[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 56 (Tuesday, March 28, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H1485-H1497]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                         LOWER ENERGY COSTS ACT


                             General Leave

  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on H.R. 1.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Arkansas?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 260 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1412


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1) to lower energy costs by increasing American energy 
production, exports, infrastructure, and critical minerals processing, 
by promoting transparency, accountability, permitting, and production 
of American resources, and by improving water quality certification and 
energy projects, and for other purposes, with Mr. Issa in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  General debate shall not exceed 7 hours, with 6 hours equally divided 
among and controlled by the respective chairs and ranking minority 
members of the Committees of Energy and Commerce and Natural Resources 
or their respective designees and 1 hour equally divided and controlled 
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure or their respective designees.
  The gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Rodgers) and the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) 
and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) each will control 90 
minutes. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves) and the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Larsen) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas, (Mr. Westerman.)
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 1, the Lower Energy Costs 
Act.
  As an engineer, I have learned that no issue is too difficult for 
American innovation and ingenuity to solve when we honestly identify 
the problem, develop a sound plan to solve it, and do the hard work to 
get the results we desire.
  The truth we all know is America has an energy crisis. Energy is 
foundational to everything we do, and for the sake of our future, we 
must solve this problem.
  Energy prices, in general, have gone up nearly 40 percent in a little 
over 2 years. High energy costs translate throughout the economy, 
causing inflated prices for every necessity of life, from the food we 
eat to the clothes we wear to the roof over our heads.
  President Biden has said he is working to lower these costs. But his 
actions are drowning out his words. He has waged war on American 
producers, shutting down oil and gas leasing, banning mining 
development in certain areas, and insisting on keeping our Federal 
regulations permanently stuck in the past.

                              {time}  1415

  What are we getting in return?
  We are getting more dependence on the worst polluters in the world 
while we wreck our own economy sending our wealth and jobs overseas.
  Our current energy policies favor Putin, the Chinese Communist Party, 
and despots around the globe over the American people and freedom. Why 
would our friends across the aisle continue to put the worst polluters, 
human rights violators, and those who wish us harm above the American 
people?
  No more. H.R. 1 is designed to solve our energy crisis. House 
Republicans are ready to show the world that American energy--not Saudi 
Arabian, not Venezuelan, not Chinese, or Russian energy--American 
energy is our future. American mining, American innovation, American 
processing and refining,

[[Page H1486]]

American manufacturing, and American infrastructure will lead us out of 
this energy crisis.
  H.R. 1 outlines this through a variety of measures. First, it rolls 
back the Biden administration's oil and gas leasing moratoriums, giving 
producers certainty to produce resources safely and responsibly right 
here at home.
  Next, given the importance of minerals to our national security, 
clean energy technology, and a host of everyday uses, H.R. 1 shores up 
domestic supply chains for commodities like copper, lithium, and 
cobalt, and allows us to make our energy infrastructure where it should 
be made--right here at home in the United States.
  Every ounce we produce here is an ounce less we and our allies are 
forced to purchase from Chinese-controlled mines with deplorable labor 
and environmental standards. And, of course, none of this is possible 
without modernizing the Federal regulations that delay the projects we 
desperately need.
  If you don't believe permitting reform is needed, maybe you will 
believe President Biden's senior adviser, John Podesta, who recently 
said: ``We can move faster by setting tighter deadlines for agencies to 
complete environmental reviews. We can move smarter by making it easier 
to approve projects with low environmental impact . . . But Congress 
needs to do its job . . . So it is time to get back to work and pass 
permitting reform legislation.''
  We are called to be good stewards of our resources and leave them 
better than we found them. That is the definition of conservation. We 
cannot say our global resources are better off today under Democratic 
policies. China is building coal plants at a rapid pace, using slave 
labor to construct solar panels and develop critical minerals, while 
Russia is not only one of the worst environmental catastrophes on the 
planet, but they are also using their energy revenues to fund their war 
in Ukraine.
  We cannot continue to turn a blind eye to these injustices and say, 
``not in my backyard.'' America drills, mines, builds, and innovates 
cleaner, safer, and more responsibly than anywhere else in the world.
  Before American innovators and workers can solve our energy problems, 
we need a plan. H.R. 1 is the plan to solve our energy crisis.
  For these and many more reasons, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the 
Lower Energy Costs Act. H.R. 1 is the blueprint to ease the burden of 
this self-inflicted energy crisis on American families.
  H.R. 1, when executed, will make the United States more secure and 
competitive on the global stage. Ultimately, H.R. 1 will improve the 
health and longevity of our natural resources, create a better climate, 
and spur economic growth and jobs--these are results we should all get 
behind.
  Mr. Chair, you don't have to be an engineer to solve this energy 
problem. I urge all of my colleagues to join with me and vote a 
resounding ``yes'' in support of H.R. 1.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
                                         House of Representatives,


                                      Committee on the Budget,

                                   Washington, DC, March 20, 2023.
     Hon. Bruce Westerman,
     Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Westerman: I am writing regarding H.R. 1335, 
     the Transparency, Accountability, Permitting, and Production 
     of American Resources Act, which was ordered reported by the 
     Committee on Natural Resources on March 9, 2023.
       The bill contains provisions that fall within the 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget. In order to 
     expedite House consideration of H.R. 1335, the Committee on 
     the Budget will forgo action on this bill. This is being done 
     with the understanding that it does not waive any 
     jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in H.R. 1335 
     or similar legislation and that the Committee will be 
     appropriately consulted and involved as this bill or similar 
     legislation moves forward so that the Committee may address 
     any remaining issues that fall within its jurisdiction. The 
     Committee on the Budget also reserves the right to seek 
     appointment of an appropriate number of conferees to any 
     House-Senate conference involving this or similar legislation 
     and requests your support of any such request.
       I would appreciate a response to this letter confirming 
     this understanding with respect to H.R. 1335 and would ask 
     that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be 
     included in your committee report and in the Congressional 
     Record during floor consideration of H.R. 1335.
           Sincerely,
                                               Jodey C. Arrington,
     Chairman, Committee on the Budget.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Natural Resources,

                                   Washington, DC, March 21, 2023.
     Hon. Jodey C. Arrington,
     Chairman, Committee on the Budget,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Arrington: I write regarding H.R. 1335, the 
     Transparency, Accountability, Permitting, and Production of 
     American Resources Act, which was ordered reported by the 
     Committee on Natural Resources on March 9, 2023.
       I recognize that the bill contains provisions that fall 
     within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget and 
     appreciate your willingness to forgo action on the bill. I 
     acknowledge that the Budget Committee will not formally 
     consider H.R. 1335 and agree that the inaction of your 
     Committee with respect to the bill does not waive any 
     jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in therein.
       I am pleased to support your request to name members of the 
     Committee on the Budget to any conference committee to 
     consider such provisions. I will ensure that our exchange of 
     letters is included in the Committee Report for H.R. 1335 and 
     the Congressional Record during floor consideration of the 
     bill. I appreciate your cooperation regarding this 
     legislation
           Sincerely,
                                                  Bruce Westerman,
     Chairman,Committee on Natural Resources.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                     Committee on Agriculture,

                                   Washington, DC, March 24, 2023.
     Hon. Bruce Westerman,
     Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter confirms our mutual 
     understanding regarding H.R. 1335, the ``TAPP American 
     Resources Act''. Thank you for collaborating with the 
     Committee on Agriculture on the matters within our 
     jurisdiction.
       The Committee on Agriculture will forego any further 
     consideration of this bill. However, by foregoing 
     consideration at this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction 
     over any subject matter contained in this or similar 
     legislation. The Committee on Agriculture also reserves the 
     right to seek appointment of an appropriate number of 
     conferees should it become necessary and ask that you support 
     such a request.
       We would appreciate a response to this letter confirming 
     this understanding with respect to H.R. 1355, and request a 
     copy of our letters on this matter be published in the 
     Congressional Record during Floor consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                            Glenn ``GT'' Thompson,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Natural Resources,

                                   Washington, DC, March 25, 2023.
     Hon. Glenn ``GT'' Thompson,
     Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I write regarding H.R. 1335, the 
     Transparency, Accountability, Permitting, and Production of 
     American Resources Act, which was ordered reported by the 
     Committee on Natural Resources on March 9, 2023.
       I recognize that the bill contains provisions that fall 
     within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture and 
     appreciate your willingness to forgo action on the bill. I 
     acknowledge that the Committee on Agriculture will not 
     formally consider H.R. 1335 and agree that the inaction of 
     your Committee with respect to the bill does not waive any 
     jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in therein.
       I am pleased to support your request to name members of the 
     Committee on Agriculture to any conference committee to 
     consider such provisions. I will ensure that our exchange of 
     letters is included in the Congressional Record during floor 
     consideration of the bill. I appreciate your cooperation 
     regarding this legislation
           Sincerely,
                                                  Bruce Westerman,
                         Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources.

  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, today I rise in urgent opposition to the Republicans' H.R. 
1.
  Last week, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change issued its final report. Their message couldn't be clearer. We 
have a lot to do and very little time to do it before the ticking 
climate bomb we are living in goes off.
  I want to emphasize that their message wasn't one of complete 
despair. There is hope. The hope hinges on two major conditions.
  One, we must stop burning fossil fuels, the number one cause of 
climate change. And two, we must transform our energy system to a 
cleaner and more sustainable one now.

