[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 56 (Tuesday, March 28, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H1497-H1516]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         LOWER ENERGY COSTS ACT

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Carl), another member of the House Natural Resources 
Committee.
  Mr. CARL. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 1, the Lower 
Energy Costs Act.
  I did not bring any fancy charts. I don't have any nice pictures for 
you to look at. But what I do want you to look through is my heart and 
my mind.
  In 64 years of living, I have spent the last 2 years working with the 
other side of the aisle, watching them systematically take this country 
apart when it comes to our natural resources. Enough is enough.
  You want me to prove it?
  We just won the House. We have the majority now. We have a chance to 
change what is going on today.
  Let me tell you what is going on. All we hear is: The sky is falling. 
The sky is falling.
  I encourage people to get out from wherever you are hiding and look 
around, smell the fresh air, look at the sun shining. It is not 
falling.
  It is like dealing with a bunch of guys practicing magic. They want 
you to watch one hand while they are picking your pocket with the other 
hand. I have had enough. I have had enough, and I think it is time we 
talk about it.
  They have systematically shut down our copper mine, the largest 
copper mine on the North American Continent and in the world, so I 
understand. They have shut it down.
  Who are we buying copper from now? China, a communist country we are 
buying all that copper from.
  Excuse me. I have got a problem with that.
  I look at my oil refineries and my gas refineries down in Alabama and 
outside of Alabama.
  Those gas refineries, do you know what they are refining?
  Venezuelan oil. Not American oil. Venezuelan oil from a communist 
country.
  Is there a pattern here that we should be looking at? Is there a 
pattern of a communist regime here that we just keep getting pushed on 
us?
  I just spent 2 weeks in Central America trying to figure out how we 
can keep a communist country from taking over Central America. But we 
have this side of the aisle that wants to tell us the sky is falling. I 
refuse to believe it, and I refuse to give it up.
  Voters made their voice heard last November when they sent 
Republicans to Congress to put an end to Democrats' anti-American 
agenda.
  Americans are paying 40 percent more for their gas since President 
Biden took office, and the Democrats have done nothing but add fuel to 
the fire to raise that price by shutting down our drilling and shutting 
down our mines.
  On the other hand, House Republicans this week are moving forward 
with the Lower Energy Costs Act, this act, which has two primary 
objectives here: Increasing American energy production--not communist--
and to strip away the rules and regulations that make it harder for 
American infrastructure to grow this economy.

                              {time}  1600

  I am especially proud of this bill because I worked on part of it. 
The Unleashing American Energy Act is included in this package. My bill 
fights back on the Biden administration's war on our domestic energy 
production by mandating oil and gas lease sales each year in the Gulf 
of Mexico and off the coast of Alaska.
  Let me remind my friends, most of these are union jobs. Unions are 
supporting you. Remember that. These are union jobs you are voting 
against.
  House Republicans have a solution right here in this lower energy 
costs bill. I encourage all of my friends to vote on this bill. This 
bill will help end our reliance on these foreign countries--these 
foreign Communist countries. We need to reflect on that as we vote.
  Madam Chair, if you support the Communist Party, vote ``no'' on this 
bill. If you support American jobs and if you support American 
families, vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, if you believe in climate change and the 
climate crisis, vote ``no'' on this legislation. If you believe that 
regardless of ideology, if you believe that climate change is real and 
must be dealt with, vote ``no'' on this legislation because it does 
nothing to deal with that real threat in front of us.
  Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Crockett).
  Ms. CROCKETT. Madam Chair, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 1, the 
misleadingly named Lower Energy Costs Act.
  I had everything written down of what I was going to say, but then I 
started hearing some other stuff. I decided that what I wanted to talk 
about is a few things.
  Number one: I need the American people to understand that H.R. 1 
means that this is the first bill. This is the bill that the party in 
power thinks matters most. This is where their priorities lie. When you 
look at what the Democrats did, they decided that they wanted to stand 
for democracy after there were those that wanted to try to tear our 
democracy apart.
  I have to rest here for a second, simply because at the time I was a 
Texas House Representative who had to flee my State because of voting 
rights. I urged this House to pass H.R. 1, simply because we were 
trying to make sure that people would not cheat in these elections.
  Just because you have control of the House doesn't mean that you 
didn't take your time and gerrymander these lines because we know that 
is exactly what happened. That is the only reason that the Democrats 
are not currently in control. The reason that this margin is so tight 
is because our policies stand for the people.
  Let's talk about this bill. This bill is about putting people over 
polluters. If we want to talk about what the Republicans do when they 
are in control and they get to decide about power, let's talk about the 
State of Texas.
  Let's talk about the fact that we have left the State of Texas in the 
dark over and over. It was interesting to look across the aisle and see 
a sign that said that the Republicans will keep the lights on. Well, go 
talk to Texas and find out if the lights have been kept on or if we 
have been left in the dark.
  We are consistently left in the dark because there is this idea that 
if we just go ahead and get rid of regulations that everything will 
work out. Unfortunately, it has not worked out. It has not worked out 
to the tune of us actually losing lives in the State of Texas.
  That is why we are here standing before you, making sure that we are 
fighting for actual lower bills when it comes to our everyday working 
families that are already squeezed by inflation.
  We heard Mr. Speaker talk about the fact that he wanted to make sure 
there was more money in people's pockets for medicine. When it came 
down to voting for the Inflation Reduction Act, I don't believe that 
there were too many Republicans that were voting for that--to make sure 
we could lower the cost of insulin--just to make sure that the Record 
is clear--if we want to make sure we are putting more money into their 
pockets.
  House Republicans want to lower energy costs for big polluters, plain 
and simple. That means somebody foots the bill and somebody pays the 
price. Once again, go ask my constituents in Texas. We are the ones who 
are footing the bill for the failures of our grid over and over and 
over.
  My constituents tend to be Black and Brown, mostly, and they tend to 
be those that are disproportionately living in polluted communities 
today, that are only able to breathe because of the scant environmental 
protections we actually have. They are being asked

[[Page H1498]]

to not only endure the brunt of pollution, but also endure the bill of 
pollution. I will not and I cannot stand for it.
  When this bill guts Clean Air Act safeguards to let polluters earn 
profits faster by curtailing the already paltry public comment period, 
my constituents foot the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Mace). The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. CROCKETT. Madam Chair, my constituents foot the bill with 
increased rates of lung disease, healthcare costs, and child mortality. 
Who foots the bill for these lower energy costs? Not the polluters.
  It is the little girl on the playground in my district who is 
inhaling toxic fumes from the concrete plant right next to her school. 
That little girl will be scarred for the rest of her life with an 
increased risk of asthma, bronchitis, and cancer just so polluters can 
make a quick buck.
  You know what makes it crystal clear who the supporters really care 
about? The Lower Energy Costs Act repeals the home electric rebate 
program passed last year to reimburse the cost of energy efficient home 
equipment that would have actually lowered Americans' energy costs.
  House Republicans are lowering energy costs for polluters all right 
and lowering all of our life expectancy right along with it.
  Madam Chair, H.R. 1 puts politics over people and puts polluters over 
people.

  Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Graves), who has offered so much positive input on the 
Lower Energy Costs Act. He is the author of the BUILDER Act and added 
so many other great provisions to this bill.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Chair, I can make posters, too. I 
think I got the right backdrop there. Let's talk a little bit about 
credibility. Let's talk a little bit about the challenges that this 
country is experiencing, like the little girl on the playground and 
what our families across America are experiencing right now. Let's talk 
about why.
  This body is about credibility. It is about your word. Let's talk a 
little bit about why America is experiencing the challenges that they 
are. We are seeing higher electricity prices that are making American 
families unable to be able to afford medicine and groceries, refuel 
their car, or pay electricity bills. Why is that happening?
  It is happening because my friends across the aisle have refused to 
produce American energy. It is a supply and demand issue. This happened 
when they gained power. The day the President of the United States was 
inaugurated, Madam Chair, gasoline prices in my home State were as low 
as a $1.74 a gallon. Let me ask you, where in the world are you going 
to find that today?
  You have cut off production of oil and gas. Don't take my word for 
it. You know, one term I have never heard anybody say is bring back 
that Jimmy Carter energy policy. Yet, when Jimmy Carter was President, 
he leased 100 times more acres of the lands and waters for energy 
production. Why do we have a crisis in energy right now?
  It was self-inflicted. Why has this administration and these 
Democrats sold off hundreds of millions of barrels of oil from our 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the emergency reserve that was designed 
for crises, not awful policy?
  It is because they refused to produce energy. You have created a 
supply problem, and you are using our emergency reserves to address it.
  You sit here and also raise royalty rates. You proposed increased 
pipeline fees. You proposed taxes or enacted taxes on American energy, 
all driving up the costs, then you sit here and wonder why we have high 
prices? These were all self-inflicted wounds. You did this to America--
your policies.
  Madam Chair, it is remarkable seeing what is going on right now, 
listening to my friends across the aisle talking about the environment. 
Yet, their own legislation requires the use of critical minerals that 
they at the same time have banned or prevented from being mined or 
processed or refined in the United States.
  In some cases, China has 80 percent of these critical minerals locked 
up. If you force markets in the direction and if you force the use of 
those strategic materials, and the only place that has it is China, who 
are you benefiting?
  China loves their energy policies. They benefit from it. All roads 
lead to China. Over 80 percent of the solar panels are made in China. 
Whenever this administration found that China was illegally subsidizing 
and illegally dumping solar panels in the United States, they banned 
them and put tariffs on them.
  China then starts sending them through other countries. And you know 
what this administration does? They say: Yeah, that is fine. They 
acknowledge that there were Chinese solar panels being sent through 
other countries, and they allowed it. The Biden administration allowed 
it, and my friends across the aisle have done nothing to stop it.
  The truth is, is that emissions have gone up under their policies, 
not down. Madam Chair, let me say that again. Under the previous 
administration, emissions went down. Greenhouse gas emissions went down 
an average of 2\1/2\ percent a year.
  In the first year of the Biden administration, my friends across the 
aisle working with them closely, emissions went up 6 percent last year 
and went up another 1.3 or 1.4 percent. I am going to say it again. My 
friends across the aisle and their policies have resulted in higher 
greenhouse gas emissions. They have increased our dependence upon 
foreign energy sources.
  We had the Secretary of the Interior standing right in our committee, 
and he wasn't even aware that we had become increasingly dependent upon 
Russian energy.
  They talk about corporate welfare. I agree, which is why the over 
$600 billion that my friends across the aisle have put toward 
effectively bribing companies into investing in renewable energy 
sources that in many cases are not economic, simply doesn't make sense.
  This bill follows logic. It follows good policy. It ensures that we 
are getting energy resources from the United States. It ensures the 
affordability by bringing American energy online. It results in lower 
global emissions.
  Madam Chair, I urge support of this legislation.
  Ms. STANSBURY. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1, 
which should be called the polluters over people act. This is a 
critical moment. Just last week, the United Nations Intergovernmental 
Panel on Climate Change released its sixth and final assessment, which 
presents our most comprehensive understanding of climate science to 
date. It is not, as my colleague suggested, that you can go outside and 
breathe fresh air and decide that there is no climate change.
  Scientists have made it abundantly clear, there are two options: 
significantly cut emissions now or face catastrophic challenges ahead.
  Future generations will look back and scrutinize the decisions we 
make as leaders. Did we have the political courage to take action or 
did we ignore science, stifle the most vulnerable voices in our 
community, and leave a climate catastrophe for our children and 
grandchildren?
  In northwest Oregon, my home, smoke from raging wildfires made the 
air unhealthy to breathe, and in the summer of 2021 hundreds of people 
in the Pacific Northwest died from a 1 in 10,000 year heat dome event 
where temperatures reached 118 degrees.

  Acidic oceans are harming our fishing industries. That is from carbon 
pollution. Droughts and extreme weather patterns jeopardize the 
livelihoods of our farmers. Warmer temperatures in the Columbia River 
are further endangering salmon that are so vital to the region and 
indigenous peoples.
  H.R. 1 is a dangerous move in the wrong direction under the guise of 
promoting lower energy costs. It would do no such thing, and the 
American people will not be fooled. Instead, this bill is a package of 
anti-climate and anti-public lands policy that would undermine recent 
environmental protections, destroy the National Environmental Policy 
Act, and take a significant step back in the fight against climate 
change.

[[Page H1499]]

