[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 58 (Thursday, March 30, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H1662-H1668]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         LOWER ENERGY COSTS ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 Nebraska (Mr. Flood) kindly take the chair.

                              {time}  0911


                     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. Flood (Acting Chair) 
in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, 
March 29, 2023, amendment No. 29 printed in House Report 118-30 offered 
by the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Luna) had been disposed of.


                 Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Ogles

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 30 
printed in part B of House Report 118-30.
  Mr. OGLES. 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 title I of division B the following:

     SEC. 20115. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON OIL AND GAS ROYALTY RATES.

       It is the sense of Congress that the royalty rate for 
     onshore Federal oil and gas leases should be not more than 
     12.5 percent in amount or value of the production removed or 
     sold from the lease.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, Amendment No. 30 expresses the sense of 
Congress that the royalty rate for onshore Federal oil and gas leases 
be 12\1/2\ percent. This amendment establishes that it is the sense of 
Congress that the royalty rate of onshore Federal oil and gas

[[Page H1663]]

leases be 12\1/2\ percent, the pre-Inflation Reduction Act level. The 
so-called Inflation Reduction Act was filled with horrific policy and 
has only made things worse.
  The Inflation Reduction Act is geared to severely harm American 
energy independence by, among other things, increasing royalty rates 
and fees while restricting access to energy resources.
  Our country needs to produce more energy, not less, but Democrats 
designed their extreme climate agenda to restrict oil and natural gas 
production.
  One measure of the so-called Inflation Reduction Act enabled the 
Biden administration to raise the oil and gas royalty rate for certain 
offshore leases from the current 12\1/2\ percent to 16.67.
  This measure will only result in less oil and gas production, harming 
consumers and our national security.
  The Biden administration doesn't even pretend otherwise. Interior 
Secretary Deb Haaland said, It resets how and what we consider to be 
the highest and best use of American resources.
  This is about the use of the land, and the Biden administration 
clearly wants to block all of our lands from the use for oil and gas 
production.
  My amendment simply returns onshore royalty rates to what it was 2 
years ago, before this radical Democrat intervention.
  This amendment would affirm the intent of the underlying bill, which 
would reset the royalty rate for onshore leases to 12\1/2\ percent.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  0915

