[Pages H1474-H1484]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1, LOWER ENERGY COSTS ACT

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 260 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 260

Resolved, That 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. 1) to lower energy costs by increasing
American energy production, exports, infrastructure, and
critical minerals processing, by promoting transparency,
accountability, permitting, and production of American
resources, and by improving water quality certification and
energy projects, and for other purposes. 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 shall not exceed seven hours, with
three hours equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce or their respective designees, three hours equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their
respective designees, and 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. The
amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as
adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The
bill, as amended, 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 part B of the report of the
Committee on Rules. 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. Flood). 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 gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), my good friend and the ranking member on the Rules
Committee, 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.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met
and reported out a rule, House Resolution 260, providing for
consideration of H.R. 1, the Lower Energy Costs Act.
The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1 under a structured
rule. It provides 7 hours of general debate, with 3 hours equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce or their designees. Additionally, the
rule provides for 3 hours equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or
their designees, and 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure or their designees.
Further, this rule makes in order 37 amendments and provides 1 motion
to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the
underlying legislation. H.R. 1 unleashes American energy, and it
immediately will lower costs for families by resuming lease sales on
Federal lands and waters. It will repeal fee increases on energy
production, and it will end the moratorium on coal leasing.
Additionally, H.R. 1 strengthens America's critical mineral supply,
prohibits a moratorium on hydraulic fracking, and streamlines the
permitting process.
Let's remember, on day number one of his Presidency, President Biden
launched a war on American energy. He canceled the Keystone XL
pipeline, also, by the way, killing tens of thousands of union jobs,
and he paused new and oil gas leases on Federal lands. That was day
number one.
Under President Trump, we had independence with U.S. energy, but,
now, President Biden has drained our Strategic Petroleum Reserve to the
lowest level since 1983. That is the lowest level since I have been
alive.
Meanwhile, the administration is increasing regulations on domestic
energy production by easing regulations and incentivizing energy
production in foreign, communist, and authoritarian states like
Venezuela.

{time} 1215

In the words of President Biden, climate change is the existential
threat to humanity. Apparently, that only applies when the U.S. is the
one producing the oil and gas, not when nations like Venezuela produce
the natural gas.
President Trump, by contrast, opened 100 million acres of public land
and water to exploration. But Biden has leased fewer acres of Federal
land for oil and gas drilling than any President since the end of World
War II. The results have directly impacted all Americans.
On the day Joe Biden took office, the average price for a gallon of
gasoline was $2.39. Today, the national average is $3.47. That is a 44
percent increase. And let's not forget June's highest rate of $5 a
gallon.
Due to inflation, the average American family is now paying $10,000
more in household costs under President Biden.
By leaving our resources in the ground and turning to places like
Russia, Iran, and Venezuela for help, Democrats are choosing to
increase energy costs and risk the national security of American
families.
Why? All to appease far-left, radical activists, since they, the
Democrats, lack the moral clarity to do what is right for our citizens.
However, instead of focusing on lower energy costs, this
administration thinks the most pressing energy issue is--wait for it--
banning our gas stoves. That is their priority. Don't take my word for
it. While the administration is now gaslighting the American people,

[[Page H1475]]

saying they don't stand for this, in places like New York, they have
already taken the lead by announcing just yesterday they will ban gas
stoves in new buildings.
Americans shouldn't have to choose between driving to work, paying
their electric bills, or putting food on the table. We have to lower
energy costs for Americans. We have to do it now.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania
for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we are here today to consider a rule for H.R. 1, a bill
that might as well be called the polluters over people act. It is yet
another example of how this majority, instead of helping everyday
Americans, is doing the bidding of their deep-pocketed friends.
We had another mass shooting yesterday, but Republicans won't lift a
finger because of the gun lobby. We had another train derailment this
week, but Republicans won't lift a finger because of the polluters. Our
planet is on fire, but Republicans won't lift a finger because of Big
Oil.
Banks are going under, but Republicans want to deregulate more to
help their friends on Wall Street. They want to protect kids from what
teachers teach in the classroom but not against lead pipes in schools.
They say they want to stop inflation but won't go after the billionaire
corporations who aren't paying any taxes while they rip people off.
Time after time after time, Republicans continue to put politics over
people, and it shows. Anyone who spends 2 seconds reading this bill can
see that it is a dirty energy, pro-polluter plan that would drag our
economy back decades. This bill puts polluters over people. It makes it
easier for companies to strip public lands of their resources and
harder to hold corporate polluters accountable for the mess they make.
It gives more handouts to Big Oil, as if the industry's CEOs and
shareholders haven't already raked in enough money with record profits
over the last few years. It guts half a century of environmental
protections that ensure the air we breathe and the water we drink is
clean, and it sets our country back as the rest of the world moves
toward a clean energy future.
There will be plenty of time for us to talk about all the damage the
polluters over people act could do to our country and communities, but
let me just highlight a few of the worst.
First, it increases the national deficit by half a billion dollars.
Considering how much we hear from our colleagues across the aisle about
the deficit and the deficit and the deficit, it is fascinating that
their most important bill blows a hole in the deficit. So much for
their commitment to fiscal discipline. Don't take my word for it, just
consult the CBO. It is a little bit ironic on a day that they are
asking that there be dramatic cuts in all kinds of programs that help
people in this country, they come up with this bill and add close to a
half a billion dollars to our deficit.
Second, it is a job killer. This bill will kill jobs. Over the last
few years, Democrats have invested in building a homegrown, clean
energy system so we don't have to rely on foreign cartels like OPEC and
greedy Big Oil companies for our energy. Investing in these clean
energy projects meant we created millions of clean energy jobs. The
polluters over people act would kill these jobs and pull our country
off course from our path toward a cleaner, cheaper energy future.
Third, it makes it easier to pollute, and it makes it easier for
companies to get away with polluting. Just yesterday, a local
grandfather in East Palestine, Ohio, detailed the pain caused by the
terrible toxic spill there. He said he has ``never cried this much in
his life.'' His young granddaughters developed blotches all over their
bodies, and their eyes were burning.
This bill would mean more billionaire corporations getting away with
polluting without being held accountable, more wells with toxic
chemicals, more days where windows are shut because the air is not safe
to breathe, more kids diagnosed with asthma because the air quality is
so poor.
The worst part is that the Republicans do not care. Their bill
literally puts polluters over the people we are here to serve. It
forces American taxpayers to foot the bill for cleanup while
billionaire corporations dump their toxic waste on our communities.
This is sick.
Look at what is happening to our planet, Mr. Speaker. Year after
year, the warmest ever recorded; species going extinct at rates not
seen in millions of years; sea levels rising and coastal communities
feeling the impact; farmers struggling to cope with changing seasons,
unprecedented droughts, and crop failures. The answer from my
Republican friends is more fossil fuels, more pollution, more drilling,
more toxic waste dumped into our communities, more giveaways for Big
Oil, and nothing, not a single thing, to lower energy prices.