  The bill will also raise, not lower, costs for working families by 
repealing tax cuts the Democrats passed last year for home efficiency 
upgrades. It even repeals the methane emissions reduction program.
  While Americans faced higher gas prices, make no mistake, the top 
five big oil companies made record profits--more than $196 billion last 
year--that is more than the economic output of most countries.
  These companies abuse billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded 
subsidies, stockpiled thousands of unused leases on millions of acres 
of public lands and engage in price gouging at the pump.
  This bill? It advances policies that allow Big Oil to increase their 
profits, even more at the expense of our constituents. The bill would 
expedite dirty mining operations, exempt oil, gas, and drilling 
industries from adhering to important environmental regulations, 
shorten public review timelines, and limit public engagement.
  We must protect our bedrock environmental laws that safeguard 
communities and allow the public to have a say in local projects. We 
must continue the implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act, which 
finally, after so many years, will make significant investments we need 
to save our planet.
  Addressing the climate crisis cannot be delayed. We must defeat this 
bill and turn our attention to investments that create jobs.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. STANSBURY. Madam Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Oregon.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Chair, we must defeat this bill and turn our 
attention to investments that create jobs, cut costs for working 
families, and grow our clean energy economy for the sake of our planet, 
our vulnerable communities, and for future generations to come.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I checked. We are in the 118th Congress, 
even though our colleagues keep putting signs up to describe their so-
called Inflation Reduction Act, the polluters over people act.
  We also know they call this the climate bill. Even President Biden, 
in his State of the Union Address, talked about the $370 billion 
investment in climate in the Inflation Reduction Act. We know that 
giveaway is not $370 billion but now is being projected to be $1.2 
trillion in outlays--again, increasing inflation, not reducing 
inflation.
  Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Tiffany), who is the chairman of the Federal Lands Subcommittee of the 
Natural Resources Committee.
  Mr. TIFFANY. Madam Chair, on January 20, 2021, President Biden 
declared war on American energy when he shut down the Keystone XL 
pipeline. Today, we begin the process to lower energy costs. This is 
the first stroke of what I hope are many bills to come forward to get 
energy costs under control for the American people.
  Let's go back over the past couple of years of this Congress and what 
President Biden did. They passed things like the so-called Inflation 
Reduction Act. They passed a bill called the infrastructure bill.
  What were those bills really and some of the others from the last 
Congress?
  They were the Green New Deal. You, the American public, know now what 
the Green New Deal will do to you.
  Let's talk about my district a little bit. Propane, which is a 
primary heating source for many of us in northern Wisconsin, we paid 80 
cents a gallon in the summer of 2020 to fill our tanks. We paid $2 a 
gallon--2\1/2\ times as much--to heat our homes just a couple of years 
after the previous administration had left office.
  Think about the Ford Motor Company, an iconic company here in 
America. They lost $2 billion on the electric vehicle segment of their 
business. I can tell you that contractors, loggers, and farmers are not 
going to drive a Ford Lightning in northern Wisconsin when it is 25 
degrees below zero because it does not work.
  I think about Vilas County, where they were going to apply to repair 
a road under the infrastructure bill. It would have cost $1.5 million 
using Federal money. I talked to a local contractor. Without the 
Federal permitting requirements, they could build it for half of that, 
$750,000.
  One of the key provisions of this is the reform of NEPA. It does not 
change environmental standards. It just makes it easier to get projects 
done. It is time to reduce that red tape here in America on the 
American people and on American job creators.
  Madam Chair, what is this all about at the end of the day? This is 
about whether you choose America or you choose Communist China.
  Is this going to be a 21st century of the American people just like 
the 20th century was? It was one of the greatest centuries the people 
of this world had ever seen, when a country that was founded on 
liberty, freedom, and opportunity was ascendant, and we stood astride 
the world.
  Are we going to do that in the 21st century? Bills like this are how 
we are going to make the 21st century an American century rather than a 
Communist Chinese century.
  Let's lower energy costs and ensure job security, economic security, 
and national security for the American people.
  The Acting CHAIR. Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the 
Chair and not to a perceived viewing audience.
  Ms. STANSBURY. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
  Mr. BEYER. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1. It is 
a very shortsighted, anti-science, anti-environment, and anti-family 
bill.
  Last week, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its 
synthesis report and reminded us how urgent it is that we transition to 
a zero-carbon economy now. We need new clean energy, and we need it 
fast.
  There is an opportunity for Congress to engage on permitting and 
transmission so new energy projects, especially clean energy projects, 
can get up and running as soon as possible. However, instead of a 
meaningful conversation, H.R. 1 is a sad regurgitation of the 
majority's bill from the 115th Congress with attacks on the Inflation 
Reduction Act.
  Transmission conversations are completely absent, yet we know that 
investment in transmission is key to our energy future.
  This bill will repeal important programs to help Americans make their 
homes energy efficient. These popular programs are already in motion to 
help families lower energy costs, and this bill will take them away.
  H.R. 1 reduces the fees and royalties for oil and gas development, 
padding the pockets of oil and gas at a time when their record profits 
are at an all-time high.
  This is not about energy prices for American families but profits for 
fossil fuel companies at exactly the time when the whole world knows we 
need to move away from them as quickly as possible.
  On the one hand, my Republican friends are so concerned with the 
deficit that they are holding the economy hostage over their 
brinkmanship on the debt limit. Then, on the other hand, they bring a 
partisan bill to the floor that the Congressional Budget Office said 
will increase that deficit by $2\1/2\ billion.
  I implore my Republican colleagues to take the deficit seriously and 
pass a clean debt limit. Please take our energy needs seriously and our 
climate seriously and work with us on our transmission needs.
  We are interested in the discussions. Our door is open when you want 
to work with us to get things done and move past partisan messaging 
bills that will be dead on arrival in the 60-vote Senate.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Valadao), who understands what bad energy policy does 
to rural America.
  Mr. VALADAO. Madam Chair, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.

  Madam Chair, this administration's regulatory assault on American 
energy production has been devastating for my constituents in the 
Central Valley. Every week, I hear from my neighbors, friends, and 
constituents about the skyrocketing price of monthly energy bills.
  Over the summer, people in California were paying over $6 per gallon

[[Page H1500]]

for gas. It is unacceptable that even though America has some of the 
greatest energy resources of any nation in the world, my constituents 
are having trouble putting gas in their tanks and food on their tables.
  That is why I am proud to support the Lower Energy Costs Act, and I 
encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same. This 
bill will cut red tape and allow us to increase our supply of safe, 
clean, and affordable energy.
  I am proud that language from my bill, the NEPA Adequacy Streamlining 
Act, is included in this bill. This makes the approval of new energy 
projects easier by allowing the Secretaries of the Interior and 
Agriculture to use previously conducted environmental assessments for 
similar projects. This is a commonsense reform that removes one of the 
many layers of bureaucratic red tape in our permitting process.
  This bill is full of the same types of policies that streamline our 
energy production to increase our supply of clean, affordable energy.
  I want to respond to some of the opponents of this bill. My 
Democratic colleagues claim that this legislation is harmful to our 
environment. This is just not true. America has some of the strictest 
environmental standards of any nation in the world. When we produce 
energy here, we do it cleaner and safer than countries we would be 
importing it from.
  Something important to remember is that decreasing domestic 
production does not reduce the demand for energy. Reducing our ability 
to produce oil and gas in the U.S. just increases our reliance on 
foreign countries for these imports. That means instead of using clean 
energy we produce here and creating good-paying American jobs in the 
process, we are reliant on imports from countries like Russia and 
Venezuela that are not held to the same environmental standards we have 
here in the U.S.
  If your argument is that you want to reduce emissions, then 
increasing U.S. energy production is how you do it.
  Despite wishes from the President and the far left, we cannot abandon 
traditional energy sources like oil and gas. While we as a country 
should continue to develop and pursue other energy sources, we will 
still need oil and gas for a long time. Why not produce it here in the 
U.S.?
  I support an all-of-the-above approach to energy production and use, 
but that does not mean immediately transitioning to 100 percent 
renewable fuels. Until alternative energy sources are more reliable, we 
will continue to need transitional fuels.
  If my Democratic colleagues cared about the environment as much as 
they say they do, then supporting the increased production of clean and 
reliable American-made energy should be a no-brainer.
  Passing the Lower Energy Costs Act is a critical step to lowering 
prices, creating good-paying jobs, and strengthening our national 
security.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this bill.
  Ms. STANSBURY. Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Frost).
  Mr. FROST. Madam Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1, 
the pollution over people act.
  This is a bill filled with dangerous, unpopular, and unnecessary 
policy that will worsen our climate crisis--our existential climate 
crisis.
  I am part of a generation who has grown up with the very real fear 
that, in our lifetimes, we will all experience an unlivable planet, 
that we will lack breathable air and drinkable water, that our houses 
will be destroyed again and again in natural disasters, that we will 
develop asthma and struggle to breathe, and that we will have a 
shortage of food.
  Sitting here, I have heard a lot from my colleagues repeating that we 
need to lower energy costs. My question is: Where are the actions on 
ensuring that price gouging isn't happening at the pump?
  This is exactly why energy costs are higher at the pump. I agree, but 
what about the real costs, the cost of life? What we know is that the 
cost of not doing anything is far greater than the cost of taking 
action right now.
  You might not be the ones paying for it, but future generations will 
be, and I think a body like ours should be thinking about the future 
and the present.
  Many people around the globe are already experiencing these threats. 
Among them are farmers, farmworkers, coastal communities, and community 
members who cannot afford air-conditioning costs.
  I would like to believe that, out of compassion for my generation and 
our vulnerable communities, Republican Members of this body would come 
to the table and act in a bipartisan way to protect us from this fate.
  It is possible to create a green transition so we can preserve jobs 
and the planet and create a whole new economy, a green economy, with 
good-paying union jobs for all of our people. We can invest in clean 
energy and train those working in the oil and gas industries so they 
can have new, good-paying jobs in fulfilling careers.
  We can do these things, but right now, my Republican colleagues 
aren't. H.R. 1 is not about what is right for their constituents, 
working people, or what is right for the Earth. It is about what is 
right for oil and gas executives getting rich off polluting our planet.
  This bill would bring back the defunct Keystone XL pipeline, 
reversing President Biden's wise executive action that ended it. It 
rubberstamps new construction of new pipelines.
  Not only is this bill not informed about what is best for the future, 
but it looks like they haven't learned from what has happened in the 
past. This bill requires two new Gulf of Mexico oil lease sites. This 
is very damaging to my home State of Florida.

  It has been a tradition for both Democrats and Republicans from 
Florida to support no offshore drilling in the State of Florida. I am 
looking forward to seeing all of my Republican colleagues who are part 
of the Florida delegation voting ``no'' on this bill to keep intact 
their word. I know one of my colleagues said that this body is about 
integrity and keeping our word. I look forward to seeing those ``no'' 
votes.
  In 2010, the Deepwater Horizon explosion pumped 210 million gallons 
of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, polluting more than 1,000 miles of 
Florida beaches with toxic oil. These literal waves of pollution closed 
beaches and deprived Floridians and visitors of 10 million beach days 
on our world-class beaches. The economic impact on our tourist industry 
was profound. The impact on our seafood industry was catastrophic. No 
one wanted a meal coming from a poisonous sea.
  In this bill, Republicans are burying their heads in the oil-covered 
sand and requiring more oil lease sales in the area. I fear for the 
health of my community.
  Florida is in the middle of a climate change crossfire. We have 
rising seas that are creating higher and more destructive storms. We 
just had Hurricane Ian last year, the deadliest hurricane in 100 years. 
Entire communities were completely decimated and wiped out. In Orlando, 
it caused flooding like we have never seen before, leaving constituents 
homeless.
  H.R. 1 comes weeks after the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel 
on Climate Change report. This report makes it clear: Continued 
greenhouse gas emissions will lead to destabilizing global warming, and 
our own only hope is rapid and sustained reductions in greenhouse 
gasses.
  I heard a colleague blame Democrats for emissions. That is also not 
true, but I am glad to hear he was impassioned about blaming Democrats 
for increased emissions, which would lead me to believe that he agrees 
that we have to bring down emissions, which the report also said we 
have to do in a very quick way so we can have a livable planet.
  Madam Chair, I will vote ``no'' on H.R. 1, and I urge my colleagues 
to do the same. We can and we must do better than this, not just for us 
but for future generations.
  I invite my Republican colleagues to abandon this harmful bill and 
come to the table to work in a bipartisan way on smart energy policy 
because the decisions you make today will impact future generations and 
condemn my entire generation to a lifetime of suffering and put us on a 
path toward an unlivable future. I hope we will make the right 
decision.

                              {time}  1630

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Ciscomani). Members are reminded to direct 
their remarks to the Chair.

[[Page H1501]]

  

  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. James).
  Mr. JAMES. Mr. Chair, I would like to start off by applauding my 
colleagues for including language in H.R. 1 that reaffirms our Nation's 
commitment to protecting freshwater resources, especially the Great 
Lakes.
  This bill upholds our commitment to protecting our natural resources 
in Michigan and upholding the ban on oil and gas development in our 
Great Lakes. We are blessed with rich waterways and have an obligation 
to protect them.
  We talk a lot about becoming energy independent, but what does this 
mean for our country and the American people?
  It starts with access to essential resources without relying on the 
goodwill of foreign nations, especially our adversaries.
  Mining is essential to our energy strategy and manufacturing 
independence. Without independent, secure, and safe minerals, there is 
no manufacturing independence. Worse, there is no national security.
  I put forward the national strategy to reshore mineral supply chains 
amendment because I believe it is one of those commonsense issues that 
both sides can agree on.
  Democrats have advocated for an electric future. That hinges on 
sustainably sourced mining.
  Republicans have made it clear that establishing energy and 
manufacturing independence to grow our economy and lower prices is a 
top priority.
  I have actually found a bipartisan partner in the White House. Last 
week, I asked Secretary Blinken whether he would be open to 
participating with me on legislation to create a 21st century national 
strategy to strengthen the American industrial base to reshore our 
critical minerals and end slavery in our supply chains.
  His answer? We welcome working with you on that.
  This amendment is a practical step toward that goal.
  To the Chinese Communist Party, my amendment signals that America is 
done being taken advantage of. To the rest of the world, it shows that 
America stands strong and strategically. To hardworking Americans, it 
means lower costs and more money in their pockets.
  I represent the number one manufacturing district in the country, but 
our Great Lakes are table stakes for anyone who seeks to represent 
them. We must have balance in how we approach this, and I believe H.R. 
1 strikes that balance.
  America has leaned on the 10th Congressional District in a world war 
and a global pandemic, and we expect to be called upon again. We will 
stand ready to help, but we must be prepared. That starts with a 
national strategy to reshore mineral supply chains. It is critically 
important.
  Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove).
  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to 
H.R. 1, House Republicans' polluters over people act.
  When the House Democratic majority passed the landmark Inflation 
Reduction Act, they delivered key environmental safeguards to bolster 
our clean energy economy and lower costs.
  The legislation that Republicans are bringing to the floor attempts 
to undermine those promising provisions because of political animus. 
Instead of trying to meet the needs of the American taxpayer, they are 
working to line the pockets of fossil fuel tycoons and exacerbate toxic 
mining projects that directly harm communities like mine.
  H.R. 1 is not about the people, it is about a political win, and it 
is hooey. This legislation would undo significant environmental 
regulations central to our public health and environmental protections 
at a time when people are facing an alarming pattern of severe weather, 
lack of access to clean water and air, and blatant pollution across the 
country.
  Pollution kills people. I can tell you that no one here is breathing 
dirty air. No one here is drinking dirty water. No one here is growing 
anything in dirty soil. If we are not, that means that no one else 
should be forced to do so.
  It would roll back the environmental review processes under NEPA, 
putting community health and safety at risk while worsening pollution 
and the health risks associated with toxic chemicals such as PFAS, the 
same forever chemicals that are killing our firefighters.
  I urge you to listen to the committee hearings where you will hear 
them say there is no need for community engagement, polluters can self-
monitor.
  That is why I was so disappointed but, oh, not surprised when 
Republicans voted down my amendment to include an environmental 
analysis and review of how oil and gas development will impact 
community health and safety because it will.
  Instead, Republicans are so eager to rush into free-for-all oil and 
gas development that they are unable to reckon with the serious health 
consequences they are pawning off onto our constituents. You would have 
more respect for a bill if they cared enough about the health and 
safety of your community, if they wanted to protect your child or your 
grandmother's health.
  Unfortunately, we know that the Black community is disproportionately 
impacted by environmental pollution. I have talked about what is going 
on in my district every single week. Black Americans are three times 
more likely to die of asthma after continued exposure to polluted air, 
a result of historic, systemic racism.
  This legislation makes it virtually impossible for impacted 
communities to file lawsuits against corporate polluters for 
environmental and public health damages, so it is killing your lungs 
and silencing your voice.
  It continues to put mining rights ahead of the interests of the 
community, especially in indigenous communities where mining was used 
to settle the West. This bill declares that indigenous communities 
shouldn't even be consulted about what is going on on their lands, to 
rip away lands from indigenous communities in favor of our own 
traditional, patriarchal, American individualistic interests.