  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. Chair, the underlying legislation would already 
roll back all the positive reforms Democrats have made to the oil and 
gas leasing program in the Inflation Reduction Act.
  For too long, Big Oil paid the taxpayers a pittance for publicly 
owned gas and oil they extracted and sold for an enormous profit. In 
the IRA, Democrats fixed our outdated royalty rates, bringing them in 
line with the royalty rates charged by States. Studies have shown that 
this will have no impact on gas prices, but it will bring a fair return 
to the taxpayers.
  Republicans want to repeal our reforms and lower royalty rates--
again, a giveaway to an industry that clearly doesn't need it. These 
low royalty rates are part of the reason this bill increases the 
deficit.
  So much for that fiscal responsibility and restraint.
  Big Oil doesn't need the giveaway. The rich are getting richer.
  Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, this amendment says that the sense of Congress is that the 
royalty rates should be 12\1/2\ percent, which was the royalty rate 
before the very misleading and misnamed bill, the Inflation Reduction 
Act, was passed by my colleagues on the left.
  We all know that it wasn't an Inflation Reduction Act, and they 
publicly call it their climate bill. President Biden has called it the 
climate bill.
  The increase in the royalty rates was simply another way to attack 
our energy resources here in America. The Democrats know that. The 
Biden administration knows that. The officials in the Biden 
administration know that.
  In a bill that they call the Inflation Reduction Act, they actually 
increased inflation by passing a law to say we are going to raise the 
costs of energy off of Federal lands. It didn't take the market to do 
it. It was done by the law passed by my colleagues across the aisle.
  If you don't believe what I am saying, take the word of the Biden 
administration. Earlier this month, the Biden administration confirmed 
this fact in a leaked Bureau of Ocean Energy Management memo on Cook 
Inlet Lease Sale 258. This is in response to BOEM trying to do an 18\3/
4\ percent rate, trying to put the highest rate they could on this 
sale. The memo reads: ``A 16-2/3 percent royalty may be more likely to 
facilitate expeditious and orderly development of OCS resources and 
potentially offer greater energy security.''
  The Biden administration knows this. They know that the lower the 
royalty rate, the more likely we will have energy security and the more 
likely we will develop our resources.
  They choose to use the highest rate possible to do everything they 
can to attack American energy, to attack American jobs. It is putting 
Russia and OPEC over the American people because we are still going to 
use energy. We are not using less energy. We are just using it from 
different sources.
  Laws like this that were passed on a partisan basis last Congress, 
that were signed into law by the Biden administration, simply put these 
bad actors over the American people.
  It is time we lower energy costs, pass the Lower Energy Costs Act, 
and pass it with this great amendment by my friend from Tennessee. I 
support the amendment.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, let me remind everyone that Big Oil giants 
reported their largest profits in history in 2022, together making over 
a trillion dollars in sales, all while American families were 
struggling.
  We can't continue to rely on the decades-old Republican ``drill, 
baby, drill'' mantra to lower prices for Americans. Policies that make 
us more dependent on fossil fuels will keep subjecting Americans to the 
whims of dictators and global market shifts, which always means higher 
energy prices.
  Instead, we can invest in clean energy here at home. We can reach our 
true energy independence, bring stability to the American family, and 
fight climate change all at the same time.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, it should be noted that the largest oil profit 
was realized by Saudi Arabia.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I would like to, once again, remind everyone 
that H.R. 1 is the pinnacle piece of legislation for the Republican 
majority. This bill, as the debates have shown throughout these last 
few days, is a boondoggle. It is a giveaway.
  H.R. 1 puts us back into the position of less protection for the 
American people and less protection for our environment, and it sets us 
back in the struggle with the ticking time bomb of the climate crisis. 
H.R. 1 and this amendment continue that pattern. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  As far as H.R. 1, the polluters over people act, if this is the 
pinnacle of legislative effort on the part of the Republican majority, 
one can only wonder why we are not concentrating on giving time to the 
gun violence that is all around us in this country and the recent 
deaths of children and adults at the Christian church.
  That is not an issue with this Republican majority. In fact, they 
have said they can't do anything about it, that the sacrosanctity of 
the Second Amendment prevents them from doing anything.
  Yet, H.R. 1, the pinnacle, the zenith of their legislative effort, 
undercuts basic protections for the American people, fundamental, core 
environmental laws that have protected the American people since the 
1970s.
  H.R. 1 and this amendment deserve to be defeated.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 31 Offered by Mr. Ogles

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 31 
printed in part B of House Report 118-30.
  Mr. OGLES. 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 74, line 5, insert ``, any entity subject to the 
     jurisdiction of the Government of the People's Republic of 
     China, or any entity that is owned by the Government of the 
     People's Republic of China,'' before ``may''.

[[Page H1664]]

