    [Senate Hearing 118-455]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 118-455

                                BUSINESS MEETING

    =======================================================================

                                    MEETING

                                    OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                JANUARY 18, 2024

                                   __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                    __________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    57-202                      WASHINGTON : 2025

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
                                 SECOND SESSION

                      THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
              SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia, Ranking Member

    BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
    MARK KELLY, Arizona                  DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
    ALEX PADILLA, California             LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
    JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania

                   Courtney Taylor, Democratic Staff Director
                   Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                JANUARY 18, 2024

    .................................................................

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware..     1
    Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator from the State of West
      Virginia.......................................................     2
    .................................................................

                                  LEGISLATION

    The text of S. 1863 and Cramer Amendment.........................     6
    The text of S. 1863, the amendment offered by:
        Senator Capito...............................................    34
        Senator Ricketts.............................................    46
    The text of S. 2781 and the amendment in the nature of a
      substitute.....................................................    56
    The text of the referenced naming bills:
        S. 3412, the Reuben E. Lawson Federal Building Act of 2023;..   121
        S. 3570, a bill to designate the United States Court house
          located at 500 West Pike Street in Clarksburg, West
          Virginia as the Irene M. Keeley United States Courthouse;
          and........................................................   124
        S. 3577, a bill to designate the Federal building located at
          300 East Third Street in North Platte, Nebraska, as the
          Virginia Smith Federal Building............................   126
    Various letters of support for legislation the committee has
      approved:
        The Office of the Governor of Nevada.........................   129
        The InterState Mining Compact Commission.....................   131
        Backcountry Hunters & Anglers................................   133
        CATO.........................................................   135
        Various supporters of the PROVE IT Act.......................   137
        EPCAMR Eastern Pennsylvania Coalition for Abandoned Mine
          Reclamation................................................   141
        Shamokin Creek Restoration Alliance..........................   144
        ConservAmerica...............................................   147
        American Exploration & Mining Association....................   149
        National Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs.........   152
        National Mining Association/Trout Unlimited..................   156
        Western State Water Council..................................   158
        Resolution of the Western States Water Council regarding
          Abandoned Hardrock Mine Cleanup............................   160
        Women's Mining Coalition.....................................   163

                                BUSINESS MEETING

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18, 2024

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:32 a.m., in
    room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper
    (chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Carper, Capito, Cardin, Merkley, Markey,
    Stabenow, Kelly, Fetterman, Cramer, Lummis, Ricketts, Boozman.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

        Senator Carper. I call this business meeting to order. It
    is good to be with all of you today. We thank everyone for the
    work that they have done in anticipation of this markup,
    members and the staff as well.
        Today we are going to be voting, as you know, on five
    pieces of legislation: the Providing Reliable, Objective,
    Verifiable Emissions Intensity and Transparency Act of 2023, or
    PROVE IT Act; also the Good Samaritan Remediation of Abandoned
    Hardrock Mines Act of 2023; the Reuben E. Lawson Federal
    Building Act of 2023; a bill to designate the United States
    Courthouse located at 500 West Pike Street in Clarksburg, West
    Virginia as the Irene M. Keeley United States Courthouse; and a
    bill to designate the Federal building located at 300 East
    Third Street in North Platte, Nebraska, as the Virginia Smith
    Federal Building.
        Before we do this, though, I want to take a moment to
    briefly discuss these bills.
        The first bill we will consider is better known as the
    PROVE IT Act. This bipartisan legislation was introduced by
    Senator Coons, my wingman from the First State, and by Senator
    Cramer, a respected member of our committee. It is also co-
    sponsored by a number of Democrat and Republican members of our
    committee.
        The PROVE IT Act directs the Department of Energy to
    conduct a study that compares the climate impacts of making
    certain products in the United States with the climate impacts
    of making those same products in other countries.
        As it turns out, because the United States is increasingly
    generating clean electricity and because many of our factories
    use modern methods and pollution controls, a lot of our
    domestic production has lower greenhouse gas emissions than the
    production in other countries. For example, if you make
    aluminum using electricity from renewable energy, the process
    is going to be a lot cleaner than making aluminum using
    electricity generated by burning coal. We also see this with
    other products such as steel, cement and concrete.
        In a world where many countries are trying to cut
    greenhouse gas emissions to slow climate change, having cleaner
    products can also give us a competitive trade advantage. For
    example, the European Union has adopted a so-called carbon
    border adjustment mechanism, which will soon place a tariff on
    imports of products that were produced with relatively high
    greenhouse gas emissions.
        But what is missing is solid data on the average greenhouse
    gas emissions in different countries. The PROVE IT Act aims to
    fill that data gap and make that information publicly
    available. We expect this information to boost the
    competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing and help incentivize
    cleaner production in the United States and overseas so that
    this is a win-win for our climate and for our economy.
        Next, we will consider the Good Samaritan Remediation of
    Abandoned Hardrock Mines Act of 2023, a bipartisan bill
    authored by Senators Heinrich and Risch. To date, more than
    one-quarter of all Senators have signed on to this bill, evenly
    split between Democrats and Republicans.
        The Good Samaritan Act, known to some as Good Sam, aims to
    eliminate a longstanding barrier to the cleanup of abandoned
    mine sites. Federal agencies have identified over 140,000
    remnants of abandoned hard rock mines, of which more than 60
    percent pose safety and environmental hazards. Fortunately,
    organizations that have no legal or financial ties to these
    abandoned mines, true good Samaritans, want to volunteer to
    clean up these sites.
        However, such organizations have limited options to do so
    under current law, since they would have to assume undue
    liability to perform such cleanups. Good Sam creates a pilot
    program that would allow a limited number of clean-up efforts
    to move forward with conditional liability protections.
        Projects that qualify under the program must meet stringent
    environmental protection and public health requirements. All
    projects must also undergo a NEPA review, and owners or
    operators of mines are not eligible for the program.
        I want to thank our colleagues. I especially want to thank
    Senator Heinrich and Senator Risch for their efforts in
    crafting this legislation and working with our committee to
    improve it over the last two sessions. A number of members of
    our committee have co-sponsored this legislation and we thank
    you for your input to it.
        Finally, we will vote on three bills naming buildings owned
    by the General Services Administration. We will vote on those
    bills en bloc.
        The first of those three naming bills, sponsored by
    Senators Warner and Kaine of Virginia, would rename the Richard
    H. Poff Federal Building in Roanoke, Virginia, as the Reuben E.
    Lawson Federal Building. Mr. Lawson dedicated his life, as some
    of you may recall, his life and his career to fighting against
    segregation.
        The second naming bill is sponsored by our Ranking Member,
    Senator Capito, along with Senator Manchin. This legislation
    would name the United States Courthouse located at 500 West
    Pike Street in Clarksburg, West Virginia, as the Irene M.
    Keeley United States Courthouse, after the first woman
    appointed as a judge for the U.S. District Court in the
    Northern District of West Virginia.
        Finally, we have a bill from Senator Ricketts and Senator
    Fisher to name the Federal Building located at 300 East Third
    Street in North Platte, Nebraska, as the Virginia Smith Federal
    Building after Virginia Smith, the first woman elected to
    Congress in the State of Nebraska.
        With that, let me recognize the Ranking Member, Senator
    Capito, for any opening remarks she would like to make. We are
    happy to be with you today.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLY MOORE CAPITO,
              U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