This bill might as well put ExxonMobil and Chevron in charge of our
response to climate change. It might as well put Norfolk Southern in
charge of chemical safety. It is a terrible bill that will shackle us
to dirty fossil fuels for generations to come.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Just in rebuttal, my friend and Chairman Bruce Westerman put it best.
He said when the Democrats talk about polluters over people, what they
are actually referring to is not this bill. It is actually a reference
to where we are now, thanks to Democratic reckless and radical
policies.
Right now, China is actually the largest emitter of CO<inf>2</inf>.
Russian gas is much dirtier than gas from other places around the
world, especially the United States where we have cheap, reliable, and
clean natural gas. But instead of taking advantage of our God-given
resources, Democrats and their reckless, radical policies make us more
dependent on these forms of energy that are much dirtier.
My good friend from Massachusetts said this bill will drag us back
decades. Well, I do want this bill to take us back, not decades, but
just to a few years ago when we had a Republican in the White House.
Let us not forget that the United States, again, we currently lead the
world in CO<inf>2</inf> emission reduction, but between 2018 and 2019,
the total reported greenhouse gas emissions from large facilities fell
nearly 5 percent. Yeah, let's go back. Let's go back to that time.
I find the talk about costs somewhat interesting because only in
Washington, D.C., only in a place that lacks logic and accountability
like Washington, D.C., can future revenue be considered a cost. Think
about that. It is considered a cost. The math does not make sense.
It is also quite fascinating that my friends across the aisle are now
talking about deficits, which in the last 4 years they voted for over
$4 trillion of increases to spending.
Before I yield to my good friend from Texas, Dr. Burgess, I will
point out a real-life example of what happens when we follow far-left,
Democratic environmental policies.
Often I wish that we had a real-life example that we could talk about
in terms of policy, and here we do. It is called Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka,
trying to search for a great ESG score to--I don't know, appease
globalists, appease the ruling elite, appease woke Wall Street
investors--they went for this ESG score and right now they are almost a
failed state. Sri Lanka's green new deal, to be clear, was a human
disaster. It is an ill-advised national experiment.
Let me explain it. They went to organic farming. Organic farming
yielded nothing but starvation, poverty, and chaos. President
Rajapaksa, with no warning, with no attempt to teach farmers how to
cope with change, announced a ban on all synthetic fertilizers and
pesticides. Again, he was after that ESG score.
Ninety percent of Sri Lankan farmers relied on synthetic fertilizers.
After the ban, 85 percent of farmers experienced crop loss. The damage
done by this organic order was so extensive that the former President
had to reverse himself less than 7 months later.
Now, let's just bring this to political reality, the goals of the
United States,

[[Page H1476]]

where only 20 percent of electricity is powered by renewable energy, 20
percent renewable, and less than 10 percent of American families own an
electric vehicle. By the way, those that own electric vehicles are
overwhelmingly people who make over six figures a year. It is not your
average Americans who are driving around in Teslas. Yet, the left seeks
to unilaterally ban all hydrocarbons and instill these pipe dreams that
the U.S. will generate all of its energy through wind and solar.
All you have to do is look at California to see what comes next. Last
August, Governor Newsom announced that they will ban the sale of
gasoline cars by 2035. Just 1 week later, after that announcement, the
electric grid was overwhelmed in California, and the State had to ask
EV owners to limit when they plugged in their vehicles to charge.
So if you ask yourself: Where does the policy of the left lead us?
Look no further than to the idiocy of the policy in California and look
no further than to the almost failed state of Sri Lanka. That is where
these reckless, radical policies will lead the U.S. economy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Burgess), the good doctor, my good friend, and fellow Rules Committee
member.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I do
want to rise in support of the rule and in support of the underlying
bill.
It is interesting that our Secretary of Energy, Secretary Granholm,
came to Austin, Texas, 3 or 4 weeks ago and talked about how we should
learn from the communist Chinese and their approach to climate change.
Talk about putting polluters over people. If she would consult her own
energy information agency, she would see that China gets 55 percent of
its energy from coal, whereas the United States gets 11 percent of its
energy from coal.
Guess what? China is building more and more coal-fired plants each
and every week that goes by.
So who, indeed, is putting polluters over people?
I submit it is this administration, and in the last Congress it was
congressional Democrats.
This bill before us today is a culmination of years of hard work by
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Committee on Natural
Resources, and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. It
is a critical step forward.
One of the things that I have worked on for a number of years is the
Promoting Interagency Coordination for Review of Natural Gas Pipelines
Act. It is included in this bill. I think it is critically important,
not just for a State like Texas but, literally, the entire country. I
am grateful that other Republicans Members saw fit to include this
legislation as we seek to address the obstacles preventing Americans
from actually achieving lower energy costs.
In less than 2\1/2\ years, we have gone from relative energy
abundance to energy scarcity. We have gone from energy affordability to
energy unaffordability.
Why in the world would we want to continue down that pathway?

{time} 1230

H.R. 1 also contains the repeal of section 50131 of the Inflation
Reduction Act. This provided a billion dollars to coerce State and
local governments into adopting costly energy codes. If these grants
were allowed to stand, they would take away local control over energy
code adoption and Federalize these overreaching mandates.
Efforts to push costly and restrictive energy codes across the
country overburden new construction and largely ignore the energy
performance of the existing housing stock. New homes built to modern
codes are already energy efficient, and further increases in that
stringency must be carefully considered because, in fact, we are not
doing that with these grant programs.
Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago the Congress started with what was called
the American Rescue Plan. It brought us high inflation and it brought
us high prices. This is truly the American Rescue Plan. Let's put
energy affordability back within the reach of the average American.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues seem to want to debate energy policy in
China and in Sri Lanka. That may be a fascinating topic, but that is
not what we are here debating. We are here debating energy policy in
the United States of America.
I don't want us to go down the path of more fossil fuels and reliance
on more energy sources that are going to contribute to climate change.
I want us to lead the world toward a greener and cleaner energy future.
I guess the question really here is: Who do you trust?
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, their argument is
basically: Trust the big oil companies. Give them unfettered access.
Give them more money and they will lower your prices. Really?
They have the capacity to produce more now, but they are not, and
they are gouging people at the pump. Does anybody believe that the CEOs
of these big oil companies making record profits give a damn about
average people in this country, about your constituents or my
constituents? Give me a break. All they care about is profits. That is
the question that people have to answer: Who do you trust? Do you trust
the big oil companies?
I certainly don't after the way they have behaved--not just recently,
but over time. They gouge people all the time.
The other stuff is fascinating, but we can talk about Sri Lanka at
some other time. I would rather talk about the United States of
America.
Mr. Speaker, I urge that we defeat the previous question. If we do, I
will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of a
resolution that affirms the House's unwavering commitment to protect
and strengthen Social Security and Medicare, and states that it is the
position of the House of Representatives to reject any cuts to these
programs.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment into the Record along with extraneous material immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, Social Security and Medicare are the
cornerstone of our Nation's social safety net. These vital programs are
under threat as my Republican colleagues continue to demand reckless
cuts in exchange for paying our Nation's bills.
Some Republicans have recently claimed that they won't cut Social
Security or Medicare benefits. Mr. Speaker, that empty rhetoric has not
been reassuring to the American people who continue to fear that these
programs will be slashed by my Republican friends.
Today, once again, Democrats are giving Republicans a chance to back
up their claims with action by providing them with a chance to reassure
the American people, not just with their words, but with their votes.
Today, they can vote unequivocally that they will not cut these vital
programs. Anything short is an empty promise.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Vermont (Ms.
Balint), to discuss our proposal.
Ms. BALINT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote
against the previous question so that the House can address more
serious matters like the future of seniors' hard-earned benefits.
Bringing forth H. Res. 178 gives this body the opportunity to finally
affirm our commitment to protect and strengthen Social Security and
Medicare.
This is what American families want us focused on. When I talk to
Vermont families, they are concerned with putting food on the table,
with keeping their families safe, with how to afford lifesaving
medications, not with propping up corporate polluters at the expense of
our future.
Americans need us, on the record, promising that families won't have
to choose between essentials like medication, food, and housing.
Cutting Social Security and Medicare hurts the poorest and most
vulnerable among us. These programs support seniors to age with
dignity. They support Americans with disabilities to receive the
security that they absolutely depend on.
We are not going to let Social Security benefits go away--we are not.
Over 65 million Americans rely on hard-

[[Page H1477]]

earned Social Security benefits--65 million. These programs are how we
preserve the American middle class, and it is how we support all of the
working families in each of our districts.
We need to expand the infrastructure and funding of these programs to
fully support seniors in their retirement. We owe them this.
Mr. Speaker, I want all Americans to know, Americans are not going to
stop fighting to protect your hard-earned benefits. Again, I urge my
colleagues to turn their attention to real issues that impact real
American families, and defeat the previous question.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, if we want to help senior citizens and if we want to
help the working class, we can make sure that the working class and
seniors on a fixed income can actually pay their heating bills.