[[Page H1487]]

  H.R. 1, the bill before us today, which has earned the fitting title 
of polluters over people act, will actively and aggressively take us 
backwards on both those accounts.
  Looking more like a nearly 200-page love letter to polluting 
industries than a serious legislative effort, the polluters over people 
act is a laundry list of gifts and giveaways to polluting industries.
  Let's look at what it does for Big Oil. For example, last year 
companies shattered profit records across the board by price gouging 
working Americans at the pump while also hoarding thousands of unused 
leases on our public lands and waters.
  Rather than hold Big Oil accountable for this abuse, the polluters 
over people act lowers royalty rates, repeals interest fees, reinstates 
noncompetitive leasing, and forces Federal agencies to hold rock-bottom 
lease sales all but assuring that last year's profit records will soon 
be broken again.
  Never to be outdone, the mining industry gets its fair share of gifts 
in H.R. 1, as well. Mining companies, many of which are foreign-owned, 
already enjoy a free-for-all on our public lands. They make a mockery 
of Tribal consultation, destroy sacred and special places, ruin the 
landscape, and leave behind a toxic mess that pollutes our water and 
hurts our health--all without paying a cent to the American people--not 
one red cent is paid in royalties.
  Now included in this package is that they can use the public land for 
anything they want, including dumping of toxic mineral waste.
  There is more, but suffice it to say, with all these handouts, it 
comes as no surprise that the Congressional Budget Office just reported 
last week that H.R. 1 will actually increase the Federal deficit.
  Staying true to its name, the polluters over people act also fast-
tracks dirty energy projects by gutting our bedrock environmental and 
public health laws; namely, the National Environmental Policy Act, or 
NEPA.
  This is not in a new so-called permitting reform solution they have 
come up with to address our energy needs. This is the same ideological 
attack I have seen Republicans in the Natural Resources Committee 
launch on NEPA year after year after year.
  For anyone who is being lured into thinking there are opportunities 
for negotiations on this bill--do not be naive. This performative 
permitting reform is not a bipartisan solution, not even a starting 
point for one.
  This is just another decades-old request from polluters to make their 
operations cheaper and easier, while making Americans' lives harder and 
more costly.
  It is not a serious solution to any of our energy goals. Even former 
President George W. Bush's head of permitting efforts has said that 
this bill will be ``of no statistically significant consequence.''
  In fact, the polluters over people act has none of the real 
permitting solutions that can speed up the build-out of the clean 
energy infrastructure that we all need.
  One of those solutions would be increasing funding for Federal 
permitting offices, which is exactly what Democrats did when they 
secured more than $1 billion in last year's historic Inflation 
Reduction Act. Even Republicans' own witness at a hearing called that 
money ``wonderful.'' No more funding is in H.R. 1.
  Another solution for speeding up clean energy development is 
reforming the planning and cost allocation process for electrical 
transmission lines that can carry renewable energy from different 
sources across the country. But, no, you are not going to see that in 
H.R. 1 either.
  Of course, any real permitting reform solutions would make sure to 
protect and empower the communities that have been disproportionately 
hurt by dirty energy and other polluters for decades--and that are now 
being hit the hardest by climate change as well.
  As you can probably guess, H.R. 1 doesn't just fail to protect these 
communities, it silences them further, laying them bare to even more 
devastation, harm, and exploitation.
  The polluters over people act isn't just an embarrassment of riches 
for polluting industries, it is an embarrassment to our communities, to 
our climate goals, and to this legislative body.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, this utopian idea of having our cake and 
eating it too, the ``not in my backyard'' mentality, it just won't work 
for the economy or the environment. That is why we need change.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Thompson), the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, someone who 
knows the importance of energy to production agriculture.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 1, the Lower Energy Costs Act.
  Let me be clear, a vote for H.R. 1 is a vote for food security. Let 
me repeat that. A vote for H.R. 1 is a vote for food security.
  Let me explain. As chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, 
and proud Representative from Pennsylvania's 15th Congressional 
District, I am no stranger to the challenges facing America's energy 
industry and its direct impact on farming communities.

  In fact, the Commonwealth showcases the nexus between energy and 
agriculture production each and every day.
  Pennsylvania is home to abundant natural resources from Marcellus 
shale natural gas play to America's first commercial oil well. These 
are responsibly developed resources that have provided energy 
affordability to our Nation for generations and transformed the U.S. 
into a global economic powerhouse.
  These resources have also helped spur our State's largest industry--
agriculture. And just like any other region of the country, the 
viability of our ag sector is relying upon access to abundant and 
affordable energy.
  By gambling away American energy independence and domestic oil and 
gas production in the name of climate change, the Biden administration 
has harmed the very industry--U.S. agriculture--that contributes to 13 
percent of our annual greenhouse gas sequestration.
  The hardworking men and women who feed and fuel our Nation in the 
world are, in reality, climate heroes.
  Even still, this administration has continued to take irrational 
regulatory and policy actions that foster uncertainty and limit our 
ability to meet the food, fiber, and energy demands of our Nation and 
the world.
  This legislation provides a reprieve for America's families, 
including our farmers, ranchers, and foresters, who have struggled with 
fractured supply chains, skyrocketing input costs, and historic levels 
of inflation, all of which are exacerbated by excessive spending and 
regulatory overreach from Washington.
  American agriculture, if given the right tools and regulatory 
certainty, can serve a vital role in alleviating global food 
instability and mitigating costs for consumers.
  H.R. 1 provides this certainty and will deliver long-lasting relief 
for nearly every sector of the U.S. economy.
  As I have always said, food security is national security. We need 
dependable local power generation, adequate infrastructure, a strong 
workforce, and lower energy costs for farm operations to remain viable. 
It is time we return to embracing American energy, not abandon it, and 
in doing so, enable America's agriculture sector to thrive.
  House Republicans made a commitment to an economy that is strong. 
Through H.R. 1, we are upholding that promise.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, we heard the term NIMBY thrown around to 
describe opposition to this bill. This NIMBY term, not in my backyard, 
is used to describe local residents, oftentimes very wealthy residents, 
who oppose development in their neighborhoods, but unfortunately 
support development of it elsewhere.
  This NIMBY term is being used by some to try to discredit opposition 
to this bill. In reality, the groundswell of opposition of this bill 
comes from places that look like places behind me, not Martha's 
Vineyard--places like Cancer Alley along the Gulf Coast, and many other 
environmental justice communities across the country that millions upon 
millions of American call home.
  Make no mistake, the greatest consequences from pollution giveaways 
in

[[Page H1488]]

H.R. 1 will fall on places like the ones in this photograph that are 
already overburdened by industries' pollution.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Velazquez), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to this 
legislation. First, I thank the ranking member of the Natural Resources 
Committee for yielding.
  Climate change is an existential threat to the United States and the 
world. Without action to reduce emissions, the damage to our Nation, 
economy, and future generations will be immeasurable.
  Americans understand the severity of this moment. That is why polling 
shows that most Americans want to prioritize the development of 
alternative energy sources over expanding the production of fossil 
fuels.

