have a supply chain that has to get reinvigorated. You can sit down and
talk to AI companies and people that need data and need energy.
I am one for every electron on the grid we can put on the grid,
whether it comes from a solar panel or wind or hydrocarbons, as long as
it is not subsidized. We need it all.
{time} 1910
My friend from Ohio has a bill saying that we know that it takes too
long to get a generator, takes too long to get a transformer, takes too
long to get turbine blades, and that we have to make sure our supply
chain is in place, and
[[Page H5531]]
also make sure that the Department of Energy is focused on it. I know
they are. Secretary Wright is focused on it to make sure there is a
statute that we have Congress saying the supply chain is important.
Delivering energy at an affordable price is a priority. That is what
these two bills today do. That is what this bill does, and I recommend
that my colleagues vote for this bill.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
The bill is considered as read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 3638
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Electric Supply Chain Act''.
SEC. 2. ASSESSMENT AND REPORT ON THE SUPPLY CHAIN FOR THE
GENERATION AND TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRICITY.
(a) Assessment.--In carrying out the requirements of the
Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et
seq.), the Secretary shall, for purposes of monitoring the
supply chain for the generation and transmission of
electricity and in consultation with relevant stakeholders,
prepare periodic assessments on such supply chain that--
(1) include information on--
(A) efforts and opportunities to strengthen, secure, and
expand such supply chain;
(B) any trends, risks, and vulnerabilities in the supply,
demand, and availability of components for or related to
generating or transmitting electricity, including components
that are necessary for the construction or deployment of
facilities that generate or transmit electricity;
(C) national security and energy security considerations
for strengthening, securing, and expanding such supply chain;
(D) barriers to expanding the capacity to--
(i) manufacture components for or related to generating or
transmitting electricity in the United States; and
(ii) process critical materials in the United States;
(E) domestic policies that deter or otherwise inhibit
greater investment into such supply chain;
(F) the effects of any reliance of the United States on any
foreign entity of concern for--
(i) components for or related to generating or transmitting
electricity; and
(ii) the exploration, development, or production of
critical materials necessary for manufacturing such
components; and
(G) workforce challenges affecting such supply chain;
(2) identify emerging issues in such supply chain; and
(3) include recommendations to--
(A) address any emerging issues identified under paragraph
(2); and
(B) secure and expand such supply chain.
(b) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of
enactment of this Act, and periodically thereafter, the
Secretary shall submit to the appropriate committees of
Congress a report on the most recent assessment prepared
under subsection (a).
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Appropriate committees of congress.--The term
``appropriate committees of Congress'' means--
(A) the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of
Representatives; and
(B) the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the
Senate.
(2) Critical material.--The term ``critical material'' has
the meaning given such term in section 7002(a) of the Energy
Act of 2020 (30 U.S.C. 1606(a)).
(3) Electric reliability organization.--The term ``Electric
Reliability Organization'' has the meaning given such term in
section 215(a) of the Federal Power Act (42 U.S.C. 824o(a)).
(4) Electric utility.--The term ``electric utility'' has
the meaning given such term in section 3 of the Federal Power
Act (16 U.S.C. 796).
(5) Foreign entity of concern.--The term ``foreign entity
of concern'' has the meaning given such term in section
40207(a) of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (42
U.S.C. 18741(a)).
(6) Relevant stakeholder.--The term ``relevant
stakeholder''--
(A) means a stakeholder that is involved in--
(i) the generation, storage, transmission, or distribution
of electricity; or
(ii) the supply chain for such generation, storage,
transmission, or distribution; and
(B) includes an electric utility, an electric grid
component manufacturer, a person who constructs an electric
generating facility, an electric power system cybersecurity
expert, the Electric Reliability Organization, a ratepayer
advocacy stakeholder, and any other related private sector
stakeholder.
(7) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Energy.
The CHAIR. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those
printed in part C of House Report 119-399. Each such amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report, by the Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be
debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question.
amendment no. 1 offered by mr. gosar
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in
part C of House Report 119-399.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 4, line 21, strike ``and'' at the end.