       Page 74, line 9, insert before the period ``, or acquire 
     claims subject to the General Mining Law of 1872''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, my amendment provides that any entity 
subject to the jurisdiction of the Government of the People's Republic 
of China or any entity that is owned by the Government of the People's 
Republic of China may not acquire any interest with respect to the land 
leased for oil or gas under the Mineral Leasing Act, the Outer 
Continental Shelf Lands Act, and may not acquire claims subject to the 
General Mining Law of 1872.
  We need to secure our land and not make it available for foreign 
governments, especially the CCP, the Chinese Communist Party. The CCP 
is one of the greatest threats to American democracy and our homeland.
  Since at least 2007, the Department of Defense has consistently 
recognized China's dominance in the mining of key minerals as a leading 
national security threat.
  The Biden administration is recklessly pursuing a green agenda that 
makes the United States economy more dependent on critical mined 
minerals used to make things like batteries.
  We cannot continue to allow the genocidal CCP to control that supply 
chain. We certainly must ensure that the CCP cannot expand its market 
power by controlling mines even in our own country.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of my commonsense amendment for the 
sake of our people and our national security, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in 
opposition, though I am not 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. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  During our markup of this bill in the committee, Representative Gosar 
offered a similar amendment to this one, though it applied only to oil 
and gas, not mining. I asked if he would consider adding mining to that 
ban, but that was declined.
  I also had an amendment to this bill to include mining in this ban, 
which was not made in order. However, this Republican amendment, which 
is very similar to my own, was made in order.
  I am glad to see that at least some Republicans have come around to 
the point of including mining as part of the ban.
  If we don't want the Chinese Communist Party developing oil and gas 
leases on Federal land and water, then we shouldn't be supportive of 
the CCP mining our publicly owned minerals.
  It isn't hard to find that many foreign-owned parent companies have 
terrible records of human rights abuses, environmental degradation, 
harming indigenous communities, and destroying sacred sites.
  Some foreign companies, specifically several owned by the Government 
of China, are known to have horrible records on all of these fronts, 
yet they can operate freely on our Federal land, including in my home 
State of Arizona, through their subsidiaries.
  I have repeatedly heard from my colleagues that we agree that human 
rights and environmental abuses are wrong, but so far, they have 
refused to address the problem.
  As the demand for these minerals increases, let's not rush to open 
our lands to just anyone who wants to mine. Let's take a closer look at 
who is operating on our Federal lands and work to raise the global 
standard.
  Let me remind Members that under our outdated 150-year-old mining 
law, mining claimants do not pay a cent, not one penny, for the 
public's valuable resources that they extract and turn around and 
sell--nothing. That is a better deal than even oil and gas get.
  We absolutely should not be handing our public mineral resources over 
to the CCP with no fair return to the American people, no return to the 
American people at all, where the result would be simply just to 
destroy our lands.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank 
the ranking member and appreciate bipartisan support on this very 
important amendment.
  I think this is a sign that we are making progress. This is a sign 
that America is coming together to stand up against the Chinese 
Communist Party. We need to stand up not only against them but we need 
to continue standing up against Russia, against OPEC.
  That is what H.R. 1 does. It is a bold step in the right direction, 
and this is a small part of it. I commend the gentleman from Tennessee 
for crafting this amendment and for getting it made in order.
  I support the amendment for a very good reason: We simply cannot let 
the Chinese Communist Party continue to dominate and take control of 
not only mineral supply chains but energy supply chains as they are 
trying to make a move in that area as well, where they are cozying up 
with the Saudis. They are working with Russia to buy the oil and gas 
that we have banned from there.
  Their objective is dominance. They have made great strides in the 
minerals area, and they are working very hard to do that in energy.
  The way we push back against China and the CCP is we produce our 
energy and minerals here, and we, for sure, don't let China come to 
America and own any kind of lease on Federal lands or private lands. We 
produce it ourselves. We send it to our allies.
  There was a delegation recently in Germany, and the message they 
brought back from Germany was gas equals peace. They want us to send 
them our gas, and we have ample supplies of it.
  We just need the pipelines. We need the ports. We need the LNG 
facilities. We need the vessels to send gas to Europe that is much 
cleaner than the gas they are getting from Russia. It will help bring 
peace in Europe if they can get more of our energy here.
  Mr. Chair, I again commend the gentleman, and I support the 
amendment.

                              {time}  0930

  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, let me just give one important example of 
what this amendment addresses.
  In my home State of Arizona, at Oak Flat, an area sacred to the 
Apache people and other indigenous Tribes in Arizona and in New Mexico, 
there was a deal made to give Federal land to a foreign-owned mining 
company, Rio Tinto. It is a domestic, local subsidiary but owned by Rio 
Tinto, which is also partially owned by the Chinese Government. This 
company has a horrible track record around the globe.
  In 2020, it demolished a 46,000-year-old Australian aboriginal site, 
an irreplaceable cultural site, an artifact and sacred site, to expand 
an iron mine. This amendment stops rolling out the welcome mat for 
these mining companies.
  Mr. Chair, I urge support of the amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Westerman and my colleague 
across the aisle for their support.
  It should be noted that it is the CCP that launched a reconnaissance 
balloon across our country. It is the CCP that is flooding our country 
with fentanyl and killing our kids and poisoning our country.
  I urge adoption of this amendment. Let's send a message to China that 
we have had enough.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. 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 Tennessee 
will be postponed.