                              {time}  1430

  The bill before us today will do the exact opposite. H.R. 1, the 
polluters over people act, is a brazen giveaway to the oil, gas, and 
mining industries.
  As Big Oil reaps record profits thanks to billions of dollars in 
taxpayer subsidies, this bill will rubberstamp the construction of new 
natural gas pipelines and shut government agencies out of the review 
process.
  H.R. 1 will also mandate the auctioning of our public lands for oil 
and gas leases, make it easier to export liquefied natural gas to 
foreign adversaries, and allow oil companies to price gouge working 
families.
  This bill effectively gives energy companies a license to pollute. 
Simply put, it is a disaster for our environment and our fight against 
climate change.
  Americans do not want energy policy to come at the expense of public 
health. Many of my constituents have suffered for years from air 
pollution emitted from a local plant that runs on burning natural gas 
and fuel oil. This pollution has resulted in generations of families 
developing asthma in what is colloquially known as asthma alley.
  H.R. 1 will encourage this dangerous pollution in communities across 
the country. That is why I have submitted two amendments. One will 
protect these at-risk localities by removing restrictions preventing 
individuals from suing in response to a violation of NEPA if they bring 
a claim related to protecting public health. My second amendment would 
require publicly traded companies to disclose their goals and actions 
related to greenhouse gas emissions and meeting the goals of the Paris 
climate accord.
  These amendments were rejected by the Rules Committee, as were over 
90 percent of the amendments proposed by my Democratic colleagues. So 
much for the open amendment process Republicans promised when they took 
over the majority.
  H.R. 1 is a reckless bill that empowers polluters to boost profits 
for Republicans' industry friends.
  Last year, Democrats acted to lower energy costs for working families 
and weaken our dependence on fossil fuels by passing the Inflation 
Reduction Act. The IRA was the largest-ever investment in fighting 
climate change while creating thousands of good-paying jobs, attracting 
billions of dollars in investment, and lowering the average American 
family's energy costs by about $1,800 a year.
  H.R. 1 seeks to reverse the progress we have made since passing the 
IRA. Mr. Chairman, this bill will take us backward both economically 
and environmentally, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, the rhetoric is just not matching the 
reality. The reality is that current energy policies are forcing us to 
buy energy and minerals from the worst polluters on the Earth. Not only 
are they the worst polluters; they are the worst human rights 
violators.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. 
Fulcher), who serves on the Committee on Natural Resources.
  Mr. FULCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Westerman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I am honored to support H.R. 1, the Lower Energy Costs 
Act, to increase energy production, export American energy, and build 
out our infrastructure to transport it.
  All of our constituents have seen and felt the impact of the 
constraint on and the cost of energy. Sadly, we don't have to go too 
far to see the impact of this administration's efforts to harm 
domestically produced energy.
  From the cancelation of the Keystone XL pipeline, a moratorium of oil 
and gas leases on Federal lands, and the self-destruction of our 
offshore lease programs, it is hard to imagine just how far this 
administration will go to prop up unrealistic, utopian ideas--utopian 
ideas that a country could solely exist on wind and solar without oil 
and gas.
  By the way, there is a whole lot of information on wind and solar 
that doesn't get advertised all that much: the fact that the materials 
necessary to build those components come from mining that we have 
largely prevented ourselves from doing and have to import from 
overseas, the cost of the transmission, and the fact that those rotors 
on the wind turbines need fossil fuels to continue to operate. 
Nevertheless, that is the evangelism we have been given by the current 
administration.
  Americans are paying the price for this utopian future, and they are 
paying it right now. With this just transition to other forms of 
unreliable energy, the cost is borne by the most vulnerable among us.
  That is why Republicans are leading the way to unleash the full 
potential of American energy through H.R. 1. H.R. 1 means no more 
begging the Saudis for oil, ignoring the humanitarian crisis in 
Venezuela, and forgoing American workers, industry, and expertise.
  H.R. 1 means abundant energy for all Americans in an environmentally 
responsible way.
  Republicans are also leading the way with all forms of energy. That 
is why I am thankful for the inclusion of my CLEAN Act in H.R. 1 to 
promote the responsible exploration of geothermal resources on Federal 
lands.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Westerman for his leadership, and I 
look forward to the passage of H.R. 1.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Ms. DelBene).
  Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the 
polluters over people act.
  Protecting our environment is foundational to the heritage, culture, 
and quality of life that we enjoy in the Pacific Northwest. We are 
trailblazers in clean, renewable energy sources like hydroelectric, 
wind, and solar.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle should follow our lead 
and focus on accelerating our transition toward a green energy economy 
like Democrats did in the Inflation Reduction Act. Instead, Republicans 
are pushing a messaging bill loaded with giveaways to the fossil fuel 
industry that will blow a $2.4 billion hole in our deficit.

  This legislation not only does nothing to lower energy costs, but it 
raises prices for families by repealing Inflation Reduction Act 
discounts for energy-saving home appliances.
  I offered an amendment to this bill, with the support of every 
Democrat from the Washington and Oregon delegations, that would prevent 
oil and gas companies from drilling along the Washington and Oregon 
coasts. The last thing any of us want is the next Deepwater Horizon 
spill on our shores. This was rejected by the majority. An open 
amendment process apparently only applies to Republicans.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wittman), who is another member of the Natural Resources 
Committee.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support today of H.R. 1, the 
Lower Energy Costs Act.
  Since coming into office, the Biden administration has taken steps to 
depress domestic energy production, causing prices to skyrocket and 
making America reliant on our adversaries for energy.
  From heating our homes to filling our gas tanks, Americans have been 
burdened with historically high energy prices. With growing global 
demand predicted year after year, we must pass laws that will make 
America energy independent.

[[Page H1489]]

  H.R. 1, the Lower Energy Costs Act, is crucial in restarting our 
onshore and offshore leasing program. It also incentivizes the 
production of domestic minerals that are essential for national 
security and sustainable energy projects.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about all this 
electrification.
  Mr. Chairman, do you know what needs electrification? Copper.
  Do you know what the other side has done? They have started to ban 
copper mines.
  I don't know how you make this happen unless, I guess, they want us 
to buy copper from China. It makes sense to me: Buy copper from China 
and be reliant on people who don't like us.
  You can see the production here, Mr. Chairman. Look at Chinese copper 
production. Look at United States copper production.
  I know what the other side wants. They want us to be reliant on 
China.
  Modernizing our Federal regulations needs to happen so we prevent 
projects from being in endless litigation.
  Mr. Chairman, let's do the things that are sustainable and necessary 
for our economy and that are necessary to making sure that we are 
energy independent.
  H.R. 1 incentivizes an all-of-the-above energy approach. This 
legislation promotes domestic sources of materials critical to 
renewable energy while maintaining robust environmental standards.
  American energy is the cleanest in the world. We can and we must 
produce our own energy in an efficient, clean, and safe way for 
Americans. We can do that.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 1 
to eliminate red tape and promote affordable domestic energy 
production.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, let me remind my colleagues that this 
bill provides more handouts to foreign mining companies with terrible 
environmental and human rights records.
  For example, Rio Tinto, a foreign-owned mining company, is preparing 
for a new copper mine in Arizona at a sacred site, Oak Flat. In 2020, 
the company knowingly and needlessly demolished a 46,000-year-old 
sacred Australian aboriginal site, an irreplaceable cultural artifact, 
to expand an iron mine.
  This bill rolls out the welcome mat for even more mining by foreign-
controlled companies with records of human rights violations, cultural 
desecration, and pollution.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Levin), who is a valued member of our committee.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1, 
the polluters over people act.
  Although energy independence and lower costs are laudable goals for 
any energy legislation, unfortunately, this bill achieves neither. 
Instead, H.R. 1 is a giveaway to Big Oil and their lobbyists, who want 
to be able to set their own rules at the expense of working families. 
Instead of putting the needs of the American public at the center of 
this bill, my friends across the aisle drafted an industry wish list.
  First, H.R. 1 undermines landmark environmental laws and protections 
like the Clean Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act that 
safeguard public health and keep our drinking water and air clean. It 
also repeals the methane emissions reduction program, which helps 
companies reduce their methane pollution.
  This bill makes it easier for polluters to set their own standards 
and roll back reforms, and it lets Big Oil rubberstamp their own 
projects with minimal oversight. Environmental disasters are far too 
common, and unfortunately, H.R. 1 would make it easier for future 
disasters to happen.
  Second, the polluters over people act worsens the climate crisis by 
empowering the fossil fuel industry instead of strengthening the 
foundation for a clean energy future, which is so important.
  During the last Congress, the 117th Congress, we passed policies--
many bipartisan policies--like the bipartisan infrastructure law, the 
CHIPS and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act, that invested 
in climate action at a scale matching the challenge that science tells 
us that we face.
  This bill that we have before us today not only ignores the 
additional steps we need to take to reach our climate targets, but it 
actively takes us backward on climate action by rolling back key 
provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, which was and is the most 
significant environmental and climate bill that has ever been passed in 
the United States or anywhere else.
  We know that data is alarming. A new U.N. report found that global 
warming could increase by 3.2 degrees Celsius and cause 7 feet of sea 
level rise by the end of the century if immediate actions are not 
taken. This is an existential crisis.
  Climate change is real. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
know it is real, and we cannot continue to deny this and put our planet 
at risk with this type of legislation.
  Instead of wasting time on this Big Oil wish list, I would like for 
us, instead, to focus on actions that will actually expand the 
employment of clean energy, reduce costs, expand high-capacity 
transmission, reform the interconnection process, and build on the $1 
billion that we secured in the Inflation Reduction Act to ensure that 
Federal agencies have the resources and expertise to conduct efficient 
environmental reviews.

                              {time}  1445

  Third, H.R. 1 adds to the deficit. That is right, it adds to the 
deficit by giving handouts to big oil and gas corporations so that 
their executives and their shareholders can get even richer.
  For a party that is focused--at least, I hear that they are--on 
tackling the deficit, I think it is pretty extraordinary that this 
legislation, their signature legislation would add to the deficit.
  Last year, when Americans were dealing with high costs at the pump, 
fossil fuel executives were taking in record profits. In fact, 26 of 
the country's largest oil companies made a record-breaking $451 billion 
last year, just last year, and they spent over $163 billion on stock 
buybacks and dividends to their shareholders.
  These same companies donated over $370,000 to my friends across the 
aisle, so it is no wonder they want to reward their friends. It is 
clear that this legislation, the polluters over people act, is another 
giveaway, to keep corporations rich at the American people's expense 
without making meaningful reforms. In fact, while making things worse. 
For all these reasons and more, I strongly oppose this legislation.
  Mr. Chair, I proposed four amendments that would begin to correct 
course, but unfortunately my friends across the aisle are only allowing 
two of those amendments to come to the floor.
  My first amendment that was blocked would clarify that lead Federal 
agencies can extend a public comment period or gather further community 
input if the Secretary determines that doing so would improve project 
results or efficiency.
  This would allow agencies to actually streamline the permitting 
process by ensuring that potentially impacted communities and local 
governments have the ability to fully engage in the process.
  Instead, my friends across the aisle chose to block consideration of 
this amendment and perpetuate the myth--it is a myth--that community 
input somehow slows down project approvals.
  My other amendment that was blocked would have banned offshore 
drilling off the southern California coast. Californians of both 
political parties have made it absolutely clear, overwhelmingly clear 
that they are strongly opposed to additional offshore oil and gas 
drilling in southern California off the coast.
  This amendment would have offered this Congress an opportunity to 
respect the will of the overwhelming majority of Californians who 
oppose drilling off our coasts.
  I strongly urge my friends across the aisle, allow debate on these 
and other amendments so that more voices are heard.
  As my colleagues on the Natural Resources Committee have heard me say 
before, I am willing to work with anyone--anyone--on either side of the 
aisle to meet the goals of lowering energy costs and protecting our 
planet, particularly in terms of promoting a more efficient and 
transparent permitting process. I hope we can do that.

