[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 57 (Wednesday, March 29, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H1542-H1615]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LOWER ENERGY COSTS ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tiffany). Pursuant to House Resolution
260 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration
of the bill, H.R. 1.
Will the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cloud) kindly take the chair.
{time} 1220
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1) to lower energy costs by increasing American energy
production, exports, infrastructure, and critical minerals processing,
by promoting transparency, accountability, permitting, and production
of American resources, and by improving water quality certification and
energy projects, and for other purposes, with Mr. Cloud (Acting Chair)
in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday,
March 28, 2023, 3 hours remained in general debate.
Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentlewoman from Washington
(Mrs. Rodgers) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) will
each control 90 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Washington.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 1, the Lower Energy Costs Act.
My goal as the chair of Energy and Commerce Committee is to make sure
Americans have access to affordable, reliable energy. This was a key
promise in the House Republicans' ``Commitment to America,'' and we are
hitting the ground running to deliver on that promise. This is just the
beginning.
Energy is foundational to everything. For centuries it has driven
human progress and development. It is why America has done more to lift
people out of poverty and raise the standard of living than anywhere
else in the world.
Today, over 3.7 billion people are living in energy poverty. That is
half the world. They have a 10-year lower life expectancy, 35 percent
fewer years of education, and many don't have electricity at all.
Here in the United States of America, we are blessed with the ability
and the resources to continue to raise the standard of living globally
and even lift people out of poverty.
Our goal today is to celebrate how our abundant energy resources have
unleashed prosperity and invited people from around the world to come
across the globe to America to achieve their hopes and dreams.
We have accomplished this as a leader in reducing emissions and with
the highest environmental and labor standards in the world. We cannot
afford to move backward with a reckless command-and-control so-called
climate agenda that forces people to pay more and go without reliable
electricity.
H.R. 1 prioritizes the American people over this radical climate
agenda.
On his first day in office, President Biden started a war on American
energy. Predictably, gas prices skyrocketed to the highest levels in
American history. President Biden revoked the permit for the Keystone
XL pipeline, imposed a moratorium on oil production on Federal lands,
and directed agencies across the Federal Government to impose punitive
and burdensome regulations.
As the American people suffered, President Biden turned to OPEC and
Russia to boost supplies. In the face of Russia's aggression, President
Biden looked the other way and green-lit the Nord Stream 2 pipeline,
emboldening Russia to attack Ukraine. The CCP now is deepening ties
with Russia and consolidating its control over more than 90 percent of
the world's critical mineral supplies.
To win the future, we cannot allow our energy security to be
surrendered to our adversaries. H.R. 1 sends the strong and
unmistakable signal to restore American energy dominance and bolster
our national security. H.R. 1 will unleash American energy, lower
costs, and secure our supply chains. This package helps lift barriers
to expanding our energy supplies, remove red tape for exporting and
importing LNG, and build more pipelines with our North American allies
and across the States.
It would repeal President Biden's burdensome natural gas tax, which
will harm communities, shut down production, and raise prices across
the entire economy.
H.R. 1 will encourage innovation and production of critical materials
here at home to cut China out of our energy supply chains and ensure
America is leading the world in innovation and next-generation energy
technologies.
We have heard a lot of talk, and Democrats are forcing a so-called
transition that requires the American people to suffer through supply
chains and price hikes. What Republicans are offering through H.R. 1 is
a commitment to energy expansion that will deliver on lower costs and
reliable and affordable energy.
The fact is, higher costs are making life unaffordable for
hardworking people in this country while forcing us to be dangerously
reliant on Chinese supply chains that are dirtier and use slave labor.
I think about the farmer who told us that this so-called climate
agenda is raising the cost of food and making it harder for farmers to
feed our families; an advocate who shared with our committee that
record-high energy costs hurt low-income and minority families the
most; and the mayor of Midland who told us her community is thriving
because of the investment in jobs the oil and gas industry brings.
We must embrace and expand America's position as the number one
energy producer in the world while continuing our leadership to reduce
emissions.
People all over this Nation are counting on us for a better quality
of life. With H.R. 1, we will boost energy production, lift regulatory
burdens for the construction of more energy infrastructure, cut China
out of our critical material supply chains, and lower costs across the
board. This is how we build a more secure future for Americans.
Mr. Chair, I urge support of H.R. 1, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1. The Republicans call it the
Lower Energy Costs Act. In fact, it does the opposite, and it puts
polluters over people, so we call it the polluters over people act.
That is justified because that is exactly what it does.
This bill is nothing more than a grab bag of Big Oil giveaways and
loopholes that endanger the health, safety, and security of Americans.
It does absolutely nothing to lower energy costs for American families.
In fact, it will actually drive up costs while doubling down on costly
fossil fuels.
Now, does the GOP really believe that Big Oil cares about Americans?
During the COVID crisis in the last 3 years, we had a hearing where
we brought in some of the large oil companies. It was quite clear that
they wanted to keep prices high. It was quite clear that they were
benefiting from OPEC and the fact that Russia had invaded Ukraine and
that oil supplies had become more limited because of that invasion of
Ukraine and that as a result, prices for oil and gasoline were going
up. They didn't care. They liked it.
We actually asked them at the hearing whether or not they would
increase
[[Page H1543]]
production because they have so many leases on Federal lands that they
don't use, and they said no. They said maybe eventually they would do
that, but they haven't gotten around to it yet. I don't think they have
gotten around to it still.
So this notion that somehow by benefiting Big Oil, the major American
so-called oil companies, that this is going to help the American
people, that is not their goal.
Last year, Big Oil's profits in 2022 were $451 billion, a record
high. The dividends they gave out and the stock buyouts amounted to
$163 billion. They only care about the stockholders. They don't care
about the price of gasoline. They want it to stay high. They don't care
whether Americans can afford gasoline.
{time} 1230
Chairwoman Rodgers, who I really respect a lot, talked about LNG. One
of the things in the bill is it removes the requirement--and I am going
to talk about other things it does--but it removes the requirement that
liquified natural gas exports be determined to be in the public
interest before being sent overseas.
That is going to lead to more American LNG being sent to our
adversaries, including China. This helps China. This doesn't hurt
China. This helps China. We know that there was a time a few years ago
when LNG exports were limited because of--I forget what caused it--and
during that period of time, the evidence shows the price for American
gasoline or American crude was actually going down.
When you send LNG overseas, it is not available here in the United
States. That actually lowers gas prices when you have more gasoline
available or more refineries available to process gasoline here in the
United States.
I debunk this idea that somehow this bill is going to lower prices
here, that somehow benefiting Big Oil benefits Americans, that somehow
exporting more LNG hurts China. These things simply are not the case.
The evidence proves very much to the contrary.
This bill, H.R. 1, I will call it the polluters over people act,
rescinds several transformational climate programs that the Democrats
enacted as part of the Inflation Reduction Act last year. What I am
trying to get across today is that at the same time that they are
helping Big Oil, not driving down prices, and helping China, the
Republicans are also tearing down all of the environmental laws that we
have had for the last 50 years and putting all the emphasis on fossil
fuels rather than clean energy.
The bottom line is, the only way that we are going to lower costs is
by encouraging clean energy. Yes, I agree with Chairwoman Rodgers that
the United States has to be a bigger energy producer, but the future
for that is with clean energy, not with pumping more oil and gas. It is
by encouraging clean energy because that is where we can be the big
producer. That is where the future is. That is where we can outcompete
the rest of the world.
What does this bill do?
It foolishly repeals the $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund,
which invests in high-impact projects that reduce pollution, creates
good-paying clean energy jobs, and improves public health. They
obviously do not want to do anything for clean energy.
It also repeals the methane emissions reduction program, which
protects the health of our communities and ensures that polluters, not
taxpayers or customers, pay for wasted methane. Let me use that as an
example. I want everyone to understand that when we passed the
Inflation Reduction Act and we were trying to cut back on greenhouse
gases which lead to global climate problems and the increase in global
warming, we worked hard to deal with those industries here that could
be affected. The Methane Emissions Reduction Act is a perfect example
that we worked with the independent oil producers because they said,
well, if you cause the methane that is wasted now and goes into the
atmosphere and causes this increased number of greenhouse gases, if you
work with us, we can accomplish capturing this methane and then it can
be recycled, but we need some money to accomplish that.
We provided them with a fund so they could make that transition. We
also said that if it took them time to get a permit to capture the gas
and provide a recycling program for the methane, that they would not be
penalized by doing that.
This has been characterized by the GOP as some sort of tax or fee on
the industry. It is really a penalty if they don't do what is necessary
to capture methane and avoid it going into the atmosphere. The same is
true for almost every provision that they seek to repeal here.
These are provisions that try to protect the public health, reduce
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but at the same time don't have a
negative impact on those industries that are hiring people and that
create jobs. At the same time, try to move toward new clean energy
things like wind, solar, and more hydropower, and other things that
actually do create more jobs, as we have proven that they have.
There are so many other things that repeal--I won't go through all of
them because I know that we have other speakers. The bill also repeals
the popular home electrification rebates that are specifically designed
to lower energy bills for American families. These are popular
incentives that will save families money and are urgently needed to
help us fight the climate crisis.
Republicans are rejecting all these things that help people save
money, help reduce greenhouse gases so they can double-down on the old
pro-polluter policies that they have had for years. This bill also does
nothing to meaningfully address permitting reform.
Its vision of permitting consists of letting polluters do whatever
they want, and instead, the bill becomes a sweetheart deal. The bill,
for example, doesn't include any changes to the transmission policy
necessary to ensure that clean energy can reach all corners of the
country.
Let me also give you a couple of other examples. The biggest thing
that they do to basically endanger all of our environmental protections
is they exempt so-called critical energy resources from the Clean Air
Act and hazardous waste permitting requirements.
They say if we label a refinery or if we label a utility as a
critical energy resource, then they don't have to follow the Clean Air
Act, they don't have to follow the Clean Water Act, and they don't have
to follow the Hazardous Waste Act. It is a roundabout way of saying
that we are just going to let all these industries do whatever they
want, even though it undercuts public health protections.
They do the same thing with toxic chemicals. We had a major toxic
chemical bill to try to cut back on toxic chemicals that needlessly
expose families and children to health risks. They basically get rid of
that by saying, oh, those facilities don't have to worry about
releasing toxic chemicals.
Mr. Chair, I end by saying this. Democrats understand that the
transition to clean energy is important. In fact, projects already
underway are valued at tens of billions of dollars and have already
created more than 100,000 good-paying jobs.
Our Inflation Reduction Act is estimated to create 9 million new jobs
over the coming decade and reduce energy costs by an average of $1,800
per year.
What we have done in the last few years as Democrats is to try to
move toward clean energy, understanding that you still have to have
fossil fuels and nuclear and other things, but understanding that the
future in terms of the U.S. being a major energy producer is in clean
energy, not in fossil fuels.
To just wreck and put a bulldozer through all our environmental
protections in order to encourage fossil fuels is just a huge mistake.
It is not going to lower energy costs. It is going to make it much more
difficult for us to reduce greenhouse gases and all the negative
impacts of climate change.
There is nothing in here. In my opinion, this bill is also going to
hurt us from a national security point of view because it does actually
help China and help our adversaries rather than making it more
difficult for them to compete with us.
Mr. Chair, I would urge opposition to the bill, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger), a
[[Page H1544]]
leader on the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. PFLUGER. Mr. Chair, I rise today to support H.R. 1, the most
important bill and the priority for this Congress.
When I came to Congress, I made it my mission to spread the word
about the Permian Basin, the heartbeat of American energy and the
largest secure supply of oil and gas.
I am incredibly proud to represent the men and women of the Permian
Basin, who have revolutionized the way we produce energy in order to
provide us with an incredible national security and economic asset.
Unfortunately, President Biden has demonized the very people that I
represent. He has demonized the people of West Virginia and
Pennsylvania.
From his policies, like killing the Keystone XL pipeline and shutting
down drilling permitting, but however, begging foreign dictators to
produce more oil, his rhetoric, literally promising to end fossil
fuels, he has used every tool in the toolkit to build a bureaucracy
that is completely obsessed and opposed to killing American energy. His
policies have driven energy costs and inflation through the roof.
Today, I say to the American public: You are going to hear a lot of
misinformation about the Inflation Reduction Act, which did nothing to
curb inflation.
Energy policies by this administration have increased costs for
American families. Americans are being forced to pay 40 percent more on
gasoline since the President took office, 20 to 30 percent more on
their electricity bills. It is all in the name of a climate crusade,
which can't even come close to what the Permian Basin and other
producing areas in this country have done to reduce harmful emissions
and provide affordable and clean reliable energy.
In fact, I spoke to the president of IPAA yesterday. What we just
heard was that the Independent Producers of America support the
Democrats' policies. That couldn't be further from the truth. I asked
them that. They said no, industry was not consulted.
Over the past 10 years we have brought down methane emissions by
almost 15 percent. No government mandate could come close to that. We
are only beginning to tap into the incredible asset that is liquified
natural gas. Not only is it good for our environment, but it is good
for the economy.
We heard this when we took the Energy and Commerce Committee on the
road and we talked to Mayor Blong in Midland, Texas, and we heard this
from the producers. Today, we will likely continue to hear about Big
Oil. The Big Oil boogeyman that doesn't actually exist.
The truth is, and I would face the Democrats, my friends and
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and tell you what the IPAA
told us, and what they continue to tell us: 90 percent of our energy is
produced by small, independent producers, companies that have 10, 20,
30 employees. Big Oil?
You are talking to the people of West Virginia when you say that.
When Democrats and this administration blame Big Oil, they are talking
about my district.
H.R. 1, the Lower Energy Costs Act is a complete rejection of the
Biden administration's anti-energy policies that have been aimed at
workers throughout this country for 2 years. We are fighting back. We
want to produce American-made oil. We want to boost American products
in order to reduce inflation.
I am extremely proud to have worked on this legislation that includes
my bill to reduce taxes on natural gas. This is just the beginning.
House Republicans are going to follow through on our commitment to the
American public and on our commitment to American families.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30
seconds to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. PFLUGER. Mr. Chair, passing H.R. 1 is just the beginning. The
American public put their trust in Republicans under Speaker McCarthy
and Chair McMorris Rodgers to lower costs, and that is exactly what we
are going to do by boosting American production instead of siding with
Russia, Iran, and China.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to stand with America to pass H.R. 1.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Tonko), who is the ranking member of our Environment
Subcommittee.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I rise in deep opposition to H.R. 1, or as we
have heard, the polluters over people act.
When House Democrats had an opportunity to bring an H.R. 1 to the
floor, it was to protect Americans' sacred right to vote and curb the
influence of dark money and politics.
Compare that to this H.R. 1, which is nothing short of a bonanza for
corporate polluters.
It creates loopholes in our Nation's most important environmental
laws, laws that exist to ensure Americans have clean air, that they
have clean water, and do not need to live in fear of industrial
accidents in their backyards.
It does this so that the richest oil and gas companies in the world
can indeed continue to achieve a record-breaking bit of profits at the
expense of everyday Americans. We know the best way for us to avoid
volatile fossil fuel price shocks is to become less reliant on fossil
energy by transitioning to a strong, clean energy future, one that will
also protect our air and our water and create millions of well-paying
American jobs.
This is exactly what the Inflation Reduction Act is doing. New clean
energy projects are underway across our country. There have been tens
of billions of dollars in domestic manufacturing announcements, which
will ensure that solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, EVs, and the
other technologies we will need will be made here in America.
This bill seeks to stop that progress. It would repeal critical
sections of the IRA. The greenhouse gas reduction fund will leverage
private funding to make clean energy investments across the country,
including in disadvantaged communities.
The methane emissions reduction program is going to drive down highly
potent climate pollution from the oil and gas sector. New rebates will
enable low- and moderate-income Americans to save significant money by
upgrading their appliances. These programs will be wiped out by this
bill.
{time} 1245
Mr. Chair, I am not opposed to examining how we can improve
permitting processes, but it must be done with the intention of
accelerating the clean energy transition--building out our transmission
infrastructure to enable our electricity system to be cleaner, more
reliable, and, yes, more affordable.
Unfortunately, this bill is only interested in giveaways to outdated,
outmoded, and polluting industries, not in bringing our energy system
into this 21st century.
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to oppose it.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer), who is a leader on the Energy and
Commerce Committee.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment I
introduced in concurrence with Representative Lesko to defend America's
ability to purchase and use natural gas stoves, a common household
appliance found in over one-third of American households.
Federal bureaucrats at the Department of Energy are threatening
access to natural gas stoves for millions of Americans through the
rulemaking process. This amendment would stop the DOE from denying
Americans the freedom to cook on the range of their choosing.
According to the Department of Energy's own analysis, in 2020, 38
percent of Americans used natural gas to cook in their homes. The
Energy Information Administration says cooking with gas is three times
cheaper than cooking with electricity.
Americans should have access to the cooking appliances that they deem
fit. They do not want or need the Federal Government to dictate what is
in their kitchens. The Department of Energy's own research estimates
that 50 percent of gas stoves on the market today don't meet the
proposed standards, which means these households would have to remove
them.
This is a direct attack on natural gas consumption in this country
and an example of the Biden administration's
[[Page H1545]]
desire to control every decision we make. Americans should have the
freedom to choose their appliances, and Federal Government intrusion is
unwarranted and unwanted.
Furthermore, this rule is essentially a tax on consumers, who are
already being squeezed by inflation. My Democratic colleagues may argue
that these rules were crafted with the purpose of saving consumers
money. The DOE estimates the regulation would reduce energy use by 3.4
percent, resulting in a whopping $21.89 saved over a gas range's
lifetime. This would save consumers $1.45 per year of the 15-year
lifespan of a gas range.
This minuscule savings indicates this regulation isn't actually about
consumers' pocketbooks. It is about Federal control at the behest of
the radical green policy groups.
People should be free to choose their cooking appliances based on
what they need rather than on what the government requires. If a
consumer wants a gas stove that cooks faster, then they should be free
to choose it, and if a consumer wants a gas stove that cooks slowly but
more efficiently, then they should be free to choose that.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 15
seconds to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, no one should have their choices limited by
Federal bureaucrats. In fact, these bureaucrats should not have the
ability to implement rules like this at all without congressional
approval.
This amendment shows the clear difference in vision between House
Republicans and the Biden administration.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support consumers and
their freedom to choose what they prefer in their kitchens by
supporting this amendment.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Colorado (Ms. DeGette), who is the ranking member of the Energy,
Climate, and Grid Security Subcommittee.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R.
1. This bill puts the needs of the oil industry over the health and
well-being of the American people. Instead of protecting the
communities we are here to represent, the bill will cause real harm to
people's health and further degrade our environment.
While my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim the bill
will help lower Americans' energy costs and make us energy independent,
in fact, the bill does just the opposite.
Here is why. By opening LNG exports and doubling down on fossil
fuels, this legislation will further increase our reliance on the
global oil and gas markets. It will further subject us to the
volatility of the global marketplace. Frankly, it will do nothing to
increase our security here at home because we simply can't drill our
way toward lower energy costs.
The only way to bring energy costs down here in America, and to make
our Nation truly energy independent, is to expedite the transition to
more renewable forms of energy.
In addition, any claim that this legislation does not touch some part
of our Nation's most important environmental laws is just untrue. The
bill decimates the laws that were put in place to protect our air,
water, and, most of all, our health. It repeals key provisions of the
Inflation Reduction Act, provisions that actually bring down the costs
for Americans and reduce emissions.
So now, instead of working with us to find real bipartisan solutions
to the crises we face, the majority severely limited amendments to this
bill in violation of the promises they made at the beginning.
I offered some commonsense amendments to the legislation that,
unfortunately, were not made in order. One would have restricted the
use of eminent domain for natural gas pipelines to ensure communities
have a voice in our energy decisions. The other would have required a
simple analysis to eliminate methane emissions from projects under NEPA
review.
However, we don't have the ability to have those conversations
because the majority doesn't want to hear it. I want to say what I said
in the committee markup: Mr. Chair, once my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle get this out of their system, I stand willing, ready,
and able to work on a bipartisan solution that will both help increase
our energy security in the United States and will make us independent
from a volatile foreign oil market.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), who is a leader on the Energy
and Commerce Committee.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 1. This bill
will unleash American energy and reduce gasoline and energy prices for
all Americans.
Look at this chart. Since Biden has taken office, gasoline prices
have gone up 51 percent, utility gas prices have gone up 44 percent,
and electricity prices have gone up for Americans 24 percent.
H.R. 1 is here to help Americans with these outrageous cost-of-living
increases.
I am honored that my legislation to disapprove of President Biden's
decision to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline was included in this
package. President Biden's decision to cancel the pipeline was a
terrible decision that led to increased gasoline prices and the loss of
thousands and thousands of jobs.
Now is the time to stand up for the American people. Now is the time
to help reduce the cost of gasoline, utility gas, and electricity. Now
is the time to support H.R. 1.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Mrs. Fletcher), who is a member of the Energy and Commerce
Committee.
Mrs. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, by its position, H.R. 1 reflects a top
priority of the House majority. There is much that my constituents in
Houston agree we should be prioritizing in this Congress when it comes
to energy--not only lowering energy costs, which is the bill's title--
but strengthening our energy security, ensuring and enabling domestic
energy production of all kinds, and ensuring our energy future.
That comes from serious legislating. That comes from listening. That
comes from stakeholders of all kinds coming to the table to grapple
with the competing interests here and come up with workable, durable
policy.
That is, unfortunately, not what we have in this massive bill and not
what we are seeing in this Chamber in our debates on energy policy here
or across the country. That is a problem.
I have warned and will continue to warn that the politicization of
energy policy and energy production is one of the most dangerous things
that is happening in this country right now, and I am sorry to see that
this debate is no different.
We simply cannot repeat cursory talking points and epithets that do
not get to the complex and urgent challenges in front of us. There are
real and dire consequences for our people who produce the energy that
we need and use every day and for our environment if we cannot get it
together enough to take this work seriously here.
We must move from politics to policy. I can't go through all the
policy in this bill in the time that I have here. However, I do agree
that we must reform the permitting process, that we should continue
exports of oil and natural gas, that we need an offshore leasing plan,
that we should increase offshore revenue to coastal States, that we
need to secure critical minerals, and other ideas contained in this
bill.
However, H.R. 1 contains so many unworkable provisions that create
unrealistic deadlines, threaten our national security, and repeal key
environmental and public health protections and programs--including the
historic work that we did just in the last Congress in the Inflation
Reduction Act to reduce methane emissions, incentivize clean energy
investment, and protect communities--that I cannot vote for the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Texas.
Mrs. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, the work we did in the Inflation
Reduction Act was to reduce methane emissions, incentivize clean energy
investment, and protect communities. Because of
[[Page H1546]]
that and because this bill repeals that important work, I cannot vote
for it.
People here in Washington understand that this bill is a messaging
bill that will not be taken up in the Senate. With this vote, this is
my message: When it comes to energy, it is time to put aside politics
and get to the policy.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Crenshaw), who is a leader on the Energy and
Commerce Committee.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, energy is the most important element of a
prosperous society. Nothing else functions without it.
Reliable electricity allows us to work at night, keep our sick and
injured on life support, heat our homes in freezing weather,
manufacture the materials that we use to build our homes, and powers
the systems that allow the public to watch these remarks right here on
this House floor.
Energy is connected to everything. The price of energy affects the
price of everything else, and the world devolves into the Dark Ages
without it.
This might explain why Republicans think an energy bill should be
labeled H.R. 1--because it is our number one priority, as it should be.
We have to introduce this bill because, bewilderingly, energy
security has been under relentless attack by radical leftists and the
Biden administration. They don't believe in energy security. They don't
believe in reliable, affordable energy. They seem to think that the
only energy worth pursuing is so-called renewables, solar and wind.
This is not sound policy or science. This has become a religion, and
it has become an irrational pursuit of intermittent, weather-dependent
energy sources that take up vast amounts of land, vast amounts
of resources to make, and vast amounts of critical minerals to be
mined. Still, it doesn't deliver the energy security the American
people need.
I am not against these things. It would be fine to pursue these
technologies if it didn't also come with a simultaneous attack on the
sources of energy that actually work--namely, oil and gas.
Every good thing you have in this world, Mr. Chairman, is because of
petroleum products--every single thing. Your shoes, your cars, your
iPhones, your Netflix, your Patagonia jackets, medical devices that
save your life, your heating, your cooling--literally everything comes
from petroleum products.
The attack on oil and gas has been relentless, and it has been deeply
foolish. It started with day one of the Biden administration and the
Keystone pipeline, then executive orders banning new leases on Federal
lands, and then refusal to permit pipelines. Then they turn around and
attack the suppliers and producers for higher prices. It is pure
gaslighting.
They have drained our Strategic Petroleum Reserve, all while
prioritizing the same crazy climate policies that have caused Europe to
enter an energy crisis and that are now causing developing nations to
be priced out of gas markets and turn to coal production.
This gets me to quite the irony here. The administration's policies
are more likely to increase global carbon emissions as a result, and
for one simple reason. I really want everyone to understand this. By
refusing to push for increased natural gas exports, we are shelving the
best tool for displacing coal power around the world.
Coal burned in foreign countries accounts for about 50 percent of
global power emissions. Natural gas is an easy substitute with half the
emissions. American natural gas could easily be leveraged to increase
prosperity for all and reduce emissions.
This is not rocket science. It is common sense. It is just math.
Promoting American natural gas is better for energy security, better
for our own affordability, and better for reducing global emissions.
There is no logical counterargument to what I just said. There is not
one.
Maybe--I believe this--the Biden administration actually knows this.
That is why they prefer oil production in foreign countries and beg
them to drill so that we can pretend we care about the climate while
allowing other countries to do the dirty work for us.
{time} 1300
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon).
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1,
and I urge my colleagues to vote against this dangerous and
irresponsible bill.
With extreme weather events becoming more and more frequent, and
climate change impacting our communities, agriculture, homes, and even
our national security, we need to work together to advance climate
rescue measures that move the U.S. away from fossil fuel dependence,
protect workers and communities, and strengthen environmental
protections, all while reducing costs to the American people.
This can't happen overnight, but instead of building upon the
historic, deficit-reducing provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act,
Republicans are trying to roll back that historic bill, and in the
process they are putting polluters over people and the planet.
H.R. 1 restricts community input by gutting NEPA. It forces the sell-
off of public lands and undermines the health of all Americans by
compromising air and water quality, all while adding billions to our
national debt.
Of particular interest in my district is that this bill would block
the EPA from requiring refineries to study alternatives to the use of
hydrofluoric acid--or HF--in fossil fuel processing. HF has the
potential to form a poisonous, killing aerosol cloud which can travel
for miles if it is released.
There have been dozens of accidents involving HF in recent years,
including a devastating 2019 explosion and fire at a refinery in my
district. That explosion put U.S. steelworkers and tens of thousands of
nearby residents at serious risk of death and serious harm. An
inspection found that the refinery lacked adequate inspection and
safety protocols to prevent a catastrophe. Essentially, it was a
miracle that no one died that night.
To safeguard against future accidents, I offered a commonsense
amendment to this bill that would require refineries with a history of
accidents or Clean Air Act violations to study alternatives to HF, but
my Republican colleagues refused to allow the amendment.
This refusal to consider past disasters to create necessary safety
standards tells us exactly what this bill is about: empowering the
fossil fuel industry at the expense of worker and community safety.
Again, I urge my colleagues to vote against this reckless bill.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), chairman of the
Subcommittee on Energy, Climate, and Grid Security.
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Chair, I thank the chairwoman for her leadership on
this bill. The Lower Energy Costs Act is a product of countless hours
of discussion between leadership, stakeholders, and our constituents,
who are tired of higher costs for less reliable energy.
The United States has an incredible energy potential. We have vast
resources of oil, natural gas, and other critical minerals essential
for energy dominance.
Only a few years ago, we were a global leader in both oil and gas
production. This was achieved through American innovation, domestic
energy production, and investment from the private sector in developing
our critical energy infrastructure.
Unfortunately, the Biden administration vowed to wage war on American
energy. Starting on his very first day in office with the help of the
Democrats here in Congress, the Biden administration has pursued
radical rush-to-green energy policies that made energy less secure,
less reliable, and more expensive for our constituents.
This has led to increased costs of energy and goods, hitting the most
vulnerable the hardest. We should be about increasing the standard of
living for Americans versus diminishing the standard of living that
these anti-American energy policies actually do.
Energy is the foundation of everything in American life. When the
cost of energy goes up, everything else does, as well. H.R. 1 should
help America and will help America produce more, deliver more to our
communities, and give us the ability to export and help our allies
around the world.
[[Page H1547]]
The American people recognize this, and they are sick of choosing
between paying their energy bills and putting food on the table, which
is why they gave us the majority, to stop this radical energy agenda.
I am proud that my bill, Protecting American Energy Production Act,
was included in this package. This provision will protect energy
security and affordability by prohibiting the President from imposing a
ban on hydraulic fracturing.
The discovery of natural gas through the shale revolution has made
the United States a leader in energy production as well as emissions
reduction and has allowed the United States of America, not our
adversaries, to set the price of energy.
We are approaching the breaking point in our energy infrastructure.
The so-called rush-to-green agenda has prevented the buildout of
natural gas and other essential energy infrastructure, which is now
reaching capacity. Many States, like my own State of South Carolina,
are now at risk of approaching an energy deficit in the next few years
if we don't immediately change our current regulatory framework.
Fortunately, H.R. 1 addresses these concerns by requiring States to
raise legitimate water quality concerns for interstate pipelines and
LNG export facilities through FERC's NEPA process instead of
weaponizing section 401 of the Clean Water Act to block pipelines.
This change is critical to prevent the political agenda of States
abusing section 401 to veto projects of national significance while
preserving the ability of States to raise legitimate water quality
concerns. New England States could finally get gas from the Marcellus
shale instead of importing natural gas from Russia, Iran, Venezuela,
and a lot of our other adversaries around the globe.
We have the resources here not only to meet our domestic demand but
also to be a leading exporter globally.
Representative DeGette mentioned earlier about capacity and U.S.
production and how that would limit available gas for American domestic
energy production. The Progressive Policy Institute, which is far from
a conservative think tank, put out an article, ``The Climate Case for
Expanding U.S. Natural Gas Exports,'' which talks about using that
domestically. I would ask you to read it.
This package also sets a framework to export our domestic resources
so our allies will no longer have to rely on Vladimir Putin's energy
oligarchy. The Democrats keep calling this the polluters over people
act. That couldn't be further from the truth.
The reality is that their energy policies put Russia, China, OPEC+,
and radical Green New Deal interests over the interests of the American
people. The greatest beneficiaries of their policies are the CCP and
Vladimir Putin.
Green New Deal policies leave us totally dependent on China for
critical minerals that make all of our devices work. Even the green
energy devices, wind and solar, need those critical minerals.
We have them here. We harvest them cleaner, more environmentally
friendly than anywhere in the world. Let's produce them here. That is
what H.R. 1 allows us to do.
H.R. 1 puts the American people first by unleashing American energy
and securing our supply chains. It will increase American energy
production and restore American energy leadership in the world. I urge
my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Castor), the ranking member of our Oversight and
Investigations Subcommittee.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Madam Chair, I thank Ranking Member Pallone
for his leadership and yielding the time.
Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the polluters over people
act, and I rushed here to the floor with some good news: This bill is
not going anywhere.
President Biden has already said that he intends to veto it, but it
is not even going to make it out of the U.S. Senate. I thought
President Biden spoke very well in his statement on his veto message.
He said, we are ``making unprecedented progress in protecting
America's energy security and reducing energy costs for Americans--in
their homes and at the pump. H.R. 1 would do just the opposite,
replacing pro-consumer policies with a thinly veiled license to
pollute. It would raise costs for American families by repealing
household energy rebates and rolling back historic investments to
increase access to cost-lowering clean energy technologies. Instead of
protecting American consumers, it would pad oil and gas company
profits--already at record levels--and undercut our public health and
environment.'' It will take us backwards.
In fact, a number of America's leading health organizations, like the
American Lung Association, the Children's Environmental Health Network,
and others wrote to Congress to say they oppose H.R. 1 and its attempt
to weaken the Clean Air Act to allow additional polluting energy
sources. They say, ``Years of scientific research has clearly
established that pollution is a threat to human health at every stage
of life--from inside the womb to adulthood.''
Burning fossil fuels not only contributes to a warming climate, but
higher levels of dangerous--and deadly--pollution.
The good news is, this bill is not going anywhere.
There is more good news for American families and all of us who care
about the moral obligation we have to our kids to provide a livable
planet.
Earlier this month, the International Energy Agency said it has been
the jump in renewables, not frack gas--it has been the jump in
renewables that has helped blunt a feared runaway in carbon emissions.
In the end, they say, global energy-related emissions are still on an
unsustainable growth trajectory, but--and this is thanks to the
outstanding wealth of renewable energy, electric vehicles, heat pumps,
energy efficient technologies--that we still have a fighting chance.
This was followed by more good news yesterday out of the U.S. Energy
Information Administration. For the first time in 2022 renewable energy
in America surpassed coal burning in America, and it is now outpacing
nuclear energy, as well.
Who is driving this?
I thought this was very interesting.
The Acting CHAIR (Mrs. Miller of West Virginia). The time of the
gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentlewoman.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. The States that are producing the most
renewable energy resources: In solar, California, Texas, North
Carolina; in wind, again it is Texas, Iowa, and Oklahoma.
Why is this happening?
Because renewable energy is the cheapest energy.
With the Inflation Reduction Act, the bipartisan infrastructure law,
the CHIPS and Science Act, we are about to lower energy bills
substantially for our neighbors back home.
Since we have adopted the IRA, the infrastructure law, we have also
seen $200 billion of private sector investments in the manufacturing
sector in America, in clean energy, electric vehicles, batteries, and
other manufacturing processes.
There is good news here. As we debate this bill, and the polluters
over people act goes nowhere, we continue to lower energy costs for our
families back home, lift American workers, and provide for healthier,
safer communities. We have an opportunity here to go farther and
faster. That is what is inspirational today, not the backwards policies
of the past.
Vote ``no'' on the polluters over people act.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks).
Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS. Madam Chair, polluters over people act. They would
rather put people stopping traffic to prevent you from getting to work
and people throwing mashed potatoes at art than they would the American
people.
I could not disagree with my colleagues more. Oil is a global
commodity. Prices went up when the President constrained supply.
How do we know that? His own actions.
What did the President do?
He went to Saudi Arabia and Venezuela to ask them to produce more
oil,
[[Page H1548]]
and then released oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve so prices
could go down just in time for the elections.
Among the 20 bills that make up this package, I draw attention to a
suite of bills focused on refining and processing critical minerals as
well as development of new mines for critical minerals on Federal land.
The critical minerals provisions in the E&C and Natural Resources
titles are helpful for Iowa wind, which produces 58 percent of the
electricity in the State. This allows Iowa to be a net exporter of
electricity and supports 230 blade manufacturing jobs in Fort Madison.
Ensuring we mine critical minerals in the U.S. and process those
minerals domestically is critical to securing our Nation's global
competitiveness and supporting many clean energy technologies as well
as supporting a cleaner environment from China.
Madam Chair, I also commend the significant strides we have made on
NEPA reform with the package combining measures to streamline
permitting reviews for energy products and mines. Importantly, H.R. 1
places clear timelines on environmental reviews, clarifies the scope of
environmental reviews, and puts sidebars on judicial reviews under
NEPA.
According to a recent poll from Citizens for Responsible Energy
Solutions Forum, 80 percent of people support policies that expedite
government review of infrastructure projects, which is why these issues
are at the heart of H.R. 1. As fiscal conservatives, we also take pride
in the fact that responsible permitting reform has the opportunity to
lower emissions while also costing zero taxpayer dollars and lowering
the costs of energy for consumers.
I am proud of the legislative wins in H.R. 1 to reduce energy costs.
We all want a cleaner, healthier planet for our children and
grandchildren and also affordable, abundant energy. H.R. 1 is a step in
the right direction. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
{time} 1315
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Carbajal).
Mr. CARBAJAL. Madam Chair, I rise today to share my disappointment
and to oppose H.R. 1.
As a Representative of California, I work to find solutions that deal
with price spikes at the pump, bring down high heating bills, and
deliver lower costs overall to my constituents.
You can imagine my optimism when I first saw on our agenda a bill
that supposedly aims at lowering energy costs.
When I read it, I was shocked to see that the only lower thing that
it does is lower standards for our Nation's polluters.
This bill doesn't deliver less cost to families. It only forces more
giveaways of our public lands to Big Oil, the same oil companies that
already have thousands of unused drilling permits.
This bill doesn't decrease energy prices. It increases the number of
loopholes in our public health laws.
This bill just doesn't fail to help families bring their utility
bills down. It actually repeals solutions that we put in place last
year to bring down heating costs and to help folks upgrade to more
efficient home energy appliances.
Higher levels of pollution, higher costs for families, and, let's not
forget, higher budget deficits to the tune of $2.4 billion over the
next decade--is that being fiscally responsible?
Madam Chair, putting polluters ahead of people is bad enough, but
actually raising energy costs and our Federal deficit while proclaiming
to care about this is even worse.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' so we can actually
work together to build on the laws we have passed that promote clean
energy, cut energy costs for families across the country, and reduce
the deficit.
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Latta).
Mr. LATTA. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 1, the Lower Energy
Costs Act, legislation offered by our majority leader that will fulfill
House Republicans' commitment to America and focuses on one of the most
pressing issues facing communities in Ohio and across the country.
Over the past 2 years, I have heard from countless people in Ohio's
Fifth District that the soaring cost of energy has negatively impacted
family budgeting, business operations, and agricultural output.
One retired individual told me that his gas budget plan went from
$100 a month to $160.
Farmers in my district were hit hard because of the need to fuel
their farm equipment and purchase fertilizer and other materials made
from petroleum products. In 2022, operating costs for ag producers went
up a whopping 30 percent. This resulted in higher food and grocery
costs for consumers, eating up a larger share of the family budget.
There is no way around it: Energy plays a huge role in America's
economy. Plants in northern Ohio, such as glass, steel, and food
processing, depend on reliable and affordable energy.
When I asked stakeholders at a recent Energy and Commerce roundtable
whether we need more or less power in the future to meet demand, it was
unanimous. Our economic future depends on the generation of more power,
not less.
Unfortunately, the Biden administration's policy of restricting
access to and production of energy resulted in higher costs.
After promising throughout 2020 that he was going to shut down
American energy production, President Biden came into office and
immediately canceled the Keystone XL pipeline, which would have carried
830,000 barrels per day from Canada. This ill-conceived order also
eliminated good-paying American jobs.
He then halted new oil and gas leases on Federal lands, slowed or
halted the permitting process for new oil and gas projects, and
authorized financial regulators to issue new rules to make it harder to
invest in the oil and gas industry.
Instead of recognizing that his failed policies were causing prices
to increase, the administration called on countries like Russia,
Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and other OPEC nations for relief and
authorized historic releases from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve to
manipulate the markets.
To the surprise of no one, all of these gimmicks failed, and the
American people have paid the price. That ends today.
H.R. 1 represents the culmination of our early efforts to solve the
problem of lowering energy costs. It will increase domestic energy
production, reform restrictive and costly permitting processes, reverse
the Biden administration's anti-American energy policies, and boost the
processing and production of critical minerals.
This legislation also includes my bill, the REFINER Act, to boost
refining capacity in the United States. In order to meet the energy
demands of the American people, we need more refining infrastructure to
transform products into fuel and other petroleum products.
We also need increased capacity to keep the prices of everyday goods
down, like medicine, hygiene products, clothing, home improvement
products, and more.
The REFINERY Act will provide us with the much-needed blueprint to do
just that, and I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Minnesota (Ms. Craig), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Ms. CRAIG. Madam Chair, like many of my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle here today, I believe we need an all-of-the-above energy
approach in this country.
As a Member of Congress representing a district that is 65 percent
covered in corn and soybeans every single summer, that all-of-the-above
approach includes strong support for biofuels.
When prices at the gas pump were rising last year, I worked across
the aisle to pass legislation allowing for the year-round sales of E15
through this House. This was the first time a bill like this passed
this body.
Renewable fuels like E15 are made with a higher ethanol blend than
regular gasoline and can sell for up to 40 cents less per gallon in
Minnesota.
Investments in E15 and biofuels mean new markets for our family
farmers growing corn and soybeans in my district, and it means giving
our domestic energy supply security and reinforcement as we work to
increase U.S. energy independence.
[[Page H1549]]
I am proud to have worked last summer to pass the largest investment
in biofuels in our Nation's history through the Inflation Reduction
Act.
This is a game changer for corn growers and soybean farmers in my
district, and it is a commonsense way to help protect our environment,
strengthen our energy independence, and lower costs for Americans.
The Inflation Reduction Act included many more investments in
renewable energy and important reforms to our oil and gas leasing
practices.
Today, House Republicans are putting forth hyperpartisan legislation
to roll back the climate progress we made in the last Congress, gutting
clean air and drinking water protections and giving handouts to
polluters.
Their so-called all-of-the-above energy bill does not contain even a
discussion of biofuels. There were amendments offered by my colleague
in Iowa to include biofuels in this legislation. Republicans blocked
them.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Minnesota.
Ms. CRAIG. Madam Chair, it is one thing to say you support an all-of-
the-above energy approach. It is entirely another thing to actually do
it.
I will work with anyone to lower costs for my constituents and to
support Minnesota farmers, but this bill is a handout to Big Oil and a
slap in the face to family farmers.
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Chair, let me just say it is great to see the
American people in the gallery for once listening to a debate on
energy. It is so important to them.
Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr.
Fulcher).
The Acting CHAIR. Members are reminded not to reference occupants of
the gallery.
Mr. FULCHER. Madam Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 1, which will
reinsert America back to its proper place as the world's leader in
energy and critical mineral production.
My home State of Idaho is blessed to be rich in natural resources,
especially when it comes to critical minerals. Right now, there are
revolutionary innovations in technology industries, transportation, and
healthcare, and they all have one thing in common: an increasing need
for certain critical minerals.
Idaho contains an abundance of these minerals, including cobalt,
lithium, and antimony. These resources not only can help the United
States meet domestic demand, but they can also help fulfill global
demand and bring prosperity to communities lacking high-paying jobs.
As part of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I voted for many of
these provisions in H.R. 1 that support access to critical minerals in
American soil and require the Department of Energy to identify
resources vulnerable to supply chain disruptions.
Unfortunately, the Biden administration has proliferated policies
that have ceded America's place as a responsible, productive source of
critical minerals to foreign nations, many of which are hostile to
Americans.
For example, instead of Idaho and America producing the world's
antimony, China and Russia account for more than 75 percent of the
world's supply. Instead of Idaho and America fulfilling the global
demand for cobalt, it comes from the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
a country with a horrifically bad human rights record. That has to
change.
Madam Chair, today, we offer Americans an all-of-the-above energy
strategy that will reverse the America last policies currently in
place. H.R. 1 will secure domestic energy supply and allow America to
control its own destiny by restoring its position as a global leader in
production.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cardenas), a member of our committee.
Mr. CARDENAS. Madam Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1, the
polluters over people act.
I am upset that the Republicans have brought forth this bill, which
sells out the health and well-being of the American people.
For decades, scientists have warned of the devastating impacts that
human-caused climate change will have and do have on our planet.
Consider even the first 3 months of this year.
In January, Alabama and Georgia were hit by severe storms, straight-
line winds, and tornadoes that caused at least nine storm-related
deaths.
In January and March, my home State of California experienced severe
winter storms, flooding, and mudslides that ended in at least 27 storm-
related deaths across the State combined.
Just last week in Mississippi, there was devastation by severe storms
and tornadoes that resulted in 26 people dying.
H.R. 1 fast-tracks offshore oil and gas developments, guts bedrock
environmental and public health laws, silences communities, and
reverses the significant progress that we made through the Inflation
Reduction Act.
These are your Republican Representatives bringing forth this bill.
They are selling out the American people for oil profits.
Last Congress, Republicans had the choice to join Democrats as we
worked to deliver a historic $369 billion in climate action and clean
energy investments through the Inflation Reduction Act. Instead, they
have chosen to advance bills like this that, if implemented, will
worsen the climate crisis and put our children and grandchildren on a
path to an unlivable future.
Madam Chair, this bill chooses to put polluters over people, and I
urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1.
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Chair, I am glad the people at home are watching
this on TV or here in person because they are learning that H.R. 1 is
going to lower their energy costs.
Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Weber), who is a valuable member of the Energy and Commerce Committee
and whose State is a huge energy producer for our Nation.
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Madam Chair, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Madam Chair, this bill is absolutely critical to our Nation, critical
for hardworking Americans, not to mention critical for national
security.
We produce energy cleaner, more efficiently, and cheaper than any
other country. We need to start acting like it.
The best way to reverse the damage of Biden's energy crisis and drive
down energy prices is by flipping the switch and unleashing American
energy at home.
We have real solutions in H.R. 1 to do just that very thing.
Bills like Representative Crenshaw's Keeping America's Refineries Act
will help ensure that our Nation's refineries can continue to operate
and keep the lights on in our country.
My energy-heavy district, as the chairman referred to, houses about
50 percent of Texas' daily refining output. Our district is home to
America's largest petroleum refineries, which process 2.6 million
barrels of oil a day. This bill will ensure our refineries stay online.
This bill fights back on overburdensome regulations imposed by the
Biden administration that target the use of hydrofluoric acid that goes
into everything from aluminum cans to vehicle fuel cells.
Our country simply cannot run without energy, and let me tell you: We
can't afford to live in the greenies' dystopia that the folks on the
other side of the aisle dream about, either.
Madam Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this
vital piece of legislation that will unleash American energy, lower
energy costs for hardworking Americans, increase production, reform the
drawn-out permitting processes, streamline energy infrastructure, and
boost the production and processing of critical minerals. Our country
depends on it.
{time} 1330
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Matsui), who is the ranking member of our
Communications and Technology Subcommittee.
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Chair, I rise today to reaffirm my commitment and
that of my Democratic colleagues to reducing energy costs for the
American people.
Last Congress, we delivered a historic bill, the Inflation Reduction
Act, that will save Americans money and make transformative investments
to fight climate change.
[[Page H1550]]
The High-Efficiency Electric Home Rebate Program, in particular,
gives Americans up to $14,000 to electrify their homes and improve
energy efficiency. It covers up to 100 percent of electrification
project costs for low-income households, who often bear the brunt of
both high-energy costs and extreme weather.
I know this program will save lives and money because the Sacramento
Municipal Utility District, or as we call it SMUD, is doing this in my
district. Last November, I visited a constituent, a retired nurse whose
home had been fully electrified and weatherized by SMUD. This includes
a heat pump, water heater, induction stove, ceiling fans, energy-
efficient refrigerator, and insulation.
The Inflation Reduction Act would allow SMUD to significantly expand
this program, which would positively impact my constituents.
H.R. 1 would repeal the home rebate program. This legislation would
repeal a program that could save Americans up to $14,000. This is
nothing more than a shameless giveaway to Big Oil when we need to be
accelerating the clean energy transition.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Dunn), a new member on the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. DUNN of Florida. Madam Chair, I rise today to express my support
for H.R. 1.
With this bill, the days of America's dependence on imported energy
are beginning to come to a close.
Under President Biden, gas prices have skyrocketed, leases for oil
and gas have been canceled, and electricity prices have soared.
Thankfully, multiple committees have come together to provide a
multilateral solution to these problems.
When H.R. 1 becomes law, it will lower energy costs and unleash
American energy, providing clarity for critical infrastructure
investors.
It will streamline energy permitting and exports and repeal the new
natural gas tax imposed by the Biden administration.
House Republicans are delivering on our promise to reestablish the
days of American energy independence.
Importantly, H.R. 1 slashes burdensome regulations that make it
difficult and unappealing to build in America.
Eliminating these barriers in conjunction with comprehensive
permitting reform will reverse the Biden administration's radical
energy policies that destroyed American dominance in the energy space
and compromised our national security.
Simply put, H.R. 1 will unleash American innovation and unlock
American resources for future generations.
I look forward to voting ``yea'' on H.R. 1, and I encourage my
colleagues to do the same.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Higgins).
Mr. HIGGINS of New York. Madam Chair, I thank the ranking member for
yielding.
I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1. My community of Buffalo and
Niagara Falls are all too familiar with the devastating consequences of
decisions that put polluters over people.
Toxic waste dumped by Hooker Chemical in the 1940s contaminated the
Love Canal neighborhood of Niagara Falls. President Jimmy Carter
declared a Federal health emergency, and Congress passed the Superfund
Act with Love Canal becoming the first cleanup site.
In 1968, the Buffalo River caught fire due to industrial
contamination and was considered biologically dead.
Atrocities like this led to the approval of the Clean Water Act in
1972 and have required hundreds of millions of dollars annually for the
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.
After residents sounded the alarm for years, in 2013, Tonawanda Coke
was found guilty of deliberately releasing cancer-causing benzene into
surrounding neighborhoods, a violation of the Clean Air Act.
The Superfund Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Clean Air Act were
each put in place after historically unchecked pollution impacted the
health of our waterways, communities, and families.
H.R. 1 removes safety protections, lessens accountability for
violators, and diminishes public input.
If this bill were in place 10 years ago, western New York neighbors
would have had no recourse to address the carcinogens and toxic
substances released into the air by Tonawanda Coke.
We can't let polluting history repeat itself.
I am voting ``no'' on H.R. 1 and encourage my colleagues who care
about the health and future of our communities to do the same.
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Chair, I am glad we have got so many members of the
Energy and Commerce Committee to come down and show the American people
how we are going to lower their energy costs.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), a
real leader on the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. WALBERG. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Chair, here is the deal: It is January 19, 2021. Gas is $2.38
per gallon. We had just replenished our Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
American energy dominance provided stability across the geopolitical
landscape.
The following day, the war on domestic energy began with the
cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline and executive action
restricting domestic production.
In a matter of mere months, gas prices would reach record highs. Our
emergency reserves would be tapped for political purposes, and we would
be begging adversaries to increase their production while an empowered
Russia and an empowered China both eyed territorial expansion.
This is what the radical Green New Deal looks like in implementation.
My constituents have told me about the energy bills that they can't
budget for, the unaffordable rate spikes in peak hours, and even
stories of gas tanks being drilled into.
Everything costs more when energy costs more.
With H.R. 1, energy will cost less.
The Lower Energy Costs Act will unleash domestic production. H.R. 1
includes permitting reforms, increased production and processing of
critical minerals, and an undoing of the Biden administration's
regulatory stranglehold on the energy sector.
In Michigan, activists have long eyed shutting down Line 5, an
essential international pipeline sustaining 34,000 jobs across the
Midwest and billions in economic activity.
Language I authored, included in H.R. 1, would protect these
pipelines from being unilaterally shut down by an overzealous executive
branch.
Prosperity, opportunity, and security are on the line.
I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 1.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Oregon (Ms. Salinas).
Ms. SALINAS. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1, the
polluters over people act.
Vladimir Putin's war on Ukraine demonstrated that the clean energy
transition isn't just important for our planet, it is important for our
national security.
It revealed the dangerous pitfalls of our overreliance on global oil
and gas markets. The solution is not to deepen our reliance on fossil
fuels, it is to go all in on clean, American energy. We need to ramp up
solar, wind, hydrogen, and other similar projects across the country.
Oregon is poised for this type of investment in development.
However, H.R. 1 doesn't do that. Instead, it repeals major clean
energy programs, even going so far as to target the home
electrification rebate designed to help American families make their
homes energy efficient, yet another petty, retributive action by House
Republicans.
This bill worsens the climate crisis and hampers our ability to
produce clean energy here at home. It is a disaster in the making.
I also want to talk more specifically about my community back home.
Oregon's Sixth District is home to hundreds of specialty crop farmers
who grow everything from blueberries to wine grapes and hazelnuts. The
farming tradition in the Willamette Valley dates back centuries. It was
even publicized in the 1820s as a ``promised land of flowing milk and
honey.''
Today, this land faces a serious threat. Specialty crop growers in my
district recognize the imminent danger the climate crisis poses to
their farming tradition. Many are already feeling
[[Page H1551]]
the impacts of our warming planet as extreme drought, heat waves, and
wildfires diminish crop yields and endanger farmers' livelihoods.
H.R. 1 would exacerbate the climate crisis, and further threaten
Oregon's future. This bill would repeal key clean energy programs in
favor of unmitigated fossil fuel production, leading to more emissions
and harmful climate impacts.
For all these reasons and more, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no''
on this legislation.
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Chair, the rush to disaster is this rush to green
energy policies without thinking about the replacement source of power
generation that can be provided by American-produced natural gas,
delivered to where it needs to be to produce the power and help lower
carbon emissions for America.
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Rose).
Mr. ROSE. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 1, the Lower
Energy Costs Act because lowering energy costs is a top priority of
Tennesseans.
Since President Biden took office, energy costs have skyrocketed. To
make matters worse, congressional Democrats poured gasoline on the fire
by passing a $370 billion Green New Deal giveaway that has done nothing
to address the root cause of record-high energy costs and inflation.
My neighbors often ask, Why have energy costs gone up so much, so
quickly? Why is the President not doing anything about it?
Unfortunately, the Biden administration prioritizes the demands of
woke, leftwing activists that would rather hold our economy hostage
than promote the cleanest, most affordable energy produced right here
in the United States.
Madam Chair, because of the reckless policies of the Biden
administration, Republicans have many priorities this Congress, but our
number one priority is to lower energy costs on behalf of the American
people.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez).
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Madam Chair, I rise today to oppose the
polluters over people act and the mining provisions that will make it
easier for foreign-owned companies to pollute our lands and waters and
destroy our Tribal cultural resources.
America's 150-year-old mining law already fails to protect our
communities from irresponsible mining. We see that in the thousands of
abandoned mines that dot New Mexico and the West.
H.R. 1 would only make it worse, threatening our water and, as we
know, ``agua es vida,'' ``water is life.''