        Senator Capito. Thank you, Chairman Carper, and thanks for
    holding our first business meeting of 2024.
        I want to thank you and your staff for preparing the
    amendment in the nature of a substitute for S. 2781, the Good
    Samaritan Remediation Abandoned Hardrock Mines Act of 2023.
        We had a productive hearing on this in 2022, on this very
    legislation which would, as the Chairman mentioned, establish a
    7-year pilot program and permit 15 Good Samaritan remediation
    projects of abandoned mines on Federal, State, tribal and
    private lands. This commonsense program would provide the
    liability protection to good Samaritans that want to undertake
    important work to improve water quality. I support this bill.
        Today, we will also be considering the three GSA naming
    bills, including one I am very proud to sponsor. S. 3570, which
    I introduced with Senator Manchin, would designate the Federal
    Courthouse on Pike Street in Clarksburg, West Virginia as the
    Irene M. Keeley United States Courthouse.
        Judge Keeley earned her law degree from West Virginia
    University College of Law in 1980. President George H. W. Bush
    nominated her to the Federal bench in 1992, and she was
    confirmed by the Senate, get this, unanimously.
        She went on to serve on the United States District Court of
    the Northern District of West Virginia for 30 years as the
    State's first female judge, including as chief judge for 7
    years. Judge Keeley took senior status in 2017 and inactive
    status in 2022.
        Designation of the Clarksburg Federal Courthouse in her
    honor is a fitting tribute for the decades of dedication and
    service to her State and Country, all while being a very
    inspiring role model to young women and even older women, like
    me, and lawyers across West Virginia.
        Today, we also consider Senator Ricketts' legislation to
    designate the Federal Building in North Platte, Nebraska, after
    former Congresswoman Virginia Smith, as well as legislation to
    redesignate the Federal Courthouse in Roanoke, Virginia. I urge
    my colleagues to support all of these bills.
        However, I must express my opposition to the final bill on
    today's agenda, S. 1863, the PROVE IT Act. The committee has a
    well-established record over the last several years of finding
    common ground on climate legislation. I am proud of our work.
    The Chairman and I have partnered to advance such bills as the
    Future Act, the USE IT Act, the Nuclear Energy Innovation and
    Modernization Act, and the Infrastructure and Investment in
    Jobs Act.
        Now, we are working together to get the ADVANCE Act, which
    is our nuclear bill, signed into law. We have also collaborated
    on many non-climate environmental bills that will have benefits
    for ecosystem teams across this Country, such as the Chesapeake
    WILD Act and the America's Conservation Enhancement Act.
        These are conservation initiatives and aspirations that we
    share. I know that the Chairman wants to extend these as we
    move through the rest of the year. I have the greatest respect
    for the bill's sponsors, but this bill does not set up a
    climate policy I am in support of.
        Advocates have named different reasons for supporting this
    bill: study emissions on behalf of Europe; prepare for carbon
    tariffs; or a facilitated domestic carbon tax. All three of
    these rationales concern me.
        The substitute amendment we are considering today directs
    the Department of Energy (DOE) to report to Congress on the
    average emissions of 22 industrial sectors and to compare them
    to those of other countries, from American allies to
    competitors, including China. It is vague on the authorities to
    be used by the department to conduct this review. It enables
    DOE to add additional categories at will and allows the agency
    to cite where and why they found a lack of data and to pressure
    companies to disclose.
        While some have stated this effort is to align, and the
    Chairman alluded to this, with the European Union's (EU) or
    Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), PROVE IT goes beyond
    the categories covered by the EU for reasons unexplained. I
    think decades of history proves that America should not follow
    Europe's environmental and trade policies which have left the
    continent reeling in the face of supply disruptions due to
    Russia, dealing with higher energy and living costs, and
    suffering a less vibrant and competitive economy than we have
    right here in the United States.
        The argument that the bill is just a study also does not
    resonate with me. We have a number of repositories of
    greenhouse gas emissions data already being collected by the
    Federal Government, specifically the EPA, which we have
    jurisdiction over, such as the Greenhouse Gas Inventory and the
    Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, something belatedly acknowledged
    in the amendment that I believe Senator Cramer will be offering
    in the nature of a substitute later on today.
        I already find the redundant number of sources we have to
    be confusing. Before we consider establishing yet another
    greenhouse gas data set for study to burden American industry
    and potentially confuse policymakers and the public, we need to
    better understand the ones we already have.
        Even if we did that, I still have concerns with
    establishing a carbon intensity study, in large part, because
    of what I have lived through as the lead Republican opposing
    the EPW portions of the Inflation Reduction Act.
        Even if we were to all agree that providing a study at this
    point is the only goal and not the imposition of a carbon tax,
    or tariff, we have seen through the Inflation Reduction Act how
    innocuous data collection responsibilities can later be
    weaponized to implement damaging partisan policies, including
    taxes.
        I will give you an example. Subpart W in the Methane
    Emissions Reduction Program, also known as MERP, is one such
    cautionary tale. Through the Inflation Reduction Act, Democrats
    transformed Subpart W from a reporting requirement to a hammer