[[Page H1665]]

  



                 Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Perry

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 32 
printed in part B of House Report 118-30.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk as approved by 
the Committee on Rules.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of section 20209, insert the following:
       (d) Prohibition.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary of Agriculture (acting through the Forest 
     Service) and the Secretary of the Interior may not accept 
     contributions, as authorized by subsection (a), from non-
     Federal entities owned by the Communist Party of China (or a 
     person or entity acting on behalf of the Communist Party of 
     China).

  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 simply ensures that no undue 
influence can be wielded by the Chinese Communist Party using an 
existing provision, which I think reflects the overall sentiment behind 
this anti-CCP and forced labor provision of the entire bill.
  The underlying section allows the Secretaries of Agriculture and the 
Interior to accept and expend funds from non-Federal entities in order 
to pay for staff and information technology system development to 
expedite permit processing. They are authorized to accept funds in 
fiscal years 2023 through 2025.
  This amendment prohibits those Secretaries from accepting 
contributions from non-Federal entities owned by the Communist Party of 
China or a person or entity acting on behalf of the Communist Party of 
China. Seems pretty common sense.
  There are already provisions in the bill which would prohibit the 
CCP's involvement in certain parts of our energy market. They should 
not be allowed to participate in this one any more than they do in the 
others. There is no reason that our government should be accepting 
money from this well.
  Let's remind ourselves that we are not talking about the people of 
China who wish to breathe free, like all people in the world do. We are 
talking about the Communist Party of China. We don't need anything from 
them.
  Mr. Chair, I urge support and adoption of this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in 
opposition to the amendment, even though I am not 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. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment.
  Environmental reviews are how we learn about a project's potential 
impacts on our lands, water, and public health. They are a critical 
safeguard against harmful industry practices.
  The section of the bill this amendment amends says that project 
sponsors can fund their own environmental reviews. The entire section 
is wrong, and this amendment begins to recognize that.
  It would ban the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the 
Interior from accepting funds for environmental review from the Chinese 
Communist Party.
  But my question is: Why stop there?
  What about other foreign adversaries?
  What about the entities that have committed human rights abuses?
  What about the entities that have lobbied the Federal Government?
  How do we ensure that any outside funding will be clear of conflicts 
of interest?
  From my view, we can't.
  The Federal Government should have the sole responsibility to conduct 
unbiased environmental review, because the Federal Government is 
responsible for protecting its citizens.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague from the other side of 
aisle that we are finally willing to get together, Democrats and 
Republicans, and be tough on the Communist Party of China.
  Mr. Chair, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), the chairman of the full committee.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 
bringing this amendment that makes very clear a stark reality that we 
don't need the China Communist Party. America does not need the CCP.
  They need us to buy the goods they are producing. They need us to buy 
the minerals that they are mining out of mines they have developed with 
child slave labor in Africa. They need us to buy the stuff they are 
producing with slave labor in China.
  But we don't need them, and we sure don't need their money here.
  I appreciate the ranking member realizing that. I appreciate that the 
people are speaking. The House of Representatives is the voice of the 
people, and I believe this is how America feels.
  But we need to go further. We need to put actions to our words. We 
need to show the CCP that America is strong, that we have our own 
resources, that we can develop these resources better than they can 
develop them. We can put these resources out on the world market.
  Instead of being dependent on others, we can be the ones exporting 
our goods, growing wealth and jobs here and being a deterrent to the 
spread of communism, the spread of dictatorships, and all of those 
things that we as Americans deplore.
  At the end of the day, this is about freedom and about promoting 
those values that our country was founded on.
  Mr. Chairman, again, I support this amendment. I appreciate the 
gentleman bringing it.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I concur with much of what Chairman 
Westerman said. I support the amendment. I don't think it goes far 
enough.
  I think that as we confront the question that he brought up of 
Chinese communism and their influence and their participation in 
activities on our public lands and waters, that we need to make sure 
that that doesn't occur.
  But I would extend that further. I would extend it to cronyism. I 
would extend it to insider trading. I would extend it to large 
corporate interests, many times foreign-owned companies, dictating our 
energy policy and production for this country.
  The point that we have here, as Representatives of our constituents 
and the Federal Government, is to protect the American people. To 
protect the American people is to make sure that their public health 
and their right to know and their right to seek redress is protected.
  H.R. 1 does not do this. This amendment is a step in that direction, 
but the underlying bill does not.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I urge support of 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 amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 33 Offered by Mr. Perry