  Even more than that, we have seen ties between environmental racism 
and increased rates of gender violence at these mining sites where 
indigenous women and girls are attacked by employees at the man camps. 
Now they don't even care about the safety of women and girls.
  Polling shows that two-thirds of Americans want legislation that 
addresses the climate crisis, proving once again that Republicans 
answer to special interests and not the will of the people. This is all 
about dirty money, profits over people, and it is disgraceful.
  Shame on them, Mr. Chair, for deliberately ignoring the health of our 
people and the environment. I oppose this bill and any other fossil 
fuel cash grabs the Republicans send our way.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, when I see the sign about selling out clean 
air, I think about the coal-powered plant per week that is being built 
in China so they can manufacture the minerals that we need here in 
America.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), the 
chairman of the Small Business Committee.
  Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of this 
energy package. I repeat, in support of this package. This crucial 
piece of legislation would increase domestic energy production, reform 
the permitting process, and reverse the Biden administration's anti-
energy policies that are crushing our Nation's small oil and gas 
producers.
  As the chairman of the Committee on Small Business, I hear from our 
small producers about the damage that has been done to their industry 
over the last few years. The Biden administration's hostile approach 
toward this entire industry is harming small businesses. They are 
simultaneously trying to deal with high inflation created by the Biden 
administration, supply chain issues created by the Biden 
administration, and an inability to access capital.
  Tomorrow, my committee will examine the critical role small business 
plays in domestic energy production and highlight how this legislation 
is a step in the right direction. We should be the supplier of, not the 
buyer of. Let the people decide.
  I applaud the Speaker and the chairman and all of my Republican 
colleagues that put together H.R. 1 to deliver reliable and affordable 
energy for the American people.

[[Page H1502]]

  I have something to say to my friends on the other side. Profits--I 
repeat, profits--are good. In God we trust.
  Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Chair, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Huffman).
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to House 
Republicans' polluters over people act, H.R. 1.
  This dangerous bill appears to be doubling down on dirty fossil fuels 
to pad the profits of polluters and Big Oil. Our Republican friends 
seem to be oblivious to the fact that, as we speak, there are 
communities in this country devastated by extreme weather events, from 
deadly tornadoes to life-threatening atmospheric rivers to 
unprecedented snowfall. Instead of legislating with an eye toward the 
future, our colleagues across the aisle are bringing up a bill that 
pretends there is no climate crisis.
  Scientists agree that action on climate is literally life or death. 
The recent IPCC report that just came out reminds us that we are out of 
time. It is now or never if we want to spare our kids from a future 
that includes more frequent and even worse extreme weather events and 
more climate-driven food insecurity.
  The world's best climate scientists call this a climate time bomb. 
Our Republican colleagues call it a hoax, and they produce bills like 
this.
  My colleagues seem to want to talk about speeding up permitting. 
Great, let's talk about permitting.
  Democrats just secured $1 billion for permitting streamlining in the 
Inflation Reduction Act for that very purpose. Let me remind you, not a 
single Republican voted for that bill, which was actually a solution to 
accelerating clean energy.
  What are they trying to do instead?
  They are trying to claw back the funding that we approved. They are 
trying to slow down permitting and do the exact opposite of what they 
claim that they want to see with their so-called permitting reform 
package.
  If they want to protect this planet for future generations, then 
anyone who cares about that really needs to read the fine print of this 
bill because it would force agencies to hold oil and gas lease sales on 
public lands even if they are not needed. If these sales don't get 
enough bids, they are replaced with more sales, at lower prices. So we 
are not just giving away our public lands, we are doing it at laughably 
low prices, locking in these lands for oil and gas development for 
decades to come. This is not just extreme. It is obscene.
  The Inflation Reduction Act included multiple oil and gas leasing 
reforms, modest reforms, to ensure that the public finally gets a fair 
share for onshore and offshore fossil fuel development. If we are going 
to begin to address the impacts of the climate crisis, then ending 
massive fossil fuel subsidies is a pretty good place to start. Under 
this legislation, not only are we going in the opposite direction, we 
are removing even these modest provisions to allow taxpayers to finally 
get their fair share from the incredible profits that these polluting 
industries would receive.
  This legislation lowers royalty rates, repeals interest fees, 
reinstates noncompetitive leasing, and it does all of this while fossil 
fuel companies are rolling in record profits of $451 billion for the 
oil and gas industry last year.
  H.R. 1 is the biggest rollback of the Clean Water Act that we have 
seen in 50 years. It will remove important clean water protections for 
States and Tribal Governments specifically. Under current law, section 
401 of the Clean Water Act gives States and Tribes authority to review 
water quality as well as requirements of State law on any project or 
activity that requires a Clean Water Act permit. This bill would slash 
that authority and shorten the time frame for which they can review 
such projects.

  Make no mistake, this will make it harder to protect the waterways 
and the communities that depend on clean water in this country. Whether 
you are in East Palestine or Philadelphia or anywhere else in this 
country, we should know better than to take something as critical as 
clean water for granted.
  I had an amendment that would retain these section 401 protections 
for Tribal Governments. This was a simple test because often some of my 
Republican colleagues say that they believe in Tribal sovereignty and 
they want to empower Tribal voices. So we came up with an amendment to 
let them do that, to just at least take away this terrible provision 
when it came to Tribal Governments. They declined to move that 
amendment forward. It was blocked.
  Why do our Republican colleagues want to block Tribal voices?
  One of the last details that we should note, if you listen to the 
debt ceiling debate, this cyclical, situational concern for fiscal 
conservatism which is coming around again, my colleagues on the other 
side shout from the rooftops now about the deficit.
  Well, guess what? This legislation is not just bad for people, not 
just bad for the planet, it is fiscally irresponsible. The CBO projects 
that it will add to the deficit.
  Just a reminder, the Inflation Reduction Act, which all of my friends 
voted against, paid for itself and reduced the deficit.
  Look, we do need to be talking about permit streamlining for clean 
energy infrastructure. This is very important. We need more efficient 
procedures to bring more renewable energy online, to modernize and 
upgrade electricity transmission facilities, but this bill doesn't even 
begin to touch any of that. That is our greatest need, and it is 
nowhere in this bill.
  If my Republican friends want to be taken seriously regarding 
permitting reform and not just giveaways to polluters, they need to 
offer real solutions. This package is not it.
  For the sake of the planet and future generations, I urge my 
colleagues to vote against this bill. There are real, workable 
solutions to addressing our energy needs, extreme weather, food 
insecurity, and all of the downstream consequences of climate change, 
but this bill doesn't do it.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Guam (Mr. Moylan).
  Mr. MOYLAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1, the 
Lower Energy Costs Act, a historic and consequential piece of 
legislation to bring down our skyrocketing energy costs and secure 
America's energy independence.
  On my home island of Guam, energy costs have reached historical 
highs. Less than a year ago, gas prices reached an all-time high of 
$6.49 a gallon. On average, gas prices are still 40 percent higher than 
they were before Biden took office.
  The people of Guam can't continue to face these inflated costs. We 
must deliver solutions here in Washington to help ease their pain.
  This administration's misguided energy policies have shackled our 
economy and penalized hardworking Americans. There is a misguided war 
on American energy, and that war needs to end now.
  Let's set the record straight. Critics on the bill claim it is simply 
a handout to oil and gas companies. This couldn't be further from the 
truth.
  The Lower Energy Costs Act is an all-of-the-above energy solution. 
This legislation streamlines regulatory burdens holding back our 
infrastructure projects, whether it is a natural gas pipeline or 
transmission lines from a solar facility--both are held back by the 
same.
  It also contains important reforms for not only traditional types of 
energy but also the energy of tomorrow.
  With the Lower Energy Costs Act, Republicans are delivering on one of 
our fundamental campaign promises--to bring gas prices down and to ease 
the burden on hardworking Americans. We are quite literally keeping the 
lights on.
  Many Guam residents constantly live under the growing threat of China 
and North Korea. We are some, if not the only, Americans who receive 
warnings during Korean missile tests and whose waters are routinely 
invaded by Chinese vessels.
  Standing up to our adversaries is what keeps America strong. Energy 
security is national security.
  For too long, we have allowed countries like China and Russia to 
control energy production and dominate the critical mineral supply 
chain.

[[Page H1503]]

  Securing our energy independence and critical mineral supply chain 
ensures that foreign adversaries can't use these resources to threaten 
or pressure us in the future.
  This legislation will make sure that the minerals we need for the 
technologies of tomorrow are sourced clearly, safely, and responsibly 
right here at home.
  America has the highest standards for workplace safety and 
environmental concerns, and we know the conditions in Chinese-operated 
mines in countries like the Congo are truly horrific.
  The Acting CHAIR . The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 20 seconds to the 
gentleman from Guam.
  Mr. MOYLAN. Mr. Chairman, do you want to know the best way to lower 
global greenhouse gases?
  Produce the energy right here in America.
  Do you want to know the best way to secure critical minerals while 
ensuring minimal impact on the environment? Mine right here in America.
  Do you want to improve our national security while also giving the 
economy a boost? Pass the Lower Energy Costs Act today.
  Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to ensure that the American 
people and every single New Mexican back home in my home State knows 
exactly what this bill is all about.
  H.R. 1 is not a bill to cut costs and unlock American energy. H.R. 1 
is a blatant giveaway of public lands, public waters, and public 
minerals to the highest bidder.
  It guts environmental laws, it opens oil and gas leasing to mining 
and multinational companies, and it will send our communities and our 
laws back to the 19th century--the 19th century--to 1847 specifically, 
when we opened the West through the hardrock mining law to minerals 
claims and multinational corporations, who took advantage of our 
communities, who dumped tailings piles into our rivers and our streams, 
and who strip-mined sacred and ancestral lands of our indigenous 
communities.
  That is right. This bill would take us back before the automobile was 
invented, before we had electricity, before women had the right to vote 
in this country, and before New Mexico even became a territory of the 
United States when our communities, lands, and waters were stripped 
away from them and given to the highest bidder.
  So let me be clear: This legislation is not about lowering costs. It 
is not about lessening the burden at the pump. It is not about lowering 
costs for our families.
  These are just talking points that have been provided by fossil fuel 
and mining companies and by their allies across the aisle who see the 
opportunity to strip away environmental regulations and vast amounts of 
public resources, lands, and waters for private profit.
  In fact, this bill will increase the deficit, robbing our communities 
of more than a century of hard-fought environmental wins to protect our 
lands and waters.
  That is why House Democrats have a clear message today: Not on our 
watch.
  Let's be clear and talk exactly about what this bill is and does. My 
friends, Mr. Chairman, on the other side of the aisle want to claim 
that this bill will create jobs, that more drilling and mining will 
lower costs, and that it is going to somehow magically solve our global 
critical mineral shortage.
  Let me be clear, as somebody whose parents worked in the energy 
industry. My father was a welder in the oil and gas fields; my mother, 
a crane mechanic at a coal-fired power plant.
  As somebody who spent over two decades of my career working on 
natural resources issues, let me say it loud and clear: We cannot mine 
and drill our way to solve these problems.

  In fact, this bill not only does not help our communities but puts 
our Nation and our planet at risk. Scientists from across the world 
released a report just last week that made clear that if we do not take 
significant action right now to curb global emissions, we will cross a 
global tipping point and catastrophic global climate change.
  This bill would threaten our global planetary health. In fact, this 
legislation, which the President has already said he would veto, would 
open vast swaths of our land and our water to oil and gas drilling, to 
mining, not to lower costs, but to line the pockets of wealthy oil 
companies.
  In the name of streamlining, it would gut environmental laws like the 
National Environmental Policy Act, a piece of bipartisan legislation 
that Richard Nixon signed; the Clean Water Act; the Clean Air Act.
  It would gut protections for our communities to be able to actually 
have a say in what happens in their own lands and waters. It would make 
it easier for large corporations to pollute and dump toxins without 
consequence.
  Finally, this legislation not only does not lower costs but raises 
the deficit by billions of dollars.
  So I ask the American people and I ask New Mexicans: Is this what you 
want Congress working on, a 175-page bill filled with thinly veiled 
corporate giveaways that gut our environmental laws, that cut our 
communities out, and that would line the pockets of private 
corporations?
  No. The American people want clean air. They want clean water. They 
want climate action. They want a planet that they can leave to their 
children.
  That is why Democrats and the President fought to pass the Inflation 
Reduction Act just a few months ago in this Chamber.
  That bill makes the largest investment in climate action ever in the 
history of this country and ever in the history of this planet.
  Our bill, the bill we passed to address the global climate crisis, 
will create millions of jobs. It will rebuild our infrastructure and 
our local economies.
  It will invest in our communities and the resilience of our 
ecosystems. It will reduce household costs like our friends across the 
aisle are trying to claim with this giveaway bill.
  Guess what? It reduces the deficit, all while putting us on a path to 
cutting carbon emissions in this country by 40 percent by 2030.
  Guess what else happened? Not a single Republican in this Chamber 
voted for that bill. Not one. Not one Member on the other side of the 
aisle voted to lower costs, voted for a clean energy future, voted to 
protect the environment, voted to protect our communities.
  We cannot drill and mine our way to a clean energy and climate secure 
future.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford to pass H.R. 1.
  We cannot afford to send our communities back to the 19th century. We 
cannot afford to let private companies deforest and strip-mine our 
lands.
  We cannot afford to go back to a time when rivers were on fire, and 
companies dumped toxins into our groundwater with impunity.
  That is why I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation 
because the path is clear. We must take climate action now and build a 
clean energy economy and leave a livable planet for our communities, 
for the future, and for our Nation.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, thanks to Democrat energy policies, 
Putin, Xi Jinping, and the crown prince of Saudi are the ones that are 
drilling and mining their way to prosperity at the expense of the 
American public.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 
1, Lower Energy Costs Act, an actual solution to the problems we are 
facing.
  We have seen what happens abroad when Nations are at the mercy of 
energy imports from nefarious actors. We have seen what happens at home 
when energy prices skyrocket and families struggle to pay for gas and 
groceries.
  That is why I am a staunch supporter of this bill and the mission 
behind it. H.R. 1 is an important step toward unleashing American 
energy, lowering prices, and strengthening our energy supply chains.
  The American government should not be in the business of picking 
winners and losers. We need an all-of-the-above energy approach.
  Increasing production and untangling energy from overly burdensome 
red tape is key toward providing certainty and stability to American 
businesses, consumers, and families. That is why I support this bill, 
and I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Mullin).

[[Page H1504]]

  

  Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1, the 
polluters over people act. The truth is simple. We have no time to 
waste in the fight against climate change.
  This Republican bill would reverse years of progress, emboldening 
polluters and repealing critical environmental regulations, all while 
increasing the Federal deficit.
  As a father of two young boys, I know this is not the future we want 
to leave for our children.

