[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 20, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H1264-H1270]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1500
                RESTORING AMERICAN ENERGY DOMINANCE ACT

  Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1085, I call 
up 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, and ask for its 
immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1085, the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
Natural Resources printed in the bill, is adopted, and the bill, as 
amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 6009

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Restoring American Energy 
     Dominance Act''.

     SEC. 2. WITHDRAWAL OF BLM PROPOSED RULE.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Director of the Bureau of Land 
     Management shall withdraw the proposed rule of the Bureau of 
     Land Management entitled ``Fluid Mineral Leases and Leasing 
     Process'' (88 Fed. Reg. 47562 (July 24, 2023)).
       (b) No Further Action.--The Director of the Bureau of Land 
     Management may not take any action to finalize, implement, or 
     enforce the proposed rule described in subsection (a) or any 
     substantially similar rule.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective 
designees.
  The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).


                             General Leave

  Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H.R. 6009.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 6009, the Restoring American Energy 
Dominance Act.
  H.R. 6009, introduced by Congresswoman Boebert, would nullify the 
Bureau of Land Management's proposed onshore oil and gas leasing 
regulations.
  While on the campaign trail, then-candidate Joe Biden said during a 
primary debate: ``No more drilling on Federal lands.'' That was 
candidate Biden.
  The BLM's proposed regulations attempt to accomplish President 
Biden's campaign promise by limiting onshore leasing, reducing 
flexibility, and increasing fees.
  The regulations propose eliminating nationwide bonds while increasing 
individual bonding requirements 15-fold and statewide bonding 
requirements 20-fold. The BLM's stated rationale for doing this is to 
protect taxpayers from having to clean up orphaned wells.
  One would think that there is an orphaned well crisis on BLM lands, 
given the significant cost increases the rule proposes. However, the 
opposite is true, Mr. Speaker. According to the Department of the 
Interior, there are only 37 orphaned wells on BLM lands, and the 
Department has used bonds to plug wells on Federal lands just 40 times 
over this last decade.
  The proposed regulations would also be extremely harmful to small 
businesses. Tom Kropatsch, the Wyoming State oil and gas supervisor, 
said: ``The bonding provisions will impact hundreds of small businesses 
in Wyoming, resulting in lost royalties, taxes, and other revenues to 
local and State government, and likely will create orphaned wells, not 
protect against them.''
  While he is speaking of his home State of Wyoming, the impacts would 
be the same in energy-producing regions nationwide.
  The regulations also introduce new and vague preference criteria for 
evaluating onshore oil and gas leasing. The

[[Page H1265]]

criteria seemingly intended to avoid conflict in areas with ``sensitive 
cultural, wildlife, and recreation resources.''
  Don't be fooled. The criteria, which could be applied to any parcel 
of land, are meant to lock up lands from resource development and shut 
down future oil and gas production. President Biden is once again 
proactively taking steps to increase energy prices, reduce American 
energy production, and ultimately diminish our national security.
  To continue using Wyoming as a case study, in 2022 and 2023, the 
Wyoming BLM had initially offered to sell 830 parcels covering 954,281 
acres. However, through successive rounds of an environmental review 
that incorporated considerations of these preference criteria, the 
Wyoming BLM deferred 462 parcels encompassing 586,000 acres. That is 61 
percent of the acreage that should have otherwise been available that 
was ultimately deferred due to these new criteria--and the regulations 
aren't even final yet.
  BLM's proposed onshore oil and gas leasing regulations are an attack 
on domestic energy production that will further lock up our Federal 
lands and eliminate access to our natural resources. We will not stand 
idly by as the Biden administration increases our reliance on foreign 
adversarial nations. It diminishes our national security and inflates 
already unaffordable energy prices.
  H.R. 6009 acknowledges the BLM statutory mission of managing our 
Federal lands for multiple use, including energy and mineral 
development. It will keep our country safe by ensuring continued 
domestic energy production. It will benefit American families, American 
communities, American jobs, and our small businesses.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, Representative Boebert's so-called Restoring American 
Energy Dominance Act would have only one effect: furthering Big Oil's 
dominance over our public lands.
  This bill, H.R. 6009, would force the Bureau of Land Management to 
withdraw its proposed oil and gas rule. This rule will implement 
reforms that Democrats enacted in our historic climate law, the 
Inflation Reduction Act, along with other long-overdue reforms to the 
onshore oil and gas program. The rule will help hold Big Oil 
accountable for cleaning up after itself, provide a fair return for the 
use of taxpayer-owned resources, and end speculative leasing of our 
public lands.
  This is important but also very basic stuff. If you make a mess, you 
should be responsible for cleaning it up. If a public company extracts 
a publicly owned resource for profit, taxpayers should get a fair 
return.
  It makes sense to me. Those are not difficult concepts to understand.
  It is for these reasons that BLM's rule has broad support across 
Western voters. Mr. Speaker, 92 percent of comments provided from all 
50 States in response to BLM's proposed rulemaking were in favor of the 
rule. That is listening to the people.
  What we are seeing here is out-of-touch House Republicans attempting 
to block this rule as a giveaway to the fossil fuel industry. It is a 
blatant effort by Big Oil and corporate lobbyists to game the system in 
their favor.