According to Ipsos polling, one in three Americans have reported
trouble affording gas in Biden's energy crisis. Almost 35 percent of
Americans, over 40 million, use a gas stove. The Democrats want to ban
the gas stove.
Let's talk about the economic pain that is coming to all Americans.
Electricity prices are expected to rise over 11 percent this winter.
Natural gas prices are expected to rise as much as 25 percent since
last winter. About 47 percent of households use natural gas to heat
their homes, by the way.
Heating home oil prices are expected to rise as much as 45 percent
since last winter. Over 80 percent of homes in the northeast use
heating oil. Regions that heavily depend on home heating oil, such as,
may I dare say, Massachusetts, they will pay an average bill of $2,354
extra due to the draconian measures on energy, the reckless and radical
policies of the left on energy production.
If we want to actually help these individuals, like Republicans want
to do, we can pass H.R. 1. I also want to focus on the comment: Who do
we trust? We heard that refrain over and over from my good friend from
Massachusetts. I can tell you who we shouldn't trust. We shouldn't
trust the so-called experts that the Democrats are infatuated with.
Let's talk about some of the statements we have heard, some of the
predictions from these so-called experts. Al Gore in 2006 said: ``If
you look at the 10 hottest years ever measured . . . they have all
occurred in the last 14 years. The hottest of all was in 2005.''
``Within the decade there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro.''
He said that in 2006. Last time I checked, it was 2023 and we still
had snow on Mt. Kilimanjaro.
Al Gore also said:

The North Pole will be ice-free in the summer by 2013
because of manmade global warming.

That was 2013. It is 2023. Another prediction that has not come true.
John Kerry, the climate czar, in 2009 said:

You have sea ice, which is melting at a rate that the
Arctic Ocean is now increasingly exposed to. In 5 years,
scientists predict we will have the first ice-free Arctic
summer. . . .

That was 2009. It is 2023. Last time I checked, there was still ice
in the Arctic.
Let's talk about Barack Obama and his predictions. In 2015, he said:

No challenge poses a greater threat to the future
generations than climate change.

When he left office, let's not forget that this man bought beachfront
property in Martha's Vineyard, while having the audacity to tell us
that we are facing rising sea levels due to climate change. Again, he
bought a beachside mansion in Martha's Vineyard, so spare me.
In talking about the greatest threat, notice there was no mention of
the CCP, notice there was no mention of Russia, which in debate with
Republicans--when Republicans were pointing to the threat posed by
Russia, Barack Obama said the 1980s want their foreign policy back.
Let's talk about another so-called expert that the left loves to talk
about, Greta Thunberg. In 2018, she tweeted: ``A top climate scientist
is warning that climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we
stop using fossil fuels over the next 5 years.''
Conveniently, Greta Thunberg deleted that tweet this month. Why?
Because that was said in 2018. It is now 2023, 5 years later, and
humanity is still around.
It is easy to say that the experts have just been wrong in the last
few years, since the early 2000s. The so-called experts have been wrong
on this topic since the 1960s.
In 1969, The New York Times published a piece from Paul Ehrlich, and
he said--the so-called expert, by the way: ``We must realize that
unless we are extremely lucky, everybody will disappear in a cloud of
blue steam in 20 years.'' Again, that was 1969. That didn't happen.
Yet, in 2023, Paul Ehrlich--I think he is 90 years old--this man is
still being published and still being held up as an expert on climate
change, and appearing on 60 Minutes telling us that we are all going to
die. Spare me.
I have got more quotes. I could go on, but it is very clear who you
should trust. The Republicans are the party of science. The Democrats
are the party of political science. The Republicans are the party of
chemistry. The Democrats are the party of alchemy. We are the party of
astronomy. They are the party of astrology. The science is with us.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy),
my good friend and fellow Rules Committee member.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania. I couldn't
help but notice my colleagues on the other side of the aisle going, yet
again, to one of their pages in their playbook that they love to bring
out every single time we have a debate--oh, who can you trust?
You can't trust corporate America. Guess what? I don't trust
corporate America. I don't trust Big Oil. I don't. I don't trust them
any more than I trust any of the big government bureaucrats that decide
what is best for me. I do trust the market.
I do trust people being able to go out and use their capital to go
out and produce the best energy for the American people. This
administration and my Democratic colleagues don't want to do that, as
exemplified by the fact that the President of the United States dumped
300 million barrels out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve last year
heading into an election.
Mr. Speaker, 300 million barrels. They cut the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve in half in order to bail out their election because their
policies were so bad. Even Goldman Sachs is saying that the so-called
Inflation Reduction Act, which massively expands unreliable energy,
would cost $1.2 trillion. That is the truth.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for this bill. I think it
is critically important that we take a massive step forward to try to
ensure that we open up exploration on lands, repeal the methane tax,
and overall permitting.
It is only a simple step because the step that has to be taken is to
free up the market from the ungodly amount of subsidies coming from
Washington, subsidizing unreliable energy at the expense of capital
being able to flow into the development of oil and natural gas and
nuclear power to ensure that we have the power to live our lives.
When you have a cloudy, windless day, you have to have power. This
building is powered by natural gas. Hospitals across the country stay
open because of natural gas. The fact of the matter is, you cannot
power the world right now with wind and solar power.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle live in unicorn land
with fairy dust, completely ignoring the reality of what happens to
real Americans when the cost of their goods and services go up; when
they have inflation skyrocketing and raising up; when it is destroying
their way of life because people want to feel good about themselves
hopping in their Tesla and rolling around pretending there is a magic
energy tree. There isn't.
People's lives are at stake. My colleagues on the other side of the
aisle want the American people to lack the energy that they need to
live their lives productively and affordably. You want to know why
inflation is going up?
Because this body has spent money it doesn't have. The Fed has
printed money and jacked up the extent to which we have massive easy
money out in the supply money. We have spent money we don't have. We
have regulated the oil and gas industry to death,

[[Page H1478]]

such that we don't have the ability to actually back up their magic
fairy dust energy supplies with wind and solar.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman says that this building is
powered by natural gas. I think it is probably more accurate to say it
is powered by hot air.
Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that this bill is a giveaway to the
oil companies. The gentleman says he doesn't trust Big Oil, but this is
a bill that gives them everything they want--their wish list.
Trust the markets? I don't know that the market can clean up a toxic
waste dump or the market can clean up an oil spill or the market can
monitor clean air.

{time} 1245

The bottom line is this bill goes after all of those protections and
actually endangers the American people.
To the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who I hope will read more quotes
because I think it is making it clear--which is shocking in the year
2023--he is making the case that climate change doesn't exist going all
the way back to Al Gore, who actually was right when he said that
climate change was a problem, and selectively taking these quotes from
way back when.
Does anybody believe that climate change isn't real?
Come to Massachusetts. I will introduce you to my farmers who
complain about the impacts of climate change on their ability to make a
livelihood. Maple syrup producers wonder whether they will be able to
get maple syrup out of trees in Massachusetts because of climate
change. I could go on and on about the impacts of climate change on our
local farmers.
Much of this discussion, Mr. Speaker, can be tied back to
Republicans' affinity for culture wars. They just claimed a little
while ago that President Biden and Democrats were planning to come
after Americans' gas stoves. It couldn't be further from the truth. No
one is taking your stove.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a Vox
article titled: ``Five myths about gas stoves, the latest culture war
clash.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.

[From Vox, Jan. 20, 2023]

5 Myths About Gas Stoves, the Latest Culture War Clash

(By Rebecca Leber)

The debate over the future of the gas stove has been going
on for years, long before last week, when it turned into a
full-fledged culture war.
Public health officials, researchers, and doctors have long
been taking note of the abundant research linking pollution
from the gas stove to respiratory problems, and the Consumer
Product Safety Commission announced in December it was taking
a look at the health risks to determine what regulations
would be appropriate for the gas stove.
But after a member of the CPSC told Bloomberg in an
interview last week that ``products that can't be made safe
can be banned,'' the fervor built quickly. Republicans (and
some Democrats) portrayed the commissioner's remark as a sign
that the Biden administration was coming for the gas stove as
its next attack on American freedom. And plenty of defenders
of the gas stove came out insisting it's the superior way to
cook.
The fracas generated some new myths about gas stove
reglation--and perpetuated other long-held misunderstandings.
Here's how to separate fact from fiction.