[[Page H1490]]

  We can find common ground on pragmatic solutions. This is not common 
ground. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chair, I heard the word ``rich'' mentioned a few times. I will 
tell you what is rich is when our colleagues across the aisle project 
their energy policies onto our plan. Again, the only polluters who are 
being put over the people are China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia.
  Talk about big oil company profits, I read where Aramco, a Saudi 
company, had record profits last year, $161 billion in profits. I 
believe that is the country that President Biden went to and asked them 
to increase production because we weren't making enough at home.
  Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Stauber), the chair of the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee.
  Mr. STAUBER. Madam Chair, before I begin my speech, I just want to 
tell the American people, you are not hearing all the truth on this. 
Sometimes my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will try to 
repeat things, mislead the American people. It is rinse, lather, 
repeat. The American people are smarter than that.
  H.R. 1 is a priority for this Conference. It helps to modernize the 
permitting process.
  Madam Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1, Majority 
Leader Scalise's Lower Energy Costs Act, a bill I am an original 
cosponsor of, helped to write, and a bill America needs now more than 
ever.
  I am also pleased that the House Natural Resources Committee received 
primary jurisdiction. I thank the Committees on Energy and Commerce and 
Transportation and Infrastructure for their important contributions as 
well.
  Americans put Republicans in control of the House, in part, because 
we campaigned on making life more affordable and making it easier to 
build. We want to let miners mine, farmers farm, builders build, and 
let small businesses succeed. However, under today's permitting scheme, 
that is all but impossible.
  In the district I represent, we have a proposed mine that would 
provide a huge resource of copper, nickel, cobalt, a huge resource of 
those critical minerals that we need, and it is on year 20 of 
permitting and litigation. It has a signed project labor agreement, 
committed to domestic union labor for the mine's construction.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle at every turn reject 
that mine as well as this administration does. This mine has won every 
lawsuit thrown its way, but further frivolous litigation and endless 
bureaucracy continue to mire the project year after year. We can help 
to build the energy transition with domestic minerals mined by 
Minnesotans, but the permitting bureaucracy stands in the way.
  That is why I am proud that my own legislation, which has 33 
cosponsors, the Permitting for Mining Needs Act, is included in the 
base text.
  PERMIT-MN creates what miners want. They want certainty. It limits 
frivolous litigation, puts in place commonsense review timelines, and 
just puts American miners to work, whether they are in Minnesota, 
Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, California, or anywhere else.

  This is about so much more than mining. If you are at all serious 
about emissions reduction, you will vote to support H.R. 1.
  Why? Because right now, for example, it takes years to decades to 
permit transmission projects that will add wind and solar to the grid.
  At our February 9 oversight hearing on permitting, American Clean 
Power testified that failure to enact permitting reforms puts an 
estimated 100 gigawatts of clean energy projects at risk.
  The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Letlow). The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. STAUBER. Madam Chair, that means risking $100 billion worth of 
investment and 150,000 potential jobs in the clean energy sector.
  In the Natural Resources Committee, we have a real tangible example. 
At our February 28 legislative hearing on my colleague Garret Graves' 
BUILDER Act, Dairyland Power testified about the Cardinal-Hickory Creek 
transmission line. This transmission line, which will put more wind 
power on the grid, is about 103 miles long, but it is locked in year 7 
of permitting.
  We need to pass H.R. 1 for energy independence and critical mineral 
dominance.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It is too bad that my Republican colleagues continue to point to 
Chinese and Russian practices to try to lower the bar for environmental 
and community protections in our own country. The United States should 
lead, and we shouldn't set our standards by China or Russia.
  The American people want their protections, they want clean energy, 
and they want the process that allows the American people to know and 
to participate. This bill does none of that.
  Madam Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Casten).
  Mr. CASTEN. Madam Chair, I am going to be honest. I am at a loss for 
words.
  This bill, the polluters over people act, is bad for the consumers, 
bad for the environment, and bad for the U.S. economy. You wouldn't 
know that from the rhetoric across the aisle, leaving me to wonder 
whether they are all lying or just ignorant. I am going to give them 
the benefit of the doubt here and assume they are ignorant.
  Since I am at a loss for words, as I said, I am going to try to 
explain this with some numbers. Since 2010, the United States economy 
has grown by $7 trillion. That is about 50 percent. During the same 
period, natural gas consumption in our country is up 25 percent, only 
half as much. Petroleum consumption is flat. Coal consumption is down 
by 40 percent.
  This is awesome news. We should all be celebrating. We have decoupled 
economic growth from fossil fuel consumption. We can grow without 
depending on environmental degradation. The environment and American 
energy consumers are winning. That is not because they are using less 
energy. It is because they are not paying for it. You don't pay for 
solar energy. You don't pay for energy efficiency.
  Remember, no one wants a barrel of oil. What you want is a cold beer 
and a hot shower. Now, Americans are getting more of the latter with 
less of the former, and if that confuses anybody in this body, then I 
would encourage you to go ask your local 6-year-old, what would you 
rather have on Christmas morning; a warm fire and some twinkly lights 
or a big old lump of coal? Like I said, this isn't that complicated.
  Let us now ask what the fossil fuel industry has done in the wake of 
their collapsing market share. Did they pivot to providing things 
consumers want--cleaner, cheaper energy?
  Did they redeploy their capital into solar, wind, geothermal, 
electric vehicle charging stations?
  Of course not. They moved to strip-mine the United States and asked 
for your acceleration of their work.
  During the same period, U.S. exports of oil have grown by a factor of 
four. U.S. exports of natural gas have grown by a factor of six. Their 
revenues that Mr. Levin talked about are not going up because they are 
selling more of their product to Americans, it is because they are 
strip-mining America and selling it overseas.
  Exporting U.S. energy does not lower the price of energy in the 
United States. If anything, it raises costs to American consumers 
because you reduce domestic supply, for goodness sakes. This bill would 
only make that worse.
  To be sure, there are real challenges facing U.S. energy consumers. 
We have an aging grid. We need transmission to connect renewables to 
load. We have got the growth in electric demand thanks to all those EVs 
and heat pumps. We should be focusing on those challenges if we are 
looking out for the American consumer, but this bill does not give a 
damn about the American consumer. Its sole purpose is to transfer 
wealth from the American taxpayer to American energy exporters.
  There are a small number of Americans whose wealth depends on oil and 
gas production and export--you all know them by name, I am sure--but 
every single American benefits from cheaper energy, and if you are 
going to

[[Page H1491]]

claim to support the interests of the latter, vote ``no'' on this bill. 
If you are voting ``yes,'' at least have the dignity to be honest about 
whose interests you are looking out for.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), the senior Republican on the Committee on 
Natural Resources.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman, who is doing a great 
job as chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, for yielding.
  Madam Chair, what should be crystal clear by now is that our friends 
across the aisle do not have solutions to the energy crisis. For the 
last 4 years, Democrats have controlled both Chambers of Congress, but 
in that time, not one single piece of serious legislation was ever 
introduced which would have lowered the cost of energy. After seeing 
costs rise for years on end, voters decided that they had had enough 
and elected Republicans to solve this crisis.

  In 2019, a gallon of gas cost just over $2. Today, it costs almost 
$4. The price of groceries has gone up, as the price of energy to ship 
and keep them cool has gone up as well. Some items have seen as high as 
a 55 percent increase.
  What has been done to help ease energy costs?
  What solutions do my friends across the aisle have?
  As a result of President Biden's Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 
Act, the United States pumped $75.8 billion of taxpayer money into 
unreliable green tech. Besides that, Americans have pumped trillions of 
both public and private dollars into these industries for decades, but 
solar and wind combined still only make up 10 percent of American 
electricity generation.
  Instead of making existing technology more affordable, this 
administration and its allies in Congress dumped billions of dollars 
into technologies that cannot provide reliable and dispatchable energy 
to even a fraction of the country. This so-called solution has done 
nothing to lower costs for the average American. We have higher costs. 
There is more potential for rolling brownouts. This is the best that my 
friends across the aisle can do.
  An intelligent person would think, why not continue to invest in 
affordable and proven technology while we are waiting for these 
alternatives to become viable?
  They might be in the future at some point. That is great. But right 
now it is only 10 percent of our national electrical production.
  The PJM Interconnection, for example, which is a grid that services 
over 65 million people, has announced that they will be short 26 
percent of their total energy obligations because radical 
environmentalists are retiring energy sources while providing no 
reliable backups.

