[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]