Myth 1: Biden--or federal regulators--want to take your gas stove away

The hysteria that ensued when the Consumer Product Safety
Commission said it would be taking a closer look at gas
stoves could be summed up by a tweet from Rep. Ronny Jackson
(R-TX). ``I'll never give up my gas stove. If the maniacs in
the White House come for my stove, they can pry it from my
cold dead hands. Come and take it!!''
Some confusion comes from remarks from CPSC Commissioner
Richard Trumka Jr., who told Bloomberg that ``any option'' is
on the table as the independent agency considers the hazards
posed by the gas stove: ``Products that can't be made safe
can be banned,'' he said. The CPSC later clarified those
remarks: The commission said that there is no ban under
consideration, and ``the CPSC is looking for ways to reduce
related indoor air quality hazards.''
There are a lot of other options, like requiring range hood
ventilation to be sold alongside the gas stove and warning
labels, that the commission could consider before an outright
ban. And any CPSC regulation for stoves would apply to new
products being sold, not those already in people's homes.
What's more, it's not the White House that's calling all
the shots here. The CPSC commissioners are appointed by the
president, but otherwise, its regulations are not vetted
through the White House, unlike the Environmental Protection
Agency's process. States and cities are also already taking
action to minimize the climate and health risks involved with
combusting gas indoors.
The White House has said it doesn't support a ban, but it
is promoting incentives through the Inflation Reduction Act
that help people voluntarily electrify their homes.

Myth 2: Gas stove hazards are ``newfound''

In a letter to the CPSC's Trumka, Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH)
calls the gas stove a ``newfound `hidden hazard' that rests
on limited research.'' In another section, Vance says there's
a ``lack of compelling evidence.''
The study that caught national attention estimated that
almost 13 percent of childhood asthma cases in the U.S. are
linked to gas stove use, similar to the level caused by
secondhand smoke. That study is based on a review of the
evidence from 2013, which examined 41 studies from multiple
countries, dating as far back as 1977, to conclude that
children living in households with gas stoves had a 42
percent higher risk of currently being diagnosed with asthma
and a 24 percent higher risk of being diagnosed with asthma
at some point in their life.
``Although the effects of gas cooking and indoor NO2 on
asthma and wheeze were found to be relatively small . . . the
public health impact may still be considerable because gas
cooking is widespread,'' the authors of the 2013 evidence
review concluded.
These studies looked at the impact of gas cooking
specifically. But there's an even longer trail of studies
looking at the pollutant nitrogen dioxide, which is emitted
by gas stoves, and the damage it does to people exposed to it
outdoors. In fact, outdoor NO2 pollution is regulated by the
EPA, which has done its own thorough reviews of NO2 risks.

Myth 3: No type of cooking can compare to the gas stove

The idea that gas is vastly superior to all its
alternatives is pervasive and is eagerly pushed by both
appliance makers and the natural gas industry. Whirlpool,
which manufactures both gas and electric, says matter-of-
factly on its website, ``If you like to make meals that
require rapid temperature changes, gas ranges might be the
way to go.''
The comparisons between gas and electric are usually
comparing apples and oranges: the contemporary gas stove
against dated electric stoves. The better modern equivalent
is induction, which uses electromagnetic energy that makes
the pans themselves a heat source, leaving the actual
stovetop relatively cool. These new models come with settings
that allow you to cook precisely at a certain temperature and
hold that heat, with a lower risk of burns. Other positive
reviews note that induction stoves are easier to clean and
can boil water faster than gas stoves.
Chefs are also more split on induction versus gas than the
public realizes. In a Vox interview, Jon Kung, a Detroit-
based chef, noted that he prefers induction because it
improves his indoor air quality and heat in the home. He also
noted you can use woks with it, a common complaint about
switching away from gas. Sierra magazine has talked to other
chefs who prefer induction. ``For me, it was an economic no-
brainer,'' chef Michael Godlewski said on opening an all-
induction restaurant in Pittsburgh in spring 2022 called EYV
(Eat Your Veggies). ``They asked me where I wanted the gas
line, and I said, `Nowhere.' ''
An induction range is expensive; it can run you in the
thousands of dollars. But the cost is coming down. One
program some households may qualify for is the Inflation
Reduction Act's kitchen appliance tax credits and rebates.
The 25C tax credits cover a range of energy-efficient
products in the home, including an induction range. It allows
you to deduct 30 percent of the costs of electrical work on
the house (up to $1,200). Later this year, there will be
rebates available, too, under the High-Efficiency Electric
Home Rebate Program. Households making up to 150 percent of
the local median income will lower the upfront costs of the
appliance and installation. Lower-income households (below 80
percent of the median income) can have all their costs
covered under the program.
In the meantime, households that don't want to wait or
don't qualify could also opt for a portable plug-in induction
stovetop, which costs much less and is renter-friendly.

Myth 4: Most of America uses gas stoves

Gas stoves are common but not ubiquitous. Per the Energy
Information Administration, on average, 38 percent of the
country uses gas for cooking, or about 40 million stoves. But
those numbers vary widely depending on where you are. New
York, New Jersey, Illinois, and California have the highest
rates of gas stoves in the country, over 60 percent.
Southeastern states have some of the lowest rates in the
country, under 20 percent.
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) reacted to the CPSC uproar by
tweeting, ``I can tell you the last thing that would ever
leave my house is the gas stove that we cook on.''
Manchin himself may have a gas stove, but many in his state
do not. In fact, a survey from the EIA in 2020 found that a
quarter of West Virginia residents have a gas cooking
appliance, while 73 percent use electric.
The consequences of gas appliances aren't also evenly
distributed. Children, who have

[[Page H1479]]

smaller lungs, are at higher risk of developing complications
from NO2, and so are older adults and people with preexisting
health conditions. Another risk factor is if a person is
already exposed to other pollution sources in addition to the
stove. They might live near a highway, an industrial site, or
even in an area with concentrated gas appliances all venting
outside, so they are breathing dirty air both outside and
indoors.