I am disappointed that the Republicans blocked my amendment to stop
mining exploration on public lands if it harms our water, farmers, and
Tribal communities. Do they not care about our most essential resource,
our water?
Indeed, some proposed mining projects are from subsidiaries of
foreign companies like Resolution Copper in Arizona, which has ties to
the Chinese Communist Party. Why are they protecting the Chinese
Communist Party's subsidiary mining our precious resources?
That mine would devastate Tribal cultural resources and threaten our
precious water resources.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this polluter over people act.
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Cammack), who is a valuable member of the Energy and
Commerce Committee.
Mrs. CAMMACK. Madam Chair, I thank my friend and colleague for
yielding.
Madam Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 1. This administration,
the Biden administration, has stonewalled American energy production,
quite literally, from day one.
The permit for the Keystone XL pipeline was revoked just hours after
Biden's inauguration, and permitting for new oil and gas leases were
halted soon thereafter.
The results were predictable. Americans endured historically high gas
prices, with Floridians paying, on average, $4.80 per gallon last
summer. Government restriction and regulation fanned the flames of
inflation already burdening Floridians and Americans at gas pumps and
grocery stores.
{time} 1345
We, as Republicans, have a responsibility to uphold our Commitment to
America. H.R. 1 will be the cornerstone of fulfilling that commitment
to our friends and neighbors in Florida's Third District.
We will start by overhauling our permitting regulations. This
administration has effectively frozen all new oil and gas exploration
permits, severely handicapping our ability to fulfill the energy
demands of Americans.
We can choose to rely on energy imports from hostile nations and
fair-weather friends, or we can utilize the vast potential of our
energy sector to meet our needs more efficiently and cleanly.
Our energy requirements extend to nearly all of our most vital
industries, arguably none more important than our agricultural sector,
because a nation that cannot feed itself cannot be safe. Essential
inputs, from fertilizer to gasoline for tractors, are directly reliant
on the price of energy. Unleashing the power of our energy will keep
the costs of businesses low for our producers and prices low at the
grocery store, benefiting all Americans.
Repealing export restrictions on LNG, liquefied natural gas, will
exponentially grow our share of global gas markets. The largest LNG
bunker barge, the Clean Canaveral, just completed its inaugural
bunkering in Jacksonville, Florida, making the Sunshine State a new hub
for natural gas. Floridians stand to benefit greatly in jobs and
economic growth from the reduction of regulations and LNG exports.
Madam Chair, I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 1.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).
Ms. DEAN of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R.
1, the polluters over people act.
Environmental protection and smart regulation, alongside responsible
businesses and every single one of us, will save our planet for the
next generation, for my four grandchildren, and for your grandchildren.
When my granddaughter, Aubrey, was only 5 years old, she attended an
issues conference with a national candidate who asked Aubrey what she
cared about. Aubrey responded, ``Trash on the playground. How do we fix
that?'' a simple yet important question.
One of our most basic jobs is to protect our natural resources,
protect this global playground, and regulate companies to ensure that
they are not able to abuse and pollute our planet.
The deregulation that H.R. 1 allows will pollute our planet and harm
health. This legislation guts critical investments in climate change,
balloons the deficit, and rolls back key environmental standards, all
while failing to address energy costs for Pennsylvania's families.
They are trying to do this at the same time we are seeing some
consequences of deregulation right in Pennsylvania, leading to
environmental disasters that could poison American families, like the
derailment of the train and environmental disaster in East Palestine,
Ohio, affecting, of course, Pennsylvania's Pittsburgh suburbs, and,
most recently, the pollution of water in Philadelphia.
It seems we need more regulation, not less.
Madam Chair, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle either
forget or simply do not know that it was a Republican President,
Richard Nixon, who, in 1970, proposed the Environmental Protection
Agency, and it began operation that same year.
In the early 1970s, Pennsylvania passed a brilliant constitutional
amendment, article I, section 27, which says Pennsylvanians are
guaranteed the right to clean air and clean water and to the protection
of our natural aesthetics for generations to come. This beautiful
amendment is a reminder to all of us that we should not pass H.R. 1.
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Chair, it is funny. I see polluters over people
act. We are talking about increasing natural gas production and
delivery in this country. According to EIA data, switching to natural
gas has accounted for as much as 61 percent of U.S. emissions
reductions from 2005 to 2020.
More natural gas--cleaner burning, American-produced natural gas--
delivered to where it needs to go will help
[[Page H1552]]
us lower carbon emissions and make America more energy secure.
Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Madam Chair, I stand here before you today because the
American people are hurting. Over the past few years, they have been
forced to cope with skyrocketing costs, a direct result of President
Biden's misguided energy policies.
With every step the President has taken to restrict domestic energy,
from canceling the Keystone pipeline to placing a ban on new drilling,
it has become much harder for Americans to make ends meet. Fortunately,
Republicans have a solution to this problem that will increase domestic
energy production.
The United States is home to some of the largest reserves of oil and
natural gas anywhere in the world. The Lower Energy Costs Act will
allow us to tap into these resources so we can drive down the cost of
energy and combat the out-of-control inflation that has devastated the
American family.
Our legislation will increase American energy production, reform our
broken permitting process, reverse President Biden's anti-energy
policies, and improve the construction of energy infrastructure.
H.R. 1 also protects our energy future by boosting production of
critical minerals, making us less reliant on our adversaries such as
China.
Under the leadership of Chair Rodgers, my colleagues and I on the
Energy and Commerce Committee have been working to shape policies that
will unleash American energy and lower costs for our families. H.R. 1
represents our commitment to fighting for an economy that is strong and
a nation that is safe.
This bill will help reduce our reliance on foreign oil, which would
not only benefit our economy but also strengthen our national security
and our safety.
The left's dream of a Green New Deal future has turned into a
nightmare, and it is time for the President to wake up. With prices
nearing record highs, the need to unleash American energy has never
been more pressing and important.
This body must take immediate action to lower energy costs, fight
inflation, and secure our energy future, and this bill will do it.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1, the
Lower Energy Costs Act.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman).
Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R.
1, the polluters over people act.
This bill is nothing more than a shameless handout to fossil fuel
companies, and it speaks volumes that House Republicans have made it
their number one priority for the 118th Congress.
My colleagues across the aisle have once again chosen to side with
their Big Oil buddies and stand against the American people, our
planet, and our future.
Let me be clear: The last thing that Big Oil needs is another
handout. Last year, we all felt pain at the pump while fossil fuel
companies raked in record profits. When House Democrats voted to crack
down on gas price gouging, Republicans voted ``no.''
With their new majority and this bill, Republicans are letting us
know exactly where their loyalties lie and the lows that they will sink
to in order to appease those special interests. They are even giving
polluters free rein to dump toxic waste on our public lands.
The Republican Party has made it clear that they are happy to poison
our planet if it helps their fossil fuel friends make a quick buck.
Under the polluters over people act, working families will pay the
price, literally. Through taxpayer-funded subsidies and reckless
deregulation, Republicans are rewarding Big Oil for bad behavior, and
this time, they are not even hiding it.
Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to please oppose this.
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Chair, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), whose State is at the crossroads
of America.
Mr. BUCSHON. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 1, the
Lower Energy Costs Act.
Only a few years ago, our country was comfortably meeting our energy
needs with our own production. Under President Biden's reckless energy
agenda, however, we have dramatically increased our dependence on
foreign oil, sent gas prices sky-high last year, and increased the cost
of energy bills for Americans and the people in Indiana who I
represent.
House Republicans made a commitment to America that we would end the
war on American energy, and we are demonstrating that commitment today
by passing H.R. 1.
This bill will flip the switch on domestic energy production,
reversing the administration's anti-energy policies and streamlining
our energy infrastructure.
Included in this bill is my Securing America's Critical Minerals
Supply Act, which would address the broad set of critical energy
resources that we need to properly assess our Nation's energy supply,
identify critical resources for our economy, and help locate
vulnerabilities in our supply chains.
Under this legislation, the U.S. could produce energy that is cleaner
and safer than other parts of the world--which we already are--where
production is tied to dangerous working conditions, child labor
exploitation, and extremely low pay.
It would also help us shift away from our reliance on energy
resources from countries controlled by foreign dictators, better
protecting our national security.
As a supporter of an all-of-the-above energy approach, I know how
crucial it is that we take steps to safeguard and secure the energy
resources necessary to keep the lights on, rates down, and emissions
low.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 1 so that we can
address America's energy crisis created by the administration and meet
America's energy needs on our own.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), a member of our committee.
Mr. SARBANES. Madam Chair, I thank the chairman for yielding and
recognizing me.
Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the Republicans' energy
bill.
I have deep concerns about this package overall in terms of its
attack on our bedrock environmental laws. As a Marylander, I am
particularly alarmed at changes to section 401 certifications under the
Clean Water Act, which would endanger the health of the Chesapeake Bay.
To protect our environment and public health, States need to have the
authority and tools to regulate pollution in their waters. One section
of this bill would narrow States' ability to regulate pollution sources
that impact downstream water quality.
This bill would also restrict the conditions and limitations that a
State could place on clean water certification, further hampering a
State's means of protecting its waters.
That has grave implications for a State's ability to set limits on
how much of a particular pollutant a water body can accept while still
meeting the State's overall water quality standards. These limits,
known as total maximum daily loads, or TMDLs, are required to restore
waters impaired by pollution, which is the case for the Chesapeake Bay
and most of its tributaries.
That is why I filed an amendment, along with Congressman Bobby
Scott, to ensure that this energy bill would not impact a State's
authority to establish or implement a State-approved TMDL for an
impaired waterway. Unfortunately, Republicans did not allow for this
amendment to be offered on the floor today.
As this bill strips away environmental and public health protections
across the board, we don't even have the most basic assurances that
States will be able to design and execute their own plans to reduce
waterway pollution.
For the Chesapeake Bay, this could be disastrous. The TMDLs are the
guides by which the seven watershed jurisdictions work with EPA to
continue making progress on the larger Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
It is gross negligence, as a matter of legislation, to roll back
these key protections for these bodies of water.
[[Page H1553]]
Tragically, rolling back these protections is the chief goal of this
bill. That is what it is all about. For that reason, I encourage all of
my colleagues to oppose it.
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser), whose State includes the Marcellus shale,
which has an immeasurable amount of natural gas.
Mr. MEUSER. Madam Chair, the increased cost of energy over the last
couple of years under the Biden administration has put tremendous
strains on small businesses, families, and my neighbors across
Pennsylvania and across our country.
My district does encompass a good portion of the Marcellus shale, one
of the highest natural gas producing regions, in fact, in the world.
Energy is jobs. Energy is good pay. Natural gas is about education.
The schools that are developing throughout my communities in order to
enrich young people for the future and have them stay in Pennsylvania
is so incredibly meaningful, Madam Chair.
Natural gas, Madam Chair, is one of the cleanest energies known to
man. A tripling, it is known, of the use of natural gas will enormously
reduce carbon emissions on a worldwide perspective. There is so much
good about this. Natural gas is an answer to any transitional carbon-
free emissions.
Madam Chair, this administration has been doing everything it can to
assault domestic energy and is truly choosing Venezuela over
Pennsylvania and OPEC over Texas, and the list can go on.
{time} 1400
This is senseless. H.R. 1 corrects a lot of this. H.R. 1 is about
energy independence, which improves our national security. It is about
less carbon emissions because we do create the cleanest energy in the
world. H.R. 1 is about strengthening America, Madam Chair.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Sorensen).
Mr. SORENSEN. Madam Chair, as Congress' only meteorologist, I rise
today in strong opposition to H.R. 1, House Republicans' polluters over
people act.
This bill does nothing to lower energy costs for working families.
This bill does nothing to help our farm families dealing with the
effects of extreme weather. This bill does nothing to support the
domestic production of biofuels in central and northwestern Illinois.
In fact, instead of lowering costs for working communities across the
Nation, the polluters over people act pads the pockets of Big Oil and
Gas, guts environmental protections, and adds $2.4 billion to the
deficit.
Earlier this week, I offered an amendment that would have prevented
big corporations from selling natural gas overseas until we could
ensure that it won't raise prices here at home. I am disappointed that
Republicans put polluters over people and blocked my amendment from
being considered today.
At home in Illinois, sustainability is not a partisan issue.
Democrats, Republicans, and Independents all want our communities to be
clean and prosperous. I thought this would be a bipartisan goal in
Congress, but it seems that my colleagues across the aisle are willing
to let the Federal deficit balloon for Big Oil and corporate interests
at the expense of our communities' futures.
Not only will this decision impact our daily lives; it impacts the
lives of our children, grandchildren, and their grandchildren.
I stand ready to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
on commonsense solutions that meet our Nation's energy needs while
lowering energy costs for working families. American families deserve
much more.
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Chair, exporting U.S.-produced, cleaner-burning
natural gas to places like Vietnam and China, which allows them to take
their coal-fired power plants offline, actually lowers carbon emissions
globally.
Democrats say they care about carbon emissions globally. Exporting
clean-burning natural gas will help do that.
Madam Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Palmer).
Mr. PALMER. Madam Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 1, the Lower
Energy Costs Act. I am proud of the work that we are doing here to
reduce the burden of high energy costs facing Americans and to
strengthen our national security. I am also pleased that my bill to
repeal the EPA's $27 billion slush fund is included in H.R. 1. It is an
important step to right the numerous wrongs in the misnamed Inflation
Reduction Act.
I have said many times that the war in Ukraine didn't create the
energy crisis; it exposed it. If we learn nothing else from the energy
crisis in Europe, it is that we should never make our Nation or our
allies dependent on an adversarial nation to meet our energy needs.
Sadly, the Biden administration's attacks on American hydrocarbon
energy make us more dependent on China, who is an adversary, making
this not only an economic security issue but a national security issue,
as well. Thankfully, the Lower Energy Costs Act puts us on a path to
energy security, improves our economy, and strengthens our national
security.
Additionally, Americans have been facing record levels of inflation
due to the policies of the Biden administration. Energy costs are one
of the biggest drivers of inflation. Everything we use or consume has
an energy cost. On day one, President Biden set the course for higher
energy costs and higher inflation. When he came into office, inflation
was 1.87 percent. Today, it is over 6.5 percent because of reckless
spending, increases in massive regulatory costs, and higher energy
costs.
The misnamed Inflation Reduction Act contributed to these problems by
establishing the so-called Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which is
nothing more than a $27 billion slush fund for green advocacy groups.
The reality is energy prices have risen so much during Joe Biden's
Presidency that nearly 20 million households are now behind on their
household utility bills. If my colleagues really wanted to help the
American people, they would do everything they could to help reduce
energy costs.
This might be interesting to my colleagues. Polling indicates that a
majority of voters support the Lower Energy Costs Act, including 56
percent of self-identified liberals and 69 percent of moderates.
For these reasons, I encourage all of my colleagues to support
unleashing our domestic energy production to reduce the cost of living
for all Americans, strengthens our national security, and makes energy
independent again. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chair, I rise today because the Republicans' so-
called energy legislation is a farce. This bill does nothing to lower
energy costs. It instead increases our deficit by $2.4 billion in
handouts to Big Oil.
In Ways and Means, the Oversight Committee clearly presented a report
last year that clearly showed the oil companies themselves lied. Not
Biden but the oil companies raised the price beyond belief.
I tried to offer a simple amendment to this bill that expressed
support for offshore wind development, a clean energy source. That is
it. It was blocked. At the same time, an amendment on their side was
added, which gives hot air to fictions about offshore wind. So much for
regular order.
Let me be clear, the experts agree. NOAA agrees, the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, the experts agree that offshore wind is
not harmful to marine life. They would support it.
The author of one of these amendments was once a big supporter of
wind energy. Now, he is leading the misinformation campaign against
offshore wind.
How do you like that?
Republicans don't listen to experts or science. We know that. Their
attacks on clean energy are rooted in pure bad faith.
Wind power is clean energy. It supports good-paying, union
manufacturing and construction jobs.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chair, I applaud leadership for allowing this bill to
go through regular order. It went through three committees, 21 bills,
hearings, markups, amendments offered, and here we are today.
[[Page H1554]]
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Joyce), who is from a huge area of Marcellus shale, producing so much
natural gas for our Nation.
Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, for the past 2 years, President
Biden has made it his top priority to wage war on American energy.
On his first day in office, President Biden canceled the Keystone XL
pipeline and sent a message for those who wished to produce energy here
in the United States that they would not be welcomed during his tenure.
When gas prices soared to over $5 a gallon in Pennsylvania last
summer, his administration continued to tout the benefits of the Green
New Deal, instead of working to lower prices for American families.
Now, House Republicans are finally putting an end to Biden's failed
policies. H.R. 1, the Lower Energy Costs Act, would create the
permitting reform that is required in order to allow American companies
to produce the oil, natural gas, and critical minerals that we so
desperately need.
Included in this bill is legislation that I crafted to provide
critical energy resource facilities the ability to participate in the
EPA's flexible air permitting program and providing them with the
ability to anticipate operational changes.
This isn't about cutting regulations. It is about giving certainty to
American energy producers. This legislation allows us to provide the
flexibility that American businesses need to mine and produce critical
materials safely while at the same time spurring investments into our
own communities.
It was President Reagan who said: We maintain peace through our
strength.
Today, that means returning to American energy dominance and ending
our reliance on foreign oil. It is time to streamline the permitting
process, it is time to lower energy prices, and it is time to create
American jobs.
Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I thank the distinguished gentleman for
yielding.
You know what? We hoped, coming from an energy State, that we could
do this bipartisan. H.R. 1 goes off on a tangent that even union
members are questioning.
If you want to know what the International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers would like, they would like us to be bipartisan and to get a
framework to strengthen and to get reliable Federal permitting so that
we can continue to have jobs.
Even those who believe in parks, like I do, would like a permitting
process that works and protects our parks. But if we look at this, what
we will be doing is just giving people a blank slip, and they can do
whatever they want to do in America's precious parks. That is not where
we want to be.
I am grateful for the idea that we want to build our economy, but we
cannot build our economy on environmental disasters which are happening
around the Nation: the 2008 coal ash spill in Tennessee, the 2014 water
crisis in Flint, the concealed 2022 radioactive spill in Minnesota, the
tragedy with the tornado in Mississippi, and the train chemical spill
and fire in Ohio.
It is clear that we need to do something together, but this is not
it. H.R. 1 will, in fact, impact our environment by taking away the
requirements for waste produced by certain energy facilities. It will
undermine the Toxic Substances Control Act by short-circuiting the
review and approval process for new chemicals. It will also allow the
EPA administrator to circumvent the scientific process of approving or
denying flexible permitting. That is not what our workers want us to
do.
In addition, we find that the Federal Government recognizes that this
is not working. In his statement to veto, the President acknowledges
that this would raise costs for American families by repealing
household energy rebates, roll back historic investments to increase
access to low-cost energy. Instead of protecting American consumers, it
would pad and increase profits by those who already have profits.
What about our health?
What about our children?
H.R. 1 is not bipartisan. It needs to be a compromise, working with
all of us to create jobs.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Meuser). The time of the gentlewoman has
expired, and the gentlewoman is no longer recognized.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Obernolte), a new member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
Mr. OBERNOLTE. Mr. Chair, the problem of increasing energy costs is a
critically important issue for my constituents. Many of the members of
my community are paying natural gas prices over twice as high as they
were a year ago, and they count themselves lucky, because some of the
people in my district have natural gas bills three times higher to heat
their homes than they were a year ago. Also, gasoline prices in my
district are almost twice as high as they were just a few years ago.
Mr. Chair, I represent over 100,000 people who commute over an hour,
each way, back and forth to Los Angeles every day. They are not doing
this because they want to. They are doing this because that is what is
required to put food on the table for their families. They can't afford
to buy a new car, much less an electric car. Every time the price of
energy goes up, these people feel the effects the most acutely.
This is not unique to my district. In fact, a survey released several
weeks ago showed that over 30 percent of Americans had to make the
incredibly difficult decision between paying a higher energy bill or
buying basic necessities for their family in the last 12 months.
This bill is a meaningful step toward improving that situation. It
would streamline the production of energy here in America.
{time} 1415
Mr. Chair, the problem we have here is a classic one of supply and
demand. Unfortunately, at both the Federal and State levels, we have
actively sought to constrain the supply of domestic energy here in
America over the last several years.
Economists will tell you that when you do that, when you have a fixed
demand and you constrain the supply, prices have to go up. That is
exactly what has been happening, and it is disproportionately impacting
the segment of our population who can least afford to pay it.
Mr. Chair, we produce energy more cleanly in America than anywhere
else on the planet. When we force our constituents to import a barrel
of oil from Venezuela, it has a 50 percent higher life cycle greenhouse
gas emission than a barrel of oil produced here. This bill will
meaningfully improve that situation.
Mr. Chair, I urge support of H.R. 1.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Mrs. Hayes).
Mrs. HAYES. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1, the polluters
over people act.
Besides increasing the deficit by $2.4 billion, this bill eviscerates
bedrock environmental protections.
These protections are in place for a reason. My community has been
stifled by decades of environmental abuses, and as a result, economic
growth in many areas is a challenge and the health and safety of my
constituents are at risk.
My district was once a thriving manufacturing community, but
factories dumped waste in rivers, buried toxic materials, and disposed
of materials with no oversight. Now my district is littered with
abandoned factories, fragile ecosystems, and unusable land.
Sites once used for industrial, manufacturing, or commercial uses
have been abandoned or underutilized due to known or suspected
contamination of the past.
Environmental liabilities have been preventing developers and
investors from restoring these properties to productive use and
revitalizing impacted communities.
During my time in Congress, I have fought to bring back millions of
dollars to my district for brownfield remediation in places like
Waterbury, New Britain, and Torrington. Places where asthma-related
illnesses are on the rise
[[Page H1555]]
as a direct result of environmental factors.
We are working to clean decades of pollution in the rivers of the
Housatonic, Naugatuck, and Farmington valleys. These once-blighted
properties have been transformed into fisheries, art spaces, and even
affordable housing.
After years of hard work, we were able to secure wild and scenic
designations for miles of rivers in Connecticut. My State is literally
beginning to breathe again.
This legislation rolls back environmental protections and regulations
and gives billions in handouts to Big Oil and Gas.
In Connecticut's Fifth, we are learning hard lessons about cleaning
up environmental messes of the past.
Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this dangerous and harmful
legislation, and for us to listen to the science and follow what we
already know to be true.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Balderson), who is a new member on the Energy and Commerce
Committee, and whose State has the Marcellus shale. They are a big
producer in oil, coal, hydro, nuclear, and a lot of other things.
Mr. BALDERSON. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 1, the Lower
Energy Costs Act.
The American people deserve reliable, secure, and affordable energy
to power our homes and businesses, fuel our vehicles, and sustain our
way of life.
In this country we are blessed with an abundance of clean and
affordable energy resources capable of meeting our energy needs for
many generations to come.
Today, we have an opportunity to end our reliance on bad actors,
lower prices for families hurting under sky-high inflation, and finally
unleashing American energy dominance.
H.R. 1 is about ensuring a secure energy future for America.
Just recently, PJM Interconnection, one of the Nation's largest grid
operators, released an alarming report about the long-term reliability
of America's power grid.
The report shows that America's growing power demand, coupled with
the retirement of existing power generation, far outweighs renewable
sources' capacity to keep up.
Simply put, the Biden administration's rush to green is putting us on
a dangerous collision course toward power outages and energy
insecurity.
To see the consequences of the rush to green, just take a look at the
energy crisis that unfolded when much of Europe shut off nuclear and
fossil fuel power generation without a means to meet their power needs.
We cannot allow ourselves to fall victim to the same fate.
H.R. 1 embraces the abundant resources at our disposal and rejects
the false notion that a cleaner environment can only be achieved at the
peril of the United States' energy security and independence.
This commonsense bill reforms the outdated permitting process,
increases domestic energy production, and repeals President Biden's
disastrous natural gas tax.
Mr. Chair, when the American people flip on the light switch, they
should have confidence that the lights will actually come on.
I am proud to join my colleagues in delivering on our commitment to
America by restoring American energy dominance.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting America's
energy future with the passage of H.R. 1.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Garcia).
Ms. GARCIA of Texas. Mr. Chair, this week my Republican colleagues
are fast-tracking a bill that puts polluters over people, H.R. 1.
Let's be clear: This bill won't do anything, not one thing to help
American consumers and families to lower their energy costs. Yes, we do
want that light on, but this bill is not going to help us get there.
Instead, it would simply repeal household energy rebates passed by
House Democrats, like those from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.
We shouldn't have to choose between dirty air and polluted water just
to meet the energy needs of the future. We simply don't have to. We
could work together in a bipartisan way to address energy costs, but
extreme MAGA Republicans refuse to do that.
We could work together on issues like the electrical grid liability
and security, an issue that is all too important to us in my home State
of Texas.
Instead, Republican-backed H.R. 1 picks winners and losers. The
wealthy and well-connected win and workers lose. I stand with workers.
Workers in my district know that new energy jobs and clean energy jobs
are the jobs of the future. We depend on them.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this bill because this bill does not protect
those workers. I urge my colleagues to do the same. Oppose this bill.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chair, I am glad to have the author of the bill on
the floor, Mr. Scalise.
Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia
(Mrs. Miller), my guardian angel.
Mrs. MILLER of West Virginia. Mr. Chair, President Biden's threat to
veto H.R. 1 tells everything we need to know about the bill. It will
unleash American energy and bring down energy costs.
H.R. 1, the Lower Energy Costs Act, is about increasing domestic
production, permitting reform, streamlining energy exports, and
reversing President Biden's anti-energy agenda.
In the first week of Joe Biden's Presidency, he stopped American
energy production by halting needed permits for energy production and
shutting down the Keystone pipeline, also sending home 300 West
Virginians who were out there working. He drained our Strategic
Petroleum Reserves while failing to fix the problems that he had
created.
Americans are sick of these policies, which is why they elected a
Republican majority to be a needed check on the Biden administration's
war on American energy.
H.R. 1 is necessary to jump-start American energy production, and is
one of many crucial energy policies that I am looking forward to
supporting.
Mr. Chair, I wish to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), my good friend, the majority leader.
Mr. SCALISE. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. MILLER of West Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman
from Louisiana.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chair, I thank my dear friend from West Virginia
(Mrs. Miller) for her leadership and for yielding. I truly appreciate
her leadership on energy policy, as we are seeing here today, and also
for her working with us on getting this Lower Energy Costs Act to the
floor, and, hopefully, passed over to the Senate shortly. She has been
a champion on energy issues of all kinds, but especially on the
pipeline issue specific to West Virginia.
Pipelines are so critical to America's energy independence. In fact,
we deal with making it easier to move pipelines and build pipelines in
America. A lot of the infrastructure that we need to make this country
grow is being held up right now from a lot of radical regulations on
the left and outside groups that don't want American energy. They are
fine with getting dirty energy from foreign countries, but they want to
make it harder to get American energy. Pipelines are part of that
ability for us to bring back energy production to America and provide
for our own energy needs and not be dependent on other countries.
Although construction on the Mountain Valley pipeline is essentially
complete, it continues to be tied up in the courts. I understand the
frustration that proponents of the pipeline are experiencing. I
especially want to thank Congresswoman Miller for her leadership
because she has truly been fighting to get this project done.
At the end of the day, until this project is done, it is not only
going to be helping the people of West Virginia, but so many other
people. I look forward to continuing to work through this issue with my
friend from West Virginia and others in our Conference as we continue
to push for more American energy production that will lower costs for
families, not just in my home State of Louisiana or my friend from West
Virginia's home State, but also for people all across America.
[[Page H1556]]
Bad energy policy hurts families everywhere, especially low-income
families. It is time we get this policy right. I thank my friend from
West Virginia for her leadership.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from West Virginia.
Mrs. MILLER of West Virginia. Mr. Chair, I thank Leader Scalise for
taking the time to highlight such an important project. He has been a
champion of American energy and the Mountain Valley pipeline is a great
example of domestic energy production.
I am from an energy-producing State and I have seen and lived the
effects of bad energy policy coming out of Washington, which is exactly
why I came to Congress to fight for West Virginians and my like-minded
fellow Americans.
Today, I am introducing the complete American pipelines act, a bill
to complete the Mountain Valley pipeline and other America-first
projects that have been needlessly held up by leftwing radical courts.
All gas from the Mountain Valley pipeline will supply domestic energy
markets.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has again expired.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from West Virginia.
Mrs. MILLER of West Virginia. Mr. Chair, this means lower energy
prices across the country as supply will dramatically increase. The
Mountain Valley pipeline is crucial to American energy. Remember that
Americans' energy security is our American security.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan), a member of our committee.
Mrs. TRAHAN. Mr. Chair, Republicans' polluters over people act is a
disaster of a bill. Not only does this legislation prioritize massive
giveaways to Big Oil, gas corporations, and mining companies, but it
sells out hardworking families who want nothing more than to breathe
clean air and drink clean water.
If Republicans are successful in making this legislation law, those
corporate polluters will deplete our natural resources and destroy
millions of acres of wildlife, and they will do it for pennies on the
dollar. New pipelines will be constructed without the input of critical
Federal agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency.
These massive corporations could be exempt from lawsuits when they
spill toxic chemicals or contaminate our drinking water supplies.
This bill has the fingerprints of Big Oil lobbyists all over it.
Perhaps the most embarrassing part of this bill is how good of a
return on investment it is for fossil fuel companies.
Last year, a Big Oil CEO admitted during an Energy and Commerce
hearing to cashing in on stock he owned in his own company at a time
when people were feeling maximum pain at the pump. He told me he did it
at a 9 percent markup. That predatory behavior clearly hasn't swayed
the authors of H.R. 1.
I would imagine that is because the same Big Oil corporations that
stand to benefit most from this bill have donated millions to
Republican politicians over the years. They will make that money back
in a matter of minutes if this legislation becomes law.
Mr. Chair, Congress' job is to serve the hardworking folks that we
represent, not pad the profits of oil barons who run ExxonMobil or
Shell.
Mr. Chair, our constituents deserve better, and I urge my colleagues
to vote ``no.''
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina has 36\1/4\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from New Jersey has 36\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Curtis), the vice chairman of the Energy, Climate, and Grid
Security Subcommittee.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 1.
I stand before you like everybody in this Chamber who is a father and
a grandfather, somebody who wants to leave this Earth better than we
found it.
{time} 1430
Some in the past have argued that we must sacrifice affordable energy
and reliable energy so that we can be clean. We have seen Europe go
down this path. They pushed back on fracking, and they pushed back on
nuclear power. Today, they buy fracked fuel from an enemy.
We have been told that we must give up affordability and reliability
so that we can be clean. This is a false choice, and H.R. 1 is a path
to affordable, reliable, and clean energy.
Let's be honest. The U.S. energy sector is not the enemy. They are
the answer to our energy future.
I ask my colleagues, why do you hate fossil fuels?
Let's hate emissions. Let's hate the emissions and not the source.
This is why H.R. 1 is so important. It is an opportunity to
accomplish all three of these goals.
At its core, H.R. 1 is about responsibly building America's energy
infrastructure.
The rest of the world is dying for American energy. We can replace
dirty Russian, Venezuelan, and Iranian petroleum products. We can
reduce more emissions than any proposal on the left simply by using
U.S. energy products.
H.R. 1 pushes back on the narrative that has been spun about
Republicans not caring about the Earth. More importantly, without the
permitting reforms in H.R. 1, none of us can accomplish our climate or
energy goals.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).
Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chair, I thank the ranking member for
yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the majority's polluters over
people act, a massive handout to some of the world's most profitable
and most powerful corporations.
It is a Big Oil giveaway that would hike the deficit instead of
helping families, instead of protecting our planet, and instead of
lowering costs for consumers and slashing energy bills.
Republicans seem to have just one priority, and that is helping the
rich get richer. Through price gouging and war profiteering, Big Oil
has doubled their profits to record levels. They are hoarding millions
of acres of our public land, and they are using these unprecedented
resources to line their pockets.
Exxon just announced $35 billion in stock buybacks, and Chevron
shareholders are pocketing $75 billion.
Yet, what is the Republican plan? It is to triple down on allegiance
to Big Oil, give away more Federal land, invite more offshore drilling,
unleash more pollution into our water and our air and our land, and
leave the taxpayers footing the bill.
Climate change is here. We don't have time to wait. Americans know
that securing our future means investing in clean energy.
Families know their health depends on it; economists know our
prosperity depends on it; and the Pentagon knows our national security
depends on it. It is only MAGA Republicans who don't understand our
future depends on a thriving clean energy economy.
Last year, we proudly enacted the largest climate investment in
history, and now we are proudly voting ``no'' on the polluters over
people act.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), who is a Florida Gator.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from South
Carolina for yielding. Go Gators.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1, which would unleash
American energy, lower energy prices, and restore the United States as
energy independent and as an energy leader in the world.
I thank my good friends, Leader Scalise and Chair Rodgers, and my
good friend here from South Carolina--he is a good man even though he
roots for the wrong team--for being such strong leaders on the issue
and bringing this legislation to the floor.
Since the Biden administration came into office, Americans have been
faced with a persisting energy crisis. We are in the midst of
unprecedented increases in the costs of living, and I continue to hear
from my constituents regarding how difficult it is to make ends meet.
I have heard from numerous constituents who are facing the prospect
[[Page H1557]]
of losing their livelihood due to increased energy costs driving up
their business' operational costs.
Tragically, other constituents are now facing severe financial
hardship and facing increased energy costs while on fixed incomes. Our
seniors are having a very hard time, Mr. Chairman.
My constituents deserve energy policies that make energy more
affordable for Americans, not more expensive.
Not only will H.R. 1 unleash American energy to decrease costs, but
it will also spur the mining and processing of critical minerals
domestically. It is essential that we do this. We are too dependent on
our adversaries, particularly China, for these minerals that we use in
nearly every aspect of our economy. H.R. 1 will allow us to produce
innovative technologies and critical resources here at home and not in
China.
This bill will return the United States as a global energy leader and
secure America's future from dependencies on our adversaries.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the Member for yielding. He is a great man, and
he is a leader on these issues.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Veasey), who is a member of our Energy and Commerce
Committee.
Mr. VEASEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to call attention to how
Republicans' polluters energy package will do little of nothing to
finally--and I have to censor my poster here, Mr. Chairman--fix the
grid once and for all.
In February 2021, my own State of Texas had a catastrophic grid
failure during a deadly winter storm that caused 246 deaths and left 5
million people in record cold temperatures without heat and businesses
without power. Last summer, Texans again had to deal with the dangerous
and unexpected generation failures that put further strain on our
State's electric grid. These extreme weather events are not unique to
Texas.
Despite these continued problems of grid resiliency, the Republican-
led package we are voting on will do little of nothing to actually fix
the grid.
It is, in fact, harmful. It is hyperpartisan. This package will make
the grid less stable. We need to make investments in electric
transmissions to meet our energy needs, create good-paying jobs, and
have cleaner air to breathe.
This package will do little to address the lower energy costs for
people across north Texas. Not only will it not help constituents pay
their energy bills, but CBO estimates that this bill will actually
increase the deficit over the 2023-2033 period by roughly $2.4 billion.
That is why I urge my Republican colleagues to stop putting polluters
over people and meet us in the middle to pass a bipartisan,
comprehensive solution that bolsters our Nation's energy independence,
helps the middle class, and finally fixes the grid.
Fix the grid, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, we should fix the grid and harden it from
the EMP threats and other things, but while we are doing that, we need
the pipeline infrastructure to get the resources to where they need to
go, and that is in our communities so that baseload generation can
happen.
Mr. Chairman, there is a gentleman from Ohio who understands energy.
He is the chairman of the Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical
Materials Subcommittee on the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1, the Lower Energy
Costs Act.
With H.R. 1, we are working to lower energy costs for consumers
across America by unleashing American energy and strengthening American
supply chains.
H.R. 1 addresses regulatory red tape and permitting barriers to the
domestic development of energy without compromising environmental
protections.
The Lower Energy Costs Act also encourages domestic processing and
refining of critical energy resources to ensure that components for all
energy sources can be made right here in America.
As chair of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment,
Manufacturing, and Critical Materials, I am proud that H.R. 1 includes
seven bills that passed through our subcommittee and full committee
through regular order.
The bills encourage the domestic refining of critical energy
resources, allow for flexible approaches to permitting, support
national security, promote innovation that is currently stalled in EPA
red tape, repealed two sections of the Democrats' Inflation Reduction
Act, and protect American refining capacity from agency overreach.
I thank Representatives Carter of Georgia, Joyce of Pennsylvania,
Pence, Curtis, Pfluger, Palmer, and Crenshaw for their work on this
important legislation.
In addition, H.R. 1 includes my bill, the Unlocking Our Domestic LNG
Energy Potential Act, under section 10007. The section would amend the
Natural Gas Act to repeal all restrictions on the import and export of
natural gas. Removing such restrictions would help facilitate timely
exports of LNG and help our allies. A stronger LNG export industry also
means increased domestic production of natural gas and lower domestic
prices.
I have heard my Democratic colleagues across the aisle criticize H.R.
1 because they say it does nothing for clean energy. This could not be
further from the truth. H.R. 1 includes several provisions that
incorporate focused flexibilities into certain environmental statutes
in order to create an improved regulatory landscape for refining and
processing critical minerals.
Mr. Chairman, what are the industries that need critical minerals the
most? Those are the wind, solar, and battery technology industries--all
clean energy technologies.
We do almost no critical mineral refining and processing in the
United States. That must change, or we risk becoming dangerously
dependent on China for our energy and transportation systems.
The International Energy Agency estimates that the demand for
critical minerals will double by 2040. We want to meet that demand with
American resources and reduce reliance on China.
I will close by thanking Chair Rodgers for her leadership on the
Lower Energy Costs Act. Energy security is national security, and
through H.R. 1, we can unleash American energy dominance and lower
energy costs for American families, thereby lowering inflation.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support the Lower Energy
Costs Act.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Washington State (Ms. Schrier). The doctor is a member of the Energy
and Commerce Committee.
Ms. SCHRIER. Mr. Chairman, just last year, we made the largest
investment in clean energy technology and climate science ever. The
intention is to spur research and innovation in cutting-edge
technologies and then accelerate development and construction of a
modernized electric grid, solar and wind farms, modular nuclear
reactors, and improved hydropower. However, none of that funding will
actually affect climate change if we can't streamline the permitting
process.
Frankly, it is pretty exciting to me to think about permitting reform
as an area where Democrats and Republicans can work together, but let's
be clear that speeding up the permitting process does not mean throwing
all environmental protections out the window. That is essentially what
today's bill, H.R. 1, their top priority, does today.
It doesn't streamline permitting. It undermines environmental
protections and is a huge handout to fossil fuel companies, in some
cases allowing them to avoid environmental regulations altogether. It
pushes our energy system in the wrong direction.
There is urgency to shift to energy sources that don't emit
greenhouse gases. Some of the glaciers on Mount Rainier in my district
have already disappeared. That is why we do need to improve the
permitting process.
However, the bill we are addressing today decimates that process,
putting natural resources at risk and fast-tracking more drilling for
oil and gas and mining for minerals on our public lands.
[[Page H1558]]
By the way, there are already 9,000 permits out there for oil and gas
extraction that aren't even being used, and oil and gas companies are
making record-shattering profits right now, quarter over quarter. They
don't need another gift from Congress.
It is time to prioritize clean energy projects, and it is those
permits that require the most expediency.
This bill isn't permitting reform, and it won't cut costs for
American families. When they are ready, I look forward to working with
my colleagues on real, serious, pragmatic permitting reform that will
allow for the quickest possible transition to cleaner sources. We owe
it to generations we will never know.
{time} 1445
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Miller), my friend and colleague.
Mr. MILLER of Ohio. Mr. Chair, Ohio families are paying too much for
gasoline. They are paying too much for heat. They are paying too much
at the grocery store, partly due to rising production costs on farms.
A recent survey by ABC and The Washington Post found that roughly 40
percent of Americans are financially worse off today than they were
just 2 years ago. They are begging for relief from soaring prices, and
Republicans are answering their calls for help.
That is why I am proud to support H.R. 1, the Lower Energy Costs Act.
No more relying on dictators for oil. We are going to solve this
problem the American way, with American workers, American ingenuity,
and American energy.
H.R. 1 does this by fixing the broken permit process so that energy
producers can do their jobs faster and cheaper. We are going to unleash
American energy, which will lower costs and get our economy moving in
the right direction.
I urge my colleagues to think of the millions of Americans struggling
to make ends meet. Show them you care and vote for H.R. 1.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Thanedar).
Mr. THANEDAR. Mr. Chair, H.R. 1 is not an all-of-the-above energy
bill that will help lower costs for Americans.
I rise today in opposition to this bill because it would worsen the
destructive effects of climate change and line the pockets of the
wealthy at the expense of the most vulnerable constituents in my
district.
Mr. Chair, my constituents are sick and tired of politicians in this
town using their positions of power to help corporations at the expense
of people.
Fossil fuel companies and the lobbyists want to lessen environmental
regulations so that they can pump massive amounts of greenhouse gases
into the atmosphere and cash in, all at the expense of the people.
In southwest Detroit, corporations continue to emit harmful and
unpleasant fumes around the low-income neighborhoods in the area. This
bill will help them continue to pollute and worsen environmental
injustice.
In my district, climate change has increased the rate and severity of
flooding. My constituents must endure property damage, water
contamination, and in some cases the loss of loved ones.
Last Congress, this body made historic changes by passing the
Inflation Reduction Act, reducing the pollution in our communities that
is disproportionately felt by low-income and disadvantaged communities.
We must not turn back.
I came to Congress to fight against bills like H.R. 1 because they
put my constituents directly at risk. It is absurd to lessen
environmental regulations at a time when corporations choose pollution
and profits over people. Please don't pass this disastrous bill.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Carter).
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I rise today in full, unambiguous
support of H.R. 1, the Lower Energy Costs Act.
The Energy and Commerce Committee recently heard from David Hickman,
a farmer, who described our current economy as the most perilous time
for American agriculture. He is right, and he is not alone.
Every day that I am in Georgia's First Congressional District,
whether I am talking to a parent, a farmer, a teacher, a trucker, or a
small business owner, I hear the same concern: Inflation is too high.
Everything, from diesel to food, is more expensive under this
President, who cannot stop himself from spending your money, stealing
your retirement funds, and stomping on your small business.
The average household is paying $10,000 more per year as a result of
Biden's policies. What is worse is that pain is the point.
On day one of his Presidency, President Biden declared war on
American energy, and at breakneck speed ended American energy
independence and killed thousands of jobs.
What came next? Inflation, high interest rates, small businesses
closing their doors, and even more inflation.
When you plunge a knife into the heart of our economy, you can't be
surprised when it begins bleeding out.
Fortunately, House Republicans are stepping up and delivering
solutions for the American people. H.R. 1 will increase American energy
production, reform the permitting process for all industries, reverse
this administration's anti-energy policies, streamline energy
infrastructure, and boost the production and processing of critical
minerals. That is a long-winded way of saying that this bill will make
our energy sector more affordable, more efficient, and will create more
jobs.
The American people told us that inflation and high energy prices
were their number one concern, and we are listening by making it the
House's number one priority. It doesn't even matter if you think we
should ``drill, baby, drill'' or never use fossil fuels again, we need
to be able to build in America again.
That is why I am particularly glad that my bill, H.R. 1070, was
included in this legislation. It will help bring necessary permitting
reform and investment in America's critical mineral mining and
processing. Right now we rely almost entirely on China for critical
minerals needed for batteries, smartphones, military technologies, and
more.
Simply put, this is not energy independence. We depend more on China
than we have ever relied on OPEC or any other countries for oil. It is
a national security concern to depend on any one country that much for
such an essential material.
My district is one of the few places in America that mines critical
minerals, and we are eager to bring more of this essential and valuable
supply chain home.
H.R. 1 is an important step, and I encourage all of my colleagues to
vote in favor of this important legislation.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New Mexico (Mr. Vasquez).
Mr. VASQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, let me be clear. I support our energy
economy. I stand by New Mexico's energy workers, who help fuel our
economy. New Mexico's Second Congressional District is one of the top
energy producing areas in the entire world. In fact, Lea County, in my
district, produces more oil than any other county in the United States.
About half of New Mexico's fossil fuel operations are on public
lands, and royalties from the industry make up about a third of our
State's annual budget. With an industry so large, there are a lot of
good-paying jobs for rural New Mexicans.
Congress is not debating a bill to support energy workers that are
essential to my district. We aren't even debating ways to lower energy
costs for Americans, no matter what name Republicans give this bill.
This bill is about the same old thing, padding the pockets of
executives at the cost of energy workers.
Just last year, as you can see, when Americans saw gas prices as high
as $5 per gallon at the pump, oil and gas companies made not millions,
not billions, but trillions of dollars in profit. While my constituents
were paying $100 to fill up their pickup truck, Exxon chiefs were
making $55 billion in profits. My colleagues across the aisle want to
make them even richer at our expense.
In the Permian Basin, oil and gas production has increased nearly
every year since 2013, and it is on track to reach new, even higher
production
[[Page H1559]]
records this year. We are already unleashing American energy, but these
profits aren't going to the workers in my district. They are going to
the wealthy CEOs with collections of massive mansions and cars. While
the energy workers in my district are living right here, in tents and
temporary trailer homes, the CEOs are living right up here in Hawaii
and mansions all across the world.
While our folks risk their health and safety to make these profits,
we need to make sure that our priorities are in the right place. This
bill is toxic, literally. It would increase pollution by removing the
methane emission regulations and gutting the Clean Air Act.
Asthma rates in southeast New Mexico are the highest in the region,
largely connected to methane and other emissions. Republicans want to
make this air dirtier, sending more kids to the hospital.
According to Somos Un Pueblo Unido, nearly one in two energy workers
has reported an injury on the job, and most of those injuries are
permanent. If this bill really cared about the energy industry, it
would start by prioritizing the people who work in it.
As the Representative for New Mexico's Second Congressional District,
I will always prioritize my constituents, the hardworking energy
workers, over the Big Oil CEOs from outside of my district.
That is why I am working on bipartisan legislation to ensure that our
energy workers aren't being forgotten. Instead of focusing on growing
the record profits for executives and CEOs, my bill would focus on
protecting the backbone of our energy economy, our energy workers. I am
focused on investing in the workers who have generated hundreds of
millions of dollars in revenue to our State.
When I got to Congress, many people told me to be cautious. They said
be careful, be scared of the Big Oil barons. I was told that they are
powerful and that if I don't agree with them and pad their pockets, I
am going to be their number one target.
Guess what? I am not scared, and we won't be silenced. To the CEOs
watching this from their glamorous mansions, just know I will fight to
ensure New Mexico's workers are a priority.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration data, the
average price for gasoline in 2022 was $1.80 per gallon more than when
President Biden assumed office.
H.R. 1 is not just about energy independence. That is the underlying
foundation, but what it is really about is the quality of life for the
American people here at home and the cost of energy that is feeding the
skyrocketing inflation.
The average price of gas in 2020 was $2.26 per gallon. The average
price of gas in 2022 was $4.06 per gallon, reaching a peak of over $5
per gallon in June of 2022.
According to the Department of Energy's Low-Income Energy
Affordability Data, the LEAD Tool, low-income households spend 8.6
percent of their income on energy expenses. Depending on location and
income, certain households spend as much as 30 percent of their income
on energy expenses. The energy burden for low-income households is
three times higher than non-low-income households.
In rural parts of the country, like where I represent in Appalachia,
you are very familiar with that area, it is a real problem when
families have to choose between putting gas in their car or groceries
on the table. It is a real challenge when they have to choose between
paying their heating bill or buying clothes for their kids to go to
school. This is what H.R. 1 begins to address for the American people.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Fry), my friend and colleague.
Mr. FRY. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1, the Lower
Energy Costs Act.
From the minute that President Biden took office, he waged war
against American energy production and the independence that we
previously held.
The Biden administration canceled the Keystone XL pipeline on day
one, imposed a $6 billion tax on natural gas, and promised $27 billion
to special interest climate groups, and severely limited our fracking
capabilities. These are just a few of the examples of why our energy
prices are up 40 percent since the President took office.
In my mind, everything that can be made in America should be,
including energy. American-made energy provides jobs, creates economic
growth, lowers prices, and is an important part of our national
security.
The United States must become energy independent once again, and
regulatory hurdles for energy production here at home must be rolled
back. This begins with permitting reform and cutting the burdensome red
tape that suppresses innovation and development.
I was proud to work on commonsense reforms in the South Carolina
General Assembly, and I am excited to see this being done at the
Federal level. H.R. 1 is a top priority for House Republicans. We want
to work for the people, not against them.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 15 seconds to
the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. FRY. Mr. Chair, this legislation will enhance our Nation's
domestic energy production while lowering energy costs for Americans
across our great country. I urge everybody to support H.R. 1.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to the time
remaining on each side?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio has 21\3/4\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from New Jersey has 25\1/2\ minutes remaining.
{time} 1500
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Soto) a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chair, our friends across the aisle ran for office in
2022 and took the majority narrowly--by five seats.
It was a hard-fought battle, and many promised to reduce the deficit.
Here we are today debating H.R. 1, their first major bill, literally
number one, and what have they chosen as their top issue in this
Congress?
A $117 billion deficit-busting taxpayer giveaway to polluters; as if
oil companies who posted record profits in the billions need more help.
First of all, if we are keeping score here, add up this Big Oil
giveaway with the rich tax cheat protection act that passed, and that
is a whopping $231 billion that would be added to the deficit by
legislation that passed this House already.
I thought the Republican majority was running to reduce the deficit.
It looks like the exact opposite is happening.
Also, where is the budget?
President Biden presented his. We still see no budget from the House
majority.
Second, to call this bill a little out of step would be an
understatement. As a result of climate change, we see in Florida
extreme hurricanes, rising seas, and extreme heat.
We have public health issues there: asthma, cancer, and other issues.
We see society moving forward. Major auto manufacturers are going all
in on electric vehicles. Utilities are moving away from fossil fuels
toward wind, solar, nuclear, green hydrogen, and others. Gas in central
Florida is between $3 to $3.25. Inflation has dropped 7 months in a
row.
This bill looks like it missed the moment, and now it is just a
windfall for Big Oil. When gas was sky-high, Mr. Chair, many colleagues
across the aisle criticized Biden for using the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve during this disruption to lower gas prices.
This bill wouldn't guarantee lower gas prices; not now, not in the
future. It would guarantee more pollution, more sickness, and a step
backward.
Third, we passed the Inflation Reduction Act, a very popular law that
is transforming us to a clean energy economy before our very eyes.
America is moving forward. Apparently, our colleagues across the
aisle are the last to know. They want to repeal the Inflation Reduction
Act, including popular provisions. That didn't work well under
ObamaCare, and I don't think it is going to work out now.
Lastly, it mandates drilling off of Florida shores. Our top industry
is tourism. We need to protect our shores.
[[Page H1560]]
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).
Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I rise today to lend my voice in
support of H.R. 1.
President Biden declared war on American energy the day he took
office. In fact, he blocked the Keystone XL pipeline that would have
yielded 800,000 barrels of oil per day and created 33,000 American
jobs.
In an ominous sign of his policies to come, he put America last and
approved the Nord Stream 2 pipeline to benefit Russia.
The Biden administration also illegally halted all onshore oil and
gas lease sales, crushing the energy market and driving up costs.
American families didn't sign up for or vote for higher energy costs,
but that is exactly what the Biden administration has delivered.
In fact, the price of gas reached $5 a gallon just last summer, for
the first time in U.S. history. This Lower Energy Costs Act will help
restore American energy independence and decrease Biden's harmful
regulatory burdens.
In fact, this bill repeals the natural gas tax imposed by the
inflation increase act. It stops President Biden from imposing a ban on
fracking. It streamlines the Federal permitting process and allows
drilling on Federal lands.
It rolls back a $27 billion green slush fund. It gets rid of many
other green fees imposed by the inflation increase act.
It ends the moratorium on new coal leasing and helps end dependence
on foreign countries for vital energy.
We don't need to go to China or Saudi Arabia for our energy needs.
Our country has all that we need right here, put in the ground for us
by the Lord above.
H.R. 1 will finally allow energy producers to realize their full
potential by ridding them of unnecessary and onerous permitting
processes that take years to navigate.
This bill is a step in the right direction to reduce the regulatory
burden and reignite American energy independence, which is so vital for
our economy.
I thank my Republican friends for prioritizing this important issue
in this new Congress, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this
bill.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Ms. Scholten).
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, permitting reform, we all want it. There is
a simple solution. Separate the question.
But why not? We need to ask why not.
Because this bill includes massive handouts to big corporations and
incentivizes them to leak methane into the atmosphere.
Let's just look at the bill's name: LECA. They are telling it like it
is, folks, and we should be listening.
There is a choice being made here by House Republicans, Mr. Chair.
They are not doing this to make our system more efficient or to lower
costs for the American people, quite the opposite.
This bill repeals $4.5 billion in home electrification, a program
that the Department of Energy estimates could save Americans thousands
of dollars annually.
If we were focused on lowering costs for American families, this is
what we would be focused on.
I talk to west Michiganders every single day about what they want and
what they need.
We want to protect the Great Lakes. We want to lower our energy
costs, and that means investing in conservation efforts and putting
smart regulations in place that support the longevity of the Great
Lakes economy. That means ensuring a future for the next generation of
west Michiganders.
The Big Oil giveaway act does none of that. It greatly expands
companies' ability to exploit public land.
Michigan-3 is home to a large portion of the Grand River watershed
and miles of beautiful Lake Michigan shoreline. I support protecting
our most beautiful protected areas, not stripping them for parts.
What House Republicans are doing is this: Holding an antiquated
permitting system hostage to extract benefits for Big Oil corporations.
If they want to come to the table in good faith on serious bipartisan
efforts to streamline the permitting process and lower energy costs for
American families, I will be the first in line.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chair, I proudly yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Lawler).
Mr. LAWLER. Mr. Chair, I rise today to voice my support for H.R. 1,
the Lower Energy Costs Act. This is about clean, reliable, and
affordable energy.