    used to nail a tax on American oil and gas industry to be paid
    by the American consumers. The EPA was directed to update
    Subpart W, a reporting framework that has existed for over a
    decade, and then use it to set the tax.
        I hear regularly from stakeholders now, even ones who did
    not oppose the MERP at the time of its enactment, who say the
    fee needs to be repealed because the EPA has now revised
    Subpart W and inflated the emissions reported under that
    program to impose an unjustified fee. All I keep thinking is, I
    tried to tell you that at the time.
        I see the exact thing happening here with the study and
    reports generated by the PROVE IT Act. I noticed that the
    revised bill now includes a clarification that states that
    nothing in the PROVE IT Act itself directly authorizes new
    taxes or fees.
        But that provision does not prevent Congress from imposing
    such a tax or tariff through future legislation, even in a
    partisan fashion, through the reconciliation process such as
    the IRA using the studies and reports developed by the PROVE IT
    Act. We saw how, once a reporting framework exists, Democrats
    used that framework to impose the MERP without running up
    against the Byrd Rule. Believe me, we fought hard with the
    parliamentarians and did not prevail. We also saw that prior
    savings clauses were overridden as part of the Byrd Rule and
    other reconciling provisions in the EPW title of the Inflation
    Reduction Act. My question is, savings clauses are ineffective.
        I will offer a couple amendments to try to cure what I
    think are some of the worst issues with the legislation but
    fear that its initial premise, construction and significant
    potential costs for American households and businesses require
    me to oppose it.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Carper. I thank you as well.
        I see that a quorum is present, so let's go ahead and get
    started.
        First, I want to call up S. 1863, the PROVE IT Act of 2023
    and the Cramer amendment in the nature of a substitute to this
    legislation numbered Cramer 1. The amendment in the nature of a
    substitute makes several minor changes agreed to on a
    bipartisan basis with the bill's sponsors.
        [The text of S. 1863 and Cramer Amendment 1 follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. As the Ranking Member and I have agreed, I
    now ask unanimous consent to use the amendment in the nature of
    a substitute as the base text for the purpose of the business
    meeting. Is there any objection?
        [No audible response.]
        Senator Carper. Hearing no objection, the committee will
    use the Cramer substitute as the base text for the purpose of
    this committee's action on the (Providing Reliable, Objective,
    Verifiable Emissions Intensity & Transparency) PROVE IT Act.
    Does any Senator wish to offer an amendment to this
    legislation?
        Before we do that, would you like to make some remarks?
        Senator Cramer. Yes, I would like to make some remarks on
    the amendment.
        Senator Carper. Please do. Go right ahead.
        Senator Cramer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member,
    for having this markup today.
        A lot has been said about the PROVE IT Act, but I want to
    clarify a few things as to what the PROVE IT Act does and
    importantly, what it does not do. We can make up all kinds of
    things that are possible that are not related to this, but
    PROVE IT does not authorize many of those things.
        I was recently asked if PROVE IT would lead to EPA
    implementing the carbon tax. Now, if that was the bill, I would
    vote no, obviously. Thankfully, it is not the bill. There are a
    lot of things wrong with that supposition.
        First of all, the EPA is not tasked with this study and
    neither this committee nor that agency handles tax policy. It
    is indicative of the noise that surrounds the actual substance
    of the legislation. I want to reiterate what is in the bill.
        First, contrary to the Ranking Member's comments about this
    bill being a ``road to a carbon tax,'' I want to read the
    actual text. We garnered, by the way, authorities which are not
    fuzzy and prohibitions which are clear as can be. ``Nothing in
    this Act provides any new authority to any Federal agency to
    impose, collect or enforce a greenhouse gas emissions tax, fee,
    duty, price or charge.'' Right? So nothing empowers any agency
    to do any of these things.
        If it were a tax, it would be in Chairman Carper's other
    committee, the Finance Committee, as I said earlier. I think it
    goes without saying that you would be hard pressed to find two
    States more opposed to a carbon tax than West Virginia and
    North Dakota, believe me. I have a long record of opposing a
    carbon tax.
        So this insinuation that I would be pushing a tax on any of
    our manufacturers and producers is, well, it is laughable.
        But even if you were trying to correlate PROVE IT to a
    carbon tax, I want to read something that supporters of a
    carbon tax have said about PROVE IT. They have said, ``A
    domestic carbon fee would be applied on fuels when they enter
    the economy. The PROVE IT Act is an analysis of average product
    level emissions intensity data. This data is irrelevant in
    implementing a U.S. carbon fee.'' Those are advocates of a
    carbon fee.
        I am starting to talk the people on the other side here out
    of this, I am afraid. I had better be careful.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Cramer. Similarly, there is support for some sort
    of carbon tariff to level the playing field for American
    workers while punishing polluting countries like China and
    Russia that undercut them.
        But again, that is not today's bill. If it were, it would
    be in the Finance Committee. I find it concerning that some
    keep talking about carbon board adjustment as if it is
    theoretical. In fact, I think one of the things that the
    Ranking Member said is that some people say that PROVE IT is to
    accommodate the European Union's carbon tax. It is not to