  The proposed rule is common sense. The reforms have long been 
recommended by the Government Accountability Office and nonpartisan 
entities like Taxpayers for Common Sense.
  Republicans call it Biden's war on American energy, but with domestic 
oil and gas production and profits soaring, it is hard to see how Big 
Oil is suffering. As I said, their pockets are not on life support at 
all, but our public health is.
  It is past time to commit to reforms to protect taxpayers and the 
environment. We are talking about modest increases in royalty rates, 
going from 12\1/2\ percent to 16\2/3\ percent. Texas royalty rates are 
up to 25 percent. In the bill sponsor's home State of Colorado, they 
are at 20 percent.
  To repeat, these rates have not impeded domestic production. Domestic 
oil and gas production and profits are at record highs. No one is 
disputing that.
  As if that were not enough, these companies continue price gouging 
the consumer. It is obscene that these polluters, these extremely 
profitable corporations, are now pushing for more tax handouts. They 
are the last industry that needs it.
  We must vote down this out-of-touch giveaway.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 6009, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, my good friend and colleague talked about 
making a mess. Joe Biden and his administration have made a mess for 
American energy--higher energy prices throughout our country. The 
middle class is getting squeezed because of his energy policies and, 
dare I say, his anti-mining agenda. We will clean up this mess.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. 
Boebert), the sponsor of this bill.
  Ms. BOEBERT. Mr. Speaker, on day one of his administration, Joe Biden 
declared an all-out war on American energy production and exploration. 
He has made it clear that he cares more about appeasing the radical 
climate change activists than protecting the millions of oil and gas 
workers and producers in America.
  I was disappointed but not surprised when the Biden administration 
filed this proposed rule titled ``Fluid Mineral Leases and Leasing 
Process,'' which mandates provisions from the partisan so-called 
Inflation Reduction Act--we know that it didn't reduce inflation; it 
expanded it--which increased the royalty rate for production on Federal 
lands while also increasing and creating new fees for domestic energy 
producers.
  This fluid mineral leasing rule is further proof that Joe Biden is 
using every tool in his administration to dismantle American energy 
production. It codifies pieces of the so-called Inflation Reduction 
Act, which is really the Green New Deal, and makes major nonstatutory 
changes to the BLM's onshore leasing program.
  It increases bonding levels for production on Federal lands and 
proposes ending nationwide bonding and increasing the minimum bond 
amounts for individual lease bonds and Statewide lease bonds from 
$10,000 to $150,000 and from $25,000 to $500,000, respectively. This 
significant increase will tie up capital that would otherwise be put 
back into production and is unjustifiable as there are only 37 orphaned 
oil and gas wells on BLM-managed land.
  These increases will impact smaller producers that can't afford to 
operate in the market. These additional fees will ultimately harm 
returns and reduce revenues to State and local governments by 
disincentivizing development on Federal lands.
  When environmental extremists create rules like this that are grossly 
restrictive, they can hinder the development and availability of energy 
resources that are fundamental to human progress and prosperity. It is 
important to remember that energy is not just another commodity; it is 
the lifeblood of modern civilization.
  Any regulation in this domain must be evaluated through the lens of 
its impact on human life and prosperity. This means considering not 
just the environmental aspects but also how these rules affect energy 
affordability, reliability, and scalability.
  Not-in-my-backyard extremists have regulated States like Colorado 
into poverty with their reckless and extremely flawed policies.
  The proposed rule also introduces the idea of using preference 
criteria to inform the BLM's selection of lands for lease sales. BLM's 
rationale for this change is to avoid conflict in areas with 
``sensitive cultural, wildlife, and recreation resources.''
  I think the people who occupy these lands most--our farmers, our 
ranchers, and our energy producers--understand the land better than BLM 
agents in Washington, D.C., in some concrete building or maybe even 
still working remotely from their homes. These are stewards of our 
lands, and they do a darn good job at it.
  This means that the BLM field office could avoid leasing in all areas 
with endangered or threatened species, critical habitat, or nearby 
recreation areas, a move that would greatly limit leasing on Federal 
lands.