Myth 5: As long as you use ventilation, the risks don't matter

The American Gas Association's website emphasizes that with
ventilation like a working range hood, the gas stove is not a
problem for indoor air quality. The Wall Street Journal
editorial board echoed this: ``Studies flogged by the climate
left don't account for the effects of ventilation. One even
sealed a test kitchen in plastic tarps in an effort to show
that gas stoves increase pollution.''
More recent research from LBNL found that a gas stove can
also be leaking methane, a greenhouse gas, even when the
appliance is shut off. Inside the home, the level of methane
is probably low enough that the researchers don't consider
these leaks to be a health threat. But methane is also a
larger problem, not just for its climate risks but because it
contributes to ground-level ozone that harms human health.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Castor).
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. McGovern for yielding
the time.
Mr. Speaker, our neighbors back home send us here to Washington to
stand up for them and to stand up to the powerful special interests
that have all too much influence here in the halls of Washington. They
expect us to work to lower costs and for good-paying jobs and safe and
healthy communities.
That is why this Republican polluters over people act is so
dangerous. It does the opposite of what we should be doing here. This
bill would reward the price gouging of the big oil and gas companies.
This bill would roll back our bedrock environmental protections for
clean air, clean water, and lower-cost clean energy.
Mr. McGovern, I think it is important that you know that in the
Energy and Commerce Committee last week, at the very last minute, with
no hearing and very little debate, they included a provision that would
roll back an important piece of the Inflation Reduction Act that puts
money back into people's pockets back home for energy efficiency
rebates and discounts to help lower energy bills. They do this at a
time when Exxon made record profits last year, $56 billion, and Chevron
$36 billion.
Fossil fuels were the main driver of inflation, yet you want to give
another massive giveaway to oil and gas companies and take away simple
energy rebates for homeowners?
They are doing it at a time when it looks as if this bill would
increase the deficit by half a billion dollars. This is an
irresponsible giveaway to polluters at the expense of our neighbors
back home. It deserves a big ``no'' vote. Let's think about the people
we represent for a change.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, spare me the gaslighting on gas
stoves. We know that, just yesterday, New York banned all gas stoves in
new buildings. We are talking about New York.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Langworthy), who is my good friend on the Rules Committee.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, which
provides consideration of legislation to bring relief to Americans and
unleash the power of American energy.
Forty percent--that is the spike in heating costs borne by many of my
constituents in New York State during a bitter, life-threatening
winter. For a family on a budget and a retiree on a fixed income, that
40 percent hike is a painful one. It means doing without certain items
from the grocery store or carefully rationing when and how you keep the
heat on in your home despite bitterly cold temperatures.
Mr. Speaker, these are the terrible choices that my constituents must
make due to the Biden-Hochul energy agenda. This is life for many
Americans in the unaffordable, inflation-ridden Biden economy.
Let's not be fooled by the President's rhetoric about a Putin price
hike at the pump. The regulatory machine imposed on American energy has
been built for one objective in mind: to destroy our Nation's energy
sector as we know it.
In New York State, our Governor, Kathy Hochul, has made it a top
priority to force our State's farmers, the guarantors of our Nation's
food security and leaders in conservation, into a future of expensive
and unreliable electric vehicles and equipment.
That technology doesn't even exist yet. We know that current EV
technology is inferior to diesel machinery. We know that a future with
more EV batteries and EV motors means greater dependence on China. God
forbid we let those inconvenient truths get in the way of the left's
radical and out-of-touch Green New Deal religion.
The southern tier of New York sits atop one of our country's greatest
natural resource endowments, the Marcellus shale. Just across the
border from my district in neighboring Pennsylvania, hydraulic
fracturing has created an economic miracle and newfound prosperity. It
has transformed their economy while counties in my district in the
southern tier are some of the poorest in our State.
Yet Governor Hochul, who is taking her cues from Democrats here in
Washington, has made it her mission to ensure those same opportunities,
that dream of prosperity and economic revival, are denied to New
Yorkers in the southern tier.
Democrats in Albany and Washington have locked away the promise of
natural gas production. They have blocked the construction of oil and
gas pipelines. They are now leading the way in banning natural gas to
our homes.
Mr. Speaker, Americans are desperate for relief and an end to the
left's destructive anti-energy agenda. H.R. 1 promises to unleash the
power of our Nation's energy sector once again. It will create
countless new jobs and bring investment and economic rebirth into
communities across this great country. It will allow Americans once
again to live in a world where they can afford to farm their farms,
drive their cars, put food on their tables, and heat their homes. I
support this rule.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the way everybody is yelling and screaming over there,
you would think that they want to have a debate on ideas, but this rule
actually blocks over three-quarters of all the amendments submitted.
Democrats offered 95 amendments. Mr. Speaker, do you know how many
they made in order? Seven.
That is not just an interesting statistic, Mr. Speaker. It means that
real and important ideas are completely blocked from even being debated
on this House floor on their signature piece of legislation. Many of
these amendments would protect public health and safety and our
environment.
Take, for example, an amendment by Ms. Kamlager-Dove, No. 37, that
requires permits prepared under the NEPA process to include an analysis
of health and safety impacts. That is it. It seems like a good idea to
me.

The amendment sponsored by Mrs. Sykes, No. 118, takes into account
drinking water quality when approving permits. I don't think clean
drinking water ought to be a radical idea, but maybe it is on the
Republican side of the aisle. We should debate it.
Another amendment submitted by Mrs. Dingell, No. 15, would require
the United States to actually reduce its emissions before repealing a
section of the law, the greenhouse gas reduction fund, set up to spur
clean energy projects and reduce air pollution.
I offered three amendments, and they were all blocked. One of them,
No. 94, struck language in this bill providing blanket immunity to
polluters who violate our country's bedrock environmental laws.
Really? Do you think that is objectionable? We can't even debate it
here? We can do 7 hours of general debate, but we can't take 10 minutes
to discuss whether companies should get a blank check to pollute. Whose
side are you on?
Back in January, Speaker McCarthy actually promised both sides ``more
openness, more opportunity for ideas to win at the end of the day.''
Mr. Speaker, that promise has been broken. This Republican majority
knows their

[[Page H1480]]

bills fail to address real problems, so they continue to block our good
ideas from even coming to the floor rather than debating them. They are
scared to let Americans hear our ideas, and that tells you everything
you need to know.
This is important, I think, for my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to know. My friends across the aisle blocked all six amendments
from the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the co-chair of the Problem
Solvers Caucus, Mr. Fitzpatrick, who happens to be a Republican. They
blocked all six.
Mr. Fitzpatrick's amendments would have opposed drilling in the
Delaware River Basin, ensured the act doesn't preempt a State
constitution, established an infrastructure and environmental
innovation trust fund, preserved the greenhouse gas reduction fund,
prohibited energy exploration activities on any protected public land,
and added a sense of Congress that U.S. citizens have a right to clean
air and clean water.
I get it. My friends are pushing this polluters over people bill, but
our colleague, a Republican who is the co-chair of the Problem Solvers
Caucus, was denied all six of these amendments.
What are you afraid of? Why don't you debate these?
It is unfortunate that those ideas apparently were just too radical
to even be debated on the House floor.
I truly hope that Mr. Fitzpatrick, after witnessing his own majority
block all of his amendments, even the ones the gentleman watered down
with a revision, I hope he will not support this rule. Supporting this
rule would mean the gentleman would be voting to block his own
amendments.
In fact, I ask all Republican members of the Problem Solvers Caucus
to vote ``no'' on this rule because if you don't, this will be the
pattern.
Mr. Speaker, I rhetorically ask the Problem Solvers Caucus how they
plan to solve any problems if their Republican leadership won't even
let them offer their ideas and won't even give them a fair fight on
this floor.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are again reminded to direct their
remarks to the Chair.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, spare me the pearl-clutching about
this amendment process. Let me remind my friends across the aisle that
last Congress, their H.R. 1 was a closed rule. Zero amendments from
either side were allowed.
We have Democrat and Republican amendments on this bill, so, again,
spare me. Also, spare me that we don't want to debate this. Spare me
that we don't want to have this debated and other viewpoints heard.
White House climate adviser Gina McCarthy recently called for Big
Tech censorship of Americans who dared to speak out against the Biden
administration's radical, far-left Green New Deal agenda. I think it is
very clear who wants censorship. I think it is very clear who is afraid
of ideas that don't fit their narrative. It is the Democratic Party.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Alford), who is my good friend.
Mr. ALFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1.
From day one, this administration has demonized American energy
producers, forcing prices to skyrocket and compromising our national
security.
My Missouri constituents care about three things, Mr. Speaker: food,
fuel, and fertilizer. This President has done nothing but raise prices
on all three.
Our constituents don't want to be forced to drive a Prius. They want
affordable prices at the pump. The F-150 is the model of a truck made
in Missouri. It shouldn't be what it costs to fill it up, but that is
exactly how much it cost this past summer. It has to end.
Since taking office, President Biden has canceled construction of the
Keystone XL pipeline, which could have supplied us with more than
800,000 barrels of oil a day. He has depleted our strategic reserves to
their lowest levels since 1983. The cherry on the top, Mr. Speaker, is
that he has prevented any new permits on Federal lands and completely
undermined the permitting process.
This President has kneecapped American energy producers.
America should not have to choose between driving to work and putting
food on the table, but that is exactly what is happening in America
today. This administration is making them make those tough choices, and
that is exactly why we need H.R. 1.
We promised the American people that we would make sure they could
fill up their trucks. We promised that we would fight to make it
affordable to heat their homes. We promised to fight the woke Green New
Deal policies that are killing our energy sector.
This legislation does just that. It will increase domestic energy
production. It will reform the permitting process for all industries.
It will reverse the anti-energy policies being perpetrated by the Biden
administration.
Mr. Speaker, it is not complicated. We know that American energy
producers make the cleanest energy in the world. Let's not only make
America energy independent; let's make America energy dominant.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rules
package on this critical piece of legislation and ``yes'' on H.R. 1.
Let's put a tiger back in the tank and not a kitty cat in the
glorified golf cart.

