[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 56 (Tuesday, March 28, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H1518-H1521]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
URGENT NEED FOR PERMITTING REFORM TO SECURE AMERICA'S ENERGY FUTURE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 9, 2023, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber) is
recognized for the remainder of the hour as the designee of the
majority leader.
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the urgent need for
permitting reform to secure America's energy future.
H.R. 1, the Lower Energy Costs Act, will modernize our outdated
permitting process for projects and allow us to unlock the full
potential of America's energy and mineral resources.
I want to discuss the mining provisions of H.R. 1, which includes my
Permitting for Mining Needs Act. The district that I represent in
northern Minnesota, Minnesota's Eighth Congressional District, has 95
percent of America's nickel reserve, almost 90 percent of America's
cobalt reserve, 75 percent of our platinum group metals, and more than
a third of our copper--all of which are minerals needed for our energy
security and mineral supply chains.
It is unconscionable that a mining project in my district for these
minerals is on year 20 of permitting and litigation.
We have the resources and the workforce here in the United States, we
just need the will, the political will, to mine here. Whether it be
mining oil and gas, wind or solar energy, we support all of the above
and all of the best energy, but you can't have all of the above and all
of the best without permitting reform.
We also need permitting reform to build transmission lines, roads,
bridges, and more. Take Dairyland Power's Cardinal-Hickory Creek
transmission line project in Wisconsin, for example. This 103-mile-long
project is designed to put more wind power on the grid, but is
currently locked in year 7 of permitting because just 1.3 miles of it
is unlucky enough to touch Federal land.
This is simply unacceptable, and we can and must do better. If we
want to establish American mineral independence and dominance and end
our current reliance on the Chinese Communist Party, we must pass H.R.
1.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs.
Miller).
{time} 1900
Mrs. MILLER of West Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in support
of H.R. 1.
H.R. 1, the Lower Energy Costs Act, is about increasing domestic
production, permitting reform, reversing President Biden's anti-energy
agenda, and streamlining energy exports.
To be perfectly frank, the Biden administration has been putting out
anti-energy policies since his first week in office. He shut down the
Keystone pipeline and halted permits for domestic energy production
that we desperately needed.
He drained our Strategic Petroleum Reserve to try to stop the pain
from his terrible policies instead of coming up with real solutions.
Just last night, he tweeted that electric cars are the future.
I have never seen an administration so out of touch with the American
people, which is exactly why these same people affected by anti-energy
policies elected a Republican majority in the House of Representatives.
In the majority, our first priority is to bring down energy costs and
increase energy production. The Lower Energy Costs Act is just the
first of many crucial energy policies I am looking forward to seeing
over the next 2 years.
One of the pieces of legislation that I am looking forward to seeing
is the completion of the Mountain Valley pipeline. The Mountain Valley
pipeline is a great example of why permitting works and exactly why we
need more of it.
In this project's case, the administration isn't the problem. It is
the leftwing courts--which are more radical than Joe Biden, which
should really tell you something--that are holding up this important
pipeline.
When the pipeline is completed, it will be delivering natural gas
within months, meaning lower energy prices for Americans as supply will
dramatically increase.
There is no time to waste. Remember that energy security is national
security.
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for those comments.
She is spot on.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa),
the executive vice chair of the Western Caucus.
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for hosting tonight
and for his great work on mining in this country that we need so
desperately, especially with some of the ideas that are being pushed
forward in the name of climate change.
I appreciate Chairman Newhouse, as well, for organizing this.
What do we know about H.R. 1, the bill that was discussed here all
afternoon, known as the Lower Energy Costs Act? It will reform the
permitting process across industries, cut down on needless red tape,
and help drive down energy costs for Americans.
We heard all afternoon, though, that it is going to be a handout to
oil and gas companies--no, it is not; it is going to strip away
environmental laws--no, it is not; it will give companies free rein to
poison rivers and streams--yes, that is really what we are about here--
no, it doesn't do that either.
It is a monumental win for any American who wants to produce energy,
use energy, have their costs lowered, have a secure energy supply long
term instead of importing it from OPEC, China, or Russia.
The legislation we are talking about, the Clean Air Act, the Clean
Water Act, these were signed in the early 1970s by a Republican,
Richard Nixon. Republicans know how to do things ecologically soundly,
as well. You wouldn't know it from the other side of the aisle, or even
the press, but, yes, we are interested in doing things correctly.