Page 4, line 23, strike ``chain;'' and insert ``chain;
and''.
Page 4, after line 23, insert the following:
(H) any vulnerabilities from the employment of any non-
United States citizen at a facility located in the United
States that generates or transmits electricity;
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 936, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Gosar) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, energy security is national security. As the 119th
Congress works to protect and strengthen America's energy backbone, we
have a responsibility to ensure our decisions are informed,
transparent, and grounded in vigorous oversight.
The American people expect us to safeguard the systems that power
their homes, businesses, and daily lives.
My amendment is straightforward and common sense. It directs the
Secretary of Energy to identify any vulnerabilities to our domestic
energy grid that may arise from noncitizens' access to U.S. facilities
that generate or transmit electricity. That is it. It creates no
prohibition, no hiring restrictions, and no burdens on industry. It
simply asks for information, information Congress needs to do its job.
The numbers alone underscore the importance of this issue. According
to the report, the Department of Energy's 2024 Energy Employment by
State report, my great State of Arizona employs more than 135,000
energy workers, including 25,000 in power generation and another 25,000
in transmission. Comparably, in Texas, 1 million Americans work in the
energy sector. These are enormous workforces operating critical
infrastructure that keeps our country moving.
Under Article I, Section 8, Congress has clear constitutional
authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate interstate and
interregional commerce. Electricity, the last time I looked, doesn't
stop at State lines.
Earlier this year, the House passed H.R. 3062, the Proposing Cross-
Border Energy Infrastructure Act, to streamline energy transmission
across our international borders.
As we take steps to expand and modernize our energy systems, we must
ensure our oversight keeps pace. By requiring the Secretary of Energy
to periodically review access to critical facilities and notify
Congress if any of these vulnerabilities are found, my amendment
enhances that oversight. If risks exist, we address them. If they
don't, the Department of Energy can focus its efforts on more pressing
threats from our adversaries like China and Russia.
Mr. Chair, this is responsible governance. It strengthens
transparency, fortifies national security, and ensures Congress remains
fully informed about potential threats to the grid.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to the amendment because it peddles
in gross xenophobia and fear of immigrants that has become the calling
card of Republicans during the Trump years.
The amendment would require the Department of Energy to add to its
[[Page H5532]]
study vulnerabilities from the employment of non-U.S. citizens at
generation or transmission facilities.
Now, I agree with the gentleman that our electric system needs to be
secure, but I do not agree with him that every electrical engineer who
comes to this country for a better life needs to live in fear of ICE
and DOE showing up and harassing them at their place of work.
There are enough real threats to our grid. Congress does not need to
concern itself with imaginary threats as well.
Mr. Chair, I urge opposition to the amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I think the gentleman is suffering from power
phobia, but this is a report. That is all it is, a report. I think the
old wives' tale actually says it best: ``An ounce of prevention is
worth a pound of cure.'' This is a report. It has nothing to do with
immigration or immigration-like actions. It is a simple report. If you
do your oversight right, you better be following these reports. You
better be finding where those little glitches may be, and this is one
of those aspects.
Mr. Chair, I ask that everyone vote for this amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
The amendment was agreed to.
amendment no. 2 offered by mr. min
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in
part C of House Report 119-399.
Mr. MIN. Mr. Chair, I rise as the designee of Ms. Houlahan, and I
have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 4, line 21, strike ``and''.
Page 4, line 23, strike ``chain;'' and insert ``chain;
and''.
Page 4, after line 23, insert the following:
(H) opportunities to expand participation in the workforce
supporting such supply chain by veterans, transitioning
servicemembers, and military spouses, including any barriers
to entry in such workforce and opportunities for enhanced
Federal coordination;
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 936, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Min) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. MIN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of this straightforward amendment
to the Electric Supply Chain Act, an amendment that strengthens our
workforce, supports veterans, and helps ensure the reliability and
security of our Nation's energy supply.
As a Representative of California, I know how essential it is that we
shore up the workforce powering our electric supply chain.