My constituents in the 17th Congressional District are feeling the
pain at the pump, on their electric bills and their home heating costs,
and in almost every single one of their purchases due to the increase
in energy costs under the Biden administration.
Gas prices have risen over 51 percent since President Biden took
office. Residential electrical costs in New York State have risen over
26 percent since President Biden took office, 24 percent nationwide.
Utility gas is up 44 percent.
In just the last year, energy costs in the New York metropolitan
region are up almost 10 percent. Not only does the cost of energy take
a toll on families across America, but it has a compounding effect
throughout the supply chain, driving prices of groceries and food ever
higher.
This out-of-control inflation has created a massive crunch on the
budgets of middle-class families across New York State, but perhaps no
more so than right in the Hudson Valley where folks are facing energy
bills in the thousands of dollars every month just to heat and power
their homes.
It is fueling the affordability crisis in New York State, and it is
exactly why I am proud to support H.R. 1, which will restore our
Nation's energy independence by increasing the production and export of
domestic energy while reducing the regulatory burdens that stifle
American energy.
We need an all-of-the-above approach that includes gas, nuclear, and
renewables. That has been emphatically clear for years.
Making America more dependent on foreign energy adds more pollution,
not less, to our climate. H.R. 1 unleashes American energy and will
drive down inflation, providing Hudson Valley families with the real
relief they so desperately need.
Just some facts: 60 percent of New Yorkers rely on natural gas, and
70 percent of our electricity is generated by natural gas.
We have had a 60 percent reduction in greenhouse gases because of
natural gas, greater than renewables. Those are the facts, and that is
why we need to pass H.R. 1.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Porter).
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, our country needs energy to flourish.
Democrats know that means authorizing energy projects.
The law requires corporations to engage with communities, follow our
bedrock environmental principles, and ultimately advance projects that
offer greater benefits than costs.
Whether it is oil, natural gas, solar, or wind, the standard is the
same. We shouldn't move forward until we know that the project delivers
for consumers, taxpayers, and communities.
Unfortunately, H.R. 1 would eliminate that determination and instead
put corporate interests like Big Oil in charge of what energy projects
get authorized.
H.R. 1, the polluters over people act, gives billions of dollars in
taxpayer-funded subsidies to big oil and gas.
It would let fossil fuel companies hoard thousands of unused leases,
require the authorization of drilling on federally protected lands,
give unilateral authority to corporations to create their own
environmental impact statements, and force taxpayers to pay to clean up
hazardous mining waste.
Congress should be doing the right thing by looking at reforms that
protect taxpayers when approving energy projects.
That is why I offered an amendment that would require oil, gas, and
coal companies to put up a bond that actually covers the cost of
cleaning up their messes from drilling and mining.
That way, American taxpayers aren't on the hook to foot the billions
of dollars needed to find and plug abandoned wells.
Unfortunately, protecting the taxpayer from cleaning up big energy's
messes from drilling and mining is too controversial for my colleagues
across
[[Page H1561]]
the aisle, and my amendment was not put on the floor for a vote.
We can still come together in a bipartisan manner. We can and should
enact permitting reform that protects American taxpayers.
That is why I am submitting an amendment for the Record that requires
the Secretaries of Energy and the Interior to certify that this bill
would lower costs for American consumers and ban oil and gas
exploration on protected public lands.
These changes protect us all from footing the cost of big energy's
record-high profits.
To my colleagues across the aisle: You have an opportunity to prove
to your constituents back home that you are putting them over
polluters.
Will you stand up for consumers and taxpayers to lower costs, or will
you do the bidding of big energy?
This amendment puts that question to each of us.
Are we for the people or for polluters?
With this vote, you will show your allegiance.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the text of this amendment.
Ms. Porter of California moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1
to the Committee on Natural Resources with instructions to
report the same back to the House forthwith with the
following amendment:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
DIVISION D--MISCELLANEOUS
SEC. 40001. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act, including the amendments made by this Act, shall
take effect on the date on which the Secretary of Energy and
the Secretary of the Interior jointly submit to Congress a
certification that the implementation of this Act, and the
amendments made by this Act, would lower costs for American
consumers and taxpayers.
SEC. 40002. SAVINGS CLAUSE.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary
shall not authorize any oil and gas exploration activities or
conduct an oil and gas lease sale on any unit of the National
Park System, national wildlife refuge, national trail,
national conservation area, national monument, or national
recreation area.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Mills).
Mr. MILLS. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 1, the Lower
Energy Costs Act.
Under the Biden administration, American families are facing
skyrocketing bills and rising costs of everyday goods.
I see this and experience this every day as I talk to the
constituents of Florida's Seventh District. By no fault of their own,
they are struggling to put food on the table, gas in their cars, and to
pay their bills.
I thank our leadership and I thank Speaker McCarthy for bringing this
important piece of legislation to the floor to help ease the burden
many Americans feel by lowering costs.
Not only will H.R. 1 lower energy costs, but it will also streamline
our energy infrastructure and make us more competitive on the global
stage as we are losing and being outpaced by adversarial nations, such
as China and Russia.
President Biden has waged a war, but not on our adversaries, on
American energy, and he has made us more reliant on the adversarial
nations I mentioned before, Russia and China.
This administration has made us dependent upon our aggressors and
weaker than ever, but no more. This legislation will get us one step
closer to becoming energy independent and then dominant by increasing
exports of American energy. It is time to restore our position on the
world stage and ease the burden on every American family.
I thank you so much for this opportunity. I am in strong, strong
support of this.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Ruiz), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1, the
polluters over people act.
As a doctor, I am all too familiar with the harmful consequences of
pollution and other environmental dangers on people's health.
Frontline communities near high-polluting corporations already bear
too much of the burden of environmental injustice.
For example, people living near fossil fuel drilling sites are at
greater risk for pre-term birth, cancer, asthma, and other respiratory
diseases.
{time} 1515
We must do more to protect people's health, not silence the voices of
these vulnerable communities like this bill aims to do, not speeding up
permit approvals without local families' input on projects that will go
in their backyards like this bill aims to do.
This bill will also make the air we breathe dirtier and the people
sicker by sacrificing key environmental protections under the Clean Air
Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, and other laws, all to increase
fossil fuel energy production in a reckless and irresponsible way.
This is the wrong approach. Instead, we should secure America's
energy independence with clean, reliable energy that will lower costs
for families and protect people's health.
This includes building out our domestic supply chain for critical
minerals like lithium while producing renewable energy.
We can do this through projects like geothermal energy production and
lithium recovery at the Salton Sea in Imperial County, California, in
my district.
The innovative approach we are taking there is responsible energy
production with a closed-loop clean system that also creates lithium
extraction with geothermal energy.
This is better for the environment, better for our communities, and
better for the economy. This shows that we do not have to sacrifice
health and the environment.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 1 and instead work
toward solutions that bring everyone together to move our country
forward.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), my friend and colleague.
Mr. HILL. Mr. Chair, I thank my good friend from Ohio for yielding. I
rise in strong support for this legislative commitment that House
Republicans have initiated, H.R. 1, the Lower Energy Costs Act. I thank
my friend from Ohio for his leadership. I thank my good friend from
Arkansas, Chairman Bruce Westerman of the Natural Resources Committee
for his fine work on this important bill.
Under this administration's green energy only push, we are driving up
costs for central Arkansas families, hurting our economy, and our
national security.
We need in this Nation an all-of-the-above energy approach for the
U.S. and for the globe.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration's most recent
outlook, by 2050, global energy use will increase nearly 50 percent
compared to today. While the share of primary energy consumption from
renewables is predicted to increase from 15 to 27 percent by 2050, Mr.
Chair, 83 percent of energy consumption in that period will still need
to come from coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear. H.R. 1 takes this key
step in the right direction.
Instead, Biden officials are only focusing on intermittent energy
sources like wind and solar, for which we do not possess large-scale
storage or provide a reliable and consistent source of energy.
We need to be a leader in powering the world, and an all-of-the-above
energy strategy will do that.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Khanna).
Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on
climate and for the role he played last Congress in passing the most
historic climate legislation in the history of this country. Finally,
something inspired young people, not just around this country, but
around the world.
Now, what does the other side want to do? They want to start to
repeal it.
That legislation which put $369 billion into climate only marked 0.1
percent over the next 10 years of what our economy is going to be, $300
trillion. It was a 0.1 percent down payment, the largest in history;
and what do they want to do? They want to take away the $27 billion
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.
Where does that money go? It goes to rural America. It goes to
factory towns. It goes to communities of color,
[[Page H1562]]
who have faced too much pollution, who have too much cancer in their
communities. They want to take that money away from rural America, from
factory towns, and who do they want to give it to? They want to give it
to the fossil fuel companies. The fossil fuel companies, that is really
what this bill is about. It is decreasing the royalty rate that fossil
fuel companies pay on taxpayer land. It is a handout, a subsidy, a
further subsidy to Big Oil.
Now, the GAO has said that it will do nothing to increase oil or gas
production, and we all know the facts that oil production and gas
production under this President is up. Those are the facts, that it is
up.
They don't care about the production. Don't let them confuse you.
They want to give subsidies to Exxon, Chevron, and Big Oil that are
making record profits off the war in Ukraine and fleecing the American
people.
They want to take away money from rural communities, take away money
from factory towns, take away money from Americans who are suffering
and give fossil fuel subsidies. That is wrong, and I thank Mr. Pallone
for opposing it.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Nebraska (Mr. Flood).
Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support H.R. 1 and
permitting reform under the National Environmental Protection Act, also
known as NEPA.
Nebraska has been on the frontlines of NEPA's impacts over the course
of a decades-long expressway program through my Congressional District.
It has taken 10 more years than it should have.
Under the Obama administration, the length of time for NEPA reviews
climbed from 3.4 years in 2010 to 5.2 years in 2016.
President Trump rolled back the red tape, but President Biden brought
it all back and expanded the prior requirements.
H.R. 1 makes reasonable reforms to ensure that NEPA is applied
expeditiously and without unnecessarily burdening States.
In Nebraska, and I suspect way too many other States, commonsense
solutions and mitigation strategies to steward our natural resources
need to be protected, but we need to do it under NEPA.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, Republicans keep talking about lowering energy costs,
but let's be honest with the American people. Right now, the price of
oil is $50 per barrel less than its high last year. The price of a
gallon of gasoline is $1.57 less than its high last year. The price of
natural gas is 78 percent lower than it was at its high last year.
Of course, we would all like even lower prices, but the bottom line
is, this bill is misnamed. It will not lower energy prices. It would
make natural gas more expensive by making Americans compete with
consumers across the globe. It would make our electricity dirtier and
more expensive. It would enrich the oil and gas companies that price-
gouged American consumers last year.
This bill is nothing but a handout to the fossil fuel industry that
would drive prices higher for Americans.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from North Dakota (Mr. Armstrong).
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Chair, saying that gasoline prices are down is a
little bit like giving an arsonist a medal for putting out a fire that
he helped start.
They are still 50 percent higher than when President Biden took
office. That is not counting inputs for ag products like fertilizer,
which the natural feed stock is natural gas, all of those different
issues.
That is not really the point in all of this. Two things can be true
at once: The world's going to need more oil and natural gas and drive
more electric cars in the next decade, and this bill has a little bit
of something for everyone.
The last time we brought a refinery online in the United States with
any true downstream capacity was the year I was born, 1976--46 years
ago.
If we want to continue to build more electrification, have more
batteries for more American-made electric vehicles, well, we need the
rare earths to do it. This bill does those things.
When you live in a small community like I do in the geographic center
of North America, we have recognized, very clearly, how hard it is to
get the products that North Dakota makes that the rest of the world
needs to market. Doesn't matter if it is corn. Doesn't matter if it is
fertilizer. Doesn't matter if it is oil. Doesn't matter if it is
natural gas.
We used to be the shining example in the whole world on how to put
infrastructure in the ground. That is no longer the case, and it is not
because Americans don't know how to do it. It is not because North
Dakotans don't know how to produce it. It is because alphabet soup
agencies in Washington, D.C., make it harder and harder and harder.
When we can't get those projects in the ground, we starve off
capital. We are the only country in the world that is both energy and
food secure. That is an incredible strategic advantage on the world
stage.
In any normal place, we would maximize that. We would do everything
we could to increase that, but we don't live in a normal place, Mr.
Chairman. We live in Washington, D.C.
This bill will help us get infrastructure in the ground, help us
produce those things that the world is starved for, and allow us energy
independence, energy dominance, and also help communities in States
like mine continue to thrive.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time
remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio has 11\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from New Jersey has 13\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster), who is a member of the Energy and Commerce
Committee.
Ms. KUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding.
Mr. Chair, I rise today to speak in opposition to H.R. 1, the
polluters over people act. I will take my time to point out two glaring
flaws with this bill: First, H.R. 1 will make energy more expensive for
Granite Staters.
Right now, natural gas is the single largest source of electricity in
New England. When natural gas prices go up, electricity prices in New
Hampshire go up, yet H.R. 1 makes it easier for natural gas producers
to export American fuel to foreign adversaries like China. Making it
easier for natural gas companies to export fuel to China, where the
prices are currently higher, will cause U.S. natural gas prices to
rise.
As a result, electricity prices in New Hampshire will rise, too.
My amendment to H.R. 1, which the Rules Committee did not make in
order, would have addressed this problem, but instead of putting
American consumers first, the majority is focused on lining the pockets
of Big Oil and Gas companies.
The solution to our Nation's energy problems is building new low-cost
renewables so we aren't reliant on expensive carbon-polluting forms of
energy.
Second, H.R. 1 is going to actually weaken control on PFAS chemicals.
In New Hampshire, we know just how damaging PFAS can be to our water
supply and the communities that rely upon them. Congress should be
making it more difficult to bring new PFAS chemicals to the market, but
H.R. 1 erodes the chemical review process under the Toxic Substances
Control Act, allowing new PFAS chemicals to come on the market without
any consideration for the danger that they may present to the public.
It is the responsibility of Congress to prevent these dangerous
chemicals from coming to the market.
Rather than wasting our time pursuing legislation that puts polluters
over people, let's focus on coming together.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chair, we have said it over and over and over again, and there is
no denying it. Energy security is national security. That is what H.R.
1 is all about.
[[Page H1563]]
Unleashing American energy, production, permitting, put American
energy back into play to address the needs and concerns of the American
people, to lower inflation, and to ensure America's national security
on the international stage. That is what H.R. 1 is all about.
I look forward to closing here in a few minutes with some striking
comments about telling the truth. I heard the ranking member from our
Energy and Commerce Committee a little bit ago say, tell the American
people the truth, and I respect him greatly. I am going to tell the
American people the truth in just a little bit.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1530
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I keep hearing that Republicans want to lower energy costs with this
bill and how important it is to export natural gas overseas. I want to
take a moment to examine some history here.
Back in 2015, with a Republican-controlled House and a Republican-
controlled Senate, Congress passed a bill that repealed the crude
export ban. Since then, crude oil and petroleum product exports to
China have tripled, and the amount of refining capacity on the East
Coast of the United States has decreased by 36 percent.
This is not a coincidence. Lifting the export ban meant that oil
producers saw more profits in sending their oil overseas, including to
China, and little in refining it here at home. That led to 10
refineries closing in the intervening 7 years, destroying jobs.
It tied the price of oil in the U.S. firmly to the price of oil on
global markets, which has been responsible for the gas prices roller
coaster we have seen for the past few years.
Now, what that bill did was enrich a very small number of people who
export oil at the expense of every other American who now has to pay a
little bit more for gasoline.
Republicans, with this bill, want to turn around and do this for the
natural gas industry, too. This bill makes it far too easy to export
LNG abroad--yes, including to China. This would mean the same process
would repeat.
You would pay more for energy. American factories and industries
would pay more for energy. A very small sliver of natural gas
businesses would profit. It is prioritizing the enrichment of the few
over the needs of many Americans.
The sheer gall of calling this the Lower Energy Costs Act, in my
opinion, is insulting. It is insulting to refinery workers who lost
their jobs. It is insulting to the frontline communities next to fossil
fuel plants that suffer from dirtier air. It is insulting to the
hundreds of millions of Americans who would have to pay more to keep
their houses warm each winter.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), Speaker Emeritus of the House.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank
him for his great leadership in opposing this reckless legislation that
is on the floor today.
I thank Mr. Grijalva for his leadership, as well as our ranking
member on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Larsen,
for their setting the record straight in the different categories of
this legislation.
The gentleman from New Jersey just set the record straight again. I
thank the gentleman so much for giving a history lesson to some in this
room who may not remember the course of events that has taken us to
this place.
Today, Mr. Chairman, I rise to join in sounding the alarm, a five-
alarm climate emergency, which is the existential threat of our time.
Many of our colleagues, including our distinguished ranking members,
have gone into detail about opposition to this bill. I want to focus on
the climate aspect.
It was with pride during my term as Speaker that House Democrats made
climate our flagship issue. When we enacted the Inflation Reduction
Act, our Nation took a landmark step to rescue our planet. Yet, our
progress stands in sharp contrast to the reckless Republican bill
before us, which, on every score, puts polluters first.
We know that climate is a health issue. The gentleman referenced that
in his comments. While Democrats are slashing pollution to preserve
clean air and water, this bill guts bedrock health protections to fast-
track polluter projects.
Climate is an economic issue. While Democrats are creating jobs and
lowering energy costs, this bill gives $2.4 billion in handouts to the
biggest polluters.
Climate is a national security issue. While Democrats are declaring
America's energy independence, this bill seeks to keep us at the mercy
of oil-rich dictators.
Finally, climate is a moral issue. While Democrats are honoring our
obligation to pass on a healthy planet to our children and
grandchildren, this bill is nothing short of a dereliction of duty.
It is God's creation. We are religious people here in this body,
right? It is God's creation. Don't we have a responsibility to be good
stewards of God's creation?
The climate emergency is putting lives at risk right now, with
extreme weather pillaging communities that you represent and hitting
families at the kitchen table.
With this legislation, Republicans have chosen to ignore the needs of
America's working families. Instead, Republicans are putting polluters
over people.
For the planet, and for the children, I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Donalds).
Mr. DONALDS. Mr. Chair, as is often said in this Chamber, I didn't
anticipate debating, but as I sit on the floor listening to some of the
things coming from the Democrats about this bill, a lot of it is just
simply not true.
The Democrats are accusing us of providing funds and slush funds to
Big Oil, but in the very Inflation Reduction Act that they passed last
Congress--on a partisan basis, mind you--there is $20 billion in that
bill that goes to the green energy--I don't know--environment slush
fund. The EPA is already saying, Mr. Chair, that that $20 billion is
being basically earmarked for a handful of special interests that the
American people have no idea about.
The Democrats want to lecture us about making sure that we stop the
polluters, but their own energy plan actually empowers the biggest
polluter on the planet, and that is China. It is China that mines all
the minerals for electric batteries, and China does not care about
emission standards.
The Democrats have no problem empowering China when it comes to
mineral production. They have no problem empowering China when it comes
to oil production. They just want to limit it here in the United
States.
This is the same backward thinking that the Europeans have realized
in the face of Putin's aggression in Ukraine. It was all good to let
Russia drill as long as Europe didn't drill.
Mr. Chair, that does not work when it comes to energy production.
H.R. 1 brings common sense back to America's energy matrix. It is an
all-of-the-above strategy.
Listen, I am a Member who has some issues, but I am voting for the
legislation because it is far more important to put America in first
position when it comes to energy exploration on the globe, as opposed
to funding these Green New Deal think tanks and these Green New Deal
energy consortiums that haven't proven that they can deliver baseload
power to address the needs of the American people.
We have an energy problem. That is true. Our energy problem starts
first with having cheap and readily available energy for poor
Americans, middle-income Americans, small business owners, medium-sized
business owners, and, yes, even the people who are wealthy among us.
Our economy thrives with a robust energy matrix, not one divided up
based upon special interests from the left. That does not work. What
works is actually using tried and true energy production standards.
By the way, when we drill for natural gas and explore for natural gas
and oil here in America, we do it cleaner than anywhere else on the
globe. We do it better than anywhere else on the globe, so much so that
people want to import it from us.
[[Page H1564]]
That sounds like a quality plan for America, not the dogma from the
Democrats.
I have been hearing the talking points all week. Polluters over
people? That is a joke. The only people who are putting interests over
people are the Democrats with their faulty energy policy. It must stop.
We have to put Americans first. Support H.R. 1.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, today, Republicans have completed the process of trying
to determine what exactly their energy policy will be. It is not about
energy independence. It is not even about an all-of-the-above energy
approach. Instead, it is a return to the glory days for them of oil and
gas running the show.
Today's bill, however, does nothing to chart a course for American
energy policy. Instead, it is a political messaging bill. Industry
admits it.
There was a Politico piece last week detailing how Republican
industry allies feel about the bill. Rapidan Energy Group, which is run
by Bob McNally, who testified at the Committee on Energy and Commerce's
first hearing this year, sent an analysis note to their clients saying
that H.R. 1 is doomed in the Senate. Several anonymous Republican
Members have said the very same things themselves in press interviews.
Let's be clear: Three months into their majority, instead of using
their power to seriously tackle issues in a bipartisan manner--and many
of my colleagues on the Democratic side said today they wanted to work
with Republicans on real energy policy--Republicans have chosen to put
forward a messaging bill that I think is really an insult to every
single American that is not an oil or gas executive.
It is a message bill, and the message is this: They want the energy
your family uses to be dirtier and more expensive. It is a shame.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am calling this the polluters over people act because it eliminates
the environmental protections that keep families and communities safe
while doing nothing to lower energy costs. Everyday Americans need
relief from high energy costs.
Big Oil is still making record profits, and instead of cracking down
on price gouging, House Republicans are handing giveaways to big oil
and gas company CEOs without delivering any help to working families.
The East Palestine train derailment and other recent catastrophes
have shown just how dangerous putting profits before people can be.
As the climate crisis accelerates, we need real action to support
clean, secure, and affordable American energy.
That is what House Democrats delivered last year with our historic
investments that will help us lead the world in the transition to clean
energy and will truly combat the worsening climate crisis. After all,
extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and more extreme.
Just last week, it was the devastating and deadly tornado that ripped
through Mississippi. These horrifying extreme weather events are
costing families their loved ones, their homes, and their livelihoods.
House Republicans are attacking the very clean energy policies that
hold polluters accountable, reduce costs for American families, and
combat the worsening climate crisis.
House Republicans have the wrong priorities, and we should defeat the
polluters over people act today.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Throughout this debate, my Democratic colleagues have repeated
misinformation and engaged in fearmongering as a tactic to convince
American families to submit to their green agenda and just accept more
expensive and less reliable energy as the new normal to undermine our
economy, make the cost of living even higher, and, perhaps even more
troubling, severely undermine our national security.
Apparently, my Democratic colleagues are okay with making China great
again at the expense of the American people and the rest of the world.
I heard the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, my
colleague--again, who I have great respect for--say a few minutes ago:
Tell the American people the truth.
Well, let's tell the American people some truth. According to a
report by the LendingClub, at the end of 2022--that is 2 years into the
Biden administration--9.3 million more United States consumers were
living paycheck to paycheck compared to the prior year.
Of that group, 75 percent identified inflation as a reason for their
financial situation to be worsening.
By the end of 2022, China's oil refining capacity exceeded the United
States' oil refining capacity.
According to the International Energy Agency's oil market report,
U.S. refining capacity is at 17.6 million barrels per day.
According to the China Petroleum and Chemical Industry Association,
China's capacity is at 18.4 million barrels per day.
{time} 1545
We are far more dependent on China today for the very rare earth
minerals and critical minerals that are needed to pursue the renewable
green energy plan that the Democrats are trying to push. You can't get
there in the timeframe that they are trying to get there, Mr. Chair,
without becoming more dependent on China.
There are those who say that Republicans are climate deniers. That is
simply not true. We simply believe that Republicans have better ideas
to unleash America's energy and to restore America's energy
independence. At the same time that those are good energy policies,
they are also good climate policies.
Let me give you an example. Everybody says that the goal of
addressing the climate problem is to reduce carbon emissions.
Mr. Chair, if that is truly the goal, why do we not want to export
more American natural gas around the world?
According to the American Exploration and Production Council, if we
would simply export four times the amount of natural gas that we are
exporting today--which we could do easily because we have got a wealth
of it--we could lower carbon emissions more than if we were to
electrify every vehicle in America, put a solar panel and a battery
backup on the home and the rooftop of every residential home in
America, and build 57,000 industrial-strength windmills, all combined.
American natural gas is the cleanest form of natural gas on the
planet. Our friends and allies in Europe sure wish they had some of
that today because they have become dependent on Vladimir Putin for
their sources of energy.
Look at the Germans, who decided to throttle their nuclear suite and
become dependent on Russia for their energy.
What did they end up doing?
Forest clearing, burning wood to cook their food and heat their
homes. We do not want to go the way of Europe. They have already tried
all of this.
I implore my Democratic colleagues: We are not arguing about the
goal. We agree with cleaner forms of energy.
What we are arguing about, it appears to me, is the timeframe in
which to accomplish that and the amount of money and the change in the
quality of life that it is going to require for the American people.
I am sure many of you went to college and you studied the business
triangle: time, cost, and quality. You can't affect one of those
without affecting the other two. With this rush to green, if we want to
do this so fast before renewable forms of energy are mature enough
technologically to be able to provide the baseload energy for our grid,
to put fuel in our automobiles, if we want to do it that fast, it is
going to cost a hell of a lot of money, and it is going to change for
the worse the quality of life for the American people.
H.R. 1 is a commonsense energy package. If you lower energy costs,
you are going to lower inflation. If you lower inflation, you are going
to allow the American people to keep more of their hard-earned money.
When American people keep their hard-earned
[[Page H1565]]
money, they come up with good ideas, and our economy begins to thrive.
Mr. Chair, H.R. 1 is not about politics. It is about the American
people. They are sick and tired of people inside the beltway taking and
taking and taking while they are always having to do the giving.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support
H.R. 1. It is the right thing to do for the American people. Let's
unleash American energy.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1, the
Polluters Over People Act.
While it claims to lower American energy costs, it would directly
result in policies that would cost taxpayers billions in environmental
costs. Congress should not pass laws that benefit oil, gas, and mining
companies at the expense of our public lands and public health.
I have worked diligently to conserve and protect our public
resources, and ensure the federal government is a good steward of our
public lands. This bill would severely cut the opportunity for
communities to participate in the environmental review process of a
project. It also fails to recognize tribal sovereignty; the U.S.
federal government must honor its trust and treaty responsibilities to
Tribal nations.
H.R. 1 ignores the fact that oil and gas companies have made billions
in profits while Americans suffered under high prices at the pump
during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. This bill would lower
royalty rates and repeal interest fees to these companies, further
lining their pockets while reducing the money the government receives
for use of these lands.
Public lands are just that: they belong to the people--not to major
corporations. Members of Congress have a responsibility to be good
stewards of these resources.
Additionally, many mining companies are foreign-owned, like
Antofagasta, the parent company of Twin Metals. That company's proposed
sulfide-ore copper mine would put our public lands and waters at great
risk of toxic mining pollution. After extraction, Antofagasta would
ship our American minerals overseas to China for smelting and to be
sold in the global market. How is it in our national interest to re-
purchase our own mined materials?
The rush to pass this legislation is a national security issue.
Safeguards must be put into place when minerals are harvested from
public lands--they should not be used to put the integrity of those
lands or our national security at risk.
Our laws need to be updated, including meaningful permitting reform
to facilitate the green energy transition. That is why Democrats
included $1 billion in the Inflation Reduction Act for federal agencies
to more quickly and efficiently process permits. But H.R. 1 does not
work with agencies to address permitting backlogs. Instead, it slashes
environmental regulations and imposes arbitrary time limits on reviews.
Permitting reform and updated regulations must be done responsibly,
with good-faith participation from local communities, as well as a
strong emphasis on equity, environment impacts, and public health. I am
happy to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make
this happen, but H.R. 1 is not the avenue to do so.
Mr. Chair, let me be clear: H.R. 1 is an attack on our public lands,
which belong to Minnesotans and all Americans.
It should be rejected.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule. The amendment printed in part A of House
Report 118-30 shall be considered as adopted and the bill, as amended,
shall be considered as read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 1
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Lower
Energy Costs Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
DIVISION A--INCREASING AMERICAN ENERGY PRODUCTION, EXPORTS,
INFRASTRUCTURE, AND CRITICAL MINERALS PROCESSING
Sec. 10001. Securing America's critical minerals supply.
Sec. 10002. Protecting American energy production.
Sec. 10003. Researching Efficient Federal Improvements for Necessary
Energy Refining.
Sec. 10004. Promoting cross-border energy infrastructure.
Sec. 10005. Sense of Congress expressing disapproval of the revocation
of the Presidential permit for the Keystone XL pipeline.
Sec. 10006. Sense of Congress opposing restrictions on the export of
crude oil or other petroleum products.
Sec. 10007. Unlocking our domestic LNG potential.
Sec. 10008. Promoting interagency coordination for review of natural
gas pipelines.
Sec. 10009. Interim hazardous waste permits for critical energy
resource facilities.
Sec. 10010. Flexible air permits for critical energy resource
facilities.
Sec. 10011. National security or energy security waivers to produce
critical energy resources.
Sec. 10012. Ending future delays in chemical substance review for
critical energy resources.
Sec. 10013. Natural gas tax repeal.
Sec. 10014. Repeal of greenhouse gas reduction fund.
Sec. 10015. Keeping America's refineries operating.
Sec. 10016. Homeowner energy freedom.
DIVISION B--TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY, PERMITTING, AND PRODUCTION OF
AMERICAN RESOURCES
Sec. 20001. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--ONSHORE AND OFFSHORE LEASING AND OVERSIGHT
Sec. 20101. Onshore oil and gas leasing.
Sec. 20102. Lease reinstatement.
Sec. 20103. Protested lease sales.
Sec. 20104. Suspension of operations.
Sec. 20105. Administrative protest process reform.
Sec. 20106. Leasing and permitting transparency.
Sec. 20107. Offshore oil and gas leasing.
Sec. 20108. Five-year plan for offshore oil and gas leasing.
Sec. 20109. Geothermal leasing.
Sec. 20110. Leasing for certain qualified coal applications.
Sec. 20111. Future coal leasing.
Sec. 20112. Staff planning report.
Sec. 20113. Prohibition on Chinese communist party ownership interest.
Sec. 20114. Effect on other law.
TITLE II--PERMITTING STREAMLINING
Sec. 20201. Definitions.
Sec. 20202. BUILDER Act.
Sec. 20203. Codification of National Environmental Policy Act
regulations.
Sec. 20204. Non-major Federal actions.
Sec. 20205. No net loss determination for existing rights-of-way.
Sec. 20206. Determination of National Environmental Policy Act
adequacy.
Sec. 20207. Determination regarding rights-of-way.
Sec. 20208. Terms of rights-of-way.
Sec. 20209. Funding to process permits and develop information
technology.
Sec. 20210. Offshore geological and geophysical survey licensing.
Sec. 20211. Deferral of applications for permits to drill.
Sec. 20212. Processing and terms of applications for permits to drill.
Sec. 20213. Amendments to the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Sec. 20214. Access to Federal energy resources from non-Federal surface
estate.
Sec. 20215. Scope of environmental reviews for oil and gas leases.
Sec. 20216. Expediting approval of gathering lines.
Sec. 20217. Lease sale litigation.
Sec. 20218. Limitation on claims.
Sec. 20219. Government Accountability Office report on permits to
drill.
Sec. 20220. E-NEPA.
TITLE III--PERMITTING FOR MINING NEEDS
Sec. 20301. Definitions.
Sec. 20302. Minerals supply chain and reliability.
Sec. 20303. Federal register process improvement.
Sec. 20304. Designation of mining as a covered sector for Federal
permitting improvement purposes.
Sec. 20305. Treatment of actions under presidential determination 2022-
11 for Federal permitting improvement purposes.
Sec. 20306. Notice for mineral exploration activities with limited
surface disturbance.
Sec. 20307. Use of mining claims for ancillary activities.
Sec. 20308. Ensuring consideration of uranium as a critical mineral.
Sec. 20309. Barring foreign bad actors from operating on Federal lands.
TITLE IV--FEDERAL LAND USE PLANNING
Sec. 20401. Federal land use planning and withdrawals.
Sec. 20402. Prohibitions on delay of mineral development of certain
Federal land.
Sec. 20403. Definitions.
TITLE V--ENSURING COMPETITIVENESS ON FEDERAL LANDS
Sec. 20501. Incentivizing domestic production.
TITLE VI--ENERGY REVENUE SHARING
Sec. 20601. Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf revenue.
Sec. 20602. Parity in offshore wind revenue sharing.
[[Page H1566]]
Sec. 20603. Elimination of administrative fee under the Mineral Leasing
Act.
Sec. 20604. Sunset.
DIVISION C--WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION AND ENERGY PROJECT IMPROVEMENT
Sec. 30001. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 30002. Certification.
DIVISION A--INCREASING AMERICAN ENERGY PRODUCTION, EXPORTS,
INFRASTRUCTURE, AND CRITICAL MINERALS PROCESSING
Sec. 10001. Securing America's critical minerals supply.
Sec. 10002. Protecting American energy production.
Sec. 10003. Researching Efficient Federal Improvements for Necessary
Energy Refining.
Sec. 10004. Promoting cross-border energy infrastructure.
Sec. 10005. Sense of Congress expressing disapproval of the revocation
of the Presidential permit for the Keystone XL pipeline.
Sec. 10006. Sense of Congress opposing restrictions on the export of
crude oil or other petroleum products.
Sec. 10007. Unlocking our domestic LNG potential.
Sec. 10008. Promoting interagency coordination for review of natural
gas pipelines.
Sec. 10009. Interim hazardous waste permits for critical energy
resource facilities.
Sec. 10010. Flexible air permits for critical energy resource
facilities.
Sec. 10011. National security or energy security waivers to produce
critical energy resources.
Sec. 10012. Ending future delays in chemical substance review for
critical energy resources.
Sec. 10013. Natural gas tax repeal.
Sec. 10014. Repeal of greenhouse gas reduction fund.
Sec. 10015. Keeping America's refineries operating.
Sec. 10016. Homeowner energy freedom.
SEC. 10001. SECURING AMERICA'S CRITICAL MINERALS SUPPLY.
(a) Amendment to the Department of Energy Organization
Act.--The Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C.
7101 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 2, by adding at the end the following:
``(d) As used in sections 102(20) and 203(a)(12), the term
`critical energy resource' means any energy resource--
``(1) that is essential to the energy sector and energy
systems of the United States; and
``(2) the supply chain of which is vulnerable to
disruption.'';
(2) in section 102, by adding at the end the following:
``(20) To ensure there is an adequate and reliable supply
of critical energy resources that are essential to the energy
security of the United States.''; and
(3) in section 203(a), by adding at the end the following:
``(12) Functions that relate to securing the supply of
critical energy resources, including identifying and
mitigating the effects of a disruption of such supply on--
``(A) the development and use of energy technologies; and
``(B) the operation of energy systems.''.
(b) Securing Critical Energy Resource Supply Chains.--
(1) In general.--In carrying out the requirements of the
Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et
seq.), the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the
appropriate Federal agencies, representatives of the energy
sector, States, and other stakeholders, shall--
(A) conduct ongoing assessments of--
(i) energy resource criticality based on the importance of
critical energy resources to the development of energy
technologies and the supply of energy;
(ii) the critical energy resource supply chain of the
United States;
(iii) the vulnerability of such supply chain; and
(iv) how the energy security of the United States is
affected by the reliance of the United States on importation
of critical energy resources;
(B) facilitate development of strategies to strengthen
critical energy resource supply chains in the United States,
including by--
(i) diversifying the sources of the supply of critical
energy resources; and
(ii) increasing domestic production, separation, and
processing of critical energy resources;
(C) develop substitutes and alternatives to critical energy
resources; and
(D) improve technology that reuses and recycles critical
energy resources.
(2) Critical energy resource defined.--In this section, the
term ``critical energy resource'' has the meaning given such
term in section 2 of the Department of Energy Organization
Act (42 U.S.C. 7101).
SEC. 10002. PROTECTING AMERICAN ENERGY PRODUCTION.
(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
States should maintain primacy for the regulation of
hydraulic fracturing for oil and natural gas production on
State and private lands.
(b) Prohibition on Declaration of a Moratorium on Hydraulic
Fracturing.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
President may not declare a moratorium on the use of
hydraulic fracturing unless such moratorium is authorized by
an Act of Congress.
SEC. 10003. RESEARCHING EFFICIENT FEDERAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR
NECESSARY ENERGY REFINING.
Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this
section, the Secretary of Energy shall direct the National
Petroleum Council to--
(1) submit to the Secretary of Energy and Congress a report
containing--
(A) an examination of the role of petrochemical refineries
located in the United States and the contributions of such
petrochemical refineries to the energy security of the United
States, including the reliability of supply in the United
States of liquid fuels and feedstocks, and the affordability
of liquid fuels for consumers in the United States;
(B) analyses and projections with respect to--
(i) the capacity of petrochemical refineries located in the
United States;
(ii) opportunities for expanding such capacity; and
(iii) the risks to petrochemical refineries located in the
United States;
(C) an assessment of any Federal or State executive
actions, regulations, or policies that have caused or
contributed to a decline in the capacity of petrochemical
refineries located in the United States; and
(D) any recommendations for Federal agencies and Congress
to encourage an increase in the capacity of petrochemical
refineries located in the United States; and
(2) make publicly available the report submitted under
paragraph (1).
SEC. 10004. PROMOTING CROSS-BORDER ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE.
(a) Authorization of Certain Energy Infrastructure Projects
at an International Boundary of the United States.--
(1) Authorization.--Except as provided in paragraph (3) and
subsection (d), no person may construct, connect, operate, or
maintain a border-crossing facility for the import or export
of oil or natural gas, or the transmission of electricity,
across an international border of the United States without
obtaining a certificate of crossing for the border-crossing
facility under this subsection.
(2) Certificate of crossing.--
(A) Requirement.--Not later than 120 days after final
action is taken, by the relevant official or agency
identified under subparagraph (B), under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
with respect to a border-crossing facility for which a person
requests a certificate of crossing under this subsection, the
relevant official or agency, in consultation with appropriate
Federal agencies, shall issue a certificate of crossing for
the border-crossing facility unless the relevant official or
agency finds that the construction, connection, operation, or
maintenance of the border-crossing facility is not in the
public interest of the United States.
(B) Relevant official or agency.--The relevant official or
agency referred to in subparagraph (A) is--
(i) the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with respect
to border-crossing facilities consisting of oil or natural
gas pipelines; and
(ii) the Secretary of Energy with respect to border-
crossing facilities consisting of electric transmission
facilities.
(C) Additional requirement for electric transmission
facilities.--In the case of a request for a certificate of
crossing for a border-crossing facility consisting of an
electric transmission facility, the Secretary of Energy shall
require, as a condition of issuing the certificate of
crossing under subparagraph (A), that the border-crossing
facility be constructed, connected, operated, or maintained
consistent with all applicable policies and standards of--
(i) the Electric Reliability Organization and the
applicable regional entity; and
(ii) any Regional Transmission Organization or Independent
System Operator with operational or functional control over
the border-crossing facility.
(3) Exclusions.--This subsection shall not apply to any
construction, connection, operation, or maintenance of a
border-crossing facility for the import or export of oil or
natural gas, or the transmission of electricity--
(A) if the border-crossing facility is operating for such
import, export, or transmission as of the date of enactment
of this Act;
(B) if a Presidential permit (or similar permit) for the
construction, connection, operation, or maintenance has been
issued pursuant to any provision of law or Executive order;
or
(C) if an application for a Presidential permit (or similar
permit) for the construction, connection, operation, or
maintenance is pending on the date of enactment of this Act,
until the earlier of--
(i) the date on which such application is denied; or
(ii) two years after the date of enactment of this Act, if
such a permit has not been issued by such date of enactment.
(4) Effect of other laws.--
(A) Application to projects.--Nothing in this subsection or
subsection (d) shall affect the application of any other
Federal statute to a project for which a certificate of
crossing for a border-crossing facility is requested under
this subsection.
[[Page H1567]]
(B) Natural gas act.--Nothing in this subsection or
subsection (d) shall affect the requirement to obtain
approval or authorization under sections 3 and 7 of the
Natural Gas Act for the siting, construction, or operation of
any facility to import or export natural gas.
(C) Oil pipelines.--Nothing in this subsection or
subsection (d) shall affect the authority of the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission with respect to oil pipelines
under section 60502 of title 49, United States Code.
(b) Transmission of Electric Energy to Canada and Mexico.--
(1) Repeal of requirement to secure order.--Section 202(e)
of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)) is repealed.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) State regulations.--Section 202(f) of the Federal Power
Act (16 U.S.C. 824a(f)) is amended by striking ``insofar as
such State regulation does not conflict with the exercise of
the Commission's powers under or relating to subsection
202(e)''.
(B) Seasonal diversity electricity exchange.--Section
602(b) of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978
(16 U.S.C. 824a-4(b)) is amended by striking ``the Commission
has conducted hearings and made the findings required under
section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act'' and all that
follows through the period at the end and inserting ``the
Secretary has conducted hearings and finds that the proposed
transmission facilities would not impair the sufficiency of
electric supply within the United States or would not impede
or tend to impede the coordination in the public interest of
facilities subject to the jurisdiction of the Secretary.''.
(c) No Presidential Permit Required.--No Presidential
permit (or similar permit) shall be required pursuant to any
provision of law or Executive order for the construction,
connection, operation, or maintenance of an oil or natural
gas pipeline or electric transmission facility, or any
border-crossing facility thereof.
(d) Modifications to Existing Projects.--No certificate of
crossing under subsection (a), or Presidential permit (or
similar permit), shall be required for a modification to--
(1) an oil or natural gas pipeline or electric transmission
facility that is operating for the import or export of oil or
natural gas or the transmission of electricity as of the date
of enactment of this Act;
(2) an oil or natural gas pipeline or electric transmission
facility for which a Presidential permit (or similar permit)
has been issued pursuant to any provision of law or Executive
order; or
(3) a border-crossing facility for which a certificate of
crossing has previously been issued under subsection (a).
(e) Prohibition on Revocation of Presidential Permits.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President may
not revoke a Presidential permit (or similar permit) issued
pursuant to Executive Order No. 13337 (3 U.S.C. 301 note),
Executive Order No. 11423 (3 U.S.C. 301 note), Executive
Order No. 12038 (43 Fed. Reg. 4957), Executive Order No.
10485 (18 Fed. Reg. 5397), or any other Executive order for
the construction, connection, operation, or maintenance of an
oil or natural gas pipeline or electric transmission
facility, or any border-crossing facility thereof, unless
such revocation is authorized by an Act of Congress.
(f) Effective Date; Rulemaking Deadlines.--
(1) Effective date.--Subsections (a) through (d), and the
amendments made by such subsections, shall take effect on the
date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Rulemaking deadlines.--Each relevant official or agency
described in subsection (a)(2)(B) shall--
(A) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, publish in the Federal Register notice of a
proposed rulemaking to carry out the applicable requirements
of subsection (a); and
(B) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
this Act, publish in the Federal Register a final rule to
carry out the applicable requirements of subsection (a).
(g) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Border-crossing facility.--The term ``border-crossing
facility'' means the portion of an oil or natural gas
pipeline or electric transmission facility that is located at
an international boundary of the United States.
(2) Modification.--The term ``modification'' includes a
reversal of flow direction, change in ownership, change in
flow volume, addition or removal of an interconnection, or an
adjustment to maintain flow (such as a reduction or increase
in the number of pump or compressor stations).
(3) Natural gas.--The term ``natural gas'' has the meaning
given that term in section 2 of the Natural Gas Act (15
U.S.C. 717a).
(4) Oil.--The term ``oil'' means petroleum or a petroleum
product.
(5) Electric reliability organization; regional entity.--
The terms ``Electric Reliability Organization'' and
``regional entity'' have the meanings given those terms in
section 215 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824o).
(6) Independent system operator; regional transmission
organization.--The terms ``Independent System Operator'' and
``Regional Transmission Organization'' have the meanings
given those terms in section 3 of the Federal Power Act (16
U.S.C. 796).
SEC. 10005. SENSE OF CONGRESS EXPRESSING DISAPPROVAL OF THE
REVOCATION OF THE PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR THE
KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) On March 29, 2019, TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P.,
was granted a Presidential permit to construct, connect,
operate, and maintain the Keystone XL pipeline.
(2) On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued Executive
Order 13990 (86 Fed. Reg. 7037) that revoked the March 2019
Presidential permit for the Keystone XL.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
Congress disapproves of the revocation by President Biden of
the Presidential permit for the Keystone XL pipeline.
SEC. 10006. SENSE OF CONGRESS OPPOSING RESTRICTIONS ON THE
EXPORT OF CRUDE OIL OR OTHER PETROLEUM
PRODUCTS.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The United States has enjoyed a renaissance in energy
production, with the expansion of domestic crude oil and
other petroleum product production contributing to enhanced
energy security and significant economic benefits to the
national economy.
(2) In 2015, Congress recognized the need to adapt to
changing crude oil market conditions and repealed all
restrictions on the export of crude oil on a bipartisan
basis.
(3) Section 101 of title I of division O of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (42 U.S.C. 6212a)
established the national policy on oil export restriction,
prohibiting any official of the Federal Government from
imposing or enforcing any restrictions on the export of crude
oil with limited exceptions, including a savings clause
maintaining the authority to prohibit exports under any
provision of law that imposes sanctions on a foreign person
or foreign government (including any provision of law that
prohibits or restricts United States persons from engaging in
a transaction with a sanctioned person or government),
including a foreign government that is designated as a state
sponsor of terrorism.
(4) Lifting the restrictions on crude oil exports
encouraged additional domestic energy production, created
American jobs and economic development, and allowed the
United States to emerge as the leading oil producer in the
world.
(5) In 2019, the United States became a net exporter of
petroleum products for the first time since 1952, and the
reliance of the United States on foreign imports of petroleum
products has declined to historic lows.
(6) Free trade, open markets, and competition have
contributed to the rise of the United States as a global
energy superpower.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the Federal Government should not impose--
(1) overly restrictive regulations on the exploration,
production, or marketing of energy resources; or
(2) any restrictions on the export of crude oil or other
petroleum products under the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act (42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), except with respect to the
export of crude oil or other petroleum products to a foreign
person or foreign government subject to sanctions under any
provision of United States law, including to a country the
government of which is designated as a state sponsor of
terrorism.
SEC. 10007. UNLOCKING OUR DOMESTIC LNG POTENTIAL.
Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717b) is
amended--
(1) by striking subsections (a) through (c);
(2) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections
(a) and (b), respectively;
(3) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (c), and
moving such subsection after subsection (b), as so
redesignated;
(4) in subsection (a), as so redesignated, by amending
paragraph (1) to read as follows: ``(1) The Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (in this subsection referred to as the
`Commission') shall have the exclusive authority to approve
or deny an application for authorization for the siting,
construction, expansion, or operation of a facility to export
natural gas from the United States to a foreign country or
import natural gas from a foreign country, including an LNG
terminal. In determining whether to approve or deny an
application under this paragraph, the Commission shall deem
the exportation or importation of natural gas to be
consistent with the public interest. Except as specifically
provided in this Act, nothing in this Act is intended to
affect otherwise applicable law related to any Federal
agency's authorities or responsibilities related to
facilities to import or export natural gas, including LNG
terminals.''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d)(1) Nothing in this Act limits the authority of the
President under the Constitution, the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the National
Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), part B of title II
of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6271 et
seq.), the Trading With the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. 4301 et
seq.), or any other provision of law that imposes sanctions
on a foreign person or foreign government (including any
provision of law that prohibits or restricts United States
persons from engaging in a transaction with a sanctioned
person or government), including a country that is designated
as a state sponsor of terrorism, to prohibit imports or
exports.
``(2) In this subsection, the term `state sponsor of
terrorism' means a country the
[[Page H1568]]
government of which the Secretary of State determines has
repeatedly provided support for international terrorism
pursuant to--
``(A) section 1754(c)(1)(A) of the Export Control Reform
Act of 2018 (50 U.S.C. 4318(c)(1)(A));
``(B) section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
(22 U.S.C. 2371);
``(C) section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C.
2780); or
``(D) any other provision of law.''.
SEC. 10008. PROMOTING INTERAGENCY COORDINATION FOR REVIEW OF
NATURAL GAS PIPELINES.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission.
(2) Federal authorization.--The term ``Federal
authorization'' has the meaning given that term in section
15(a) of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717n(a)).
(3) NEPA review.--The term ``NEPA review'' means the
process of reviewing a proposed Federal action under section
102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4332).
(4) Project-related nepa review.--The term ``project-
related NEPA review'' means any NEPA review required to be
conducted with respect to the issuance of an authorization
under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act or a certificate of
public convenience and necessity under section 7 of such Act.
(b) Commission NEPA Review Responsibilities.--In acting as
the lead agency under section 15(b)(1) of the Natural Gas Act
for the purposes of complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) with respect to
an authorization under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act or a
certificate of public convenience and necessity under section
7 of such Act, the Commission shall, in accordance with this
section and other applicable Federal law--
(1) be the only lead agency;
(2) coordinate as early as practicable with each agency
designated as a participating agency under subsection (d)(3)
to ensure that the Commission develops information in
conducting its project-related NEPA review that is usable by
the participating agency in considering an aspect of an
application for a Federal authorization for which the agency
is responsible; and
(3) take such actions as are necessary and proper to
facilitate the expeditious resolution of its project-related
NEPA review.
(c) Deference to Commission.--In making a decision with
respect to a Federal authorization required with respect to
an application for authorization under section 3 of the
Natural Gas Act or a certificate of public convenience and
necessity under section 7 of such Act, each agency shall give
deference, to the maximum extent authorized by law, to the
scope of the project-related NEPA review that the Commission
determines to be appropriate.
(d) Participating Agencies.--
(1) Identification.--The Commission shall identify, not
later than 30 days after the Commission receives an
application for an authorization under section 3 of the
Natural Gas Act or a certificate of public convenience and
necessity under section 7 of such Act, any Federal or State
agency, local government, or Indian Tribe that may issue a
Federal authorization or is required by Federal law to
consult with the Commission in conjunction with the issuance
of a Federal authorization required for such authorization or
certificate.
(2) Invitation.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 45 days after the
Commission receives an application for an authorization under
section 3 of the Natural Gas Act or a certificate of public
convenience and necessity under section 7 of such Act, the
Commission shall invite any agency identified under paragraph
(1) to participate in the review process for the applicable
Federal authorization.
(B) Deadline.--An invitation issued under subparagraph (A)
shall establish a deadline by which a response to the
invitation shall be submitted to the Commission, which may be
extended by the Commission for good cause.
(3) Designation as participating agencies.--Not later than
60 days after the Commission receives an application for an
authorization under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act or a
certificate of public convenience and necessity under section
7 of such Act, the Commission shall designate an agency
identified under paragraph (1) as a participating agency with
respect to an application for authorization under section 3
of the Natural Gas Act or a certificate of public convenience
and necessity under section 7 of such Act unless the agency
informs the Commission, in writing, by the deadline
established pursuant to paragraph (2)(B), that the agency--
(A) has no jurisdiction or authority with respect to the
applicable Federal authorization;
(B) has no special expertise or information relevant to any
project-related NEPA review; or
(C) does not intend to submit comments for the record for
the project-related NEPA review conducted by the Commission.
(4) Effect of non-designation.--
(A) Effect on agency.--Any agency that is not designated as
a participating agency under paragraph (3) with respect to an
application for an authorization under section 3 of the
Natural Gas Act or a certificate of public convenience and
necessity under section 7 of such Act may not request or
conduct a NEPA review that is supplemental to the project-
related NEPA review conducted by the Commission, unless the
agency--
(i) demonstrates that such review is legally necessary for
the agency to carry out responsibilities in considering an
aspect of an application for a Federal authorization; and
(ii) requires information that could not have been obtained
during the project-related NEPA review conducted by the
Commission.
(B) Comments; record.--The Commission shall not, with
respect to an agency that is not designated as a
participating agency under paragraph (3) with respect to an
application for an authorization under section 3 of the
Natural Gas Act or a certificate of public convenience and
necessity under section 7 of such Act--
(i) consider any comments or other information submitted by
such agency for the project-related NEPA review conducted by
the Commission; or
(ii) include any such comments or other information in the
record for such project-related NEPA review.
(e) Water Quality Impacts.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 401 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1341), an applicant
for a Federal authorization shall not be required to provide
a certification under such section with respect to the
Federal authorization.
(2) Coordination.--With respect to any NEPA review for a
Federal authorization to conduct an activity that will
directly result in a discharge into the navigable waters
(within the meaning of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act), the Commission shall identify as an agency under
subsection (d)(1) the State in which the discharge originates
or will originate, or, if appropriate, the interstate water
pollution control agency having jurisdiction over the
navigable waters at the point where the discharge originates
or will originate.
(3) Proposed conditions.--A State or interstate agency
designated as a participating agency pursuant to paragraph
(2) may propose to the Commission terms or conditions for
inclusion in an authorization under section 3 of the Natural
Gas Act or a certificate of public convenience and necessity
under section 7 of such Act that the State or interstate
agency determines are necessary to ensure that any activity
described in paragraph (2) conducted pursuant to such
authorization or certification will comply with the
applicable provisions of sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
(4) Commission consideration of conditions.--The Commission
may include a term or condition in an authorization under
section 3 of the Natural Gas Act or a certificate of public
convenience and necessity under section 7 of such Act
proposed by a State or interstate agency under paragraph (3)
only if the Commission finds that the term or condition is
necessary to ensure that any activity described in paragraph
(2) conducted pursuant to such authorization or certification
will comply with the applicable provisions of sections 301,
302, 303, 306, and 307 of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act.