                              {time}  1515

  With the wars happening in the Middle East and in Europe and with 
OPEC

[[Page H1266]]

significantly lowering oil production, we cannot rely on foreign 
nations, especially our adversaries, to control our energy supply. That 
is why I introduced the Restoring American Dominance Act, to terminate 
this proposed rule and protect American energy producers.
  America makes the cleanest energy in the world. American innovation, 
in particular, fracking, has allowed America to be the global leader in 
reducing emissions since the year 2000.
  We need to stop buying oil and gas from Russia and stop begging 
Venezuela and Iran, our adversaries, to produce energy for us. We need 
to start producing more energy responsibly right here in the United 
States of America. Rather than begging OPEC, let's bring back the 
American roughneck.
  American energy security is paramount for our Nation's economic 
stability and national security. When we produce our own energy, we 
control our destiny. We are not at the mercy of international politics, 
conflicts, or the whims of foreign governments that may not always have 
our best interests at heart.
  Remember, energy is the industry that powers every other industry. 
The more control we have over our energy sources, the more competitive 
and secure our economy is. The concept of American energy dominance is 
not only desirable, it is essential for both national security and 
global human flourishing. We can literally be exporting freedom around 
the globe.
  Relying on countries like Russia and others for energy is problematic 
not just from a security standpoint but also from a moral one. Many of 
these countries have questionable human rights records, to put it 
mildly. By producing our own energy, we are not just securing our 
future, we are also not indirectly supporting or enabling regimes that 
do not align with our values of freedom and human rights.
  In essence, producing energy in America is about taking control of 
our future, ensuring our economic stability, and standing by our 
principles. It is about ensuring that we can continue to innovate, 
grow, and flourish, without being beholden to anyone. Frankly, given 
our vast resources and technological capabilities, there is no good 
reason not to.
  I thank Chairman Westerman and the committee for working with me on 
this bill to rein in Joe Biden's out-of-control, rogue bureaucrats. I 
urge my colleagues to support my bill to stop BLM's proposed 
regulations before they increase energy costs and threaten American 
energy production even further. American jobs and our national security 
depend on us taking a stand against this regime.
  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, I am so relieved to hear my 
colleagues from across the aisle continue to talk about national 
security concerns. It makes me question why they want to support 
isolationist values.
  If we are so concerned about Russia and our adversaries, then why are 
we not voting on a supplemental to help Ukraine?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Porter).
  Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, our country needs energy to flourish, and 
Democrats know that this means authorizing energy projects. If we are 
going to authorize energy projects, then we need to require any energy 
developer, including Big Oil, to fully cover the cost of cleanup and 
reclamation of their extraction.
  H.R. 6009 negates that principle, which I feel strongly about as a 
single mom, of cleaning up your messes, and instead gives Big Oil carte 
blanche to drill with little or no regulation. With this bill, 
Republicans are endeavoring to undo all of my work and the work of my 
colleagues to hold Big Oil accountable and to protect taxpayers.
  Last Congress, my bill to protect public lands and recover taxpayer 
dollars by raising the Federal royalty rate for oil and gas extraction 
was passed into law.
  Since 1920, Big Oil had paid the same 12.5 percent royalty rate for 
the extraction of minerals on public lands, which was considerably 
lower than rates charged by States. This allowed Big Oil to exploit our 
public resources and pay the American taxpayers pennies. My bill ended 
this corporate giveaway to Big Oil and made sure the American people 
would get fair benefits for our public lands.
  I also had a bill that would increase, for the first time in 60 
years, the amount of money Big Oil would put down to promise to clean 
up its oil wells. Last year, that reform was included in the Bureau of 
Land Management's onshore oil and gas proposed rule.
  Previously, the bond amount that Big Oil paid covered just a fraction 
of their cleanup costs, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill. Oil and gas 
companies have abandoned thousands of wells nationwide without 
undertaking reclamation efforts to make those polluted areas 
environmentally safe, actions that could now cost all of us, as 
taxpayers, up to $333 million. My bill, for the first time in decades, 
put Big Oil on notice: You pollute, you pay.
  My proposal had popular support, including across the West, which is 
home to much extraction. Ninety-one percent of western voters want oil 
and gas companies, not taxpayers, to pay for cleaning up and reclaiming 
public lands after drilling.
  However, Republicans don't care about protecting the American people 
from environmental and economic harm. They would rather prop up Big 
Oil's profits and exploit the American taxpayer, upending real progress 
to finally hold Big Oil accountable.
  H.R. 6009 would prevent the Biden administration from implementing 
the Bureau of Land Management's oil and gas rule. It would bar current 
and future administrations from increasing bonding requirements or 
implementing other fiscal reforms to protect taxpayers. It also 
prevents any administration from future updates to the Federal royalty 
rate.
  It is hypocritical that Republicans, who drape themselves in the 
mantle of lowering taxes during campaign time, stand here today 
advocating for a bill that would force taxpayers to pay for sweetheart 
deals to Big Oil that boost their profits even further.