{time} 1300

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania just said that when we
introduced H.R. 1, our H.R. 1 was a closed rule. I would urge him to go
back and look at the statistics because our H.R. 1 in the 117th
Congress had a structured rule with 56 amendments in order, more than
the 36 on this bill. In the previous Congress, our H.R. 1 had even more
amendments in order.
If the gentleman can't even be kind of factual about that, what else
should we wonder whether it is based on fact or not?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico
(Ms. Leger Fernandez), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, Democrats believe in putting people
over politics. Last Congress, Democrats tackled climate change and
brought down energy costs for the American people. Those investments in
the Inflation Reduction Act have already spurred investments in clean
energy projects and created good-paying jobs. At a time when we see
rising costs, the Inflation Reduction Act will save the average
American family $1,800 a year.
The Biden administration is also moving forward with an important
rule to limit methane emissions nationwide. New Mexico led the way on
this. We strengthened our methane emissions rules in 2021.
The Energy Information Administration data shows that even though we
strengthened our methane emissions, we grew year after year for 5 years
in natural gas and energy production. The Land of Enchantment shows us
that we don't have to sacrifice the environment for energy production.
H.R. 1 would sacrifice the environment and put polluters over people.
Members of the majority are pursuing this at a time when CEOs for large
corporations have made record profits. While the industry made $451
billion in profits just last year, New Mexicans and people throughout
rural America were taking groceries out of their carts to pay for gas.
H.R. 1 will not make it cheaper for the ranchers I know in Colfax
County to fill up their trucks. Republicans dispute this and say the
bill will lower costs. Let's see.
I offered an amendment to see if that is true. My amendment simply
states that H.R. 1 does not take effect until the Secretaries of Energy
and of the Interior certify that it will lower costs for American
taxpayers and consumers.
What did the Republicans do with this commonsense amendment? They
voted it down unanimously.
What are they afraid of seeing?
What are they afraid of debating?
The reality is H.R. 1 guts our longstanding environmental safeguards.
It makes it easier to dump toxic and hazardous wastes. It threatens
clean drinking water and lines the pockets of the wealthiest CEOs.
The Clean Water Act has long been key to protecting America's water.
As

[[Page H1481]]

we say, ``agua es vida'', ``water is life.'' This bill guts our Clean
Water Act in favor of polluters.
The Republicans also rejected my amendment to protect our water from
mining for our farmers, ranchers, and Tribes. We have to remember that
the mining that is proposed that would decimate our waters is often
proposed by Chinese-owned subsidiaries or foreign-owned subsidiaries.
The Republicans also blocked an amendment that would have required
that Chinese subsidiaries not own our minerals.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I admit I misspoke, it wasn't H.R. 1
in the 117th. It was--wait for it--H.R. 5, the Equality Act; H.R. 6,
the American Dream and Promise Act; and H.R. 4, the John R. Lewis
Voting Rights Advancement Act. Three of the low-numbered bills that my
friends across the aisle ran last Congress, their so-called priority
bills, were run with closed rules. Just to be clear on that, it wasn't
H.R. 1, but it was the three other ones that they ran as a priority.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for admitting his
error and admitting that he was wrong when he said H.R. 1 was a closed
rule we brought up. I think perhaps the gentleman might want to go back
and consult some of his research because I think he would also find out
that some of the things he said about climate change would be proven
factually wrong.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa).
Mr. CORREA. Mr. Speaker, as I said last night before the Rules
Committee, I don't disagree with this legislation. Every day I hear
from my constituents, gasoline prices are way too high. They have got
to choose between paying for groceries and filling up their gas tank. I
agree, we should ease the burden on American taxpayers. However, I
disagree that this is the right way to do it.
Just last year, the Inflation Reduction Act made historic investments
in home energy rebates, tax credits, clean energy vehicles, land and
water conservation, and grants for greenhouse gas reduction.
This legislation, in contrast, does not make any new investments. It
simply walks back all the progress we have made before we can see the
results of those investments.
That is why I introduced last night an amendment to simply say that
any future investments in gas and oil be equaled in clean energy
investments.
Why? Because we want to make sure we keep America on the world stage
as leaders in energy production.
Sadly, my colleagues across the aisle will not be bringing up my
amendment for a vote this week.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time
until closing.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Neguse), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I didn't prepare a speech today. I brought
the bill to the floor because I have great empathy for my colleague on
the other side of the aisle who has the unenviable task of somehow
trying to defend this 200-page bill, the polluters over people act.
These 200 pages put polluters first at every turn.
Mr. Speaker, if you don't believe me, I encourage you to read the
bill. Buried in this 200-page bill, on page 40, is a provision that
gives the Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the EPA the
power to grant a waiver to any refinery in this country from the key
requirements of bedrock environmental laws that have governed this
space for the better part of the last 50 years, since the days of
President Richard Nixon.
Look at subparagraph (c) that enables any party who acts under a
waiver granted under this bill to violate any environmental law and
have blanket immunity. The Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, NEPA,
you name it, they will waive it. That is not a bill that puts people
first. It is a bill that puts polluters first. It is why I am proud to
vote ``no'' and why I encourage every Member of this distinguished body
to vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time
until my closing.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a
letter from nearly 100 energy and environment groups including the
Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, The Wilderness
Society, and Oceana.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.

March 27, 2023.
Re Vote Recommendation on H.R. 1, the ``Lower Energy Costs
Act''

Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members
and supporters, the undersigned organizations write to
express our strong opposition and to urge you to vote NO on
H.R. 1, the so-called ``Lower Energy Costs Act,'' which the
House will take up this week.
This legislation would exacerbate the climate crisis,
perpetuate environmental injustices, and undermine U.S.
economic and national security by prolonging reliance on
risky and volatile energy sources. Its sweeping changes to
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Mineral
Leasing Act, the Mining Law of 1872, and the Clean Water Act
prioritize polluter profits over public health and exhibit an
astonishing disregard for government accountability and the
voices and welfare of communities impacted by federal
decisions.

DIVISION A

Division A would encourage new fossil fuel production and
infrastructure, despite the scientific consensus that there
is no room for investment in new fossil fuel production if we
are to keep the world on a 1.5 deg.C compatible pathway. It
would also undermine bedrock environmental laws, including
NEPA, by short-circuiting permitting processes and limiting
public input. NEPA is a critical environmental law and an
important tool for frontline and environmental justice
communities to influence federal infrastructure projects that
will impact them the most.
Division A's most egregious provisions:
Repeal the Methane Emissions Reduction Program created by
the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). This critical program
supports efforts to reduce methane emissions from the oil and
gas sector, improve methane monitoring, fund environmental
restoration, and help communities reduce the health impacts
of pollution.
Undercut public transparency and input from communities by
arbitrarily limiting the time for environmental reviews. The
bill alters the approval process for gas pipelines by
requiring all other federal and state agencies to defer to
FERC.
Strip away the federal government's responsibility to
examine the full impacts of LNG expansion on US energy
markets, the environment, and local communities. It would
make it easier to approve LNG exports by removing the first
three sections of the Natural Gas Act, which require a public
interest determination for LNG exports to non-FTA countries
and by mandating that FERCdeem gas exports in the public
interest. LNG exports negatively impact Americans by
exacerbating climate change, raising domestic energy prices,
and perpetuating environmental injustices, and these factors
need to be taken into account when deciding whether to
approve additional LNG export terminals.
Authorize the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
waive the Clean Air Act (CAA) and Solid Waste Disposal Act
(SWDA) requirements for waste produced by certain energy
facilities. Exempting energy waste potentially including
everything from fracking wastewater to mine processing
facilities and tailing sites to nuclear facilities from these
laws threatens the health of people in frontline communities,
as well as our air and water. The waste from energy
production are some of the most threatening products and
sites, and often they exist for hundreds of years, even in
perpetuity, which is part of the reason why the Superfund
program is overwhelmed.
Undermine the Toxic Substances Control Act by short
circuiting the review and approval process for new chemicals
used in the energy sector, whether that is for fracking,
petrochemicals, mining or dozens of other products. This
rushed and weak assessment, which would lead to default
approvals, would result in the blind rubber-stamping of
chemicals for use in energy that have deleterious impacts on
human health and the environment. Virtually any chemical that
plays a role in the production, refining, distribution, and
use of energy could be designated as ``critical'' by the
Department of Energy.
Allow the EPA Administrator to circumvent the scientific
process of approving or denying flexible air permitting at
the agency. Doing so could potentially allow the EPA
Administrator to increase air pollution from so-called
``critical energy resource facilities,'' subsequently harming
environmental and public health. A broad spectrum of
facilities that emit toxic air pollution could evade scrutiny
for health impacts, including processing and refining
products of oil, gas, coal, minerals, and fertilizers.
Modify the organization of the Department of Energy, taking
the authority on many issues and processes that are vital for
the protection of communities, air, lands, and