(f) Schedule.--
(1) Deadline for federal authorizations.--A deadline for a
Federal authorization required with respect to an application
for authorization under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act or a
certificate of public convenience and necessity under section
7 of such Act set by the Commission under section 15(c)(1) of
such Act shall be not later than 90 days after the Commission
completes its project-related NEPA review, unless an
applicable schedule is otherwise established by Federal law.
(2) Concurrent reviews.--Each Federal and State agency--
(A) that may consider an application for a Federal
authorization required with respect to an application for
authorization under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act or a
certificate of public convenience and necessity under section
7 of such Act shall formulate and implement a plan for
administrative, policy, and procedural mechanisms to enable
the agency to ensure completion of Federal authorizations in
compliance with schedules established by the Commission under
section 15(c)(1) of such Act; and
(B) in considering an aspect of an application for a
Federal authorization required with respect to an application
for authorization under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act or a
certificate of public convenience and necessity under section
7 of such Act, shall--
(i) formulate and implement a plan to enable the agency to
comply with the schedule established by the Commission under
section 15(c)(1) of such Act;
(ii) carry out the obligations of that agency under
applicable law concurrently, and in conjunction with, the
project-related NEPA review conducted by the Commission, and
in compliance with the schedule established by the Commission
under section 15(c)(1) of such Act, unless the agency
notifies the Commission in writing that doing so would impair
the ability of the agency to conduct needed analysis or
otherwise carry out such obligations;
(iii) transmit to the Commission a statement--
(I) acknowledging receipt of the schedule established by
the Commission under section 15(c)(1) of the Natural Gas Act;
and
(II) setting forth the plan formulated under clause (i) of
this subparagraph;
[[Page H1569]]
(iv) not later than 30 days after the agency receives such
application for a Federal authorization, transmit to the
applicant a notice--
(I) indicating whether such application is ready for
processing; and
(II) if such application is not ready for processing, that
includes a comprehensive description of the information
needed for the agency to determine that the application is
ready for processing;
(v) determine that such application for a Federal
authorization is ready for processing for purposes of clause
(iv) if such application is sufficiently complete for the
purposes of commencing consideration, regardless of whether
supplemental information is necessary to enable the agency to
complete the consideration required by law with respect to
such application; and
(vi) not less often than once every 90 days, transmit to
the Commission a report describing the progress made in
considering such application for a Federal authorization.
(3) Failure to meet deadline.--If a Federal or State
agency, including the Commission, fails to meet a deadline
for a Federal authorization set forth in the schedule
established by the Commission under section 15(c)(1) of the
Natural Gas Act, not later than 5 days after such deadline,
the head of the relevant Federal agency (including, in the
case of a failure by a State agency, the Federal agency
overseeing the delegated authority) shall notify Congress and
the Commission of such failure and set forth a recommended
implementation plan to ensure completion of the action to
which such deadline applied.
(g) Consideration of Applications for Federal
Authorization.--
(1) Issue identification and resolution.--
(A) Identification.--Federal and State agencies that may
consider an aspect of an application for a Federal
authorization shall identify, as early as possible, any
issues of concern that may delay or prevent an agency from
working with the Commission to resolve such issues and
granting such authorization.
(B) Issue resolution.--The Commission may forward any issue
of concern identified under subparagraph (A) to the heads of
the relevant agencies (including, in the case of an issue of
concern that is a failure by a State agency, the Federal
agency overseeing the delegated authority, if applicable) for
resolution.
(2) Remote surveys.--If a Federal or State agency
considering an aspect of an application for a Federal
authorization requires the person applying for such
authorization to submit data, the agency shall consider any
such data gathered by aerial or other remote means that the
person submits. The agency may grant a conditional approval
for the Federal authorization based on data gathered by
aerial or remote means, conditioned on the verification of
such data by subsequent onsite inspection.
(3) Application processing.--The Commission, and Federal
and State agencies, may allow a person applying for a Federal
authorization to fund a third-party contractor to assist in
reviewing the application for such authorization.
(h) Accountability, Transparency, Efficiency.--For an
application for an authorization under section 3 of the
Natural Gas Act or a certificate of public convenience and
necessity under section 7 of such Act that requires multiple
Federal authorizations, the Commission, with input from any
Federal or State agency considering an aspect of the
application, shall track and make available to the public on
the Commission's website information related to the actions
required to complete the Federal authorizations. Such
information shall include the following:
(1) The schedule established by the Commission under
section 15(c)(1) of the Natural Gas Act.
(2) A list of all the actions required by each applicable
agency to complete permitting, reviews, and other actions
necessary to obtain a final decision on the application.
(3) The expected completion date for each such action.
(4) A point of contact at the agency responsible for each
such action.
(5) In the event that an action is still pending as of the
expected date of completion, a brief explanation of the
reasons for the delay.
(i) Pipeline Security.--In considering an application for
an authorization under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act or a
certificate of public convenience and necessity under section
7 of such Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shall
consult with the Administrator of the Transportation Security
Administration regarding the applicant's compliance with
security guidance and best practice recommendations of the
Administration regarding pipeline infrastructure security,
pipeline cybersecurity, pipeline personnel security, and
other pipeline security measures.
SEC. 10009. INTERIM HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMITS FOR CRITICAL
ENERGY RESOURCE FACILITIES.
Section 3005(e) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C.
6925(e)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(A)--
(A) in clause (i), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(B) in clause (ii), by inserting ``or'' after ``this
section,''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) is a critical energy resource facility,''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Definitions.--For the purposes of this subsection:
``(A) Critical energy resource.--The term `critical energy
resource' means, as determined by the Secretary of Energy,
any energy resource--
``(i) that is essential to the energy sector and energy
systems of the United States; and
``(ii) the supply chain of which is vulnerable to
disruption.
``(B) Critical energy resource facility.--The term
`critical energy resource facility' means a facility that
processes or refines a critical energy resource.''.
SEC. 10010. FLEXIBLE AIR PERMITS FOR CRITICAL ENERGY RESOURCE
FACILITIES.
(a) In General.--The Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall, as necessary, revise regulations
under parts 70 and 71 of title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, to--
(1) authorize the owner or operator of a critical energy
resource facility to utilize flexible air permitting (as
described in the final rule titled ``Operating Permit
Programs; Flexible Air Permitting Rule'' published by the
Environmental Protection Agency in the Federal Register on
October 6, 2009 (74 Fed. Reg. 51418)) with respect to such
critical energy resource facility; and
(2) facilitate flexible, market-responsive operations (as
described in the final rule identified in paragraph (1)) with
respect to critical energy resource facilities.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Critical energy resource.--The term ``critical energy
resource'' means, as determined by the Secretary of Energy,
any energy resource--
(A) that is essential to the energy sector and energy
systems of the United States; and
(B) the supply chain of which is vulnerable to disruption.
(2) Critical energy resource facility.--The term ``critical
energy resource facility'' means a facility that processes or
refines a critical energy resource.
SEC. 10011. NATIONAL SECURITY OR ENERGY SECURITY WAIVERS TO
PRODUCE CRITICAL ENERGY RESOURCES.
(a) Clean Air Act Requirements.--
(1) In general.--If the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, in consultation with the Secretary of
Energy, determines that, by reason of a sudden increase in
demand for, or a shortage of, a critical energy resource, or
another cause, the processing or refining of a critical
energy resource at a critical energy resource facility is
necessary to meet the national security or energy security
needs of the United States, then the Administrator may, with
or without notice, hearing, or other report, issue a
temporary waiver of any requirement under the Clean Air Act
(42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) with respect to such critical energy
resource facility that, in the judgment of the Administrator,
will allow for such processing or refining at such critical
energy resource facility as necessary to best meet such needs
and serve the public interest.
(2) Conflict with other environmental laws.--The
Administrator shall ensure that any waiver of a requirement
under the Clean Air Act under this subsection, to the maximum
extent practicable, does not result in a conflict with a
requirement of any other applicable Federal, State, or local
environmental law or regulation and minimizes any adverse
environmental impacts.
(3) Violations of other environmental laws.--To the extent
any omission or action taken by a party under a waiver issued
under this subsection is in conflict with any requirement of
a Federal, State, or local environmental law or regulation,
such omission or action shall not be considered a violation
of such environmental law or regulation, or subject such
party to any requirement, civil or criminal liability, or a
citizen suit under such environmental law or regulation.
(4) Expiration and renewal of waivers.--A waiver issued
under this subsection shall expire not later than 90 days
after it is issued. The Administrator may renew or reissue
such waiver pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) for subsequent
periods, not to exceed 90 days for each period, as the
Administrator determines necessary to meet the national
security or energy security needs described in paragraph (1)
and serve the public interest. In renewing or reissuing a
waiver under this paragraph, the Administrator shall include
in any such renewed or reissued waiver such conditions as are
necessary to minimize any adverse environmental impacts to
the extent practicable.
(5) Subsequent action by court.--If a waiver issued under
this subsection is subsequently stayed, modified, or set
aside by a court pursuant a provision of law, any omission or
action previously taken by a party under the waiver while the
waiver was in effect shall remain subject to paragraph (3).
(6) Critical energy resource; critical energy resource
facility defined.--The terms ``critical energy resource'' and
``critical energy resource facility'' have the meanings given
such terms in section 3025(f) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
(as added by this section).
(b) Solid Waste Disposal Act Requirements.--
(1) Hazardous waste management.--The Solid Waste Disposal
Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.) is amended by inserting after
section 3024 the following:
``SEC. 3025. WAIVERS FOR CRITICAL ENERGY RESOURCE FACILITIES.
``(a) In General.--If the Administrator, in consultation
with the Secretary of Energy,
[[Page H1570]]
determines that, by reason of a sudden increase in demand
for, or a shortage of, a critical energy resource, or another
cause, the processing or refining of a critical energy
resource at a critical energy resource facility is necessary
to meet the national security or energy security needs of the
United States, then the Administrator may, with or without
notice, hearing, or other report, issue a temporary waiver of
any covered requirement with respect to such critical energy
resource facility that, in the judgment of the Administrator,
will allow for such processing or refining at such critical
energy resource facility as necessary to best meet such needs
and serve the public interest.
``(b) Conflict With Other Environmental Laws.--The
Administrator shall ensure that any waiver of a covered
requirement under this section, to the maximum extent
practicable, does not result in a conflict with a requirement
of any other applicable Federal, State, or local
environmental law or regulation and minimizes any adverse
environmental impacts.
``(c) Violations of Other Environmental Laws.--To the
extent any omission or action taken by a party under a waiver
issued under this section is in conflict with any requirement
of a Federal, State, or local environmental law or
regulation, such omission or action shall not be considered a
violation of such environmental law or regulation, or subject
such party to any requirement, civil or criminal liability,
or a citizen suit under such environmental law or regulation.
``(d) Expiration and Renewal of Waivers.--A waiver issued
under this section shall expire not later than 90 days after
it is issued. The Administrator may renew or reissue such
waiver pursuant to subsections (a) and (b) for subsequent
periods, not to exceed 90 days for each period, as the
Administrator determines necessary to meet the national
security or energy security needs described in subsection (a)
and serve the public interest. In renewing or reissuing a
waiver under this subsection, the Administrator shall include
in any such renewed or reissued waiver such conditions as are
necessary to minimize any adverse environmental impacts to
the extent practicable.
``(e) Subsequent Action by Court.--If a waiver issued under
this section is subsequently stayed, modified, or set aside
by a court pursuant a provision of law, any omission or
action previously taken by a party under the waiver while the
waiver was in effect shall remain subject to subsection (c).
``(f) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Covered requirement.--The term `covered requirement'
means--
``(A) any standard established under section 3002, 3003, or
3004;
``(B) the permit requirement under section 3005; or
``(C) any other requirement of this Act, as the
Administrator determines appropriate.
``(2) Critical energy resource.--The term `critical energy
resource' means, as determined by the Secretary of Energy,
any energy resource--
``(A) that is essential to the energy sector and energy
systems of the United States; and
``(B) the supply chain of which is vulnerable to
disruption.
``(3) Critical energy resource facility.--The term
`critical energy resource facility' means a facility that
processes or refines a critical energy resource.''.
(2) Table of contents.--The table of contents of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act is amended by inserting after the item
relating to section 3024 the following:
``Sec. 3025. Waivers for critical energy resource facilities.''.
SEC. 10012. ENDING FUTURE DELAYS IN CHEMICAL SUBSTANCE REVIEW
FOR CRITICAL ENERGY RESOURCES.
Section 5(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C.
2604(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(6) Critical energy resources.--
``(A) Standard.--For purposes of a determination under
paragraph (3) with respect to a chemical substance that is a
critical energy resource, the Administrator shall take into
consideration economic, societal, and environmental costs and
benefits, notwithstanding any requirement of this section to
not take such factors into consideration.
``(B) Failure to render determination.--
``(i) Actions authorized.--If, with respect to a chemical
substance that is a critical energy resource, the
Administrator fails to make a determination on a notice under
paragraph (3) by the end of the applicable review period and
the notice has not been withdrawn by the submitter, the
submitter may take the actions described in paragraph (1)(A)
with respect to the chemical substance, and the Administrator
shall be relieved of any requirement to make such
determination.
``(ii) Non-duplication.--A refund of applicable fees under
paragraph (4)(A) shall not be made if a submitter takes an
action described in paragraph (1)(A) under this subparagraph.
``(C) Prerequisite for suggestion of withdrawal or
suspension.--The Administrator may not suggest to, or request
of, a submitter of a notice under this subsection for a
chemical substance that is a critical energy resource that
such submitter withdraw such notice, or request a suspension
of the running of the applicable review period with respect
to such notice, unless the Administrator has--
``(i) conducted a preliminary review of such notice; and
``(ii) provided to the submitter a draft of a determination
under paragraph (3), including any supporting information.
``(D) Definition.--For purposes of this paragraph, the term
`critical energy resource' means, as determined by the
Secretary of Energy, any energy resource--
``(i) that is essential to the energy sector and energy
systems of the United States; and
``(ii) the supply chain of which is vulnerable to
disruption.''.
SEC. 10013. NATURAL GAS TAX REPEAL.
(a) Repeal.--Section 136 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7436)(relating to methane emissions and waste reduction
incentive program for petroleum and natural gas systems) is
repealed.
(b) Rescission.--The unobligated balance of any amounts
made available under section 136 of the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7436)(as in effect on the day before the date of
enactment of this Act) is rescinded.
SEC. 10014. REPEAL OF GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION FUND.
(a) Repeal.--Section 134 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7434)(relating to the greenhouse gas reduction fund) is
repealed.
(b) Rescission.--The unobligated balance of any amounts
made available under section 134 of the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7434)(as in effect on the day before the date of
enactment of this Act) is rescinded.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 60103 of Public Law 117-
169 (relating to the greenhouse gas reduction fund) is
repealed.
SEC. 10015. KEEPING AMERICA'S REFINERIES OPERATING.
(a) In General.--The owner or operator of a stationary
source described in subsection (b) of this section shall not
be required by the regulations promulgated under section
112(r)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(7)(B))
to include in any hazard assessment under clause (ii) of such
section 112(r)(7)(B) an assessment of safer technology and
alternative risk management measures with respect to the use
of hydrofluoric acid in an alkylation unit.
(b) Stationary Source Described.--A stationary source
described in this subsection is a stationary source (as
defined in section 112(r)(2)(C) of the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7412(r)(2)(C)) in North American Industry
Classification System code 324--
(1) for which a construction permit or operating permit has
been issued pursuant to the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et
seq.); or
(2) for which the owner or operator demonstrates to the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency that
such stationary source conforms or will conform to the most
recent version of American Petroleum Institute Recommended
Practice 751.
SEC. 10016. HOMEOWNER ENERGY FREEDOM.
(a) In General.--The following are repealed:
(1) Section 50122 of Public Law 117-169 (42 U.S.C. 18795a)
(relating to a high-efficiency electric home rebate program).
(2) Section 50123 of Public Law 117-169 (42 U.S.C. 18795b)
(relating to State-based home energy efficiency contractor
training grants).
(3) Section 50131 of Public Law 117-169 (136 Stat. 2041)
(relating to assistance for latest and zero building energy
code adoption).
(b) Rescissions.--The unobligated balances of any amounts
made available under each of sections 50122, 50123, and 50131
of Public Law 117-169 (42 U.S.C. 18795a, 18795b; 136 Stat.
2041) (as in effect on the day before the date of enactment
of this Act) are rescinded.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 50121(c)(7) of Public
Law 117-169 (42 U.S.C. 18795(c)(7)) is amended by striking
``, including a rebate provided under a high-efficiency
electric home rebate program (as defined in section
50122(d)),''.
DIVISION B--TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY, PERMITTING, AND PRODUCTION OF
AMERICAN RESOURCES
SEC. 20001. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This division may be cited as the
``Transparency, Accountability, Permitting, and Production of
American Resources Act'' or the ``TAPP American Resources
Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this
division is as follows:
DIVISION B--TAPP AMERICAN RESOURCES
Sec. 20001. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--ONSHORE AND OFFSHORE LEASING AND OVERSIGHT
Sec. 20101. Onshore oil and gas leasing.
Sec. 20102. Lease reinstatement.
Sec. 20103. Protested lease sales.
Sec. 20104. Suspension of operations.
Sec. 20105. Administrative protest process reform.
Sec. 20106. Leasing and permitting transparency.
Sec. 20107. Offshore oil and gas leasing.
Sec. 20108. Five-year plan for offshore oil and gas leasing.
Sec. 20109. Geothermal leasing.
Sec. 20110. Leasing for certain qualified coal applications.
Sec. 20111. Future coal leasing.
Sec. 20112. Staff planning report.
Sec. 20113. Prohibition on Chinese communist party ownership interest.
Sec. 20114. Effect on other law.
TITLE II--PERMITTING STREAMLINING
Sec. 20201. Definitions.
Sec. 20202. BUILDER Act.
[[Page H1571]]
Sec. 20203. Codification of National Environmental Policy Act
regulations.
Sec. 20204. Non-major Federal actions.
Sec. 20205. No net loss determination for existing rights-of-way.
Sec. 20206. Determination of National Environmental Policy Act
adequacy.
Sec. 20207. Determination regarding rights-of-way.
Sec. 20208. Terms of rights-of-way.
Sec. 20209. Funding to process permits and develop information
technology.
Sec. 20210. Offshore geological and geophysical survey licensing.
Sec. 20211. Deferral of applications for permits to drill.
Sec. 20212. Processing and terms of applications for permits to drill.
Sec. 20213. Amendments to the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Sec. 20214. Access to Federal energy resources from non-Federal surface
estate.
Sec. 20215. Scope of environmental reviews for oil and gas leases.
Sec. 20216. Expediting approval of gathering lines.
Sec. 20217. Lease sale litigation.
Sec. 20218. Limitation on claims.
Sec. 20219. Government Accountability Office report on permits to
drill.
Sec. 20220. E-NEPA.
TITLE III--PERMITTING FOR MINING NEEDS
Sec. 20301. Definitions.
Sec. 20302. Minerals supply chain and reliability.
Sec. 20303. Federal register process improvement.
Sec. 20304. Designation of mining as a covered sector for Federal
permitting improvement purposes.
Sec. 20305. Treatment of actions under presidential determination 2022-
11 for Federal permitting improvement purposes.
Sec. 20306. Notice for mineral exploration activities with limited
surface disturbance.
Sec. 20307. Use of mining claims for ancillary activities.
Sec. 20308. Ensuring consideration of uranium as a critical mineral.
Sec. 20309. Barring foreign bad actors from operating on Federal lands.
TITLE IV--FEDERAL LAND USE PLANNING
Sec. 20401. Federal land use planning and withdrawals.
Sec. 20402. Prohibitions on delay of mineral development of certain
Federal land.
Sec. 20403. Definitions.
TITLE V--ENSURING COMPETITIVENESS ON FEDERAL LANDS
Sec. 20501. Incentivizing domestic production.
TITLE VI--ENERGY REVENUE SHARING
Sec. 20601. Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf revenue.
Sec. 20602. Parity in offshore wind revenue sharing.
Sec. 20603. Elimination of administrative fee under the Mineral Leasing
Act.
TITLE I--ONSHORE AND OFFSHORE LEASING AND OVERSIGHT
SEC. 20101. ONSHORE OIL AND GAS LEASING.
(a) Requirement To Immediately Resume Onshore Oil and Gas
Lease Sales.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Interior shall
immediately resume quarterly onshore oil and gas lease sales
in compliance with the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et
seq.).
(2) Requirement.--The Secretary of the Interior shall
ensure--
(A) that any oil and gas lease sale pursuant to paragraph
(1) is conducted immediately on completion of all applicable
scoping, public comment, and environmental analysis
requirements under the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et
seq.) and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and
(B) that the processes described in subparagraph (A) are
conducted in a timely manner to ensure compliance with
subsection (b)(1).
(3) Lease of oil and gas lands.--Section 17(b)(1)(A) of the
Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 226(b)(1)(A)) is amended by
inserting ``Eligible lands comprise all lands subject to
leasing under this Act and not excluded from leasing by a
statutory or regulatory prohibition. Available lands are
those lands that have been designated as open for leasing
under a land use plan developed under section 202 of the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and that have
been nominated for leasing through the submission of an
expression of interest, are subject to drainage in the
absence of leasing, or are otherwise designated as available
pursuant to regulations adopted by the Secretary.'' after
``sales are necessary.''.
(b) Quarterly Lease Sales.--
(1) In general.--In accordance with the Mineral Leasing Act
(30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), each fiscal year, the Secretary of
the Interior shall conduct a minimum of four oil and gas
lease sales in each of the following States:
(A) Wyoming.
(B) New Mexico.
(C) Colorado.
(D) Utah.
(E) Montana.
(F) North Dakota.
(G) Oklahoma.
(H) Nevada.
(I) Alaska.
(J) Any other State in which there is land available for
oil and gas leasing under the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C.
181 et seq.) or any other mineral leasing law.
(2) Requirement.--In conducting a lease sale under
paragraph (1) in a State described in that paragraph, the
Secretary of the Interior shall offer all parcels nominated
and eligible pursuant to the requirements of the Mineral
Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) for oil and gas
exploration, development, and production under the resource
management plan in effect for the State.
(3) Replacement sales.--The Secretary of the Interior shall
conduct a replacement sale during the same fiscal year if--
(A) a lease sale under paragraph (1) is canceled, delayed,
or deferred, including for a lack of eligible parcels; or
(B) during a lease sale under paragraph (1) the percentage
of acreage that does not receive a bid is equal to or greater
than 25 percent of the acreage offered.
(4) Notice regarding missed sales.--Not later than 30 days
after a sale required under this subsection is canceled,
delayed, deferred, or otherwise missed the Secretary of the
Interior shall submit to the Committee on Natural Resources
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources of the Senate a report that states what
sale was missed and why it was missed.
SEC. 20102. LEASE REINSTATEMENT.
The reinstatement of a lease entered into under the Mineral
Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) or the Geothermal Steam
Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) by the Secretary shall
be not considered a major Federal action under section
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).
SEC. 20103. PROTESTED LEASE SALES.
Section 17(b)(1)(A) of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C.
226(b)(1)(A)) is amended by inserting ``The Secretary shall
resolve any protest to a lease sale not later than 60 days
after such payment.'' after ``annual rental for the first
lease year.''.
SEC. 20104. SUSPENSION OF OPERATIONS.
Section 17 of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 226) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(r) Suspension of Operations Permits.--In the event that
an oil and gas lease owner has submitted an expression of
interest for adjacent acreage that is part of the nature of
the geological play and has yet to be offered in a lease sale
by the Secretary, they may request a suspension of operations
from the Secretary of the Interior and upon request, the
Secretary shall grant the suspension of operations within 15
days. Any payment of acreage rental or of minimum royalty
prescribed by such lease likewise shall be suspended during
such period of suspension of operations and production; and
the term of such lease shall be extended by adding any such
suspension period thereto.''.
SEC. 20105. ADMINISTRATIVE PROTEST PROCESS REFORM.
Section 17 of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 226) is
further amended by adding at the end the following:
``(s) Protest Filing Fee.--
``(1) In general.--Before processing any protest filed
under this section, the Secretary shall collect a filing fee
in the amount described in paragraph (2) from the protestor
to recover the cost for processing documents filed for each
administrative protest.
``(2) Amount.--The amount described in this paragraph is
calculated as follows:
``(A) For each protest filed in a submission not exceeding
10 pages in length, the base filing fee shall be $150.
``(B) For each submission exceeding 10 pages in length, in
addition to the base filing fee, an assessment of $5 per page
in excess of 10 pages shall apply.
``(C) For protests that include more than one oil and gas
lease parcel, right-of-way, or application for permit to
drill in a submission, an additional assessment of $10 per
additional lease parcel, right-of-way, or application for
permit to drill shall apply.
``(3) Adjustment.--
``(A) In general.--Beginning on January 1, 2024, and
annually thereafter, the Secretary shall adjust the filing
fees established in this subsection to whole dollar amounts
to reflect changes in the Producer Price Index, as published
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, for the previous 12
months.
``(B) Publication of adjusted filing fees.--At least 30
days before the filing fees as adjusted under this paragraph
take effect, the Secretary shall publish notification of the
adjustment of such fees in the Federal Register.''.
SEC. 20106. LEASING AND PERMITTING TRANSPARENCY.
(a) Report.--Not later than 30 days after the date of the
enactment of this section, and annually thereafter, the
Secretary of the Interior shall submit to the Committee on
Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a
report that describes--
(1) the status of nominated parcels for future onshore oil
and gas and geothermal lease sales, including--
(A) the number of expressions of interest received each
month during the period of 365 days that ends on the date on
which the report is submitted with respect to which the
Bureau of Land Management--
(i) has not taken any action to review;
[[Page H1572]]
(ii) has not completed review; or
(iii) has completed review and determined that the relevant
area meets all applicable requirements for leasing, but has
not offered the relevant area in a lease sale;
(B) how long expressions of interest described in
subparagraph (A) have been pending; and
(C) a plan, including timelines, for how the Secretary of
the Interior plans to--
(i) work through future expressions of interest to prevent
delays;
(ii) put expressions of interest described in subparagraph
(A) into a lease sale; and
(iii) complete review for expressions of interest described
in clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (A);
(2) the status of each pending application for permit to
drill received during the period of 365 days that ends on the
date on which the report is submitted, including the number
of applications received each month, by each Bureau of Land
Management office, including--
(A) a description of the cause of delay for pending
applications, including as a result of staffing shortages,
technical limitations, incomplete applications, and
incomplete review pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) or other
applicable laws;
(B) the number of days an application has been pending in
violation of section 17(p)(2) of the Mineral Leasing Act (30
U.S.C. 226(p)(2)); and
(C) a plan for how the office intends to come into
compliance with the requirements of section 17(p)(2) of the
Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 226(p)(2));
(3) the number of permits to drill issued each month by
each Bureau of Land Management office during the 5-year
period ending on the date on which the report is submitted;
(4) the status of each pending application for a license
for offshore geological and geophysical surveys received
during the period of 365 days that ends on the date on which
the report is submitted, including the number of applications
received each month, by each Bureau of Ocean Energy
management regional office, including--
(A) a description of any cause of delay for pending
applications, including as a result of staffing shortages,
technical limitations, incomplete applications, and
incomplete review pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) or other
applicable laws;
(B) the number of days an application has been pending; and
(C) a plan for how the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
intends to complete review of each application;
(5) the number of licenses for offshore geological and
geophysical surveys issued each month by each Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management regional office during the 5-year period
ending on the date on which the report is submitted;
(6) the status of each pending application for a permit to
drill received during the period of 365 days that ends on the
date on which the report is submitted, including the number
of applications received each month, by each Bureau of Safety
and Environmental Enforcement regional office, including--
(A) a description of any cause of delay for pending
applications, including as a result of staffing shortages,
technical limitations, incomplete applications, and
incomplete review pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) or other
applicable laws;
(B) the number of days an application has been pending; and
(C) steps the Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement is taking to complete review of each application;
(7) the number of permits to drill issued each month by
each Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement regional
office during the period of 365 days that ends on the date on
which the report is submitted;
(8) how, as applicable, the Bureau of Land Management, the
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, and the Bureau of Safety
and Environmental Enforcement determines whether to--
(A) issue a license for geological and geophysical surveys;
(B) issue a permit to drill; and
(C) issue, extend, or suspend an oil and gas lease;
(9) when determinations described in paragraph (8) are sent
to the national office of the Bureau of Land Management, the
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, or the Bureau of Safety
and Environmental Enforcement for final approval;
(10) the degree to which Bureau of Land Management, Bureau
of Ocean Energy Management, and Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement field, State, and regional offices
exercise discretion on such final approval;
(11) during the period of 365 days that ends on the date on
which the report is submitted, the number of auctioned leases
receiving accepted bids that have not been issued to winning
bidders and the number of days such leases have not been
issued; and
(12) a description of the uses of application for permit to
drill fees paid by permit holders during the 5-year period
ending on the date on which the report is submitted.
(b) Pending Applications for Permits To Drill.--Not later
than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this section,
the Secretary of the Interior shall--
(1) complete all requirements under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
other applicable law that must be met before issuance of a
permit to drill described in paragraph (2); and
(2) issue a permit for all completed applications to drill
that are pending on the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Public Availability of Data.--
(1) Mineral leasing act.--Section 17 of the Mineral Leasing
Act (30 U.S.C. 226) is further amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(t) Public Availability of Data.--
``(1) Expressions of interest.--Not later than 30 days
after the date of the enactment of this subsection, and each
month thereafter, the Secretary shall publish on the website
of the Department of the Interior the number of pending,
approved, and not approved expressions of interest in
nominated parcels for future onshore oil and gas lease sales
in the preceding month.
``(2) Applications for permits to drill.--Not later than 30
days after the date of the enactment of this subsection, and
each month thereafter, the Secretary shall publish on the
website of the Department of the Interior the number of
pending and approved applications for permits to drill in the
preceding month in each State office.
``(3) Past data.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
the enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall publish
on the website of the Department of the Interior, with
respect to each month during the 5-year period ending on the
date of the enactment of this subsection--
``(A) the number of approved and not approved expressions
of interest for onshore oil and gas lease sales during such
5-year period; and
``(B) the number of approved and not approved applications
for permits to drill during such 5-year period.''.
(2) Outer continental shelf lands act.--Section 8 of the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(q) Public Availability of Data.--
``(1) Offshore geological and geophysical survey
licenses.--Not later than 30 days after the date of the
enactment of this subsection, and each month thereafter, the
Secretary shall publish on the website of the Department of
the Interior the number of pending and approved applications
for licenses for offshore geological and geophysical surveys
in the preceding month.
``(2) Applications for permits to drill.--Not later than 30
days after the date of the enactment of this subsection, and
each month thereafter, the Secretary shall publish on the
website of the Department of the Interior the number of
pending and approved applications for permits to drill on the
outer Continental Shelf in the preceding month in each
regional office.
``(3) Past data.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
the enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall publish
on the website of the Department of the Interior, with
respect each month during the 5-year period ending on the
date of the enactment of this subsection--
``(A) the number of approved applications for licenses for
offshore geological and geophysical surveys; and
``(B) the number of approved applications for permits to
drill on the outer Continental Shelf.''.
(d) Requirement To Submit Documents and Communications.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
the enactment of this section, the Secretary of the Interior
shall submit to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
of the Senate and the Committee on Natural Resources of the
House of Representatives all documents and communications
relating to the comprehensive review of Federal oil and gas
permitting and leasing practices required under section 208
of Executive Order 14008 (86 Fed. Reg. 7624; relating to
tackling the climate crisis at home and abroad).
(2) Inclusions.--The submission under paragraph (1) shall
include all documents and communications submitted to the
Secretary of the Interior by members of the public in
response to any public meeting or forum relating to the
comprehensive review described in that paragraph.
SEC. 20107. OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS LEASING.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct all lease
sales described in the 2017-2022 Outer Continental Shelf Oil
and Gas Leasing Proposed Final Program (November 2016) that
have not been conducted as of the date of the enactment of
this Act by not later than September 30, 2023.
(b) Gulf of Mexico Region Annual Lease Sales.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and except within
areas subject to existing oil and gas leasing moratoria
beginning in fiscal year 2023, the Secretary of the Interior
shall annually conduct a minimum of 2 region-wide oil and gas
lease sales in the following planning areas of the Gulf of
Mexico region, as described in the 2017-2022 Outer
Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Proposed Final Program
(November 2016):
(1) The Central Gulf of Mexico Planning Area.
(2) The Western Gulf of Mexico Planning Area.
(c) Alaska Region Annual Lease Sales.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, beginning in fiscal year 2023, the
Secretary of the Interior shall annually conduct a minimum of
2 region-wide oil and gas lease sales in the Alaska region of
the Outer Continental Shelf, as described in the 2017-2022
[[Page H1573]]
Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Proposed Final
Program (November 2016).
(d) Requirements.--In conducting lease sales under
subsections (b) and (c), the Secretary of the Interior
shall--
(1) issue such leases in accordance with the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1332 et seq.); and
(2) include in each such lease sale all unleased areas that
are not subject to a moratorium as of the date of the lease
sale.
SEC. 20108. FIVE-YEAR PLAN FOR OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS LEASING.
Section 18 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1344) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``subsections (c) and (d) of this section,
shall prepare and periodically revise,'' and inserting ``this
section, shall issue every five years'';
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Each five-year program shall include at least two
Gulf of Mexico region-wide lease sales per year.''; and
(C) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``domestic energy
security,'' after ``between'';
(2) by redesignating subsections (f) through (i) as
subsections (h) through (k), respectively; and
(3) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
``(f) Five-Year Program for 2023-2028.--The Secretary shall
issue the five-year oil and gas leasing program for 2023
through 2028 and issue the Record of Decision on the Final
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement by not later than
July 1, 2023.
``(g) Subsequent Leasing Programs.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 36 months after
conducting the first lease sale under an oil and gas leasing
program prepared pursuant to this section, the Secretary
shall begin preparing the subsequent oil and gas leasing
program under this section.
``(2) Requirement.--Each subsequent oil and gas leasing
program under this section shall be approved by not later
than 180 days before the expiration of the previous oil and
gas leasing program.''.
SEC. 20109. GEOTHERMAL LEASING.
(a) Annual Leasing.--Section 4(b) of the Geothermal Steam
Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 1003(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``2 years'' and inserting
``year'';
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs
(5) and (6), respectively; and
(3) after paragraph (2), by inserting the following:
``(3) Replacement sales.--If a lease sale under paragraph
(1) for a year is canceled or delayed, the Secretary of the
Interior shall conduct a replacement sale during the same
year.
``(4) Requirement.--In conducting a lease sale under
paragraph (2) in a State described in that paragraph, the
Secretary of the Interior shall offer all nominated parcels
eligible for geothermal development and utilization under the
resource management plan in effect for the State.''.
(b) Deadlines for Consideration of Geothermal Drilling
Permits.--Section 4 of the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (30
U.S.C. 1003) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(h) Deadlines for Consideration of Geothermal Drilling
Permits.--
``(1) Notice.--Not later than 30 days after the date on
which the Secretary receives an application for any
geothermal drilling permit, the Secretary shall--
``(A) provide written notice to the applicant that the
application is complete; or
``(B) notify the applicant that information is missing and
specify any information that is required to be submitted for
the application to be complete.
``(2) Issuance of decision.--If the Secretary determines
that an application for a geothermal drilling permit is
complete under paragraph (1)(A), the Secretary shall issue a
final decision on the application not later than 30 days
after the Secretary notifies the applicant that the
application is complete.''.
SEC. 20110. LEASING FOR CERTAIN QUALIFIED COAL APPLICATIONS.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Coal lease.--The term ``coal lease'' means a lease
entered into by the United States as lessor, through the
Bureau of Land Management, and the applicant on Bureau of
Land Management Form 3400-012.
(2) Qualified application.--The term ``qualified
application'' means any application pending under the lease
by application program administered by the Bureau of Land
Management pursuant to the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181
et seq.) and subpart 3425 of title 43, Code of Federal
Regulations (as in effect on the date of the enactment of
this Act), for which the environmental review process under
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
et seq.) has commenced.
(b) Mandatory Leasing and Other Required Approvals.--As
soon as practicable after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Secretary shall promptly--
(1) with respect to each qualified application--
(A) if not previously published for public comment, publish
a draft environmental assessment, as required under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) and any applicable implementing regulations;
(B) finalize the fair market value of the coal tract for
which a lease by application is pending;
(C) take all intermediate actions necessary to grant the
qualified application; and
(D) grant the qualified application; and
(2) with respect to previously awarded coal leases, grant
any additional approvals of the Department of the Interior or
any bureau, agency, or division of the Department of the
Interior required for mining activities to commence.
SEC. 20111. FUTURE COAL LEASING.
Notwithstanding any judicial decision to the contrary or a
departmental review of the Federal coal leasing program,
Secretarial Order 3338, issued by the Secretary of the
Interior on January 15, 2016, shall have no force or effect.
SEC. 20112. STAFF PLANNING REPORT.
The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of
Agriculture shall each annually submit to the Committee on
Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a
report on the staffing capacity of each respective agency
with respect to issuing oil, gas, hardrock mining, coal, and
renewable energy leases, rights-of-way, claims, easements,
and permits. Each such report shall include--
(1) the number of staff assigned to process and issue oil,
gas, hardrock mining, coal, and renewable energy leases,
rights-of-way, claims, easements, and permits;
(2) a description of how many staff are needed to meet
statutory requirements for such oil, gas, hardrock mining,
coal, and renewable energy leases, rights-of-way, claims,
easements, and permits; and
(3) how, as applicable, the Department of the Interior or
the Department of Agriculture plans to address staffing
shortfalls and turnover to ensure adequate staffing to
process and issue such oil, gas, hardrock mining, coal, and
renewable energy leases, rights-of-way, claims, easements,
and permits.
SEC. 20113. PROHIBITION ON CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY OWNERSHIP
INTEREST.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Communist
Party of China (or a person acting on behalf of the Community
Party of China) may not acquire any interest with respect to
lands leased for oil or gas under the Mineral Leasing Act (30
U.S.C. 181 et seq.) or the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act
(43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.).
SEC. 20114. EFFECT ON OTHER LAW.
Nothing in this division, or any amendments made by this
division, shall affect--
(1) the Presidential memorandum titled ``Memorandum on
Withdrawal of Certain Areas of the United States Outer
Continental Shelf From Leasing Disposition'' and dated
September 8, 2020;
(2) the Presidential memorandum titled ``Memorandum on
Withdrawal of Certain Areas of the United States Outer
Continental Shelf From Leasing Disposition'' and dated
September 25, 2020;
(3) the Presidential memorandum titled ``Memorandum on
Withdrawal of Certain Areas off the Atlantic Coast on the
Outer Continental Shelf From Leasing Disposition'' and dated
December 20, 2016; or
(4) the ban on oil and gas development in the Great Lakes
described in section 386 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42
U.S.C. 15941).
TITLE II--PERMITTING STREAMLINING
SEC. 20201. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Energy facility.--The term ``energy facility'' means a
facility the primary purpose of which is the exploration for,
or the development, production, conversion, gathering,
storage, transfer, processing, or transportation of, any
energy resource.
(2) Energy storage device.--The term ``energy storage
device''--
(A) means any equipment that stores energy, including
electricity, compressed air, pumped water, heat, and
hydrogen, which may be converted into, or used to produce,
electricity; and
(B) includes a battery, regenerative fuel cell, flywheel,
capacitor, superconducting magnet, and any other equipment
the Secretary concerned determines may be used to store
energy which may be converted into, or used to produce,
electricity.
(3) Public lands.--The term ``public lands'' means any land
and interest in land owned by the United States within the
several States and administered by the Secretary of the
Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture without regard to
how the United States acquired ownership, except--
(A) lands located on the Outer Continental Shelf; and
(B) lands held in trust by the United States for the
benefit of Indians, Indian Tribes, Aleuts, and Eskimos.
(4) Right-of-way.--The term ``right-of-way'' means--
(A) a right-of-way issued, granted, or renewed under
section 501 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of
1976 (43 U.S.C. 1761); or
(B) a right-of-way granted under section 28 of the Mineral
Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 185).
(5) Secretary concerned.--The term ``Secretary concerned''
means--
(A) with respect to public lands, the Secretary of the
Interior; and
(B) with respect to National Forest System lands, the
Secretary of Agriculture.
(6) Land use plan.--The term ``land use plan'' means--
(A) a land and resource management plan prepared by the
Forest Service for a unit of
[[Page H1574]]
the National Forest System pursuant to section 6 of the
Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974
(16 U.S.C. 1604);
(B) a Land Management Plan developed by the Bureau of Land
Management under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); or
(C) a comprehensive conservation plan developed by the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service under section
4(e)(1)(A) of the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd(e)(1)(A)).
SEC. 20202. BUILDER ACT.
(a) Paragraph (2) of Section 102.--Section 102(2) of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2))
is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``insure'' and
inserting ``ensure'';
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``insure'' and
inserting ``ensure'';
(3) in subparagraph (C)--
(A) by inserting ``consistent with the provisions of this
Act and except as provided by other provisions of law,''
before ``include in every'';
(B) by striking clauses (i) through (v) and inserting the
following:
``(i) reasonably foreseeable environmental effects with a
reasonably close causal relationship to the proposed agency
action;
``(ii) any reasonably foreseeable adverse environmental
effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be
implemented;
``(iii) a reasonable number of alternatives to the proposed
agency action, including an analysis of any negative
environmental impacts of not implementing the proposed agency
action in the case of a no action alternative, that are
technically and economically feasible, are within the
jurisdiction of the agency, meet the purpose and need of the
proposal, and, where applicable, meet the goals of the
applicant;
``(iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of
man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of
long-term productivity; and
``(v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of
Federal resources which would be involved in the proposed
agency action should it be implemented.''; and
(C) by striking ``the responsible Federal official'' and
inserting ``the head of the lead agency'';
(4) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``Any'' and inserting
``any'';
(5) by redesignating subparagraphs (D) through (I) as
subparagraphs (F) through (K), respectively;
(6) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
``(D) ensure the professional integrity, including
scientific integrity, of the discussion and analysis in an
environmental document;
``(E) make use of reliable existing data and resources in
carrying out this Act;'';
(7) by amending subparagraph (G), as redesignated, to read
as follows:
``(G) consistent with the provisions of this Act, study,
develop, and describe technically and economically feasible
alternatives within the jurisdiction and authority of the
agency;''; and
(8) in subparagraph (H), as amended, by inserting
``consistent with the provisions of this Act,'' before
``recognize''.
(b) New Sections.--Title I of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 106. PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINATION OF LEVEL OF REVIEW.
``(a) Threshold Determinations.--An agency is not required
to prepare an environmental document with respect to a
proposed agency action if--
``(1) the proposed agency action is not a final agency
action within the meaning of such term in chapter 5 of title
5, United States Code;
``(2) the proposed agency action is covered by a
categorical exclusion established by the agency, another
Federal agency, or another provision of law;
``(3) the preparation of such document would clearly and
fundamentally conflict with the requirements of another
provision of law;
``(4) the proposed agency action is, in whole or in part, a
nondiscretionary action with respect to which such agency
does not have authority to take environmental factors into
consideration in determining whether to take the proposed
action;
``(5) the proposed agency action is a rulemaking that is
subject to section 553 of title 5, United States Code; or
``(6) the proposed agency action is an action for which
such agency's compliance with another statute's requirements
serve the same or similar function as the requirements of
this Act with respect to such action.
``(b) Levels of Review.--
``(1) Environmental impact statement.--An agency shall
issue an environmental impact statement with respect to a
proposed agency action that has a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment.
``(2) Environmental assessment.--An agency shall prepare an
environmental assessment with respect to a proposed agency
action that is not likely to have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment, or if the significance of
such effect is unknown, unless the agency finds that a
categorical exclusion established by the agency, another
Federal agency, or another provision of law applies. Such
environmental assessment shall be a concise public document
prepared by a Federal agency to set forth the basis of such
agency's finding of no significant impact.
``(3) Sources of information.--In making a determination
under this subsection, an agency--
``(A) may make use of any reliable data source; and
``(B) is not required to undertake new scientific or
technical research.
``SEC. 107. TIMELY AND UNIFIED FEDERAL REVIEWS.
``(a) Lead Agency.--
``(1) Designation.--
``(A) In general.--If there are two or more involved
Federal agencies, such agencies shall determine, by letter or
memorandum, which agency shall be the lead agency based on
consideration of the following factors:
``(i) Magnitude of agency's involvement.
``(ii) Project approval or disapproval authority.
``(iii) Expertise concerning the action's environmental
effects.
``(iv) Duration of agency's involvement.
``(v) Sequence of agency's involvement.
``(B) Joint lead agencies.--In making a determination under
subparagraph (A), the involved Federal agencies may, in
addition to a Federal agency, appoint such Federal, State,
Tribal, or local agencies as joint lead agencies as the
involved Federal agencies shall determine appropriate. Joint
lead agencies shall jointly fulfill the role described in
paragraph (2).
``(C) Mineral projects.--This paragraph shall not apply
with respect to a mineral exploration or mine permit.
``(2) Role.--A lead agency shall, with respect to a
proposed agency action--
``(A) supervise the preparation of an environmental
document if, with respect to such proposed agency action,
there is more than one involved Federal agency;
``(B) request the participation of each cooperating agency
at the earliest practicable time;
``(C) in preparing an environmental document, give
consideration to any analysis or proposal created by a
cooperating agency with jurisdiction by law or a cooperating
agency with special expertise;
``(D) develop a schedule, in consultation with each
involved cooperating agency, the applicant, and such other
entities as the lead agency determines appropriate, for
completion of any environmental review, permit, or
authorization required to carry out the proposed agency
action;
``(E) if the lead agency determines that a review, permit,
or authorization will not be completed in accordance with the
schedule developed under subparagraph (D), notify the agency
responsible for issuing such review, permit, or authorization
of the discrepancy and request that such agency take such
measures as such agency determines appropriate to comply with
such schedule; and
``(F) meet with a cooperating agency that requests such a
meeting.
``(3) Cooperating agency.--The lead agency may, with
respect to a proposed agency action, designate any involved
Federal agency or a State, Tribal, or local agency as a
cooperating agency. A cooperating agency may, not later than
a date specified by the lead agency, submit comments to the
lead agency. Such comments shall be limited to matters
relating to the proposed agency action with respect to which
such agency has special expertise or jurisdiction by law with
respect to an environmental issue.
``(4) Request for designation.--Any Federal, State, Tribal,
or local agency or person that is substantially affected by
the lack of a designation of a lead agency with respect to a
proposed agency action under paragraph (1) may submit a
written request for such a designation to an involved Federal
agency. An agency that receives a request under this
paragraph shall transmit such request to each involved
Federal agency and to the Council.
``(5) Council designation.--
``(A) Request.--Not earlier than 45 days after the date on
which a request is submitted under paragraph (4), if no
designation has been made under paragraph (1), a Federal,
State, Tribal, or local agency or person that is
substantially affected by the lack of a designation of a lead
agency may request that the Council designate a lead agency.
Such request shall consist of--
``(i) a precise description of the nature and extent of the
proposed agency action; and
``(ii) a detailed statement with respect to each involved
Federal agency and each factor listed in paragraph (1)
regarding which agency should serve as lead agency.
``(B) Transmission.--The Council shall transmit a request
received under subparagraph (A) to each involved Federal
agency.
``(C) Response.--An involved Federal agency may, not later
than 20 days after the date of the submission of a request
under subparagraph (A), submit to the Council a response to
such request.
``(D) Designation.--Not later than 40 days after the date
of the submission of a request under subparagraph (A), the
Council shall designate the lead agency with respect to the
relevant proposed agency action.
``(b) One Document.--
``(1) Document.--To the extent practicable, if there are 2
or more involved Federal agencies with respect to a proposed
agency action and the lead agency has determined that an
environmental document is required, such requirement shall be
deemed satisfied with respect to all involved Federal
agencies if the lead agency issues such an environmental
document.
[[Page H1575]]
``(2) Consideration timing.--In developing an environmental
document for a proposed agency action, no involved Federal
agency shall be required to consider any information that
becomes available after the sooner of, as applicable--
``(A) receipt of a complete application with respect to
such proposed agency action; or
``(B) publication of a notice of intent or decision to
prepare an environmental impact statement for such proposed
agency action.
``(3) Scope of review.--In developing an environmental
document for a proposed agency action, the lead agency and
any other involved Federal agencies shall only consider the
effects of the proposed agency action that--
``(A) occur on Federal land; or
``(B) are subject to Federal control and responsibility.
``(c) Request for Public Comment.--Each notice of intent to
prepare an environmental impact statement under section 102
shall include a request for public comment on alternatives or
impacts and on relevant information, studies, or analyses
with respect to the proposed agency action.
``(d) Statement of Purpose and Need.--Each environmental
impact statement shall include a statement of purpose and
need that briefly summarizes the underlying purpose and need
for the proposed agency action.
``(e) Estimated Total Cost.--The cover sheet for each
environmental impact statement shall include a statement of
the estimated total cost of preparing such environmental
impact statement, including the costs of agency full-time
equivalent personnel hours, contractor costs, and other
direct costs.
``(f) Page Limits.--
``(1) Environmental impact statements.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
an environmental impact statement shall not exceed 150 pages,
not including any citations or appendices.
``(B) Extraordinary complexity.--An environmental impact
statement for a proposed agency action of extraordinary
complexity shall not exceed 300 pages, not including any
citations or appendices.
``(2) Environmental assessments.--An environmental
assessment shall not exceed 75 pages, not including any
citations or appendices.
``(g) Sponsor Preparation.--A lead agency shall allow a
project sponsor to prepare an environmental assessment or an
environmental impact statement upon request of the project
sponsor. Such agency may provide such sponsor with
appropriate guidance and assist in the preparation. The lead
agency shall independently evaluate the environmental
document and shall take responsibility for the contents upon
adoption.
``(h) Deadlines.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
with respect to a proposed agency action, a lead agency shall
complete, as applicable--
``(A) the environmental impact statement not later than the
date that is 2 years after the sooner of, as applicable--
``(i) the date on which such agency determines that section
102(2)(C) requires the issuance of an environmental impact
statement with respect to such action;
``(ii) the date on which such agency notifies the applicant
that the application to establish a right-of-way for such
action is complete; and
``(iii) the date on which such agency issues a notice of
intent to prepare the environmental impact statement for such
action; and
``(B) the environmental assessment not later than the date
that is 1 year after the sooner of, as applicable--
``(i) the date on which such agency determines that section
106(b)(2) requires the preparation of an environmental
assessment with respect to such action;
``(ii) the date on which such agency notifies the applicant
that the application to establish a right-of-way for such
action is complete; and
``(iii) the date on which such agency issues a notice of
intent to prepare the environmental assessment for such
action.
``(2) Delay.--A lead agency that determines it is not able
to meet the deadline described in paragraph (1) may extend
such deadline with the approval of the applicant. If the
applicant approves such an extension, the lead agency shall
establish a new deadline that provides only so much
additional time as is necessary to complete such
environmental impact statement or environmental assessment.
``(3) Expenditures for delay.--If a lead agency is unable
to meet the deadline described in paragraph (1) or extended
under paragraph (2), the lead agency must pay $100 per day,
to the extent funding is provided in advance in an
appropriations Act, out of the office of the head of the
department of the lead agency to the applicant starting on
the first day immediately following the deadline described in
paragraph (1) or extended under paragraph (2) up until the
date that an applicant approves a new deadline. This
paragraph does not apply when the lead agency misses a
deadline solely due to delays caused by litigation.
``(i) Report.--
``(1) In general.--The head of each lead agency shall
annually submit to the Committee on Natural Resources of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate a report that--
``(A) identifies any environmental assessment and
environmental impact statement that such lead agency did not
complete by the deadline described in subsection (h); and
``(B) provides an explanation for any failure to meet such
deadline.
``(2) Inclusions.--Each report submitted under paragraph
(1) shall identify, as applicable--
``(A) the office, bureau, division, unit, or other entity
within the Federal agency responsible for each such
environmental assessment and environmental impact statement;
``(B) the date on which--
``(i) such lead agency notified the applicant that the
application to establish a right-of-way for the major Federal
action is complete;
``(ii) such lead agency began the scoping for the major
Federal action; or
``(iii) such lead agency issued a notice of intent to
prepare the environmental assessment or environmental impact
statement for the major Federal action; and
``(C) when such environmental assessment and environmental
impact statement is expected to be complete.
``SEC. 108. JUDICIAL REVIEW.
``(a) Limitations on Claims.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, a claim arising under Federal law seeking
judicial review of compliance with this Act, of a
determination made under this Act, or of Federal action
resulting from a determination made under this Act, shall be
barred unless--
``(1) in the case of a claim pertaining to a proposed
agency action for which--
``(A) an environmental document was prepared and an
opportunity for comment was provided;
``(B) the claim is filed by a party that participated in
the administrative proceedings regarding such environmental
document; and
``(C) the claim--
``(i) is filed by a party that submitted a comment during
the public comment period for such administrative proceedings
and such comment was sufficiently detailed to put the lead
agency on notice of the issue upon which the party seeks
judicial review; and
``(ii) is related to such comment;
``(2) except as provided in subsection (b), such claim is
filed not later than 120 days after the date of publication
of a notice in the Federal Register of agency intent to carry
out the proposed agency action;
``(3) such claim is filed after the issuance of a record of
decision or other final agency action with respect to the
relevant proposed agency action;
``(4) such claim does not challenge the establishment or
use of a categorical exclusion under section 102; and
``(5) such claim concerns--
``(A) an alternative included in the environmental
document; or
``(B) an environmental effect considered in the
environmental document.
``(b) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.--
``(1) Separate final agency action.--The issuance of a
Federal action resulting from a final supplemental
environmental impact statement shall be considered a final
agency action for the purposes of chapter 5 of title 5,
United States Code, separate from the issuance of any
previous environmental impact statement with respect to the
same proposed agency action.