Manufacturers in California and across the country consistently tell us
the same thing: Workforce shortages are slowing down projects, driving
up costs, and ultimately are a major contributor to higher prices for
working families.
The data is clear: Nearly 10,000 electricians retire each year, while
only about 7,000 new entrants come in each year, according to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Goldman Sachs has estimated the United States will need roughly
510,000 new workers just to meet rising power demand over the next
decade. Annually, we have more than 200,000 servicemembers who
transition out of the military, many with exactly the same technical
skills, discipline, and mission-focused mindset that our energy system
needs and that employers are looking for.
This amendment would simply direct the Department of Energy to
regularly assess how to expand veteran, servicemember, and military
spouse participation in this workforce, what barriers are preventing
entry into these fields, and where improved Federal coordination can
better coordinate this talent to areas of real need.
Strengthening supply chains means strengthening the people behind
them. Few are better prepared for these careers than our veterans and
military families, and this is an important transition for them, as
well.
This is a practical improvement to the underlying bill, which
promotes national security, energy resilience, and economic opportunity
for those who have served.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support
this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to
the amendment, though I am not opposed to it.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Kentucky is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment from my colleague,
Representative Houlihan from Pennsylvania.
This amendment requires DOE to evaluate the potential role
transitioning military servicemembers could play in meeting the
workforce needs for the electric supply chain.
{time} 1920
Mr. Chair, while our efforts to reshore domestic manufacturing
facilities bolster our national security, it is also important to
recognize the economic benefits of attracting new opportunities for
job-creating industries.
Growing investments in the manufacturing sector create stable and
good-paying jobs for households and drive economic growth in
communities across our country. Our men and women seeking new
employment after transitioning back to civilian life bring incredible
skill sets and expertise to the table that could benefit companies of
all kinds.
By incorporating new consideration for DOE to evaluate the potential
for transitioning servicemembers into the workforce as part of H.R.
3638, we can ensure our veterans have access to good-paying jobs.
Mr. Chair, having served in the military, I know in the military we
get specific skills. We can be diesel mechanics. We can be all these
different things we learn in the military. Sometimes they directly
translate actually, but some others don't. It creates the opportunity
to reach out and find military members who are leaving the military and
who have specific skills for these opportunities.
Mr. Chair, I support this amendment. I was meeting with some people
the other day in this kind of industry. They said if they advertise
$120,000 a year for MBAs, they get a flood of applications. If they
advertise $120,000 a year for skilled truck drivers, they barely get
enough. They don't get enough applications.
There are opportunities for people to make a good living and have a
career. It is not just a wage but a wage that produces for their
families and will let them--he or she--be extremely successful. I
support this amendment.
Mr. Chair, since we are talking military, I must say: Go Army. Beat
Navy on Saturday.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MIN. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. Min).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. McGuire
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in
part C of House Report 119-399.
Mr. McGUIRE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 4, line 3, insert ``, including efforts of any foreign
entity of concern to exploit supply chain disruptions for the
purposes of undermining United States leadership in
artificial intelligence development'' after ``chain''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 936, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. McGuire) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. McGUIRE. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment, H.R. 3638,
which adds essential language to address the threat posed by foreign
entities of concern seeking to disrupt supply chains and undermine
United States leadership in artificial intelligence development.
The United States is in a race with the Chinese Communist Party to be
the
[[Page H5533]]
global leader in the development and deployment of artificial
intelligence. Maintaining that leadership requires vigilance against
supply chain vulnerabilities that foreign adversaries can exploit. Our
Nation has already faced significant challenges in scaling artificial
intelligence infrastructure. We cannot allow foreign manipulation or
interference to add to these challenges.
Disruptions to the artificial intelligence supply chain will not just
weaken our country in our race against China but will have a
significant, negative impact on our economy, our ability to defend
ourselves, and our capacity to innovate.
This amendment recognizes that protecting the artificial intelligence
supply chain is both a defensive measure and a strategic investment in
our infrastructure. Establishing periodic assessments of
vulnerabilities in the artificial intelligence supply chain that
foreign entities of concern could exploit helps ensure our country
maintains stable access to necessary components, boosting domestic
manufacturing and innovation.