  My Republican colleagues have the opportunity to prove me wrong. At 
the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back 
to the Committee on Natural Resources. If the House rules permitted, I 
would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill, 
and that amendment would prevent H.R. 6009 from going into effect until 
the Comptroller General of the United States certified that this bill 
would, in fact, result in reduced energy costs for American consumers 
and would not result in increased, record profits for the oil and gas 
industry.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include the text of the 
amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues across the aisle if they 
have the bravery to show that they are not beholden to Big Oil's 
bidding and will stand up for consumers and taxpayers to lower costs? 
This vote will show where your allegiance is.
  Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The Biden administration told Congress just last summer that there 
are only 37 orphaned wells on BLM lands, and they have called in bonds 
only four times per year over the last decade. This number is low 
because the BLM has a process for dealing with at-risk wells.
  There are very few, if any, Federal leases that don't have multiple 
companies with multiple record title interests and working interests. 
Multiple companies may have equities in the leases and will sell those 
equities to other companies that want to develop at different depths, 
for example.
  BLM maintains the full chain of ownership. If BLM identifies a well 
on a lease at risk for abandonment, the agency will go to the companies 
in that chain of ownership and require them to take care of the well.
  Increasing bonds at these levels will also have a disproportionate 
impact on the small producers and the small businesses and therefore 
could actually result in more bankruptcies and thus more orphaned 
wells. Crushing small businesses and limiting production on Federal 
lands, which is what this regulation would do, would simply reduce

[[Page H1267]]

production, driving up prices for American families and driving down 
revenues paid to the States and the Federal Government.
  Federal onshore oil and gas production brought in roughly $7.7 
billion in revenue in fiscal year 2023 alone. That is almost six times 
more than the BLM's entire fiscal year budget.
  We have the opportunity to help the American people who are 
struggling under this administration's policies and procedures. The 
time is now. The American people are hurting with energy prices. 
Inflation is still on the rise. The CPI is almost 20 percent. This is 
real for blue-collar, working Americans.
  The energy policies, Mr. Speaker, of this President have been 
devastating to the middle and lower class. I have the privilege of 
representing Minnesota's Eighth Congressional District. It is the 
oldest and poorest congressional district in our great State. I hear it 
every single day about the cost of energy. We can change it, and this 
is our opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  There is so much to fact check and so little time. My colleagues have 
mentioned bonding proposals, but the BLM's bonding proposal would help 
ensure that oil and gas foot the bill for cleaning up their messes, not 
the American people. By requiring them to post adequate bond money 
before they drill, we can help avoid them shirking that duty later on 
by selling off their exhausted wells to shell companies and similar 
tactics.
  My colleagues across the aisle have said this proposal is 
unnecessary; no need to post bond ahead of time. Trust Big Oil. They 
are good for it.
  Pardon me if I am skeptical. We have been hearing so much about 
posting bonds over the last week or so. It is often the same story: A 
company or an individual will brag and brag about supposed wealth, but 
when it comes time to put that money up, suddenly they come up short. 
Sometimes they even have to file for bankruptcy.
  Many oil and gas companies operate in the same way. They benefit from 
resources but are afraid of regulations that would set bond amounts 
that ensure that they actually clean up after themselves instead of 
skipping town. The proposed BLM rule would require fossil fuel 
companies to provide reasonable collateral to ensure they pay to clean 
up after themselves.
  I have another fact check for you before I yield. We have heard 
Republicans say that bonding reform isn't needed to make sure the oil 
and gas companies clean up after their messes, supposedly because BLM 
has identified only 37 orphaned wells on Federal land.
  Well, let's widen the land to show the truth. An unplugged well can 
sit idle or even abandoned for many, many years before a Federal agency 
seeks to enforce reclamation requirements and finally have it declared 
officially orphaned. That process eats up valuable staff time and 
resources. In that time, these unplugged wells can leak oil and gas, 
creating environmental and public health hazards, regardless of whether 
or not they have been officially deemed orphaned yet.