``(2) Deadline for filing a claim.--A claim seeking
judicial review of a Federal action resulting from a final
supplemental environmental review issued under section
102(2)(C) shall be barred unless--
``(A) such claim is filed within 120 days of the date on
which a notice of the Federal agency action resulting from a
final supplemental environmental impact statement is issued;
and
``(B) such claim is based on information contained in such
supplemental environmental impact statement that was not
contained in a previous environmental document pertaining to
the same proposed agency action.
``(c) Prohibition on Injunctive Relief.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, a violation of this Act shall not
constitute the basis for injunctive relief.
``(d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed to create a right of judicial review or place
any limit on filing a claim with respect to the violation of
the terms of a permit, license, or approval.
``(e) Remand.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
no proposed agency action for which an environmental document
is required shall be vacated or otherwise limited, delayed,
or enjoined unless a court concludes allowing such proposed
action will pose a risk of an imminent and substantial
environmental harm and there is no other equitable remedy
available as a matter of law.
``SEC. 109. DEFINITIONS.
``In this title:
``(1) Categorical exclusion.--The term `categorical
exclusion' means a category of actions that a Federal agency
has determined normally does not significantly affect the
quality of the human environment within the meaning of
section 102(2)(C).
``(2) Cooperating agency.--The term `cooperating agency'
means any Federal, State, Tribal, or local agency that has
been designated as a cooperating agency under section
107(a)(3).
``(3) Council.--The term `Council' means the Council on
Environmental Quality established in title II.
``(4) Environmental assessment.--The term `environmental
assessment' means an
[[Page H1576]]
environmental assessment prepared under section 106(b)(2).
``(5) Environmental document.--The term `environmental
document' means an environmental impact statement, an
environmental assessment, or a finding of no significant
impact.
``(6) Environmental impact statement.--The term
`environmental impact statement' means a detailed written
statement that is required by section 102(2)(C).
``(7) Finding of no significant impact.--The term `finding
of no significant impact' means a determination by a Federal
agency that a proposed agency action does not require the
issuance of an environmental impact statement.
``(8) Involved federal agency.--The term `involved Federal
agency' means an agency that, with respect to a proposed
agency action--
``(A) proposed such action; or
``(B) is involved in such action because such action is
directly related, through functional interdependence or
geographic proximity, to an action such agency has taken or
has proposed to take.
``(9) Lead agency.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the term `lead agency' means, with respect to a proposed
agency action--
``(i) the agency that proposed such action; or
``(ii) if there are 2 or more involved Federal agencies
with respect to such action, the agency designated under
section 107(a)(1).
``(B) Specification for mineral exploration or mine
permits.--With respect to a proposed mineral exploration or
mine permit, the term `lead agency' has the meaning given
such term in section 40206(a) of the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act.
``(10) Major federal action.--
``(A) In general.--The term `major Federal action' means an
action that the agency carrying out such action determines is
subject to substantial Federal control and responsibility.
``(B) Exclusion.--The term `major Federal action' does not
include--
``(i) a non-Federal action--
``(I) with no or minimal Federal funding;
``(II) with no or minimal Federal involvement where a
Federal agency cannot control the outcome of the project; or
``(III) that does not include Federal land;
``(ii) funding assistance solely in the form of general
revenue sharing funds which do not provide Federal agency
compliance or enforcement responsibility over the subsequent
use of such funds;
``(iii) loans, loan guarantees, or other forms of financial
assistance where a Federal agency does not exercise
sufficient control and responsibility over the effect of the
action;
``(iv) farm ownership and operating loan guarantees by the
Farm Service Agency pursuant to sections 305 and 311 through
319 of the Consolidated Farmers Home Administration Act of
1961 (7 U.S.C. 1925 and 1941 through 1949);
``(v) business loan guarantees provided by the Small
Business Administration pursuant to section 7(a) or (b) and
of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)), or title V of
the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 695 et
seq.);
``(vi) bringing judicial or administrative civil or
criminal enforcement actions; or
``(vii) extraterritorial activities or decisions, which
means agency activities or decisions with effects located
entirely outside of the jurisdiction of the United States.
``(C) Additional exclusions.--An agency action may not be
determined to be a major Federal action on the basis of--
``(i) an interstate effect of the action or related
project; or
``(ii) the provision of Federal funds for the action or
related project.
``(11) Mineral exploration or mine permit.--The term
`mineral exploration or mine permit' has the meaning given
such term in section 40206(a) of the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act.
``(12) Proposal.--The term `proposal' means a proposed
action at a stage when an agency has a goal, is actively
preparing to make a decision on one or more alternative means
of accomplishing that goal, and can meaningfully evaluate its
effects.
``(13) Reasonably foreseeable.--The term `reasonably
foreseeable' means likely to occur--
``(A) not later than 10 years after the lead agency begins
preparing the environmental document; and
``(B) in an area directly affected by the proposed agency
action such that an individual of ordinary prudence would
take such occurrence into account in reaching a decision.
``(14) Special expertise.--The term `special expertise'
means statutory responsibility, agency mission, or related
program experience.''.
SEC. 20203. CODIFICATION OF NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
REGULATIONS.
The revisions to the Code of Federal Regulations made
pursuant to the final rule of the Council on Environmental
Quality titled ``Update to the Regulations Implementing the
Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy
Act'' and published on July 16, 2020 (85 Fed. Reg. 43304),
shall have the same force and effect of law as if enacted by
an Act of Congress.
SEC. 20204. NON-MAJOR FEDERAL ACTIONS.
(a) Exemption.--An action by the Secretary concerned with
respect to a covered activity shall be not considered a major
Federal action under section 102(2)(C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).
(b) Covered Activity.--In this section, the term ``covered
activity'' includes--
(1) geotechnical investigations;
(2) off-road travel in an existing right-of-way;
(3) construction of meteorological towers where the total
surface disturbance at the location is less than 5 acres;
(4) adding a battery or other energy storage device to an
existing or planned energy facility, if that storage resource
is located within the physical footprint of the existing or
planned energy facility;
(5) drilling temperature gradient wells and other
geothermal exploratory wells, including construction or
making improvements for such activities, where--
(A) the last cemented casing string is less than 12 inches
in diameter; and
(B) the total unreclaimed surface disturbance at any one
time within the project area is less than 5 acres;
(6) any repair, maintenance, upgrade, optimization, or
minor addition to existing transmission and distribution
infrastructure, including--
(A) operation, maintenance, or repair of power equipment
and structures within existing substations, switching
stations, transmission, and distribution lines;
(B) the addition, modification, retirement, or replacement
of breakers, transmission towers, transformers, bushings, or
relays;
(C) the voltage uprating, modification, reconductoring with
conventional or advanced conductors, and clearance resolution
of transmission lines;
(D) activities to minimize fire risk, including vegetation
management, routine fire mitigation, inspection, and
maintenance activities, and removal of hazard trees and other
hazard vegetation within or adjacent to an existing right-of-
way;
(E) improvements to or construction of structure pads for
such infrastructure; and
(F) access and access route maintenance and repairs
associated with any activity described in subparagraph (A)
through (E);
(7) approval of and activities conducted in accordance with
operating plans or agreements for transmission and
distribution facilities or under a special use authorization
for an electric transmission and distribution facility right-
of-way; and
(8) construction, maintenance, realignment, or repair of an
existing permanent or temporary access road--
(A) within an existing right-of-way or within a
transmission or utility corridor established by Congress or
in a land use plan;
(B) that serves an existing transmission line, distribution
line, or energy facility; or
(C) activities conducted in accordance with existing
onshore oil and gas leases.
SEC. 20205. NO NET LOSS DETERMINATION FOR EXISTING RIGHTS-OF-
WAY.
(a) In General.--Upon a determination by the Secretary
concerned that there will be no overall long-term net loss of
vegetation, soil, or habitat, as defined by acreage and
function, resulting from a proposed action, decision, or
activity within an existing right-of-way, within a right-of-
way corridor established in a land use plan, or in an
otherwise designated right-of-way, that action, decision, or
activity shall not be considered a major Federal action under
section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).
(b) Inclusion of Remediation.--In making a determination
under subsection (a), the Secretary concerned shall consider
the effect of any remediation work to be conducted during the
lifetime of the action, decision, or activity when
determining whether there will be any overall long-term net
loss of vegetation, soil, or habitat.
SEC. 20206. DETERMINATION OF NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
ACT ADEQUACY.
The Secretary concerned shall use previously completed
environmental assessments and environmental impact statements
to satisfy the requirements of section 102 of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332) with
respect to any major Federal action, if such Secretary
determines that--
(1) the new proposed action is substantially the same as a
previously analyzed proposed action or alternative analyzed
in a previous environmental assessment or environmental
impact statement; and
(2) the effects of the proposed action are substantially
the same as the effects analyzed in such existing
environmental assessments or environmental impact statements.
SEC. 20207. DETERMINATION REGARDING RIGHTS-OF-WAY.
Not later than 60 days after the Secretary concerned
receives an application to grant a right-of-way, the
Secretary concerned shall notify the applicant as to whether
the application is complete or deficient. If the Secretary
concerned determines the application is complete, the
Secretary concerned may not consider any other application to
grant a right-of-way on the same or any overlapping parcels
of land while such application is pending.
SEC. 20208. TERMS OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY.
(a) Fifty Year Terms for Rights-of-Way.--
(1) In general.--Any right-of-way for pipelines for the
transportation or distribution of oil or gas granted, issued,
amended, or renewed under Federal law may be limited to
[[Page H1577]]
a term of not more than 50 years before such right-of-way is
subject to renewal or amendment.
(2) Federal land policy and management act of 1976.--
Section 501 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of
1976 (43 U.S.C. 1761) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(e) Any right-of-way granted, issued, amended, or renewed
under subsection (a)(4) may be limited to a term of not more
than 50 years before such right-of-way is subject to renewal
or amendment.''.
(b) Mineral Leasing Act.--Section 28(n) of the Mineral
Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 185(n)) is amended by striking
``thirty'' and inserting ``50''.
SEC. 20209. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS AND DEVELOP
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.
(a) In General.--In fiscal years 2023 through 2025, the
Secretary of Agriculture (acting through the Forest Service)
and the Secretary of the Interior, after public notice, may
accept and expend funds contributed by non-Federal entities
for dedicated staff, information resource management, and
information technology system development to expedite the
evaluation of permits, biological opinions, concurrence
letters, environmental surveys and studies, processing of
applications, consultations, and other activities for the
leasing, development, or expansion of an energy facility
under the jurisdiction of the respective Secretaries.
(b) Effect on Permitting.--In carrying out this section,
the Secretary of the Interior shall ensure that the use of
funds accepted under subsection (a) will not impact impartial
decision making with respect to permits, either substantively
or procedurally.
(c) Statement for Failure To Accept or Expend Funds.--Not
later than 60 days after the end of the applicable fiscal
year, if the Secretary of Agriculture (acting through the
Forest Service) or the Secretary of the Interior does not
accept funds contributed under subsection (a) or accepts but
does not expend such funds, that Secretary shall submit to
the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the Senate a statement explaining why such funds
were not accepted, were not expended, or both, as the case
may be.
SEC. 20210. OFFSHORE GEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY
LICENSING.
The Secretary of the Interior shall authorize geological
and geophysical surveys related to oil and gas activities on
the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf, except within
areas subject to existing oil and gas leasing moratoria. Such
authorizations shall be issued within 30 days of receipt of a
completed application and shall, as applicable to survey
type, comply with the mitigation and monitoring measures in
subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), (f), and (g) of section
217.184 of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations (as in
effect on January 1, 2022), and section 217.185 of title 50,
Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on January 1,
2022). Geological and geophysical surveys authorized pursuant
to this section are deemed to be in full compliance with the
Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.)
and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), and their implementing regulations.
SEC. 20211. DEFERRAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS TO DRILL.
Section 17(p)(3) of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C.
226(p)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(D) Deferral based on formatting issues.--A decision on
an application for a permit to drill may not be deferred
under paragraph (2)(B) as a result of a formatting issue with
the permit, unless such formatting issue results in missing
information.''.
SEC. 20212. PROCESSING AND TERMS OF APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS
TO DRILL.
(a) Effect of Pending Civil Actions.--Section 17(p) of the
Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 226(p)) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(4) Effect of pending civil action on processing
applications for permits to drill.--Pursuant to the
requirements of paragraph (2), notwithstanding the existence
of any pending civil actions affecting the application or
related lease, the Secretary shall process an application for
a permit to drill or other authorizations or approvals under
a valid existing lease, unless a United States Federal court
vacated such lease. Nothing in this paragraph shall be
construed as providing authority to a Federal court to vacate
a lease.''.
(b) Term of Permit To Drill.--Section 17 of the Mineral
Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 226) is further amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(u) Term of Permit To Drill.--A permit to drill issued
under this section after the date of the enactment of this
subsection shall be valid for one four-year term from the
date that the permit is approved, or until the lease
regarding which the permit is issued expires, whichever
occurs first.''.
SEC. 20213. AMENDMENTS TO THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005.
Section 390 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C.
15942) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 390. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT REVIEW.
``(a) National Environmental Policy Act Review.--Action by
the Secretary of the Interior, in managing the public lands,
or the Secretary of Agriculture, in managing National Forest
System lands, with respect to any of the activities described
in subsection (c), shall not be considered a major Federal
action for the purposes of section 102(2)(C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, if the activity is
conducted pursuant to the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181
et seq.) for the purpose of exploration or development of oil
or gas.
``(b) Application.--This section shall not apply to an
action of the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of
Agriculture on Indian lands or resources managed in trust for
the benefit of Indian Tribes.
``(c) Activities Described.--The activities referred to in
subsection (a) are as follows:
``(1) Reinstating a lease pursuant to section 31 of the
Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 188).
``(2) The following activities, provided that any new
surface disturbance is contiguous with the footprint of the
original authorization and does not exceed 20 acres or the
acreage has previously been evaluated in a document
previously prepared under section 102(2)(C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) with
respect to such activity:
``(A) Drilling an oil or gas well at a well pad site at
which drilling has occurred previously.
``(B) Expansion of an existing oil or gas well pad site to
accommodate an additional well.
``(C) Expansion or modification of an existing oil or gas
well pad site, road, pipeline, facility, or utility submitted
in a sundry notice.
``(3) Drilling of an oil or gas well at a new well pad
site, provided that the new surface disturbance does not
exceed 20 acres and the acreage evaluated in a document
previously prepared under section 102(2)(C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) with
respect to such activity, whichever is greater.
``(4) Construction or realignment of a road, pipeline, or
utility within an existing right-of-way or within a right-of-
way corridor established in a land use plan.
``(5) The following activities when conducted from non-
Federal surface into federally owned minerals, provided that
the operator submits to the Secretary concerned certification
of a surface use agreement with the non-Federal landowner:
``(A) Drilling an oil or gas well at a well pad site at
which drilling has occurred previously.
``(B) Expansion of an existing oil or gas well pad site to
accommodate an additional well.
``(C) Expansion or modification of an existing oil or gas
well pad site, road, pipeline, facility, or utility submitted
in a sundry notice.
``(6) Drilling of an oil or gas well from non-Federal
surface and non-Federal subsurface into Federal mineral
estate.
``(7) Construction of up to 1 mile of new road on Federal
or non-Federal surface, not to exceed 2 miles in total.
``(8) Construction of up to 3 miles of individual pipelines
or utilities, regardless of surface ownership.''.
SEC. 20214. ACCESS TO FEDERAL ENERGY RESOURCES FROM NON-
FEDERAL SURFACE ESTATE.
(a) Oil and Gas Permits.--Section 17 of the Mineral Leasing
Act (30 U.S.C. 226) is further amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(v) No Federal Permit Required for Oil and Gas Activities
on Certain Land.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall not require an
operator to obtain a Federal drilling permit for oil and gas
exploration and production activities conducted on non-
Federal surface estate, provided that--
``(A) the United States holds an ownership interest of less
than 50 percent of the subsurface mineral estate to be
accessed by the proposed action; and
``(B) the operator submits to the Secretary a State permit
to conduct oil and gas exploration and production activities
on the non-Federal surface estate.
``(2) No federal action.--An oil and gas exploration and
production activity carried out under paragraph (1)--
``(A) shall not be considered a major Federal action for
the purposes of section 102(2)(C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969;
``(B) shall require no additional Federal action;
``(C) may commence 30 days after submission of the State
permit to the Secretary; and
``(D) shall not be subject to--
``(i) section 306108 of title 54, United States Code
(commonly known as the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966); and
``(ii) section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16
U.S.C. 1536).
``(3) Royalties and production accountability.--(A) Nothing
in this subsection shall affect the amount of royalties due
to the United States under this Act from the production of
oil and gas, or alter the Secretary's authority to conduct
audits and collect civil penalties pursuant to the Federal
Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982 (30 U.S.C. 1701 et
seq.).
``(B) The Secretary may conduct onsite reviews and
inspections to ensure proper accountability, measurement, and
reporting of production of Federal oil and gas, and payment
of royalties.
[[Page H1578]]
``(4) Exceptions.--This subsection shall not apply to
actions on Indian lands or resources managed in trust for the
benefit of Indian Tribes.
``(5) Indian land.--In this subsection, the term `Indian
land' means--
``(A) any land located within the boundaries of an Indian
reservation, pueblo, or rancheria; and
``(B) any land not located within the boundaries of an
Indian reservation, pueblo, or rancheria, the title to which
is held--
``(i) in trust by the United States for the benefit of an
Indian tribe or an individual Indian;
``(ii) by an Indian tribe or an individual Indian, subject
to restriction against alienation under laws of the United
States; or
``(iii) by a dependent Indian community.''.
(b) Geothermal Permits.--The Geothermal Steam Act of 1970
(30 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 30. NO FEDERAL PERMIT REQUIRED FOR GEOTHERMAL
ACTIVITIES ON CERTAIN LAND.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall not require an
operator to obtain a Federal drilling permit for geothermal
exploration and production activities conducted on a non-
Federal surface estate, provided that--
``(1) the United States holds an ownership interest of less
than 50 percent of the subsurface geothermal estate to be
accessed by the proposed action; and
``(2) the operator submits to the Secretary a State permit
to conduct geothermal exploration and production activities
on the non-Federal surface estate.
``(b) No Federal Action.--A geothermal exploration and
production activity carried out under paragraph (1)--
``(1) shall not be considered a major Federal action for
the purposes of section 102(2)(C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969;
``(2) shall require no additional Federal action;
``(3) may commence 30 days after submission of the State
permit to the Secretary; and
``(4) shall not be subject to--
``(A) section 306108 of title 54, United States Code
(commonly known as the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966); and
``(B) section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16
U.S.C. 1536).
``(c) Royalties and Production Accountability.--(1) Nothing
in this section shall affect the amount of royalties due to
the United States under this Act from the production of
electricity using geothermal resources (other than direct use
of geothermal resources) or the production of any byproducts.
``(2) The Secretary may conduct onsite reviews and
inspections to ensure proper accountability, measurement, and
reporting of the production described in paragraph (1), and
payment of royalties.
``(d) Exceptions.--This section shall not apply to actions
on Indian lands or resources managed in trust for the benefit
of Indian Tribes.
``(e) Indian Land.--In this section, the term `Indian land'
means--
``(1) any land located within the boundaries of an Indian
reservation, pueblo, or rancheria; and
``(2) any land not located within the boundaries of an
Indian reservation, pueblo, or rancheria, the title to which
is held--
``(A) in trust by the United States for the benefit of an
Indian tribe or an individual Indian;
``(B) by an Indian tribe or an individual Indian, subject
to restriction against alienation under laws of the United
States; or
``(C) by a dependent Indian community.''.
SEC. 20215. SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS FOR OIL AND GAS
LEASES.
An environmental review for an oil and gas lease or permit
prepared pursuant to the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
its implementing regulations--
(1) shall apply only to areas that are within or
immediately adjacent to the lease plot or plots and that are
directly affected by the proposed action; and
(2) shall not require consideration of downstream, indirect
effects of oil and gas consumption.
SEC. 20216. EXPEDITING APPROVAL OF GATHERING LINES.
Section 11318(b)(1) of the Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act (42 U.S.C. 15943(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``to
be an action that is categorically excluded (as defined in
section 1508.1 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (as
in effect on the date of enactment of this Act))'' and
inserting ``to not be a major Federal action''.
SEC. 20217. LEASE SALE LITIGATION.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any oil and gas
lease sale held under section 17 of the Mineral Leasing Act
(26 U.S.C. 226) or the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) shall not be vacated and activities on
leases awarded in the sale shall not be otherwise limited,
delayed, or enjoined unless the court concludes allowing
development of the challenged lease will pose a risk of an
imminent and substantial environmental harm and there is no
other equitable remedy available as a matter of law. No
court, in response to an action brought pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. et
seq.), may enjoin or issue any order preventing the award of
leases to a bidder in a lease sale conducted pursuant to
section 17 of the Mineral Leasing Act (26 U.S.C. 226) or the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) if
the Department of the Interior has previously opened bids for
such leases or disclosed the high bidder for any tract that
was included in such lease sale.
SEC. 20218. LIMITATION ON CLAIMS.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, a claim arising under Federal law seeking judicial
review of a permit, license, or approval issued by a Federal
agency for a mineral project, energy facility, or energy
storage device shall be barred unless--
(1) the claim is filed within 120 days after publication of
a notice in the Federal Register announcing that the permit,
license, or approval is final pursuant to the law under which
the agency action is taken, unless a shorter time is
specified in the Federal law pursuant to which judicial
review is allowed; and
(2) the claim is filed by a party that submitted a comment
during the public comment period for such permit, license, or
approval and such comment was sufficiently detailed to put
the agency on notice of the issue upon which the party seeks
judicial review.
(b) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section shall create a
right to judicial review or place any limit on filing a claim
that a person has violated the terms of a permit, license, or
approval.
(c) Transportation Projects.--Subsection (a) shall not
apply to or supersede a claim subject to section 139(l)(1) of
title 23, United States Code.
(d) Mineral Project.--In this section, the term ``mineral
project'' means a project--
(1) located on--
(A) a mining claim, millsite claim, or tunnel site claim
for any mineral;
(B) lands open to mineral entry; or
(C) a Federal mineral lease; and
(2) for the purposes of exploring for or producing
minerals.
SEC. 20219. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE REPORT ON
PERMITS TO DRILL.
(a) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall issue a report detailing--
(1) the approval timelines for applications for permits to
drill issued by the Bureau of Land Management from 2018
through 2022;
(2) the number of applications for permits to drill that
were not issued within 30 days of receipt of a completed
application; and
(3) the causes of delays resulting in applications for
permits to drill pending beyond the 30 day deadline required
under section 17(p)(2) of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C.
226(p)(2)).
(b) Recommendations.--The report issued under subsection
(a) shall include recommendations with respect to--
(1) actions the Bureau of Land Management can take to
streamline the approval process for applications for permits
to drill to approve applications for permits to drill within
30 days of receipt of a completed application;
(2) aspects of the Federal permitting process carried out
by the Bureau of Land Management to issue applications for
permits to drill that can be turned over to States to
expedite approval of applications for permits to drill; and
(3) legislative actions that Congress must take to allow
States to administer certain aspects of the Federal
permitting process described in paragraph (2).
SEC. 20220. E-NEPA.
(a) Permitting Portal Study.--The Council on Environmental
Quality shall conduct a study and submit a report to Congress
within 1 year of the enactment of this Act on the potential
to create an online permitting portal for permits that
require review under section 102(2)(C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) that
would--
(1) allow applicants to--
(A) submit required documents or materials for their
application in one unified portal;
(B) upload additional documents as required by the
applicable agency; and
(C) track the progress of individual applications;
(2) enhance interagency coordination in consultation by--
(A) allowing for comments in one unified portal;
(B) centralizing data necessary for reviews; and
(C) streamlining communications between other agencies and
the applicant; and
(3) boost transparency in agency decisionmaking.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated $500,000 for the Council of Environmental
Quality to carry out the study directed by this section.
TITLE III--PERMITTING FOR MINING NEEDS
SEC. 20301. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Byproduct.--The term ``byproduct'' has the meaning
given such term in section 7002(a) of the Energy Act of 2020
(30 U.S.C. 1606(a)).
(2) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian Tribe'' has the
meaning given such term in section 4 of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304).
[[Page H1579]]
(3) Mineral.--The term ``mineral'' means any mineral of a
kind that is locatable (including, but not limited to, such
minerals located on ``lands acquired by the United States'',
as such term is defined in section 2 of the Mineral Leasing
Act for Acquired Lands) under the Act of May 10, 1872
(Chapter 152; 17 Stat. 91).
(4) Secretary.--Except as otherwise provided, the term
``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the Interior.
(5) State.--The term ``State'' means--
(A) a State;
(B) the District of Columbia;
(C) the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico;
(D) Guam;
(E) American Samoa;
(F) the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; and
(G) the United States Virgin Islands.
SEC. 20302. MINERALS SUPPLY CHAIN AND RELIABILITY.
Section 40206 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
(30 U.S.C. 1607) is amended--
(1) in the section heading, by striking ``critical
minerals'' and inserting ``minerals'';
(2) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Lead agency.--The term `lead agency' means the
Federal agency with primary responsibility for issuing a
mineral exploration or mine permit or lease for a mineral
project.
``(2) Mineral.--The term `mineral' has the meaning given
such term in section 20301 of the TAPP American Resources
Act.
``(3) Mineral exploration or mine permit.--The term
`mineral exploration or mine permit' means--
``(A) an authorization of the Bureau of Land Management or
the Forest Service, as applicable, for exploration for
minerals that requires analysis under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969;
``(B) a plan of operations for a mineral project approved
by the Bureau of Land Management or the Forest Service; or
``(C) any other Federal permit or authorization for a
mineral project.
``(4) Mineral project.--The term `mineral project' means a
project--
``(A) located on--
``(i) a mining claim, millsite claim, or tunnel site claim
for any mineral;
``(ii) lands open to mineral entry; or
``(iii) a Federal mineral lease; and
``(B) for the purposes of exploring for or producing
minerals.'';
(3) in subsection (b), by striking ``critical'' each place
such term appears;
(4) in subsection (c)--
(A) by striking ``critical mineral production on Federal
land'' and inserting ``mineral projects'';
(B) by inserting ``, and in accordance with subsection
(h)'' after ``to the maximum extent practicable'';
(C) by striking ``shall complete the'' and inserting
``shall complete such'';
(D) in paragraph (1), by striking ``critical mineral-
related activities on Federal land'' and inserting ``mineral
projects'';
(E) in paragraph (8), by striking the ``and'' at the end;
(F) in paragraph (9), by striking ``procedures.'' and
inserting ``procedures; and''; and
(G) by adding at the end the following:
``(10) deferring to and relying on baseline data, analyses,
and reviews performed by State agencies with jurisdiction
over the environmental or reclamation permits for the
proposed mineral project.'';
(5) in subsection (d)--
(A) by striking ``critical'' each place such term appears;
and
(B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``mineral-related
activities on Federal land'' and inserting ``mineral
projects'';
(6) in subsection (e), by striking ``critical'';
(7) in subsection (f), by striking ``critical'' each place
such term appears;
(8) in subsection (g), by striking ``critical'' each place
such term appears; and
(9) by adding at the end the following:
``(h) Other Requirements.--
``(1) Memorandum of agreement.--For purposes of maximizing
efficiency and effectiveness of the Federal permitting and
review processes described under subsection (c), the lead
agency in the Federal permitting and review processes of a
mineral project shall (in consultation with any other Federal
agency involved in such Federal permitting and review
processes, and upon request of the project applicant, an
affected State government, local government, or an Indian
Tribe, or other entity such lead agency determines
appropriate) enter into a memorandum of agreement with a
project applicant where requested by the applicant to carry
out the activities described in subsection (c).
``(2) Timelines and schedules for nepa reviews.--
``(A) Extension.--A project applicant may enter into 1 or
more agreements with a lead agency to extend the deadlines
described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection (h)(1)
of section 107 of title I of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 by, with respect to each such agreement,
not more than 6 months.
``(B) Adjustment of timelines.--At the request of a project
applicant, the lead agency and any other entity which is a
signatory to a memorandum of agreement under paragraph (1)
may, by unanimous agreement, adjust--
``(i) any deadlines described in subparagraph (A); and
``(ii) any deadlines extended under subparagraph (B).
``(3) Effect on pending applications.--Upon a written
request by a project applicant, the requirements of this
subsection shall apply to any application for a mineral
exploration or mine permit or mineral lease that was
submitted before the date of the enactment of the TAPP
American Resources Act.''.
SEC. 20303. FEDERAL REGISTER PROCESS IMPROVEMENT.
Section 7002(f) of the Energy Act of 2020 (30 U.S.C.
1606(f)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``critical'' both places
such term appears; and
(2) by striking paragraph (4).
SEC. 20304. DESIGNATION OF MINING AS A COVERED SECTOR FOR
FEDERAL PERMITTING IMPROVEMENT PURPOSES.
Section 41001(6)(A) of the FAST Act (42 U.S.C. 4370m(6)(A))
is amended by inserting ``mineral production,'' before ``or
any other sector''.
SEC. 20305. TREATMENT OF ACTIONS UNDER PRESIDENTIAL
DETERMINATION 2022-11 FOR FEDERAL PERMITTING
IMPROVEMENT PURPOSES.
(a) In General.--Except as provided by subsection (c), an
action described in subsection (b) shall be--
(1) treated as a covered project, as defined in section
41001(6) of the FAST Act (42 U.S.C. 4370m(6)), without regard
to the requirements of that section; and
(2) included in the Permitting Dashboard maintained
pursuant to section 41003(b) of that Act (42 13 U.S.C. 4370m-
2(b)).
(b) Actions Described.--An action described in this
subsection is an action taken by the Secretary of Defense
pursuant to Presidential Determination 2022-11 (87 Fed. Reg.
19775; relating to certain actions under section 303 of the
Defense Production Act of 1950) or the Presidential
Memorandum of February 27, 2023, titled ``Presidential Waiver
of Statutory Requirements Pursuant to Section 303 of the
Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended, on Department of
Defense Supply Chains Resilience'' (88 Fed. Reg. 13015) to
create, maintain, protect, expand, or restore sustainable and
responsible domestic production capabilities through--
(1) supporting feasibility studies for mature mining,
beneficiation, and value-added processing projects;
(2) byproduct and co-product production at existing mining,
mine waste reclamation, and other industrial facilities;
(3) modernization of mining, beneficiation, and value-added
processing to increase productivity, environmental
sustainability, and workforce safety; or
(4) any other activity authorized under section 303(a)(1)
of the Defense Production Act of 1950 15 (50 U.S.C.
4533(a)(1)).
(c) Exception.--An action described in subsection (b) may
not be treated as a covered project or be included in the
Permitting Dashboard under subsection (a) if the project
sponsor (as defined in section 41001(18) of the FAST Act (42
U.S.C. 21 4370m(18))) requests that the action not be treated
as a covered project.
SEC. 20306. NOTICE FOR MINERAL EXPLORATION ACTIVITIES WITH
LIMITED SURFACE DISTURBANCE.
(a) In General.--Not later than 15 days before commencing
an exploration activity with a surface disturbance of not
more than 5 acres of public lands, the operator of such
exploration activity shall submit to the Secretary concerned
a complete notice of such exploration activity.
(b) Inclusions.--Notice submitted under subsection (a)
shall include such information the Secretary concerned may
require, including the information described in section
3809.301 of title 43, Code of Federal Regulations (or any
successor regulation).
(c) Review.--Not later than 15 days after the Secretary
concerned receives notice submitted under subsection (a), the
Secretary concerned shall--
(1) review and determine completeness of the notice; and
(2) allow exploration activities to proceed if--
(A) the surface disturbance of such exploration activities
on such public lands will not exceed 5 acres;
(B) the Secretary concerned determines that the notice is
complete; and
(C) the operator provides financial assurance that the
Secretary concerned determines is adequate.
(d) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Exploration activity.--The term ``exploration
activity''--
(A) means creating surface disturbance greater than casual
use that includes sampling, drilling, or developing surface
or underground workings to evaluate the type, extent,
quantity, or quality of mineral values present;
(B) includes constructing drill roads and drill pads,
drilling, trenching, excavating test pits, and conducting
geotechnical tests and geophysical surveys; and
(C) does not include activities where material is extracted
for commercial use or sale.
(2) Secretary concerned.--The term ``Secretary concerned''
means--
(A) with respect to lands administered by the Secretary of
the Interior, the Secretary of the Interior; and
(B) with respect to National Forest System lands, the
Secretary of Agriculture.
[[Page H1580]]
SEC. 20307. USE OF MINING CLAIMS FOR ANCILLARY ACTIVITIES.
Section 10101 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1993 (30 U.S.C. 28f) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(e) Security of Tenure.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) In general.--A claimant shall have the right to use,
occupy, and conduct operations on public land, with or
without the discovery of a valuable mineral deposit, if--
``(i) such claimant makes a timely payment of the location
fee required by section 10102 and the claim maintenance fee
required by subsection (a); or
``(ii) in the case of a claimant who qualifies for a waiver
under subsection (d), such claimant makes a timely payment of
the location fee and complies with the required assessment
work under the general mining laws.
``(B) Operations defined.--For the purposes of this
paragraph, the term `operations' means--
``(i) any activity or work carried out in connection with
prospecting, exploration, processing, discovery and
assessment, development, or extraction with respect to a
locatable mineral;
``(ii) the reclamation of any disturbed areas; and
``(iii) any other reasonably incident uses, whether on a
mining claim or not, including the construction and
maintenance of facilities, roads, transmission lines,
pipelines, and any other necessary infrastructure or means of
access on public land for support facilities.
``(2) Fulfillment of federal land policy and management
act.--A claimant that fulfills the requirements of this
section and section 10102 shall be deemed to satisfy the
requirements of any provision of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act that requires the payment of fair market value
to the United States for use of public lands and resources
relating to use of such lands and resources authorized by the
general mining laws.
``(3) Savings clause.--Nothing in this subsection may be
construed to diminish the rights of entry, use, and
occupancy, or any other right, of a claimant under the
general mining laws.''.
SEC. 20308. ENSURING CONSIDERATION OF URANIUM AS A CRITICAL
MINERAL.
(a) In General.--Section 7002(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Energy Act
of 2020 (30 U.S.C. 1606(a)(3)(B)(i)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(i) oil, oil shale, coal, or natural gas;''.
(b) Update.--Not later than 60 days after the date of the
enactment of this section, the Secretary, acting through the
Director of the United States Geological Survey, shall
publish in the Federal Register an update to the final list
established in section 7002(c)(3) of the Energy Act of 2020
(30 U.S.C. 1606(c)(3)) in accordance with subsection (a) of
this section.
SEC. 20309. BARRING FOREIGN BAD ACTORS FROM OPERATING ON
FEDERAL LANDS.
A mining claimant shall be barred from the right to use,
occupy, and conduct operations on Federal land if the
Secretary of the Interior finds the claimant has a foreign
parent company that has (including through a subsidiary)--
(1) a known record of human rights violations; or
(2) knowingly operated an illegal mine in another country.
TITLE IV--FEDERAL LAND USE PLANNING
SEC. 20401. FEDERAL LAND USE PLANNING AND WITHDRAWALS.
(a) Resource Assessments Required.--Federal lands and
waters may not be withdrawn from entry under the mining laws
or operation of the mineral leasing and mineral materials
laws unless--
(1) a quantitative and qualitative geophysical and
geological mineral resource assessment of the impacted area
has been completed during the 10-year period ending on the
date of such withdrawal;
(2) the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of
Commerce, the Secretary of Energy, and the Secretary of
Defense, conducts an assessment of the economic, energy,
strategic, and national security value of mineral deposits
identified in such mineral resource assessment;
(3) the Secretary conducts an assessment of the reduction
in future Federal revenues to the Treasury, States, the Land
and Water Conservation Fund, the Historic Preservation Fund,
and the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration
Fund resulting from the proposed mineral withdrawal;
(4) the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of
Defense, conducts an assessment of military readiness and
training activities in the proposed withdrawal area; and
(5) the Secretary submits a report to the Committees on
Natural Resources, Agriculture, Energy and Commerce, and
Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and the
Committees on Energy and Natural Resources, Agriculture, and
Foreign Affairs of the Senate, that includes the results of
the assessments completed pursuant to this subsection.
(b) Land Use Plans.--Before a resource management plan
under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) or a forest management plan under the
National Forest Management Act is updated or completed, the
Secretary or Secretary of Agriculture, as applicable, in
consultation with the Director of the United States
Geological Survey, shall--
(1) review any quantitative and qualitative mineral
resource assessment that was completed or updated during the
10-year period ending on the date that the applicable land
management agency publishes a notice to prepare, revise, or
amend a land use plan by the Director of the United States
Geological Survey for the geographic area affected by the
applicable management plan;
(2) the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of
Commerce, the Secretary of Energy, and the Secretary of
Defense, conducts an assessment of the economic, energy,
strategic, and national security value of mineral deposits
identified in such mineral resource assessment; and
(3) submit a report to the Committees on Natural Resources,
Agriculture, Energy and Commerce, and Foreign Affairs of the
House of Representatives and the Committees on Energy and
Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Foreign Affairs of the
Senate, that includes the results of the assessment completed
pursuant to this subsection.
(c) New Information.--The Secretary shall provide
recommendations to the President on appropriate measures to
reduce unnecessary impacts that a withdrawal of Federal lands
or waters from entry under the mining laws or operation of
the mineral leasing and mineral materials laws may have on
mineral exploration, development, and other mineral
activities (including authorizing exploration and development
of such mineral deposits) not later than 180 days after the
Secretary has notice that a resource assessment completed by
the Director of the United States Geological Survey, in
coordination with the State geological surveys, determines
that a previously undiscovered mineral deposit may be present
in an area that has been withdrawn from entry under the
mining laws or operation of the mineral leasing and mineral
materials laws pursuant to--
(1) section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1714); or
(2) chapter 3203 of title 54, United States Code.
SEC. 20402. PROHIBITIONS ON DELAY OF MINERAL DEVELOPMENT OF
CERTAIN FEDERAL LAND.
(a) Prohibitions.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the President shall not carry out any action that would
pause, restrict, or delay the process for or issuance of any
of the following on Federal land, unless such lands are
withdrawn from disposition under the mineral leasing laws,
including by administrative withdrawal:
(1) New oil and gas lease sales, oil and gas leases, drill
permits, or associated approvals or authorizations of any
kind associated with oil and gas leases.
(2) New coal leases (including leases by application in
process, renewals, modifications, or expansions of existing
leases), permits, approvals, or authorizations.
(3) New leases, claims, permits, approvals, or
authorizations for development or exploration of minerals.
(b) Prohibition on Rescission of Leases, Permits, or
Claims.--The President, the Secretary, or Secretary of
Agriculture as applicable, may not rescind any existing
lease, permit, or claim for the extraction and production of
any mineral under the mining laws or mineral leasing and
mineral materials laws on National Forest System land or land
under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management,
unless specifically authorized by Federal statute, or upon
the lessee, permittee, or claimant's failure to comply with
any of the provisions of the applicable lease, permit, or
claim.
(c) Mineral Defined.--In subsection (a)(3), the term
``mineral'' means any mineral of a kind that is locatable
(including such minerals located on ``lands acquired by the
United States'', as such term is defined in section 2 of the
Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands) under the Act of May
10, 1872 (Chapter 152; 17 Stat. 91).
SEC. 20403. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Federal land.--The term ``Federal land'' means--
(A) National Forest System land;
(B) public lands (as defined in section 103 of the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702));
(C) the outer Continental Shelf (as defined in section 2 of
the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331)); and
(D) land managed by the Secretary of Energy.
(2) President.--The term ``President'' means--
(A) the President; and
(B) any designee of the President, including--
(i) the Secretary of Agriculture;
(ii) the Secretary of Commerce;
(iii) the Secretary of Energy; and
(iv) the Secretary of the Interior.
(3) Previously undiscovered deposit.--The term ``previously
undiscovered mineral deposit'' means--
(A) a mineral deposit that has been previously evaluated by
the United States Geological Survey and found to be of low
mineral potential, but upon subsequent evaluation is
determined by the United States Geological Survey to have
significant mineral potential; or
(B) a mineral deposit that has not previously been
evaluated by the United States Geological Survey.
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
[[Page H1581]]
TITLE V--ENSURING COMPETITIVENESS ON FEDERAL LANDS
SEC. 20501. INCENTIVIZING DOMESTIC PRODUCTION.
(a) Offshore Oil and Gas Royalty Rate.--Section 8(a)(1) of
the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1))
is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``not less than 16\2/
3\ percent, but not more than 18\3/4\ percent, during the 10-
year period beginning on the date of enactment of the Act
titled `An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 14', and not less than 16\2/3\
percent thereafter,'' each place it appears and inserting
``not less than 12.5 percent'';
(2) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``not less than 16\2/
3\ percent, but not more than 18\3/4\ percent, during the 10-
year period beginning on the date of enactment of the Act
titled `An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 14', and not less than 16\2/3\
percent thereafter,'' each place it appears and inserting
``not less than 12.5 percent'';
(3) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``not less than 16\2/
3\ percent, but not more than 18\3/4\ percent, during the 10-
year period beginning on the date of enactment of the Act
titled `An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 14', and not less than 16\2/3\
percent thereafter,'' and inserting ``not less than 12.5
percent''; and
(4) in subparagraph (H), by striking ``not less than 16\2/
3\ percent, but not more than 18\3/4\ percent, during the 10-
year period beginning on the date of enactment of the Act
titled `An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 14', and not less than 16\2/3\
percent thereafter,'' and inserting ``not less than 12.5
percent''.
(b) Mineral Leasing Act.--
(1) Onshore oil and gas royalty rates.--
(A) Lease of oil and gas land.--Section 17 of the Mineral
Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 226) is amended--
(i) in subsection (b)(1)(A)--
(I) by striking ``not less than 16\2/3\'' and inserting
``not less than 12.5''; and
(II) by striking ``or, in the case of a lease issued during
the 10-year period beginning on the date of enactment of the
Act titled `An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 14', 16\2/3\ percent in amount or
value of the production removed or sold from the lease''; and
(ii) by striking ``16\2/3\ percent'' each place it appears
and inserting ``12.5 percent''.
(B) Conditions for reinstatement.--Section 31(e)(3) of the
Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 188(e)(3)) is amended by
striking ``20'' inserting ``16\2/3\''.
(2) Oil and gas minimum bid.--Section 17(b) of the Mineral
Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 226(b)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``$10 per acre during
the 10-year period beginning on the date of enactment of the
Act titled `An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of S. Con. Res. 14'.'' and inserting ``$2 per acre
for a period of 2 years from the date of the enactment of the
Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987.'';
and
(B) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking ``$10 per acre'' and
inserting ``$2 per acre''.
(3) Fossil fuel rental rates.--Section 17(d) of the Mineral
Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 226(d)) is amended to read as follows:
``(d) All leases issued under this section, as amended by
the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987,
shall be conditioned upon payment by the lessee of a rental
of not less than $1.50 per acre per year for the first
through fifth years of the lease and not less than $2 per
acre per year for each year thereafter. A minimum royalty in
lieu of rental of not less than the rental which otherwise
would be required for that lease year shall be payable at the
expiration of each lease year beginning on or after a
discovery of oil or gas in paying quantities on the lands
leased.''.
(4) Expression of interest fee.--Section 17 of the Mineral
Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 226) is further amended by repealing
subsection (q).
(5) Elimination of noncompetitive leasing.--Section 17 of
the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 226) is further amended--
(A) in subsection (b)--
(i) in paragraph (1)(A)--
(I) in the first sentence, by striking ``paragraph (2)''
and inserting ``paragraphs (2) and (3)''; and
(II) by adding at the end ``Lands for which no bids are
received or for which the highest bid is less than the
national minimum acceptable bid shall be offered promptly
within 30 days for leasing under subsection (c) of this
section and shall remain available for leasing for a period
of 2 years after the competitive lease sale.''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following:
``(3)(A) If the United States held a vested future interest
in a mineral estate that, immediately prior to becoming a
vested present interest, was subject to a lease under which
oil or gas was being produced, or had a well capable of
producing, in paying quantities at an annual average
production volume per well per day of either not more than 15
barrels per day of oil or condensate, or not more than 60,000
cubic feet of gas, the holder of the lease may elect to
continue the lease as a noncompetitive lease under subsection
(c)(1).
``(B) An election under this paragraph is effective--
``(i) in the case of an interest which vested after January
1, 1990, and on or before October 24, 1992, if the election
is made before the date that is 1 year after October 24,
1992;
``(ii) in the case of an interest which vests within 1 year
after October 24, 1992, if the election is made before the
date that is 2 years after October 24, 1992; and
``(iii) in any case other than those described in clause
(i) or (ii), if the election is made prior to the interest
becoming a vested present interest.'';
(B) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
``(c) Lands Subject to Leasing Under Subsection (b); First
Qualified Applicant.--
``(1) If the lands to be leased are not leased under
subsection (b)(1) of this section or are not subject to
competitive leasing under subsection (b)(2) of this section,
the person first making application for the lease who is
qualified to hold a lease under this chapter shall be
entitled to a lease of such lands without competitive
bidding, upon payment of a non-refundable application fee of
at least $75. A lease under this subsection shall be
conditioned upon the payment of a royalty at a rate of 12.5
percent in amount or value of the production removed or sold
from the lease. Leases shall be issued within 60 days of the
date on which the Secretary identifies the first responsible
qualified applicant.
``(2)(A) Lands (i) which were posted for sale under
subsection (b)(1) of this section but for which no bids were
received or for which the highest bid was less than the
national minimum acceptable bid and (ii) for which, at the
end of the period referred to in subsection (b)(1) of this
section no lease has been issued and no lease application is
pending under paragraph (1) of this subsection, shall again
be available for leasing only in accordance with subsection
(b)(1) of this section.
``(B) The land in any lease which is issued under paragraph
(1) of this subsection or under subsection (b)(1) of this
section which lease terminates, expires, is cancelled or is
relinquished shall again be available for leasing only in
accordance with subsection (b)(1) of this section.''; and
(C) by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
``(e) Primary Term.--Competitive and noncompetitive leases
issued under this section shall be for a primary term of 10
years: Provided, however, That competitive leases issued in
special tar sand areas shall also be for a primary term of 10
years. Each such lease shall continue so long after its
primary term as oil or gas is produced in paying quantities.
Any lease issued under this section for land on which, or for
which under an approved cooperative or unit plan of
development or operation, actual drilling operations were
commenced prior to the end of its primary term and are being
diligently prosecuted at that time shall be extended for two
years and so long thereafter as oil or gas is produced in
paying quantities.''.
(6) Conforming amendments.--Section 31 of the Mineral
Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 188) is amended--
(A) in subsection (d)(1), by striking ``section 17(b)'' and
inserting ``subsection (b) or (c) of section 17 of this
Act'';
(B) in subsection (e)--
(i) in paragraph (2)--
(I) insert ``either'' after ``rentals and''; and
(II) insert ``or the inclusion in a reinstated lease issued
pursuant to the provisions of section 17(c) of this Act of a
requirement that future rentals shall be at a rate not less
than $5 per acre per year, all'' before ``as determined by
the Secretary''; and
(ii) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:
``(3)(A) payment of back royalties and the inclusion in a
reinstated lease issued pursuant to the provisions of section
17(b) of this Act of a requirement for future royalties at a
rate of not less than 16\2/3\ percent computed on a sliding
scale based upon the average production per well per day, at
a rate which shall be not less than 4 percentage points
greater than the competitive royalty schedule then in force
and used for royalty determination for competitive leases
issued pursuant to such section as determined by the
Secretary: Provided, That royalty on such reinstated lease
shall be paid on all production removed or sold from such
lease subsequent to the termination of the original lease;
``(B) payment of back royalties and inclusion in a
reinstated lease issued pursuant to the provisions of section
17(c) of this Act of a requirement for future royalties at a
rate not less than 16\2/3\ percent: Provided, That royalty on
such reinstated lease shall be paid on all production removed
or sold from such lease subsequent to the cancellation or
termination of the original lease; and'';
(C) in subsection (f)--
(i) in paragraph (1), strike ``in the same manner as the
original lease issued pursuant to section 17'' and insert
``as a competitive or a noncompetitive oil and gas lease in
the same manner as the original lease issued pursuant to
subsection (b) or (c) of section 17 of this Act'';
(ii) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraph
(3) and (4), respectively; and
(iii) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the
issuance of a lease in lieu of an abandoned patented oil
placer mining claim shall be treated as a noncompetitive oil
and gas lease issued pursuant to section 17(c) of this
Act.'';
[[Page H1582]]
(D) in subsection (g), by striking ``subsection (d)'' and
inserting ``subsections (d) and (f)'';
(E) by amending subsection (h) to read as follows:
``(h) Royalty Reductions.--
``(1) In acting on a petition to issue a noncompetitive oil
and gas lease, under subsection (f) of this section or in
response to a request filed after issuance of such a lease,
or both, the Secretary is authorized to reduce the royalty on
such lease if in his judgment it is equitable to do so or the
circumstances warrant such relief due to uneconomic or other
circumstances which could cause undue hardship or premature
termination of production.
``(2) In acting on a petition for reinstatement pursuant to
subsection (d) of this section or in response to a request
filed after reinstatement, or both, the Secretary is
authorized to reduce the royalty in that reinstated lease on
the entire leasehold or any tract or portion thereof
segregated for royalty purposes if, in his judgment, there
are uneconomic or other circumstances which could cause undue
hardship or premature termination of production; or because
of any written action of the United States, its agents or
employees, which preceded, and was a major consideration in,
the lessee's expenditure of funds to develop the property
under the lease after the rent had become due and had not
been paid; or if in the judgment of the Secretary it is
equitable to do so for any reason.'';
(F) by redesignating subsections (f) through (i) as
subsections (g) through (j), respectively; and
(G) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
``(f) Issuance of Noncompetitive Oil and Gas Lease;
Conditions.--Where an unpatented oil placer mining claim
validly located prior to February 24, 1920, which has been or
is currently producing or is capable of producing oil or gas,
has been or is hereafter deemed conclusively abandoned for
failure to file timely the required instruments or copies of
instruments required by section 1744 of title 43, and it is
shown to the satisfaction of the Secretary that such failure
was inadvertent, justifiable, or not due to lack of
reasonable diligence on the part of the owner, the Secretary
may issue, for the lands covered by the abandoned unpatented
oil placer mining claim, a noncompetitive oil and gas lease,
consistent with the provisions of section 17(e) of this Act,
to be effective from the statutory date the claim was deemed
conclusively abandoned. Issuance of such a lease shall be
conditioned upon:
``(1) a petition for issuance of a noncompetitive oil and
gas lease, together with the required rental and royalty,
including back rental and royalty accruing from the statutory
date of abandonment of the oil placer mining claim, being
filed with the Secretary- (A) with respect to any claim
deemed conclusively abandoned on or before January 12, 1983,
on or before the one hundred and twentieth day after January
12, 1983, or (B) with respect to any claim deemed
conclusively abandoned after January 12, 1983, on or before
the one hundred and twentieth day after final notification by
the Secretary or a court of competent jurisdiction of the
determination of the abandonment of the oil placer mining
claim;
``(2) a valid lease not having been issued affecting any of
the lands covered by the abandoned oil placer mining claim
prior to the filing of such petition: Provided, however, That
after the filing of a petition for issuance of a lease under
this subsection, the Secretary shall not issue any new lease
affecting any of the lands covered by such abandoned oil
placer mining claim for a reasonable period, as determined in
accordance with regulations issued by him;
``(3) a requirement in the lease for payment of rental,
including back rentals accruing from the statutory date of
abandonment of the oil placer mining claim, of not less than
$5 per acre per year;
``(4) a requirement in the lease for payment of royalty on
production removed or sold from the oil placer mining claim,
including all royalty on production made subsequent to the
statutory date the claim was deemed conclusively abandoned,
of not less than 12\1/2\ percent; and
``(5) compliance with the notice and reimbursement of costs
provisions of paragraph (4) of subsection (e) but addressed
to the petition covering the conversion of an abandoned
unpatented oil placer mining claim to a noncompetitive oil
and gas lease.''.
TITLE VI--ENERGY REVENUE SHARING
SEC. 20601. GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF REVENUE.
(a) Distribution of Outer Continental Shelf Revenue to Gulf
Producing States.--Section 105 of the Gulf of Mexico Energy
Security Act of 2006 (43 U.S.C. 1331 note) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``50'' and inserting
``37.5''; and
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by striking ``50'' and inserting ``62.5'';
(ii) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``75'' and inserting
``80''; and
(iii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``25'' and inserting
``20''; and
(2) by striking subsection (f) and inserting the following:
``(f) Treatment of Amounts.--Amounts disbursed to a Gulf
producing State under this section shall be treated as
revenue sharing and not as a Federal award or grant for the
purposes of part 200 of title 2, Code of Federal
Regulations.''.
(b) Exemption of Certain Payments From Sequestration.--
(1) In general.--Section 255(g)(1)(A) of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C.
905(g)(1)(A)) is amended by inserting after ``Payments to
Social Security Trust Funds (28-0404-0-1-651).'' the
following:
``Payments to States pursuant to section 105(a)(2)(A) of
the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (Public Law
109-432; 43 U.S.C. 1331 note) (014-5535-0-2-302).''.
(2) Applicability.--The amendment made by this subsection
shall apply to any sequestration order issued under the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2
U.S.C. 900 et seq.) on or after the date of enactment of this
Act.
SEC. 20602. PARITY IN OFFSHORE WIND REVENUE SHARING.
(a) Payments and Revenues.--Section 8(p)(2) of the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(p)(2)) is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``(A) The Secretary''
and inserting the following:
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C),
the Secretary'';
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``(B) The Secretary''
and inserting the following:
``(B) Disposition of revenues for projects located within 3
nautical miles seaward of state submerged land.--The
Secretary''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) Disposition of revenues for offshore wind projects in
certain areas.--
``(i) Definitions.--In this subparagraph:
``(I) Covered offshore wind project.--The term `covered
offshore wind project' means a wind powered electric
generation project in a wind energy area on the outer
Continental Shelf that is not wholly or partially located
within an area subject to subparagraph (B).