To remain at the forefront of the next generation of technology, we
must thoroughly assess and protect our supply chain. Any disruption
threatens not only our progress but also our national security, our
economic strength, and our global position in the artificial
intelligence race.
This amendment strengthens our ability to safeguard America's
advancements in artificial intelligence by ensuring we identify,
monitor, and address vulnerabilities that foreign adversaries could
exploit to the detriment of our national interests. It reinforces our
commitment to securing the technologies that will define the next
century and ensures the United States remains the world leader in
artificial intelligence. This is a commonsense idea, and I encourage my
colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from New Jersey is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, while I have grave concerns about the
Department of Energy's ability to carry out and execute on the studies
and reports required by this bill, if we are going to ask them to do
those studies, then I think this addition is harmless.
I would point out that, while the gentleman's amendment focuses
explicitly on efforts by foreign entities of concern to exploit supply
chain disruptions to undermine our leadership in the field of AI. I am
concerned about any effort by foreign entities of concern to exploit
energy supply chain disruptions. That is why I have been dismayed at
the fact that President Trump and the Republican Party have totally
dismantled the infrastructure that we built up to strengthen our energy
supply chains.
The reality is that there are more threats to our energy supply
chains today than there were a year ago because of the big, ugly bill
and the sledgehammer that DOGE and Secretary Wright took to the
Department of Energy. That is a large reason why I oppose the overall
bill. But this amendment isn't about that.
While I still oppose the underlying bill, I do not oppose the
amendment, even though I think it is too narrow.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGUIRE. Mr. Chair, talking about DOGE is a thinly veiled attempt
to score political points by changing the topic of the conversation
from this amendment, which protects our national security from foreign
entities of concern, and turning it into something political.
The previous actions of DOGE do not bear any weight or relevance to
this amendment. The Department of Energy is adequately staffed by very
bright and talented individuals who have the capacity to monitor
vulnerabilities in our supply chain that the Chinese Communist Party or
other foreign adversaries could exploit to halt our progress in the
artificial intelligence sphere.
This amendment is not political. It is common sense. Disruptions by
foreign entities of concern to our supply chain threaten our national
security, which is a cause of concern for all Americans, regardless of
their political affiliation.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The gentleman has the only time remaining.
Mr. McGUIRE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. McGUIRE. Mr. Chairman, in closing, this is a commonsense
amendment. The United States is in a race with the Chinese Communist
Party to be the global leader in the development and deployment of
artificial intelligence and other capabilities such as quantum
computers. Any vulnerabilities in our supply chain that our adversaries
can exploit not only threaten our global standing in the artificial
intelligence space, but it also threatens our national security.
This amendment protects all Americans from a significant and growing
threat. I, again, encourage adoption of this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. McGuire).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Min
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in
part C of House Report 119-399.
Mr. MIN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 3, line 18, before the semicolon at the end, insert
``, including with respect to overcoming obstacles to broader
deployment of advanced transmission technologies, including
advanced conductors and other technologies that can be
installed to increase the transfer capacity, efficiency,
affordability, reliability, or resiliency of transmission
infrastructure''
Page 3, line 24, before the semicolon at the end, insert
``or can support advanced transmission technologies,
including advanced conductors and other technologies that can
be installed to increase the transfer capacity, efficiency,
affordability, reliability, or resiliency of transmission
infrastructure''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 936, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Min) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. MIN. Mr. Chair, my amendment to the Electric Supply Chain Act
would expand the periodic reports required under this bill to include a
critical assessment of advanced transmission technologies.
In my district and across the country, families are seeing soaring
energy costs brought on by load growth and extreme weather, including
wildfires. An aging and inefficient grid is bottlenecking the growing
demand for new and reliable power, causing prices to go up and limiting
the electrons that can reach areas that need this electricity.
We must meet this challenge, grow our economy, and bring down the
energy bills that are rising so quickly and crushing so many of our
constituents today. To do that, we need to build more transmission
infrastructure.