                              {time}  1700

  Instead of rewarding fossil industries with more record-shattering 
profits, we need to transition to a clean energy economy by expanding 
on Democratic wins like the Inflation Reduction Act.
  In my home State of California, we have seen the dangers that a 
warming planet poses to our livelihoods and environment. Wildfires, sea 
level rise, flooding, and extreme weather patterns can be fatal to our 
communities.
  My bayfront district is surrounded by water. Our communities are 
threatened by sea level rise on both sides of our peninsula. H.R. 1 
would only raise this threat.
  H.R. 1 would prioritize the interests of Big Oil and protect 
profiteers at the expense of our most vulnerable communities and 
ecosystems.
  Critical habitats like the San Francisco Bay would suffer. I recently 
supported over $75 million in bay restoration funding--natural 
solutions to sea level rise.
  H.R. 1 would significantly harm those efforts.
  The American people asked for lower costs, more jobs, and a livable 
future, not shameless giveaways to Big Oil, not for the polluters over 
people act.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert), another member of the House Natural 
Resources Committee
  Mrs. BOEBERT. Mr. Chair, I remind my colleagues, last night while 
they charged their phones, this morning when they brewed their cup of 
coffee, or even considered maybe putting on a mask for the third year 
in a row, and even this very moment as we stand in this Chamber with 
the lights on, the mics working, the AC turned down very, very low, for 
every one of these actions, they have an American energy worker to 
thank for it.
  Instead of being grateful, Joe Biden and D.C. Democrats have waged a 
war on the American energy production, and the consequences have been 
devastating for the American people. Gas prices are up 44 percent, and 
instead of trying to enable moms and dads to get to and from work 
without breaking the bank, my Democratic colleagues are still suffering 
from Trump derangement syndrome. I don't know, maybe Pfizer has a 
vaccine for that one.
  You know, in my district, we have been regulated into poverty because 
of Democrat policies pushing oil and gas out of our communities. Now, 
moms who could have stayed home are forced to get a job to supplement 
the income that is lost from the good-paying job that dad no longer 
has. Then there are the childcare struggles that they are facing and 
the inflation struggles that they are facing that my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle, Mr. Chairman, have created.
  Mr. Chairman, instead of screaming: ``Orange man bad'' on TikTok, 
maybe they should come up with some real solutions because that isn't 
going to solve the problems that America is facing.
  American Republicans are focused on delivering policy solutions to 
address those problems. H.R. 1 includes my bill, the American Energy 
Act, which will reduce gas prices by providing certainty for 
responsible energy production and preventing baseless litigation. After 
all, no one produces better, safer, cleaner energy than us right here 
in the United States of America.
  Mr. Chairman, it is past time House Democrats start to have a little 
empathy and dismount their moral high horse of climate change. There 
are thousands of children currently today slaving away in the Congo at 
Chinese-owned mines. They have to dig for cobalt with their bare hands. 
Instead of freeing these slaves and even ourselves from the need of 
this resource, they want to buy more Chinese-made products. It is clear 
they have a climate religion. They worship the Earth while I worship 
the creator, not the creation.
  We are here to be good stewards of our land, so stop sacrificing the 
American families at your altar of climate change. The choice here is 
simple. America can continue to rely on foreign energy produced by 
nations that hate us----
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr.  Mike Garcia of California). The time of the 
gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentlewoman an 30 additional 
seconds.
  Mrs. BOEBERT. Mr. Chairman, the choice is simple. America can 
continue to rely on foreign energy produced by nations that hate us and 
hate our values, or we can become energy independent once again.
  Pursue energy dominance and put the American roughneck before OPEC, 
and maybe, just maybe, we put the American people before the Green New 
Deal lobbyists.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the passage of H.R. 1.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lieu).
  Mr. LIEU. Mr. Chairman, let me first commend Ranking Member Raul 
Grijalva for fighting the good fight every day.
  I rise today to oppose the polluters over people act. It is an 
extreme MAGA Republican bill that will increase pollution by lowering 
environmental standards. It will increase climate change by removing a 
lot of provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act designed to combat 
climate change. It also increases the deficit.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, it will increase the 
deficit by over $2.4 billion just on one bill alone. It is like a 
triple threat of badness. It increases pollution, it increases global 
warming, and it increases the deficit.
  Now, let's just take a review of what we have done up to now. Last 
term when Democrats were in control, we passed laws that moved the 
American family forward.
  We passed the American Rescue Plan that got our economy back on track 
as we were coming out of a pandemic.
  We then followed that up with the infrastructure law to rebuild 
roads, bridges, and highways; to take lead out of water pipes; and to 
put broadband everywhere from rural areas to inner cities and 
everywhere in between.
  We then followed that up with the CHIPS and Science Act. That is 
going to bring manufacturing back to the United States.
  Then we followed that up with the Inflation Reduction Act, which not 
only helped reduce the deficit--Democrats reduced the deficit by over 
$1.7 trillion last year--but that Inflation Reduction Act also had the 
highest number of climate change projects and the highest amount of 
climate change funding in world history.
  This term when Republicans took control, what did you all do? Well, 
let me tell you. You read the Constitution on the House floor. You took 
turns doing that. You also held not one, but two congressional hearings 
complaining about Twitter.
  It is more than just stupid stuff. Extreme MAGA Republicans are 
trying to pass extreme MAGA Republican bills like H.R. 1 that is going 
to, again, increase climate change, increase pollution, and increase 
the deficit. It is also a monumental waste of time, because guess what? 
This bill ain't going anywhere.
  It is not going to pass the Senate, because you need to override a 
filibuster. That ain't gonna happen.
  Even if it miraculously does pass the Senate, the administration has 
already signaled they are going to veto it. We are just wasting time 
here when we should be focused on more relevant issues like how do we 
prevent gun violence at schools.
  My heart goes out to the victims of the tragic mass shooting 
yesterday in Nashville. Three of the victims were 9-year-old children. 
Recently, a member of the Republican Caucus from Tennessee was asked 
what we are going to do to fix school violence.
  His answer was: We are not going to fix it.
  Well, Democrats have a different view. Instead of wasting time on 
political stunts like H.R. 1, let's pass universal background checks 
into law.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

[[Page H1505]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arkansas has 25 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Arizona has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice), who knows a lot about diversified energy because 
Oklahoma has the most diversified energy portfolio of any State.
  Mrs. BICE. Mr. Chairman, I find it disingenuous for the other side of 
the aisle to continue to talk about polluters over people, and here is 
why:
  The Democrats are the ones that are wanting to pollute our 
environment. They are the ones that are supporting electrification, 
which requires batteries and rare earth minerals. Those same rare earth 
minerals that go into those batteries are being mined in China or other 
countries across the world with no regulations. They continue to 
pollute the environment, so to suggest that this bill is harming the 
environment is just ridiculous.
  Since President Biden took office, Americans have felt the pain of 
skyrocketing energy costs. Gas prices have reached historical highs and 
are still well over 40 percent of what they were when he was sworn in.
  Time and again, this administration has caved to environmental 
justice groups and held up critical energy infrastructure projects, 
canceling lease sales, and weaponizing the permitting process to cater 
to their political agenda.
  This is why the Lower Energy Costs Act is so critical. This 
legislation provides important safeguards to lower energy costs and 
help streamline the pace of projects by putting in place deadlines for 
filing litigation on final agency actions concerning energy and mining 
projects.
  The Federal permitting process is one of the most lengthy, arduous 
constraints that can delay projects for decades. I am glad to see vital 
fixes in the legislation, including my bill, the BLM Mineral Spacing 
Act, which removes duplicative environmental reviews and the need for 
Federal permitting when the Federal Government has no surface rights or 
only a minority share in the subsurface minerals.
  If the Biden administration truly wanted to lower energy costs, the 
President's budget wouldn't have removed intangible drilling cost 
deductions. If these vital provisions were eliminated, it would not 
only result in increased energy prices, but it would also cost the U.S. 
over 250,000 jobs and would have a disparate impact throughout the 
Nation.
  I am committed to cutting bureaucratic red tape, especially for our 
hardworking energy producers who have dealt with the stifling 
regulations from the Biden administration, and H.R. 1 is the first step 
toward lowering energy costs.
  The legislation is a commonsense, all-of-the-above approach, and 
promotes American energy producers. Simply put, we need to get back to 
what we do best--allowing Americans, like those in my home State of 
Oklahoma, to power our Nation with clean, affordable, and reliable 
energy.

  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. LaTurner).
  Mr. LaTURNER. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1, 
the Lower Energy Costs Act.
  For the past 2 years, the Biden administration has done everything in 
their power to make it harder to produce energy here in the United 
States. Within the first 24 hours of being sworn into office, President 
Biden took executive action to kill the Keystone XL Pipeline project 
and ban new drilling on Federal lands.
  When prices began to rise because of these misguided policies, the 
White House sold off our emergency oil supply and looked to Iran, 
Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia to increase production instead of turning 
to energy producers right here in America.
  Just a few years ago, our Nation was energy independent. Now, we are 
relying on our adversaries for our most critical energy resources. As a 
result, families across America have faced record-high prices at the 
pump and soaring utility costs. It is time for a new direction.
  The Lower Energy Costs Act maximizes production of reliable, 
American-made energy by streamlining the permitting process, investing 
in energy infrastructure in the United States, and reversing burdensome 
and costly regulations put in place by the Biden administration.
  President Biden's commitment to Green New Deal policies not only puts 
our national security at risk, but also threatens our way of life in 
Kansas. The energy sector in my home State employs more than 150,000 
hardworking Kansans, provides more than $3 billion in family income, 
and delivers over $1.5 billion in State and local tax revenue.
  This legislation will protect our energy security, grow our economy, 
and create good-paying jobs in our communities. House Republicans 
promised the American people that we would take action to put our 
Nation back on the path toward energy independence and lower gas and 
electricity prices for hardworking families.
  The Lower Energy Costs Act is a crucial step in making good on that 
commitment, and I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. LaMalfa), another member of the Natural Resources 
Committee.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the time here tonight to talk 
about this key issue.
  I think, just as a reminder as we start, my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle are trying to make this bill into something that it 
isn't. The atmosphere is made up of only 0.04 percent carbon dioxide, 
so the hysteria, since it is raised from 0.03 for the last couple of 
decades, is really misplaced as we try to have an energy source that is 
reasonable and secure for the American people.
  The Energy Information Administration predicts a 50 percent increase 
in global energy consumption by the year 2050.
  Currently, America is the world's leading producer of natural gas. 
Petroleum and other fuels remain the largest energy source for 
Americans, and natural gas consumption increases globally are expected, 
as well.
  We have, over time, the reality that no matter what the U.S. is 
doing, the rest of the world is going to be increasing its energy 
consumption.
  You see on top here that all the renewables are great. They are only 
going to remain a tiny part around the world while we are contorting 
our economy to try to put our own selves out of business by meeting 
these ridiculous goals.
  We must promote more domestic energy production and open more Federal 
lands for exploration and drilling. H.R. 1 is a tiny piece of 
legislation that will do that.
  Give the American people what they want. Yes, they want clean air and 
clean water, but they also want reasonable energy. We know how to do it 
cleanly and efficiently.
  We must not forget that, in the clean energy conversation, America's 
energy is cleaner than other top producers that will keep producing, 
like China and Russia. American energy is clean energy.
  I am glad to see this bill making the reforms that are necessary to 
help on energy, as well as forestry, with the burdensome NEPA process 
that is delaying the U.S. Forest Service doing needed thinning 
projects, like in my district where they have had the Camp fire that 
burned down most of the town of Paradise and a million-acre fire known 
as the Dixie fire.
  NEPA reform will make it where we can save our forests, have them be 
cleaner, have them not put so much pollution in the air that it even 
reaches the East Coast with smoke plumes, and, instead, have our wood 
and paper products coming from our forests instead of having to import 
them.
  It makes a heck of a lot more sense to have a process to work through 
NEPA and others that still is accountable ecologically but is something 
you can get done so you can get ahead of the curve with better forest 
management and energy that is cleaner and that comes from our country.
  I am glad to be part of this bill. I thank the chairman for running 
it.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Wyoming (Ms. Hageman), another

[[Page H1506]]

member of the House Natural Resources Committee and the chairwoman of 
the Indian and Insular Affairs Subcommittee.
  Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 1.
  America must have accessible and affordable energy. Coal, oil and 
gas, and uranium are three of the most important resources we have to 
meet our demands. These resources are needed now and will be needed for 
generations to come, with demand only increasing over time.
  The key question that we must address, then, is who is going to be 
producing our energy? Our fellow Americans, using our very own 
resources here? Or foreign and often hostile countries?
  For the Republicans, the correct answer is obvious. For the Biden 
administration and Democrats, however, the answer lies not in using our 
own abundant energy resources and controlling our own destiny but in 
offshoring energy and mineral production to Third World and dictatorial 
countries that care nothing about protecting the environment.
  The Biden administration and our friends across the aisle prefer to 
rely on coal from China and oil and gas from Russia, Iran, Venezuela--
anywhere but here.
  Their preferred energy policy is one that empowers and enriches 
dictators, despots, and tyrants; one that destroys our access to and 
use of safe, clean, and reliable energy that is found right here in 
America; and one that is designed to increase the cost and decrease the 
availability of the very building blocks of a civilized society, 
including food, housing, concrete, fertilizer, transportation, and 
manufacturing.
  Their preferred energy policy is one that establishes energy poverty 
as the cornerstone of our society, where blackouts, intermittent power, 
and Third World conditions define our day-to-day existence.
  In reality, the Democrats are reading from a fairytale, one in which 
we are allegedly going to be carbon-free by 2030, or perhaps it is 
2035, or maybe we should look to 2050.
  The only thing that the American people need to understand is that 
whatever the magical year is, it is beyond a point in time when they 
are no longer in power.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Wyoming.
  Ms. HAGEMAN. Their promise of outlawing gas stoves, air-conditioners 
that work, and the internal combustion engine and other technologies 
that make our lives better is beyond their expiration date as 
politicians. How so very convenient.
  The House Republicans are ready to fight for American citizens and 
ensure that we have clean and abundant energy, and I rise in support of 
and support H.R. 1.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Collins), another member of the House Natural Resources 
Committee.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, it was just this morning we were having a 
hearing and talking about Biden's bloated $1.2 trillion infrastructure 
Green New Deal. One-third of that act went to actual infrastructure 
projects, and it looks like they are in trouble now because of 
inflation.
  It is one of the main reasons I rise today in support of H.R. 1, the 
Lower Energy Costs Act.
  Over the past 2 years under the Biden administration, we have seen 
gas prices that are up nearly a dollar after hitting a historic high of 
$5 per gallon last summer. With energy demand only increasing, we can't 
afford the Biden administration's anti-energy agenda hitting our 
pocketbooks any harder.
  This crucial piece of legislation will finally end the Biden 
administration's war on American energy production by prohibiting 
President Biden from banning fracking, repealing restrictions on the 
import and export of natural gas, and stopping Biden's $6 billion 
natural gas tax.
  This bill will also incentivize domestic mineral production to ensure 
the U.S. has the resources necessary to compete with China.
  We will reform the National Environmental Policy Act to modernize and 
shorten the Federal regulatory process that takes years to get through. 
The days of projects taking decades to get off the ground are over. In 
the U.S., it can take more than 10 years to get a permit to mine, while 
our neighbors, our competitors, are much faster, further incentivizing 
our companies to export mineral production.
  That changes today when we reopen the cleanest energy in the world, 
American-made energy.
  Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 1.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, may I inquire again as to the time left.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arkansas has 13 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Arizona has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Duarte), another member of the House Natural Resources 
Committee.
  Mr. DUARTE. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1.
  We hear today that it is not very interesting to discuss the 
Constitution to some. Well, let's see the Constitution in operation 
today.
  We are the champions of abundance over here, and we want to show the 
American people, the working families in America, what an abundance 
agenda looks like and show them our commitment to improving their lives 
with abundance.
  We stand here arguing, in my opinion, with the lords of scarcity. 
They want to protect our forests until our forests burn. They want to 
leave American oil in the ground while gas prices go up for American 
working families, while energy costs in my district in California go 
over 25 cents a kilowatt, where working families in my district open 
the screen door in 105-degree temperatures because they can't afford to 
run their air-conditioners.
  Yet, the lords of scarcity think we need more solar panels on more 
high-income homes, getting off the grid, leaving the cost of delivering 
electricity to the working families in America.
  When we drill it in America, when we dam it in America, when we nuke 
it in America, when we frack it in America, we save American jobs and 
increase American families' affordability.
  When we grow it in America, when we log it in America, when we make 
it in America, we create jobs and create affordability, and we do it 
more sustainably than anywhere else on Earth.
  Over here, we are the champions of abundance, and we are here today 
to tell the American working family that there is a better choice for 
them. We can thrive. We can have affordability. We can have 
sustainability. We can have opportunity right here in America.
  With H.R. 1, drill oil now, we can deliver American working families 
a better option.
  Please keep talking about how silly you think the Constitution is. It 
is in play right now.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Newhouse), the chair of the Congressional Western 
Caucus.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on 
this important issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to talk about something that affects every 
single person, not only in this room but in our entire country. You 
need it to turn on the lights. You need it to drive your car. For my 
folks back home in central Washington, it is how you run your farm, 
your business, and your home.
  Recently, the cost of that energy has gone through the roof. For 
years now, the Biden administration has been telling the Nation that 
global markets are complex and that there are dynamics that are out of 
our control that contributed to the highest gas prices since 2008 and 
spiking global oil prices.
  We know better. This administration has effectively shut down all 
future energy and resource development, has created one of the most 
hostile environments for energy and resource producers, and continues 
to take actions