    accommodate it; it is to defend against it.
        The EU is already collecting data to implement their CBAM
    in 2026 and the United Kingdom has announced theirs will go
    into effect 1 year later. This is not theoretical; this is
    real. These are our closest allies preparing a tax, a tariff
    against products manufactured in the United States. Multiple
    American products will be charged a tariff based on math that
    the Europeans use. They are going to use it on us, not to help
    us.
        PROVE IT is an opportunity to make sure we collect our own
    data rather than subject ourselves to whatever Europe hits us
    with. I do not want the steel, aluminum, hydrogen fertilizer
    producers that we represent to be hit by a European tariff
    without us having the data to rebut it.
        The Department of Energy has a good record in this area.
    For example, this is a very specific and personal example. In
    2019, when I got to know the French Ambassador really well, the
    French utility company, Engie, which is partially owned by the
    French government, canceled a contract for U.S. Liquefied
    Natural Gas (LNG) claiming it was dirty. Imagine that.
        They had a large contract for United States liquid natural
    gas (LNG), but canceled it because they claimed it was dirty
    and instead, bought that gas from Russia, from Russia, 40
    percent greater carbon intensity than our gas. Then of course,
    Vladimir Putin attacked Ukraine and Engie got religion and came
    to the realization they would rather have the clean stuff from
    the United States.
        This is why Senator Coons and I tasked DOE with doing the
    study worked on by DOE and others to show that the United
    States has a distinct carbon advantage over our competitors.
    DOE should compile this data from existing sources, by the way.
    Nobody is being forced to provide new information. That is
    prohibited in the bill. DOE should compile this data to prove
    our American excellence.
        Ultimately, this is about giving credit where credit is
    due. That is to the American workers who dutifully abide by the
    highest standards in the world. We need to make sure their
    compliance is not undercut by foreign competitors who have
    little to no environmental standards, never mind the equally
    egregious human and worker rights records of some of these
    players.
        Finally, PROVE IT illustrates the high tax American
    businesses already pay in the form of compliance costs. That is
    why this bill has such broad support, because American
    businesses have made great strides at great cost in becoming
    the cleanest in the world. Their innovation and investments
    should be accounted for and we should use this data to make
    sure their interests are protected.
        Mr. Chairman, sometimes people question why a Senator from
    North Dakota, an energy State like ours, would support PROVE
    IT. I get it. Some people like cheap stuff from China and are
    perfectly comfortable pretending there is nothing wrong with
    the communist regime abusing its citizens and environment to
    win an economic war with the United States.
        But if the goal is to lessen global emissions, then the
    answer has to be to produce and manufacture more here in the
    United States of America, in the cleanest country. I will take
    Bakken and Alaskan North Slope crude any day over the dirtiest
    product coming out of Venezuela or Russia. The same goes for
    mining in Wyoming and Arizona and steel and aluminum production
    in Arkansas and West Virginia.
        So let's put the data together to make sure we stand up for
    the workers and businesses that we represent. I urge a yes
    vote.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Carper. Thank you for those comments. Thanks very
    much to you and your staff for all the work that you have done
    on this on this measure.
        Does any Senator wish to offer an amendment to this
    legislation?
        Senator Capito. I have an amendment at the desk.
        Senator Carper. Senator Capito, you are recognized.
        Senator Capito. Thank you. This is Amendment No. 1.
        First of all, I want to say to my friend from North Dakota,
    yes, I know you do not want a border tax. I get that. I mean,
    you do not want a carbon tax. I get that. If I inferred that in
    my statement, which I do not think I did, but if that is what
    you took away from it, I understand where you are on that.
        You have emphasized time and again, collect our own data.
    Well, that is the purpose of this amendment. It addresses some
    of the concerns I have and I think it consolidates some of the
    emphasis that you put on yours.
        It replaces the text of the bill with the direction to the
    EPA, which already has an inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas
    emissions and sinks, the six core categories that the PROVE IT
    Act contains. I add in the six core ones that are not currently
    being gathered by EPA to make it the same as what is in the
    PROVE IT Act. These categories are lithium ion batteries,
    hydrogen, uranium, critical minerals, solar panels and wind
    turbines.
        The other materials covered in PROVE IT from oil and gas to
    cement to iron and steel to plastics to fertilizers are already
    addressed by the EPA in its annual inventory, which is now
    referenced in the amended underlying text.
        The EPA is the agency charged with dealing with greenhouse
    gas emissions. It has published the annual inventory for years,
    presenting emission estimates dating back to 1990.
        I may be skeptical about EPA's data collection and
    modeling, but I do think because of what has happened with
    Subpart W, but before we start layering on another bureaucracy
    through brand new efforts and bringing in new agencies like
    DOE, I think we need to already work with the ongoing data
    collection that goes on at EPA.
        As I said, when I look at existing data sources, and I am
    not sure I am being clear here, but what I am saying let us
    take it out of DOE. This amendment takes it out of DOE, puts it
    in the existing inventory that is very similar to what they are
