[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 20, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H1247-H1253]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1023, REPEALING OF GREENHOUSE GAS 
 REDUCTION FUND; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1121, PROTECTING 
  AMERICAN ENERGY PRODUCTION ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 
     6009, RESTORING AMERICAN ENERGY DOMINANCE ACT; PROVIDING FOR 
CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 86, EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT 
    A CARBON TAX WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE UNITED STATES ECONOMY; 
  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 987, DENOUNCING THE HARMFUL, 
    ANTI-AMERICAN ENERGY POLICIES OF THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION; AND 
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 7023, CREATING CONFIDENCE IN CLEAN 
                          WATER PERMITTING ACT

  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 1085 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1085

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1023) to 
     repeal section 134 of the Clean Air Act, relating to the 
     greenhouse gas reduction fund. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. An amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
     Committee Print 118-26 shall be considered as adopted. The 
     bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of 
     order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to 
     final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour 
     of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to 
     recommit.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the

[[Page H1248]]

     bill (H.R. 1121) to prohibit a moratorium on the use of 
     hydraulic fracturing. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural 
     Resources or their respective designees; and (2) one motion 
     to recommit.
       Sec. 3.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6009) to 
     require the Director of the Bureau of Land Management to 
     withdraw the proposed rule relating to fluid mineral leases 
     and leasing process, and for other purposes. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. The 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Natural Resources now printed in the bill shall 
     be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their 
     respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 4.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the concurrent resolution (H. 
     Con. Res. 86) expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon 
     tax would be detrimental to the United States economy. All 
     points of order against consideration of the concurrent 
     resolution are waived. The concurrent resolution shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the concurrent resolution are waived. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution 
     and preamble to adoption without intervening motion or demand 
     for division of the question except one hour of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or their 
     respective designees.
       Sec. 5.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order to consider 
     in the House the resolution (H. Res. 987) denouncing the 
     harmful, anti-American energy policies of the Biden 
     administration, and for other purposes. The resolution shall 
     be considered as read. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble to 
     adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of 
     the question except one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective 
     designees.
       Sec. 6.  At any time after adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     7023) to amend section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act to codify certain regulatory provisions relating 
     to nationwide permits for dredged or fill material, and for 
     other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and amendments specified in this section and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure or their respective 
     designees. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure now printed in 
     the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 118-25 shall 
     be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of 
     the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the 
     original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the 
     five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. All points 
     of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are 
     waived. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall 
     be in order except those printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such 
     further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
     the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable 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 in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such further 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill, as amended, to the House with such further 
     amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and 
     on any further amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Carl). The gentleman from Pennsylvania 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania 
(Ms. Scanlon), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the 
underlying legislation.
  House Resolution 1085 provides for consideration of six measures: 
H.R. 1023, H.R. 1121, H.R. 6009, H. Con. Res. 86, H. Res. 987, and H.R. 
7023.
  The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1023, the Cutting Green 
Corruption and Taxes Act, under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees, 
and provides one motion to recommit.
  Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1121, the 
Protecting American Energy Production Act, that being under a closed 
rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or 
their respective designees, and provides one motion to recommit.
  Further, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 6009, the 
Restoring American Energy Dominance Act, under a closed rule, with 1 
hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their 
respective designees, and provides one motion to recommit.
  The rule also provides for consideration of H. Con. Res. 86, 
expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental 
to the United States economy, that being under a closed rule, with 1 
hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or their respective 
designees.
  The rule provides for consideration of H. Res. 987, denouncing the 
harmful, anti-American energy policies of the Biden administration, 
under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce or their respective designees.
  Finally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 7023, the 
Creating Confidence in Clean Water Permitting Act, under a structured 
rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure or their respective designees, and provides one motion 
to recommit.
  The rule makes in order eight amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, since President Joe Biden took office, energy costs for 
Americans have risen by 28.6 percent. On January 20, 2021, a gallon of 
gasoline was--wait for it--$2.39.
  During President Biden's Presidency, the average price has reached a 
record high of $5 a gallon. This is a direct result of the President's 
dangerous, extreme, far-left agenda, the Green New Deal agenda that 
spent trillions of dollars and enacted costly regulations on the 
American family.
  The underlying legislation before us this week will help unlock and 
unleash American energy independence and block President Biden's war on 
the American worker and American energy.
  For example, H.R. 1023 will eliminate $27 billion of Green New Deal 
slush funds for coastal elites and Chinese Communists. We know China 
dominates the extraction, processing, and production of rare earth 
elements and critical minerals. Solar panels, windmills, and EVs all 
rely heavily on these materials, which further deepens our dependency 
on Communist China.