                              {time}  1530

  We are talking huge numbers here. In 2019, a nonpartisan GAO 
identified 2,294 unplugged wells that had not been produced in over 10 
years. That is 2,294 wells specifically on BLM Federal land. The oil 
and gas industry should pay to plug and remediate those wells, not the 
American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Huffman), who is the most illustrious Congressman.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman who is bringing the 
receipts today, and I appreciate this conversation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 6009, the 
Republicans' polluters over people act 2.0.
  For anyone following the work of team extreme, the Republican 
majority, in the 118th Congress, Mr. Speaker, you have probably figured 
out the pattern by now. Things like governing are really hard for team 
extreme: funding the government, avoiding a catastrophic debt default, 
and having an orderly legislative process so you are not continuously 
improvising and keeping the whole world in limbo while Congress 
sputters.
  Team extreme has failed miserably at the basics of governing because 
they are too busy sowing chaos, fighting with each other, and competing 
for who gets the most bookings on FOX News and Newsmax.
  Passing serious legislation that tackles pressing issues and solves 
problems is definitely out of favor in this Congress. I suppose to look 
busy for the C-SPAN audience, they give us warmed over versions of 
their polluters over people act every few weeks.
  When you can't govern and you can't legislate, Mr. Speaker, this 
performative stuff is what you do over and over. It is rinse, lather, 
and repeat with team extreme in this Congress.
  It is reminiscent, really, of how they operated when Donald Trump was 
President and they had a Republican majority in both Houses of 
Congress. We kept hearing about infrastructure week every few months 
without any serious proposals and certainly without any serious 
legislation. However, when Democrats took back Congress and the White 
House, we showed them how to do it. We delivered results: an historic 
bipartisan infrastructure law that is making transformative differences 
in communities all over America.
  Nonetheless, we have swung back now with team extreme back in charge 
here in the House, and it is the old performative playbook again. In 
this Congress, it is usually involving cheerleading for Big Oil and 
Gas. That was H.R. 1. That is clearly what this spin-off bill before us 
today is all about. It is political performance art for the fossil fuel 
industry.
  Since we have seen all of this several times before and since these 
bills, thankfully, will go nowhere, let's just take a moment to remind 
those who get all their news from rightwing media that team extreme's 
entire energy narrative, that this poor fossil fuel industry is 
struggling under the oppressive burden of environmental regulations, 
and that unless we provide even more financial and regulatory giveaways 
to this industry, America will fall behind in the competition for 
global energy dominance. All of this is a complete fiction.
  America is already the world's dominant producer of oil and gas. We 
are the top exporter of oil and gas. We are awash in oil and gas, and 
those poor fossil fuel companies are awash in record profits thanks to 
price gouging the American consumers. They are rolling in so much money 
that they are giving massive executive bonuses and dividends, and they 
are doing stock buybacks. In addition, of course, they continue to 
lobby to protect their Federal subsidies and to oppose climate action.
  This is not an industry that needs more of our help. Nonetheless, 
American consumers who are paying at the pump for all of these profits 
and stock buybacks do need our help. They need an alternative to the 
fossil fuel roller coaster and to the tyranny of the pump. They also 
need a planet that their children and grandchildren can live on, and so 
they need Congress to get serious about tackling the climate crisis and 
accelerating the clean energy transition.
  With these bills today, and, frankly, with all of the stunts and 
antics that we have seen from team extreme in its dysfunctional 
Congress, Republicans are saying that they don't care about any of 
that.
  With H.R. 6009, they are trying, once again, to repeal parts of the 
historic climate actions we took in the last Congress and take us back. 
They want to repeal the modest fossil fuel royalty reforms we enacted 
in the Inflation Reduction Act to protect taxpayers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Van Drew). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 45 seconds to 
the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. They are trying to repeal a very modest royalty reform 
and claw that back, and all that this reform would do is give taxpayers 
a fair return on the public resources on public land that this industry 
has been extracting on royalty rates that hadn't been touched for a 
century.
  Mr. Speaker, the reason that we increased those royalties was to 
finally

[[Page H1268]]

confront the problem of fossil fuel companies with their subsidies 
extracting these public resources and sticking taxpayers with the bill 
to clean up their messes.
  This is not controversial. It is popular. Ninety-one percent of 
Western voters want to see oil and gas companies, not taxpayers, paying 
the bill for this cleanup.
  With these performative bills we are back at it again: a fake 
narrative that exalts the fossil fuel industry above everything and 
everyone else.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, my friends and colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle brought up the Inflation Reduction Act. The fact is, that 
is law, and 90 percent of that money goes to billion-dollar companies 
in subsidies.
  This bill we are talking about today is about small businesses. Under 
this administration, the average American household is paying $11,400 
per year under these policies and these regulations. That is a lot of 
money.