Also, there is the reality that people need things. People need
energy. People need to stay warm. We need to produce crops in this
country instead of importing everything and exporting environmental
problems, if they are that, to other countries that do things much
dirtier than we ever thought about doing--to the Pacific Rim, China,
where have you.
Our natural gas that we produce in this country is extracted during a
cleaner process that is even cleaner fuel than what comes out of
Russia. That is why it is good if we were partners with Western Europe,
exporting natural gas to them instead of them getting it from a
pipeline from the Russian bear.
Despite this critical need for an increase in energy supply--the need
for the world is going to continue to go up. You may have seen the
chart earlier we were using where it keeps going higher and higher. Oil
and gas in the rest of the world are going to be part of that.
They are trying to clamp it down in this country. We are the only
ones that are going to be economically disadvantaged, compared to other
countries around the world, by doing so.
They yell at us about NEPA being untouchable and what we are talking
about in H.R. 1 being a heyday for polluters. It is not that at all.
What it does point out is it takes more than a decade to permit a
mine, more than a decade to get a new mine
[[Page H1519]]
going in America, for all these batteries they are going to want, for
all this electrical they are going to want. Canada and Australia can do
one in less than 3 years, and they are not ecologically unsound.
These delays and litigation make domestic energy production
unprofitable and time consuming, and it is just not going to happen
here, okay?
Critical minerals found in our mines are essential for renewable
energy infrastructure. Solar panels, vehicle batteries, and charging
stations are built with the minerals that are going to have to be
either mined in China or, with the help of Mr. Stauber, maybe they can
be mined in this country.
America always has some of the strongest environmental standards. We
are not going to shake those. We are just going to make a NEPA process
that is cleaner and smoother.
I haven't even got to talk about our forests in California and the
West yet. You have to have a NEPA to do the smallest thing, to have
access to the forests so you can tend to them, thin them, make them
safe, make them long-term healthy, or be able to get at them when fires
do start, which they will.
The current process is so cumbersome that it is a barrier to proper
management. That is why the smoke plumes that start in my State on a
million-acre fire end up on the East Coast, where people have to have
health days where they can't go outdoors.
We saw that million-acre Dixie fire in my district. We have seen
70,000 wildfires per year. NEPA does not help the process of thinning
timber or even putting a culvert in a forest road without having to do
this long study that doesn't tell anybody anything, other than a way to
stall things.
I am encouraging my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to break
away from the status quo. Don't buy into all these scare tactics that
it is going to poison the river, the air, and everything else. It
doesn't do that.
The regulations are still in place. It just streamlines the process
so you can reasonably get something done still with oversight from the
Federal agencies, as well as the industries themselves that understand
that, these days, it is a really bad idea to go polluting like we did
150 years ago.
I appreciate the time here tonight and the effort everybody is making
on H.R. 1.
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. LaMalfa for his very spot-on
comments, as well.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Baird).
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Minnesota for
yielding and the opportunity to spend some time on this program.
Mr. Speaker, today, the gap between rural and urban America has never
been wider. As our Nation advances and urban communities flourish, far
too often our rural communities, which are the backbone of this
country, get left behind.
Collectively, Hoosiers contribute nearly $200 billion to the U.S.
economy through our agricultural exports, in spite of the onerous and
outdated regulations that limit their growth potential.
Across west central Indiana, our farmers and growers continue to
express the same sentiment: We need to cut the red tape that limits our
producers and get the Federal Government out of the way.
On average, it takes new solar projects a little over 2 years to
receive the necessary Federal permits, over 3 years for electricity
transmission projects, and over 4 years for new major road projects.
Based on that timeline, Democrats' goal to reduce emissions by 50
percent by 2030 is totally unrealistic and unobtainable. Their own
onerous regulations and broken permitting process will be a death knell
for their radical climate goals.
The reality is that the current permitting process is limiting our
potential and stifling American energy production.
This shouldn't be a partisan issue. We all stand to benefit when we
empower rural America to reach their full potential, and who better
than the United States to be the world leader in energy?
Until we get out of our own way, we will continue to cede control to
countries like China, which lack any semblance of environmental
standards or ethical energy processes.
Passing H.R. 1 is a critical step to achieving our goal of unleashing
American energy, and until we take substantive action to cut this red
tape, the millions of tax dollars Congress dedicates to improving our
country's infrastructure will be squandered.
America's energy independence and rural America's success hinge on
our ability to create an efficient and modernized permitting process.
It is time for us to get the Federal Government out of the way and give
rural America the tools they need to continue feeding and fueling this
Nation and the world to the very best of their ability.