[[Page H1482]]

water away from those who have the expertise in understanding
the potential impacts of extraction and production, whether
that is the Department of Interior (DOI) or Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). In doing so it makes the only metric
for consideration economic, which would mean that
communities, lands, and waters would be sacrificed.
This Division also contains a provision purporting to
support domestic supplies of ``critical minerals,'' but in
reality creates a new legislated term--``critical energy
resources''--which the majority has defined to mean virtually
anything related to the energy sector, whether that is oil
and gas, coal, petrochemicals or nuclear production, mineral
processing, and refining.
Other notably problematic provisions in the remainder of
Division A would:
Prohibit the President from issuing a moratorium on
fracking unless authorized by Congress. Fracking releases
massive amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that has
more than 80 times the power of carbon dioxide over a 20-year
period, driving approximately one quarter of the warming our
planet has experienced to date. Fracking also harms local
communities and ecosystems by releasing air pollutants and
contaminating water sources.
Exempt certain energy facilities from requirements to
secure an interim permit before operating, instead allowing
the facilities to operate before securing such a permit. The
result could be the release of harmful pollutants into our
air and water, threatening the environment and health of
people in frontline communities. The facilities that could
receive a permit without an accurate assessment of their
impact include everything from radioactive waste to
petrochemicals to fertilizer to mining waste, all extremely
toxic industries.
Express disapproval of President Biden revoking the
Presidential Permit for Keystone XL pipeline. If built,
Keystone XL would have carried 830,000 barrels per day of the
dirtiest oil on the planet, threatening our climate,
farmland, critical water resources, and wildlife habitat
along the pipeline's path.
Express the sense of Congress that the federal government
should not restrict the export of crude oil or other
petroleum products. Increased oil drilling and exports have
enormous climate repercussions and pollute communities and
ecosystems. They also open U.S. consumers to the whipsaw
effects of geopolitical tensions and conflicts, creating
energy instability and often driving significant increases in
energy prices. The federal government must ensure that these
exports do not compromise US climate and environmental
justice goals or undermine our global climate leadership.

DIVISION B

Title I would take us in the wrong direction on onshore and
offshore oil and gas leasing. It would lock in decades' worth
of fossil fuel infrastructure, preclude protections for
millions more acres of public lands, split estates, and
offshore waters, and handcuff the Biden Administration's
ability to address the climate crisis through thoughtful
management of our shared public resources. Like many recent
proposals from the present House majority, it attempts to
further prop up the federal fossil fuel program despite
rising (and record) production, and industry's existing
access to tens of millions of acres of our shared public
spaces and thousands of approved and unused permits to drill
on federal lands and in offshore waters.
To start, Title I:
Mandates leasing onshore and offshore, eviscerating long-
standing precedent that defers leasing decisions to the
President and the Secretary of the Interior.
Rushes oil and gas drilling permits through the
environmental review process with zero regard for community
input, effects on endangered species, or emissions
consequences.
Exempts as many permitting decisions from the federal
review process as possible.
Severely restricts the President's authority to protect
specific lands with natural, cultural, or scientific
significance.
Repeals the hard-fought common-sense reforms to the
outdated oil and gas leasing program that were enacted in the
Inflation Reduction Act to ensure that industry pays a fairer
share when reaping--and profiting from--shared, public
resources. Title II, which incorporates the BUILDER Act,
would eviscerate NEPA and fundamentally gut the review of
environmental, health, and economic impacts of decisions by
over 80 agencies in the federal government. If passed, local
community voices would be silenced, the public would be
essentially unable to hold the federal government
accountable, and polluting industries would be allowed to
steer a review process designed to be in the public, not
private, interest. The ways this bill would radically
undermine informed government decision-making and
accountability are too numerous to detail here, but a few
merit particular attention:
Dramatically Narrows Application of NEPA and Limits the
Scope of Reviews--The bill would radically limit the
application of NEPA by redefining the threshold consideration
of what is a ``major federal action'' for the purposes of
NEPA. Further, the bill excludes oil and gas gathering lines,
federal loans, projects not occurring on federal lands, loan
guarantees, and other forms of financial assistance from
NEPA, which could potentially allow projects such as offshore
oil and gas development, coal fired generating facilities,
LNG projects, nuclear facilities, roads, bridges, highways,
and concentrated animal feeding operations to evade any
review or public scrutiny. For reviews that do occur, it
relieves agencies of any responsibility to undertake any new
research necessary for informed decision making and
potentially prevents the consideration of upstream and
downstream impacts of decisions, thus codifying climate
denial into federal decisions.
Essentially Eliminates Judicial Review--In addition to
reducing the statute of limitations to a mere 120 days, the
bill would bar legal challenges to categorical exclusions as
well as many environmental assessments. For the few remaining
projects subject to judicial review, injunctive relief would
be prohibited, thus ensuring that projects move forward
regardless of how egregiously deficient a review or harmful
the impacts of a project on a community or the environment.
Allows Inherent Conflicts of Interests In Review--The bill
would allow project sponsors to prepare their own
environmental reviews, thus eliminating objective analyses
about the environmental and related social and economic
effects of federal actions and institutionalizing bias in the
review process. This potentially undermines the entire
purpose of NEPA to have federal agencies make informed,
unbiased decisions in the public interest.
Prioritizes Project Sponsors Over the Public Interest--The
legislation not only would impose arbitrary timelines on
reviews but would also prohibit an agency from extending the
time if needed to do essential scientific work or to
accommodate public comment, unless the project sponsor
agrees. Further, the bill would severely narrow what has long
been considered the ``heart'' of the NEPA process, by
prioritizing consideration of alternatives that meet the
project sponsor goals.
Finally, Title II would exacerbate deficiencies in the
existing 151-year-old mining law, result in an unnecessary
increase in mining on federal public lands, and put at risk
irreplaceable protected lands, special places, endangered and
sensitive wildlife, tribal sacred sites, and culturally
significant sites. Current mining law has allowed for the
pollution of America's environment and waterways, placing
additional unjust burdens on communities who have already
borne the brunt of our nation's toxic mining legacy. The GAO
estimates America is littered with hundreds of thousands of
abandoned mines while the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) estimates hardrock mines have polluted 40 percent of
the headwaters of western U.S. watersheds and will cost
taxpayers more than $50 billion to clean up. Under current
law, taxpayers are potentially liable for billions more in
cleanup costs at currently operating mines because the legal
requirements for mining companies to remediate lands and
waters remain inadequate. This legislation does nothing to
address the legacy of abandoned mines or promote remediation
of American lands and waters.
Of particular concern, this Title upends more than a
century of practice by validating mining claims under the
Mining Law of 1872 before the claimant has proven a mineral
discovery. Currently, mining claims do not become valid just
because the claimant says so: mining rights fully vest only
after the miner discovers valuable minerals. Yet, under
Section 20307, a claimant would no longer need to actually
prove they discovered valuable minerals. Instead, any person
could ``claim'' mining rights on unwithdrawn public lands
merely by grounding a stake, paying a fee, and filing some
paperwork. This Section would effectively lock out most other
uses of public lands, prioritizing mining instead regardless
of whether those lands had any value for mineral development.
Title II also continues the current majority's constant
attempts to unnecessarily prop up the domestic uranium
industry. Under Section 20308, the U.S. Geological Survey is
once again directed to reevaluate its list of critical
minerals. However, under this bill, ``fuel minerals'' are now
defined to specifically exclude uranium, making it an
automatic candidate for consideration despite its dominant
use as a fuel mineral.

