[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.
____________________