[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 58 (Thursday, March 30, 2023)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E285-E286]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         LOWER ENERGY COSTS ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. SHEILA JACKSON LEE

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, March 29, 2023

  The House in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union 
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:

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I am here today to voice my strong 
opposition to H.R. 1--because it will not and never could lower energy 
costs, and it is not taking the long view of where this Nation must go 
to reach true energy independence.
  Too often when policy makers talk about energy there are too many 
sound bites and not enough balanced common-sense approaches to our 
Nation's energy future.
  The economy and energy consumption are critically linked to each 
other because economic activity requires energy consumption.
  We all know that the booming economy under President Biden has led to 
energy demand increases and that the war in Ukraine although far from 
our shores has impacted global energy supply and as a consequence the 
price of energy.
  President Biden took decisive action that has led to the sixth 
consecutive month of reductions in inflation across the entire economy 
and includes prices at gas pumps.
  Democrats who took decisive action in the 117th Congress to take 
control of United States' energy future made major investments in 
renewable energy that is creating jobs, lowering the cost of energy and 
putting American consumers first.
  The oil and gas industries fueled the economic growth and global 
success of the United States in the last century and without a doubt 
bolstered the economy that created the largest middle class in our 
Nation's history.
  Oil and gas today and into the near future will continue to play an 
important role in the Nation's strategic and economic interest well 
into this century.
  It is important to note that some of the big wins from the Inflation 
Reduction Law will be the oil and gas industries, which has made 
significant investments in renewable energy already.
  It is a simple fact that the owners and operators of the energy 
delivery infrastructure in the United States--the pipelines, electric 
power grids, and gasoline distribution hubs that supply energy to an 
overwhelming majority of homes and businesses in the United States is 
not going to change anytime soon.
  The Inflation Reduction Law included multiple oil and gas leasing 
reforms to reflect today's pursuit of offshore oil and gas exploration 
while at the same time incentivizing the pursuit of wind and solar by 
the oil and gas industry.
  The Inflation Reduction Law will issue in the Energy Age that will 
bridge the gap between the old and the new forms of energy that will 
continue to fuel the American economy.
  This is not nor should it be viewed a war against the old and new 
forms of energy but a bridge that will allow a smooth transition to the 
many facets of energy provision that will mean prosperity and jobs, 
while providing low-cost affordable energy for all people.
  My greatest concern is that H.R. 1, if it becomes law, would roll 
back, important reforms by lowering royalty rates, repealing interest 
fees, and reinstating noncompetitive leasing.
  H.R. 1 rubber-stamps the construction of new natural gas pipelines--
which is already frighteningly easy--while shutting every agency, apart 
from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, out of the review 
process.
  Natural gas is a viable and important component of energy security 
for the United States, but its extraction, processing, and delivery to 
consumers does come with risks.
  Natural gas in its raw form is odorless and colorless--an odor is 
added so that people can detect its presence and respond to the threat 
before it is too late.
  It is important that safeguards remain in place regarding exploration 
to protect gas field workers and people who may be in the vicinity of 
exploration activities.
  H.R. 1, also poses risks to the United States strategic interest 
because it removes the requirement that Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) 
exports be determined to be in the public interest before being sent 
overseas, tearing down guardrails that prevent our adversaries from 
purchasing more of our energy to use against us.
  H.R. 1 poses risks to our national parks and public treasures because 
it would bypass the local and public interest in national lands by 
allowing oil and gas lease sales even if there is no national interest 
to support approval of the sale of mineral leases on these lands.
  The sale of leases on land that is owned by the American people 
should solely be in the interest of the people of the United States and 
this can be determined by identifying that there are no nonpublic 
sources of oil and gas to meet demand.
  The Nation is on the road toward a smooth transition to other forms 
of energy to complement its use of oil and gas that will result in a 
balance of energy options for a more stable, more affordable, and 
reliable energy supply.
  The Nation's current mining law is over 150 years old and does need 
updating, but it should be done so with all stakeholders at the table 
with a win-win approach.
  H.R. 1 makes this dangerous status quo worse.
  H.R. 1 allows mining on public land and the dumping of toxic mining 
waste as the ``highest and best use'' of those lands, which means the 
lands will not be suitable for a return to public use without a 
significant investment by taxpayers to cleanup and restore it to a 
natural state.
  I am not saying that all mining or exploration companies will follow 
the letter of the law--in H.R. 1 should it become law, but if only a 
few mining leases leave mining waste on public land and are so reckless 
as to not restore land to its original state the damage would be 
significant.
  H.R. 1 would also allow extraction of valuable minerals without 
paying the owners of the land--the American people in strict violation 
of every principle of oil and gas leasing.
  Private property owners who lease for oil and gas exploration expect 
to be compensated for the lease of their land--the American taxpayer 
should not expect any less from the lease of their public land held by 
the Federal government.
  Letting mining companies continue to extract valuable minerals from 
public lands without paying anything to the American people is 
establishing a dangerous precedent for private landowners with 
minerals, oil, or gas--one that I am sure the people in Texas, Alaska 
and other high exploration states would take offense over.
  To date, mining companies--many of which are foreign-owned--have 
already extracted an estimated $300 billion in minerals from public 
lands and caused untold damage, without paying a single dime to 
American taxpayers.
  H.R. 1 does nothing to improve tribal consultation, even though the 
vast majority of minerals needed for clean energy are located within 35 
miles of tribal lands.
  The Nation is in the process of transitioning from primary relying on 
oil and as as a source of energy to alternative sources.
  The transition from fossil fuels to low-carbon energy sources will 
depend heavily on the adoption of critical minerals.
  Our Nation's clean energy transition will require new minerals, but 
mining must not come at the cost of our health, our environment, or our 
special places.
  I am very committed to--making sure that the emergence and adoption 
of new energy sources does not leave environmental victims along the 
way.
  I am aware of one company, Critical Mineral Refining (CMR) of Houston 
Texas, that has made environmentally sound extraction, transporting and 
mining of critical minerals its core mission.
  CMR's process has been certified by the Environmental Protection 
Agency as environmentally nuetral technology--which means that there is 
no harm to the water, soil, or air.
  Today, as we work to bring new forms of energy to the marketplace and 
because there are technologies that are cleaner and safer to conduct 
energy extraction, transportation, and refining these approaches should 
be adopted as industry standards.
  The application of this knowledge to critical minerals will prevent 
sickness, accidents, and deaths due to antiquated approaches to mining 
and refining being applied to rare earth

