[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.

                          ____________________