    asking in the PROVE IT Act, adds in what is not already in the
    PROVE IT Act and that inventory would stand.
        This inventory that is done at the EPA is done and was
    established to be in compliance with the United Nations
    Framework Convention on Climate Change and is compliant with
    international standards.
        That is my amendment and I ask for support.
        [The text of the amendment offered by Senator Capito
    follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. Thank you for that.
        Senator Capito. May I interject one other thing that my
    amendment does? I am sorry.
        Senator Carper. Sure.
        Senator Caito. My amendment also says that I have language
    in there that has a savings clause that does prevent the data's
    use for regulation and a budgetary point of order that would
    move it. If the data were to be used to put a carbon tax in, it
    would have to be at a 60 vote threshold rather than a 50 that
    is normal in a reconciliation measure.
        Thank you.
        Senator Carper. Thank you.
        I think our colleagues know I have great respect for our
    colleague from West Virginia. We work very hard every day to
    find consensus on all kinds of issues.
        Today, I am afraid I am going to have to oppose her
    amendment. The amendment would replace the text of the PROVE IT
    Act with a bill that would block virtually any EPA regulation
    of greenhouse gas emissions. It would also establish a new
    point of order for the Senate floor prohibiting any revenue
    measure based on the greenhouse gas emissions associated with
    commodities or with products.
        We know that the climate crisis is causing tremendous harm
    to our communities and our economy today and to our planet. It
    is getting worse and it is getting worse more quickly. The last
    thing Congress ought to be doing is blocking commonsense
    measures to reduce carbon pollution.
        I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
        Does any other Senator wish to speak on Senator Capito's
    first amendment? Anybody else?
        [No audible response.]
        Senator Carper. Seeing no further speakers, the question is
    on approving the amendment. A roll call is requested. Is there
    a second?
        Senator Cardin. Second.
        Senator Carper. It has been moved and seconded. The Clerk
    will call the roll.
        The Clerk. Mr. Boozman.
        Senator Boozman. No.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Capito.
        Senator Capito. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Cardin.
        Senator Cardin. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Cramer.
        Senator Capito. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Fetterman.
        Senator Fetterman. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Graham.
        Senator Capito. No, by proxy.
        The Clerk. Mr. Kelly.
        Senator Kelly. No.
        The Clerk. Ms. Lummis.
        Senator Lummis. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Markey.
        Senator Markey. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Merkley.
        Senator Merkley. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Mullin.
        Senator Capito. Yes, by proxy.
        The Clerk. Mr. Padilla.
        Senator Carper. No, by proxy.
        The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts.
        Senator Ricketts. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Sanders.
        Senator Carper. No, by proxy.
        The Clerk. Ms. Stabenow.
        Senator Stabenow. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Sullivan.
        Senator Capito. Yes, by proxy.
        The Clerk. Mr. Whitehouse.
        Senator Carper. No, by proxy.
        The Clerk. Mr. Wicker.
        Senator Capito. Yes, by proxy.
        The Clerk. Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Carper. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, can we get Mr. Mullin's vote once
    more, please?
        Senator Capito. Mr. Mullin is yes, by proxy.
        Senator Carper. Is the Clerk prepared to report the roll
    call totals?
        The Clerk. Yes, sir, the yeas 6, the nays are 13.
        Senator Carper. The amendment is not adopted.
        Does any Senator wish to offer another amendment?
        Senator Capito. I have another amendment.
        Senator Carper. Senator Capito, go ahead.
        Senator Capito. Thank you. It is very simple. It goes to
    what my first, one of my concerns I had in my first amendment.
    I am going to try it again.
        I expressed my concern about the PROVE IT Act being abused
    in a future reconciliation package to ram through a domestic
    carbon tax in a partisan reconciliation exercise.
        The clarification in the revised bill I think is a bit
    insufficient. My amendment would raise a budgetary point of
    order against the use of PROVE IT as the basis for any revenue
    measure such as a CBAM or domestic carbon tax.
        This point of order could only be waived by a vote of 60 or
    more Senators, not just a slim partisan majority. Any effort to
    use a bipartisan bill for such a purpose should require a
    robust bipartisan vote. I urge support.
        [The text of the amendment offered by Senator Capito
    follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. Again, I must regretfully oppose my valued
    colleague's amendment. Like the prior amendment, this amendment
    establishes a new point of order for the Senate floor that
    prohibits any revenue measure based on the greenhouse gas
    emissions associated with commodities or products.
        I understand that some outside groups are claiming that the
    PROVE IT Act would lead to establishment of a carbon tax, but
    as we have heard, that is just not correct. The bill itself
    states that it does not provide any new authority for any type
    of fee on greenhouse gas emissions. This amendment is, I am
    afraid, a poison pill that would force me and many of my
    colleagues to vote against this bill if the amendments were
    adopted. I am going to vote no and ask my colleagues to do that
    as well.
        Does any other Senator wish to comment on Senator Capito's
    second amendment?