``(II) Eligible state.--The term `eligible State' means a
State a point on the coastline of which is located within 75
miles of the geographic center of a covered offshore wind
project.
``(III) Qualified outer continental shelf revenues.--The
term `qualified outer Continental Shelf revenues' means all
royalties, fees, rentals, bonuses, or other payments from
covered offshore wind projects carried out pursuant to this
subsection on or after the date of enactment of this
subparagraph.
``(ii) Requirement.--
``(I) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
deposit--
``(aa) 12.5 percent of qualified outer Continental Shelf
revenues in the general fund of the Treasury;
``(bb) 37.5 percent of qualified outer Continental Shelf
revenues in the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund;
and
``(cc) 50 percent of qualified outer Continental Shelf
revenues in a special account in the Treasury from which the
Secretary shall disburse to each eligible State an amount
determined pursuant to subclause (II).
``(II) Allocation.--
``(aa) In general.--Subject to item (bb), for each fiscal
year beginning after the date of enactment of this
subparagraph, the amount made available under subclause
(I)(cc) shall be allocated to each eligible State in amounts
(based on a formula established by the Secretary by
regulation) that are inversely proportional to the respective
distances between the point on the coastline of each eligible
State that is closest to the geographic center of the
applicable leased tract and the geographic center of the
leased tract.
``(bb) Minimum allocation.--The amount allocated to an
eligible State each fiscal year under item (aa) shall be at
least 10 percent of the amounts made available under
subclause (I)(cc).
``(cc) Payments to coastal political subdivisions.--
``(AA) In general.--The Secretary shall pay 20 percent of
the allocable share of each eligible State, as determined
pursuant to item (aa), to the coastal political subdivisions
of the eligible State.
``(BB) Allocation.--The amount paid by the Secretary to
coastal political subdivisions under subitem (AA) shall be
allocated to each coastal political subdivision in accordance
with subparagraphs (B) and (C) of section 31(b)(4) of this
Act.
``(iii) Timing.--The amounts required to be deposited under
subclause (I) of clause (ii) for the applicable fiscal year
shall be made available in accordance with such subclause
during the fiscal year immediately following the applicable
fiscal year.
``(iv) Authorized uses.--
``(I) In general.--Subject to subclause (II), each eligible
State shall use all amounts received under clause (ii)(II) in
accordance with all applicable Federal and State laws, only
for 1 or more of the following purposes:
``(aa) Projects and activities for the purposes of coastal
protection and resiliency, including conservation, coastal
restoration, estuary management, beach nourishment, hurricane
and flood protection, and infrastructure directly affected by
coastal wetland losses.
``(bb) Mitigation of damage to fish, wildlife, or natural
resources, including through fisheries science and research.
``(cc) Implementation of a federally approved marine,
coastal, or comprehensive conservation management plan.
``(dd) Mitigation of the impact of outer Continental Shelf
activities through the funding of onshore infrastructure
projects.
``(ee) Planning assistance and the administrative costs of
complying with this section.
[[Page H1583]]
``(ff) Infrastructure improvements at ports, including
modifications to Federal navigation channels, to support
installation of offshore wind energy projects.
``(II) Limitation.--Of the amounts received by an eligible
State under clause (ii)(II), not more than 3 percent shall be
used for the purposes described in subclause (I)(ee).
``(v) Administration.--Subject to clause (vi)(III), amounts
made available under items (aa) and (cc) of clause (ii)(I)
shall--
``(I) be made available, without further appropriation, in
accordance with this subparagraph;
``(II) remain available until expended; and
``(III) be in addition to any amount appropriated under any
other Act.
``(vi) Reporting requirement.--
``(I) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the end of
each fiscal year, the Governor of each eligible State that
receives amounts under clause (ii)(II) for the applicable
fiscal year shall submit to the Secretary a report that
describes the use of the amounts by the eligible State during
the period covered by the report.
``(II) Public availability.--On receipt of a report
submitted under subclause (I), the Secretary shall make the
report available to the public on the website of the
Department of the Interior.
``(III) Limitation.--If the Governor of an eligible State
that receives amounts under clause (ii)(II) fails to submit
the report required under subclause (I) by the deadline
specified in that subclause, any amounts that would otherwise
be provided to the eligible State under clause (ii)(II) for
the succeeding fiscal year shall be deposited in the
Treasury.
``(vii) Treatment of amounts.--Amounts disbursed to an
eligible State under this subsection shall be treated as
revenue sharing and not as a Federal award or grant for the
purposes of part 200 of title 2, Code of Federal
Regulations.''.
(b) Wind Lease Sales for Areas of the Outer Continental
Shelf Offshore of Territories of the United States.--Section
33 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1356c)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Wind Lease Sale Procedure.--Any wind lease granted
pursuant to this section shall be considered a wind lease
granted under section 8(p), including for purposes of the
disposition of revenues pursuant to subparagraphs (B) and (C)
of section 8(p)(2).''.
(c) Exemption of Certain Payments From Sequestration.--
(1) In general.--Section 255(g)(1)(A) of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C.
905(g)(1)(A)) is amended by inserting after ``Payments to
Social Security Trust Funds (28-0404-0-1-651).'' the
following:
``Payments to States pursuant to subparagraph
(C)(ii)(I)(cc) of section 8(p)(2) of the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(p)(2)).''.
(2) Applicability.--The amendment made by this subsection
shall apply to any sequestration order issued under the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2
U.S.C. 900 et seq.) on or after the date of enactment of this
Act.
SEC. 20603. ELIMINATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE FEE UNDER THE
MINERAL LEASING ACT.
(a) In General.--Section 35 of the Mineral Leasing Act (30
U.S.C. 191) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), in the first sentence, by striking
``and, subject to the provisions of subsection (b),'';
(2) by striking subsection (b);
(3) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections
(b) and (c), respectively;
(4) in paragraph (3)(B)(ii) of subsection (b) (as so
redesignated), by striking ``subsection (d)'' and inserting
``subsection (c)''; and
(5) in paragraph (3)(A)(ii) of subsection (c) (as so
redesignated), by striking ``subsection (c)(2)(B)'' and
inserting ``subsection (b)(2)(B)''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 6(a) of the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired
Lands (30 U.S.C. 355(a)) is amended--
(A) in the first sentence, by striking ``Subject to the
provisions of section 35(b) of the Mineral Leasing Act (30
U.S.C. 191(b)), all'' and inserting ``All''; and
(B) in the second sentence, by striking ``of the Act of
February 25, 1920 (41 Stat. 450; 30 U.S.C. 191),'' and
inserting ``of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 191)''.
(2) Section 20(a) of the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (30
U.S.C. 1019(a)) is amended, in the second sentence of the
matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``the provisions
of subsection (b) of section 35 of the Mineral Leasing Act
(30 U.S.C. 191(b)) and section 5(a)(2) of this Act'' and
inserting ``section 5(a)(2)''.
(3) Section 205(f) of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty
Management Act of 1982 (30 U.S.C. 1735(f)) is amended--
(A) in the first sentence, by striking ``this Section'' and
inserting ``this section''; and
(B) by striking the fourth, fifth, and sixth sentences.
2SEC. 20604. SUNSET.
This title, and the amendments made by this title, shall
cease to have effect on September 30, 2032, and on such date
the provisions of law amended by this title shall be restored
or revived as if this title had not been enacted.
DIVISION C--WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION AND ENERGY PROJECT IMPROVEMENT
SEC. 30001. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This division may be cited as the ``Water
Quality Certification and Energy Project Improvement Act of
2023''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this
division is as follows:
DIVISION C--WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION AND ENERGY PROJECT IMPROVEMENT
Sec. 30001. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 30002. Certification.
SEC. 30002. CERTIFICATION.
Section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1341) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in the first sentence, by striking ``may result'' and
inserting ``may directly result'';
(ii) in the second sentence, by striking ``activity'' and
inserting ``discharge'';
(iii) in the third sentence, by striking ``applications''
each place it appears and inserting ``requests'';
(iv) in the fifth sentence, by striking ``act on'' and
inserting ``grant or deny''; and
(v) by inserting after the fourth sentence the following:
``Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of the
Water Quality Certification and Energy Project Improvement
Act of 2023, each State and interstate agency that has
authority to give such a certification, and the
Administrator, shall publish requirements for certification
to demonstrate to such State, such interstate agency, or the
Administrator, as the case may be, compliance with the
applicable provisions of sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and
307. A decision to grant or deny a request for certification
shall be based only on the applicable provisions of sections
301, 302, 303, 306, and 307, and the grounds for the decision
shall be set forth in writing and provided to the applicant.
Not later than 90 days after receipt of a request for
certification, the State, interstate agency, or
Administrator, as the case may be, shall identify in writing
all specific additional materials or information that are
necessary to grant or deny the request.'';
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in the second sentence, by striking ``notice of
application for such Federal license or permit'' and
inserting ``receipt of a notice under the preceding
sentence'';
(ii) in the third sentence, by striking ``any water quality
requirement'' and inserting ``any applicable provision of
section 301, 302, 303, 306, or 307'';
(iii) in the fifth sentence, by striking ``insure
compliance with applicable water quality requirements.'' and
inserting ``ensure compliance with the applicable provisions
of sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307.'';
(iv) in the final sentence, by striking ``insure'' and
inserting ``ensure''; and
(v) by striking the first sentence and inserting ``On
receipt of a request for certification, the certifying State
or interstate agency, as applicable, shall immediately notify
the Administrator of the request.'';
(C) in paragraph (3), in the second sentence, by striking
``section'' and inserting ``any applicable provision of
section'';
(D) in paragraph (4)--
(i) in the first sentence, by striking ``applicable
effluent limitations or other limitations or other applicable
water quality requirements will not be violated'' and
inserting ``no applicable provision of section 301, 302, 303,
306, or 307 will be violated'';
(ii) in the second sentence, by striking ``will violate
applicable effluent limitations or other limitations or other
water quality requirements'' and inserting ``will directly
result in a discharge that violates an applicable provision
of section 301, 302, 303, 306, or 307,''; and
(iii) in the third sentence, by striking ``such facility or
activity will not violate the applicable provisions'' and
inserting ``operation of such facility or activity will not
directly result in a discharge that violates any applicable
provision''; and
(E) in paragraph (5), by striking ``the applicable
provisions'' and inserting ``any applicable provision'';
(2) in subsection (d), by striking ``any applicable
effluent limitations and other limitations, under section 301
or 302 of this Act, standard of performance under section 306
of this Act, or prohibition, effluent standard, or
pretreatment standard under section 307 of this Act, and with
any other appropriate requirement of State law set forth in
such certification, and'' and inserting ``the applicable
provisions of sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307, and any
such limitations or requirements''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(e) For purposes of this section, the applicable
provisions of sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307 are any
applicable effluent limitations and other limitations, under
section 301 or 302, standard of performance under section
306, prohibition, effluent standard, or pretreatment standard
under section 307, and requirement of State law implementing
water quality criteria under section 303 necessary to support
the designated use or uses of the receiving navigable
waters.''.
The Acting CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, is in
order except those printed in part B of House Report 118-30. Each such
further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the
report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered read,
shall be debatable
[[Page H1584]]
for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Donalds
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in part B of House Report 118-30.
Mr. DONALDS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Add at the end of division A the following:
SEC. 10017. STUDY.
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, shall conduct a study on how
to streamline regulatory timelines relating to developing new
power plants by examining practices relating to various power
generating sources, including fossil and nuclear generating
sources.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Donalds) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. DONALDS. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the time and the effort here.
In an effort to ultimately streamline the regulatory approval
timeline, my amendment requires the implementation of a study that
explores the licensing and permitting process of other energy sources
under the Department of Energy's jurisdiction.
By studying the licensing procedures of various energy sources, we
can streamline the regulatory process overall by cutting down
unnecessary red tape.
My amendment seeks to optimize American power production, create a
sense of ease and standardization in the regulatory maze surrounding
various energy sources and examine other regulatory procedures to
safely expedite the approval timeline.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Donalds).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mrs. Boebert
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in part B of House Report 118-30.
Mrs. BOEBERT. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 20, after line 12, insert the following:
SEC. 10007. SENSE OF CONGRESS EXPRESSING DISAPPROVAL OF THE
DENIAL OF JORDAN COVE PERMITS.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) On March 19, 2020, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission granted two Federal permits to Jordan Cove Energy
Project, L.P., to site, construct, and operate a new
liquefied natural gas export terminal in Coos County, Oregon.
(2) On the same day, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission issued a certificate of public convenience and
necessity to Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, L.P., to
construct and operate the proposed Pacific Connector Pipeline
in the counties of Klamath, Jackson, Douglas, and Coos of
Oregon.
(3) The State of Oregon denied the permits and the
certificate necessary for these projects.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
Congress disapproves of the denial of these permits by the
State of Oregon.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentlewoman
from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Mrs. BOEBERT. Mr. Chair, this amendment is simple and
straightforward. My amendment provides congressional disapproval of the
denial of the Jordan Cove project permits.
The Jordan Cove project was an important liquefied natural gas
proposal that would have been the only West Coast LNG export terminal
and would have been essential to exporting LNG to our allies in the
Pacific and freedom around the world.
The Department of Energy determined that the Jordan Cove project was
expected to create 6,000 jobs during peak construction and generate up
to $100 million in State and local tax revenue annually.
Importantly, this project would have allowed us to export clean
liquefied natural gas to our allies, many of which have been dependent
on energy from Russia, OPEC, Venezuela, and even Iran.
America makes the cleanest energy around the world. In fact, our
natural gas is 42 percent cleaner than Russian gas. American
innovation, in particular, fracking, has allowed America to be the
global leader in emissions since 2000.
In 2016, the United States Geological Survey released a report that
increased the estimate of technically recoverable natural gas in the
Mancos shale deposit from 1.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas to a
staggering 66.3 trillion, a 40-fold increase.
David Ludlam, who worked for the West Slope Colorado Oil and Gas
Association, said, there is enough natural gas to power the State of
California for 50 years right in Colorado's Third District's backyard,
and the need for our community to join the global energy marketplace
has never been more urgent.
A West Coast LNG export terminal would have shaved critical days and
significant costs off exports to Asia, eliminated threats associated
with hurricanes, and reduced our reliance on the Panama Canal, which
causes significant uncertainty and delays.
We should be advancing energy infrastructure projects to help ensure
American energy dominance and help promote economic growth through a
true all-of-the-above energy policy, not having elected politicians and
bureaucrats pick winners and losers in the energy sector.
Importantly, Jordan Cove has significant bipartisan support. In fact,
the project in Colorado was supported by former-U.S. Senator Cory
Gardner, U.S. Senator Michael Bennet, former-Governor John
Hickenlooper, the Colorado Senate, the liberal Denver Post, the liberal
Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, and local governments in western
Colorado, including Mesa, Garfield, Rio Blanco, Moffat, Routt, Delta,
and many other counties and municipalities in my region.
While similar project proposals have languished for decades, Jordan
Cove was on track for success after the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission granted two Federal permits for the Jordan Cove Energy
Project and issued a certificate of public convenience and necessity to
the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline in March of 2019.
Unfortunately, the anti-pipeline, anti-natural gas, liberal
Governor's administration in Oregon denied the permits and the
certificate necessary for these projects, essentially killing the
project in December of 2021 when the company pulled out, citing their
inability to obtain the necessary State permits in the immediate
future.
If Green New Deal extremists in the Governor's office actually cared
about the environment, they would have supported this project as
natural gas emissions result in significantly fewer air pollutants and
carbon dioxide emissions, and this important project would have
advanced local, regional, and global emissions reduction goals.
Like the Keystone XL pipeline, Jordan Cove was a major opportunity
killed by extreme environmentalists whose sole agenda isn't protecting
the environment, isn't being good stewards of what we have been blessed
with, but is keeping our American energy sources in the ground and
killing off fossil fuels.
America deserves an American energy strategy that works for all
Americans, and this amendment makes clear that we should not allow
States with a misguided agenda to kill projects of national and global
energy importance.
Mr. Chair, I support adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
{time} 1600
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I hope after today we don't hear Republicans
talk about States' rights again. Pipeline and LNG projects require both
Federal and State permits. The spirit of the Clean Water Act clearly
demands that States have a say in the requirements and permits that
projects
[[Page H1585]]
in their State are subject to. This amendment disapproves of the State
of Oregon's decision to deny permits to the Jordan Cove LNG export
project.
Mr. Chair, who are we to disapprove of Oregon's decision?
I don't live in Oregon. The distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado
offering this amendment doesn't live in Oregon. Oregon decided in a
democratic fashion what standards projects had to meet in order to
build in the State. Jordan Cove didn't meet those standards and it
didn't get the permits and it didn't get built. I don't see anything
objectionable there.
If Congress spent floor time debating every State decision that one
Member of the House disagreed with, we would never get anything done. I
just think this is a meaningless sense of Congress resolution. If this
passes and the bill somehow becomes law, it won't bring the project
back. It is really a messaging amendment, being added to, in my
opinion, a messaging bill.
I would also note that my colleague, Congresswoman Val Hoyle,
staunchly opposes this amendment and has a long history of opposing the
Jordan Cove LNG project. Unfortunately, she has come down with COVID
and regrets that she is unable to be on the floor to discuss this
amendment.
Republicans promised when they took the majority that they were going
to be serious legislators dealing with actual issues the country is
facing. I don't see that here.
Mr. Chair, I urge opposition to the amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Hern). The question is on the amendment offered
by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Crenshaw
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in part B of House Report 118-30.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Add at the end of division A the following:
SEC. 10017. STATE PRIMARY ENFORCEMENT RESPONSIBILITY.
(a) Amendments.--Section 1422(b) of the Safe Drinking Water
Act (42 U.S.C. 300h-1(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking ``Within ninety days'' and inserting ``(A)
Within ninety days'';
(B) by striking ``and after reasonable opportunity for
presentation of views''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) If, after 270 calendar days of a State's application
being submitted under paragraph (1)(A) or notice being
submitted under paragraph (1)(B), the Administrator has not,
pursuant to subparagraph (A), by rule approved, disapproved,
or approved in part and disapproved in part the State's
underground injection control program--
``(i) the Administrator shall transmit, in writing, to the
State a detailed explanation as to the status of the
application or notice; and
``(ii) the State's underground injection control program
shall be deemed approved under this section if--
``(I) the Administrator has not after another 30 days,
pursuant to subparagraph (A), by rule approved, disapproved,
or approved in part and disapproved in part the State's
underground injection control program; and
``(II) the State has established and implemented an
effective program (including adequate recordkeeping and
reporting) to prevent underground injection which endangers
drinking water sources.'';
(2) by amending paragraph (4) to read as follows:
``(4) Before promulgating any rule under paragraph (2) or
(3) of this subsection, the Administrator shall--
``(A) provide a reasonable opportunity for presentation of
views with respect to such rule, including a public hearing
and a public comment period; and
``(B) publish in the Federal Register notice of the
reasonable opportunity for presentation of views provided
under subparagraph (A).''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Preapplication Activities.--The Administrator shall
work as expeditiously as possible with States to complete any
necessary activities relevant to the submission of an
application under paragraph (1)(A) or notice under paragraph
(1)(B), taking into consideration the need for a complete and
detailed submission.
``(6) Application Coordination for Class VI Wells.--With
respect to the underground injection control program for
Class VI wells (as defined in section 40306(a) of the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (42 U.S.C. 300h-
9(a))), the Administrator shall designate one individual at
the Agency from each regional office to be responsible for
coordinating--
``(A) the completion of any necessary activities prior to
the submission of an application under paragraph (1)(A) or
notice under paragraph (1)(B), in accordance with paragraph
(5);
``(B) the review of an application submitted under
paragraph (1)(A) or notice submitted under paragraph (1)(B);
``(C) any reasonable opportunity for presentation of views
provided under paragraph (4)(A) and any notice published
under paragraph (4)(B); and
``(D) pursuant to the recommendations included in the
report required under paragraph (7), the hiring of additional
staff to carry out subparagraphs (A) through (C).
``(7) Evaluation of Resources.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this paragraph, the individual designated under
paragraph (6) shall transmit to the appropriate Congressional
committees a report, including recommendations, regarding
the--
``(i) availability of staff and resources to promptly carry
out the requirements of paragraph (6); and
``(ii) additional funding amounts needed to do so.
``(B) Appropriate congressional committees defined.--In
this paragraph, the term `appropriate Congressional
Committees' means--
``(i) in the Senate--
``(I) the Committee on Environment and Public Works; and
``(II) the Committee on Appropriations; and
``(ii) in the House of Representatives--
``(I) the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and
``(II) the Committee on Appropriations.''.
(b) Funding.--In each of fiscal years 2023 through 2026,
amounts made available by title VI of division J of the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act under paragraph (7) of
the heading ``Environmental Protection Agency--State and
Tribal Assistance Grants'' (Public Law 117-58; 135 Stat.
1402) may also be made available, subject to appropriations,
to carry out paragraphs (5), (6), and (7) of section 1422(b)
of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as added by this section.
(c) Rule of Construction.--The amendments made by this
section shall--
(1) apply to all applications submitted to the
Environmental Protection Agency after the date of enactment
of this Act to establish an underground injection control
program under section 1422(b) of the Safe Drinking Water Act
(42 U.S.C. 300h-1); and
(2) with respect to such applications submitted prior to
the date of enactment of this Act, the 270 and 300 day
deadlines under section 1422(b)(2)(B) of the Safe Drinking
Water Act, as added by this section, shall begin on the date
of enactment of this Act.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Crenshaw) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chair, I really hope this amendment can be
bipartisan. I see no reason why it wouldn't be. It simply provides
predictability for States applying for primacy of class 6 carbon
capture wells. It is very straight forward. When a State submits a
primacy application to the EPA, the EPA has 270 days to either approve
or deny the application.
If the EPA is unable to do so within that generous time window, we
give them another 30 days to explain why. If, for whatever reason, the
EPA fails to make a determination after 300 days, then the State can
move forward.
Importantly, we preserve EPA's ability to deny the application or
revoke the approval using emergency measures under the Safe Drinking
Water Act.
Why is this needed?
Unfortunately, when States submit primacy applications for these
wells, it can take years for the EPA to even bother to review the
application. There is a lot more demand for carbon capture projects.
They are ramping up around the country, especially in Houston. The need
for expanded permitting capacity has greatly increased.
The EPA should not be the roadblock to projects that are designed to
reduce carbon emissions. Let me say that again: Reduce carbon
emissions.
The International Energy Agency said carbon capture is necessary to
meet national, regional, and even corporate emissions reductions goals.
Even EPA administrator Michael Regan called carbon capture a priority
[[Page H1586]]
for the Biden administration. It is a bipartisan issue.
States like Texas have already proven they can manage these wells and
giving them primacy will be a game changer for speeding up carbon
capture projects. Giving States regulatory certainty is critical to
successful carbon capture projects moving forward in their States. That
is all this amendment does.
Mr. Chair, there is no reason why this should not be bipartisan, and
I encourage my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, the gentleman from Texas' amendment would
undermine EPAs critical Underground Injection Control program and
endanger the health of communities around the Nation, in my opinion.
The Underground Injection Control program, or UIC, regulates
injection wells to protect drinking water sources.
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA implements the program, but
can delegate primary enforcement authority, or primacy, to a State.
To be granted primacy, States must demonstrate to EPA that they,
among other things, have regulations in place that meet various minimum
requirements.
The point of this application and EPA approval process is to ensure
there is a Federal floor to regulations so drinking water is protected
across the country.
This amendment seeks to expedite approvals of primacy applications by
effectively rubber-stamping State UIC programs for class 6 wells, those
used for carbon sequestration, if EPA hasn't acted on the State
application within the review period.
Just like other permit deadline provisions of the polluters over
peoples act, this would be dangerous.
While this amendment targets class 6 wells used for underground
injection of carbon dioxide, the text, as written, would apply to State
program applications or program revisions for all well types, including
hazardous waste injection wells.
UIC programs should be rigorous and protective. We should not gamble
with people's drinking water. Once water is contaminated, we cannot
easily reverse course.
If Republicans care about the implementation of this program, they
would support EPA as it works to ensure robust State programs are in
place before granting primacy.
In fact, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provided $25 million
toward that goal. So if States want primacy, they should complete the
application process and be held to the Federal standard so Americans
know their water is safe. Circumventing this process will only put
communities in jeopardy.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment and encourage my colleagues to do
the same.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chair, I have a brief response to the gentleman's
remarks. This does not change at all the Safe Drinking Water Act that
the EPA regulates. All it says is there is a timeline for that primacy
application. It can always be denied within that timeline.
By the way, the entire point of this is to reduce carbon emissions.
It should be bipartisan.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Pfluger).
Mr. PFLUGER. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment with
Congressman Crenshaw.
The only thing dangerous about this is not implementing this, not
moving at the speed of relevancy. That is what we are trying to
accomplish here. I agree with my colleague from Texas (Mr. Crenshaw)
that this should be bipartisan.
We should be allowing the States to do what they do to reduce those
emissions. This amendment is critical to ensure the States can deploy
carbon capture utilization and storage technologies.
As was mentioned, the Safe Drinking Water Act allows States to apply
for primacy enforcement responsibility of underground injection control
wells, including class 6 wells that are used for injection of
CO2 into the deep subsurface formations for long-term
storage.
Only two States, North Dakota and Wyoming, currently have received a
delegation of primary enforcement responsibility over class 6 wells.
States' historic experience with handling these permits and the
familiarity with their own geology translates to faster review times.
It does not negatively impact drinking water. The freedom to craft
those programs in a manner that makes sense the most should be relied
upon at that local level.
Unfortunately, those applications for primacy are often held up with
the EPA without any clarity. As you heard, those 270 days are
completely unfortunate to moving at that speed of relevancy.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment, to pass
this, to let the States do what they can do to help not only drinking
water, but emissions control.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Again, opposing this amendment would mean that you want more carbon
emissions in the air, that you don't want carbon sequestration. I am
pretty sure that is not what you all want. We all want the same thing
here.
This is a commonsense amendment that simply expedites the permitting
process, which is well established. Everyone knows it is safe. It
doesn't change any regulations. It doesn't circumvent any EPA
regulations or standards for drinking water at all.
This is a commonsense amendment. If we can't agree on things like
this, it just tells me that we are looking for disagreement for the
sake of disagreement. That makes me sad. It really does.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Crenshaw).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Estes
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in part B of House Report 118-30.
Mr. ESTES. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 1,
the Lower Energy Costs Act.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division A, add the following:
SEC. 10017. USE OF INDEX-BASED PRICING IN ACQUISITION OF
PETROLEUM PRODUCTS FOR THE SPR.
Section 160(c) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(42 U.S.C. 6240(c)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (6) as clauses
(i) through (vi), respectively (and adjusting the margins
accordingly);
(2) by striking ``The Secretary shall'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall''; and
(3) by striking ``Such procedures shall take into account
the need to--'' and inserting the following:
``(2) Inclusions.--Procedures developed under this
subsection shall--
``(A) require acquisition of petroleum products using
index-based pricing; and
``(B) take into account the need to--''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentleman
from Kansas (Mr. Estes) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. ESTES. Mr. Chair, my amendment would protect our country and
American families in the event of a national emergency by requiring the
Department of Energy to refill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at a
competitive market rate.
We all remember that President Biden chose to tap the SPR for
political reasons as he tried to mask his failed energy policies that
caused gas prices to soar. When President Biden took office, the
average weekly price for a gallon of gas was $2.38. It was already
$3.53 prior to Putin invading Ukraine before hitting record highs last
summer. Despite depleting our SPR, we still have a weekly average of
$3.42.
Since draining the SPR to address an energy and inflation crisis of
his own making, President Biden and his administration continue to
abdicate their responsibility to replenish the reserve.
In October 2022, the White House announced it would implement a
first-of-
[[Page H1587]]
its-kind rule establishing a system of fixed-price contracts for
replenishing the SPR. Per the administration's policy, they intend to
purchase crude oil for the SPR when prices are at or below about $67 or
$72 per barrel.
The untested fixed-price bid system imposed by the White House has
allowed the administration to ignore its responsibility to resupply the
SPR to the detriment of the United States' economic and national
security.
In January of this year, the DOE rejected bids from several producers
to refill the SPR because the market rate for crude oil at the time was
well above the administration's arbitrary fixed price. This deceptive
policy gives the DOE a convenient excuse not to refill the SPR and keep
it at record lows, leaving our Nation less safe and prepared.
My amendment would remedy this problem by requiring the DOE to use
the commonly accepted index-based pricing bid process.
Historically, the index-based bid process is used to solicit
contracts to refill the SPR and is a standard pricing regime used in
the global oil and gas market. Using this more accepted metric, DOE
would competitively bid at the market rate for crude oil when buying
for the SPR.
This bidding system will ensure that DOE will meet its obligations to
refill the SPR and not circumvent that obligation with an arbitrary
price ceiling.
Further, the Federal Government should not be a speculator in the
crude oil market. The fixed-price scheme dreamed up by the White House
ignores the basic economic realities of how petroleum products are
traded in the marketplace. If the administration is concerned about the
price of oil not being a good deal for taxpayers, it should end its war
on safe and reliable American energy.
My amendment would ensure the SPR refill bid process reflects market
realities rather than the price mandates of the administration, and
restores our Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is desperately needed
for our national security.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, frankly, I have no idea why this amendment is
being offered. It would force the Department of Energy to ride the
roller coaster that is the oil future's market, without any option to
just pay a simple fixed price for a barrel of oil.
If oil goes up $20 per barrel between when DOE purchases oil for the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve and when it is delivered, well, that is too
bad. We are now paying $20 per barrel more, and we will have to buy
less oil.
This amendment unnecessarily restrains DOE and makes purchasing
petroleum products to refill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve more
expensive. DOE recognized as much when it issued a rulemaking last fall
clarifying that it could purchase oil at a fixed price, as common sense
would dictate.
There is no reason that it should be illegal for the Department of
Energy to sign a contract saying that it will purchase oil for $70 per
barrel. No reason that I can think of. Except, of course, if you are an
oil company that wants the Department of Energy to pay more to refill
the reserve.
{time} 1615
However, if you are an average American, then this amendment is a raw
deal. It constrains the Department of Energy's usage of the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve, which is partially responsible for the tremendous
over $1.50 per gallon fall in the cost of gasoline we have seen since
last summer's peak gas prices.
I will note that when the Department of Energy issued its notice of
proposed rulemaking this last summer, industry did not object. In fact,
the Department of Energy only received one comment on the rulemaking
from Employ America, which was unambiguously positive.
That comment stated that the rule change ``is an important step to
reduce the volatility of oil prices over the short and medium term,
improve our Nation's energy security, and a necessary step to ensure
that acquisition procedures more fully align with the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve's governing statute.''
This amendment will put the usage of index pricing on par with the
Department of Energy's duty to acquire petroleum products for the
reserve as cheaply as possible. I don't understand that mission. It
will only serve to diminish the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
to reject the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ESTES. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Armstrong).
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. The
amendment is necessary because it addresses the Biden administration's
mismanagement of our Nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
President Biden has drained the SPR to the lowest levels since 1983.
More than 40 percent has been liquidated in less than 2 years.
The Department of Energy has no meaningful plan to refill our
strategic stockpile. Instead, the Department created new rules to allow
it to use fixed-price bidding.
As we expected, the Biden administration's price-fixing scheme is
failing. When DOE put out its bid, there were no takers.
The SPR is at its lowest level since 1983. We must replenish it as
soon as possible to protect our economy from a true supply
interruption.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kansas for offering this
amendment, and I urge my colleagues to join me in support.
Mr. ESTES. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ESTES. Mr. Chairman, this commonsense amendment restores the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve to protect our Nation's security.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this
commonsense amendment, as well as the underlying bill, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Estes).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Hern
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Estes). It is now in order to consider
amendment No. 5 printed in part B of House Report 118-30.
Mr. HERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on my amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Add at the end of division A the following:
SEC. 10017. SENSE OF CONGRESS EXPRESSING DISAPPROVAL OF THE
PROPOSED TAX HIKES ON THE OIL AND NATURAL GAS
INDUSTRY IN THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2024
BUDGET REQUEST.
(a) Finding.--Congress finds that President Biden's fiscal
year 2024 budget request proposes to repeal tax provisions
that are vital to the oil and natural gas industry of the
United States, resulting in a $31,000,000,000 tax hike on oil
and natural gas producers in the United States.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
Congress disapproves of the proposed tax hike on the oil and
natural gas industry in the President's fiscal year 2024
budget request.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Hern) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. HERN. Mr. Chairman, President Biden and congressional Democrats
continue their attacks on traditional energy with proposed tax hikes
that will kill jobs, raise fuel prices, and leave America more
dependent on foreign oil.
This administration's proposed oil and natural gas tax hikes are
harmful to our economy. The oil and natural gas industry accounts for
10.3 million jobs and is nearly 8 percent of our Nation's GDP.
This amendment shows it is the sense of Congress that we disapprove
of this administration's proposed harmful tax hikes on the oil and gas
industry.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to be
simultaneously concerned about high prices at the
[[Page H1588]]
pump while aggressively pursuing an agenda designed to entirely phase
out oil and gas from domestic energy production. The audio simply
doesn't match the video.
Uncertainty surrounding energy policy decisions in D.C. is causing
oil and natural gas producers to make decisions based on unfavorable
policies that haven't passed yet.
Repealing the immediate deduction of intangible drilling cost would
cost 265,000 jobs. For every job lost in the oil and gas sector by
repealing IDCs, two-and-one-half times as many indirect jobs are lost.
The percentage depletion deduction is the small business deduction
for the smaller producers of oil and gas. Eliminating percentage
depletion would force many family-owned small businesses to lay off
employees or, worse, shut down operations altogether.
I am proud to support H.R. 1 to restore American energy independence.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all of our colleagues to disapprove of President
Biden's tax hikes on the oil and gas industry by supporting this
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, frankly, I could not disagree more with
this amendment. It claims that President Biden's budget would repeal
tax breaks that are ``vital to the oil and natural gas industry of the
United States.''
This is the same Big Oil that last year saw just six companies make a
shocking $200 billion in profit and then spend billions to enrich their
shareholders with stock buybacks and dividends, all while gouging
American drivers at the pump.
So, I hope the gentleman will forgive me if I don't think that Big
Oil needs a tax break.
Mr. Chairman, I am glad the gentleman offered this amendment because
I think it is very illustrative of how Democrats and Republicans are in
different places. Democrats and President Biden are fighting every day
to keep Americans' Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid safe.
Republicans, however, apparently only value the tax breaks that their
Big Oil friends love.
Just yesterday, Speaker McCarthy sent President Biden a letter on the
national debt, but I guess cutting tax breaks for fossil fuels is a
real red line for Republicans. They would rather us default than impact
their special interests.
It is fitting that this amendment is being added to the polluters
over people act.
For all of my colleagues today, it is very simple. If you are on the
side of the polluters, then support this amendment. If you are on the
side of the people, then you must oppose it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North
Dakota (Mr. Armstrong).
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
This amendment expresses disapproval of the proposed tax hikes on the
oil and gas industry in President Biden's 2024 budget. It is estimated
that the President's budget request would result in a $31 billion tax
hike on the industry.
This is another move by this administration to harm the domestic oil
and gas industry and undercut their global competitiveness despite
asking them to produce more.
The independent oil and gas producers develop 91 percent of the wells
in the United States, producing 83 percent of America's oil and 90
percent of its natural gas.
I think it is important to note that integrated companies don't get
100 percent of the tax break, only nonintegrated companies. The small
oil and gas producers that exist in western North Dakota, eastern
Montana, Kansas, and Oklahoma that produce the majority of America's
oil are the producers that the Biden administration wants to raise
taxes on.
The Biden budget proposal also calls out these producers for failing
to invest in production. Meanwhile, this administration is doing
everything to tax and regulate the industry out of existence.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. HERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Hern).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Houlahan
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in part B of House Report 118-30.
Ms. HOULAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division A, add the following:
SEC. 10017. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN EXPORTS.
(a) In General.--The Energy Policy and Conservation Act is
amended by inserting after section 163 (42 U.S.C. 6243) the
following:
``SEC. 164. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN EXPORTS.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall prohibit the export
or sale of petroleum products drawn down from the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve, under any provision of law, to--
``(1) the People's Republic of China;
``(2) the Democratic People's Republic of Korea;
``(3) the Russian Federation;
``(4) the Islamic Republic of Iran;
``(5) any other country the government of which is subject
to sanctions imposed by the United States; and
``(6) any entity owned, controlled, or influenced by--
``(A) a country referred to in any of paragraphs (1)
through (5); or
``(B) the Chinese Communist Party.
``(b) Waiver.--The Secretary may issue a waiver of the
prohibition described in subsection (a) if the Secretary
certifies that any export or sale authorized pursuant to the
waiver is in the national security interests of the United
States.
``(c) Rule.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of the Lower Energy Costs Act, the Secretary shall
issue a rule to carry out this section.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Drawdown and sale of petroleum products.--Section
161(a) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C.
6241(a)) is amended by inserting ``and section 164'' before
the period at the end.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of contents for the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 163 the following:
``Sec. 164. Prohibition on certain exports.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentlewoman
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.
Ms. HOULAHAN. Mr. Chairman, while there is a great deal of divisive
and partisan debate on the energy bill that is being considered this
week, I rise to offer a bipartisan, commonsense, and straightforward
amendment to protect U.S. national security in times of energy crisis.
The amendment closes a dangerous loophole that has existed since 2015
which allows our foreign adversaries to purchase our strategic oil
supply.
As the law is currently written, oil from the Strategic Oil Reserve
is sold by the Department of Energy to the highest bidder with few
exceptions on what countries can purchase from the U.S. supply. That
means that our fiercest adversaries, like China, Russia, Iran, or North
Korea and other sanctioned governments, can purchase and export our
strategic oil. In fact, companies owned by and affiliated with the
Chinese Communist Party have won purchase contracts during the past two
Presidential administrations.
Simply put, this loophole threatens our national security, and it
poses serious harm to American families. The American people need
Congress to act and to act quickly.
That is why I reached across the aisle to introduce the Banning Oil
Exports to Foreign Adversaries Act with my colleague, Representative
Don Bacon. My amendment includes the straightforward and commonsense
solution put forward by our bill. It prohibits the export or sale of
the Strategic Petroleum
[[Page H1589]]
Reserve to China, North Korea, Russia, Iran, and any country currently
under U.S. sanctions.
In January, my colleagues and I voted to pass a bill through the
House of Representatives that would prohibit the sale of our strategic
reserve to China, but that legislation does not go far enough.
Do we want North Korea buying American oil? How about Iran or Russia?
As a veteran and one of the most bipartisan Members of this body, my
position remains clear. We must make sure that we put national security
over party politics. We must ensure that our foreign adversaries are
not allowed to profit at the expense of American safety and security.
My amendment reflects the fact that Congress has more work to do on
this to close this dangerous loophole, not just for China but for any
foreign adversary that poses a threat to our Nation.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats
alike, to support this amendment and to include the bipartisan Banning
Oil Exports to Foreign Adversaries Act in this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Jackson of Texas
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in part B of House Report 118-30.
Mr. JACKSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Add at the end of division A the following:
SEC. 10017. DOMESTIC ENERGY INDEPENDENCE REPORT.
Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, shall
submit to Congress a report that identifies and assesses
regulations promulgated by the Administrator during the 15-
year period preceding the date of enactment of this Act that
have--
(1) reduced the energy independence of the United States;
(2) increased the regulatory burden for energy producers in
the United States;
(3) decreased the energy output by such energy producers;
(4) reduced the energy security of the United States; or
(5) increased energy costs for consumers in the United
States.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Jackson) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. JACKSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I have proposed to the Lower Energy
Costs Act will help Congress identify harmful regulations that have
shut down American energy and increased costs on all Americans. This
amendment instructs the EPA to identify and access existing regulations
that have negatively impacted the United States' energy independence
and energy security.
This amendment will provide transparency about the actions taken by
the Biden administration to increase regulatory burdens for energy
producers, diminish energy output for the United States, and raise the
cost of energy for all Americans.
I grew up working in the west Texas oil fields, so I know firsthand
that the best thing we can do for energy producers in our country is to
get the Federal Government out of the way and reduce the number of
burdensome regulations.
Unfortunately, from day one, President Biden has waged war on
American energy and done everything in his power to undo all the
incredible work of the Trump administration to make our country energy
independent.
Since January 2021, the EPA has recklessly issued new rules and
regulations with no regard for their adverse effects on Americans and
our energy security.
They have continued to diminish America's energy independence and
take aim at America's interests and citizens without meaningful
consultation with industry leaders or a logical plan to move forward.
{time} 1630
It is time we identify the EPA regulations that have played a direct
role in shutting down our energy production and added additional
expenses to the already burdensome day-to-day cost of living for
Americans.
As many of my Republican colleagues have mentioned, H.R. 1 is just
the beginning of our work on critical energy solutions that will lift
the red tape and expand the production of affordable and reliable
energy rather than hamstring our domestic producers.
The underlying bill is a strong piece of legislation that will reduce
our dangerous dependence on foreign energy sources and get us back on
track to putting America first.
My amendment strengthens an already good bill and will allow Congress
to pinpoint EPA regulations that negatively impact American families,
small businesses, the agriculture industry, and our national security.
We must show Americans that we will not stand by while the EPA puts
the needs of the environmental special interest groups ahead of the
needs of the American people.
While some may wrongfully speak out against H.R. 1, this is an
incredibly strong bill, and it is only the beginning of what the House
majority is going to accomplish to unleash American energy.
My amendment is a commonsense addition to the bill, and it instructs
the EPA to conduct an after-action review to make sure we are doing
what is in the best interests of our country.
I urge every Member in this body to support my amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, the gentleman appears to be fixated on
undermining key EPA safeguards put in place over the last 15 years
under the guise of being too costly, while the history of environmental
protection, especially under the Clean Air Act, shows this is simply
untrue.
The United States can have both a clean environment and a strong
economy. It is a false choice to assume otherwise. Republicans who
claim that ambitious climate action and economic prosperity are at odds
are simply ignoring the facts. This is the same argument that industry
has used every time the Clean Air Act has been strengthened, and it has
been debunked each and every time.
When Congress debated the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, the oil
industry said, ``The technology to meet these standards simply does not
exist today,'' and predicted major supply disruptions, while chemical
companies said the law would cause severe economic and social
disruption.
None of these gloom-and-doom predictions has ever come true. Instead,
our air got cleaner, and our economy flourished.
The history of the Clean Air Act shows that the United States can
reduce carbon pollution while creating jobs and strengthening our
economy. Since its adoption in 1970, the Clean Air Act has reduced key
air pollutants by roughly 78 percent, while the economy has almost
quadrupled in size.
By EPA's own estimates, the benefits derived from the Clean Air Act
exceed costs by a factor of more than 30-1. Let that sink in for a
minute. Republicans like to claim that protecting Americans from
pollution and tackling the climate crisis will sink the United States
economy, but time and time again, we have seen that economic prosperity
and environmental protection do go hand in hand.
The Clean Air Act has also made the United States the world leader in
pollution control technology, generating hundreds of billions of
dollars for U.S. companies and creating millions of jobs.
The standards targeted by this amendment are also widely popular:
Clean car standards that help Americans drive cleaner and more fuel-
efficient vehicles; mercury and air toxics standards that clean up
deadly mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from power plants;
and methane
[[Page H1590]]
standards for the oil and gas sector that are supported by industry.
The polluters over people act is the latest in a long line of sad
attempts to undermine critical environmental and public health
protections. These tired arguments continue to ring false and hollow.
This amendment is more of the same.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose it and yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. JACKSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Self).
Mr. SELF. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer support for Representative
Jackson's amendment.
In Texas, across America, and deep in the waters off of our coastline
rests an abundance of untapped energy. Through American ingenuity and
technical innovations, we now have the ability to explore these natural
resources and return the United States to its status as a net exporter
of oil and natural gas.
Frankly, Mr. Chair, there are so many excessive regulations, we may
need to limit the number of pages in this report we are asking for. I
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. JACKSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. JACKSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Armstrong).
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
This amendment requires the EPA Administrator and the Secretary of
Energy to issue a report on harmful regulations that degrade our energy
independence and raise costs for consumers. It requires the Biden
administration take a hard look at how their own policies are hurting
American consumers with high prices and less energy reliability.
The Biden administration has imposed harmful energy policies on
American consumers since day one, such as canceling the Keystone XL
pipeline and imposing a moratorium on oil and gas extraction on Federal
lands.
We need to expand our American energy and our production, and I
support this amendment.
Mr. JACKSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the support of my
colleagues on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Jackson).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. JACKSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Mace
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in part B of House Report 118-30.
Ms. MACE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 7, after line 9, insert the following:
(2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary
of Energy shall submit to Congress a report containing--
(A) the results of the ongoing assessments conducted under
paragraph (1)(A);
(B) a description of any actions taken pursuant to the
Department of Energy Organization Act to mitigate potential
effects of critical energy resource supply chain disruptions
on energy technologies or the operation of energy systems;
and
(C) any recommendations relating to strengthening critical
energy resource supply chains that are essential to the
energy security of the United States.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentlewoman
from South Carolina (Ms. Mace) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from South Carolina.
Ms. MACE. Mr. Chair, first off, I thank the leadership of our party
and our Conference here today for H.R. 1 and for including some
baseline text protecting the coastline of South Carolina.
South Carolina's beaches are paved with gold. We have clean air,
clean water, a beautiful environment, beautiful trees, a beautiful
landscape, beautiful beaches, and we were able to get baseline text in
H.R. 1 this week that would protect our shoreline from offshore
drilling.
There is no oil out there. We don't need to study it; we don't need
to drill; we don't need to look for it. It does not exist, and the
coast of South Carolina does not want it. I thank folks for including
that in this legislation and protecting our coastline. My State of
South Carolina is deeply appreciative of that in the baseline text.
This amendment really looks at the necessity to have an all-of-the-
above strategy and approach to energy. Our policy should reflect our
need to study and find uses for alternative energy sources, and that is
what this amendment will do today.
This amendment requires the Secretary of Energy to report annually on
ongoing assessments of alternative and renewable energy sources. It is
needed to protect American energy security. As the world becomes more
unstable, we need to rely on clean American energy right here at home
and what other sources, alternative sources, of energy are available to
us right here in the United States.
We need to ensure that we take steps to preserve the environment, as
well as why we need an offshore drilling ban but also looking at
alternative sources of energy.
Our overall goal here is to strengthen our supply chains and to
advance American energy security with this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment, even though I am not opposed.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from New York is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I choose not to speak in opposition to the
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. MACE. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Armstrong).
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
This section of H.R. 1 provides that the Department of Energy import
new functions to identify the criteria of the energy resources, the
minerals, and materials needed for our great American energy systems.
It requires DOE to identify supply chain vulnerabilities, the
vulnerabilities to supply disruptions by our adversaries like Russia
and China, and it requires DOE to act to address risks to facilitate
action across agencies, industry states, and to do something about
them.
The amendment here by Representative Mace requires that DOE keep
Congress informed in a timely manner of the risks to supply chains and
the actions taken or that Congress may want to take to those risks.
This is an important amendment to assist Congress and to keep the
public informed of the energy security risks we face.
Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of this amendment.
Ms. MACE. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from South Carolina (Ms. Mace).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Molinaro
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9
printed in part B of House Report 118-30.
Mr. MOLINARO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 49, after line 7, insert the following:
SEC. 10017. GAO STUDY.
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall
conduct a study on how banning natural gas appliances will
affect the rates and charges for electricity.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Molinaro) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
[[Page H1591]]
Mr. MOLINARO. Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply requires a study to
look at the impact that a ban on natural gas appliances would have on
electricity prices.
In my home State of New York, Governor Kathy Hochul has proposed to
implement a ban on gas-powered appliances, including gas stoves,
beginning in 2025, less than just 2 years from now.
The notion that the State is going to tell New Yorkers that they
can't use the most affordable option to heat their homes or cook their
dinner is beyond belief. This proposal will undoubtedly increase the
demand and cost for electricity, which is already incredibly expensive
for my constituents in upstate New York, all spending hundreds, even
thousands of dollars more for their electricity.
My amendment will shed light on the costs of Governor Hochul's
proposal and what that cost will have on New Yorkers, and by extension,
all Americans.
This is not a partisan issue. My Democratic colleagues should join me
in seeking transparency and identifying the effects that this proposal
and others like it will have on the cost of electricity.
H.R. 1, the bill in chief, delivers on our commitment to lower energy
costs for the American people, and I wholeheartedly support it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, let me reiterate what has been said before.
Neither the Biden administration nor the Department of Energy is trying
to ban gas stoves. No one is coming into your home to remove that
stove. I implore my colleagues across the aisle to stop lying to the
American people about this. Apparently, Republicans think that
standards to make something better, to make it more efficient, is a
ban.
Regardless, this amendment makes no sense. This amendment calls for a
study on how banning natural gas appliances will affect rates and
charges for electricity. As I said, no one is actually talking about a
ban, but the funny thing is we already know that electrification does
result in lowering energy bills.
Electric appliances like heat pumps save households money because
they are more efficient than gas appliances. Especially as we see fuel
prices rise, electrification becomes even more critical, more
important.
Republicans see the tide turning against their friends in the oil and
gas industry, so how do they respond?
With a big energy package and a bunch of amendments that attempt to
lock Americans into a dirty, expensive fossil fuel choice.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MOLINARO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
With due respect to all my colleagues, there is a State that is
proposing to ban gas appliances. In fact, New York is not only planning
to ban simply through new construction, but will require that
transition within 2 years, even retrofitting or making changes to
construction of existing homes.
In the case of New York, we know already we shoulder the highest
burden, highest cost of not only taxation and electricity costs, but
this will just add insult to injury. I encourage my colleagues to
support my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from North Dakota (Mr. Armstrong).
{time} 1645
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment. The
Biden administration will stop at nothing in its war on American
energy.
Democrats' next target is Americans' home appliances, including
stoves, your furnace, and your hot water heater.
In the last 2 years, we have seen far-reaching regulatory proposals
and executive orders to restrict the use of natural gas.
As we speak, DOE is proposing to ban more than half of the gas stoves
currently on the market. Some States, like California and New York, are
going even further to ban natural gas pipelines and the sale of gas-
powered appliances and equipment.
The American people are paying for these gas bans in the form of
higher prices and surging utility bills. I urge my colleagues to join
me in supporting this amendment so that the GAO can study the true cost
of gas bans.
Mr. MOLINARO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Molinaro).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MOLINARO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Palmer
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10
printed in part B of House Report 118-30.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 49, after line 7, insert the following:
SEC. 10017. GAS KITCHEN RANGES AND OVENS.
The Secretary of Energy may not finalize, implement,
administer, or enforce the proposed rule titled ``Energy
Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Consumer Conventional Cooking Products; Supplemental notice
of proposed rulemaking and announcement of public meeting''
(88 Fed. Reg. 6818; published February 1, 2023) with respect
to energy conservation standards for gas kitchen ranges and
ovens, or any substantially similar rule, including any rule
that would directly or indirectly limit consumer access to
gas kitchen ranges and ovens.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Palmer) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, Federal bureaucrats at the Department of
Energy are threatening access to gas stoves for millions of Americans
through the rulemaking process.
In fact, the DOE admits that up to 50 percent of all gas stoves
currently on the market or in use in American households will not meet
the proposed standards.
This amendment would stop the DOE from imposing this regulation.
According to the DOE's own analysis, in 2020, 38 percent of Americans
used natural gas to cook in their homes.
The Energy Information Administration says cooking with gas is three
times cheaper than cooking with electricity.
The American people see this for what it is; a direct attack on all
natural gas use in the country and another example of the Biden
administration's desire to control every decision we make. Moreover,
this rule is essentially a tax on consumers who are already being
squeezed by inflation.
My Democratic colleagues would argue that these rules were crafted
for the purpose of saving consumers money.
The DOE estimates the regulation would reduce energy use by 3.4
percent, resulting in a savings of only $21.89 over a gas range's life
span. That is $1.45 per year over an average life span of 15 years for
a gas range.
These miniscule savings indicate this regulation is really not about
the consumers' pocketbooks; it is about Federal control at the behest
of radical green energy groups who want the complete elimination of the
use of natural gas.
I will point out were this to happen, there would be far less food to
cook because natural gas is essential to fertilizer for food crops. Its
elimination would cut food production in half worldwide.
Mr. Chairman, I encourage all my colleagues to support this
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I will start by saying I have good news for my
colleagues across the aisle.
[[Page H1592]]
The Department of Energy isn't banning gas stoves. It doesn't even
have the authority to ban gas stoves. This amendment, like this whole
bill, is political messaging.
What DOE is doing is proposing a standard to make new residential gas
stoves more efficient and cut gas waste, not to ban them.
The proposed standard is so reasonable that half of the current
models already meet it, including all entry-level models.
They already meet the standard, and for those that don't meet the
standard, manufacturers have until 2027 to upgrade their product line,
so this really isn't anything outrageous.
Also, DOE is required by law to review and update standards for
appliances like refrigerators and air conditioning units.
DOE is actually late with this stove standard. It was supposed to be
completed in 2017, but we are glad they are working on it now.
Models that meet the proposed standard consume 30 percent less energy
than the least efficient models on the market. That is, indeed,
significant.
The full proposed rule, which also includes updated standards for
electric and gas residential stoves and ovens, would result in up to
$1.7 billion worth in savings for United States consumers and avert
about 22 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions over 30 years
of sales.
I stand in deep opposition to this amendment. This amendment would
bar DOE from finalizing any future efficiency standards for gas stoves,
locking consumers into less efficient appliances that are certainly
more costly to use.
This is just political fearmongering. It is a waste of our time, and
I do urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the fact that my Democratic
colleague admitted that half the stoves do not meet the standard.