[[Page H1507]]

every single day to further their Green New Deal agenda. They should 
absolutely be held responsible for the burden now placed on the 
American people, who are struggling to make ends meet.
  While it is very clear to me, just as I know it is clear to my 
constituents, that President Biden and this administration are failing 
to display the leadership America needs and deserves, there is a silver 
lining here. That is H.R. 1.
  The Lower Energy Costs Act will finally get government out of the way 
of the American people. It will put an end to serial litigants stopping 
energy projects. It will cut through the endless red tape our producers 
face. It will unleash American energy to lower the cost for every 
American.

  This is what we need, and it is what the American people deserve.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Ezell).
  Mr. EZELL. Mr. Chair, I rise today to speak in favor of H.R. 1, the 
Lower Energy Costs Act.
  For the last 2 years, the Biden administration has implemented 
radical energy policies that have caused the price of gas and other 
household expenses to skyrocket. At the same time, this administration 
has forced us to become more dependent on hostile foreign nations and 
has caused us to lose high-paying American energy jobs.
  H.R. 1 is commonsense legislation that addresses these problems. It 
would increase domestic energy production, reform outdated permitting 
processes, and support the production and processing of critical 
minerals.
  Ultimately, this bill works to support the energy needs of 
hardworking American families who are struggling with the high prices 
created by this administration's policies.
  As a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 
I am proud of the way H.R. 1 improves water quality certification by 
streamlining an outdated permitting process. Bureaucrats often 
weaponize the process by slowing down certification for projects that 
don't fit their radical agenda.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Dakota (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I spent 6 years as a State 
energy regulator, and our focus was always on safe, affordable, 
reliable energy because we knew that that could power American 
prosperity.
  Indeed, this abundance of American energy that we have been talking 
about can be a huge American competitive advantage in an increasingly 
uncertain world. Unfortunately, we have made it so difficult to do big 
projects in this country anymore.
  If you need a strong piece of evidence, look at President Biden's 
unilateral canceling of the Keystone XL pipeline. Unfortunately, that 
is not the only piece of evidence.

                              {time}  1730

  It takes 5 to 7 years to permit an energy project in this country. It 
is an almost uniquely American problem. That same energy project could 
get permitted in less than half the time in countries like Canada and 
Australia.
  H.R. 1, Mr. Chairman, is a huge step in the right direction. It 
prevents the constant relitigation of projects and of reviews that have 
already been settled. It moves the NEPA process into the 21st century 
by making sure that we have got an online permitting portal for 
projects. It creates deadlines for NEPA and other environmental 
reviews. Imagine that, a shot clock, a deadline, to make sure the 
government's work is done on time. Then, Mr. Chairman, it unlocks 
American energy by allowing the Department of the Interior to resume 
energy leasing and to repeal restrictions on the export and import of 
natural gas.
  Mr. Chair, the abundance of American energy is a huge American 
competitive advantage. H.R. 1 makes that so.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Feenstra).
  Mr. FEENSTRA. Mr. Chair, in 2019, the United States became energy 
independent for the first time in 62 years. However, on his first day 
in office, President Biden destroyed American energy production by 
killing the Keystone XL pipeline and outsourcing our energy needs to 
our enemies.
  President Biden's energy policies not only hurt our families at the 
pump, but they also threaten our national security. That is why I have 
introduced an amendment to H.R. 1, my Defend America's Rural Energy 
Act, to defend our farmers and energy producers from foreign adversary 
land grabs. My amendment would specifically prohibit China from buying 
farmland suitable for ethanol and biodiesel production, which is vital 
to the rural American economy.
  Honoring our Commitment to America, Republicans will end Biden's war 
on American energy and fulfill another promise to the American people, 
and that is keeping American land in the hands of the American farmer.
  Mr. Chair, I am a passionate supporter of H.R. 1.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Bean).
  Mr. BEAN of Florida. Mr. Chair, the question is: Is America's economy 
on the right track?
  Eighty percent of Americans believe we are headed in the wrong 
direction.
  In just 2 years, we have gone from being the world's leading energy 
exporter to a dependent energy importer. Since January 2021, 
electricity is up 24 percent and gasoline is up 51 percent.
  Mr. Chair, it doesn't have to be this way. The United States has the 
resources, the know-how, and expertise to be, once again, an energy 
independent nation and an exporter of energy. American energy is not 
the enemy; it is the solution.
  H.R. 1, the Lower Energy Costs Act, is how we get America back on 
track. For too long, Mr. Chair, we have handcuffed ourselves when it 
comes to our oil and natural gas potential. I stand before you 
committed to unleash America's energy independence but also to unleash 
America's energy dominance.
  Mr. Chair, a ``yes'' vote for H.R. 1 does just that.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Jackson).
  Mr. JACKSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 1, a 
commonsense piece of legislation that will provide the American people 
the relief they need from Biden's war on American energy.
  As someone who grew up in the West Texas oilfields, I know firsthand 
how vital energy production is to our national security, and I know 
that energy security is national security.
  Under President Trump's leadership, America reached energy 
independence. Gas prices were low, the economy was thriving, and the 
world saw America as not only an energy leader but also as an economic 
and military force that must be taken seriously.
  However, the Biden administration has taken a drastically different 
approach. In the first few weeks in office, Biden waged war on American 
energy. Biden's assault on America's energy independence has eliminated 
thousands of American jobs, raised the cost of domestic energy, and 
left the United States dangerously dependent on foreign energy sources.
  Americans are struggling to pay their utility bills and gas prices 
are at record highs, yet this administration continues to do nothing 
but make matters worse.
  This legislation will not only alleviate burdensome energy costs for 
my constituents in Texas 13 but will do so for all Americans.
  Mr. Chair, I am proud to support this legislation, and I urge all of 
my colleagues to support this critical piece of legislation.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bergman).
  Mr. BERGMAN. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  H.R. 1 will unleash domestic energy production and reverse the Biden-
led Democrat assault on American energy.
  Democrat punitive policies have led to record-high gas prices, 
limited supply, and unrelenting inflation. Folks back home in Michigan 
are yearning for leadership that has been sorely

[[Page H1508]]

lacking in Washington these past couple of years.
  H.R. 1 will streamline permitting, open up new markets to export 
natural gas, and repeal billions in inflationary Green New Deal 
giveaways. H.R. 1 will also protect the land we live on, the water we 
drink, and the air we breathe.
  Of great importance to me and my constituents is the provision 
continuing the longstanding ban on drilling in our Great Lakes. As the 
Representative for the district with the longest shoreline in the lower 
48 States, including three of the five Great Lakes, I will continue to 
fight and defend our Great Lakes for future generations.
  As we talk energy, I live in the middle of copper country. As this 
board shows, we need to control for our future the precious metals 
necessary for what we do.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time for 
closing.
  Mr. Chair, I thank my Democrat colleagues for their comments, both 
from the Committee on Natural Resources members and other colleagues 
that came forth to speak against the polluters over people act, H.R. 1.
  Republican Members have produced an extreme piece of legislation. As 
I listened to the rationale today, there were four or five things that 
were repeated over and over again. It is an extreme piece and a high 
cost to pay for a speakership, but nevertheless, the rationale today 
was, as I heard it, patriotism. If you vote ``no'' for H.R. 1, you 
don't believe in America and you are not a patriot; you support China, 
Russia, Venezuela, OPEC, and communism. Unfortunately, that is a 
desperate lie and unnecessary in this debate.
  The other rationale I heard: Let the polluters drive energy policy, 
production, and the safeguards that the American people need. That was 
one of the rationales.
  The other one that struck me is collateral damage. Tribes, poor 
people, 40 million Americans, communities of color, once again, they 
get thrown under the bus to satisfy the greed of polluters.
  The issues of environmental justice are almost eliminated and 
downplayed in this whole discussion. That is 40 million people. That is 
collateral damage that cannot be tolerated and should not be.
  You ignore climate change. You blame other nations and ask Americans 
to accept a lower bar for themselves and give up the opportunity, as we 
always have, to historically lead in this world of ours.
  This act is about taxpayer subsidies to a powerful and rich polluter 
industry that doesn't need the support. It dismantles fundamental 
public health, clean air, clean water, NEPA, environmental protections, 
and judicial review.
  We need to remember that this act, H.R. 1, polluters over people, 
deals with a very consequential issue, and that is the consequential 
issue of life. H.R. 1 is dangerous to life. The real true act of 
patriotism, I remind my colleagues, is our responsibility and our oath 
to protect lives, to extend the future, to deal with fairness and the 
public's right to know and the public to have a voice in their future. 
H.R. 1, the polluters over people act, undoes all of that.
  Do we want to go back to the good old days when the rivers were 
burning, we were clear-cutting forests, when it was all right to admit 
wrongdoing and not have any consequences?
  Those are not the good old days that people want to go back to.
  If we are going to deal with the climate challenge and the climate 
action that is needed in this crisis, H.R. 1 needs to be defeated. It 
is the right thing to do, it is the American thing to do, and it is the 
patriotic thing to do.
  Mr. Chair, H.R. 1 is dangerous and needs to be defeated. I urge a 
``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time for 
closing.
  It is a time for choosing. It is a time to choose whether you want to 
be with America or if you want to be continually supporting our 
adversaries across the seas.
  H.R. 1 provides a solution to a problem that Democrat energy policy 
has created. Democrat energy policy means energy dependence.
  H.R. 1, the Lower Energy Costs Act, means energy independence for 
America.
  Democrat energy policy is a threat to national security.
  H.R. 1 secures our country, secures our country's energy, secures our 
country's minerals, secures our country's food supply, and secures our 
country's future as we move forward.
  Democrat energy policy is bogged down with their very permitting 
processes.
  H.R. 1 will relieve those permitting processes. It doesn't undermine 
any bedrock environmental laws. It actually makes the environmental 
laws work. It allows projects to be permitted. Green energy projects, 
American energy projects, roads, bridges, transportation corridors, 
ports, navigable waterways, all of those things are being held up by 
the permitting process. H.R. 1 will be a great step toward making 
things happen in America.
  Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 1, to lower 
energy costs for Americans, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair now recognizes the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure for 1 hour equally divided among and 
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member or their designees.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves).
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. 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, which will unlock United States energy potential, benefiting 
Missourians and Americans nationwide.
  Broadly speaking, this bill is important for so many reasons, from 
increasing domestic energy production to encouraging the production of 
critical minerals to modernizing the NEPA process for energy and other 
infrastructure projects. This bill does exactly what the title says.
  Division C of the bill was produced by the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee, and it focuses on streamlining and clarifying 
the scope of section 401 of the Clean Water Act to prevent its 
continued abuse in blocking energy infrastructure projects.
  Many projects that require water quality certifications under section 
401 are critical to our Nation's energy production, such as natural gas 
pipelines, LNG, and coal export terminals.
  Division C of the bill makes clear that States cannot block important 
energy projects on grounds outside of the Clean Water Act quality 
standards, consistent with the intent of the original law.
  Last month, H.R. 1152, which is encompassed within division C, was 
marked up and passed out of the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee.