[[Page E286]]

minerals that are needed in solar and wind energy production.
  The extraction, transport, and refining of critical minerals could 
increase sixfold by 2050, according to one scenario by the 
International Energy Agency.
  Industries, consumers, and the nation needs to prepare for the boom 
that is coming from the emergence of critical minerals into the 
marketplace.
  By value this market could surpass $400 billion, exceeding the value 
of all of the coal extracted in 2020.
  We must reform our outdated mining system to raise the bar for mining 
both in the U.S. and across the globe in preparation for this new 
entrant into the energy marketplace.
  Helping critical minerals emerge and guarding its orderly 
introduction into our commercial sectors is a major objective of the 
United States to minimize externalities that often accompany 
extraction-based enterprises that too often rely upon complex global 
supply chains.
  The city of Houston--through Hurricane Harvey's flood waters, Winter 
Storm Uri's electric grid failures, and other climatic events has 
experienced the early effects of the climate crisis.
  Critical infrastructure like the electric grid and water systems must 
be resilient enough to withstand extreme weather events.
  This is only the beginning, but it is not too late to get the nation 
and the economy on the right track to combat the most potent threat to 
our national economy--climate related weather changes.
  Climate related weather change cost the U.S. $169.8 billion last 
year--a $14 billion increase from 2021 and a $55 billion increase from 
2020.
  All the data shows us that the climate crisis is worsening.
  If Republicans cared about the economy as much as they claim, they 
would invest in science-based, clean energy solutions.
  Rolling back of the IRA will have severe consequences, costing the 
U.S. trillions in economic growth and hundreds of thousands of dollars 
in jobs.
  Climate related weather change is the culprit of natural disasters 
across the U.S. that have killed nearly 3,800 people and caused 
significant structural damage. In 2022, U.S. wildfires caused by 
extreme drought and rising temperatures burned a record number of acres 
and surpassed the 10-year average.
  Last week, a new UN report found that the world will be unable to 
limit global wanning by 1.5 degrees Celsius by the early 2030's. The 
report also found that global average temperatures could warm by 3.2 
degrees Celsius by the end of the century causing seven feet of sea 
level rise by the end do the century.
  Clean energy, joining the contribution of legacy energy sources, is 
the future for our workforce sector. Despite fossil fuel production 
rising by 33 percent since 2014, employment in the fossil fuel industry 
has declined 34 percent since 2014. Through the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law, House Democrats are creating nearly 360,000 jobs by 
the end of this year and 660,000 jobs by the end of 2025.
  H.R. 1 masquerades as ``energy security'' when in reality it only 
sets the stage for actions by less responsible oil and gas energy 
providers to put at risk communities that may face higher risks for 
chemical disasters, more toxic air, more unsafe drinking water, and 
substantially weaker environmental and public health protections.
  The bill also blocks lawsuits from anyone who did not participate in 
public comment periods (which are also shortened by the bill).
  H.R. 1 is drafted so broadly that it exempts all so-called ``critical 
energy resource'' facilities--such as petroleum refineries that release 
air toxics like benzene and use hydrofluoric acid linked to 
catastrophic chemical disasters--from commonsense Clean Air Act and 
hazardous waste permitting requirements.
  It also shamelessly grants these facilities amnesty for any 
violations of federal, state, or local environmental law.
  H.R. 1 completely erodes the new chemicals review process under the 