                              {time}  1500

  EPA also recently finalized what they are calling the ``Good 
Neighbor'' rule by denying 26 different State plans to conform to EPA 
ozone regulations.
  This denial means that 26 States, including my State of Colorado, 
will have sources of energy generation completely shut down while 
having no viable backup whatsoever.
  This decision guarantees that costs and shortages will continue to 
increase for the American people with no end in sight.
  Maintaining affordable energy is crucial to our way of life. It is 
what keeps water treatment plants open. It is what keeps hospitals 
open. It is what keeps traffic lights, libraries, schools, trucks, 
ships, and airplanes operating.
  When the cost of powering these essential processes go up, costs go 
up. If the grid shuts down, everything relying upon it goes down. This 
will have catastrophic consequences.
  Those of us around the country have seen what happens in places like 
California with its unrealistic energy policies and want nothing to do 
with it. High prices and shortages come with overregulation.
  Let's face the facts: Current green tech cannot come anywhere close 
to powering our Nation right now or in the foreseeable future.
  The Energy Information Administration expects fossil fuel demand to 
continue rising, not decreasing, beyond the year 2050.
  Ironically, as an aside, fossil fuel industries have always made a 
higher profit when there is a Democratic President because of the 
increased per barrel price of oil, but that is just an aside.
  Republicans also aren't neglecting permitting realities by ignoring 
unused drilling permits. We simply recognize that those permits on 
their own are insufficient to generate investment and production, 
especially when this administration is doing everything it can to 
discourage the producers of conventional energy.
  What should be clear in this debate is that Republicans are the ones 
who know how energy works, and we are passing legislation.
  H.R. 1 is serious legislation that will lower costs. I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, just a reminder. H.R. 1, the polluters 
over people act, repeals the $4.5 billion home electrification rebate 
program designed to lower energy bills for all American families.
  Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Ocasio-Cortez.)
  Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Madam Chair, there was some discussion earlier and 
an allegation made that Democrats have yet to introduce any policy to 
reduce our energy costs, as if we have completely forgotten about the 
sweeping, multibillion-dollar investments in the Inflation Reduction 
Act to reduce people's costs across the board.
  I am rising today to stand in opposition to H.R. 1. While Republicans 
try to claim that this is a bill to lower people's energy costs, what 
we really see when we start digging into it, is that what this bill 
actually shows us by the Republican authors is that they actually have 
no plan to reduce our utility bills or even prevent climate disaster in 
the United States.
  The central argument and logic of this bill is that if you give Big 
Oil everything they want, then perhaps they will lower our gas prices.
  It is a form of trickle-down fantasy that just will not make life 
easier for everyday Americans. What H.R. 1 will do is give Big Oil more 
leases of public lands.
  This idea that an increased supply of fossil fuels will drive down 
prices is also mistaken. Let's look at what happened last year.
  We saw how Big Oil more than doubled its profits to $219 billion, all 
while price gouging customers at the pump, not because of supply issues 
but because they can.
  Republicans opposed solutions that we put forward, like a windfall 
tax on price gouging on Big Oil in order to prevent these kinds of 
behaviors.
  Fossil fuel companies, moreover, already have thousands of unused 
permits on public lands, yet they want even more. This is not a problem 
of supply. It is a problem of greed and abuse of market power.
  I, along with many of my colleagues, called for that windfall tax.
  What does this bill do instead?
  It is almost as if you gave a pen to an oil lobbyist and wrote down 
everything that they want. Much of that is in this bill.
  We are looking at reducing Big Oil's royalty rates to the public and 
slashing interest fees.
  For people following at home, if you are a member of the American 
public, if you are a taxpaying citizen, you are part of the ownership 
of our public lands.
  When an oil company decides to lease that land, they are supposed to 
pay a royalty to the public.
  What does H.R. 1 do?
  It slashes that royalty rate so that there is very little payback or 
investment into the American people and many of our programs.
  In this bill, Republicans are squarely on the side of fossil fuel 
companies. It makes it harder for communities to fight Big Oil when 
they don't want them drilling in their own backyards.
  It also threatens our public lands and allows anyone to stake a 
mining claim on our public lands for less than $10 an acre, even if 
they haven't discovered any minerals.
  Despite the fact that more than 40 percent of Americans live in 
counties hit by climate disasters, this bill prohibits agencies from 
even considering climate change when deciding whether or not to issue a 
permit to a drilling company.
  None of these things are going to lower our costs at the pump. None 
of

[[Page H1492]]

these things are going to actually reduce our utility bills.
  In fact, in talking about this allegation of a lack of Democrat 
proposals, Democrats introduced 95 amendments, proposed 95 amendments 
to this bill, and the Republican majority rejected all but seven.

  I, myself, personally sponsored an amendment in the spirit of this 
bill, allegedly, to try to reduce prices, and my amendment would have 
made sure that the subsidies that the Federal Government provides to 
oil and gas companies actually make their way to the American people--
instead of lining the pockets of billionaire CEOs--and actually have 
the intended effect.
  Republicans rejected that amendment, too. They have made clear where 
they stand. I cannot emphasize enough how detrimental and damaging this 
bill would be, not only to the climate crisis, not only to the purpose 
of even trying to reduce our utility costs, but moreover, for the 
ability for the American people to actually receive an investment on 
the public lands that they lease out.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, the Inflation Reduction Act that has been 
referenced here, it did invest in energy companies: energy companies in 
Saudi Arabia, energy companies in China, and energy companies in places 
like Russia and Venezuela and Iran at the cost of the American people.
  The bill also referred to--outside of the House Chambers--is the 
climate bill, referred to by my colleagues across the aisle. It did one 
thing to inflation, it drove inflation up at the cost to the American 
taxpayer.
  Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chair, everything around us that makes our 
lives possible is either mined, or it is grown. Everything.
  Above the Speaker's chair is a plea from Daniel Webster to those who 
serve in this House. ``Let us develope the resources of our land, call 
forth its powers . . . and see whether we also, in our day and 
generation may not perform something worthy to be remembered.''
  Yet, for 50 years, the environmental left has slowly strangled our 
Nation's ability to do just that. In the process, it is impoverishing 
the American people.
  One of its most powerful weapons is the National Environmental Policy 
Act imposed in 1969 with the promise that it would protect the 
environment.
  It has done exactly the opposite. It has made it endlessly time 
consuming and ultimately cost prohibitive to manage our forests, to 
provide abundant water for our people, and to prosper from our vast 
energy and mineral resources.
  My district comprises the forests of the Sierra Nevada and the 
agricultural heartland of California's Central Valley.
  The left promised us that NEPA would protect our forests and water 
resources. Come to my district, and you will see what a cruel and 
demonstrable lie that has become.
  Excess timber is removed from our forests in only two ways. If we 
don't carry it out, nature will burn it out.
  Throughout the 20th century, the U.S. Forest Service marked off 
surplus timber and auctioned it to logging companies that paid us to 
remove it.
  The result was healthy, resilient, and fire-resistant Federal 
forests, a steady revenue source for forest improvements, and thriving 
mountain economies.
  Then came the National Environmental Policy Act. Simple forest 
thinning projects now require an average of 4\1/2\ years of 
environmental studies, costing millions of dollars, more than the value 
of the timber.
  Instead of making money for the government, removing excess timber 
now costs us money. As a result, our forests have become morbidly 
overgrown, carrying four times the timber that the land can support.
  In that stressed condition, the trees succumb to disease, pestilence, 
drought, and ultimately catastrophic wildfires we haven't seen in over 
a century.
  California is one of the most water-rich regions of the country. Yet, 
the farms of the Central Valley have had their water systematically 
choked off because NEPA and other environmental laws make major new 
reservoirs all but impossible to build. Record rainfall this year is 
being lost to the ocean simply because we have no place to store it.
  When the little town of Foresthill tried to add a $2 million spillway 
gate for additional water storage, they discovered that because of 
NEPA, they also had to budget an additional $1 million for 
environmental reviews and $2 million for environmental mitigation.
  After more than a decade, the project has yet to be built. The last 
reservoir over a million acre-feet constructed in California was 
completed in 1979. Meanwhile, the State's population has nearly 
doubled.
  Madam Chair, when something is plentiful, it is cheap. When it is 
scarce, it is expensive. NEPA is making everything we depend upon in 
our lives increasingly scarce, and therefore, increasingly expensive.