  Mr. Speaker, that may not be a lot of money for a President who has 
spent 53 years of his life in Washington, D.C. Just maybe he has 
forgotten what it is like to struggle in our Midwestern States. Mr. 
Speaker, $11,400 is the average, and I just stated that I represent the 
oldest and the poorest Congressional District in the State of 
Minnesota. That is a lot of money for my constituents and almost every 
American.
  Fifty-three years President Biden has been bloviating on Capitol Hill 
trying to change things and make it better.
  On his energy policies and his mining policies, he has failed the 
American people, and we all know it. We all know it. We feel it. We see 
it. Our pocketbooks are shrinking, and our paychecks aren't rising as 
fast as we want them to, and they are not keeping up with inflation.
  This is about small businesses. This is about not letting the 
unelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., dictate production of our 
natural resources. We, in Congress, have a responsibility to write 
legislation that will benefit all Americans. Today we are talking about 
legislation, Mr. Speaker, about energy prices. There is nobody in this 
country who feels as if this administration has reduced the cost of 
energy for them.
  Mr. Speaker, $11,400, that is a lot of money for this retired police 
officer. That is a lot of money for my wife who served 24 years in the 
military and is an Iraq war veteran. That is a lot of money for her, 
for me, and for many other Americans who are trying to just feed their 
families, keep up, and try and live the American Dream.
  Mr. Speaker, this President has failed the American people on his 
energy policies.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Graves).
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I have sat in this Chamber, and 
I have listened to folks debate and raise concerns and problems about 
the legislation that is before us right now. I have heard people 
talking about how this is extreme, about how it is a gift to oil and 
gas production, and how it is going to trash the environment. There has 
been a poster that is up over there--and I am sad I don't have it right 
now--that said: polluters over people.
  Mr. Speaker, we take an oath of office to stand up for this country 
and to defend the Constitution. We make a commitment to represent about 
700,000 people each, 700,000 people, to represent their best interest.
  So, Mr. Speaker, if the things that my friend from California (Mr. 
Huffman) was saying were accurate, then I would be outraged too, but 
the facts show a very different story.
  I am from south Louisiana.
  When President Biden took office, Mr. Speaker, do you know what 
gasoline prices were?
  The lowest prices in our State were $1.74 per gallon on the day he 
took office.
  Mr. Speaker, where do you find $1.74 per gallon anywhere?
  If I can find it at $2.74, then I am going to fill up extra gas cans. 
Prices are outrageous.
  Does somebody want to call AAA a partisan organization?
  AAA says that the average gasoline prices in America today are $3.52 
a gallon. This is outrageous. It is absolutely outrageous.
  This has the biggest impact on those who can least afford it. People 
can't afford to fill up their vehicles. With higher energy prices, they 
can't afford to pay their utility bills. We have watched as food prices 
have skyrocketed and as housing prices have skyrocketed. Much of this 
is attributable to energy policy because everybody has got to drive, 
and everybody has got to air-condition their homes and heat their 
businesses.
  Mr. Speaker, so what is the cause of all this?
  The cause of this is exactly what this administration's policies are 
doing. We just heard my friend from Minnesota say that the average 
American family is spending about $1,000 a month more now than they 
were when Biden took office.
  Everything we are hearing this administration say and my friends 
across the aisle talk about is that this is trashing the environment.
  Let's look at the facts. The facts show that the United States, even 
under the Trump administration, actually led the world in reducing 
emissions, in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Under the Biden 
administration, they have gone up, not down. They are going up.
  What problem is the administration solving?
  They are charging people higher prices. They are more dependent on 
foreign countries, and emissions are going up. They are having more of 
an adverse impact on the environment. I don't understand.
  Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. I noted that the folks who have been 
speaking on this bill are from California. Let's take a look at the 
performance of California. Let's take a look at the performance.
  Electricity rates in California are almost triple those in my home 
State. They are almost triple. Gasoline prices are approaching double. 
Emissions, they have the eighth worst emissions growth in America. 
California is the most dependent State upon oil from the Amazon 
rainforest. It is the most dependent State on imported energy, and it 
has the least reliable grid in America.
  Mr. Speaker, who in the hell would want to thrust that upon their 
citizens?
  This is a complete record of failure. Yet, it is the exact blueprint 
that this administration is following. It doesn't make sense.
  This isn't about Republican, Democrat, Conservative, or Liberal. This 
is about math. It doesn't make sense.
  All we are doing is we are creating a void that Iran is filling, that 
Russia is filling, and that Venezuela is filling.
  Are they taking those dollars and doing things that are in America's 
interests?
  No.
  We have got to look at this globally. We have got to follow the math 
and the science as America has led the world in reducing emissions. We 
have led the world more than the next six emission-reducing countries 
combined, and we have ceded all of this energy void to China.
  Mr. Speaker, do you know what has happened?
  China has increased emissions five tons for every one ton we have 
reduced. It doesn't make sense.
  I am not asking for Republican or Democrat policies. I am not asking 
for Conservative or Liberal policies. I am simply saying: Let's follow 
the math and follow the science and do what makes sense.
  Folks are wondering: Why are my prices higher?
  For one reason, this bill right here actually repeals higher royalty 
rates. Royalties are a percentage. They are not a hard dollar figure 
per barrel of oil or cubic foot of gas. It is a percentage. So as 
prices go up, so do the royalties. They have raised the percentage.
  People are wondering why they are paying more money?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. It is a percentage, yet this bill tries to 
come in and create a level playing field, create certainty, and create 
economic conditions that make sense.
  My friends are sitting here saying: Oh, Big Oil is profiting.