                              {time}  1745

  As included in H.R. 1, division C is incredibly important to lowering 
energy costs and boosting energy production while still ensuring water 
quality.
  Mr. Chair, I thank two of my subcommittee chairmen,   David Rouzer 
and Garret Graves, for their leadership in sponsoring this piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. Chair, I would urge support of the bill. By passing H.R. 1, the 
House would support moving critical energy projects forward and support 
lowering costs for Americans through greater energy independence.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of clean water and in support of 
the Clean Water Act, and in opposition to H.R. 1, the polluters over 
people act.
  Clean water is a basic human right--the health and safety of our 
communities and the success of our economy depends on it. House 
Democrats stand for clean water.
  Last Congress, we passed a historic and bipartisan investment in our 
Nation's infrastructure through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The 
BIL included almost $13 billion in clean water infrastructure upgrades 
and is creating jobs in communities across the country.
  The Clean Water Act, passed in 1972, is one of the most successful 
environmental laws in our Nation's history. It

[[Page H1509]]

has protected rivers, lakes, and streams from pollution and 
contamination, ensuring that we have access to clean and safe water.
  Section 401 of the Clean Water Act allows States to review projects 
that could impact their water quality. For 50 years, States have used 
this authority to protect their water resources, and it has helped them 
ensure that projects move forward only if clean water would not be 
compromised as a result.
  These proposals that are in H.R. 1, to narrow the scope of section 
401, are a misguided effort at permitting reform. By limiting the 
ability of States to review projects, we are sacrificing the health of 
our communities and our environment for the sake of expedience and 
profit.
  I recognize the majority's interest in ensuring that permitting 
requirements are not insurmountable barriers to investment. I share the 
goal of speeding up project delivery.
  Last Congress, I supported not only the BIL, but also the CHIPS Act 
and the Inflation Reduction Act. These laws showed what Congress is 
capable of when it focuses on addressing the real needs of American 
families. I want these laws and their investments to be successful.
  However, to quickly put these investments to work, we need a robust 
partnership between the Federal Government and its State and local 
partners and Tribal partners, to address State, local, and Tribal 
requirements, and to ensure community buy-in before these investments 
are implemented.
  To be effective, that process must build on a mutual trust between 
the parties because any effort to force that process often results in 
opposition, delay, and litigation.
  Yet, H.R. 1 misses the mark by stifling local participation and buy-
in, which will only result in these projects taking longer to 
implement.
  In fact, State organizations, such as the Western States Water 
Council, believe that placing arbitrary and strict limits on section 
401 application review times and processes will require the States ``to 
issue an increased number of denials, due to inflexible deadlines that 
do not accommodate State public engagement laws or allow sufficient 
time to gather adequate information on project impacts.''
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 1, and reject the 
efforts to weaken the Clean Water Act and our Nation's other bedrock 
environmental laws. We must protect our water resources for future 
generations and for the health of today's communities and families.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), a member of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1, to 
lower energy costs. United States energy independence is critical to 
meeting domestic demand, and growing needs from the rest of the world.
  Rather than pulling out all of the stops to keep domestic production 
moving forward to meet this increased demand, the Biden administration 
has instead begged the OPEC cartel to boost their output, culminating 
in a failed appeal from President Biden to the Saudi Crown Prince in 
July of last year. To me, this is exactly why we are here in support of 
H.R. 1 today.
  As a result of the historic increases in inflation under the Biden 
administration, the average American family is spending an extra $395 
to purchase the same monthly necessities as they did a year ago.
  In November 2022, one in six families were behind on utility bills, 
and we are not out of the woods yet as natural gas prices rose over 14 
percent just last month. This is especially concerning as 47 percent of 
U.S. households use natural gas to heat their homes.
  The Lower Energy Costs Act seeks to reverse the troubling energy 
policy strategy that the Biden administration has carried out, and it 
prioritizes American energy dominance ahead of misguided Green New 
Deal-style policies.
  Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Lower Energy Costs Act.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1, 
particularly division C, which was introduced in the House as H.R. 
1152, and was marked up by the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure with strong opposition from my Democratic colleagues. 
The polluters over the people act let polluters off the hook for 
harmful actions and damaging impacts to our rivers, lakes, and our 
streams that our local communities rely on for clean, safe drinking 
water.

  Division C is an attack on section 401 of the Clean Water Act, which 
is a key mechanism for States and Tribes to evaluate projects that 
cross within their borders and have an impact on their waters and 
environment for decades.
  Section 401 has been a successful example of cooperative federalism, 
while preserving State authority to manage their natural resources. 
Section 401 has been a well-supported, effective tool since the 
beginning of the Clean Water Act, but the Trump administration found a 
way to make it a scapegoat for the failure of senseless and harmfully 
polluting mega-projects.
  The provisions in the polluters over people act will tie the hands of 
States and Tribes seeking to preserve stream flow for their water 
supplies, to prevent runoff and water pollution, and to minimize 
impacts to flood-preventing wetlands. It goes against the Clean Water 
Act's rights of States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution.
  First, in California, this bill would have huge impacts. For one, 
limiting analysis to only discharges would mean the State would be 
unable to consider the impact of the whole project, such as increasing 
impervious surfaces, or considering downstream effects. Our State is 
trying to preserve every drop of water we can get. Yet, this bill would 
stop my State from protecting its water supply from the adverse impacts 
of projects pursued by out-of-State interests.
  Second, this bill places arbitrary, and likely impossible timelines 
on the States to act on permit requests. Despite how complicated or 
huge the project might be, this bill will severely limit the time 
allowed for a State to review its impact. My friends across the aisle 
may not realize this, but this bill may lead to greater numbers of 
project rejections as the State is pressured to respond without the 
time to fully analyze the project.
  This bill is another attempt to gut--really gut--the Clean Water Act 
and allow pollution and industry to act without repercussion. We must 
defend human health, our economy, and the natural environment, and 
oppose the damaging bill that will harm local communities.
  Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a letter from the State of 
California, State of Washington, and the State of New York in strong 
opposition to H.R. 1152, which is the bill that became division C, H.R. 
1.
                                                February 28, 2023.
     Hon. Chairman Graves,
     Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Graves: As the water quality certifying 
     agencies for California, New York, and Washington, we write 
     to underscore the importance of existing law in protecting 
     state waters from water pollution associated with federally 
     licensed projects. On February 24, 2023, Representatives 
     Rouzer and Graves introduced H.R. 1152--Water Quality 
     Certification and Energy Project Improvement Act of 2023, to 
     amend section 401 of the Clean Water Act that would, among 
     other things, revise section 401 to: (1) reduce the scope of 
     states' and tribes' 401 water quality certification authority 
     to apply only to the discharge to a water of the United 
     States, rather than the whole of the activity; (2) narrow 
     states' and tribes' section 401 water quality certification 
     authority to exclude much of what is required to comply with 
     water quality standards and implementation plans under 
     section 303 of the Clean Water Act; (3) remove the states' 
     and tribes' authority to ensure compliance with ``other 
     appropriate requirement[s] of State law''; (4) replace 
     references to an ``application'' for certification with a 
     ``request'' for certification; and (5) impose a time 
     requirement on states and tribes to identify information 
     needed before taking an action on a certification request, 
     (6) make other changes to the law that introduce substantial 
     uncertainty about the scope of section 401 for project 
     proponents and state and tribes. Each of these changes would 
     undermine states' abilities to protect water quality within 
     their states and erode five decades of successful, 
     cooperative federalism. We ask that Congress preserve the 
     existing state authority in the Clean Water Act to 
     substantively review a project's effects on water quality 
     before a federal permit or license is issued.

[[Page H1510]]

  

     Background
       Under section 401 of the Clean Water Act, a federal agency 
     may not issue a permit or license to conduct any activity 
     that may result in any discharge into waters of the United 
     States unless a section 401 water quality certification is 
     issued, or certification is waived. The State Water Resources 
     Control Board (``State Water Board'') and the nine California 
     Regional Water Quality Control Boards (collectively, ``Water 
     Boards''), [NY Signatory], [WA Signatory] are certifying 
     agencies pursuant to section 401 of the Clean Water Act. In 
     all three states, the most common federal licenses subject to 
     section 401 are Clean Water Act section 404 dredge or fill 
     permits issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and 
     licenses for hydropower facilities issued by the Federal 
     Energy Regulatory Commission.
       During the five decades since Congress enacted section 401 
     in the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970, state water 
     quality agencies diligently processed thousands of section 
     401 requests each year with little controversy. The vast 
     majority of section 401 certifications were issued promptly 
     and most section 401 certifications were granted, with only a 
     handful of denials issued each year. Beginning around 2016, 
     prompted by a handful of high-profile section 401 denials, 
     some project applicants and industry lobbyists began claiming 
     that states were ``abusing'' their section 401 authority. 
     Such claims of abuse are not, and never have been, true. In 
     the handful of cases when project applicants have alleged 
     improper certification decisions or delay by state agencies, 
     they have been fully capable of protecting their rights under 
     section 401 through the traditional framework of 
     administrative and judicial review.
     Section 401 is a cornerstone of the cooperative federalism 
         principles enshrined by the Clean Water Act
       Cooperative federalism is a foundational component of the 
     Clean Water Act. As set forth in Clean Water Act section 101 
     (b), ``[i]t is the policy of the Congress to recognize, 
     preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights 
     of States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution'' and 
     ``to plan the development and use . . . of land and water 
     resources.'' Section 510 further specifies that except as 
     expressly provided, nothing in the Clean Water Act shall 
     preclude or deny the right of any State to adopt or enforce 
     any standard or limitation respecting discharges of 
     pollutants or any requirement respecting control or abatement 
     of pollution.
       The section 401 certification program is an embodiment of 
     these cooperative federalism principles. A state 
     certification is the mechanism of ensuring that a federal 
     license or permit is not used as an excuse to violate state 
     or federal water quality standards. As currently written, the 
     language in section 401 acknowledges that states are in the 
     best position to understand their own laws and that 
     additional conditions may be necessary to ensure compliance 
     with state law and applicable Clean Water Act requirements. 
     As the federal permitting or licensing agency is often not an 
     agency primarily tasked with managing environmental issues, 
     the federal agency may in fact be reliant on the 
     certification authority's expertise regarding water quality. 
     To prevent a section 401 certification from becoming a rubber 
     stamp, any revision to the section 401 language must preserve 
     an expansive view of the cooperative federalism principles 
     originally envisioned by the Clean Water Act and repeatedly 
     affirmed by the Supreme Court. PUD No. 1 of Jefferson Cnty. 
     v. Washington Dep't of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700 (1994); S.D. 
     Warren Co. v. Maine Bd. of Env't Prot., 547 U.S. 370 (2006).
     The Clean Water Act should continue to protect the whole 
         range of water quality effects resulting from the 
         proposed activity
       We strongly support the existing statutory language, which 
     gives states and tribes the authority to regulate the 
     potentially water-polluting activity as a whole, rather than 
     being limited to a strict interpretation of effects from only 
     the discharge, because regulation of the activity as a whole 
     protects waters from the widest range of impacts. States 
     should be able to protect water quality regardless of whether 
     the pollution or other water quality impacts would be 
     specifically attributable to a discharge or from some other 
     aspect of the activity being permitted. States should be able 
     to use the certification process to address impacts to 
     groundwater, impacts to isolated surface waters, or impacts 
     from non-point sources, all of which are likely not directly 
     attributable to the discharge to a water of the United 
     States, because these are water quality impacts that would 
     not occur without issuance of the federal permit or license.
       The problems with limiting certifications to the discharge 
     rather than the whole of the activity would be particularly 
     impactful on the states' ability to protect water quality 
     during the decades long term of Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission (``FERC'') licenses in the hydropower licensing 
     context. States and tribes must be able to fully address the 
     water quality impacts of such activities as a whole during 
     the 30- to 50-year term of the FERC license to reduce 
     water quality impacts that, depending on the 
     circumstances, may not be attributable to a point-source 
     discharge, but result from the activity's construction, 
     operations, and facilities. Common water quality impacts 
     associated with hydropower activities include changes in 
     turbidity, sediment, siltation, temperature, habitat loss, 
     alterations to stream geomorphology, dissolved oxygen, 
     algal productivity and algal-produced toxins, erosion, 
     barriers to fish passage, alterations to stream 
     geomorphology, and reductions in stream flow. Each of 
     these impacts can have profound, generational impacts on 
     the state's water resources.
       To prevent or minimize these potential impacts, states have 
     imposed, or considered the need for certification conditions 
     to protect water quality on project activities that fall 
     outside the typical understanding of point-source discharges, 
     such as requirements for minimum instream flows and ramping 
     rates; temperature management; aquatic invasive species 
     management; plans for gravel replenishment, large woody 
     material placement and other habitat measures; reservoir 
     operation plans; erosion and sediment management plans; and 
     monitoring and management of dissolved oxygen, mercury, 
     pesticides, and other constituents of concerns. Previously 
     issued certifications have typically included management, 
     monitoring, and reporting measures to ensure compliance with 
     water quality measures and to identify potential 
     modifications if circumstances change. Revising the statutory 
     language to contradict longstanding interpretations would 
     introduce confusion and invite arguments about the nexus 
     between the discharge and the impact, when a state or tribe's 
     focus should more appropriately be on all water quality 
     impacts resulting from the project. Introducing the concept 
     of whether the activity will ``directly result'' in a 
     discharge in subsection (a)(1) and (a)(4) would inject 
     additional uncertainty and potentially further limit the 
     certifying authority's ability to protect water quality.
       Although the states would rely on their state authority to 
     continue to preserve robust protection of water quality 
     whenever possible, state authority would not be an available 
     remedy where state law is preempted by federal law. Because 
     the Federal Power Act preempts the field of hydropower 
     regulation absent an express exception to preemption, and 
     FERC project licenses are valid for a fixed period of up to 
     50 years, water quality certifications for FERC license 
     applications provide the states with a singular opportunity 
     to ensure compliance with the state's water quality standards 
     and other requirements. If the states' ability to regulate 
     FERC licensed projects to the same extent that it has been 
     able to for decades is significantly weakened, other, non-
     FERC projects would be subject to more stringent requirements 
     to compensate for the failure of FERC-licensed projects to 
     contribute what would otherwise be their allocated 
     responsibility.
     The Clean Water Act should continue to authorize 
         certifications to implement water quality standards and 
         implementation plans adopted or approved under section 
         303 of the Clean Water Act
       Under section 401 of the Clean Water Act a water quality 
     certification implements the applicable provisions of 
     sections 301, 302, 303, 306 and 307 of the Clean Water Act 
     and any other appropriate requirement of state law. The most 
     important of the enumerated provisions of the Clean Water Act 
     is section 303, which provides for water quality standards 
     and implementation plans. Section 303 requires development 
     and approval of water quality standards, which consist of 
     designated uses, criteria, and anti-degradation policies; 
     establishment of total maximum daily loads, which allocate 
     responsibility for meeting standards that cannot be met 
     solely through compliance with the technology-based 
     requirements of the Clean Water Act; and implementation of a 
     continuing planning process.
       In 1994, the Supreme Court upheld state authority to set 
     conditions of certification to protect uses designated as 
     part of the water quality standards under section 303. PUD 
     No. 1, 511 U.S. at 700. The Court rejected an argument that 
     certification is limited to implementing the criteria 
     component of those standards. Consistent with the Supreme 
     Court's ruling, states have made effective use water quality 
     certification authority to protect water quality needed for 
     commercial, tribal, and recreational fisheries and other 
     important uses of state waters.
       The proposed revision to limit ``applicable provisions'' of 
     section 303 to ``requirement of state law implementing water 
     quality criteria under section 303 necessary to support the 
     designated use or uses of the receiving navigable waters'' 
     could strip the states' authority to use their certification 
     authority to protect the uses of waters of the United States 
     designated as part of water quality standards under section 
     303. By inexplicably omitting any reference to federal 
     requirements that implement section 303, it would also create 
     substantial uncertainty about states' and tribes' ability to 
     enforce water quality criteria, total maximum daily loads, 
     and antidegradation requirements adopted by U.S. EPA.
     Congress should not remove the states' authority to require 
         compliance with state water quality requirements
       We strongly oppose the bill's proposed revisions that would 
     limit the certifying authority to ensuring compliance with 
     only specific sections of the Clean Water Act by deleting the 
     existing reference to ``any other appropriate requirement of 
     State law'' set forth in section 401 subsection (d). Such a 
     revision would disregard a state's right to impose more 
     stringent water quality requirements and be contrary to the 
     protective goals of