{time} 1930
We also need to leverage innovation that we have to maximize our
current electric transmission rights-of-way. Advanced transmission
technologies like high-performance conductors present a unique
opportunity to upgrade the electric grid we already have and ensure
that new infrastructure is more efficient and affordable.
According to the Department of Energy, using advanced conductors can
double the capacity of existing transmission lines, and over 100,000
miles of lines can currently benefit from these technologies.
Importantly, these technologies have minimal land use impacts, can be
installed without the decades-long permitting timelines required for
new lines, and increase the resiliency of the grid against wildfires
helping keep districts like mine safe from the growing threats of these
natural disasters that are often under severe fire risk.
It is why major utilities in California are building their lines with
advanced
[[Page H5534]]
conductors and why States across the country are passing new laws to
promote their adoption.
I am proud to actually represent two of the largest manufacturers of
advanced transmission conductors in my district: CTC Global and TS
Conductor. These companies are extraordinary examples of American
innovation and manufacturing which is helping pioneer the grid of the
future and create high-skilled domestic jobs in the process.
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to support my amendment, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Kentucky is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Chair, I thank my friend from California for
offering this amendment.
This amendment would incorporate advanced transmission technologies
into the supply chain considerations that the Department of Energy
would also need to assess, as part of their responsibilities in this
bill. In certain circumstances, advanced transmission technologies can
help get more resources out of our current system by expanding the
grid's electric load-carrying capacity.
However, these are not one-size-fits-all technology, and there are
important engineering complexities to consider to ensure the system
operates efficiently. We must ensure they are implemented, when it is
appropriate, and cost-effective so we can secure the grid without
burdening ratepayers with unnecessary investments.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MIN. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. Min).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Self
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in
part C of House Report 119-399.
Mr. SELF. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 4, line 6, insert ``, deliver, and install'' after
``manufacture''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 936, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Self) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. SELF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R.
3638. The bill requires DOE to assess supply chain vulnerabilities for
the generation and transmission of electricity, including barriers to
expanding capacity here in the United States.
My amendment makes a simple clarification. It ensures that DOE
evaluates barriers not only to manufacturing components, but also to
their delivery and installation. In the real world, grid reliability
depends on whether critical equipment can actually reach the job site
and be installed on time.
If we want a serious assessment and serious recommendations, then we
cannot stop at the factory gate.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from New Jersey is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment recognizes that it is not
enough for us to manufacture critical grid and supply chain components,
they must be able to be actually delivered and installed on the grid.
This is a worthwhile addition to the bill.
However, I lament that while my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle can recognize the equal importance of manufacturing supply chain
components and transporting and delivering them, they are unable to
recognize the same when it comes to electricity. To do anyone any good,
electricity must not only be generated, it must be carried to its
destination on the grid.
However, House Republicans, especially those on the Energy and
Commerce Committee, have been completely unwilling to acknowledge the
role that expanding the grid must play in any serious, bipartisan
conversation on permitting.
The bills this week and next week aren't a serious attempt at
permitting reform, far from it. One of them tells us that, despite
Democrats talking for the last 3 years about the need to strengthen the
grid in the face of rising demand, Republicans have still failed to
acknowledge that need or that reality for that matter.
Again, I think this is a bad bill. I think the Department of Energy
has not made clear to us that it has the resources or the ability to
carry out this bill. I think that instead of trying to get the DOE to
maybe write us a report telling us what we already know, we should
focus on concrete actions that could shore up our supply chain:
restoring the Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains, and
restoring the incentives to build in America that were killed by the
big, ugly bill. All these things are really what we need to do.
However, Republicans are not willing to do that, so I don't know what
else to say.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SELF. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Self).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIR. There being no further amendments, under the rule, the
Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
McDowell) having assumed the chair, Mr. Moylan, Chair of the Committee
of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3638) to
direct the Secretary of Energy to prepare periodic assessments and
submit reports on the supply chain for the generation and transmission
of electricity, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to House
Resolution 936, he reported the bill, as amended by that resolution,
back to the House with sundry amendments adopted in the Committee of
the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the
Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
The question is on the amendments.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________