[[Page H1269]]

  They are profiting because the policies that the Biden administration 
is putting forth is resulting in conditions that cause prices to 
skyrocket. The thing that is so frustrating is that we had evidence 
that this is exactly what was going to happen. During the Obama 
administration the exact same thing happened, and I noted in the State 
of California the exact same thing happened.
  I am just asking that we follow the math and the science. Let's 
support this legislation. Let's stop doing things that charge people 
unaffordable energy prices and trash the environment at the same time.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues always want 
to bash California, and then they find ways to sneak into the State to 
visit. California is bringing it today as it relates to H.R. 6009.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Mullin).
  Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 6009.
  This bill is yet another shameless Republican handout to Big Oil 
companies. Two years ago, House Democrats passed the Inflation 
Reduction Act, a landmark climate bill that includes reforms for 
taxpayers to get a fair financial return for oil and gas produced on 
public lands. H.R. 6009 would block hardworking American taxpayers from 
receiving the financial benefits in the Inflation Reduction Act.
  If energy dominance and independence are the true goals of this bill, 
let's talk about how we transition to clean energy, which is cheaper, 
safer, and can be produced right here in the U.S.
  My aforementioned home State of California consistently experiences 
the impacts of climate change. We know that wildfires, sea level rise, 
flooding, and extreme weather are dangerous and costly. In 2022 alone, 
extreme weather events cost the United States $165 billion in damages.
  Rather than jamming shameless giveaways to Big Oil through Congress, 
I invite my Republican colleagues to work with House Democrats as a 
unified Chamber investing in a shared vision of American prosperity and 
building the next generation of renewable energy.
  Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an easy concept for us all to understand. This 
really isn't about the left or the right, Democrat or Republican. We 
move either forward or backward.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle just talked about the 
Inflation Reduction Act. It was voted and put into law almost 2 years 
ago, so I ask the American people: Has it increased your energy prices, 
or has it lowered your energy prices? The American people know that 
their energy prices have skyrocketed.
  We have many great energy producing States, including the great State 
of Alaska. This administration has put 54 sanctions on energy 
production in Alaska. That is more sanctions than this administration 
has put on Iran. That is unconscionable.
  Mr. Speaker, earlier, at a Federal Lands Subcommittee hearing, there 
was a witness exchange. Representative Tiffany chairs it. They talked 
about where they are going to source their electric vehicles, their 
critical minerals for the vehicles, and they were talking about child 
slave labor. The Democrat witness said that it is unfortunate that 
people are exploited around the world, but it is a reality. He said 
that is a controversial issue.
  Child slave labor should never be controversial. We should never 
allow that, and this administration has gone with memorandums of 
understanding with Congo, where 15 of the 19 industrial mines use child 
slave labor.
  Mr. Speaker, that is a fact, and this administration doesn't want to 
admit it. They want to ignore the human rights atrocities to get to 
their so-called green agenda. That is not acceptable, Mr. Speaker, when 
we have the mineral resources here in the United States of America.
  As I said earlier, we are blessed with an abundance of natural 
resources that we can extract using the best environmental labor 
standards. Again, we can move either backward or forward. I submit to 
you that the Republicans want to move forward on energy production.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I am prepared to 
close, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that we can stay focused on the issue. We keep 
talking about foreign policy issues, and I think we should just, then, 
pass the supplementals to support Ukraine and our other allies rather 
than supporting isolationist foreign policies that actually encourage 
the kinds of human rights violations that my colleague keeps talking 
about.
  I am also very grateful that my colleague mentioned helping the 
military. I have to say that Republicans voting for H.R. 6009 doesn't, 
in fact, do that. It doesn't do that at all. Republicans could actually 
help our military personnel if they voted to support them with housing 
supports and making sure that our military personnel have access to 
quality healthcare, especially our female military personnel. Instead, 
they want to vote for tax breaks for oil and gas.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 6009, the 
so-called Restoring America's Energy Dominance Act.
  This legislation would gut critical provisions that I secured in the 
Inflation Reduction Act to ensure a fair return for American taxpayers 
as fossil fuel companies that extract on our public lands make record 
profits.
  This bill undermines the Bureau of Land Management's current proposed 
rule that follows commonsense recommendations by the Government 
Accountability Office to protect taxpayers, including a change in 
royalty rates for the first time since they were established over a 
century ago.
  For my colleagues who care so much about fiscal responsibility, the 
majority should be aware that, if this bill becomes law, Federal and 
State governments will lose out on billions of dollars of revenue.
  This bill would also allow fossil fuel companies to completely 
disregard their responsibility to clean up after they cease drilling 
operations, potentially leaving the American people on the hook for 
over $6 billion in cleanup costs.

  When oil and gas producers ignore their reclamation responsibilities, 
they leave their abandoned wells to contaminate our water supplies, 
degrade our ecosystems, and leave climate-warming methane emissions.
  This is personal to me. My wife and I have two young kids at home. As 
many parents know, one of the first lessons we teach our kids is to 
clean up after themselves when they make a mess. Why on Earth would we 
give fossil fuel companies a free pass on this core responsibility?
  Additionally, this bill would prevent BLM from directing oil and gas 
drilling away from areas that don't have a high potential for 
extraction to begin with. When fossil fuel companies stockpile cheap, 
unproductive leases, they unnecessarily put these lands and the 
important wildlife habitats they support at risk of development. It can 
also complicate any other use for these lands when appropriate, such as 
renewable energy projects.
  H.R. 6009 would block BLM from balancing the extraction of oil and 
gas with the multitude of uses for our public lands, including the 
conservation of wildlife habitat, the preservation of landscapes sacred 
to indigenous peoples, outdoor recreation opportunities, and the list 
goes on.
  My friends across the aisle will say this bill is necessary to 
increase American energy independence. I have heard that, in fact, 
several times this afternoon, but if we really want to talk about 
energy independence, we must focus on the transition to cleaner, 
cheaper, and safer domestic renewable energy, including modernizing our 
electric grid and making it easier to build transmission lines.
  H.R. 6009 does absolutely none of that. This bill is a shameless 
giveaway of our public lands to Big Oil companies, which are raking in 
record profits and enjoying billions in taxpayer-funded subsidies while 
still charging working families high prices. It is long past

