To amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to provide the owner or operator of a critical energy resource facility an interim permit under subtitle C that is subject to final approval by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1. The Republicans call it the Lower Energy Costs Act. In fact, it does the opposite, and it puts polluters over people, so we call it the polluters over people act. That is justified because that is exactly what it does.

This bill is nothing more than a grab bag of Big Oil giveaways and loopholes that endanger the health, safety, and security of Americans. It does absolutely nothing to lower energy costs for American families. In fact, it will actually drive up costs while doubling down on costly fossil fuels.

Now, does the GOP really believe that Big Oil cares about Americans?

During the COVID crisis in the last 3 years, we had a hearing where we brought in some of the large oil companies. It was quite clear that they wanted to keep prices high. It was quite clear that they were benefiting from OPEC and the fact that Russia had invaded Ukraine and that oil supplies had become more limited because of that invasion of Ukraine and that as a result, prices for oil and gasoline were going up. They didn't care. They liked it.

We actually asked them at the hearing whether or not they would increase

production because they have so many leases on Federal lands that they don't use, and they said no. They said maybe eventually they would do that, but they haven't gotten around to it yet. I don't think they have gotten around to it still.

So this notion that somehow by benefiting Big Oil, the major American so-called oil companies, that this is going to help the American people, that is not their goal.

Last year, Big Oil's profits in 2022 were $451 billion, a record high. The dividends they gave out and the stock buyouts amounted to $163 billion. They only care about the stockholders. They don't care about the price of gasoline. They want it to stay high. They don't care whether Americans can afford gasoline.

Chairwoman Rodgers, who I really respect a lot, talked about LNG. One of the things in the bill is it removes the requirement--and I am going to talk about other things it does--but it removes the requirement that liquified natural gas exports be determined to be in the public interest before being sent overseas.

That is going to lead to more American LNG being sent to our adversaries, including China. This helps China. This doesn't hurt China. This helps China. We know that there was a time a few years ago when LNG exports were limited because of--I forget what caused it--and during that period of time, the evidence shows the price for American gasoline or American crude was actually going down.

When you send LNG overseas, it is not available here in the United States. That actually lowers gas prices when you have more gasoline available or more refineries available to process gasoline here in the United States.

I debunk this idea that somehow this bill is going to lower prices here, that somehow benefiting Big Oil benefits Americans, that somehow exporting more LNG hurts China. These things simply are not the case. The evidence proves very much to the contrary.

This bill, H.R. 1, I will call it the polluters over people act, rescinds several transformational climate programs that the Democrats enacted as part of the Inflation Reduction Act last year. What I am trying to get across today is that at the same time that they are helping Big Oil, not driving down prices, and helping China, the Republicans are also tearing down all of the environmental laws that we have had for the last 50 years and putting all the emphasis on fossil fuels rather than clean energy.

The bottom line is, the only way that we are going to lower costs is by encouraging clean energy. Yes, I agree with Chairwoman Rodgers that the United States has to be a bigger energy producer, but the future for that is with clean energy, not with pumping more oil and gas. It is by encouraging clean energy because that is where we can be the big producer. That is where the future is. That is where we can outcompete the rest of the world.

What does this bill do?

It foolishly repeals the $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which invests in high-impact projects that reduce pollution, creates good-paying clean energy jobs, and improves public health. They obviously do not want to do anything for clean energy.

It also repeals the methane emissions reduction program, which protects the health of our communities and ensures that polluters, not taxpayers or customers, pay for wasted methane. Let me use that as an example. I want everyone to understand that when we passed the Inflation Reduction Act and we were trying to cut back on greenhouse gases which lead to global climate problems and the increase in global warming, we worked hard to deal with those industries here that could be affected. The Methane Emissions Reduction Act is a perfect example that we worked with the independent oil producers because they said, well, if you cause the methane that is wasted now and goes into the atmosphere and causes this increased number of greenhouse gases, if you work with us, we can accomplish capturing this methane and then it can be recycled, but we need some money to accomplish that.

We provided them with a fund so they could make that transition. We also said that if it took them time to get a permit to capture the gas and provide a recycling program for the methane, that they would not be penalized by doing that.