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments that
rural America matters. Their voice should be heard in our Nation's
Capitol.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley).
Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1, the Lower
Energy Costs Act, which does something a little unusual for a piece of
legislation. It actually does what it says it is going to do, the Lower
Energy Costs Act.
It is going to lower costs for Americans and, in particular, my State
of California, where we pay the highest energy costs in the country. It
will do that by lowering utility bills, by reducing gas prices, and by
reducing the cost of everyday goods by reducing the cost of transport.
It will do this by making our country more energy independent,
enhancing our capacity for domestic energy production.
There are a number of other benefits to this, by the way. It will
create jobs here in the United States. It will enhance our national
security. It is much better for the environment than energy produced
elsewhere.
It is the affordability facet that I really want to focus on because
my top priority as a member of this new House majority is focusing like
a laser on reducing the cost of living for Americans who have been
crushed under the weight of runaway inflation.
As background, the first thing that we did in this new Congress was
we voted to repeal the 87,000 IRS agents who were hired by the last
Congress. This is going to spare countless Americans, middle-class
Americans, from highly intrusive audits.
The next month, in February, I managed to secure an opinion from the
IRS. This was specific to California taxpayers. This reversed guidance
given by the California tax authority saying that you needed to pay
taxes on those tax refunds that you got in the mail last year or early
this year.
We managed to secure an opinion from the IRS saying you don't have to
pay taxes on that, saving Californians several hundred dollars with
that step alone.
It is H.R. 1, this bill, the Lower Energy Costs Act, that is the most
important step yet to lower the cost of living for people in California
and across the country. Here is exactly how the bill did this.
Number one, it is going to reduce your utility bills by repealing
$6.4 billion in taxes on natural gas. This was part of the Biden
administration's energy program last year, which, of course, caused gas
prices to go over $7 a gallon in many places. Also part of that was a
major tax that was placed on natural gas.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has found that this tax
is ultimately paid for by Americans through higher home heating costs
and utility bills.
{time} 1915
H.R. 1 repeals this tax, and consumers will pocket those savings
through lower utility bills.
The second effect of this legislation will be to reduce gas prices,
and that is primarily done through reforming our broken permitting
process. Now, this might sound like sort of an arcane issue, but it is
fundamental to the high, out-of-control cost of gas that we have been
dealing with in this country, where we have a broken permitting process
that blocks projects for months, for years, often indefinitely, through
never-ending Federal reviews, not to mention frivolous litigation.
[[Page H1520]]
This bill will streamline the permitting and review process by
capping reviews at 1 year for environmental assessments and 2 years for
environmental impact statements, more than enough time. There is also
going to be a 120-day deadline implemented on filing a lawsuit on final
agency actions concerning energy projects.
The bill also requires the Department of the Interior to resume
quarterly sales of onshore oil and gas leases, among many other steps,
which will unleash the American energy sector, create middle-class
jobs, and increase the supply of gas available to reduce prices at the
pump.
Finally, it is worth mentioning the other overall effect of this
bill, which is to reduce the cost of everyday goods and services. By
reducing the cost of gasoline, every good transported to a store,
whether it is groceries, furniture, or any other everyday necessities
are going to be cheaper to transport, and those savings as well will be
passed on to consumers.
I am proud to stand with my colleagues in the new majority in
supporting this legislation, in fighting to reduce inflation, and to
making the American Dream accessible to more people.
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Kiley for those spot-on words.
He demonstrated that H.R. 1 will save the American people money so they
have more money in their pockets, so they can take care of their
families. He is absolutely right. Higher energy costs for oil and gas
equal the rising cost in food prices.
The next speaker is my colleague and friend from the neighboring
State of Wisconsin and one of the vice chairs of the Western Caucus.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany)
for the purpose of a colloquy.
Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1, we heard that bill today. I had a
chance to speak on it, the Lowering Energy Costs Act. This is one of
the steps that we can take as this Congress to get the permitting
process under control, save money for Americans that seek to go through
this process, and have a healthier economy and environment.
In fact, I would ask my colleague from Minnesota: Aren't we all
environmentalists these days?
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I am the father of 6 children and Mr.
Tiffany is the father of 3. Nobody controls that term
``environmentalists.'' We are all environmentalists. He is right.
Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Speaker, we all care about the environment. It isn't
like 50, 60 years ago. In fact, we live in regions where I think about
our paper mills from decades ago where there was sludge that went down
those rivers. In fact, I ran our dinner and excursion boat on one of
those rivers, the Wisconsin River. People were so surprised when they
came on our boat and said: Wow, this used to be covered with sludge. We
didn't see eagles and loons and wildlife like that back in our day, but
we do see it now.
The same thing has happened in north Minnesota, hasn't it?
Mr. STAUBER. Absolutely.
Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Speaker, we just heard a statement from the
President that was read just before we came here as the Western Caucus,
and he talked about the infrastructure bill and other pieces of
legislation that are doing these wonders for Americans.
I would just point out a few flaws with what he is saying. If you go
to Vilas County in the Seventh Congressional District in Wisconsin,
right near where I live, and there is a small town that is attempting
to get a road project done via Federal funding with the infrastructure
bill. The quote that they have gotten, as a result of having to go
through Federal permitting, is $1.5 million. I think it is to fix 2.6
miles of road.
I went to a local road contractor and asked them: How much would it
cost if you didn't have to go through the Federal process?
Half of that, $750,000.
We are not going to get the bang for our buck and get more projects
done, including ones that could benefit the environment, as a result of
having to pay far more for that Federal permitting process.
Also, the President talked extensively about the Green New Deal and
this great thing that is going to happen to the United States of
America. Wisconsin was just warned this last year for the first time
that we may be subject to blackouts this summer.
Why is that? Because we are going to intermittent sources of power.
We are not replacing our baseload power.
The gentleman next to me from Minnesota knows all about a project
that is going on in a community right across from his hometown of
Duluth, Minnesota, in Superior, Wisconsin, the Nemadji Trail Project.
You are very familiar with that, aren't you?
Mr. STAUBER. I am.
Mr. TIFFANY. The Nemadji Trail Project is a natural gas project to
produce electricity to be able to provide that baseload power,
especially if we are going to go to more intermittent sources of power.
Guess what the Biden EPA is doing?
They have brought the hammer down on that project and said: We are
going to make you go through this permitting process even longer, which
has already been for 5 years. This is nearly a billion-dollar
investment to provide reliable, affordable, clean electricity for
people that live in the northland of the upper Midwest of Minnesota and
Wisconsin. Here, the Biden administration is trying to stop that
project. That is what is happening.
I say we can have both a clean environment and a growing economy. In
fact, I would say if we don't have a growing economy, we will not have
a clean environment.
What funds those environmental projects?
I saw it as a State legislator. What funds that is when we have a
robust economy.
I just think about when we had our business, Wilderness Cruises, my
wife and I, for 20 years.
When did we do well?
We did well when the industrial economy was doing well, when the
paper mills and the various industrial plants were doing well. When
they were doing well, we were doing well. When they didn't, we didn't
do well.
It is not mutually exclusive, the environment and the economy. Having
a healthy environment and a healthy economy go together.
It is time to reform NEPA. These are really modest changes that we
are making in the Lowering Energy Costs Act. We are not changing
environmental standards. We believe in high environmental standards,
but we need to do it in a more expeditious manner.
The gentleman from Minnesota, what did you say, 20 years for the
mining project?
Is that the Twin Metals project?
Mr. STAUBER. It is the PolyMet project, NewRange. Twenty years in the
permitting process.
Mr. TIFFANY. The Biden administration brought the hammer down on that
one also, didn't they?
Mr. STAUBER. And the Twin Metals one, correct.
Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Speaker, how are we going to have transition to this
electrified economy? How are we going to do that if we do not have the
metals to do it?
We can't. There is no doubt about it.
But let's be really clear. I thought the Speaker did a terrific job
today of laying out what the choice is.
Are you on the side of China and Russia, or are you on the side of
the United States of America?
That is really the choice. Because we are deciding at this point.
With bills like this, we are deciding: Is the 21st century going to be
an American century, or is it going to be a communist Chinese century?
The communist Chinese Government has made it very clear, they seek
world dominance, they seek to be the country of the 21st century that
everyone will turn to, just like America was in the 20th century.
The choice is before us. Is this going to be an American century, the
21st century, just like the 20th century, or not?
If you are on the side of America, you will be voting for the
Lowering Energy Costs Act.
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Tiffany.
Again, this is about modernizing our permitting process without
reducing any environmental standards, as he so clearly stated. We
appreciate those comments.
Mr. Speaker, as you can see, my Western Caucus colleagues have made
[[Page H1521]]
it very clear: we need permitting reform.
I thank them for their comments tonight, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
____________________