[[Page H1249]]

  This legislation will also repeal the proposed natural gas tax that 
will burden so many American energy producers in southwestern 
Pennsylvania and across this Nation.
  In addition, H.R. 1121 will block the President from declaring a 
moratorium on hydraulic fracking. In 2019, then-candidate Joe Biden 
expressed his support to ban fracking. The President said: ``We would 
make sure it is eliminated,'' when asked about the future of coal and 
fracking. Then, in March 2020, he said: ``No more new fracking.''
  That is why, this week, House Republicans will block his ability to 
ban fracking.
  Lastly, H.R. 7023 will build upon the progress under H.R. 1 and the 
Fiscal Responsibility Act to help reform our permitting process. This 
bill will streamline the permitting process under the Clean Water Act, 
instructing the administration to issue guidance that complies with the 
Supreme Court ruling in Sackett v. EPA and protect permit holders from 
frivolous lawsuits.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Reschenthaler) for yielding the customary 30 minutes, and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of a 
partisan package of pro-polluter energy and environmental bills. Half 
of these bills have already been considered by the House last year, and 
the other half are toothless resolutions simply declaring a sense of 
Congress, albeit a partisan sense of Congress. A package like this is 
what we have come to expect from this Republican majority in the House.
  In the 118th Congress, Republicans can rarely find agreement with 
each other, let alone negotiate bipartisan legislation capable of being 
passed by both Houses and signed into law by the President. Therefore, 
what we get week in and week out are old bills chopped up and 
repackaged to give Republicans something to talk about for the week 
while we all wait for the next budget crisis deadline.
  Republicans have run the House for the past 15 months and have used 
that precious time not to lead but to pick fights and air grievances. 
As my Republican colleague on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from 
Texas, keeps reminding us, House Republicans have nothing to show for 
their majority. They haven't done anything to address the most 
important issues confronting America.
  Let's look at the record of this feckless Republican majority thus 
far.

  House Republicans spent a month fighting with each other to pick a 
Speaker, only to kick out Kevin McCarthy a few months later and spend 
another month selecting the current Speaker.
  House Republicans brought the country to the brink of fiscal calamity 
to extort a budget deal that they then failed to honor.
  House Republicans walked out of a bipartisan deal to overhaul the 
immigration system after claiming it was their number one priority.
  House Republicans are blocking bipartisan legislation to provide 
military aid to Ukraine and our allies.
  Also, House Republicans are blocking a funding package for increased 
border security.
  Although we hope to finish the 2024 budget this week, it is already 6 
months late.
  All of which is to say, this majority has done nothing. My Republican 
colleagues have squandered their majority. My colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle have squandered the country's time and taxpayer 
dollars and have nothing to show for it.
  Mr. Speaker, the legislation in this rule, if enacted, would be 
disastrous for our environment and would set back much of the progress 
we have made to tackle the climate crisis.
  Legislation in this rule would make it easier for companies to 
pollute our water. These bills roll back important Clean Water Act 
provisions that prevent companies from dumping waste and harmful 
chemicals into our public waterways.
  This rule would also make it easier for oil and gas companies to 
avoid responsibility for cleaning up drilling sites after finishing 
production. The rule would block efforts by the Biden administration to 
make Big Oil companies pay their fair share to remediate the 
environmental damage they have caused.
  The rule would cut billions of dollars in funding to help communities 
like mine mitigate the harmful effects of air pollution. Time and 
again, we see that the Republican energy agenda means putting polluters 
and their profits over regular people.
  Bills like this make my colleagues wonder just who exactly House 
Republicans represent. The vast majority of Americans support making 
energy and mining companies financially responsible for site cleanup. 
The vast majority of Americans want clean air and clean water. They 
want to protect their health, and they want their kids to have a 
healthy future.
  Yet, these partisan Republican policies would mean more pollution in 
our communities so that Exxon and Chevron can boost their stock prices. 
That doesn't seem like a fair trade for the American people. We need to 
solve the climate crisis, not enable it. We need to put people over 
profits and polluters.
  Congressional Democrats and President Biden are united behind that 
goal. In stark contrast to our Republican colleagues, Democrats have 
passed landmark legislation to combat the climate crisis, grow domestic 
energy production, and bring our energy infrastructure into the 21st 
century.
  Democrats passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the 
Inflation Reduction Act. Combined, these bills used tax credits, 
lending programs, and public-private partnerships to invest billions of 
dollars in electric vehicles, renewables, energy production, and 
improvements to the electric grid.
  This investment is growing our economy, creating good-paying jobs in 
green manufacturing, and helping to lay the foundation for the mass 
adoption of renewable energy sources. Already, the Inflation Reduction 
Act has created over 170,000 jobs, and it is projected to create more 
than 1.5 million jobs over the next 10 years.
  The Inflation Reduction Act puts America on pace to cut our carbon 
emissions by 50 percent by 2030 so that we can meet our obligations 
under the Paris Agreement. The Inflation Reduction Act also caps 
abandoned oil wells, cleans up Superfund sites, and provides funding to 
communities to mitigate the effects of industrial pollution.
  In the long run, the Inflation Reduction Act and the infrastructure 
bill will save American families up to $38 billion on electricity 
bills, reduce industrial and manufacturing emissions, double the share 
of American electricity generated by renewables, and accelerate the 
adoption of electric vehicles.
  That is what a real energy agenda looks like. It is not 
grandstanding, and it is not handouts to oil and gas companies.
  The Democrats' energy initiatives and agenda have been wildly 
successful. Right now, the United States is the number one energy 
producer in the world. We produce more energy from both renewables and 
fossil fuels than any other country. This is directly translated into 
lower energy prices for Americans, more jobs, and higher economic 
growth, and it has allowed us to provide natural gas to our allies in 
Europe who have been squeezed by a belligerent Russia.
  Under President Biden's leadership, the United States is more energy 
independent today than at any time in our history. This is an amazing 
achievement and one that should be celebrated by this Chamber.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, it is nice to hear my colleague talk 
about all the wonderful things that Democrats have done for the oil and 
gas industry, but it is shocking because Democrats want to ban 
fracking. Don't believe me. Take their word for it.
  Here is Kamala Harris: ``There is no question I am in favor of 
banning fracking.''
  Here is Bernie Sanders: ``The only safe and sane way to move forward 
is to ban fracking nationwide.'' He then literally introduced a bill 
banning fracking shortly after that comment.
  There is also Pete Buttigieg. He said: ``I favor a ban on new 
fracking and a rapid end to existing fracking.''
  Finally, here is Biden's Department of the Interior Secretary Deb 
Haaland:

[[Page H1250]]

``I am wholeheartedly against fracking and drilling on public lands.''

  Those are some of the most influential Democrats in the country, and 
their goal is simple. They want to ban fracking.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Langworthy), my good friend.
  Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Reschanthaler), my colleague on the Rules Committee, for yielding 
me the time.
  Contrary to what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim, 
this legislation before us today is about building a cleaner, more 
secure, more affordable energy future, where the United States is not 
dependent on foreign countries for its energy needs.
  Let me be perfectly clear. The greatest beneficiary of the Biden 
administration's regulatory onslaught on our Nation's energy sector is 
China, the Communist country of China. The ones who will pay the 
biggest cost for President Biden and the left's asinine energy policies 
are the American people.
  The climate agenda that the left is pushing onto this country through 
the Biden administration and through Democrats in my own State of New 
York will leave the American people poorer, less secure, and with fewer 
opportunities, full stop.
  Who benefits the most from this administration's new rules on mineral 
leasing that make it more difficult for the United States to produce 
its energy and resource needs domestically? China, our biggest 
adversary and a country that cares little for the environmental health 
of our world.
  When my Democratic colleagues claim that this legislation before us 
today will somehow loosen protections on our environment and keep our 
country away from reaching some arbitrary goals set by this 
administration, don't be fooled.
  If this administration or the radical left actually cared about our 
global environment, my Democratic colleagues wouldn't be putting up 
roadblocks to safer, cleaner domestic energy production as Democrats 
are doing with the Bureau of Land Management's newest rules on mineral 
leasing.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle wouldn't be banning 
safe, job-creating hydraulic fracturing to produce cleaner, reliable 
natural gas as New York State Democrats have done, robbing communities 
across my district of incredible economic opportunities.
  The left wouldn't be pushing Americans toward a battery-powered 
future while making it nearly impossible for our country to produce 
these very batteries, down to refining the rare earth minerals, 
domestically.
  Democrats in Washington, Albany, and elsewhere, despite their talk of 
a cleaner future, are leaving us more dependent on foreign countries, 
including our biggest adversary, China, which has no qualms about 
pumping buckets of pollution into the air.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. Speaker, energy future supported by my colleagues across the 
aisle is hypocritical, impossibly expensive for everyday Americans, and 
leaves this country at the mercy of foreign imports to satisfy our 
energy needs.
  I strongly support this underlying legislation before us today 
because it will turn the ship around and ensure that our energy future 
is about economic opportunities, domestic security, and affordability 
for everyday Americans rather than satisfying the radical demands of a 
woke mob.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair encourages all Members, if you are 
going to have conversations with staff, please take them off the floor. 
It is getting a little disruptive.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, we keep being presented by a false choice 
here--a choice between being environmentally responsible and having 
economic opportunity, and that is just not true. We can do both.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a 
letter from nearly 50 organizations in opposition to H.R. 7023.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.