[[Page H1270]]

time that fossil fuel companies pay their fair share and do their part 
to clean up after their actions.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time 
to close.
  Republicans have claimed that H.R. 1, their polluters over people 
bill, would solve all of our Nation's energy problems and that it is 
their number one priority for this Congress.
  Lately, some of them have even started saying that Senate Democrats 
and Leader Schumer are letting this legislation gather dust on the 
other side of the Capitol. Let's just fact-check. I love doing it. It 
is false.
  The truth is that the do-nothing Republican House hasn't even sent 
H.R. 1 to the Senate. Despite passing in the House a year ago, this 
bill has never been transmitted to the Senate and has languished in 
limbo with Republican leadership, gathering dust first on Speaker 
McCarthy's desk, then on nobody's desk, and now on Speaker Johnson's 
desk.
  If Republicans are so proud of their energy policies for the American 
people, why are they burying their landmark legislation and trying to 
blame Democrats? Why are we here passing sections of H.R. 1 for the 
second time? It is because it is all show.
  The do-nothing Republican House has no real solution. Instead of 
taking real action to invest in a cleaner and safer energy future for 
every American, House Republicans are just repeating the same stale, 
tired arguments and passing the same washed-up bills over and over 
again, fully knowing that these messaging bills aren't going anywhere.
  The American people deserve better.
  I reiterate that this Republican legislation is a messaging bill 
that, fortunately, is going nowhere. House Republicans should be doing 
the bare minimum work this week of funding the government and keeping 
the lights on. Instead, they are trying to win political points with 
people's lives and livelihoods on the line.
  This legislation creates unacceptable risk, and the President should 
have every single tool to protect public health and the environment.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people just have to ask themselves whether 
they are paying more or less for energy and groceries under this 
administration. It is clear the American people are suffering under the 
Biden policies.
  The Biden administration's proposed rule would eliminate the 
opportunity for exploration of newly discovered energy producing areas 
and shrink future oil and gas production, even on sites where it 
already exists, all while drastically driving up costs for Americans.
  We will not stand by idly as this administration locks up our Federal 
lands and prohibits Americans from accessing their abundant natural 
resources. We will support American families, jobs, communities, our 
economy, and our national security through safe, clean, and efficient 
domestic energy production.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in support of 
H.R. 6009, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 1085, the previous question is ordered 
on the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit



 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On March 20, 2024, page H1270, in the second column, the 
following appeared: The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read 
a third time, and was read the third time. The SPEAKER pro 
tempore. The question is on passage of the bill. The question was 
taken; and the . . . . . . proceedings on this question will be 
postponed. MOTION TO RECOMMIT
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The bill was 
ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the 
third time. MOTION TO RECOMMIT


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Porter of California moves to recommit the bill H.R. 
     6009 to the Committee on Natural Resources.

  The material previously referred to by Ms. Porter is as follows:

       Ms. Porter of California moves to recommit the bill H.R. 
     6009 to the Committee on Natural Resources with instructions 
     to report the same back to the House forthwith, with the 
     following amendment:
       On page 3, line 8, strike ``date of enactment'' and insert 
     ``effective date''.
       At the end, add the following:

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall not take effect until the Comptroller 
     General of the United States certifies that this Act would 
     result in reduced energy costs for American consumers and 
     would not result in increased record profits for the oil and 
     gas industry.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On March 20, 2024, page H1270, in the second column, the 
following appeared: The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report 
the motion to recommit. The Clerk read as follows: Ms. Porter of 
California moves to recommit . . . . . . profits for the oil and 
gas industry. The material previously referred to by Ms. PORTER is 
as follows: Ms. Porter of California moves to recommit the bill 
H.R. 6009 to the Committee on Natural Resources. The SPEAKER pro 
tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX . . .
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The SPEAKER pro 
tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to recommit. The Clerk 
read as follows: Ms. Porter of California moves to recommit the 
bill H.R. 6009 to the Committee on Natural Resources. The material 
previously referred to by Ms. PORTER is as follows: Ms. Porter of 
California moves to recommit . . . . . . profits for the oil and 
gas industry. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of 
rule XIX . . .


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. STAUBER. 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.

                          ____________________