        Senator Cramer. If I could, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Carper. Senator Cramer?
        Senator Cramer. Mr. Chairman, just quickly.
        I am going to support Senator Capito's second amendment
    because I frankly do not think it really changes a lot. It does
    clarify, it emphasizes perhaps the finer point that
    reconciliation should not be able to use this data. The fact of
    the matter is that the substitute amendment we are actually
    dealing with now already does that in the broader sense that it
    prohibits any agency from using any of this data for any type
    of a tax or regulation.
        In my view, it is just a narrower emphasis on the specific
    issue of reconciliation, so I am supporting it.
        Senator Carper. All right. Thank you.
        Are there other Senators wishing to comment on this
    amendment?
        [No audible response.]
        Senator Carper. Hearing no further speakers, the question
    is on the amendment. A roll call vote has been requested. Is
    there a second?
        Senator Cardin. Second.
        Senator Carper. It has been moved and seconded. The Clerk
    will call the roll.
        The Clerk. Mr. Boozman.
        Senator Boozman. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Capito.
        Senator Capito. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Cardin.
        Senator Cardin. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Cramer.
        Senator Capito. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Fetterman?
        Senator Fetterman. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Graham.
        Senator Capito. Yes, by proxy.
        The Clerk. Mr. Kelly?
        Senator Kelly. No.
        The Clerk. Ms. Lummis.
        Senator Lummis. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
        Senator Markey. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Merkley.
        Senator Merkley. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Mullin?
        Senator Capito. Yes, by proxy.
        The Clerk. Mr. Padilla.
        Senator Carper. No, by proxy.
        The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts?
        Senator Ricketts. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Sanders.
        Senator Carper. No, by proxy.
        The Clerk. Ms. Stabenow?
        Senator Stabenow. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Sullivan.
        Senator Capito. Yes, by proxy.
        The Clerk. Mr. Whitehouse?
        Senator Carper. No, by proxy.
        The Clerk. Mr. Wicker.
        Senator Capito. Yes, by proxy.
        The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
        Senator Carper. No.
        Is the Clerk ready to report the yeas and nays?
        The Clerk. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 9, the nays
    are 10.
        Senator Carper. I understand the yeas are 9 and the nays
    are 10. In that case, the amendment is not adopted.
        Does any Senator wish to offer another amendment to this
    legislation?
        Senator Ricketts. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Carper. Senator Ricketts, go ahead.
        Senator Ricketts. I would like to call up Ricketts
    Amendment No. 1.
        I have several concerns with this bill. Before I get into
    that, you know, Mr. Chairman, I really like being on this
    committee. One of the reasons I like being on this committee is
    that we get to talk about biofuels. That is what my amendment
    talks about.
        First of all, I think, just in general, one of the things
    we ought to do in the legislative branch is be more
    prescriptive with the executive branch. As a former Governor, I
    know the executive branch will not do things unless the
    legislative branch specifically tells them what to do if they
    do not want to do it. Mr. Chairman, I suspect you recall the
    same sort of thing from being a former executive branch member.
        So, one of the things I think we ought to be doing is again
    being more prescriptive. Of course, I do not have to explain to
    you all the dangers of using partial or unsound science as we
    walk through these processes.
        What my amendment does is determine that the Department of
    Energy's own Argonne National Laboratory's Greenhouse Gases
    Regulated Emissions, Energy Use and Transportation, also known
    as the GREET Model, be used as the methodology when determining
    greenhouse gas emissions, specifically when talking about
    biofuels.
        The GREET Model considers the entire life cycle of energy
    sources and transportation fuels, it accounts for emissions
    from production, distribution, and consumption, providing a
    more accurate representation of the different environmental
    impacts of different fuels.
        GREET incorporates a wide range of data inputs, including
    energy consumption, emission factors and technological
    parameters. This comprehensive dataset ensures that the model
    captures the nuances of various transportation technologies and
    fuel sources.
        GREET has gained acceptance across industries as a reliable
    tool for assessing the environmental performance of
    transportation fuels. Its adoption by both public and private
    entities enhances its status as a standard for emissions
    modeling.
        GREET has undergone rigorous peer review processes and its
    methodologies have been validated through scientific studies.
    The model's credibility is strengthened by the involvement of
    experts in continuous refinement based upon feedback from the
    scientific community.
        I urge the committee to support my amendment and look
    forward to working with you on this issue in the future. I
    would just say I think that this ought to be done not just for
    the transportation fuels, but every category that we have, we
    should come up with a specific model that we instruct the
    Department of Energy to use to calculate the emissions.
        With that, thank you.
        [The text of the amendment offered by Senator Ricketts
    follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. Thanks for your amendment.
        I am going to oppose the amendment but I want to say you
    have been a valued member of this committee from day one and a
    faithful attendee. I appreciate that, and I know Senator Capito