                                                   March 18, 2024.
     Re: Oppose H.R. 7023, an attack on our clean water 
         protections
       Dear Representative: On behalf of our members and 
     supporters, the undersigned organizations urge you to oppose 
     H.R. 7023, the misleadingly named ``Creating Confidence in 
     Clean Water Permitting Act.'' [This bill contains several 
     misguided attacks on clean water and the Clean Water Act, 
     puts polluter profits ahead of public health, and would 
     jeopardize the waters that our families, communities, and 
     wildlife depend on.]
       Numerous provisions of H.R, 7023 shield industrial 
     dischargers that would pollute or destroy our streams, lakes, 
     wetlands, and other waters from responsibility, thereby 
     imposing on downstream communities the burden of increased 
     pollution and flooding, to say nothing of the costs of 
     remedying those threats. In particular:
       Section 2 would give polluters new ways to slow down the 
     Environmental Protection Agency's process for updating water 
     quality criteria. Criteria reflect EPA's assessment of the 
     scientific evidence about how pollutants in our waterways 
     adversely affect human health and aquatic life, and include 
     non-binding recommendations for water quality standards that 
     states can adopt to prevent those harmful effects. By 
     subjecting EPA's issuance of criteria to additional 
     administrative processes and opening them up to industry 
     lawsuits, this bill could delay improved protections 
     reflective of scientific developments--which is particularly 
     concerning for emerging contaminants.
       Section 3 would authorize EPA to issue ``general'' permits 
     under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
     program for industrial and municipal polluters. This new 
     authority lacks safeguards that Congress included in the 
     parallel general permitting program for ``dredge and fill'' 
     activities, namely that the activities must have minimal 
     adverse environmental impacts. It also would greatly limit 
     EPA's ability to terminate such a permit if the agency 
     determined it was causing unacceptable harm to the 
     environment.
       Section 4 would make it easier for industrial operations to 
     dump PFAS, also known as ``forever chemicals,'' and other 
     emerging contaminants into the nation's waters without 
     accountability. Specifically, the bill would shield 
     dischargers from Clean Water Act liability even if they are 
     aware of certain pollutants in their waste streams but do not 
     disclose it to pollution control officials who do not have 
     reason to expect such contaminants.
       Section 5 would virtually eliminate EPA's ability to stop 
     mammoth polluting projects like the Pebble Mine in Alaska's 
     Bristol Bay watershed. This rarely-used authority (invoked 
     only 14 times in the Act's history) is crucial to prevent the 
     most egregious projects from destroying precious fisheries, 
     drinking water supplies, and other resources.
       Section 6 would require the Army Corps of Engineers to 
     permanently retain a fast-track permit for highly destructive 
     and polluting oil and gas pipelines and greatly weaken the 
     Corps' nationwide permitting program--a program that is 
     already far too lax in preventing and mitigating the harm 
     caused by projects that fill in the nation's waters. The bill 
     would double the duration of general permits, such that 
     advancements in best practices for the dozens of activities 
     covered by such permits would not be required promptly. And 
     it would excuse the Army Corps of Engineers from considering 
     the full environmental consequences of permitted activities, 
     as well as the effects of such activities on endangered 
     species.
       Section 7 would prevent effective judicial review of 
     projects that fill in and destroy wetlands, streams, and 
     other waters. The bill would impose an impractically short 
     statute of limitations on court review of ``dredge and fill'' 
     permits, which would likely force concerned citizens to file 
     suit on more permits in order to preserve their rights, in 
     many instances before the impacts of the permitted project 
     are fully understood. The bill would also severely hamstring 
     courts' authority to provide a remedy for illegal permits 
     because permits found unlawful would ordinarily remain in 
     effect and allow continued harm to water resources while the 
     Army Corps of Engineers reexamines them.
       In contrast to these provisions, polling continues to show 
     that people actually want stronger federal protections for 
     our nation's waters. Too many communities, especially 
     Indigenous communities, communities of color, and low wealth 
     communities, still lack clean water. Congress should be 
     focused on putting people before polluters and working to 
     ensure everyone, no matter their race, zip code, or income, 
     has access to clean water, rather than attempting to 
     undermine our critical clean water protections.
       Again, we urge you to VOTE NO on H.R. 7023, an attack on 
     our clean water safeguards that would endanger the waters our 
     families and communities depend on and work against the Clean 
     Water Act's objective ``to restore and maintain the chemical, 
     physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.''
           Sincerely,
       Alabama Rivers Alliance; Alliance for the Great Lakes; 
     American Rivers; Amigos Bravos; Appalachian Trail 
     Conservancy; Bayou City Waterkeeper; Center for Biological 
     Diversity; Center for Food Safety; Children's Environmental 
     Health Network; Clean Water Action; Clean Wisconsin; 
     Committee on the Muddle Fork Vermiliom River; Community Water 
     Center.
       Earthjustice; Environmental Justice Health Alliance; 
     Environment America; Environmental Law & Policy Center; 
     Environmental Protection Network; Food & Water