bipartisan Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), allowing new 
chemicals--even PFAS--on the market without any consideration of 
safety.
  Chemicals in the wrong hands can be weapons that are used to wreak 
havoc in unsuspecting communities, which can pose threats to homeland 
security.
  Because of these concerns both Republicans and Democrats joined 
efforts to pass the bipartisan basis in the 2016 TSCA reform law.
  The only ``permitting reform'' in H.R. 1 is the gutting of the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a bulwark within federal law 
governing agency regulations of activities that directly impact people 
to provide meaningful oversight of processes that pose risks to life, 
health, safety, community welfare and vulnerable persons that include 
children, the elderly, the disabled and minorities.
  As industry representatives have already said, this attack on NEPA 
will not help accelerate the energy projects we need; less than 1 
percent of projects even go through NEPA's full, detailed environmental 
review.
  One important point to note to people on both sides of the debate--
major oil and gas producers do not hate all regulations--they depend on 
regulations to keep bad actors and poor command and control processes 
from putting the environment or communities at risk.
  Every time there is an accident involving oil, gas, or chemical 
processes it puts every company and refiner under the spotlight 
regardless of the work that has been done and continues to be done to 
get the job right for the environment, workers, and communities.
  H.R. 1 weakens enforcement of nearly all environmental and public 
health laws by dramatically limiting the statute of limitations for 
unlawful permit decisions--like those required by the Clean Air Act or 
Clean Water Act--to 120 days.
  Limiting public comment is stopping communities from learning about 
and communicating their views on government permitting activity--that 
would like result in actions not in the public interest.
  Federal regulatory process delays are caused by a lack of agency 
resources and staff capacity.
  Fortunately, Democrats already passed more than $1 billion in the IRA 
for federal agency permitting offices, which will address this issue 
and is expected to drastically shrink the timelines for permitting.
  H.R. 1 codifies the reckless, extreme Trump-era NEPA regulations, 
which were widely opposed by House Democrats, into law.
  These changes prohibit agencies from properly considering climate 
change and the cumulative impacts of multiple sources of pollution in 
permitting decisions, among other bad provisions.
  H.R. 1 arbitrarily shortens public comment periods for environmental 
reviews under NEPA and even allows polluters to conduct their own 
reviews, creating an obvious conflict of interest.
  It also requires that these reviews ``meet the goals of the [project] 
applicant,'' instead of the public's interest.
  Outside of NEPA, H.R. 1 allows the owners and operators of ``critical 
energy recourse facilities'' to bypass public health and environmental 
safety standards built into the permitting process, directly 
endangering the safety of the workers and communities near these 
facilities.
  H.R. 1 also undermines Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, which 
empowers states and Tribes to holistically protect their lakes, rivers, 
streams, and other bodies of water from development.
  Native people have and continue to be guardian of the land, water, 
and air whose rights on tribal land must be respected.
  Energy independence is within our grasp--and so is cleaner, water, 
air, and soil.
  We should not treat the environment or people as if they are 
expendable.
  To meet this challenge of energy independence, we must stay the 
course of the Inflation Reduction Law and move ahead in modernizing and 
increasing the capacity of federal permitting offices, and reform the 
transmission planning and cost allocation process.