[[Page H1511]]

     the Clean Water Act. As is accounted for and endorsed by the 
     Clean Water Act, many states have state-based programs and 
     attendant requirements that arguably or explicitly expand 
     beyond the state's Clean Water Act authorities. The Clean 
     Water Act expressly contemplated a state's authority to 
     establish and enforce more stringent state requirements 
     beyond the Clean Water Act. For example, certifications may 
     include monitoring and reporting requirements that arguably 
     go beyond ensuring compliance with specific sections of the 
     Clean Water Act, and instead help determine whether water 
     quality is being degraded or to shape the development of 
     future actions to protect water quality.
       We urge Congress to refrain from making an unwarranted 
     intrusion into a state's authority to impose stricter 
     conditions to protect the quality of waters within its 
     borders.
     Section 401 should preserve the certifying authority's 
         ability to define the contents of a request for 
         certification and create submission procedures
       The bill proposes revising references to ``application'' to 
     be ``request.'' Although the intention behind that revision 
     is not clear, we support language that recognizes that the 
     certifying authority may define the contents of a request for 
     certification and create submission procedures. The state's 
     ability to define what is required for a request for 
     certification is significant because a receipt of such a 
     request is the trigger for the beginning of the reasonable 
     period of time for a certifying authority to act on the 
     request. The bill proposes an addition requiring certifying 
     authorities to ``publish requirements for certification,'' 
     but it is not clear whether this language is an indirect 
     reference to a certifying authority's ability to define 
     required information for applications and submittal 
     procedures. To the extent that ``requirements'' were intended 
     to require the enactment of new state regulations, 30 days is 
     insufficient time to comply with public notice and comment 
     requirements for State Water Board adoption.
     Section 401 should not impose an arbitrary time limit on the 
         certifying authority's ability to request information
       The bill proposes revisions to subsection (a)(1) that 
     specify that by 90 days after request for a certification, 
     the certifying authority must inform the applicant if any 
     additional information is necessary for the certification 
     authority to take an action on the request. As explained 
     above, to the extent that the language requires the 
     certifying authority to identify what, if any, information is 
     necessary to submit a complete application for water quality 
     certification, many state laws, including California's, do 
     this. But the revised language may be construed as preventing 
     the states from requesting that the applicant clarify, 
     amplify, correct, or supplement information required in the 
     application, which is permissible under state law.
       For these reasons, we write to ask that Congress preserve 
     the existing state authority in Clean Water Act Section 401 
     to substantively review a project's effects on water quality 
     before a federal permit or license is issued, and protect 
     five decades of successful, cooperative federalism.
           Sincerely,
     Eileen Sobeck,
       Executive Director, California State Water Resources 
     Control Board.
     Basil Seggos,
       Commissioner, New York State Department of Environmental 
     Conservation.
     Laura Watson,
       Director, Washington State Department of Ecology.

  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. In this letter, the States highlight how this 
legislation will undermine States' ability to protect water quality 
within their States, and erode five decades of successful, cooperative 
federalism.
  Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose H.R. 1, the polluters over people act, 
and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Burchett), a member of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee.
  Mr. BURCHETT. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the work that the chairman and 
the committee have done on this very important piece of legislation.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today to talk about why we need H.R. 1, the Lower 
Energy Costs Act. I can't think of anybody in this country, especially 
working folks, especially the people in the Second Congressional 
District, who I represent, that say to me: Tim, I need to pay more for 
my energy. They don't. They say: My energy costs are out of sight. We 
have to feed our kids. We have to buy books for school. We have to buy 
clothing for our kids. We can't afford these higher energy costs.
  The Biden administration, unfortunately, and the Democrats in 
Congress keep pushing these Green New Deal-style agendas. Honestly, Mr. 
Chair, they just don't work. There hasn't been a new development in 
solar in over 20 years, and windmills are just what they are. The wind 
doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine in east Tennessee, 
and I am sure that is the way it is across this great Nation. It is 
costing Americans way too much.
  We are done with all this nonsense, Mr. Chair. H.R. 1 is going to end 
restrictions on importing and exporting natural gas. What could be 
wrong with that?
  Why in the world are we doing business with our enemies, the people 
we continue to send money to? We have hundreds of years, by recent 
estimates, of gas in the ground that we could be getting out using safe 
and environmentally sound methods.
  The burning apparatus now is so much safer than when this was first 
started, it is ridiculous. We need to fix this permitting process. We 
keep saying--and I have heard the White House say many times through 
their spokesperson--that we are permitting all these wells. Well, they 
don't permit the pipeline to get there. It is like we have a gallon of 
fuel in the ground and we are trying to pull it out with something 
about as big around as a needle point.
  We have to process our energy projects so they can get off the ground 
in a reasonable amount of time. By the time we get to the end of it, 
the cost is so high that it is very cost-prohibitive. We have to make 
the Biden administration resume the lease on most of our Federal lands 
and waters that they have restricted.
  We have to roll back President Biden's $27 billion slush fund for 
these Democrat special interest groups and these projects that amount 
to nothing but woke policy changes.
  We have to stop the liberal States from abusing section 401 of the 
Clean Water Act, which they use to add a bunch of unnecessary red tape 
to every project they don't like. It seems like when we find a good 
resource, they put these barriers in place. It is just not right.
  Mr. Chair, we need to focus on keeping Americans' homes heated and 
their lights on. Nothing should be more important, especially since we 
are forced to purchase it from our enemies overseas--the people that 
hate our guts. They love our dollars. We pay them and the next thing 
you know, they are burning our flag. They are saying things about us 
that aren't true. They are causing us all kinds of problems.
  The best energy solution, Mr. Chair, above all, is the solution that 
we need oil, gas, and nuclear energy--like they are working on at Oak 
Ridge National Laboratory. It is not in the district that I represent, 
but it backs up to where I am. There are over 6,000 people who work 
there that live in my district. It is also home to Big Ed's Pizza, 
which is a wonderful place--I will just throw that in.
  Mr. Chair, H.R. 1 is going to spur energy innovation at home, and I 
am proud to support it. I appreciate the great work that has been done 
on this issue.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), one more person 
who appreciates the most important natural resource we have, and that 
is our clean water.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chair, the so-called ``Lower Energy Costs Act'' is an 
attempt by the majority to strip environmental protections fought for 
by Congress over decades. The current leadership wishes to allow broad 
polluting, strip limitations on greenhouse gas emissions, and remove 
provisions of the Clean Water Act that not only protect our Nation's 
waters, but also affect the clean drinking water of everyday Americans.
  Division C, the Water Quality Certification and Energy Project 
Improvement Act, will neither improve energy projects nor streamline 
the water quality certification process.

                              {time}  1800

  This section guts the Clean Water Act section 401 authority. The 
previous administration tried to significantly limit this authority in 
the interest of preventing oversight and accountability for those who 
polluted water sources. Now the majority is, again, attempting to gut 
this critical protection

[[Page H1512]]

authority in favor of unclear, imprecise, and irresponsible policy, 
which would allow significant increases in water pollution without 
holding polluters accountable.
  This issue is particularly important to the District of Columbia 
because we are entirely reliant on the Potomac River for our drinking 
water. Under this bill, the headwaters of the Potomac River can be 
freely polluted in West Virginia, jeopardizing the water source of most 
of Northern Virginia, all of D.C., and much of southern Maryland.
  We are no strangers to this kind of pollution. Before the Clean Water 
Act, the Potomac River was rife with agricultural runoff, trash, and 
other pollution. But today it is a much cleaner and healthier river and 
used for all manner of recreational activities. This bill would 
jeopardize all the progress we have made for the entire Potomac River 
ecosystem.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds 
to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.
  Ms. NORTON. Under this bill, a project could threaten water quality, 
water supply, fish populations, or many other things, and D.C. and 
other jurisdictions would not get any say in preventing it. Polluters 
can act freely and to the extreme detriment of their neighbors 
downstream, affecting the accessibility of clean water.
  Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer), who is a member of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
  Mrs. CHAVEZ-DeREMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
Lower Energy Costs Act, a comprehensive and commonsense proposal that 
would lower costs for Oregon families by unleashing American energy.
  The Lower Energy Costs Act paves the way for projects that would 
directly benefit Oregon.
  H.R. 1 would prevent the environmental permitting process for 
critical minerals, making it more efficient for Oregon businesses to 
manufacture scarce and valuable products like semiconductors.
  From the smartphone in your pocket, Mr. Chairman, to batteries needed 
for storing renewable energy, it is unacceptable that the United States 
is currently so reliant on China for critical products. The pragmatic 
permitting changes in this bill protect our national security by 
reducing our reliance on the Chinese Communist Party.
  These changes also create opportunities for public-private 
partnerships on energy construction projects.
  Instead of doing business with China, H.R. 1 presents an opportunity 
for my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support good-paying 
union jobs right here at home.
  The Lower Energy Costs Act would streamline initiatives like the 
Jordan Cove energy project, which would have been a $10 billion 
investment in a natural gas project in Oregon.
  As we work toward a carbon-neutral future, we must also recognize 
that the United States produces cleaner energy than any other country, 
including natural gas. A Department of Energy report found that natural 
gas produced in America is 40 percent cleaner than natural gas produced 
in Russia.
  Energy prices and the cost of living have remained elevated for far 
too long.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1, which would 
help restore our energy independence, support jobs, and lower costs for 
hardworking families.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier).
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose H.R. 1. H.R. 1 reverses our hard-
fought progress for clean water, and it also severely undermines 
States' abilities to protect water quality under the Clean Water Act. 
Under this bill, States like California would have their hands tied in 
their efforts to maintain water quality for drinking, recreation, and 
protecting our natural environments.
  California has always been a leader in clean water issues, and this 
bill is a direct assault on our efforts to counteract pollution and 
protect both public health and the health of the environment.
  What is more, H.R. 1 will dangerously limit States from protecting 
their own natural resources and bodies of water. It will limit 
California's efforts to conserve water, which is especially important 
given the extreme drought that we were in and will continue to see in 
the face of changing climate.
  Maintaining section 401 of the Clean Water Act is vital. My friends 
on the other side of the aisle claim the proposed changes in the bill 
will prevent States from hijacking the permitting process and 
preventing important energy projects. However, in the past 50 years, 
California State water agencies have processed thousands of section 401 
permit requests without issue. Only a handful each year are denied. The 
States have utilized this section to rightfully protect against 
violations of their own State water quality standards.

  We see this legislation for what it truly is: a giveaway to corporate 
polluters at the expense of our environment.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this bill and the larger movement it 
stands for. We cannot and should not roll back these bedrock 
environmental laws.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves), who is the chairman of the 
Aviation Subcommittee.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Sam Graves, for his 
leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, let me describe the situation that we are facing right 
now. The Clean Water Act, as has been noted, was enacted decades and 
decades ago. There haven't been changes that altered the way that 
States are able to grant water certification under section 401 of the 
Clean Water Act. There have been no changes that have altered the way 
that this act takes place.
  Yet, in recent history, States have begun using the Clean Water Act 
in its 401 water certification section in a way that simply weaponizes 
it. The States' decisions in many cases to object to projects being 
built in their States have nothing to do with water certification.
  I can cite example after example, including by some of my friends on 
the other side of the aisle, who may be in the Chamber, where their 
States have objected to pipelines on grounds that, again, have nothing 
to do with clean water. This is a weaponization that has occurred in 
just recent history.
  All the amendment does that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Rouzer) led in this case is it simply ensures that the interpretation 
of the Clean Water Act is consistent with congressional intent when 
this was implemented decades ago.
  Mr. Chairman, let me give you a practical effect of how this has 
impacted communities and how it has impacted American citizens.
  Years ago, they had a cold winter. It was a very cold winter several 
years ago. What happened was that these communities up in the Northeast 
had actually used these authorities and others to block pipelines from 
being built, so it prevented natural gas from getting to these 
communities in the Northeast.
  Then, they began burning home heating oil in higher volumes. I remind 
you, Mr. Chairman, home heating oil has a higher emissions profile than 
natural gas. So, you just made one decision. By blocking pipelines, you 
became more dependent upon home heating oil, so it resulted in greater 
emissions or, said another way, greater impacts to the environment.
  They ended up having low supplies of home heating oil, so they took 
it to the next level. These States called their good friend Vladimir 
Putin--I am not making this up--and had him bring in liquified natural 
gas from Russia to meet the demands from the Northeast.
  Mr. Chairman, maybe my friends across the aisle want to defend the 
decision to have Russian gas coming in to supply American energy needs 
whenever we had American energy right there that simply could have been 
piped in.

[[Page H1513]]

  Mr. Chairman, I remind you that, according to the National Research 
Council, pipelines are the safest way to transport energy. By putting 
something in a pipeline, it has a lower chance of a spill and has lower 
emissions associated with transportation. This is how you should do it. 
If you care about the environment, then you want to put energy in a 
pipeline.
  Let me say it again. The chairman of the Water Resources and 
Environment Subcommittee, Mr. Rouzer from North Carolina, has an 
amendment to this bill that really returns the interpretation back to 
congressional intent and back to the way that this provision was 
exercised for decades so we don't have these ridiculous scenarios like 
I just described where we are preventing U.S.-generated energy and 
U.S.-produced energy from meeting Americans' own demands, which, of 
course, is cheaper, cleaner, and prevents these crazy scenarios where 
we are calling up Vladimir Putin and asking him to meet America's 
energy demand.
  Mr. Chairman, even Putin found this amusing and was trolling the 
United States on Twitter and social media.
  Do we really want to subject ourselves to this?
  Let me say it again: If you care about the environment, then what you 
actually want to do is put the energy in a pipeline.
  We shouldn't get ourselves in a situation like where former White 
House spokesperson Jen Psaki acknowledged that the production areas 
that were to be served by the Keystone pipeline were still producing 
the energy. They were still producing the energy. They were just 
transporting it through other means, which means truck, barge, and 
train, all of which, once again, Mr. Chairman, have a higher emissions 
profile and pose a greater threat to the environment, which I will also 
note was directly contrary to the justification that the White House 
gave on why they were shutting down the Keystone pipeline.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 5 minutes 
to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I think that it is really 
important that we are all talking about facts here and that we are 
recognizing congressional intent and how this very provision has been 
exercised and used by States for decades and decades.
  This recent weaponization to advance or advocate for these energy 
policies that are resulting--actually, Mr. Chairman, I remind this 
House that we have watched emissions go up under President Biden, not 
go down. I keep seeing this sign pop up on the other side that says 
``polluters over people,'' and I am not sure what they are talking 
about other than perhaps describing some of the very energy policies of 
this administration that have resulted in greater emissions, a greater 
threat to our environment, and, of course, unaffordability issues. We 
have watched as people have been pushed into energy poverty as we have 
shut down domestic energy sources.