[[Page H1251]]

     Watch; For Love of Water (FLOW); Freshwater Future; 
     GreenLatinos; Izaak Walton League of America; Kentucky 
     Waterways Alliance; Latino Farmers & Ranchers International, 
     Inc.
       Lawyers for Good Government; League of Conservation Voters; 
     Maryland Pesticide Education Network; Massachusetts 
     Pollinator Network; Massachusetts Rivers Alliance; 
     Mississippi River Collaborative; National Audubon Society; 
     National Wildlife Federation; Natural Resources Defense 
     Council; New Mexico Wild; Northwest Center for Alternatives 
     to Pesticides; Ohio River Foundation.
       People and Pollinators Action Network; PolicyLink; River 
     Network; Sierra Club; Southern Environmental Law Center; 
     Surfrider Foundation; The Water Collaborative of Greater New 
     Orleans; Toxic Free North Carolina; Waterkeeper Alliance; 
     Waterkeepers Chesapeake; WE ACT for Environmental Justice; We 
     the People of Detroit.
  Ms. SCANLON. They write, ``This bill contains several misguided 
attacks on clean water and the Clean Water Act, puts polluter profits 
ahead of public health, and would jeopardize the waters that our 
families, communities, and wildlife depend on.''
  H.R. 7023 is clearly not the answer.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a 
letter signed by over 50 conservation, climate, and public lands 
organizations strongly opposing H.R. 6009.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
                                                   March 19, 2024.
       Speaker Johnson, Leader Jeffries, and Members of the House 
     of Representatives: On behalf of the undersigned 
     conservation, climate, and public lands organizations, we 
     write today in strong opposition to H.R. 6009, the Restoring 
     American Energy Dominance Act. This legislation circumvents 
     and undermines the administrative process, ignores 
     significant public input across the West, and halts a long 
     overdue update to the federal onshore oil and gas leasing 
     program that protects taxpayers, public lands and the 
     wildlife and communities who rely on then. More importantly, 
     it would prevent Interior from undertaking any substantially 
     similar rule, effectively prohibiting the agency from doing 
     its job to oversee the federal leasing program. We therefore 
     urge all members of the House of Representatives to vote no 
     on this harmful legislation.
       The Bureau of Land Management's proposed Onshore Oil and 
     Gas Leasing Rule updates federal regulations to implement oil 
     and gas program fiscal reforms enacted via the Inflation 
     Reduction Act (IRA). These reforms included increasing the 
     royalty rate for producing oil and gas on federal public 
     lands, realigning rents and fees to account for decades of 
     inflation, and reducing speculation by ending non-competitive 
     leasing and implementing a new nomination fee.
       Beyond the IRA, the proposed rule includes a host of other 
     long-overdue protections, including language to penalize 
     routine abusers; preference criteria to steer leasing 
     decisions away from critical habitat, cultural resources, and 
     reduce speculation; and urgent bonding reforms that help 
     ensure that oil and gas operators--rather than taxpayers and 
     surrounding communities--bear the cost of cleaning up 
     drilling sites after production ends.
       The reforms in the IRA and this proposed rule--taken 
     together--implement the baseline recommendations outlined by 
     the Department of the Interior, address dire shortcomings in 
     the oil and gas bonding system identified by the Government 
     Accountability Office and other nonpartisan watchdogs over 
     many years, and ensure taxpayers are not subsidizing the oil 
     industry and then paying to clean up drilling sites.
       H.R. 6009 would require BLM to withdraw its proposed rule, 
     scuttling many of these important fiscal reforms to protect 
     taxpayers and complicating implementation of duly enacted 
     statutes.
       Moreover, the draft legislation runs contrary to the will 
     of the general public. During the rule's 60-day comment 
     period, over 260,000 Americans submitted public comments for 
     the record--over 99 percent of which were supportive of the 
     rule.
       Lastly, prohibiting the BLM from moving forward a 
     substantially similar rule is a legislative poison pill. If 
     enacted, it would preclude the agency from administering the 
     federal onshore oil and gas program in the public interest 
     and acknowledging challenges like climate change, extinction, 
     and the clean energy transition--instead requiring that it 
     maintain a broken status quo that favors special interest 
     profits.
       For these reasons, we oppose H.R. 6009, and we urge all 
     members of the House of Representatives to vote no on 
     passage.
           Sincerely,
       Accountable.US; Archaeology Southwest; Citizens for Clean 
     Air, Grand Junction, CO; Climate Action Campaign; Climate Law 
     & Policy Project; Coalition to Protect America's National 
     Parks; Colorado Fiscal Institute; Colorado Wildlands Project; 
     Colorado Wildlife Federation; Conservation Colorado; 
     Conservation Lands Foundation; Conservatives for Responsible 
     Stewardship; Dakota Resource Council; Eagle Summit Wilderness 
     Alliance; Earthjustice; Earthworks; EcoFlight; Endangered 
     Species Coalition; Environmental Defense Fund.
       Friends of the Earth US; Great Old Broads for Wilderness-
     Grand Junction Area Chapter; Great Old Broads for Wilderness-
     Northwest Colorado Chapter; Great Old Broads for Wilderness; 
     HECHO; Interfaith Power & Light; League of Conservation 
     Voters; Los Pedros ForestWatch; Montana Wildlife Federation; 
     National Parks Conservation Association; National Wildlife 
     Federation; Natural Resources Defense Council; Nevada 
     Conservation League; Nevada Wildlife Federation; New Mexico 
     Voices for Children; New Mexico Wildlife Federation; Northern 
     Plains Resource Council.
       Nuestra Tierra; Powder River Basin Resource Council; Public 
     Citizen; Rocky Mountain Farmers Union; Rocky Mountain Wild; 
     Sheep Mountain Alliance; Sierra Club; Southern Utah 
     Wilderness Alliance; The Wilderness Society; Town of 
     Nederland, CO; Union of Concerned Scientists; Western 
     Colorado Alliance; Western Organization of Resource Councils; 
     Western Slope Conservation Center; West Virginia Rivers 
     Coalition; Wild Montana; Wilderness Workshop; Wyoming Outdoor 
     Council.