    does as well.
        I ca not support you on this amendment but let me say, the
    PROVE IT Act directs DOE to gather data and develop robust
    estimates for the greenhouse gas intensities of the specified
    products. I understand that the GREET Model referred to in
    Senator Ricketts' amendment is a DOE model. Nothing in the
    underlying bill prevents DOE from using it, but I do not think
    we should require the Department of Energy to use a particular
    model by law here.
        If we want to convince other nations to use our estimates,
    we need to make sure the estimation methodology is on an
    absolutely solid technical ground. I think Congress does that
    best by letting the technical experts make those decisions.
        I am also concerned that specifying a particular model may
    undermine support for this bill among those who may not agree
    with that model. I am going to have to urge our colleagues to
    vote no on this amendment.
        Does any other member wish to speak on Senator Ricketts'
    amendment?
        [No audible response.]
        Senator Carper. There are no more speakers on this
    amendment. Let me say the question is on the amendment. A roll
    call vote has been requested. Is there a second?
        Senator Cardin. Second.
        Senator Carper. The Clerk will call the roll.
        The Clerk. Mr. Boozman.
        Senator Boozman. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Capito.
        Senator Capito. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Cardin.
        Senator Cardin. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Cramer.
        Senator Capito. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Fetterman.
        Senator Fetterman. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Graham.
        Senator Capito. No, by proxy.
        The Clerk. Mr. Kelly.
        Senator Kelly. No.
        The Clerk. Ms. Lummis.
        Senator Lummis. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Markey.
        Senator Markey. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Merkley.
        Senator Merkley. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Mullin.
        Senator Capito. Yes, by proxy.
        The Clerk. Mr. Padilla.
        Senator Carper. No, by proxy.
        The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts.
        Senator Ricketts. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Sanders.
        Senator Carper. No, by proxy.
        The Clerk. Ms. Stabenow.
        Senator Stabenow. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Sullivan.
        Senator Capito. Yes, by proxy.
        The Clerk. Mr. Whitehouse.
        Senator Carper. No, by proxy.
        The Clerk. Mr. Wicker.
        Senator Capito. Yes, by proxy.
        The Clerk. Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Carper. No.
        The Clerk will report.
        The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 9, the nays are 10.
        Senator Carper. The yeas are 9 and the nays are 10. The
    amendment is not adopted.
        Does any Senator wish to offer another amendment to this
    legislation?
        Senator Ricketts. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Carper. Senator Ricketts, please go ahead.
        Senator Ricketts. I would like to call up Ricketts
    Amendment No. 2.
        I have concerns about the People's Republic of China (PRC)
    and their ability to take advantage of the system to avoid
    following their international commitments.
        The PRC is not a developing nation. The PRC is the second
    largest economy in the world. Since 1992, the PRC's economy has
    grown by more than 1,000 percent and its emissions have more
    than quadrupled.
        Yet, the PRC has and continues to strategize and act so
    that it can be treated as a developing country under
    international multilateral agreements, including the Montreal
    Protocol and the U.N. Convention on Climate Change.
        We cannot allow the PRC to self-designate as a developing
    country to gain unfair special trade treatment that it does not
    deserve. The PRC needs to operate on the same level playing
    field if we are going to prove we can do it better than they
    can.
        I look forward to working with you all in the future on
    this issue and wish to withdraw my amendment.
        Senator Carper. Thank you very, very much.
        Are there other Senators wishing to speak?
        [No audible response.]
        Senator Carper. Seeing no further speakers, the question is
    now on final passage.
        I move that the committee favorably report S. 1863, the
    PROVE IT Act with the amendments in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk will call the roll.
        The Clerk. Mr. Boozman.
        Senator Boozman. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Capito.
        Senator Capito. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Cardin.
        Senator Cardin. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Cramer.
        Senator Cramer. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Fetterman.
        Senator Fetterman. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Graham.
        Senator Capito. Yes, by proxy.
        The Clerk. Mr. Kelly.
        Senator Kelly. Aye.
        The Clerk. Ms. Lummis.
        Senator Lummis. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Markey.
        Senator Markey. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Merkley.
        Senator Merkley. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Mullin.
        Senator Capito. No, by proxy.
        The Clerk. Mr. Padilla.
        Senator Carper. Yes, by proxy.
        The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts.
        Senator Ricketts. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Sanders.
        Senator Carper. Yes, by proxy.
        The Clerk. Ms. Stabenow.
        Senator Stabenow. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Sullivan.
        Senator Capito. No, by proxy.
        The Clerk. Mr. Whitehouse.
        Senator Carper. Yes, by proxy.
        The Clerk. Mr. Wicker.
        Senator Capito. No, by proxy.
        The Clerk. Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Carper. I am going to vote yes.