When he says that half already meet it, you know, by my math, the
other half doesn't.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment shows the clear difference in the vision
between House Republicans and the Biden administration and my
Democratic colleagues' views on these things.
Their claim that this regulation will save American households money
is another painful example of how bad they are on math.
House Republicans believe in American energy abundance, and the
administration believes in energy restrictions.
We believe in consumer choice, and the administration believes in
heavy-handed government mandates.
We believe that consumers back home should make their own decisions,
while the administration believes Federal bureaucrats should decide
what Americans can and can't do on a daily basis, including what they
can use to cook their families' meals.
I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North
Dakota (Mr. Armstrong).
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
The amendment would stop the Department of Energy from implementing
punitive regulations to ban natural gas stoves.
Earlier this year, we learned that the Biden administration was
considering a nationwide ban on gas stoves when Consumer Product Safety
Commissioner Trumka said gas stoves were a hidden hazard, and all
options are on the table to restrict their use.
Weeks later, the DOE issued a proposed efficiency rule that would ban
up to 96 percent of existing stoves on the market.
DOE's punitive regulations to ban gas stoves is a massive expansion
of their statutory authority. DOE should be focused on expanding energy
options rather than banning them.
DOE's regulatory assault will force the American people to change out
their reliable gas stoves for more expensive and less reliable electric
appliances.
This amendment would stop DOE from banning those gas stoves, and I
urge my colleagues to join me in support.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I encourage all my colleagues to support
this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Perry
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11
printed in part B of House Report 118-30.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk that has been
approved by the Rules Committee.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 7, after line 24, insert the following:
(c) Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing Within the
Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River Basins.--Section
5019 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (Public
Law 110-114) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing.--Notwithstanding
any provision of the Susquehanna River Basin Compact to which
consent was given by Public Law 91-575 (84 Stat. 1509), the
Delaware River Basin Compact to which consent was given by
Public Law 87-328 (75 Stat. 688), or the Potomac River Basin
Compact to which consent was given by Public Law 91-407 (84
Stat. 856), the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, the
Delaware River Basin Commission, and the Interstate
Commission on the Potomac River Basin, as applicable, may not
finalize, implement, or enforce any regulation relating to
hydraulic fracturing that is issued pursuant to any authority
other than that of the State in which the regulation is to be
implemented or enforced.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, this amendment prohibits the unelected and
unaccountable Delaware River Basin Commission, the Susquehanna River
Basin Commission, and the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River
from improving hydraulic fracturing regulations more stringent, more
stringent than those passed by the duly-elected State representatives
and Senate in which the regulation is to be implemented or enforced.
According to the Energy Information Administration, last year,
residential natural gas prices were the highest on record. That is
awesome. I am sure consumers love that.
The best way to combat these record-high prices is with more
competition; simply, more supply and demand. It is to produce more
natural gas in America in places like my home State of Pennsylvania,
the second-largest natural gas producer in the Nation.
Unfortunately, again, unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats at the
Delaware River Basin Commission have instituted a hydraulic fracturing
ban for a portion of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, stripping away
property rights and mineral rights from Pennsylvanians in contravention
of the will of their very own legislature.
The result is a prohibition on the development of critical shale
plays in eastern Pennsylvania that can bring desperately needed natural
gas to market and the unconstitutional taking of mineral rights of all
Pennsylvanians.
Using this playbook, radical environmentalists and unelected
bureaucrats will next prevent hydraulic fracturing in the Susquehanna
River Basin and the Potomac River Basin, as well.
The threat of this expansion undermines investor confidence and
exploration and development projects throughout the Commonwealth and
further restricts domestic natural gas production.
To be clear, this amendment simply clarifies that these three
commissions cannot impose restrictions more stringent than those passed
by the State in which the regulation is being implemented or enforced.
It makes no changes to the ability of States to regulate hydraulic
fracturing as they see fit, as their legislatures see fit, as their
citizens see fit. This means
[[Page H1593]]
it would have zero impact on existing fracturing bans in the State of
New York.
Instead, this amendment simply makes clear that Pennsylvanians can
use their property and mineral rights as they see fit, subject to the
Pennsylvania laws passed by their elected representatives, the way it
is supposed to be done.
Enough is enough already. It is time to stop this underhanded attack
on property rights, representative government, and State sovereignty
and restore American energy security.
Opposition to this amendment is support for a hydraulic fracturing
ban and for higher natural gas prices for your constituents and your
citizens.
I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and rein in these
unelected bureaucrats waging war on Americans in their very homes and
support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Fitzgerald). The gentleman from New Jersey is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, the Delaware River Basin Commission is
made up of representatives from the States of New York, Pennsylvania,
Delaware, and my home State of New Jersey.
The commission oversees drinking water quality for the Delaware River
Watershed, a vitally important role that impacts millions of people
across four States.
Congress created the commission over 60 years ago and gave it powers
to regulate the Delaware River Watershed.
Crucially, each State's democratically elected leaders signed up to
join the commission, and each State receives a vote on the commission.
Mr. Chairman, 2 years ago, the commission banned fracking in its
watershed, and this wasn't a controversial decision.
In fact, it was unanimous. It was a 4-0 vote to help protect the
public health of the 13 million citizens in the watershed and to
preserve the waters themselves.
Today, Republicans want to retroactively take away the rights of the
citizens of these four States and their elected representatives. They
want to take away the powers that Congress gave the commission just
because they don't like the outcome.
I would suggest this: If you really care about clean rivers and
waters, I urge you to oppose this amendment. If you care about people's
rights to safe drinking water, I urge you to oppose this amendment.
I would like to think that all my colleagues care about these things,
so I urge opposition to the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
{time} 1700
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Armstrong).
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Mr.
Perry's amendment makes very clear that the States have primacy for the
regulation of hydraulic fracturing for oil and natural gas production
on State and private lands.
We cannot allow unelected bureaucrats or independent commissions to
prohibit oil and gas production activities that are safe and permitted
under State law.
The Biden administration and radical environmentalists are waging a
war on American energy, and they want to ban hydraulic fracturing.
The United States has become the world's number one energy producer
thanks in part to technological innovations like hydraulic fracturing
and horizontal drilling.
According to a recent study placing a moratorium on fracking would
mean a $900 billion increase in U.S. household energy costs, $7.1
trillion in potential losses to the U.S. economy through 2030, and over
7 million fewer U.S. jobs.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment and
standing up for American energy and American energy workers.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, if you don't want to vote for this, I get
it. You can tell your constituents at home that you stand for people
that are unelected. Most folks at home have never even heard of the
Delaware River Basin Commission. They don't even know about interstate
compacts.
Here is what they know: They want to live their lives, and they want
to vote for elected officials to make decisions that are important to
them. If it is so dangerous, how come it is banned here but not there?
In the rest of Pennsylvania, we do it.
Mr. Chairman, this is just taking the people's rights away, their
voices away from their elected officials, and it is literally the
definition of tyranny.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for my amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The Governors are the four commissioners. The Governor of
Pennsylvania is the chairman of the commission. They may delegate to
someone to actually go to the meetings, but they are making these
decisions.
I don't understand how my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
think that we should take away the rights of the Governors who are on
these commissions to make the decision that was a 4-0 decision. If they
decide that they want something different in the Delaware watershed
than in their individual States, that is their prerogative, but they
made this decision. They voted 4-0.
Again, I don't see the point, and I think it is really egregious for
us to take away the powers of the Governors, as they are elected by the
people of the four States to make this decision about fracking within
their watershed.
Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to this amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MOLINARO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Perry
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12
printed in part B of House Report 118-30.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk that has
been approved by the Rules Committee.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Add at the end of division A the following:
SEC. 10017. ENERGY SOVEREIGNTY.
(a) In General.--Section 115 of the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7415) is repealed.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) of the
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(D)(ii)) is amended by
striking ``sections 126 and 115 (relating to interstate and
international pollution abatement)'' and inserting ``section
126 (relating to interstate pollution abatement)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment repeals section 115 of the
Clean Air Act. This vital amendment protects the autonomy of the States
over their own energy sectors by ensuring that unelected, unaccountable
EPA bureaucrats cannot seize control over these vital industries under
the guise of emissions reductions.
The Constitution clearly reserves this power to the States, and it is
long overdue that we bring Federal policies back in line with the very
Constitution that we swore an oath to.
Section 115 gives EPA the authority to impose emission reductions on
the States if the administrator finds, based on the word of some
international organization--just based on their good word--that
American air pollution endangers the public health and welfare of
another country. Imagine if we could do that to China? The
administrator determines that that country will lower their emissions a
commensurate amount.
Put a different way, section 115 allows the EPA to rely on the
credibility of the same international elites who misled us about COVID
to force our
[[Page H1594]]
constituents to change every aspect of their lives because some
European nation thought it would be great to do the same thing. Now, we
would have to do the same thing.
This is no longer a hypothetical.
Since President Biden reentered the Paris climate agreement, it can
be argued that these conditions have been met and EPA can immediately
impose devastating requirements as it was argued when the Obama
administration first entered the agreement. Subjecting such an
important sector of our economy to the whims of foreign bureaucrats is
downright reckless and hands U.S. sovereignty over to a foreign
ideologue--not even foreign governments, just foreign bureaucrats.
Removing the broadly written language in section 115 is the only way
to prevent the delegation of nearly unlimited power over State energy
sectors to the EPA bureaucrats and removes the ability of international
organizations to meddle in our energy sector.
It is vital that we prevent this Federal power grab before it imposes
devastating economic consequences by empowering the States to meet the
needs and interests of their own citizens.
Language to prevent the use of section 115 of the Clean Air Act has
passed the House three times under Republican majorities: Twice in the
115th Congress and once in the 114th.
To those who view this amendment as premature because the
administration has not yet acted under section 115, the impact was
never questioned in the past. How many times do we have to wake up and
say, well, I didn't think they would do it? I didn't think they would
actually defund the police. I didn't think they would have the IRS show
up at the guy's house when he was testifying in Congress.
Heaven forbid, I didn't believe they would actually try and ban my
gas stove. I thought they were just kidding around. They didn't really
mean it. They do mean it.
We know the administration is going to do so because the radical
environmental groups that control their agenda have come out and said
it.
Here are a couple examples. The League of Conservation Voters:
``While there has been limited use of section 115, numerous scholars
have advocated for its use as a pathway to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, particularly since the Paris Agreement.''
How about Foreign Policy for America: This amendment would undermine
EPA's authority for ``its potential future applications to greenhouse
gases.'' Yeah, we want to undermine their authority and make the
authority of the States preeminent. The authority of citizens should be
preeminent.
Preemptively removing this authority from the administration before
they can act is vital to U.S. sovereignty and our economic well-being.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the
Perry amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, a common refrain that I hear from
Republicans is that unilateral action by the United States to reduce
greenhouse gases would harm our economy and wouldn't move the needle on
reducing global emissions. The core of this argument is that if we are
going to address climate change, we need to coordinate an international
response.
Of course, this argument completely falls apart when you take a look
at the actions of the House Republicans. Many cheered as the previous
administration removed the United States from the Paris Agreement.
Exiting the largest international agreement to combat global climate
change not only weakened our diplomatic standing abroad, but it made it
abundantly clear that Republicans don't care about addressing climate
change.
Now, thankfully, President Biden rejoined the Paris Agreement,
putting that embarrassing chapter behind us, but it appears that House
Republicans want to go back to burying their heads in the sand when it
comes to combating climate change, as was made clear by this amendment.
This amendment would repeal section 115 of the Clean Air Act, which
provides EPA with a tool to address air pollution while promoting
international cooperation to combat climate change.
As my Republican colleagues should know by now, air pollution does
not respect boundaries, whether these are State or international.
Section 115 provides the EPA administrator the authority to set limits
on an air pollutant that is harming public health and welfare in
another country as long as the other country grants reciprocal rights
to the United States.
The gentleman's amendment would remove this discretionary authority,
gutting our ability to cooperate with our neighbors. We have agreements
with Canada and with Mexico, and we show leadership with the
international community by working with our neighbors to try to deal
with air pollution.
Climate change is a global problem. We need to work with other
nations like we worked with Canada and Mexico and provide the
leadership to encourage international engagements to tackle this
crisis.
I have to say: I don't believe the Republican majority wants to act
on climate crisis internationally or domestically. Case in point, the
polluters over people act we are dealing with today. It attempts to
repeal popular provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act: The
greenhouse gas reduction fund, the methane emissions reduction program,
and $4.5 billion in home electrification rebates.
Now, House Democrats took historic action to combat the climate
crisis by passing the Inflation Reduction Act, which included
unparalleled investments in climate and clean energy.
Not a single House Republican voted for it, but if we can't act
domestically and we can't act in coordination with our neighbors, even
Canada and Mexico, what are we going to do to address the threat caused
by the climate crisis?
According to this amendment, the answer is apparently nothing. We are
not going to do anything domestically. We are not going to do anything
with our neighbors. We are not going to do anything internationally. We
are going to do nothing. I just think that is unacceptable.
At a time of real crisis, as highlighted by the recent
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report, we should empower EPA
to combat dangerous climate change and strongly encourage other nations
to do the same. We shouldn't be taking any tools off the table, and
that is what this amendment does. It takes the tool off the table.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Armstrong), since I know he wants to
speak favorably about me.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Chairman, before I start, I will point out that it
sounds like we want to cooperate with our foreign neighbors when it
comes to environmental control, but we don't want to import energy from
them or we don't want to export energy to them. I find that a little
bit ironic.
That being said, I regretfully stand in opposition to this amendment.
After Congress reviewed and preserved the Clean Air Act in 1977, it
did play an important role in cross-border pollution issues of the late
1970s with Canada. Before we strike an entire section of the Clean Air
Act involving air pollutants, the committee of jurisdiction should
examine the issues, particularly to make sure we avoid any unintended
consequences.
For example, we should make sure that striking this section does not
undermine the ability to reduce international air emissions that harm
the United States.
I commit to working with my friend from Pennsylvania to take this
through regular order, but I am a big fan of the committee process.
Let's see that it works.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
[[Page H1595]]
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will
be postponed.
{time} 1715
Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Roy
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13
printed in part B of House Report 118-30.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 36, after line 3, insert the following:
(j) Withdrawal of Policy Statements.--The Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission shall withdraw--
(1) the updated policy statement titled ``Certification of
New Interstate Natural Gas Facilities'' published in the
Federal Register on March 1, 2022 (87 Fed. Reg. 11548); and
(2) the interim policy statement titled ``Consideration of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Natural Gas Infrastructure
Project Reviews'' published in the Federal Register on March
11, 2022 (87 Fed. Reg. 14104).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Roy) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I am offering here directs
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, as we refer to it, to
withdraw two policy statements that massively expand the role of
climate hysteria in certification of natural gas infrastructure, like
pipelines and LNG export terminals.
In February 2022, FERC released two radical policy statements that
massively increased the role that the emissions play in its
certification of natural gas pipelines and LNG export terminals, which
are so critical to our ability to affect world consumption of gas so
that we can drive down CO2 and expand our role in the world
and expand American energy interests.
This included requiring FERC to consider the upstream and downstream
impact on emissions that building a new natural gas pipeline would
have.
Even Senator Manchin said: ``The Commission went too far by
prioritizing a political agenda over their main mission--ensuring our
Nation's energy reliability and security.''
I want everybody to hear this. This move by FERC came 1 week before
Russia invaded Ukraine. This administration is perfectly fine
empowering our enemies to appease the climate activists, the climate
cult. We saw it with Nord Stream 2. We see it right here.
We refuse to expand American energy right when we could be sticking
it to Putin. Instead, we have everybody over here clamoring about what
we need to do in Ukraine instead of having gotten in front of that by
exporting American energy, by making sure that we control the world's
supply of energy by putting out clean-burning American natural gas.
Just 1 week after FERC made this move, Russia invaded Ukraine,
massively disrupting European natural gas supplies.
When the Western world was begging for U.S. LNG, this administration
was giving them the middle finger to appease the climate cult.
Meanwhile, our enemies--China, Iran, Russia, Venezuela--are massively
pumping out emissions. China has 1,100 coal-fired plants. They are
adding two a week. We are not adding squat to our natural gas or coal
production capacity.
Texas is about to be 50 percent wind and solar because we refuse to
actually produce the coal and gas necessary to have power on a cloudy,
windless day.
China accounts for 30 percent of global emissions--and increasing.
Russian natural gas exports to Europe release 41 percent more emissions
than U.S. LNG.
Bottom line: This administration's war on U.S. energy will not do a
thing to help the environment but will hurt freedom and prosperity here
and abroad.
We should accept this amendment. This amendment should be agreed to
across the spectrum because it is good for American oil and gas. It is
good for the world. It will actually help drive down CO2
while making our country stronger and helping us push back on Russia in
the process.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I frankly don't understand the purpose of
this amendment.
Last spring, FERC issued an updated policy statement, an interim
guidance, detailing how the Commission should treat new applications
for natural gas pipelines and account for greenhouse gas emissions. The
Commission, a month later, clarified that both documents were drafts
and that it would seek further input and comments on the drafts. That
is it.
These documents are not final rules or orders from the Commission.
They are not law. They are a draft, draft documents that the Commission
has put out to solicit industry and stakeholder feedback, and that is
the way we want the government to work for it to be responsive.
Withdrawing these documents from draft status, which is what I think
the gentleman's amendment would do, would have no impact on any policy
and, instead, I think, would just create further confusion and possibly
release FERC from the duty to consider industry's comments on the
draft.
It may be that the real reason that the Republicans offered this
amendment is that they don't think that FERC should consider greenhouse
gas emissions. They don't think that these emissions should matter when
FERC makes a decision about whether or not to authorize a new natural
gas pipeline.
This doesn't change the law. The law currently requires FERC to
consider the greenhouse gas impacts of a certificate it grants.
Multiple Federal court rulings have held that the agency must think
about these issues based on the statute, and the interim policy
statement was meant to create certainty for industry on how the
Commission would do that.
Instead, Republicans want to send FERC and, frankly, all parts of the
Federal Government back into confusion. If you want to say that FERC
shouldn't consider greenhouse gases--I am not in favor of that--you
should amend the statute to say that.
By simply saying that these draft rules should be withdrawn, that is
going to tell industry, how do you deal with this? How are they going
to know what to do if there are no rules, no policy, no input from them
whatsoever?
I think it would be wrong to change the statute to say that they
shouldn't take greenhouse gas impacts into consideration, but that is
not what this amendment does. This amendment says to just get rid of
these drafts, and then industry would have no input into any of this. I
don't think industry would support that.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr.
Armstrong).
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the previous speaker. I
think this draft amendment was designed to have certainty. I think it
was designed to have certainty, in that no new pipelines would get put
into the ground.
By mitigating both upstream and downstream carbon, if anybody who
understands the way economics of a pipeline work, not only are you
delaying this process even further, which is what H.R. 1 is trying to
constrict, but you will make it nearly impossible and not economically
viable to get pipe in the ground.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is an energy economic
regulator, not a climate regulator.
This is a good amendment. It will take draft language that had no
business being introduced to begin with and remove it.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, I agree with my friend (Mr. Armstrong).
If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have no issues with
the fact that they were amending these drafts and leaving it in draft
form, we just want to give the certainty of saying to remove these.
They were clearly a bad idea.
[[Page H1596]]
That is exactly what Senator Manchin was saying. Let's not go down
this road.
This is the problem with FERC. FERC is becoming a radical
organization that is inserting itself in places where it does not
belong. When the executive branch oversteps its bounds, it is incumbent
upon Congress, in Article I, to do something about it.
We are simply saying to pull these. Admit that this was a foolish
direction to go, and let's ensure that we are sending a strong signal
that we are pro-pipeline, pro-moving American LNG and making sure that
we are exporting energy to the world that is actually clean burning and
will help our economy, help push back on Putin, not make us reliable on
China, and make us a heck of a lot stronger.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, again, FERC is not radical. There is a
statute that says that FERC has to consider greenhouse gas emissions.
They put out a policy statement about how they are going to do that and
asked for the industry to look at it and give their input.
All this amendment does is to say to put that aside. Then how does
the FERC--do they just issue another draft saying here is another way
to look at it?
I just think this is very confusing. I do think FERC should take into
consideration greenhouse gas emissions. They are required to by the
law.
Unless the gentleman is going to change that, it makes no sense to
say that they can't get industry input about how they do that.
Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to the amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. It is the Chair's understanding that amendment No.
14 will not be offered.
Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Barr
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15
printed in Part B of House Report 118-30.
Mr. BARR. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Insert after section 20309 the following:
SEC. 20310. PERMIT PROCESS FOR PROJECTS RELATING TO
EXTRACTION, RECOVERY, OR PROCESSING OF CRITICAL
MATERIALS.
(a) Definition of Covered Project.--Section 41001(6)(A) of
the FAST Act (42 U.S.C. 4370m(6)(A)) is amended--
(1) in clause (iii)(III), by striking ``; or'' and
inserting ``;'';
(2) in clause (iv)(II), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(v) is related to the extraction, recovery, or processing
from coal, coal waste, coal processing waste, pre-or post-
combustion coal byproducts, or acid mine drainage from coal
mines of--
``(I) critical minerals (as such term is defined in section
7002 of the Energy Act of 2020);
``(II) rare earth elements; or
``(III) microfine carbon or carbon from coal.''.
(b) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall
submit to the Committees on Energy and Natural Resources and
Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the
Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, Natural
Resources, and Energy and Commerce of the House of
Representatives a report evaluating the timeliness of
implementation of reforms of the permitting process required
as a result of the amendments made by this section on the
following:
(1) The economic and national security of the United
States.
(2) Domestic production and supply of critical minerals,
rare earths, and microfine carbon or carbon from coal.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Barr) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. BARR. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment, which
is imperative to bringing home an essential supply chain and protecting
our national security, all while protecting the environment.
Rare earth elements and critical minerals are essential components in
the daily lives of Americans, as well as in national security
technology from home computers, televisions, and vehicles, to major
weapons systems, including lasers, guided missile systems, jet engines,
and alloys for armored vehicles.
Currently, China controls the bulk of the global supply of these
critical minerals and rare earths that support America's economy and
defense industrial base.
The demand for these minerals will steadily increase as the global
economy adopts new technologies, placing the United States and its
allies at a growing disadvantage unless steps are taken to shift
production and sourcing away from Chinese Communist Party-controlled
entities.
The risk of supply disruptions is amplified by U.S. dependence on
unreliable foreign sources and red tape that disincentivizes domestic
sourcing.
It is estimated that 80 percent of rare earth minerals in the United
States come from China. For too long, bureaucratic red tape and
uncertainty in the permitting process forced critical mineral and rare
earth operations overseas.
This amendment works to jump-start American critical mineral, rare-
earth element, and carbon production to make our supply chains more
resilient while creating opportunities for coal and coal byproducts to
be used in new, clean, and innovative ways.
According to Bureau of Land Management estimates, there are nearly
5,200 coal-related abandoned mine sites that have yet to be fully
reclaimed. Through this amendment, we are creating an avenue for rare
earths to be extracted from coal waste at these abandoned mine sites.
This would not only help the United States with this critical supply
chain need but also address our Nation's environmental and reclamation
needs.
{time} 1730
Specifically, this amendment would include projects related to
extraction, recovery, or processing of critical minerals, rare earth
elements, or carbon from coal, coal waste, coal processing waste, or
pre- or post-combustion coal byproducts, or acid mine drainage from
coal mines as covered projects eligible for FAST-41 permitting for the
purposes of securing the economic and national security of the United
States.
Mr. Chair, whether you are like me, a member of the Congressional
Coal Caucus or a member of the Sustainable Energy Caucus or a national
security hawk or a member of the Select Committee on Strategic
Competition between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party,
every Member of Congress should be for this win-win-win solution, a win
to reclaim these abandoned mine sites and fix an environmental problem,
a win for the coal industry and the workers in the coal industry who
need alternatives to combustion of coal now that we are in the
transition phase of our energy development in our country, and
certainly a win for national security. This is a way for us to end
overdependence on the Chinese Communist Party for critical, national
security sensitive supply chain needs.
The United States must innovate and secure its supply chain of
sensitive strategic materials in order to reduce reliance on Chinese
Communist Party-controlled materials overseas.
Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on my amendment,
which I expect to be fully bipartisan, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, House Democrats filed several amendments to
H.R. 1 that would help mitigate some of the outright damage to our
climate, our communities, and our economic future that this bill would
cause.
Unfortunately, only 7 out of 95 were made in order to get an open
debate and an up-or-down vote.
Some Republicans have also filed amendments that I support. But I am
afraid that at the end of the day, there is ultimately no path forward
for making H.R. 1 any semblance of a legislative proposal that the
American people, not polluters, deserve.
The polluters over people act will actively and aggressively take us
backward regarding emissions and in our
[[Page H1597]]
transition to clean energy. It guts our bedrock environmental laws and
takes communities out of the permitting process entirely, the public's
right to know. Some of the Republican amendments add to that mess.
To start, I rise today in opposition to this amendment, which would
make a harmful bill even worse by arbitrarily eroding community
protections under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA.
This amendment greatly expands the limited environmental review
standards of the 2015 FAST Act to a series of coal waste extraction
activities that can cause significant environmental damage and warrant
strong environmental review standards.
There is already a deliberate process in place under the FAST Act to
expand its limited environmental review standards to new types of
projects under certain conditions. This amendment is a legislative end
run around that deliberative process that inappropriately curtails
public input, environmental review, and judicial review under NEPA.
At its most basic level, NEPA simply requires government agencies to
assess significant environmental and public health impacts before a
decision is made and potentially harmful activities like coal waste
extraction begin. NEPA doesn't stop these activities. It simply assures
that their impacts are considered and that the public knows.
This amendment undermines the basic purposes of NEPA. I urge a ``no''
vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).
The amendment was agreed to.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report
118-30 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following
order:
Amendment No. 2 by Mrs. Boebert of Colorado.
Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Hern of Oklahoma.
Amendment No. 7 by Mr. Jackson of Texas.
Amendment No. 9 by Mr. Molinaro of New York.
Amendment No. 10 by Mr. Palmer of Alabama.
Amendment No. 11 by Mr. Perry of Pennsylvania.
Amendment No. 12 by Mr. Perry of Pennsylvania.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mrs. Boebert
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on amendment No. 2 printed in part B of House Report 118-
30 offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert) on which
further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by
voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 221,
noes 208, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 167]
AYES--221
Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chavez-DeRemer
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
D'Esposito
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duarte
Duncan
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fleischmann
Flood
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia, Mike
Gimenez
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez-Colon
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Issa
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kean (NJ)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
LaTurner
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Lesko
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Luttrell
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McHenry
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Molinaro
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Moran
Moylan
Murphy
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Radewagen
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Santos
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Strong
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (NY)
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke
NOES--208
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bush
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clyburn
Connolly
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Frost
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Robert
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jackson Lee
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Mace
Magaziner
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Nickel
Norcross
Norton
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Peltola
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Phillips
Pingree
Plaskett
Pocan
Porter
Posey
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan
Sablan
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sherman
Sherrill
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Spanberger
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
NOT VOTING--11
Blumenauer
Castro (TX)
Cleaver
Cohen
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Kelly (IL)
Lee (CA)
Pelosi
Sewell
Wexton
{time} 1801
Messrs. DAVIS of Illinois, LANDSMAN, and Ms. MACE changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Ms. WEXTON. Mr. Chair, I regret that I was not able to be present for
rollcall No. 167 on agreeing to the amendment. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 167.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Hern
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Carey). The unfinished business is the demand
for a recorded vote on amendment No. 5 printed in part B of House
Report 118-
[[Page H1598]]
30 offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Hern), on which further
proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice
vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 228,
noes 206, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 168]
AYES--228
Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Allred
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chavez-DeRemer
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Curtis
D'Esposito
Davidson
Davis (NC)
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duarte
Duncan
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fletcher
Flood
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia, Mike
Gimenez
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez-Colon
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Issa
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kaptur
Kean (NJ)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
LaTurner
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Lesko
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Luttrell
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McHenry
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Molinaro
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Moran
Moylan
Murphy
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Peltola
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Radewagen
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Strong
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Veasey
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (NY)
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke
NOES--206
Adams
Aguilar
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bush
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clyburn
Connolly
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Frost
Gaetz
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Robert
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jackson Lee
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kamlager-Dove
Keating
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Nickel
Norcross
Norton
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Phillips
Pingree
Plaskett
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Ross
Roy
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan
Sablan
Salinas
Sanchez
Santos
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Spanberger
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
NOT VOTING--6
Castro (TX)
Cleaver
Cohen
Hoyle (OR)
Kelly (IL)
Lee (CA)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1807
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Jackson of Texas
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on amendment No. 7, printed in part B of House Report
118-30 offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Jackson), on which
further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by
voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 245,
noes 189, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 169]
AYES--245
Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budzinski
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Caraveo
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chavez-DeRemer
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Correa
Craig
Crane
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Curtis
D'Esposito
Davidson
Davis (NC)
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duarte
Duncan
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia, Mike
Gimenez
Golden (ME)
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gonzalez-Colon
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Gottheimer
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harder (CA)
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Houchin
Houlahan
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Issa
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kean (NJ)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
LaTurner
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Lesko
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Luttrell
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Manning
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McHenry
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Molinaro
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Moran
Moskowitz
Moylan
Mrvan
Murphy
Nehls
Newhouse
Nickel
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Pappas
Pence
Perez
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Radewagen
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Santos
Scalise
Scholten
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Sherrill
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Strong
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Valadao
[[Page H1599]]
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Vasquez
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Wild
Williams (NY)
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke
NOES--189
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Bush
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clyburn
Connolly
Costa
Courtney
Crockett
Crow
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Frost
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Robert
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jackson Lee
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Matsui
McBath
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moulton
Mullin
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
Norton
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peltola
Peters
Pettersen
Phillips
Pingree
Plaskett
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan
Sablan
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Spanberger
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wexton
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
NOT VOTING--6
Castro (TX)
Cleaver
Cohen
Hoyle (OR)
Kelly (IL)
Lee (CA)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1813
Messrs. JOHNSON of Georgia, LARSEN of Washington, and Ms. BLUNT
ROCHESTER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Molinaro
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on amendment No. 9, printed in part B of House Report
118-30 offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Molinaro), on which
further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by
voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 268,
noes 163, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 170]
AYES--268
Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Allred
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budzinski
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Caraveo
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chavez-DeRemer
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crane
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Curtis
D'Esposito
Davids (KS)
Davidson
Davis (NC)
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duarte
Duncan
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fletcher
Flood
Foster
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gallego
Garamendi
Garbarino
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Mike
Gimenez
Golden (ME)
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gonzalez-Colon
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Gottheimer
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harder (CA)
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Houchin
Houlahan
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Issa
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kaptur
Kean (NJ)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kiggans (VA)
Kildee
Kiley
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Landsman
Langworthy
Latta
LaTurner
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Lesko
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Luttrell
Mace
Magaziner
Malliotakis
Mann
Manning
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McHenry
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Molinaro
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Moran
Moskowitz
Moulton
Moylan
Mrvan
Nehls
Newhouse
Nickel
Norcross
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Panetta
Pappas
Peltola
Pence
Perez
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Ryan
Salazar
Santos
Scalise
Scholten
Schrier
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Sherrill
Simpson
Slotkin
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Sorensen
Soto
Spanberger
Spartz
Stanton
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Strong
Tenney
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Vasquez
Veasey
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Wexton
Wild
Williams (NY)
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke
NOES--163
Adams
Aguilar
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Bush
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clyburn
Connolly
Crockett
Crow
Davis (IL)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Frost
Garcia (IL)
Garcia, Robert
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jackson Lee
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kamlager-Dove
Keating
Khanna
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Matsui
McBath
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Mullin
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norton
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peters
Pettersen
Phillips
Pingree
Plaskett
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Sablan
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Smith (WA)
Stansbury
Stevens
Strickland
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
NOT VOTING--9
Castro (TX)
Cleaver
Cohen
Hoyle (OR)
Kelly (IL)
Lee (CA)
Murphy
Radewagen
Rutherford
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1817
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chair, I was recorded as ``no,'' but I intended to
vote ``aye'' on rollcall No. 170.
Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Palmer
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on amendment No. 10, printed in part B of House Report
118-30 offered
[[Page H1600]]
by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer), on which further
proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice
vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 251,
noes 181, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 171]
AYES--251
Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Allred
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budzinski
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Caraveo
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chavez-DeRemer
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Correa
Costa
Craig
Crane
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Curtis
D'Esposito
Davidson
Davis (NC)
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duarte
Duncan
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fletcher
Flood
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gallego
Garbarino
Garcia, Mike
Gimenez
Golden (ME)
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gonzalez-Colon
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Gottheimer
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Issa
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kean (NJ)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kiggans (VA)
Kildee
Kiley
Kim (CA)
Krishnamoorthi
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Landsman
Langworthy
Latta
LaTurner
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Lesko
Letlow
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Luttrell
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Manning
Massie
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McHenry
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Molinaro
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Moran
Moskowitz
Moylan
Mrvan
Murphy
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Panetta
Pappas
Peltola
Pence
Perez
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Radewagen
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Santos
Scalise
Schrier
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spanberger
Spartz
Stanton
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Strong
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Trone
Turner
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Veasey
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Wild
Williams (NY)
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke
NOES--181
Adams
Aguilar
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Bush
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clyburn
Connolly
Courtney
Crockett
Crow
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Frost
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Robert
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jackson Lee
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Khanna
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Kuster
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Matsui
McBath
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moulton
Mullin
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Nickel
Norcross
Norton
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peters
Pettersen
Phillips
Pingree
Plaskett
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan
Sablan
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scholten
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Stansbury
Stevens
Strickland
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wexton
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
NOT VOTING--8
Castro (TX)
Cleaver
Cohen
Hoyle (OR)
Kelly (IL)
Lee (CA)
Loudermilk
Mast
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1822
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Perry
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on amendment No. 11, printed in part B of House Report
118-30 offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), on which
further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by
voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 210,
noes 223, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 172]
AYES--210
Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chavez-DeRemer
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duarte
Duncan
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fleischmann
Flood
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garcia, Mike
Gimenez
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gonzalez-Colon
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Issa
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (PA)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kiley
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
LaTurner
Lee (FL)
Lesko
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Luttrell
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McHenry
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Moran
Moylan
Murphy
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Radewagen
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Strong
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Valadao
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke
NOES--223
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
[[Page H1601]]
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bush
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clyburn
Connolly
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
D'Esposito
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Frost
Gallego
Garamendi
Garbarino
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Robert
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jackson Lee
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Joyce (OH)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Kean (NJ)
Keating
Khanna
Kiggans (VA)
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (CA)
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
LaLota
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawler
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Mace
Magaziner
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Molinaro
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Nickel
Norcross
Norton
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peltola
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Phillips
Pingree
Plaskett
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan
Sablan
Salinas
Sanchez
Santos
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Slotkin
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Spanberger
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Van Drew
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Williams (NY)
Wilson (FL)
NOT VOTING--7
Castro (TX)
Cleaver
Cohen
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Kelly (IL)
Lee (CA)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1827
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Perry
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on amendment No. 12, printed in part B of House Report
118-30 offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), on which
further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by
voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 96,
noes 336, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 173]
AYES--96
Aderholt
Arrington
Babin
Banks
Bean (FL)
Biggs
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buck
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Cammack
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Comer
Crane
Davidson
DesJarlais
Donalds
Duncan
Ellzey
Emmer
Ezell
Fallon
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Foxx
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Golden (ME)
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Grothman
Guest
Hageman
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hudson
Hunt
Jackson (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Kelly (MS)
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lesko
Loudermilk
Luna
Luttrell
Massie
McClintock
McCormick
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Mills
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moran
Murphy
Nehls
Norman
Ogles
Perez
Perry
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Santos
Schweikert
Self
Sessions
Stauber
Steube
Tiffany
Timmons
Van Duyne
Waltz
Webster (FL)
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Zinke
NOES--336
Adams
Aguilar
Alford
Allen
Allred
Amodei
Armstrong
Auchincloss
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Balint
Barr
Barragan
Beatty
Bentz
Bera
Bergman
Beyer
Bice
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Buchanan
Bucshon
Budzinski
Bush
Calvert
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carey
Carl
Carson
Carter (GA)
Carter (LA)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Chavez-DeRemer
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cicilline
Ciscomani
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clyburn
Cole
Collins
Connolly
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Curtis
D'Esposito
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
De La Cruz
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Duarte
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Estes
Evans
Feenstra
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fletcher
Flood
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Franklin, C. Scott
Frost
Gallego
Garamendi
Garbarino
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Mike
Garcia, Robert
Gimenez
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez-Colon
Gottheimer
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al (TX)
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Hill
Himes
Hinson
Horsford
Houchin
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Huizenga
Issa
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jackson Lee
Jacobs
James
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Joyce (PA)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Kean (NJ)
Keating
Kelly (PA)
Khanna
Kiggans (VA)
Kildee
Kiley
Kilmer
Kim (CA)
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
Landsman
Langworthy
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latta
LaTurner
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Letlow
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lynch
Mace
Magaziner
Malliotakis
Mann
Manning
Mast
Matsui
McBath
McCaul
McClain
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
McHenry
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Meuser
Mfume
Miller (OH)
Miller-Meeks
Molinaro
Moolenaar
Moore (UT)
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moskowitz
Moulton
Moylan
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newhouse
Nickel
Norcross
Norton
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Owens
Pallone
Palmer
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peltola
Pence
Peters
Pettersen
Pfluger
Phillips
Pingree
Plaskett
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Quigley
Radewagen
Ramirez
Raskin
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rutherford
Ryan
Sablan
Salazar
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Simpson
Slotkin
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Smucker
Sorensen
Soto
Spanberger
Spartz
Stansbury
Stanton
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Stevens
Stewart
Strickland
Strong
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Tenney
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Turner
Underwood
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Orden
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Wagner
Walberg
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Williams (NY)
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
NOT VOTING--8
Castro (TX)
Cleaver
Cohen
Good (VA)
Hoyle (OR)
Kelly (IL)
Lee (CA)
Scalise
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1831
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained and
unable to cast my vote on seven roll call votes, today. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 167, ``no'' on
rollcall No. 168, ``no'' on rollcall No. 169, ``no'' on rollcall No.
170, ``no'' on rollcall No. 171, ``no'' on rollcall No. 172, and ``no''
on rollcall No. 173.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On March 29, 2023, on page H1601, in the third column, the
following appeared: Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained and
unable to cast my vote on seven roll call
The online version has been corrected to read: Ms. LEE of
California. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained and unable to
cast my vote on seven roll call
========================= END NOTE =========================
[[Page H1602]]
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Kelly of Mississippi was allowed to speak
out of order.)
Moment of Silence For Victims of the Mississippi Tornadoes
Mr. KELLY of Mississippi. The Mississippi delegation mourns those who
lost their lives in the recent tornadoes that devastated our beloved
State of Mississippi.
We also come together to honor the bravery and heroism of our first
responders and county and city leadership, who worked tirelessly to
save lives and restore order in the midst of chaos.
In Rolling Fork, Silver City, Winona, Amory, Wren, Egypt, Smithville,
and all the other communities affected from the Mississippi River Delta
to the north Mississippi hills, we know that the pain of loss and
destruction is still fresh in your hearts.
We offer our deepest condolences to the families and friends of those
who lost their loved ones. We cannot imagine the depth of your grief,
but we stand with you in solidarity.
As we mourn the loss of life, we must also acknowledge the strength
and resilience of our communities.
In times of disaster, we come together to support one another and
rebuild. We have seen this time and time again, and we know that
Mississippi will come back stronger.
In the face of such devastation, we find comfort in the words of the
Bible. In Psalms 34:18, it says: ``The Lord is close to the
brokenhearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit.''
We know that in times of trial, we can turn to God for strength and
comfort. May God bless Mississippi, and may God bless the United States
of America.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KELLY of Mississippi. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chair, last Friday night, a lot of
Mississippi was damaged by a very serious tornado. Over 20 lives were
lost.
To paint a picture, these are communities that under the best of
times struggle, communities where we don't have public transportation,
where there is not a single motel room in the entire county, and where
the downtown area no longer exists.
For the people of Rolling Fork, Silver City, Black Hawk, and a lot of
other Mississippi communities that are only a ZIP Code tied to some
other people, we are saddened by that destruction.
Importantly, President Biden approved record disaster approval within
2 days because destruction was clear as to the help that was needed.
The State of Mississippi and the locals involved in it, we are
resilient people, but we can't do it by ourselves. Our national support
system has kicked into place. Churches have stepped forward.
We look forward to the long-term recovery, and we are talking about
years, not months, before those communities will be made whole again.
I thank all of you who have expressed your concern and sympathy and
those of you who invested in the communities. I can assure you it is
much appreciated.
Mr. KELLY of Mississippi. Mr. Chair, on behalf of the Mississippi
delegation, I ask for a moment of silence.
Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mrs. Boebert
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16
printed in part B of House Report 118-30.
Mrs. BOEBERT. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 124, after line 6, insert the following:
SEC. 20221. LIMITATIONS ON CLAIMS.
(a) In General.--Section 139(l) of title 23, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``150 days'' each place it
appears and inserting ``90 days''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 330(e) of title 23, United States Code, is
amended--
(A) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``150 days'' and
inserting ``90 days''; and
(B) in paragraph (3)(B)(i), by striking ``150 days'' and
inserting ``90 days''.
(2) Section 24201(a)(4) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``of 150 days''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentlewoman
from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado.
{time} 1845
Mrs. BOEBERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of my amendment which
inserts my 90-Day Review Act into H.R. 1. My amendment will further
improve H.R. 1's overall goal of ensuring reasonable timelines and
predictability for projects by shortening the timeline to file a
petition for judicial review of a permit, license, or approval of a
major infrastructure project from 150 days to 90 days.
Frivolous litigation should not be a hurdle to critical
infrastructure projects that will improve the lives of Americans across
the country. For far too long, we have put trial lawyers' interests
ahead of the American people. Burdensome litigation causes our
hardworking men and women to sit idle on job sites as they wait on
court processes.
It is far past time that Congress reduces the Federal Government's
stranglehold on critical infrastructure projects and helps job creators
put the American people to work.
By streamlining the Federal litigation timeline, my amendment will
help reduce frivolous litigation, cut red tape, and help critical
infrastructure projects move forward in a more timely manner. My
amendment will reduce the amount of time it takes to construct real and
important infrastructure projects like highways, bridges, railways,
dams, and other important projects that will improve the lives of the
people in my district and all across America.
Last Congress, we saw Democrats ram through a trillion-dollar
infrastructure bill where only 9 percent of it actually went to
infrastructure. Rather than focusing on meaningful reforms, this bill
funded a slush fund at the Department of Energy for Green New Deal
projects; tens of billions of dollars to subsidize the electric vehicle
industry, establish programs to cool down pavement, reduce idling done
by trucks, and even study racist roads and bridges. Yes, Mr. Chair, you
heard that correctly.
Instead of spending time on this unpopular, America last agenda,
House Republicans have proposed real reforms like this one, and it
would cut red tape and speed up construction. I am proud to be a
cosponsor of this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote in
favor of my amendment as well as the underlying bill.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would further restrict
access to the courts to hold polluters accountable when they violate
the law and unlawfully harm public health and the environment.
The underlying bill already bars additional review of a permit,
license, or approval under all Federal laws unless filed within 120
days. This amendment reduces judicial review times even further to 90
days for major infrastructure projects that can greatly harm
communities.
By contrast, judicial review under most of our Federal environmental
and public health laws is generally 5 to 6 years.
Congress included a judicial review period of this length in most of
these laws because often serious public health and environmental
effects aren't known within the first 120 days and certainly not within
90 days.
Judicial review is a key enforcement mechanism for most of our major
environmental and public health laws. This amendment doubles down on
the underlying bill's effort to gut the enforcement of our Nation's
laws and to give polluters a virtual blank check.
I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. BOEBERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas
(Mr. Westerman), the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Boebert amendment No. 127. One of
the
[[Page H1603]]
main goals of the Lower Energy Costs Act is to create certainty in the
Federal permitting process for those looking to invest in and build
projects that will power our future.
Litigation is one of the main drivers of the uncertainty and delays
associated with the NEPA process that holds back critical energy and
infrastructure projects. This amendment revises the time frame within
which a claimant can file a lawsuit seeking review of a permit,
license, or approval issued by a Federal agency for a major
infrastructure project, such as a highway project, from 150 to 90 days.
The purpose is to allow critical infrastructure projects to proceed
more efficiently without the prolonged threat of a lawsuit that could
delay or halt these essential transportation projects.
This amendment still allows a potential claimant a reasonable time
frame of 3 months to file a lawsuit and does not impact environmental
protections.
I support this amendment and encourage my colleagues to support its
inclusion in the bill.
Mrs. BOEBERT. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, it is simply a public right that the
public has an opportunity to seek redress in the courts. To limit that
should not be part of this legislation. I urge opposition to the
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Crawford
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 17
printed in part B of House Report 118-30.
Mr. CRAWFORD. I have an amendment at the desk made in order by the
rule.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
SECTION ___. ONE FEDERAL DECISION FOR PIPELINES.
(a) In General.--Chapter 601 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 60144. Efficient environmental reviews and one Federal
decision
``(a) Efficient Environmental Reviews.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary of Transportation shall
apply the project development procedures, to the greatest
extent feasible, described in section 139 of title 23 to any
pipeline project that requires the approval of the Secretary
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
``(2) Regulations and procedures.--In carrying out
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall incorporate into agency
regulations and procedures pertaining to pipeline projects
described in paragraph (1) aspects of such project
development procedures, or portions thereof, determined
appropriate by the Secretary in a manner consistent with this
section, that increase the efficiency of the review of
pipeline projects.
``(3) Discretion.--The Secretary may choose not to
incorporate into agency regulations and procedures pertaining
to pipeline projects described in paragraph (1) such project
development procedures that could only feasibly apply to
highway projects, public transportation capital projects, and
multimodal projects.
``(4) Applicability.--Subsection (l) of section 139 of
title 23 shall apply to pipeline projects described in
paragraph (1).
``(b) Additional Categorical Exclusions.--The Secretary
shall maintain and make publicly available, including on the
Internet, a database that identifies project-specific
information on the use of a categorical exclusion on any
pipeline project carried out under this title.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 601 of
title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``60144. Efficient environmental reviews and one Federal decision.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentleman
from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas.
Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is intended to further bipartisan
efforts to streamline the environmental permitting process by applying
one Federal decision to certain pipeline safety actions.
Agencies such as the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration can be required to undertake lengthy and burdensome
Federal environmental reviews that can take several months, and often
times, even years to complete.
As a result, essential safety and energy actions are stalled or
sometimes completely stopped, which can limit our energy resources,
limit our ability to be energy independent, and unnecessarily create
scarcities, higher prices, and threats to the safety and health of our
citizens.
This amendment represents just another step toward eliminating these
problems. It sets reasonable goals for reviewing the environmental
impacts of certain pipeline safety actions. Specifically, it limits the
review time to 2 years, consolidates Federal reviews into one
streamlined process and document, and removes unnecessary delays in
making final agency decisions.
This amendment builds on bipartisan support and precedent for
requiring agencies to undertake one Federal decision when reviewing the
potential environmental impacts of the Federal action. Similar efforts
have been signed into law, including for Federal reviews of highway
projects as part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act signed
by President Biden in 2021.
It is recognized that through one Federal decision, we can sensibly
streamline energy and energy safety projects, including pipelines,
without compromising environmental protections.
Mr. Chair, I urge support of my amendment and the underlying bill,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, this amendment attempts to accelerate
pipeline construction, and it does so by undermining informed
decisionmaking and meaningful review which falls under the National
Environmental Policy Act and other established bedrock laws.
We have an extensive record showing that NEPA is not a meaningful
cause of energy project delays, period. When a delay does occur, it is
usually because of the permit applicant who is causing the delay or
because of the lack of funding for agency staff and resources at
permitting offices.
While we cannot do anything about applicant delays, we have already
addressed the other core issue, and we should be celebrating that.
Democrats fought to get more than $1 billion in the Inflation Reduction
Act to staff up Federal agencies' permitting offices so they would be
able to efficiently and effectively process permits.
The Council on Environmental Quality has also now told us that
because of what Democrats delivered, even the most extensive form of
environmental review will, in most cases, take 2 years or less. By the
way, that was the target timeline of industry, Trump, and Senator
Manchin.
Democrats are making quick, but high-quality reviews a reality.
Republicans simply want to mandate low-quality reviews or none at all.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Graves), who is the chair of the Aviation
Subcommittee on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Crawford) for his leadership on this amendment. I also
want to thank Chairman Westerman who has been absolutely incredible on
H.R. 1, ensuring that we bring down the cost of energy, ensuring that
we bring American energy security back to the table, and ensuring that
we actually begin reducing emissions because we know that this
administration has actually increased emissions.
What this amendment does is it actually, somewhat comically, is
modeled exactly after what my friend, the ranking member of the Natural
Resources Committee, just objected to. It does exactly what he actually
voted for in the infrastructure bill. That is all this does.
To hear somebody suggest that this is actually contrary to the
environment is remarkable, and, in fact, it defies logic. There is
study after study
[[Page H1604]]
that shows that by putting energy in a pipeline, by putting carbon
dioxide for sequestration in a pipeline, it is safer. It is safer than
the alternative of putting it on a truck, a barge, a rail where you
have a better chance of leaking, and it has higher emissions.
To hear somebody object to this under the auspices of being concerned
about the environment, I don't know if it is uninformed, if it is
ignorant, or if it is just not telling the truth. I don't know. This
amendment is a bipartisan amendment.
I am going to say it again: It is an amendment that Democrats in this
body voted for months ago in the infrastructure bill. That is what this
does. If you care about the environment, you should support this
amendment.
Again, I thank my friend from Arkansas for his leadership.
Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, this important amendment simply builds
off existing bipartisan efforts to sensibly streamline environmental
reviews by applying one Federal decision to certain pipeline projects
as my friend from Louisiana indicated.
At a time when our domestic energy independence is suffering and
energy prices are increasing, we must look for ways to support our
energy safety, infrastructure, and production.
This amendment represents one way of doing that. It does not remove
or alter environmental protections, rather it merely streamlines the
process and consolidates essential government agencies and
decisionmaking under one Federal decision.
To reiterate what Mr. Graves said, it really defies explanation that
my friend from the other side would oppose this, given the fact that he
just voted for it in the Infrastructure Investment Act.
Mr. Chair, I urge support of this amendment and the underlying bill,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mrs. Kim of California). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 1900
Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Donalds
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 18
printed in part B of House Report 118-30.
Mr. DONALDS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 137, after line 2, insert the following:
(c) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this section, the Secretary, acting through the
Director of the United States Geological Survey, in
consultation with the Secretary of Energy, shall submit to
the appropriate committees of Congress a report that includes
the following:
(1) The current status of uranium deposits in the United
States with respect to the amount and quality of uranium
contained in such deposits.
(2) A comparison of the United States to the rest of the
world with respect to the amount and quality of uranium
contained in uranium deposits.
(3) Policy considerations, including potential challenges,
of utilizing the uranium from the deposits described in
paragraph (1).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Donalds) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. DONALDS. Madam Chair, I rise in support of this amendment. What
this amendment really does is it requires a study on America's current
uranium supply, specifically looking into the status of and the quality
of such domestic uranium deposits, and it seeks policy solutions
relating to America's domestic uranium challenges.
My amendment also requires analysis of America's supply in comparison
to other countries around the globe.
In short, Madam Chair, if you are going to embrace nuclear power in
the United States, we also have to understand what our uranium needs
are. We have to be able to assess them, and that is what the nature of
my amendment does.
Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Self)
to talk about this amendment, as well.
Mr. SELF. Madam Chair, I rise in support of Representative Donalds'
amendment.
The most logical path forward for a clean, reliable electrical supply
is nuclear power.
The U.S. Navy operates 80 nuclear-powered vessels with more than
5,400 reactor-years of accident-free operation.
The face of nuclear power is changing to a generation of small
modular reactors that deliver power with lower initial capital costs
and more flexibility in placement.
Today, we import 95 percent of our high-assay low-enriched uranium
from Russia. A startling quote in a Reuters article says that, without
Moscow, the U.S. nuclear power industry could collapse in 1 to 1\1/2\
years.
Today, I speak for Mr. Donalds' amendment, which will help lead
America back to total energy abundance by finding and evaluating
American sources of uranium.
If you want a Green New Deal, this is it.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time
in opposition, although I am not necessarily opposed.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Arizona?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, the amendment offered by my colleague from
Florida, Mr. Donalds, requires the Secretary to submit a report to
Congress that includes the status of uranium deposits in the U.S.,
information on the quality of these deposits compared to the rest of
the world, and policy considerations regarding the use of these
deposits.
Although this amendment concerns only the making of a report, I want
to take a moment to highlight the history of uranium mining in this
country as it relates to our indigenous communities.
One example I will use is the Navajo Nation. From the 1940s to the
1980s, nearly 30 million tons of uranium ore were extracted from the
Nation's lands, exposing generations of Tribal members to the
contamination that permeated these sites.
After the mining companies were done, they simply left their
operations and failed to engage in any cleanup measures.
Today, there are over 500 abandoned uranium mines on the Tribal
Nation's lands, and this continues to be a serious concern for the
Nation's Tribal leadership as we speak.
As you can imagine, these mines have contributed to chronic health
outcomes among Tribal members and have left countless homes and water
sources with elevated levels of radiation.
When we consider the status of uranium mining in this country, we
must also consider the inequitable history that this industry has
imposed specifically upon Tribal communities.
I hope that in addition to the information my colleague would like to
be included in the amendment's report, we can also work to include a
survey of the industry's historical practices and expected challenges
and outcomes to local and surrounding communities.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DONALDS. Madam Chair, it is important for us to understand that
there are two key investments that America is going to need to make.
One is increasing our domestic uranium mining capabilities, and number
two is bolstering our domestic uranium conversion and enrichment
capabilities.