  I encourage, Mr. Chairman, that what we do, instead of getting into 
this emotional debate and bringing up topics and issues that are not 
relevant or applicable to the law, is that we stay focused on facts and 
figures.
  Emissions have gone up under this administration versus going down 
under the previous administration. We have watched as they have 
advanced or advocated for policies like shutting down the Keystone 
pipeline and stopping the connection between Marcellus and other 
American energy sources to communities that are energy starved.
  This is resulting in greater emissions in the United States. It is 
resulting in greater threats to our environment. Most importantly, Mr. 
Chairman, one of the things that Mr. Rouzer's provision does is it 
really helps to address the affordability issue.
  We have watched as energy prices have skyrocketed under this 
administration because of their deliberate attempt, which they have 
said very candidly--they intend to shut down domestic energy 
production. They have been very clear on that, and they have been 
incredibly successful.
  In fact, you would have to go back to the Truman administration in 
the 1940s to get back to the same level of acreage leasing for energy 
production that has been done under this administration.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge adoption of this legislation. I 
strongly support the amendment that Mr. Rouzer advocated for and 
Chairman Sam Graves is pushing right now.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to stick to facts here and make sure that we 
are making policy decisions based on reality.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, we know that this side of the 
aisle is not trying to shut down domestic energy production.
  In fact, the Inflation Reduction Act made a major investment in clean 
energy production in the United States to expand the use of renewable 
energies and renewable energy production. That is one reason why I want 
people to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1 because this bill removes some of those 
incentives.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington 
State (Ms. Strickland), who is another person who is strongly against 
this bill.

                              {time}  1815

  Ms. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1, 
the deceptively named Lower Energy Costs Act. This bill will not lower 
energy costs, and it won't prevent price gouging because Republicans 
have no plan to lower energy costs.
  Here is what it will do: It will increase the deficit by $2.4 billion 
in handouts to big oil and gas. It will worsen the climate crisis, and 
it ignores the future of our country's clean energy workforce.
  Republicans are more focused on undoing Democratic accomplishments--
which, by the way, have already created over 100,000 jobs--than helping 
the American people. Polluters over people.
  This bill forces the government to lease government land to oil and 
gas companies even if those companies don't plan to use it. This bill 
will allow anyone to stake a mining claim on our public lands for less 
than $10 an acre, even if they haven't discovered any minerals. After 
that, any mining activity, including dumping toxic mining waste, is 
considered the highest and best use of those lands.
  My Republican colleagues will claim that this bill supports 
permitting. If you look closely, that simply is not true. The main 
barrier for getting permits approved is staffing levels. There simply 
aren't enough staff to get permits approved.
  However, I have good news. Democrats have already secured $1 billion 
in the Inflation Reduction Act for Federal agency permitting offices, 
which will address this issue and is expected to drastically shrink the 
timelines for permitting without sacrificing safety. The Republican 
bill fails to address these issues.
  When Democrats were in charge of the House, we passed transformative 
legislation to lower the deficit, address climate change, create good 
union jobs, and actually improve the lives of the American people. We 
put people over polluters.
  Instead of helping our constituents, this bill will weaken State and 
Tribal authority under section 401 of the Clean Water Act. This section 
was meant to protect communities and water resources by giving them a 
voice when projects planned to impact their borders. This bill, though, 
allows special interests to override what Tribal nations and States 
know is best for their own communities.
  In the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, my 
colleague, Representative Huffman offered an amendment to keep Tribal 
rights intact under section 401 guidelines, but House Republicans chose 
again not to prioritize the people.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute 
to the gentlewoman from Washington.
  Ms. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chair, I will remind my colleagues that these 
protections are meant to prevent environmental disasters. We see all 
across the country radioactive water spills, water crises, chemical 
pollutants seeping into groundwater and poisoning communities.
  These catastrophes are not just tragic, they are preventable. It is 
the American people, especially

[[Page H1514]]

marginalized communities, who are left with the consequences.
  We can make bipartisan strides to protect American energy and 
security. We can promote innovation without sacrificing our environment 
or State and Tribal rights. Unfortunately, this is not what the 
majority has brought to us. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri has 13 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Washington has 14 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the things I like to do in the Capitol is learn 
about the individuals who came before us and the wisdom and the 
knowledge that they possessed.
    Daniel Webster served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 
1823-1827. He is considered one of the great orators in the U.S. House. 
He actually also served in the other Chamber. A very good quote of his 
went on to say, ``Let us develope the resources of our land, call forth 
our powers, build up its institutions, promote all its great interests, 
and see whether we also, in our day and generation, may not perform 
something worthy to be remembered.''
  That individual is the only individual that is quoted here in this 
Chamber,   Daniel Webster, right up there on the wall above the dais. 
That first part is what says it all, ``Let us develope the resources of 
our land.'' That is exactly what we are trying to do so that we can be 
energy dependent on ourselves.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer) will 
manage the remainder of the time for the majority.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of clean water and 
in opposition to H.R. 1.
  I proudly represent New York's Hudson Valley, the birthplace of the 
modern environmental movement.
  In 1962, community members fought back against a massive, dirty power 
plant on Storm King Mountain, overlooking my alma mater at West Point, 
that would have pumped toxic chemicals into our Hudson River.
  Ultimately, that fight led to the passage of the National 
Environmental Policy Act, landmark legislation that to this day 
protects and preserves access to clean water, air, and soil.
  Tragically, my community has a long and well-documented history of 
big corporations dumping toxic pollutants, particularly PFAS, in our 
waterways. While there are many reasons I oppose this bill, I rise 
today to speak on this aspect, in particular.
  You would think that keeping toxic chemicals out of our water and 
away from our kids would be a priority for everyone in this body.

  Sadly, after reading this bill, that is clearly not the case. Rather 
than working to help families dealing with water poisoned by these 
forever chemicals, my colleagues are trying to pass legislation that 
will actually increase the prevalence of these toxins.
  Every single day in my district, we have kids in Newburgh and seniors 
in Middletown who cannot access clean water. Asthma rates across my 
district greatly outpace the national average because of these very 
pollutants. The Hudson River, which provides drinking water for over 
100,000 of my constituents, is still overrun with PCBs and PFAS. To 
introduce a bill that allows more PFAS and other contaminants into our 
water without any consideration of safety is an insult to my community 
and to the American people.
  I will vote against this bill.
  Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1, the Lower Energy Costs 
Act, which includes the Water Quality Certification and Energy Project 
Improvement Act. That bill is the one that I introduced alongside my 
friend and colleague from Louisiana, Mr. Garret Graves.
  One of many key components in this package, this specific part of the 
bill helps ensure development of our Nation's energy infrastructure at 
a time when it is most necessary. This is accomplished by clarifying 
that projects subject to section 401 of the Clean Water Act are 
approved or denied based on water quality alone.
  Unlike what my colleagues have been saying on the other side of the 
aisle that we are going to permit dirty water, et cetera, et cetera, if 
it is related to water, guess what, section 401 still applies.
  The water quality certification process has been and continues to be 
weaponized by certain States to stifle important energy projects they 
oppose, particularly pipelines, for political reasons completely 
unrelated to water quality and outside the scope and the intent of the 
Clean Water Act. That is all this particular provision addresses.
  Instead of fairly analyzing a project based on the Federal standards 
set forth by Congress, what has happened is States on the East and West 
Coast have increasingly weaponized section 401 for their own 
ideological purposes, again totally and completely unrelated to water 
quality.
  Here are some examples: In my home State of North Carolina, the 
Mountain Valley Southgate project was denied, not because of water 
quality but because the deciding bureaucrats hold an inherent 
opposition to the project as a whole.
  Projects in Washington and New York have been denied due to noise and 
cultural resources. Nothing to do with water quality.
  These are just a few examples of the weaponization of section 401 of 
the Clean Water Act statute.
  The language that is included here in this package quite simply will 
end this abuse.
  At a time when American energy production and distribution is under 
tremendous assault from some in this country, ensuring that America can 
build the energy infrastructure necessary to responsibly utilize our 
natural resources, unleash American energy independence, and lower 
costs for American families is a top priority that this broader bill 
achieves.
  Let me put it this way: Low cost, reliable energy is fundamental to 
prosperity. It isn't the only critical aspect necessary for a nation 
and her people to be prosperous, but it is awfully hard for a nation to 
be prosperous without it.
  Low cost and reliable energy helps America to produce more goods and 
therefore put downward pressure on inflation, and, boy, do we need all 
the help we can get. It will enable America to be energy dominant 
again, increasing American strength abroad. Put another way, it is 
critical to our economy, our food security, and our national security. 
That is why this legislation is so badly needed at this critical time 
in American history.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the Lower Energy Costs 
Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Sykes).
  Mrs. SYKES. Mr. Chair, I rise today to put on the Record my 
opposition to H.R. 1, the polluters over people act, for the many 
unnecessary and unhelpful provisions that would jeopardize the health 
and well-being of Ohio's 13th Congressional District and communities 
across this great Nation.
  I find it hard to believe that the bill designated as H.R. 1, the 
priority bill that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
uplifting, would increase the national deficit all while endangering 
our communities by creating unsafe drinking water. That is the 
priority, increasing the national debt and making us less safe.
  Everyone here agrees that we must ensure that the Federal Government 
is approving domestic energy projects safely and quickly, and we can 
all agree that the current permitting process leaves much to be 
desired. However, this process should not come at the expense of the 
communities who simply want clean drinking water.
  I have been in Congress, Mr. Chair, for about 3 months, and this is 
at least the second time this body has rejected clean water. All of 
this in the backdrop of a train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, 
just about 40 miles from my district. We know pollution knows no 
boundaries, particularly no congressional boundaries. Whether it is 
East Palestine or Portage County where I represent, I simply cannot 
stand silent as polluters attempt to poison our water.
  Further, Mr. Chair, I have listened to accusations of activist 
Governors who

[[Page H1515]]

would weaponize provisions of the Clean Water Act. For that reason, 
States like mine, Ohio, with a Republican Governor, Republican 
statewide leaders, and a Republican supermajority in the legislature 
should not decide how to protect the people of our State. Again, I am 
shocked about the total disregard of the people of Ohio simply to 
protect polluters.
  Mr. Chair, my community elected me to find bipartisan solutions, not 
pollute their water or pursue partisan politics, and that is why I 
offered an amendment that would allow States to decide what they 
thought was best for their community, and particularly in a State like 
Ohio where there is a train derailment that has jeopardized the water 
quality and safety in Ohio. However, that amendment was rejected.
  There is nothing partisan about wanting to make sure our children and 
our neighbors can drink a glass of water without worrying if chemicals 
like vinyl chloride are also being consumed. Time and time and time 
again, my colleagues are promoting and protecting polluters at the 
expense of our people, and I simply refuse to vote for this bill.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Tokuda).
  Ms. TOKUDA. Mr. Chair, I rise today to oppose H.R. 1, which puts 
corporations over people.
  Instead of focusing on the needs of the American people and combating 
the climate crisis, this bill is a shameful giveaway to polluters 
through loopholes and industry handouts.
  In Hawaii, we view the environment as more than just a resource. It 
is a sacred responsibility, our kuleana, to ourselves and to future 
generations.
  From ancient times, Native Hawaiians have sought balance from mauka 
to makai, the mountains to the sea, understanding the intimate 
connections we have to our precious, life-giving resources. This is the 
kind of future we should be striving for, one that promotes community 
and fosters responsible use of natural resources.
  Everyone deserves to have a seat at the table when it comes to 
proposed projects that could pollute their water and air, especially 
underserved communities and communities of color, which have 
historically borne the brunt of industrialization, resulting in 
disproportionate impacts to their health and safety.
  This bill does the opposite. In addition to shortening public comment 
periods, this bill would block lawsuits from anyone who did not 
participate in the comment period. Communities likely do not even know 
what projects are permitted, let alone the consequences of those 
permits, until well after the new proposed comment periods.
  The responsibility should be on developers and projects to win 
support from communities based on their merits and through meaningful 
public engagement. Instead, this bill puts the burden on ordinary, 
hardworking Americans to fight for their basic right to clean air and 
water.
  I urge my colleagues to do what is pono, what is right, and put our 
families, our keiki and our kupuna, above corporate profits and vote 
``no'' on the polluters over people act.
  Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina has 8 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Washington has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I have listened to some comments from my friends on the 
other side, and I am just going to share some examples of how section 
401 of the Clean Water Act has been weaponized. Some of these I touched 
on a little earlier, and some of these have yet to be stated, as far as 
I know.
  In Oregon, a proposed liquified natural gas pipeline and export 
terminal, which would have had the capability to liquefy over 1 billion 
cubic feet of natural gas per day, was blocked by that State. The 
reason? After giving the project applicants the runaround, Oregon 
denied the certification, citing incomplete information given to the 
State.
  Once again, that was a project that was estimated to have generated 
up to $100 million in revenue annually, blocked, just like that.
  Despite FERC finding that the project's plan for environmental 
mitigation and impact minimization was satisfactory, Oregon denied 
certification based on reasons outside the scope of the CWA, the Clean 
Water Act.
  My second example here comes from a proposed natural gas pipeline's 
37-mile extension that New York denied. The project would have added 
enough additional natural gas per day to meet the needs of 
approximately 2.3 million homes in a region where demand for natural 
gas is at an all-time high. Additionally, the project would add an 
estimated $327.2 million to the region's economy.
  Again, in this case, FERC concluded that any long-term effects would 
be limited to air quality and noise and that all project effects would 
be reduced to less than significant levels.
  Once again, the State forced the project applicants to come back 
multiple times with more documents, continuing to move the goalposts 
each time.
  When the State finally gave a straight reason for denying the 
project, they nominally cited ``indirect effects on water resources,'' 
but none of these were provisions of the Clean Water Act section 401.
  Those are just a couple of examples of how water quality wasn't even 
an issue. It was other aspects. They were just using the loopholes in 
the statute to achieve their end.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my 
time. H.R. 1, the bill before us today, is permitting reform in name 
only, putting polluters who want to fast-track special projects ahead 
of the public's interests. It includes unnecessary and unwarranted 
giveaways to fossil fuel and mining industries, and this polluters over 
people act also repeals historic investment in clean energy and climate 
change investments passed by the previous Congress.
  I agree with the administration's statement on this bill, which 
called for working in a bipartisan manner to address lowering energy 
costs and working in a bipartisan manner to reform the permitting 
process and to address our energy challenges.
  I know my colleagues want to speed up project delivery, and I share 
that goal, but it is not going to be achieved through H.R. 1.
  In the last Congress, the House and Senate reached a historic 
agreement to restore, upgrade, and advance our Nation's interconnected 
infrastructure networks through the bipartisan infrastructure law, 
including major investments in improving clean water infrastructure.
  A ``yes'' vote on H.R. 1 begins to pull back on our ability to 
maintain the promise of those investments. I urge my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle to consider what real bipartisan work on 
permitting reform would look like.

  Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Chairman, passage of H.R. 1 is critical for boosting 
our domestic energy production and lowering energy costs for all 
Americans.
  I thank Majority Leader Scalise for his leadership on this bill, as 
well as the chairman of the Energy and Commerce and Natural Resources 
Committees and our own chairman, Sam Graves, of Transportation and 
Infrastructure.
  As has been stated, this bill contains many provisions to help 
streamline the permitting process for energy projects, allowing America 
to unleash its domestic energy potential.
  I am particularly proud of division C of H.R. 1, which passed out of 
the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, that will stop States 
from using section 401 of the Clean Water Act as an excuse to block 
critical energy projects.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this bill, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.

[[Page H1516]]

LaMalfa) having assumed the chair, Mr. Lawler, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 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, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________