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 33 
printed in part B of House Report 118-30.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk approved by the 
Committee on Rules.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of section 20209, insert the following:
       (d) Report on Non-Federal Entities.--Not later than 60 days 
     after the end of the applicable fiscal year, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture (acting through the Forest Service) and 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 includes, for each expenditure authorized by 
     subsection (a)--
       (1) the amount of funds accepted; and
       (2) the contributing non-Federal entity.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentleman

[[Page H1666]]

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 simply extends existing 
reporting requirements. The underlying section allows the Secretaries 
of Agriculture and the Interior to accept and expend funds from non-
Federal entities in order to pay for staff and information technology 
system development to expedite permit processing. They are authorized 
to accept funds in fiscal years 2023 through 2025.
  In the original bill text, both Secretaries are required to submit 
annual statements to the committees of jurisdiction explaining why one 
or both of the following scenarios occurs:
  They do not accept funds contributed; or
  They accept but do not expend the funds contributed.
  This amendment adds the requirement that both Secretaries submit a 
report to the committee of jurisdiction that includes, for each 
expenditure authorized:
  The amount of funds accepted, and
  The contributing non-Federal entity.
  I know most folks probably don't read these reports, and they throw 
them in a pile. However, for future oversight efforts, it is important 
for the U.S. Congress to both specifically enumerate that agencies 
retain this information and then require them to provide it to us so 
not only we can see it but the American people can see how the money is 
being spent and who is spending it and who is giving it.
  Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, this amendment requires the Department of 
the Interior and the Forest Service to do very basic reporting on 
funding that the agency would start receiving under the bill from 
outside groups for processing permits.
  The agencies would only have to report at the end of each year how 
much money they got from which outside groups, not which permits that 
money funded. This won't do much, if anything, to prevent conflicts of 
interest and corruption in permitting.
  The section that this amendment amends is very, very bad. To me, this 
amendment demonstrates that some Republicans are noticing the 
absurdity.
  Instead of requiring after-the-fact reporting on outside money 
influencing our permitting process, why not prevent conflicts of 
interest in the first place?
  Again, the Federal Government should have sole responsibility to 
conduct unbiased environmental reviews, because the Federal Government 
is responsible for protecting its citizens.
  Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), the chairman of the full 
committee.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, again, I thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania for yielding. I do rise in support of this amendment.
  H.R. 1 would allow non-Federal entities to provide money to certain 
Federal agencies to improve permitting efficiency. This good-governance 
amendment, offered by my friend from Pennsylvania, would require the 
Secretaries who accept this money to report on where it came from and 
how much was provided.
  I think there is some confusion about the intent of what is in H.R. 1 
about speeding up permitting. Mr. Chair, before I came to Congress, I 
did engineering work for over two decades. I am a professional 
engineer, so I worked on a lot of projects where permits were required. 
Fortunately, we were working with State permitting agencies, and we 
would hear the same argument from the State permitting agencies: We 
don't have enough resources and enough people to do these permits. It 
is going to take longer.
  A lot of States have programs where they allow the entity trying to 
attain the permit to pay money to the agency so their employees can 
work overtime. It is really a way to increase the resources and get 
more out of the resources. It is not degrading the environmental 
protections at all. It is just moving the process forward at a faster 
rate.
  That is what the intent of H.R. 1 is: to move permitting at a faster 
clip so we can build all kinds of energy; so we can build solar farms 
and windmills and high-voltage transmission lines; so we can build 
pipelines; so we can extract minerals and resources here in America. We 
can process those and we can manufacture things from them.
  This is important to making our country a leader in the world by 
overcoming the position we are in with China on minerals and the 
position we are in with Russia and OPEC.
  Mr. Chair, I support the underlying principle in the bill, and I 
support the good-governance amendment by my friend from Pennsylvania.