  Ms. SCANLON. This letter reads, in part, ``This legislation 
circumvents and undermines the administrative process, ignores 
significant public input across the West, and halts a long-overdue 
update to the Federal onshore oil and gas leasing program that protects 
taxpayers, public lands, and the wildlife and communities who rely on 
them.''
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a 
letter from the National Parks Conservation Association strongly 
opposing H.R. 6009.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
                                       National Parks Conservation


                                                  Association,

                                 Washington, DC, December 6, 2023.
     Re NPCA Position on Legislation before the Committee on 
         Natural Resources.

       Dear Representative: Since 1919, the National Parks 
     Conservation Association (NPCA) has been the leading voice of 
     the American people in protecting and enhancing our National 
     Park System. On behalf of our 1.6 million members and 
     supporters nationwide, I write to share NPCA's thoughts on 
     select legislation ahead of a markup in the Committee on 
     Natural Resources scheduled for December 6, 2023.
       H.R. 6009--Restoring American Energy Dominance Act: NPCA 
     opposes this legislation, which stops the Bureau of Land 
     Management (BLM) from updating its onshore oil and gas 
     program for the first time in 35 years. Not only does this 
     legislation halt a public regulatory process partway through, 
     it prohibits BLM from proposing any substantially similar 
     rules. This effectively prohibits BLM from updating this 
     program in the future, making it harder for the agency to 
     oversee the federal onshore leasing program.
       The proposed rule has been in the works for years. It 
     follows recommendations by the Government Accountability 
     Office and implements reforms already passed into law. In the 
     rule, BLM makes the leasing process more straightforward and 
     streamlines paperwork and filing requirements for industry, 
     making the leasing and auctions processes more consistent and 
     updated for the 21st century. The proposed rule also ensures 
     that BLM considers proximity to national parks and other 
     special places during the parcel selection process. By taking 
     a holistic approach to parcel selection, BLM can avoid 
     conflicts later in the leasing process and costly and time-
     consuming lawsuits while protecting irreplaceable cultural 
     and natural treasures. This approach also ensures that lands 
     used for conservation and recreation purposes by millions of 
     Americans are not impeded by oil and gas development.
       BLM's proposed rule goes a long way towards protecting 
     national parks and their connected landscapes from oil and 
     gas development. NPCA supports the proposed rule's common-
     sense reforms and believes BLM should be allowed to complete 
     the regulatory process. During the comment period for the 
     proposed rule, over 99% of all comments were supportive. [The 
     current leasing system and onshore oil and gas program is 
     antiquated and does not offer proper oversight or ensure 
     protections and fair returns to American taxpayers. Passing 
     this legislation would leave BLM unable to properly oversee 
     this program and could cause unnecessary harm to our special 
     places.]
       Thank you for considering our views.
           Sincerely,

                                             Christina Hazard,

                              Legislative Director, National Parks
                                         Conservation Association.

  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, this letter reads, in part, ``The current 
leasing system and onshore oil and gas program is antiquated and does 
not offer proper oversight or ensure protections and fair returns to 
American taxpayers. Passing this legislation would leave BLM unable to 
properly oversee this program and could cause unnecessary harm to our 
special places.''
  Finally, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a Forbes 
article

[[Page H1252]]

entitled: ``U.S. Energy Independence Soars to Highest Level in Over 70 
Years.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.

                       [From Forbes, May 2, 2023]

    U.S. Energy Independence Soars to Highest Level in Over 70 Years

                 (By Robert Rapier, Senior Contributor)