Division C

Division C (as well as Section 10008(e) of Division A)
would weaken state and tribal authority under Section 401 of
the Clean Water Act, one of the law's most important
provisions empowering states. Native, rural, and
socioeconomically disadvantaged communities have been
fighting to stem the marginalization accompanying resource
extraction for decades and Section 401 enables those
communities to work through states and tribes to protect
their waters.
States and authorized tribes depend on the Clean Water Act
Section 401 certification process to ensure that projects
requiring federal licenses and permits will not harm the
waters within their borders--projects like dams, river
alterations, wetland fills, and interstate pipelines. If this
bill is enacted, state and tribal experts would lose a key
oversight tool for activities that can threaten state and
tribal investments in pollution control programs, fish
recovery programs, temperature control mechanisms, minimum-
flow requirements, and other essential activities.
The bill seeks to limit states' longstanding authority
under Section 401 to broadly consider the impact of a project
or activity on water quality. It would significantly curb
Section 401's express authority enabling states to make
certification decisions based

[[Page H1483]]

on requirements of state law, which would severely hamstring
states' and tribes' ability to comply with laws they have
adopted to maintain and improve the condition of their water
bodies. As tribes often do not receive the required
government-to-government consultation, they depend on Section
401 certification to ensure their waters remain protected.
Rollbacks in this proposed legislation would severely
restrict the usage of this tool, leaving tribes without one
of the few tools they have to ensure their waters are healthy
enough to support tribal rights and traditions.

Conclusion

H.R. 1 would encourage new fossil fuel production and
infrastructure, locking us into increased extraction, high
and volatile energy prices, and even greater profits for
fossil fuel companies. It would undermine bedrock
environmental laws through its short-circuiting of government
accountability, meaningful public input, and review. It would
put the interests of industry ahead of the public. We urge
all Members to vote NO on H.R. 1, and to instead prioritize
efforts to meet the challenge of the climate crisis, secure
our clean energy future, and protect public health, community
voices, public lands, waters, and oceans.
Sincerely,
350.org, Accountable.US, Alaska Clean Water Advocacy,
Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Animal Welfare Institute,
Azul, Bold Alliance, C.A.N. Coalition Against Nukes, Center
for Biological Diversity, Center for Oil and Gas Organizing,
Change the Chamber, Clean, Healthy, Educated, Safe &
Sustainable Community, Inc., Climate Action Campaign, Climate
Hawks Vote, Concerned Citizens of Cook County (Georgia),
Conservation Colorado, Conservation Lands Foundation, Cook
Inletkeeper, Dayenu: A Jewish Call to Climate Action,
Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Earthworks, Endangered
Species Coalition, Environment America, Environmental
Investigation Agency, Environmental Law & Policy Center,
Environmental Protection Information Center--EPIC,
Environmental Working Group, Fenceline Watch, For a Better
Bayou, Friends of the Earth, Friends of the Kalmiopsis, Grand
Canyon Trust, Green New Deal Network, GreenLatinos,
Greenpeace, HG Conservation Solutions, Hip Hop Caucus,
Hispanic Access Foundation, Honor the Earth, Humanity,
Indigenous Environmental Network, Interfaith Power & Light,
John Muir Project, Kalmiopsis Audubon Society, League of
Conservation Voters, Los Padres ForestWatch, Lynn Canal
Conservation, Malach Consulting, Micah Six Eighth Mission,
Mining Impact Coalition of Wisconsin, Montana Wildlife
Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Nevada
Wildlife Federation, NEW MEXICO SPORTSMEN, North American
Climate, Conservation and Environment (NACCE), Northern
Alaska Environmental Center, Nuclear Information and Resource
Service, Oceana, Ocean Conservation Research, Ocean Defense
Initiative, Operation HomeCare, Inc., Oregon Wild, Oxfam,
PACAN, Project Eleven Hundred, Property Rights and Pipeline
Center, Public Citizen, Public Citizen, Inc., Rachel Carson
Council, Rio Grande Indivisible, NM, Rocky Mountain Wild,
Safe Energy Rights Group, Save the Eau Claire River, Seven
Circles Foundation, Sierra Club, Soda Mountain Wilderness
Council, Southern Environmental Law Center, Southern Utah
Wilderness Alliance, Standing Trees, Stop The Oil
Profiteering, Surfrider Foundation, Tapeats, The Wilderness
Society, Trustees for Alaska, Tucson Audubon Society, Turtle
Island Restoration Network, U.S. PIRG, Voices for Progress,
Waterkeeper Alliance, WE ACT for Environmental Justice,
Western Environmental Law Center, Western Organization of
Resource Councils, Western Watersheds Project, Winter
Wildlands Alliance, Zero Hour
Please note that the organizations listed may not have
positions on every topic included in this letter.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues are saying that this bill
doesn't put polluters over people. This letter I include states: ``H.R.
1 would encourage new fossil fuel production and infrastructure,
locking us into increased extraction, high and volatile energy prices,
and even greater profits for fossil fuel companies. It would undermine
bedrock environmental laws through a short-circuiting of government
accountability, meaningful public input, and review. It would put the
interests of industry ahead of the public.''
Mr. Speaker, let me just say, H.R. 1 puts polluters over people. It
does nothing to lower energy costs. Their bill makes it easier for
companies to contaminate our water and spew pollution and God knows
what else into the air. It will make us pay for corporations' messes
while they leave behind a toxic trail of disaster.
The polluters over people act is a massive giveaway that ensures the
GOP's industry friends make more money. I would say to those who are
watching this, follow the money. Look at who the oil companies are
giving their money to.
It jeopardizes American jobs. It worsens the climate crisis, and it
takes monumental steps back from achieving a clean energy future.
Mr. Speaker, we can do so much better. This is such a blatant
giveaway to polluters. This is such a blatant giveaway to big corporate
interests. This is such a blatant giveaway to Big Oil. It is offensive.
I urge a strong ``no'' vote on this rule. I urge a ``no'' vote on the
previous question. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
underlying bill, 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, my friend across the aisle wants to say follow the money
so we can see where people's priorities are.
Let's just follow the Strategic Petroleum Reserve release. President
Biden shipped 5 million barrels of this emergency fuel overseas to
countries, including China. If you want to see where the priorities
lie, don't follow the money, follow where the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve is going, and that is going to China.
Also, quotes on climate change, I will provide my friend across the
aisle with all my quotes regarding climate change. I have got pages and
pages of them. What you might find very interesting are all the ones
from the 1980s where the so-called experts were calling for the next
ice age, so I would direct you to that just for the fun of it.
It is interesting to see how wrong these so-called experts are and
somewhat ironic that we are still being told that the experts are right
after literally decades of getting almost everything wrong.
The U.S. produces more oil and natural gas than any other country in
the world. As a global energy power, we can provide lower energy
prices, we can create steady jobs, and we can secure America and our
allies with cheaper gas that is cleaner.
Just imagine if the U.S. were supplying LNG from the great
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to our allies in Europe. Think about that
instead of our allies in Europe being dependent on Russian gas, which
is 41 percent dirtier.
However, the left's goal is to eliminate fossil fuels. They want to
make the United States dependent, unstable, poorer, needier, and weaker
because they refuse to allow us to exploit our natural resources.
If you want to think about what lies ahead in the future if we allow
the Democrats to get their energy plan in place, just look at Sri
Lanka. I have already talked about it. Sri Lanka has a great ESG score.
They also have an almost-failed state.
Don't think that this is just some misguided plan or misguided
misinformation from the Democrats. This is their plan. They want to
make hydrocarbons more expensive because their base, the liberal elites
that sit at home on Zoom all day, they don't have to put gas in their
tank, they work from home. It is the guys who are working, who shower
after work that have to put gas in their trucks and cars. That is why
it is necessary to pass H.R. 1.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and
``yes'' on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

Amendment to House Resolution 260

At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
resolution (H. Res. 178) affirming the House of
Representatives' commitment to protect and strengthen Social
Security and Medicare. 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 Ways and Means or
their respective designees.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H. Res. 178.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. 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.

[[Page H1484]]

Mr. McGOVERN. 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.

____________________