                              {time}  0945

  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman for his comments. Again, 
the provision also exists. All we are saying is that we should be able 
to--the American people--should be able to follow the money. If there 
is a report that says this is where the money came from and this is 
where it was spent or it wasn't spent, then we can follow the money and 
we know. That is all we are asking for. That is all this does.
  It doesn't slow anything down. It doesn't speed anything up. It just 
says you are capable; you are able. There is a way to follow the money.
  Mr. Chair, I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, there is a way to speed up and deal with the 
backlog. We, Democrats, in the Inflation Reduction Act fought for and 
included $1 billion to deal specifically with NEPA and the review 
process to bring it up to capacity and staff it. The same can be done 
for the other agencies that do species reviews, marine reviews, et 
cetera. It can be done and it needs to be done by the government.
  I think the Federal Government should have the sole responsibility to 
conduct unbiased environmental reviews. That would deal with the 
backlog. With the $1 billion under NEPA, we will reach that 2-year 
threshold that the Trump administration wanted, that the Republican 
majority wanted, and Senators, including Manchin, wanted. We can do the 
same with the other agencies as well.
  It is about backlog. It is not about continuing a self-fulfilling 
prophesy. The prophesy has been to starve these departments so that you 
can claim that things are not being done in a timely fashion.
  This is an opportunity. The President has recommended it in his 
budget to fully allow the transfer of money from the IRA to this review 
process with other agencies, not just NEPA.
  I think this amendment is redundant in the sense that we establish a 
dependency on outside funding from potential claimants to leases and 
permits within our Federal lands and waters and depend on them to be 
able to deal with that backlog.
  If we are going to speed this up, let's do it correctly. Let's do it 
with the taxpayer and the American public's rights and public health in 
mind and fund them fully. We should allow the President and the 
departments to transfer money to the areas in which they are needed. 
That is what speeds it up.
  What we are doing today in terms of requiring a report will have no 
real effect on the backlog and opens the doors to conflicts of interest 
and corruption in our permitting process.
  Mr. Chair, 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 amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 34 Offered by Mr. Perry

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 34 
printed in part B of House Report 118-30.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk as approved by 
the House Rules Committee.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       In section 20305(a), strike ``subsection (c)'' and insert 
     ``subsection (c) or (d)''.

[[Page H1667]]

       In section 20305, add at the end the following:
       (d) Exception for Certain Actions Under the Defense 
     Production Act of 1950.--An action taken by the Secretary of 
     Defense pursuant to Presidential Determination 2022-11 and 
     described in subsection (b) may not be treated as a covered 
     project or be included in the Permitting Dashboard under 
     subsection (a) if the action was related to the production, 
     separation, processing, construction, or procurement of--
       (1) solar panels;
       (2) electric vehicles;
       (3) electric vehicle batteries; or
       (4) electric vehicle charging stations or infrastructure.