       The topic of U.S. energy independence often sparks debate, 
     with many believing that the country achieved this status 
     under President Trump and lost it during President Biden's 
     tenure.
       I have addressed these beliefs previously using data from 
     the Energy Information Administration (EIA). However, recent 
     data from the EIA provides a clearer picture of the situation 
     in 2022.
       Before delving into the topic of energy independence, it's 
     important to establish a common definition. There are two 
     ways to think about energy independence. One definition is 
     that we produce more energy than we consume. Based on that 
     definition, even if we import some energy, the fact that we 
     produce more than enough to satisfy our needs would mean the 
     U.S. is energy independent.
       If we produce more than we need, why would we import 
     energy? There are a couple of reasons.
       One is that the type of energy we import (e.g., crude oil) 
     is a better fit for our energy systems than the energy we 
     produce ourselves. For example, U.S. refineries are well-
     suited to process heavy, sour crude oils. But the oil 
     produced from the shale oil boom is primarily lighter and 
     sweeter. Thus, U.S. oil producers can export this oil, while 
     refiners can import the heavy, sour crude that they prefer.
       The second reason is that we may simply import crude oil to 
     process it and export the finished products. In that 
     scenario, we aren't importing oil because we need it, but 
     rather because it is financially lucrative to do so.
       This definition of energy independence--producing more than 
     we consume--will be the definition I use here.
       But another definition of energy independence is simply 
     that we don't import energy at all.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, it is one thing that the Biden 
administration's extreme far-left positions on energy hurt the American 
economy and by extension the American worker and the American family, 
but the extremism also hurts our allies abroad.
  President Biden has clearly weakened our position on the 
international stage. Shortly after canceling our own Keystone XL 
pipeline, which, by the way, crushed tens of thousands of union jobs, 
the Biden administration greenlit Nord Stream 2.
  Before the 2022 midterm elections, the Biden administration released 
roughly 180 million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, or 
roughly 40 percent of that Reserve, that included at least 2 million 
barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to--are you ready for 
it?--China.
  After pausing new LNG export approvals, the President then waived 
sanctions on Iranian energy imports into Iraq. I will talk about that 
momentarily, though.
  It is clear from the administration's actions for these far-left 
extreme positions that President Biden favors Chairman Xi, Vladimir 
Putin, and the Ayatollah over the American worker.
  Now, let's go back and talk about the Iraq-Iran waiver. After pausing 
the new LNG export approvals, the Biden administration waived sanctions 
on Iranian energy imports into Iraq. This unlocks $10 billion in frozen 
funds for the Iranian Government who helped fund the October 7 
terrorist attack on our number one ally in the world, Israel.
  It is clear to me that the White House's energy platform is the 
following: Yes to our enemies, no to America.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a little bit difficult to believe these crocodile 
tears for our allies when the House Republicans are holding up the 
National Security Supplemental, which passed weeks ago in the Senate by 
a 70-30 vote, it is broadly bipartisan legislation that our allies 
deserve an up-or-down vote on, and we should see that on the floor 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, when it comes to energy, House Republicans are also 
presenting us with a false choice. They would have us believe that 
renewable energy and energy independence are at odds. They want us to 
think that sustainability and a strong economy are a tradeoff. It is 
simply not true, and we cannot afford to make this false choice.
  As we have seen with the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and 
the Inflation Reduction Act, we can have it both ways. We can lower 
emissions while creating jobs and growing the economy. We can make the 
transition to solar and wind without displacing businesses or workers.