  The left obsesses over a 1-degree rise in temperature over the next 
century, but they couldn't care less that they are making it impossible 
for people to heat their homes in subfreezing winters.
  They promise us they care about the environment, but they couldn't 
care less that entire human communities' and species' habitats and 
millions of acres of forest are being laid to waste by preventable mega 
fires.
  They obsess over the snail darter but couldn't care less that they 
have destroyed thousands of agricultural jobs, idled a half million 
acres of California farmland, and sent grocery prices skyrocketing.
  They promised us that NEPA would protect our forests. Instead, it is 
destroying them.
  H.R. 1 begins to dial back the damage that NEPA has done, both to the 
environment and to the quality of life of all Americans, simply by 
reducing the time and cost required for these massive bureaucratic 
studies.
  The question before us is whether our children will grow up in a 
world of scarcity, poverty, and misery or one of abundance, prosperity, 
and optimism.
  That is the simple question before us. We choose prosperity; a future 
of abundant and affordable energy, water, food, lumber, minerals, and 
all the material comforts and benefits that flow from the resources our 
country has been blessed with.
  That is something worthy to be remembered, and that future can begin 
with this vote today.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Landsman).
  Mr. LANDSMAN. Madam Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1, a 
very unpopular and wholly unhelpful bill.
  The debate on this bill has to be put in the context of two very 
important things: inflation and costs, including gas prices, but also 
this broken economy that many feel is rigged.
  Both Democrats and Republicans in my district talk about this all the 
time. You see, there are those with power and wealth, and then there 
are the rest of us.
  It seems like those who have the power and the wealth keep getting 
more and more, and the rest of us keep getting less and less.
  We ask, why is this?
  We ask ourselves how can gas prices go up while our bank accounts go 
down; yet oil companies see profits skyrocket?

                              {time}  1515

  How is that not a broken economy? It does beg the question: Is it 
rigged?
  Now we arrive at this bill. Let's be clear, Americans don't want more 
giveaways furthering this imbalance. They want relief.
  Many of us are proposing that relief in energy rebates--direct 
assistance to help Americans pay for gas and their heating bills.
  H.R. 1 just furthers this imbalance. Instead of direct assistance for 
Americans, which Americans want, it is more giveaways for oil and gas 
companies. The oil and gas companies have said two things about this 
bill: one, it is not going to help us speed up the process; and two, 
thank you for all the giveaways. We love them.
  They get more power, build up more wealth, and we get, one, no relief 
on prices; two, a bigger deficit to deal with; and, three, the loss of 
local control and input. We actually lose power.

[[Page H1493]]

  The environmental impact study is where we as Americans weigh in. 
This bill is controversial and problematic because it takes more away 
from us and gives more and more and more to a few companies.
  That is the broken economy. That is why people think this system is 
rigged. That is why my colleagues should vote ``no.''
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Puerto Rico (Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon), another Member of the House Natural 
Resources Committee.
  Mrs. GONZALEZ-COLON. Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of this 
bill because this legislation will restore and secure American energy 
independence.
  I am especially supportive of this bill's provisions to modernize the 
NEPA process. Look how long it takes for many of the permits to 
actually be approved. It streamlines the Federal permitting process for 
all industries. These commonsense reforms will provide the necessary 
certainty so projects across the Nation are carried out in a timely 
manner without sacrificing our environmental standards which are the 
most robust in the world.
  This will be critical for jurisdictions like mine in Puerto Rico, as 
we rebuild our public and energy infrastructure from recent natural 
disasters. Modernizing NEPA and the Federal permitting process--setting 
clear and reasonable timelines for agencies to conduct environmental 
reviews--will help simplify the process and reduce bureaucratic hurdles 
that too often have delayed our recovery process.
  This bill will also establish a revenue-sharing structure for 
offshore wind leases in Federal waters. I was proud to work with 
Chairman Westerman during our committee markup to secure language 
clarifying that both coastal States and territories will receive 
revenues from any Federal offshore wind development off their coasts.
  Specifically, this bill establishes a framework under which coastal 
States and territories will get funds for these offshore wind revenues. 
This bill further requires that States and territories invest these 
funds in coastal protection and resiliency projects, such as hurricane 
and flood protection, restoration, conservation, beach nourishment, and 
estuary management.
  Therefore, this is not just an energy security and permitting reform 
package. This is also a coastal resiliency bill. For that reason, and 
knowing that we got billions of dollars in Federal funding for 
reconstructing the island, this is the process we need, this is the 
reform we actually need to get those funds in hand.
  I thank and commend Majority Leader Scalise, Chair Westerman, Chair 
Rodgers and Chair Graves for their leadership and work on this 
important, powerful legislation.
  I wish I could vote for this bill on the floor of the House today, 
but as a territory delegate I cannot, but I support this bill.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for her input on 
the bill and for her great ideas.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Madam Chair, I wish to raise my voice against H.R. 1, 
this bill that has been given the moniker ``polluters over people.'' I 
think it is an appropriate moniker, and I will tell you why. It doesn't 
create energy independence any more than anything else we are doing in 
the energy sector. It doesn't save people money. This is money that 
will go into the pockets of Big Oil and big polluters.
  We all saw during the pandemic when the price of oil per barrel 
leveled off, the price at the pump per gallon kept going up and up and 
up, and everybody who was filling up their gas tank and feeling like 
they needed to get an onsite mortgage to do it, knew where that money 
was going. It was going into the pockets of the oil companies.
  You know what else it doesn't do? It doesn't save our government 
money. In fact, it costs our government money. $400 million extra this 
will add to the annual deficit if we pass this bill, this polluters 
over people bill.
  You know, the question is: Well, what does it do? Well, it does away, 
Madam Chair, with bedrock protections for the things that people count 
on the government protecting: clean air, clean water. It does away with 
the National Environmental Policy Act almost entirely, and it guts the 
Clean Water Act.
  This is not what Americans signed up for for their government. In 
fact, there are statutes, there are protections that were put in place 
during Republican and Democratic administrations over the years. It has 
become things that Americans have learned to depend on, to count on, 
that the government is going to keep their air and their water clean 
for them. This takes that away. It eliminates it.
  What else does it do? It is going to cost homeowners money. It takes 
away the electrification program that will give them rebates to redoing 
the electricity in their house.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.

  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Finally, what it does is it throws up the white flag 
in our war against climate change. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in 
this country, General Milley, has identified climate change as a threat 
to national security, and he is right.
  We are in a fight against climate change. This is not the time to 
throw up the white flag and run away from a fight. Americans don't do 
this. I say stick up for people over the polluters, people over 
politics. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 1.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I find it ironic that a Member from 
Pennsylvania, where one of the largest deposits of natural gas in the 
world resides, would call the producers in Pennsylvania the polluters 
versus the ones in Russia and Saudi Arabia.
  Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California, (Mr. 
McCarthy), the Speaker of the House.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Chair, I thank the chairman, Bruce Westerman, for 
his work.
  Madam Chair, the chairman mentioned something about our last speaker 
from Pennsylvania. I am a little concerned. Maybe he didn't have time 
to read the whole bill because the bill he described is not the bill 
that is before us.
  He said somehow this would harm the environment. He was concerned 
about climate. If this bill passes, global emissions will be reduced. 
The chairman pointed out that the gentleman before, from the other side 
of the aisle, from Pennsylvania was criticizing this bill and he talked 
about the natural gas. I am not sure if the gentleman on the other side 
of the aisle has done any research or if he knows that American natural 
gas is 41 percent cleaner than Russian natural gas.
  It is an interesting little fact. If we had replaced for 1 year just 
Russian natural gas to Europe, we would have reduced CO2 
emissions by more than 200 million tons.
  So, Madam Chair, it really begs the question: Who is the polluter? 
Those who defend Russia and vote against this bill. It is interesting 
the people opposing this bill, those I am hearing on the other side of 
the aisle--China, Russia, and OPEC. It is interesting the friends you 
keep.
  Now, let's talk a little bit about this. If you go across this 
country, Madam Chair, it costs too much to heat your home and fill up 
your car. It cost less an administration ago.
  Today, more than one-third of all Americans say they have skipped 
buying food or medicine to pay an energy bill in the last 12 months. We 
are going to have opportunity this week to make sure that they don't 
have to do that again if you vote ``yes.'' This is neither affordable 
nor sustainable.
  In response, President Biden has paid lip service to the need of more 
energy production, but this is a public relations stunt. Almost every 
one of his policies involves penalizing America and empowering China.
  Now, here are the facts: For years, President Biden and Democrats 
have attacked energy producers, blocked new leases on Federal land, and 
ground the permitting process to a halt. Their so-called Inflation 
Reduction Act included a natural gas tax, a $27 billion climate slush 
fund.
  The gentleman on the other side of the aisle from Pennsylvania, he 
supported taxing the natural gas that is

[[Page H1494]]

produced in his State and creating a slush fund.
  Meanwhile, in my home State of California, burdensome environmental 
laws have led to recurring blackouts and more red tape that raises 
costs for everything. Rather than increasing production and providing 
good-paying jobs, California imported more than half of its oil from 
Ecuador in recent years.
  The interesting fact here is, when the Democrats took control of 
California under Governor Gavin Newsom, he reduced the amount of oil 
produced in California by 20 percent. That was 80,000 barrels a day. 
That doesn't mean California used 80,000 less barrels; it meant 
California started paying Putin for 50,000 barrels. They get the 
majority of their oil from Ecuador, from the Amazon.
  Instead of producing it in an environmentally sound way in 
California, we are harming the environment. That is exactly what this 
bill is able to do--lower global emissions, lower the price of energy, 
and make the world more secure and safe, because then Putin and Russia 
is not controlling Europe.
  Democrats have sent a clear message about their priorities. They are 
the party of $5 gas, subsidizing Communist China and the never-ending 
dependence on foreign dictators for minerals we have in America.
  It was only a few short years ago where America produced more of the 
critical minerals than China, but as the Democrats would shut down 
leases, make it harder to open new mines, they moved it to other parts 
of the world, and not in an environmentally sound way, but by 
empowering China, making them stronger, and making the price in America 
higher.
  Luckily, Congress has the opportunity to change the behavior of 
Washington by passing the Lower Energy Costs Act. Every Member of this 
chamber should support it. I understand why Russia and China oppose 
lower energy costs for America and making America stronger, but I don't 
understand why Members in this Congress would stand with China and 
Russia against America.
  The Lower Energy Costs Act does two important things: One, it 
restores American energy leadership by repealing unnecessary taxes and 
overregulation on American energy producers so we can lead the world in 
providing clean, affordable energy.
  Two, it makes it easier to build things in America. For example, this 
bill includes a 2-year time limit on environmental impact statements. 
It also streamlines the process for lawsuits so that activists can't 
use the courts to delay projects for years.
  Ninety years ago, American workers built the Empire State Building in 
400 days. That is 13 months. These days, however, even repairing 
existing structures, just like Lake Isabella Dam in my district, has 
taken 18 years, and that was only because we were lucky in pushing for 
it.
  That is exactly how the Big Government under the Biden administration 
wants the system to work. Every time we need a pipeline, a road, or a 
dam, it gets held up on an average of 5 to 7 years and adds millions of 
dollars in costs for the project to comply with Washington's permitting 
process.