        Does anyone wish to change their vote?
        Senator Markey. Mr. Chairman, I would like to change my
    vote from no to aye.
        Senator Carper. Senator Markey changes from no to aye.
        Does anyone else wish to change their vote? All right, the
    Clerk will report.
        The Clerk. Yes, sir, the yeas are 14, the nays are 5.
        Senator Carper. The yeas are 14 and nays are 5. The
    legislation is favorably reported. I would note for the record
    that a quorum of the committee is present. Thank you.
        We will now consider S. 2781, the Good Samaritan
    Remediation of Abandoned Hardrock Mines Act of 2023 and the
    Kelly Lummis Amendment in the nature of a substitute to this
    legislation. The amendment is in the nature of a substitute and
    incorporates technical assistance from the EPA that has been
    agreed to on a bipartisan basis with the bill's sponsors.
        As the Ranking Member and I have agreed, I now ask
    unanimous consent to use the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute as the base text for the purposes of this business
    meeting. Is there objection?
        [No audible response.]
        Senator Carper. Hearing no objection, the committee will
    use the Kelly Lummis substitute as the base text for the
    purpose of the committee's action on the Good Samaritan Act.
        [The text of S. 2781 and the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. As no other amendments were filed, I move
    to report S. 2781, the Good Samaritan Act of 2023, with the
    amendment in the nature of a substitute. All in favor say aye.
        [Chorus of ayes.]
        Senator Carper. All opposed, say nay.
        [Chorus of noes.]
        Senator Carper. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
    it. The legislation is favorably reported. I note for the
    record that a quorum of the committee is present.
        Senator Cardin?
        Senator Cardin. I just wanted to briefly comment on the
    bill we just passed.
        It provides for a pilot program for waivers to the
    Superfund rules and the Clean Water Act. I do not think we
    should do that lightly. I want to compliment Senators Heinrich
    and Risch for the compromises that they were able to get and
    the protections that they have in this bill. I applaud them for
    those efforts.
        But I do want to raise the issue that whenever we look at
    any type of a waiver from the Superfund rules or the Clean
    Water Act, we need to be extremely careful. There are other
    alternatives that could have accomplished these same goals.
        I am concerned that we have not explored those options as
    deeply as we should. For example, we could be looking at
    changes within the Superfund rules and Clean Water Act as it
    relates to reclamation activities and cleanup activities
    itself.
        Second, in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, we provided
    under Section 4704 authorization for funds for clean-up under
    the Abandoned Hardrock Mine Reclamation Authority.
    Unfortunately, that was authorized at $3 billion. It is my
    understanding that our appropriators have recommended $5
    billion. That is a far cry from what we intended under the
    Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill in order to clean up these
    abandoned mines.
        Last, we should be looking at the responsible parties. I
    know it is challenging, but they are the ones responsible for
    the clean-up.
        I just really wanted to raise those cautionary tones. I did
    not oppose this being reported out by voice vote. As this
    legislation works its way forward, I think we have to be
    extremely cautious about waivers to the Superfund rules or the
    Clean Water Act.
        Senator Markey. Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Carper. Senator Markey.
        Senator Markey. I would like to associate myself with the
    remarks of the Senator.
        Senator Carper. All right. Anyone else?
        [No audible response.]
        Senator Carper. All right. Now I am going to call up en
    bloc the following bills: S. 3412, the Reuben E. Lawson Federal
    Building Act of 2023; S. 3570, a bill to designate the United
    States Court house located at 500 West Pike Street in
    Clarksburg, West Virginia as the Irene M. Keeley United States
    Courthouse; and S. 3577, a bill to designate the Federal
    building located at 300 East Third Street in North Platte,
    Nebraska, as the Virginia Smith Federal Building.
        [The text of the referenced naming bills follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. I move to favorably report these naming
    bills to the Senate. All in favor, say aye.
        [Chorus of ayes.]
        Senator Carper. Opposed, say nay.
        [No audible response.]
        Senator Carper. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
    it. The legislation is favorably reported. I note for the
    record that a quorum of the committee is present.
        Senator Capito, I think that concludes our business for
    today. I want to thank everybody for helping to get us through
    this. We were a little rusty but we closed strong. I thank
    everyone for your help and participation.
        That concludes the committee's votes as part of today's
    business meeting. Again, we thank everyone. I will now
    recognize any member who would like to speak on any matter that
    we have voted on. Would anyone like to speak?
        [No audible response.]
        Senator Carper. In closing, I want to thank our members for
    being here today and voting on these important bills.
        For some final housekeeping, I would ask unanimous consent
    to submit for the record letters of support for legislation our
    committee approved today.
        [The referenced information follows:]
       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. I also ask unanimous consent that the staff
    have authority to make technical and conforming changes to the
    legislation approved today.
        Thank you, everyone, for your participation. With that,
    this business meeting is adjourned. Thank you all.
        [Whereupon, at 11:24 a.m., the business meeting was
    adjourned.]

                           [all]