If the concern of the United States is to find a way to increase
baseload power, and also the necessary concern about emissions, then
nuclear power is the path forward for that. We have to take stock of
our uranium capabilities here in the United States.
Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman),
the chair of the Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Chair, I rise in support of this amendment. We have spoken
about the link between hard rock minerals and national security today,
but there is one resource highlighted by this amendment that must be
discussed, and that is uranium.
[[Page H1605]]
Domestic uranium is essential for national security, given its role
in nuclear deterrence and empowering the Naval Nuclear Propulsion
Program.
Uranium also supports the United States biomedical community because
it is vital to the production of medical isotopes.
As the gentleman has pointed out, the majority of our uranium supply
comes from Russia and former Soviet Bloc countries, unfortunately.
We have ample deposits of uranium here in the United States. We just
have to mine it and process it, and we need to use more of it to create
more nuclear power.
I thank the gentleman for bringing this amendment. I support it.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, my comments about uranium mining and the
reports that are requested in this amendment, I am not arguing with the
request. My point is that there is a history here of impacted
communities.
What do we do with waste? That challenge, the contamination, the
cleanup requirements, what are the company's responsibilities? That
should all be part of a survey.
If we are aggressively pursuing uranium as a source, then we need to
aggressively pursue the protections, information, and intended and
unintended consequences of uranium mining, of which we have a history.
That is the request.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DONALDS. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for his
concerns, and that is something I definitely want to work on as we move
forward.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Donalds).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Grijalva
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 19
printed in part B of House Report 118-30.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I rise as the designee of Representative
Escobar, and I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Strike section 20103.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, when the government offers up public land
for an oil and gas lease sale, the public has a right to challenge the
agency's decision.
Challenges can be for any number of reasons, from concerns about air
or water, harming cultural heritage, threatening wildlife, or hurting
recreational or agricultural businesses in the area.
The polluters over people act puts an arbitrary time limit on these
challenges, saying that any claim must be resolved within 60 days so
the agency can get on with issuing the leases.
If these challenges have merit, they should be fully considered. The
arbitrary deadline shuts the American people out of the decisionmaking
process.
This amendment would restore the American people's voice on how their
public lands are used.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arkansas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I oppose this unnecessary amendment as it
would strike a provision in the bill that reinforces current law and
requires the Bureau of Land Management to resolve protests to oil and
gas lease sales within 60 days of payment by the winning bidder.
This amendment proposes a standard of accountability for Federal
agencies that is worse than the status quo. In current practice, the
BLM resolves most protests before lease sales even occur.
For example, when the BLM's New Mexico State office received formal
protests for their June 30, 2022, oil and gas lease sale, BLM was able
to review and respond to the protests by June 29, completing the
process in 42 days and before the sale even occurred.
Once a lease is bid on and won, current law requires leases to be
issued within 60 days following payment by the successful bidder.
This amendment strikes a good governance provision that does nothing
more than reaffirms current law.
Just yesterday, DOI Secretary Deb Haaland testified before the House
Appropriations Committee where she stated: ``Energy independence is a
priority to President Biden.''
If energy independence is a priority to President Biden, then House
Democrats should not be taking our Nation backward. Let's not undo
current law that is actually working.
For those reasons, I oppose this amendment, and I encourage my
colleagues to join me in opposition.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Energy independence, clean, renewable, safe energy, is
what we are all for. This amendment continues to have the public
involved in decisionmaking that affects them, their communities, and
their families.
Madam Chair, I urge approval of the amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).
Mr. STAUBER. Madam Chair, I rise today in opposition to the
amendment.
Madam Chair, the whole purpose of passing H.R. 1 is to make it easier
to build and move America forward.
Lease awardees, under current law, are subject to extensive delays if
the lease sale is protested. These delays could take weeks, months, or
even years.
Meanwhile, the prices at the gas pump continue to skyrocket while we
have acres of land ready to be put into production.
The current situation makes very little sense. Allowing for
practically unfettered protests to lease sales with no timeline is a de
facto ban on development--except this way, the administration doesn't
have to admit that they actually are trying to ban American energy. It
just takes a wink and a nod to the radical, wealthy, activist lawyer
class that exists only to ``keep it in the ground.''
Working together, Interior and their friends in the protest class
just drag it out, protest after protest, while American workers and
families struggle to afford their daily commute.
Section 20103 of H.R. 1 resolves this problem by putting in place a
commonsense timeframe that concludes 60 days after the awardee makes
the payment.
Striking this section, as my colleague's amendment does, is just
another attempt at slowing down any sort of oil and gas development. I
urge opposition to the amendment.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I encourage opposition to this amendment,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Westerman
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 20
printed in part B of House Report 118-30.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I rise as the designee of the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. Feenstra), and I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 74, line 9, insert ``or American farmland or any lands
used for American renewable energy production'' before the
period at the end.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentleman
from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas.
{time} 1915
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I rise today in strong support of this
amendment. This amendment will prohibit the Communist Party of China
[[Page H1606]]
from acquiring any interest in American farmland or lands used for
American renewable energy production.
China has been aggressively acquiring foreign agricultural and energy
assets around the world, and the United States has not been immune to
this trend. Our country's food security and energy independence are at
stake, and we must take action to protect our critical resources.
In 2013, a Chinese company purchased 300 acres of farmland in North
Dakota. This acquisition caused concern among farmers and policymakers
in North Dakota and beyond.
This amendment directly addresses these concerns by prohibiting the
Communist Party of China, or any person acting on its behalf, from
acquiring any interest in American farmland or lands used for American
energy production.
It is crucial that we learn from past experiences and take necessary
measures to protect our domestic resources and ensure our food security
and energy independence.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and join
me in protecting our critical resources, and I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized 5 minutes.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I am happy to support my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle who seem to be taking an interest in supporting
our homegrown, clean energy economy.
Unfortunately, there isn't much else in H.R. 1, the polluters over
people act, that will help us shift to the clean energy future that we
need to combat the climate crisis.
I will also say, I am significantly more concerned about foreign-
owned companies buying up oil, gas, and minerals and polluting in the
United States without consequence.
This amendment aligns with my efforts to increase transparency around
who is operating on our lands and my efforts on raising global
standards. Let's make sure we have good actors operating on our lands.
We owe that much to the American people.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
Mr. STAUBER. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of the amendment.
Madam Chair, in recent years, there has been a concerning trend of
the Chinese Communist Party purchasing farmland right here in America,
including land used for farming, forestry, and other energy production.
In fact, the CCP just tried to purchase almost 400 acres of land
right outside of Grand Forks Air Force Base in North Dakota, creating a
clear and present danger to our national security.
Not only does this jeopardize our national security, but takes
valuable land away from our American farmers who toil day in and day
out to grow crops used to feed America and provide liquid fuel options
for transportation.
As a proud recipient of the Friends of the Farm Bureau award and a
member of the Congressional Biofuels Caucus, I hear firsthand from our
farming communities of the very real fears about the Chinese-purchased
land.
If COVID taught us anything, it is that we cannot depend on
adversarial nations for our supply chains, much less let them increase
their hold and influence over our land.
Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for offering his amendment, and I
urge its support.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, again, I support this amendment by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Feenstra), and I encourage my colleagues to
support it.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arkansas
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 21 Offered by Ms. Perez
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 21
printed in part B of House Report 118-30.
Ms. PEREZ. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 73, line 22, insert ``technological needs and'' after
``address''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentlewoman
from Washington (Ms. Perez) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Washington.
Ms. PEREZ. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, I rise to offer an amendment requiring permitting
agencies to determine their technology needs and report them to
Congress.
Like many of my colleagues across the aisle, I support permitting
reforms. We can agree that existing permitting programs are onerous,
saddling Americans with rules and regulations that are challenging at
best to navigate.
Unfortunately, both parties share some of the blame for creating this
mess. It is Congress that has spent decades under-resourcing permitting
agencies, a big cause of the backlog we are seeing today.
Congress' infrastructure investments of the last few years are
critical for my district and the entire country. Simply funding
projects is not enough, though. That is not the goal of recent
legislation. Getting projects built is the goal.
Whether it is bridges, broadband, ports, or power lines, making sure
that permits are being issued in a consistent and timely manner is key
to any project's success.
I want to make clear that ensuring predictability is an important
piece of the permitting puzzle, one often left out of the discussion.
When someone is applying for permits, potential approval or disapproval
shouldn't be at the whims of whoever is reviewing their application.
Using new technology to improve consistency can help provide the
certainty that businesses crave to pursue critical projects in the
first place.
These reforms can't continue to help big businesses beat out our
small businesses. The endless red tape involved in getting permits is a
major burden for small businesses.
In sector after sector of our economy, market consolidation is
squeezing America's small businesses and harming consumers. A business
of five employees should be on a level playing field with a business of
5,000 employees when it comes to navigating the permitting system.
Ensuring that predictability is one way permitting programs can work
better for small businesses.
Right now we don't even know what resources permitting agencies need,
and that is why the provision in H.R. 1 that agencies assess their
staffing needs and report them to Congress is so important. My
amendment simply extends that requirement to cover technology, as well.
Technology, we all know, is changing so fast right now, and giving
permitting agencies better tools can help on so many fronts. New
software, including programs using machine learning, can better
coordinate simultaneous application reviews by agencies, it can improve
agencies' communication with applicants so they can know where their
permits are in the process and any additional material that may be
needed for certification.
New technology can improve predictability and timely review. This is
a straightforward measure that would help make the government work the
way it ought to.
Congress needs to make sure that permitting agencies have the staff,
technology, and resources to issue permits and expand permitting
capacity.
I am proud to offer this amendment to ensure agencies' technology
needs are met, and I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
[[Page H1607]]
amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Arkansas is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, this amendment would require the
Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, and the Department of Commerce to determine
the technological needs for their respective permitting programs and
report those needs to Congress annually.
The permitting process can be a significant barrier to economic
development and innovation in our country, made even worse if outdated
technology and bureaucratic inefficiencies are hindering the process.
While far from a total solution to our Nation's permitting woes,
identifying technological deficiencies that contribute to
inefficiencies could help Congress prioritize scarce resources to
modernize the permitting process.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PEREZ. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
In closing, Madam Chair, this reporting requirement is important for
making sure permitting agencies work right. Making sure agencies have
the technology they need will improve processes, reduce compliance
costs, and speed up permitting.
The whole amendment is just 10 pages. It is a straightforward, good-
government provision.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Perez).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Westerman
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 22
printed in part B of House Report 118-30.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I rise as the designee of the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. James), and I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
After section 20309, insert the following:
SEC. 20310. NATIONAL STRATEGY TO RE-SHORE MINERAL SUPPLY
CHAINS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the United States Geological Survey,
in consultation with the Secretaries of Defense, Energy, and
State, shall--
(1) identify mineral commodities that--
(A) serve a critical purpose to the national security of
the United States, including with respect to military,
defense, and strategic mobility applications; and
(B) are at highest risk of supply chain disruption due to
the domestic or global actions of any covered entity,
including price-fixing, systemic acquisition and control of
global mineral resources and processing, refining, and
smelting capacity, and undercutting the fair market value of
such resources; and
(2) develop a national strategy for bolstering supply
chains in the United States for the mineral commodities
identified under paragraph (1), including through the
enactment of new national policies and the utilization of
current authorities, to increase capacity and efficiency of
domestic mining, refining, processing, and manufacturing of
such mineral commodities.
(b) Covered Entity.--In this section, the term ``covered
entity'' means an entity that--
(1) is subject to the jurisdiction or direction of the
People's Republic of China;
(2) is directly or indirectly operating on behalf of the
People's Republic of China; or
(3) is owned by, directly or indirectly controlled by, or
otherwise subject to the influence of the People's Republic
of China.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentleman
from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Chair, I rise in support of this amendment. It is well known by
now that foreign nations, China in particular, are dominating global
supply chains for hardrock minerals like copper, nickel, lithium, and
dozens of others.
China's overwhelming presence in the minerals marketplace is not due
to an inherent advantage in mineral reserves but instead is the result
of a decades-long strategy to take control of dozens of commodities,
from mining to manufacturing.
For instance, China's ``go global'' strategy, which began in the
1990s, included $390 billion in outbound direct investments in the
mining sector.
Today, China is the primary global supplier of cobalt for batteries,
despite having very limited domestic reserves, through its aggressive
investment and processing capacity and foreign direct investment in
mines around the world.
China also has billions invested in nickel projects in Indonesia,
home to one-quarter of overall global reserves.
Nickel and cobalt are only two out of dozens of minerals that will
see surging demand in the coming years. Examples of China's mineral
dominance go on and on.
Just yesterday, DOI Secretary Haaland testified before the House
Appropriations Committee, where she agreed that electric vehicles and
renewables deepen our dependence on China. Congressman Reschenthaler
specifically asked Secretary Haaland if electric vehicles and
renewables deepen our dependence on China, and she replied yes.
We must not put China over America. We must return our Nation to
energy independence. H.R. 1 combats the crisis of Chinese control of
the global mineral supply chain.
My colleague's amendment is a great addition to H.R. 1. The amendment
directs the U.S. Geological Survey and the Departments of Defense,
Energy, and State to identify the mineral supply chains needed for
military, defense, and national security purposes that are at greatest
risk of disruption because of China.
Once identified, the administration must develop a strategy to bring
these supply chains back to the United States, including through
bolstering U.S. domestic mining, refining, processing, and
manufacturing.
This amendment speaks to the core of the bill under consideration
today, the need to increase the domestic production of energy and
minerals, a critical part of maintaining our national security.
I support this amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in
supporting its inclusion in the package.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, we already have a national strategy in
critical minerals. The Democratic-passed Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act built on the Energy Policy Act of 2020 to give agencies broad
authorities to responsibly decrease reliance on China by diversifying
sources, finding substitutes, and, importantly, recycling and reusing,
something Republicans often ignore in favor of rushing into new mining.
This amendment puts a focus on new mining without essential
protections for communities and the environment.
Many of the minerals we need for a clean energy transition in the
United States are within 35 miles of Tribal land, yet neither this
amendment nor the underlying bill addresses the impact of domestic
mining on indigenous communities at all. It doesn't address the long-
overdue need to reform the Mining Law of 1872.
We know there will be increased demand for minerals as we transition
to renewable energy. That is why it is essential to reform the mining
law, period.
{time} 1930
We need to ensure better protections for the environment; a fair
return to the American people that royalties be paid, and a seat at the
table for Tribal government, as it is dictated in the government-to-
government and trust responsibility that Congress holds.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and
instead work on real, meaningful reform to support the clean energy
transition.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).
[[Page H1608]]
Mr. STAUBER. Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of this amendment,
which creates a national strategy for America to reshore our mineral
supply chains.
Madam Chair, I want to just reiterate what the chairman of the
Natural Resources Committee just said. Yesterday, the Secretary of the
Interior of this Nation, who is in charge of millions of acres of
Federal land, when asked on a mineral withdrawal in the biggest cooper-
nickel find in the world, in northeastern Minnesota, called the Duluth
Complex--which has 95 percent of this Nation's nickel reserve, almost
90 percent of the cobalt reserve, 75 percent of the platinum root
metals, and a third of our copper--when the Secretary of the Interior
yesterday was asked if there is critical minerals in that find, this is
her answer: I don't know what kind of minerals were there. I don't
think there were critical minerals.
The Secretary of the Interior has no idea that cobalt and nickel are
part of the critical minerals, of the 37 critical minerals identified
by the Department of Energy. This is her response.
We need a national strategy to reshore these minerals. I want to
reiterate: This is offensive to my constituents who are ready and able
to mine these critical minerals to secure our supply chain for this
Nation. We have to secure our supply chain. We have to hold the
dependency of this great Nation in the palm of our own hand, doing it
with the best environmental standards and the best labor standards.
We can't allow China to dominate in our critical minerals with zero
environmental standards and zero labor standards. The Communist country
of China owns 15 of the 19 industrial mines in the Congo that use child
slave labor, and this administration just entered into a memorandum of
understanding to allow child slaves to mine the minerals that we need.
We can't do this anymore as the United States of America. We should
never allow or purchase minerals mined by child slave labor. Again,
this is the Secretary of the Interior of the United States of America.
She has no idea what is happening with the withdrawal.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, there is a strategy for critical minerals,
but whatever we do going forward, the essential protections that are in
place for communities, the requirement of the Tribal consultation and
being at the table, that is our obligation--our constitutional
obligation. Those need to be followed.
The reason they need to be followed is the energy strategy that I am
hearing from the Republicans is just going back to the good old days.
The good old days created these laws, these protections.
I use the example of Navajo Nation and uranium contamination. The
list can go on and on and on. If we are saying that that collateral
damage, those bad health impacts, that destruction of a community, that
toxic cleanup left to local taxpayers, that that is okay because that
is part of the past and that is part of the mining history of the past
under the 1872 law, that we should replicate that now? No.
This amendment is wrong-headed. It takes us in a different direction.
It cuts the public out of the process. It violates our nation-to-nation
consultation responsibility.
Madam Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. LaMalfa
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 23
printed in part B of House Report 118-30.
Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Add at the end of title II of division B the following:
SEC. 20221. EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN WILDFIRE MITIGATION
ACTIVITIES FROM CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL
REQUIREMENTS.
(a) In General.--Wildfire mitigation activities of the
Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture
may be carried out without regard to the provisions of law
specified in subsection (b).
(b) Provisions of Law Specified.--The provisions of law
specified in this section are all Federal, State, or other
laws, regulations, and legal requirements of, deriving from,
or related to the subject of, the following laws:
(1) Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).
(2) The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.).
(c) Wildfire Mitigation Activity.--For purposes of this
section, the term ``wildfire mitigation activity''--
(1) is an activity conducted on Federal land that is--
(A) under the administration of the Director of the
National Park System, the Director of the Bureau of Land
Management, or the Chief of the Forest Service; and
(B) within 300 feet of any permanent or temporary road, as
measured from the center of such road; and
(2) includes forest thinning, hazardous fuel reduction,
prescribed burning, and vegetation management.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentleman
from California (Mr. LaMalfa) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Chair, I thank our chairman for his diligent work
on H.R. 1 and the amendments that are going with it. I appreciate it.
Madam Chair, I rise today not only to support H.R. 1, that will make
long overdue changes to our permitting system and allow time-sensitive
projects to be considered and approved in a reasonable timeframe, but I
am also in support of two amendments that I am very pleased to see
included.
The first amendment is No. 23, otherwise known as the Combustion
Avoidance along Rural Roads Act, or the CARR Act. The CARR Act is named
after the 2018 devastating wildfire that occurred in Redding,
California, that started from a flat trailer tire igniting roadside
vegetation. This fire coined the term ``firenado'' as it occurred there
with the deadly winds that whipped that fire into what became a
230,000-acre blaze that also took eight lives.
This bill would waive time-consuming requirements under NEPA and the
ESA for wildfire mitigation activities conducted within 300 feet of a
roadway. These wildfire mitigation activities would include thinning,
hazardous fuels reduction, prescribed burning, and vegetation
management, and be overseen by the Department of the Interior or USDA,
and be conducted on Federal land as administered by the National Park
system, the Bureau of Land Management, or the Forest Service.
Roadways, of course, can be a higher risk area for combustion. It
only makes sense to do the type of thinning and management along
roadways to vastly reduce that risk. Had this been in practice already,
the Carr fire likely would not have happened.
I hope we can have this kind of common sense be applied toward our
roadsides under the CARR Act.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, once again, I rise in opposition to the
gentleman's amendment, which would unnecessarily waive fundamental
environmental laws for wildfire mitigation activity adjacent to roads.
Madam Chair, the underlying bill we are considering today is a
polluter wish list of environmental shortcuts designed to open our
public lands to more and more extraction while cutting the public out
of the decisionmaking process.
The bottom line is, I simply do not think that Congress should be in
the business of waiving requirements outlined in the Endangered Species
Act or the National Environmental Protection Act.
These laws provide critical protections that guide the management of
our public lands and waters--critical protections that do not hinder
efforts to mitigate wildfire risk or manage our forests.
In fact, many of the activities contemplated by the amendment are
covered under existing categorical exclusions, which allow land
management
[[Page H1609]]
agencies to carry out routine projects in a fast, efficient, and
flexible manner.
I will not deny that carrying out wildfire mitigation projects across
our national forest and public land is a critical priority. However, we
do not have to cast aside environmental standards to get it done.
Madam Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Chair, I am disappointed that this would be deemed
a wish list item, indeed, when the eight lives lost and the families
affected in the Redding area would look at this as something critical.
The categorical exclusions do not go far enough, obviously, or they
would have been utilized in a fashion that would be making a wide
enough swath around our roadways to make them safe from fire and our
forests safe from fire.
Madam Chair, I urge, please, an ``aye'' vote on this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I rise in support of this amendment. The
provisions of this bill, such as Representative Graves' BUILDER Act,
would streamline the inefficient and costly NEPA process. It is costly
in more than just dollars. It is costly to our environment. It is
costly in human lives.
As the gentleman explained, we can do better managing our forests.
When we keep these forests healthy, we are protecting human life. We
are protecting property. We are also protecting the very, very thing
that does more to support and help the environment than anything else,
and it is our forest.
It is a tragedy that we send up so much of our forest in smoke. This
NEPA process, although it is streamlining, will help to produce more
domestic energy. It will also help to build infrastructure. It will
help to take care of our national forest and Federal lands.
Madam Chair, this is a good amendment. I support it, and I encourage
others to support it.
Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Chair, I conclude by asking that we not have more
scenes that look like this--similar to this--that happened in Redding,
and that we be allowed to do the work effectively along our roadways,
which are risk zones with traffic, et cetera.
Madam Chair, I ask for an ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. LaMalfa
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 24
printed in part B of House Report 118-30.
Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Add at the end of title II of division B the following:
SEC. 20221. VEGETATION MANAGEMENT, FACILITY INSPECTION, AND
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE RELATING TO ELECTRIC
TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY RIGHTS
OF WAY.
(a) Hazard Trees Within 50 Feet of Electric Power Line.--
Section 512(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1772(a)(1)(B)(ii)) is
amended by striking ``10'' and inserting ``50''.
(b) Consultation With Private Landowners.--Section
512(c)(3)(E) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of
1976 (43 U.S.C. 1772(c)(3)(E)) is amended--
(1) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in clause (ii), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) consulting with private landowners with respect to
any hazard trees identified for removal from land owned by
such private landowners.''.
(c) Review and Approval Process.--Clause (iv) of section
512(c)(4)(A) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of
1976 (43 U.S.C. 1772(c)(4)(A)) is amended to read as follows:
``(iv) ensures that--
``(I) a plan submitted without a modification under clause
(iii) shall be automatically approved 60 days after review;
and
``(II) a plan submitted with a modification under clause
(iii) shall be automatically approved 67 days after
review.''.
SEC. 20222. CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION FOR ELECTRIC UTILITY LINES
RIGHTS-OF-WAY.
(a) Secretary Concerned Defined.--In this section, the term
``Secretary concerned'' means--
(1) the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to National
Forest System lands; and
(2) the Secretary of the Interior, with respect to public
lands.
(b) Categorical Exclusion Established.--Forest management
activities described in subsection (c) are a category of
activities designated as being categorically excluded from
the preparation of an environmental assessment or an
environmental impact statement under section 102 of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332).
(c) Forest Management Activities Designated for Categorical
Exclusion.--The forest management activities designated as
being categorically excluded under subsection (b) are--
(1) the development and approval of a vegetation
management, facility inspection, and operation and
maintenance plan submitted under section 512(c)(1) of the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.
1772(c)(1)) by the Secretary concerned; and
(2) the implementation of routine activities conducted
under the plan referred to in paragraph (1).
(d) Availability of Categorical Exclusion.--On and after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
concerned may use the categorical exclusion established under
subsection (b) in accordance with this section.
(e) Extraordinary Circumstances.--Use of the categorical
exclusion established under subsection (b) shall not be
subject to the extraordinary circumstances procedures in
section 220.6, title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, or
section 1508.4, title 40, Code of Federal Regulations.
(f) Exclusion of Certain Areas.--The categorical exclusion
established under subsection (b) shall not apply to any
forest management activity conducted--
(1) in a component of the National Wilderness Preservation
System; or
(2) on National Forest System lands on which, by Act of
Congress, the removal of vegetation is restricted or
prohibited.
(g) Permanent Roads.--
(1) Prohibition on establishment.--A forest management
activity designated under subsection (c) shall not include
the establishment of a permanent road.
(2) Existing roads.--The Secretary concerned may carry out
necessary maintenance and repair on an existing permanent
road for the purposes of conducting a forest management
activity designated under subsection (c).
(3) Temporary roads.--The Secretary concerned shall
decommission any temporary road constructed for a forest
management activity designated under subsection (c) not later
than 3 years after the date on which the action is completed.
(h) Applicable Laws.--A forest management activity
designated under subsection (c) shall not be subject to
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.
1536), section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,
or any other applicable law.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentleman
from California (Mr. LaMalfa) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Chair, amendment No. 24, also known also the CLEAR
Zones Act, is an enhancement of the Electricity Reliability and Forest
Protection Act. This amendment would extend the hazard zone around
power lines to allow utility companies to clear trees that pose a
danger to transmission infrastructure.
It also gives automatic approval of vegetation management plans after
60 days, which keeps these plans moving forward while still giving
adequate time for reasonable review instead of needless delays in these
critical fire risk zones.
During debate, I have heard some of my colleagues refer to this
amendment and other proposals in H.R. 1 as a giveaway, in this case, to
utility companies, or a trashing of the environment. That is
offensively untrue. Indeed, the environment suffers much more by the
massive amount of fire we are talking about.
Both of my amendments are a direct response to wildfires that have
already occurred in my district. Had they been in place, largely, the
Camp fire that destroyed the town of Paradise, 153,000 acres and took
85 lives, would not have happened, as a fire caught from foliage that
was underneath a power line.
Also, the million-acre Dixie fire that occurred in my district from
what looked like a healthy tree falling into
[[Page H1610]]
a power line, destroyed two towns additionally, Greenville and
Canyondam. I was there at Canyondam 5 minutes before it was lost
completely.
Unlike most environmental regulations, this policy is not just about
potential future effects, it is also about the fires that have already
happened. They have already destroyed homes, already taken lives. This
is a message to those folks that your suffering was not needless.
It is about stopping these wildfires from happening again by having
wise management around our power lines so that the odds of fire
occurring from these power lines existing in our rural areas is reduced
greatly.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment, which would change existing guidelines and create a new
categorical exclusion for managing vegetation along transmission lines
that run across national forests and public lands.
In order to advance the renewable energy future that the underlying
bill moves us away from, we do need to prioritize transmission.
That is why House Democrats worked tirelessly to invest billions in
new opportunities that the Biden administration is currently delivering
across America.
{time} 1945
These investments are building out rural electrical infrastructure
and will expand access to renewable energy to more and more Americans.
Confronting the climate crisis also means reducing risk associated
with transmission infrastructure, which certainly includes wildfire.
However, this amendment is a bridge too far.
There is an administrative process to establish categorical
exclusions. That is the right way to get them done, not through a fly-
by-night amendment on a largely unrelated piece of legislation.
The amendment also sets up unrealistic approval timelines, deeming a
permit approved if an agency has not responded within 60 days. We all
know that Federal land management agencies are understaffed and
underresourced.
The solution is investing in the workforce and building out agency
capacity, not creating unworkable timelines designed to ultimately be
ignored.
This amendment, however, is not the answer.
Madam Chair, I urge a vote ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman not only for
yielding me time but for bringing another commonsense and good
amendment that makes H.R. 1 even a better bill.
As he mentioned, similar provisions were enacted in 2018 to allow
electric transmission or distribution facility operators to remove
hazard trees that can threaten infrastructure and start a catastrophic
wildfire. That is what this amendment was built on.
Madam Chair, I have been to California. I have been to South Lake
Tahoe. I have seen the efforts and the fruits of the labor in the field
from the work of my colleague from California (Mr. LaMalfa) and our
colleague Mr. McClintock, who worked so hard to be able to get this
provision in previous legislation.
This has been used to thin the timber on power lines. Actually, these
provisions have helped stop wildfires from spreading. This works. This
should be added to, and we should be doing it everywhere we can to
prevent these catastrophic wildfires like the folks in California and
other parts of the West see all too often.
Madam Chair, I support this amendment, and I encourage everyone else
to support it.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Chair, I ask that people really stop and think
about what we are asking here. This is not unreasonable where power
lines interface with forested areas. Precautions like we are talking
about would have directly, in these two cases, saved three towns, over
1.1 million acres, and at least 85 lives had they had the ability to
thin properly around power lines. It is that basic.
As long as we are going to have electricity come from rural areas, we
are going to have these needs to be able to have safety around our
power lines by doing commonsense management around them.
Madam Chair, I ask Members to vote ``aye'' on amendment No. 24, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 25 Offered by Ms. Leger Fernandez
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 25
printed in part B of House Report 118-30.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Insert after section 20220 the following:
SEC. 20221. STAFFING PLANS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 365 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, each local unit of the National Park
Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Forest Service shall
conduct an outreach plan for disseminating and advertising
open civil service positions with functions relating to
permitting or natural resources in their offices. Each such
plan shall include outreach to local high schools, community
colleges, institutions of higher education, and any other
relevant institutions, as determined by the Secretary of the
Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture (as the case may
be).
(b) Collaboration Permitted.--Such local units of the
National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Forest
Service located in reasonably close geographic areas may
collaborate to produce a joint outreach plan that meets the
requirements of subsection (a).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentlewoman
from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Mexico.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Madam Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to
debate and consider my amendment to encourage local hiring and
recruitment, but I also want to note my disappointment that my friends
across the aisle rejected any consideration of my other two amendments
on this floor.
One of those amendments would allow the Secretaries of the Interior
and Agriculture to prevent exploratory mining from taking place on
Federal land if it would negatively impact our water, farmers, Tribes,
or local communities.
In New Mexico, ``agua es vida''; ``water is life.'' It shouldn't be
controversial to protect our waters from mining contamination for our
people, farmers, and environment.
My other amendment would have simply stated that this bill would not
go into effect until the Federal Government certified that it would
lower costs for American consumers and save taxpayers money. If this
bill is really designed to lower energy costs for American consumers
and taxpayers, let's verify that before putting polluters over people.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to consider my amendment, which
would require local units of the Bureau of Land Management, Forest
Service, and National Park Service to conduct an outreach plan to
disseminate and advertise local civil service positions with functions
relating to permitting and natural resources in their offices. Each
plan must include outreach to local high schools, community colleges,
institutions of higher education, and other relevant institutions.
The BLM, the Forest Service, and the National Park Service field
offices, and
[[Page H1611]]
ranger districts and sites are stewards of our lands and waters, but
they also operate within communities within which they are located,
whether it is Cuba or Farmington or Roswell, New Mexico.
Adequate staffing at these offices and their headquarters, and our
Federal agencies more broadly, is critical to our ability to
effectively steward our natural resources and environment and move
projects through the permitting process efficiently, responsibly, and
with an ear tuned in to what the local communities need.
Unfortunately, we are seeing many of our agencies struggle to fill
vacancies and staff up. For example, an E&E News article from last year
said there are vacancy counts for all BLM State offices; the National
Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho; the Bureau's National
Operations Center in Denver; and the other directorates.
To be clear, I know BLM and other Federal agencies are working hard
to address these challenges. My amendment would take another step to
help address the staffing challenges by making sure local offices are
communicating with the local communities about open positions.
Whether it is New Mexico Highlands University, Eastern New Mexico
University, or Navajo Tech, I believe we should be taking advantage of
talent in the communities where these offices are located.
To be clear, once again, we must also provide our Federal agencies
with the resources and tools they need and support our Federal
workforce along the way.
The investments made last Congress to increase capacity at our
Federal permitting offices were a downpayment, but we need to continue
to invest in agency capability.
Again, this amendment simply makes sure that our local agencies are
thinking about communicating with our local talent when trying to fill
those hiring challenges.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Arkansas is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, this amendment requires local units of
the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Forest
Service to open job positions related to permitting or natural
resources, including at local high schools, community colleges,
universities, and other institutions.
Madam Chair, I just have to commend the gentlewoman's district. I was
recently in the town of Hobbs, New Mexico, and I got to visit an
amazing facility called CTECH that is used to educate future workers in
that area. I have seen a lot of career and technical education
facilities, and this one is second to none.
It was funded by the industry in the oil and gas business. They gave
back to the community and built this remarkable facility. I believe
they said over 1,000 high school students per year are using this
facility. These are the places that are educating these future workers,
and these jobs should be advertised there.
We have heard from multiple sectors, including in the energy, mining,
and renewable energy spaces, about the permitting challenges they face,
and those challenges are magnified by a lack of sufficient qualified
personnel in State and local land management offices.
This amendment tasks the administration with performing outreach to
local schools and other institutions to help fill open positions in
their local offices.
While it is far from a total solution to the permitting challenges in
our country, this amendment could help improve permitting backlogs and
provide employment opportunities at the local level, including in rural
areas.
Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for her amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas
for his visit to my district. I also invite the gentleman to the
northern part because, at New Mexico Highlands University, we have an
excellent forestry department where we are looking at the center of
excellence. I know the gentleman's interest in forestry.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Mexico
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Levin
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 26
printed in part B of House Report 118-30.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Strike title V of division B.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Levin) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Chair, my first amendment will strike title V of
division B of this bill.
Throughout this debate, I have heard my friends across the aisle
argue that the bill before us today is a reasonable attempt to reform
our permitting system. Unfortunately, this bill closely resembles a
wish list for Big Oil and their lobbyists.
This amendment would strike one of the most egregious portions of the
bill that would undo many of the reforms we made last Congress to
ensure that the American people see a better return on our public lands
and waters. We should all be able to agree that the American people
deserve a fair deal when it comes to the use of our cherished public
lands.
For far too long, our oil and gas leasing program has offered a
sweetheart deal for the fossil fuel industry at the expense of
taxpayers. One fossil fuel company even went so far as to outline in a
press release the many benefits of extraction on public land compared
to private land. Their release highlighted that leases on public lands
are cheaper, last longer, and are more expansive.
While these statements may be music to the ears of those who care
most about Big Oil interests, they represent a raw and an unfair deal
for the American people.
Increasing the royalty rate to a fair level--that is all we are
asking, a fair level--will generate billions of dollars in revenue for
taxpayers. The Government Accountability Office and Congressional
Budget Office both agree and have suggested that it is good policy.
That is why, last Congress, I introduced the Restoring Community
Input and Public Protections in Oil and Gas Leasing Act to protect
taxpayers by eliminating noncompetitive oil and gas leasing and raising
the onshore oil and gas royalty rate, rental fee, and minimum bid
amount.
I am proud that the Inflation Reduction Act includes significant
provisions of that bill, including eliminating noncompetitive leasing
for oil and gas sales, raising annual rental rates, and increasing the
minimum bid for public lands. These commonsense reforms were simply
long-overdue fixes to create more balanced fiscal terms and bring
Federal lands in line with what States and private landowners already
charge.
Before the IRA, the fiscal terms for public lands leasing and
drilling were, in some cases, over 100 years old. For decades, these
outdated rates and fees allowed oil CEOs to lease public lands for
pennies on the dollar and unfairly increase their profits at the
expense of taxpayers.
Even after the IRA, States like Texas and Oklahoma still charge
higher royalty rates on their State lands than are charged on Federal
public lands.
According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, these updated fiscal terms
included in the IRA will not raise prices
[[Page H1612]]
at the pump or consumer energy prices, but they will raise billions of
dollars in additional revenue that could go toward our funding
education, healthcare, and infrastructure improvements that benefit
everyone, not just oil and gas companies.
{time} 2000
Unfortunately, the bill before us today would also reinstate
noncompetitive leasing, an indefensible practice.
The Government Accountability Office also found that 99 percent of
noncompetitive leases issued between 2003 and 2009 never produced oil
and gas during their 10-year lease terms. The reason why these lands
were not put into production is that they are leased in areas where
there is virtually no likelihood of development.
At its core, noncompetitive leasing is a wasteful practice that
forces the Bureau of Land Management to expend limited public agency
time and resources administering leases that hardly ever generate
returns for taxpayers. It encourages oil and gas companies to buy up
lands they will never use to pad their portfolios and appease
shareholders, contributing to the 12.3 million acres of leased public
lands that these companies are currently sitting on and not using.
Instead of maintaining these commonsense reforms and protecting the
interests of American taxpayers, title V of the bill before us today
would undo all of these reforms and provide a gift to oil and gas
interests. By rolling back these reforms, the majority is proposing
policies that would only pad Big Oil's pocketbooks even further and
increase our Federal deficit by $160 million over 10 years, according
to the Congressional Budget Office, even as companies like ExxonMobil
and Shell are announcing record profits.
By striking this title, we can put these dollars back in the pockets
of the American people and protect commonsense reforms that are finally
ensuring that Federal taxpayers receive a fair return on any private
profit that oil and gas companies extract from our public lands.
I urge my colleagues to stand up for the American people and stand
against our increasing national debt by supporting this amendment.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arkansas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I oppose this amendment, which would
strike provisions in the bill to incentivize responsible domestic
energy production, create jobs, and reduce energy costs for American
families.
This amendment would preserve the higher royalty rates for oil and
gas on Federal lands and waters that were just recently raised by my
colleagues across the aisle.
Democrat talking points ignore the reality of what it takes to
produce energy on Federal lands, while at the same time advocating for
increased royalties that will be passed on to consumers in the form of
higher energy costs.
The House Natural Resources Committee held a field hearing for H.R. 1
last month where we heard directly from operators that produce on
Federal, State, and private lands. Unfortunately, none of our Democrat
colleagues came with us to participate in that hearing or they would
have heard the facts.
It takes less than a week to obtain a drilling permit from the States
of Texas or New Mexico, and it takes over 180 days to obtain a permit
from the BLM. That is just one drilling permit. Operators sometimes
need 30 to 50 permits and right-of-ways from a Federal agency to
develop a project on Federal lands.
It is these delays and inefficiencies that demonstrate why the
royalty rate should be lower on Federal lands. The simple truth is, the
lower the royalty rate, the more interest there will be in energy
production, the greater our Nation's energy security, and the cheaper
energy process will be for all Americans. The Democrats know this.
Earlier this month, the Biden administration confirmed this fact in a
leaked Bureau of Ocean Energy Management memo on Cook Inlet lease sale
258. Their own memo noted that a lower ``16\2/3\ percent royalty may be
more likely to facilitate expeditious and orderly development of OCS
resources and potentially offer greater energy security to residents of
the State of Alaska.'' That was from the Biden BOEM administration.
Madam Chair, because I believe in promoting American energy security
and reducing our reliance on foreign adversaries for energy and mineral
resources that we should be producing here in America, I oppose this
amendment.
Madam Chair, I encourage my colleagues to join me in opposition, and
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).
Mr. STAUBER. Madam Chair, I rise today in opposition to the amendment
of the gentleman from California (Mr. Levin), my good friend.
The so-called Inflation Reduction Act actually inflated royalty rates
to continue punishing energy developers and all downstream consumers,
whether it be diesel used by farmers or gas at the pump for a family
going on vacation or even just the daily commute. Therefore,
Republicans in Congress again did the right thing by returning the
royalty rate to the reasonable place prior to the Inflation Reduction
Act.
By striking this provision, the Democrats once again want to increase
the cost of energy on American families. This doesn't make sense. For
one, it simply makes oil and gas more expensive and, therefore, all
uses of oil and gas more expensive.
We think of gasoline and diesel, of course, but how about plastic for
everyday use, ranging from eyeglasses to medical instruments or rubber
tires for electric vehicles?
How about lubricants for wind turbines?
How about fertilizer?
Should we continue to drive the cost of all of these items through
the roof?
It also doesn't make sense because it only punishes producers on
Federal lands and waters. I have had the good fortune of being welcomed
to southeast New Mexico and west Texas a handful of times to discuss
these issues, and what I have learned is that it is significantly
easier and cheaper to develop on private lands.
Producers will produce.
Do we want those returns from production to be realized by
communities impacted by Federal land ownership at all?
This amendment was soundly defeated in committee. Let's keep energy
and oil and gas applications cheap, and let's keep revenues flowing to
areas impacted by Federal lands.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I encourage my colleagues to oppose this
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Levin).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Levin
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 27
printed in part B of House Report 118-30.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division B, insert the following:
TITLE VII--COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CERTIFICATION
SEC. 20701. FUNDING AND STAFFING CAPACITY.
This division and the amendments made by this division
shall not take effect until the Council on Environmental
Quality, in consultation with affected Federal agencies,
certifies that all agencies have the funding and staffing
capacity to meet the new timelines for environmental review
associated with this division and the amendments made by this
division without reducing the quality of review.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentleman
[[Page H1613]]
from California (Mr. Levin) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Chair, this amendment simply requires Federal
agencies to certify that they have the staffing capacity to meet the
new environmental timelines established under this bill.
According to the Government Accountability Office, the main reason
for project delays at the Federal level is a lack of agency resources
and staff capacity. Thankfully, we helped address this challenge by
securing $1 billion in the IRA to ensure Federal agencies have the
resources and expertise to conduct efficient environmental reviews.
A trained, equipped workforce is essential to processing
environmental reviews in a timely fashion in cases where there are
delays. Increasing the funding and staff for Federal agencies'
permitting offices and agency workforce training is already making the
permitting process significantly more effective and efficient in a
responsible way.
Unfortunately, instead of building on the progress we made in the
Inflation Reduction Act and supporting agencies' capacity to conduct
reviews by providing additional resources, H.R. 1 takes the more
politically expedient but impractical approach of simply forcing
agencies onto stricter timelines for reviews without providing
additional resources for Federal agencies to conduct these reviews.
By instituting these strict deadlines and limiting opportunities for
community input throughout this bill, I am worried that instead of
leading to more efficient project reviews and approvals, H.R. 1 may
actually lead to sloppier and rushed reviews. When environmental
reviews are not thorough, projects often face a litany of time-
consuming lawsuits and litigation.
As some may know, I used to work on clean energy projects before
coming to Congress, and my own experience is that detailed
environmental reviews and a thoughtful permitting process alongside
early engagement with impacted communities can facilitate more
efficient completion of projects and better overall outcomes.
This amendment would help support efficient reviews by requiring that
the Council on Environmental Quality in consultation with affected
Federal agencies certify that all agencies have the funding and
staffing capacity to meet the new timelines for environmental review
required under the bill.
It is common sense that we should not be instituting arbitrary
timelines if agencies don't have the necessary resources to meet them.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to ensure that affected
agencies have the resources needed to conduct high-quality reviews,
which will lead to better overall project outcomes.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arkansas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, as much as I appreciate Mr. Levin and his
real sincerity and work on the committee, on this bill, and his
expertise in this area, I must oppose this amendment tonight and hope
to work with him on some additional legislation in the future.
This amendment would strike all of the provisions in division B that
increase domestic energy production and reduce energy costs for
American families. This amendment prevents division B from going into
effect until all of the Federal agencies impacted certify that they
have adequate funding and staffing to meet the timelines in the bill.
In response, I ask a simple question: When has a Federal bureaucracy
ever felt it has enough staff on its payroll or enough taxpayer dollars
to spend in its budget?
The answer is never, at least not as long as I have been in Congress
and I have talked to Federal agencies.
Even with the spending push by the Democrats in the so-called
Inflation Reduction Act--they have stated several times during the
debate on H.R. 1 that they have put a billion dollars out there to
speed up permitting--these Federal agencies are still asking for more
money and more staff, and permitting timelines are still ballooning.
Why?
Because the issue is not an issue of staffing or budget alone. The
underlying statutes and the processes are broken, and they must be
fixed. That is what H.R. 1 does. It addresses the underlying issues,
and it will expedite permitting for all kinds of projects.
This messaging amendment would prevent meaningful reforms in the name
of growing the Federal bureaucracy. For these reasons, I oppose this
amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in opposition.
Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).
Mr. STAUBER. Madam Chair, I, too, appreciate Mr. Levin's intent, but
I rise today in opposition to his amendment. Democrats tout the
``historic investments'' in our agencies by the so-called Inflation
Reduction Act and other deficit-ballooning bills passed when they were
in complete control.
Madam Chair, I don't understand. How can the agencies be so
chronically understaffed after passing all those ``historic
investments''?
In fact, Democrats during committee markup touted these funding
levels. In a nice little graphic, they had $1 billion from the so-
called IRA alone, which includes $30 million for CEQ, $350 million for
the Steering Council, and a whopping $625 million for other various
agencies.
Madam Chair, have we completed the Cardinal-Hickory Creek
transmission line that is going on 7 years of permitting?
The answer is no.
Have we brought any new mines on line?
The answer is no.
Have we finished any water projects in California?
No.
Look at this chart behind me. This broken permitting system is the
issue. It takes decades to get anything done. A mining project in my
district alone is on year 20, going on year 21 of permitting and
litigation.
The need here isn't to turbocharge more Federal bureaucrats in our
agencies.
H.R. 1 solves this problem. Let's modernize the permitting process.
Let's put time limits on litigation, limit review page numbers, and
shorten timelines for America to remain competitive and lead in energy
production.
H.R. 1 also allows project sponsors to conduct the review and then
submit to the agency, who must give final sign-off. I repeat this. The
agency must sign off.
This isn't just a Republican provision. Many Democrats who still
serve in this Chamber or in the Senate have voted for that.
Fixing permitting requires real policy solutions, not just throwing
money into endless pits of bureaucracy.
I urge opposition to this amendment.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I urge opposition to this amendment, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Levin).
The amendment was rejected.
{time} 2015
Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mrs. Luna
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 28
printed in part B of House Report 118-30.
Mrs. LUNA. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
After section 20114, add the following:
SEC. 20115. REQUIREMENT FOR GAO REPORT ON WIND ENERGY
IMPACTS.
The Secretary of the Interior shall not publish a notice
for a wind lease sale or hold a lease sale for wind energy
development in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico Planning Area, the
South Atlantic Planning Area, or the Straits of Florida
Planning Area (as described in the 2017-2022 Outer
Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Proposed Final Program
(November 2016)) until the Comptroller General of the United
States publishes a report on all potential adverse effects of
wind energy development in such areas, including associated
infrastructure and vessel traffic, on--
(1) military readiness and training activities in the
Planning Areas described in this section, including
activities within or related to the Eglin Test and Training
Complex and the Jacksonville Range Complex;
[[Page H1614]]
(2) marine environment and ecology, including species
listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) or designated as
depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16
U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) in the Planning Areas described in this
section; and
(3) tourism, including the economic impacts that a decrease
in tourism may have on the communities adjacent to the
Planning Areas described in this section.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentlewoman
from Florida (Mrs. Luna) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
Mrs. LUNA. Madam Chair, the 2020 Trump moratorium banned all energy
leasing off the coast of Florida until 2032.
President Trump recognized the natural beauty, tourism attractions,
and unique wildlife, as well as one-of-a-kind military training and
testing offered by Florida's coast.
It goes without saying that energy development threatens all of that,
especially off the coast of Florida. I thank President Trump for his
declaration.
However, President Biden and Democrats in Congress undercut the Trump
moratorium in the Inflation Reduction Act by allowing offshore wind
development off the coast of Florida.
This threatens our economy, ecosystem, and military readiness, as
well as a number of endangered species in ways that were obvious to all
except Democrats who voted to force this wind development on an
unwilling public.
My amendment requires the GAO to conduct a study on how wind
development would impact military readiness, marine life, tourism
aspects, and prohibits offering leases for wind development until the
study is complete.
I have confidence that the study conducted by our government experts
will show what President Trump so easily understood--that wind is bad
for Florida.
My Florida Republican colleagues and I are committed to ensuring that
no wind turbines will ever be placed off the coast of Florida.
We will work with our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to
block funding for this kind of development, and we will repeal the
section of the Inflation Reduction Act that my Democrat colleagues
voted for that want to build windmills on our beaches.
These very ugly and ineffective turbines pose untold dangers to
Florida's thriving marine life and our precious natural resources.
Wind turbines also threaten our Nation's military readiness by
interfering with radar detection, which can result in a complete loss
of detection capabilities, according to an FAA and DOD report to
Congress in 2016.
In my district, turbines are harmful to an already endangered species
in the area, not to mention, there are the untold effects of turbines
that will be had on the tourism economy. People travel from all around
the world to our pristine beaches, not to see windmills.
I thank Chairman Westerman and Whip Emmer for working with the
Florida delegation on these amendments. On behalf of one of the biggest
delegations in the country, I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment and protect Florida from Joe Biden's windmill fantasy.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GRIJALVA. This amendment stops any offshore wind lease sales in
the waters around Florida until the Government Accountability Office
publishes a report on the impacts of wind energy development on
military readiness, the marine environment, and tourism.
I find the amendment somewhat ironic in that H.R. 1, the polluters
over people act, guts the National Environmental Policy Act, which is
the best tool for thoroughly studying the impacts of major projects
like offshore wind.
A robust NEPA process will evaluate the potential impacts of offshore
wind projects on military activities, fisheries, marine life, tourism,
and coastal communities.
NEPA is the tool our government should use to help identify the best
places for offshore wind and how to mitigate any potential impacts.
With all due respect to the GAO, a couple-page GAO study on the
potential impacts of offshore wind doesn't make up for a thorough,
robust NEPA review.
We need to make sure that coastal communities have the tools that
NEPA offers to weigh in on projects that may affect their coastlines
and their marine resources.
Speaking of NEPA, my colleague referenced a project. According to
Politico, ``But look at the energy project that Republicans are citing
as their poster child for the problem sheds light on where their push
may or may not help speed project approvals.
``GOP lawmakers focused on delays to the Cardinal-Hickory Creek
transmission line during a legislative hearing last month, blaming the
NEPA process for years of delay that have stymied a 102-mile power
project from Wisconsin to Iowa. Yet, Republican's proposed changes
`would not impact' the project, said Rod Pritchard, a spokepersons for
the power line's developer, ITC Midwest.''
H.R. 1 guts NEPA, begins dismantling it, weakens it, and cuts the
public out of the process.
This amendment protects Florida and their coastline. There are other
coastlines and other communities that don't want extraction such as gas
and oil.
I mentioned California and States along the Atlantic, and they should
be extended. They fight every day to preserve those areas.
Madam Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mrs. LUNA. Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I
also thank her as a freshman Member for her proactive work on the
committee.
Representative Luna's amendment requires the Comptroller General to
have a report on all potential adverse effects of wind energy
development in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, the South Atlantic, and the
Straits of Florida planning areas.
Until this report is published, the Secretary of the Interior is
prohibited from publishing a notice or holding a lease sale for wind
energy developments in the area.
As she stated, the report must evaluate the potential impacts of wind
energy development on military readiness and training activities, on
the marine environment, ecology and tourism, including the economic
impacts on communities adjacent to the planning areas.
We cannot compromise our military readiness and training activities,
which are crucial for national security.
By requiring a Comptroller General report, we can make informed
decisions about the potential impacts of wind energy development on our
national security, marine environment, and local economies.
Therefore, I support this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote in
favor of it.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LUNA. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, a frustrated former Republican official
who worked for the White House Council on Environmental Quality also
said regarding NEPA and H.R. 1, ``. . . we are spending 99 percent of
our political capital on a set of reforms that will be of no
statistically significant consequence.''
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Luna).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mrs. Luna
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 29
printed in part B of House Report 118-30.
Mrs. LUNA. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
[[Page H1615]]
At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following:
SEC. _____. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
SUPPLY CHAIN.
It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) wind energy development on Federal lands and waters is
a burgeoning industry in the United States;
(2) major components of wind infrastructure, including
turbines, are imported in large quantities from other
countries including countries that are national security
threats, such as the Government of the People's Republic of
China;
(3) it is in the best interest of the United States to
foster and support domestic supply chains across sectors to
promote American energy independence;
(4) the economic and manufacturing opportunities presented
by wind turbine construction and component manufacturing
should be met by American workers and materials that are
sourced domestically to the greatest extent practicable; and
(5) infrastructure for wind energy development in the
United States should be constructed with materials produced
and manufactured in the United States.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentlewoman
from Florida (Mrs. Luna) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
Mrs. LUNA. Madam Chair, major components of wind infrastructure are
imported from our enemies like China. We have seen how poorly President
Biden has handled the energy crisis, and to make it worse, he is
outsourcing our energy to foreign adversaries.
This threatens our national security, throws away American jobs, and
increases our dependence on foreign energy.
Regardless of the energy source, we need to prioritize our domestic
supply chain and support American energy independence.
American energy should come from America, not China--U.S. materials,
U.S. jobs, U.S. energy independence.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time
in opposition, although I am not opposed to it.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Arizona?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I support this amendment. I am happy to
support my colleague on the other side of the aisle who seems to be
taking an interest in supporting our homegrown, clean energy economy.
Growing a wind industry with domestic supply chains will help us
create family-sustaining, good union jobs, support local economies, and
help fight the climate crisis.
Madam Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mrs. LUNA. Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I again thank the gentlewoman from
Florida for yielding time.
I rise in support of this amendment. The renewable energy sector is a
rapidly growing part of our Nation's energy mix.
We have seen positive growth in wind energy and we hope to see it
evolve into a subsector of American energy exports one day.
To achieve this goal, we need to promote the development of a strong
domestic supply chain for wind infrastructure.
This amendment is a constructive step in that direction and expresses
the sense of Congress that we should develop our own domestic supply
chains rather than import critical components from China.
This amendment aims to prioritize the development of related
industries through port upgrades, cable manufacturing, and hiring of
vessels and crews for wind energy operations in the United States.
By promoting domestic production and expanding our supply chain, we
can create jobs, enhance our energy security, and strengthen our
economy.
Representative Luna's amendment will not only support our energy
goals but also promote economic prosperity.
I support this amendment as this policy is a positive step toward the
development of a strong and secure domestic supply chain for wind
infrastructure. I also encourage my colleagues to support this
amendment.
Mrs. LUNA. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Luna).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms. Lee
of Florida) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Kim of California, 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.
____________________