                              {time}  1530

  It is too long. It is unaffordable. It is not based on science. It is 
holding us back. It is time we speed up the time it takes for us to 
build all kinds of things in America. We could streamline permitting, 
stop abusive lawsuits, protect the environment, and, importantly, lower 
the price of energy.
  This is why the Lower Energy Costs Act is H.R. 1. It signals how 
important the bill truly is.
  Madam Chair, when the Democrats were in the majority, do you know 
what their H.R. 1 bill was? Election. Why? They wanted to change the 
election law to try to guarantee their right to be reelected. You see, 
they looked after themselves.
  When Republicans took the majority, our H.R. 1 is about lowering 
energy costs for all Americans. We think it is important to serve 
others, not yourself.
  I get permitting reform isn't for everyone. If you like paying more 
at the pump, you don't want to make it faster for American workers to 
build more pipelines. If you are China, you would rather America sit 
back and let others lead. If you are a bureaucrat, maybe you really do 
enjoy reading the 600-page environmental impact studies.
  The rest of America wants lower prices, more cash in their hands, 
more good-paying jobs in America, and rules that are good for the 
environment. That is exactly what the Lower Energy Costs Act does.
  Madam Chair, America has the potential to become a true energy 
superpower. God has blessed us with abundant energy, and we shouldn't 
have to depend on other countries for our future. In fact, we should 
make the world dependent on us for energy. The world would be cleaner 
and safer, and America would be better off.
  If you want to have a responsible energy policy where America 
produces more energy, pays less for a gallon of gas, and never again 
bows to foreign dictators, vote ``yes'' on the Lower Energy Costs Act.
  Three things will happen when this bill becomes law.
  Your energy costs will be reduced. You will have more cash to take 
care of your family, to pay for your medicine, to take your family on 
vacation.
  It will reduce global emissions, so environmentally, the world will 
be a better place.
  It will make the world a safer place, so no longer does America pay 
Putin for dirtier oil or gas, so no longer does China control other 
nations because they control the critical minerals that America will 
not produce. No longer will we watch, as we watched in the 1930s, 
countries bound together to create an axis of power.
  We have now watched China enter the Middle East to bring Saudi Arabia 
and Iran together. That used to be the role of the American President 
at Camp David. It is no longer.
  We do not want to watch our President travel to the Middle East to 
beg to produce something more when America can produce it here in an 
environmentally sound way.
  Madam Chair, I know why Russia and China fight this bill so hard. I 
do not understand why those on the other side of the aisle join with 
Russia and China. I ask them to join with Americans and make America 
safe and environmentally sound and the world a more secure place.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  When we were in the majority, Democrats, we passed H.R. 1. What was 
that about? It was not about elections. It was about our democracy. It 
was about protecting that democracy. After January 6, that became 
urgent.
  Now, some might want to deny that--that was just a walk in the park, 
people taking a stroll. We were here. We knew what was going on, and 
the American people knew what was going on.
  The issue of patriotism has been brought up. It is patriotic for us 
to oppose polluters over people. It is patriotic because we care and 
feel that the public health of the American people needs to be 
protected, that we have to deal with climate and the crisis that we are 
confronting.
  To question the patriotism of those instincts is wrong, and we will 
continue to represent the American people on their most urgent needs. 
The future and their destinies shouldn't be turned over to Big Oil and 
Big Gas and the mining industry, for them to determine that future. 
They have to have a role, and our statutes and the protections that are 
in our laws need to be part of that role.
  Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. 
Tlaib).
  Ms. TLAIB. Madam Chair, I thank the ranking member for the time 
because my residents are already hurting. H.R. 1 would devastate their 
lives even more.
  Environmental impact statements change lives for the better, from air 
monitoring, pushing back against the corporate polluters that, again, 
just want to make a profit over the public health impact that would 
happen if we just gave them free rein.
  This bill is nothing more than a cheap political stunt to pad the 
profits of the same greedy oil and gas companies that are price gouging 
our residents at the pump and poisoning the air they breathe and the 
water they drink.
  These are the same oil companies that donated hundreds of thousands 
of

[[Page H1495]]

dollars to House Republicans and made nearly half a trillion dollars in 
profits last year alone.
  Their servants across the aisle don't think that is enough. They want 
to gut our most important critical environmental and public health 
protections, leaving our communities at the mercy of corporate 
polluters that have shown time and time again they will sacrifice our 
lives, our public health, to make more money.
  Make no mistake, this bill destroys the National Environmental Policy 
Act and the Clean Water Act. It guarantees there will be more oil 
spills. It guarantees more water crises, more deaths, and more 
suffering.
  Once you get beyond the BS, the truth is clear. Health protections 
for you and your family aren't making gas expensive; corporate greed 
is.
  The greedy oil and gas companies have gotten away with price gouging 
and stock buybacks that enrich their shareholders but make everything 
less affordable for our residents. They don't plan to stop because 
their greed is only enabled with bills like this.
  The amazing thing about this, about colleagues trying to run leaky 
oil pipelines through our communities, is that the bill isn't even 
popular. The American people get it. They understand the urgency of the 
climate crisis, the importance of protecting our air, our water. They 
want the government and corporations to take serious action to make 
sure their lives are protected.
  Yet, here we are, debating a bill that wraps climate denial and 
corporate giveaways into one tidy, toxic package as the world burns.
  Our residents, my residents, are already struggling with health 
disparities. They deserve better. They deserve to breathe clean air.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Gosar), another member of the House Natural Resources 
Committee.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 1, the Lower Energy 
Costs Act.
  America has an abundant supply of minerals, oil, and gas, and my 
State of Arizona ranks first among all States for non-fuel mineral 
resource production.
  While the mining industry is still thriving in Arizona, primarily due 
to previously started mines, the Biden administration, and some in this 
very Chamber, have purposely slow-walked the permitting approval 
process, threatening this critically important industry.
  H.R. 1 incentivizes domestic mineral production, unlocking resources 
that are vital for national security, renewable energy, and new 
technologies, like mineral processing, refinement, and concentration. 
This typically has been sent overseas to China, which then, in turn, 
monopolizes and holds these critical and rare resources ransom through 
supply chains.
  Sadly, Arizona has two of the last three copper smelters in the 
United States, to which we hold to the highest environmental safety 
standards.
  Allowing China to process these minerals is a continual slap in the 
face of the United States' stringent and responsible environmental 
laws.
  Not surprisingly, it takes more than a decade, sometimes even two, to 
permit a mine in the United States. Canada can permit a mine in less 
than 3 years.
  H.R. 1 modernizes the Federal regulations that delay projects for 
decades. H.R. 1 will help restore America as the global leader in 
energy technology development and protect Arizona's mining industry 
from the Biden administration and the leftists who want to shut it all 
down.
  Madam Chair, I applaud Chairman Westerman for his leadership, and I 
urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 1. The mantra should be: Now 
mined in America. Now refined in America. Now built in America.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett), my good friend.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Chair, with this bill, our Republican colleagues 
offer their answer to our overheated planet, turn up the heat. And to 
those parents concerned about their children's future in what could 
become an uninhabitable planet, they say quite simply, ``shut up and 
get out of the way.''
  This dirty bill will not bring our energy costs down, but it will 
drive our hospital bills and our doctor bills way up because it is a 
dirty deal.
  Republican fossilized thinking threatens the health of millions of 
Americans and endangers the future of our planet.
  Our country should be the world's leader in combating the climate 
crisis and growing the many new jobs that are necessary to develop the 
new technologies to combat the ravages of an overheated planet. But 
instead, the Republicans surrender the green technology leadership to 
China and other countries around the world.
  Protecting American families from the climate crisis should be a 
bipartisan issue, but it has increasingly become one as most of our 
Republican colleagues ignore the dangers and remain beholden to 
polluters over people.
  Last year, we made some modest progress under Democratic leadership. 
We offered incentives for both businesses and families to come together 
to slow carbon pollution, to go electric, to improve energy efficiency, 
and to develop additional renewable energy resources.
  Instead of adding to that progress, which we need, Republicans today 
would drag our country back to the disastrous years of their hero, 
Donald Trump, who abandoned American leadership in favor of more and 
more pollution.
  Only this month, the world's scientists have told us once again: 
``There is a rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a livable 
and sustainable future for all.'' Republicans want to slam that very 
window shut.
  As the U.N. Secretary General declared: ``Humanity is on thin ice, 
and that ice is melting fast. Our world needs climate action on all 
fronts, everything, everywhere, all at once.''
  This bill doesn't deserve its designation as H.R. 1. It is not even 
H.R. 0 because it drags us backward into a world in which our 
grandchildren will not be able to safely reside.
  And even for those who won't listen to the scientists and the world 
leaders near unanimous view on this, all they need to do is just open 
their eyes. The extreme weather that we see, the intensified heat, the 
mega-droughts, the ice storms, the tornadoes and hurricanes, and heat, 
heat, and more heat in places that it has never occurred before, 
threatening food production and human health. All of this, along with 
the threat of tropical diseases appearing in places like Central Texas 
where they have never occurred before.