  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, the FAST Act provides for certain projects to 
be covered, which means projects that meet statutory requirements can 
gain voluntary access to a permitting timetable that contains all the 
necessary Federal environmental reviews and authorizations in one 
centralized location.
  The underlying text ensures certain Defense Production Act projects 
also receive that covered status unless the project sponsor opts out. 
This amendment specifically excludes the Defense Production Act 
projects related to solar panel and EV projects from that preferential 
treatment.
  This amendment does not alter the actual authorities provided in the 
Defense Production Act; it just says that the administration--any 
administration--can't get special treatment for projects that have 
absolutely nothing to do with national security.
  Solar energy is often unreliable and cannot compete without 
subsidies. EVs cannot compete in the competitive market without 
subsidies.
  Mr. Chairman, as far as I know, Congress hasn't declared war since I 
have been here. Using wartime authorities to subsidize these 
technologies simply doesn't change those facts. Worse yet, the projects 
empower the Chinese Communist Party and exploit their regime of slave 
labor.
  Roughly 50 percent of the world's polysilicon necessary to produce 
solar components comes from Xinjiang and Turkmenistan where they have 
the slave labor operation. Industry representatives have actually 
acknowledged the major disruption caused by this Congress' efforts to 
stop forced labor in the region. We should try to stop it every way we 
can, and this is one of the ways. Again, the solution is not to abuse 
wartime authorities to prop up domestic industry incapable of making a 
profit without generous taxpayer subsidies.
  Finally, while this amendment is relatively narrow in scope, I hope 
we have a broader conversation about the Defense Production Act on our 
side of the aisle to prevent abuses from this and future 
administrations.
  Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I reserve 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, this amendment says that if the Secretary of 
Defense takes any action under the Defense Production Act related to 
solar panels or electric vehicles, it can't be treated as a covered 
project under FAST-41. I have my own concerns about FAST-41, 
specifically around ensuring that communities have proper input in 
project permitting. This amendment is a blatant attack on clean energy 
infrastructure, and I cannot support it.
  Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, again, this is about using wartime powers, and 
we haven't declared war.
  Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), the chairman of the full committee.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment. As we 
know, this bill is about permitting streamlining, including for 
domestic mineral projects.
  The underlying bill allows for mining projects that have received 
funding under the Defense Production Act to be placed on the existing 
FAST-41 permitting dashboard.
  My colleague's amendment states that mineral projects that contribute 
to certain technologies, such as electric vehicles, cannot be placed 
over and above other mined projects.
  This amendment also supports responsible deployment of funds under 
the Defense Production Act.
  Mineral production is vital to our national security, and H.R. 1 
creates multiple opportunities to streamline the process for mineral 
development.
  Mr. Chair, I recognize at this time the Natural Resources Committee 
staff who worked tirelessly to advance H.R. 1, the Lower Energy Costs 
Act.
  I thank Ashley Nichols, Rebecca Konolige, Rob MacGregor, Tom 
Connally, Chris Marklund, Rebekah Hoshiko, Madeline Bryant, Kiel 
Weaver, Aniela Butler, Murray Miller, Sophia Varnasidis, Will King, 
Nancy Peele, and Vivian Moeglein.
  I also thank the Members of the Republican Conference and their staff 
for all the work that they have put into this legislation. This has 
really been a team effort to get this bill to the floor in a record 
amount of time to address an issue that is very prevalent in our 
country: to lower energy costs, to make America energy independent, to 
increase our national security, to break supply chains on China, and to 
make America be the leader of the world in the future.
  H.R. 1 is the first step to that, and we should be proud to have put 
it on the floor.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to 
support the underlying bill.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman and would echo his 
gratitude for the staff. There are long nights and a lot of details to 
be worked through. To get these things right, we rely on folks that 
oftentimes are more the experts than we are. We sure appreciate their 
sacrifices on our behalf and on behalf of the Nation.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I would be remiss, after the chairman's 
acknowledgement of his staff, not to do the same.
  I thank the Democrats on our committee for their hard work and their 
effort to keep the worst from happening with H.R. 1. Their work has 
been phenomenal and all of us on the committee, as members, are very 
appreciative.
  Let me just go back to polluters over people act, H.R. 1. H.R. 1 is 
supposed to be the pinnacle, the apex of legislative action on the part 
of the Republican majority. While we are having this discussion, 
looming over the Nation is the default--the debt ceiling--and the 
negotiations being promoted by the Republican majority and the cuts 
that are being promoted to the basic services and programs that the 
American people not only depend on, but rely on for their lives.

  We are not talking about that. All we are hearing is that if 
permitting doesn't happen the way that the industry wants it in terms 
of changing the basic laws that protect the American people, their 
health, and our environment, then we will make that part of the 
hostage-taking in any discussion and any negotiations that we have 
around the debt ceiling.
  We will continue to work hard, the Republican majority are saying, to 
gut NEPA, to gut basic environmental and public health laws in this 
country because that is the zenith of the effort.
  H.R. 1 is not a legislative effort; it is a giveaway. It is 
empowering Big Oil and Big Gas to once again control the energy policy 
of this Nation, ignore climate change, and cost the American people 
more and more through the cuts that are being anticipated and through 
the fact that we are not concentrating on their needs and concentrating 
on the needs of Big Oil and Big Gas--an industry that doesn't need our 
attention, doesn't need our help, and certainly does not need the 
handouts in H.R. 1.
  Mr. Chair, 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. GARBARINO. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

[[Page H1668]]

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
will be postponed.

                          ____________________