  The Inflation Reduction Act and the infrastructure bill demonstrate 
that not only does a green transition come hand in hand with economic 
growth, but also that that growth can be spurred from the middle out 
and the bottom up.
  All over the country, new manufacturing facilities for batteries, 
solar panels, wind turbines, and electric vehicles are being built. 
These factories are offering long-term, good-paying jobs that will 
drive economic development for years to come. It is an American 
manufacturing renaissance that has been made possible by legislation 
passed by Democrats and President Biden.
  It is a testament to what is possible when legislators roll up their 
sleeves and solve problems as opposed to playing to their most extreme 
Members. That is what real leadership looks like.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and 
the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time 
to close.
  Mr. Speaker, today, the EPA released their tailpipe rule, which is a 
de facto ban on gas-powered vehicles.
  President Biden is setting performance standards for tailpipe 
emissions that automakers can only meet by producing EVs. This will do 
serious damage to the American family and the American worker.
  Through a series of rules, the Biden administration is eliminating 
gas-powered vehicles in less than 10 years. For example, the EPA is set 
to approve California's outright ban on the sale of new internal 
combustion engine vehicles by 2035.
  Additionally, the Department of Transportation is proposing CAFE 
standards that force fleets to switch to EVs.
  What does this mean?
  For all the talk about building the middle class, this is an attack, 
a direct attack, on the middle class. Your average EV driver is making 
well over six figures a year.
  Middle-class Americans will struggle to be able to purchase a family 
car that can't travel long distances, has limited access to reliable 
fuel sources, and has components that are predominantly sourced from 
China.
  So there are the Democrats' priorities: harming the middle class 
while benefiting China.
  Also, if you think that it is cute to talk about so-called reliable 
energy sources, do some research and look at the power grid in Texas. 
Tell me how well that worked out.
  But under President Donald Trump's leadership as opposed to Joe 
Biden's extreme far-left leadership and agenda, under President Trump's 
leadership, our Nation actually became energy independent. This was 
thanks to the progrowth, projob, pro-American energy policies that 
facilitated an energy renaissance and lowered energy costs for 
hardworking American families.
  Just in my home State of Pennsylvania, we are second in the Nation 
for natural gas production. The industry supports hundreds of thousands 
of jobs in the Commonwealth, including roughly 130,000 union jobs that 
the Democrats falsely claim to care about.
  Our Commonwealth has such an abundance of natural resources that we 
lead the Nation in electricity exports to other States.

  Last year, Pennsylvania's impact fee revenue reached an historic 
level at $278.9 million, which helps to alleviate tax burdens on our 
local communities.
  When the Biden administration bends the knee to the climate change 
mob by stopping new LNG export approvals, by taxing natural gas 
production, by proposing bans on fracking, and placing a de facto ban 
on gas-powered vehicles, what are they doing?
  These actions are hurting American families and American workers, and

[[Page H1253]]

local communities are being harmed in States like Pennsylvania.
  That is why we must pass this underlying legislation, which will 
strengthen our position on the international stage and when the final 
votes are tallied this week, you are going to see on display the stark 
difference between Democrats and Republicans.
  If you stand with the American worker, the American family, and the 
American job creator, vote ``yes'' on the rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  If you support energy resources from Chairman Xi, Vladimir Putin, and 
the Ayatollah, then vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the 
underlying legislation.
  The choice couldn't be any clearer, and you will see the stark 
difference between the Democrats and the Republicans on this vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous 
question and ``yes'' on the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question are postponed.

                          ____________________