  The climate crisis is already taking lives, and it will take many, 
many more the longer we are delayed by outrageous tactics like we see 
here today.
  This sorry bill will never become law, but every day that Republicans 
dither, delay, and distract us; every day they feed the ignorance about 
the climate crisis, the nearer we come to a tipping point from which we 
can never recover.
  I am voting ``no'' because, left unchecked, Republican half-baked 
ideas will burn up our planet.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The ideas of the Republican Party will do more to reduce global 
carbon emissions than anything that the Democrats have proposed, 
especially the legislation they passed in the last Congress that is 
actually incentivizing foreign production of energy.
  I remember distinctly President Biden going over and fist-bumping the 
Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. Then, this year, guess what? Saudi 
Arabia's state-owned oil company reported the highest profits ever--
$161 billion, for an oil company.

                              {time}  1545

  They are the plans that we are putting in place, H.R. 1, that will 
help the planet. It is not the continued misguided principles that are 
putting the real polluters, the global polluters, ahead of the people.
  It is ironic that a Member from Texas would think that producers in 
Saudi Arabia and Russia and Venezuela are polluting less than the oil 
producers and the energy producers in the State of Texas.
  Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. 
Rosendale).
  Mr. ROSENDALE. Madam Chair, as I travel across Montana and meet with 
constituents, I hear the same thing.

[[Page H1496]]

They want our Federal Government to remove the barriers that lead to 
incredibly high energy costs that they face to operate their farms, 
their businesses, and their homes.
  A lot of politicians here in Washington don't understand these 
struggles. They don't understand that their policies, which caused 
diesel prices to go up, dramatically increase input costs for farmers. 
They haven't had to endure a Montana winter where temps can hover 
between 10 and 20 degrees below zero for extended periods of time. The 
Energy Information Administration estimated that it cost Montanans 30 
percent more to heat their homes last year, thanks to the Biden 
administration's policies. That is not pocket change.
  Lowering energy costs and restoring our Nation's energy dominance 
will require an all-of-the-above approach and a dismantling of the 
Biden administration's green energy policies. That is why H.R. 1 is 
such a comprehensive reform bill, with input from representatives from 
every part of our Nation.
  Since Biden entered office, his administration has held zero lease 
sales for energy development on public lands. That is why I 
reintroduced the Restore Onshore Energy Act to be included in this 
package. It would force the administration to immediately resume 
quarterly lease sales dictated in the Mineral Leasing Act and further 
require the Department of the Interior to immediately hold replacement 
sales when the sales are missed.
  In addition to resuming lease sales, H.R. 1 will repeal harmful 
royalty and fee increases, streamline the Federal permitting process 
under NEPA, and require more transparency from the Federal Government, 
among many other provisions. This is about cutting through bureaucracy 
and fighting the radical environmentalists to allow our energy sector 
to get back to work for the American people.
  We know that energy independence isn't just a critical component of 
our national security and supply chain, but it also affects 
agriculture, the largest industry in Montana. The President's policies 
caused a 150 percent increase in transportation diesel prices since he 
took office. This directly contributes to market access, complications 
for farmers and ranchers, and increases inputs, like fertilizers and 
pesticides and labor and many other things. All of this results in 
higher food costs at the grocery store and a decrease in revenue 
margins for agricultural producers.
  In the words of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, farming looks mighty 
easy when you use a pencil for a plow and you live a thousand miles 
away from a cornfield.
  It is time for Congress to stand up to unelected bureaucrats and the 
radical environmentalists controlling our executive branch and setting 
policies without regard to the impact that they will have on the people 
in Montana and real America.
  Madam Chair, I support H.R. 1 and hope my colleagues will do the 
same.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, the Republicans claim that they will do 
more to reduce emissions with this legislation than Democrats have 
done. I remind everyone that this legislation, the House Republican 
H.R. 1, has no emission reduction targets and the push is to increase 
fossil fuel production, which is the highest source that contributes to 
the climate crisis that we are facing now.
  Madam Chair, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. 
Dingell), a member of the Committee on Natural Resources.
  Mrs. DINGELL. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1.
  As one of the few Members who serves on both the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce and the Committee on Natural Resources, I have seen almost 
every version of this package as it was crafted. Hearing after hearing 
and markup after markup, it has been clear. I love my Republican 
colleagues, but they are more focused on advancing partisan bills that 
will benefit the oil, gas, and mining industries while selling out 
landmark environmental laws in the name of permitting reform, instead 
of advancing meaningful, bipartisan solutions for the American people 
that will help us achieve our climate goals and solidify our energy 
security for future generations.
  For months now, my Republican colleagues have called for policies and 
permitting reforms in Congress that would strengthen our energy 
security. I have consistently been willing to work with my colleagues--
and still want to--in this pursuit, but what we have here is not 
reform.
  Gutting the National Environmental Policy Act, otherwise known as 
NEPA, is not permitting reform.
  Weakening enforcement under the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, 
and other critical public health laws is not permitting reform.
  Granting mining companies the ability to take minerals from public 
lands without paying a dime to taxpayers in royalties or helping clean 
up these toxic sites afterward is not permitting reform.
  Forcing Federal agencies to hold oil and gas sales on public lands, 
even if they are not needed, is not permitting reform.
  Repealing the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, a $27 billion program, 
that I admit I helped author, to deploy clean energy projects 
nationwide and cut greenhouse gas pollution, is not permitting reform 
and will not strengthen our energy security in any meaningful way.
  To my Republican colleagues who continue to refuse to believe the 
science or to acknowledge we are facing an existential threat from the 
climate crisis, just read the United Nation's most recent IPCC report 
from 2022.
  This legislation instead puts polluters, profits, and pollution over 
the American people. It is that simple.
  In order to truly attain meaningful energy independence here at home, 
we need a net zero energy economy built on solar, wind, hydropower, 
batteries, electric vehicles, and even nuclear.
  What we cannot do is expect more drilling for oil and gas to solve 
all of our current and future energy woes. I do understand bad weather. 
The last four weekends, I have had snow and ice, and I have lost my 
electricity every single weekend.
  Listen, we are at the beginning of a transformational shift toward a 
clean energy economy, a shift that has now accelerated due to the 
historic investments and legislation Democrats and the Biden-Harris 
administration were able to enact into law over the last 2 years.
  This transition will likely present the greatest permitting challenge 
in generations. However, we must permit and build in ways that do not 
harm communities or our environment.
  That is why Democrats enacted historic legislation last Congress, the 
Inflation Reduction Act, that directed over a billion-dollar investment 
to increase staffing and resources across Federal agencies for 
conducting efficient and effective environmental reviews and 
permitting.
  The bill today doesn't have real solutions to high energy costs, and 
it is going to drive up the deficit, not according to Democrats, but 
according to the independent Congressional Budget Office.
  I am pragmatic and I am seasoned enough to know we have a lot of work 
ahead. If we can do it collectively, Republicans and Democrats, it can 
serve as an important tool to combat climate change, strengthen our 
economy, and protect our national security.
  But again, let me be clear: We must not entertain proposals that roll 
back landmark environmental laws across the board, including NEPA, so 
we can line the pockets of Big Oil.
  As I mentioned at committee, when John Dingell and Senator ``Scoop'' 
Jackson originally authored and advanced the National Environmental 
Policy Act, it was done thoughtfully, through a meaningful legislative 
process, to build broad and bipartisan support. This is the process 
that we need.
  We can't gut NEPA. It was brought about to include community and to 
care about the economy. We have got to work together. I remain open to 
working with my Republican colleagues on bipartisan energy security and 
permitting reform efforts. I hope we can. My colleague, the chairman, 
knows I want to, but I still do not see this legislative package as a 
serious proposal.
  I don't want to be dependent on China more than anybody else does for 
our batteries, or Russia or any other country. We need to do it in the 
good ol' USA. We can do it with ingenuity, innovation, technology, and 
protect our environment at the same time.
  Madam Chair, I am strongly opposed, and I urge my colleagues to 
oppose this bill.

[[Page H1497]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The Committee will rise informally to receive a 
message.
  The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Smith of Nebraska) assumed the chair.

                          ____________________