This has been characterized by the GOP as some sort of tax or fee on the industry. It is really a penalty if they don't do what is necessary to capture methane and avoid it going into the atmosphere. The same is true for almost every provision that they seek to repeal here.

These are provisions that try to protect the public health, reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but at the same time don't have a negative impact on those industries that are hiring people and that create jobs. At the same time, try to move toward new clean energy things like wind, solar, and more hydropower, and other things that actually do create more jobs, as we have proven that they have.

There are so many other things that repeal--I won't go through all of them because I know that we have other speakers. The bill also repeals the popular home electrification rebates that are specifically designed to lower energy bills for American families. These are popular incentives that will save families money and are urgently needed to help us fight the climate crisis.

Republicans are rejecting all these things that help people save money, help reduce greenhouse gases so they can double-down on the old pro-polluter policies that they have had for years. This bill also does nothing to meaningfully address permitting reform.

Its vision of permitting consists of letting polluters do whatever they want, and instead, the bill becomes a sweetheart deal. The bill, for example, doesn't include any changes to the transmission policy necessary to ensure that clean energy can reach all corners of the country.

Let me also give you a couple of other examples. The biggest thing that they do to basically endanger all of our environmental protections is they exempt so-called critical energy resources from the Clean Air Act and hazardous waste permitting requirements.

They say if we label a refinery or if we label a utility as a critical energy resource, then they don't have to follow the Clean Air Act, they don't have to follow the Clean Water Act, and they don't have to follow the Hazardous Waste Act. It is a roundabout way of saying that we are just going to let all these industries do whatever they want, even though it undercuts public health protections.

They do the same thing with toxic chemicals. We had a major toxic chemical bill to try to cut back on toxic chemicals that needlessly expose families and children to health risks. They basically get rid of that by saying, oh, those facilities don't have to worry about releasing toxic chemicals.

Mr. Chair, I end by saying this. Democrats understand that the transition to clean energy is important. In fact, projects already underway are valued at tens of billions of dollars and have already created more than 100,000 good-paying jobs.

Our Inflation Reduction Act is estimated to create 9 million new jobs over the coming decade and reduce energy costs by an average of $1,800 per year.

What we have done in the last few years as Democrats is to try to move toward clean energy, understanding that you still have to have fossil fuels and nuclear and other things, but understanding that the future in terms of the U.S. being a major energy producer is in clean energy, not in fossil fuels.

To just wreck and put a bulldozer through all our environmental protections in order to encourage fossil fuels is just a huge mistake. It is not going to lower energy costs. It is going to make it much more difficult for us to reduce greenhouse gases and all the negative impacts of climate change.

There is nothing in here. In my opinion, this bill is also going to hurt us from a national security point of view because it does actually help China and help our adversaries rather than making it more difficult for them to compete with us.

Mr. Chair, I would urge opposition to the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), who is the ranking member of our Environment Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), who is the ranking member of the Energy, Climate, and Grid Security Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Fletcher), who is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon).

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), the ranking member of our Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

Madam Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Carbajal).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Craig), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Minnesota.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas), a member of our committee.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), who is the ranking member of our Communications and Technology Subcommittee.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Salinas).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), a member of our committee.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Sorensen).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Hayes).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan), a member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey), who is a member of our Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington State (Ms. Schrier). The doctor is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Thanedar).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Vasquez).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Soto) a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Scholten).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Porter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, Republicans keep talking about lowering energy costs, but let's be honest with the American people. Right now, the price of oil is $50 per barrel less than its high last year. The price of a gallon of gasoline is $1.57 less than its high last year. The price of natural gas is 78 percent lower than it was at its high last year.

Of course, we would all like even lower prices, but the bottom line is, this bill is misnamed. It will not lower energy prices. It would make natural gas more expensive by making Americans compete with consumers across the globe. It would make our electricity dirtier and more expensive. It would enrich the oil and gas companies that price- gouged American consumers last year.

This bill is nothing but a handout to the fossil fuel industry that would drive prices higher for Americans.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster), who is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I keep hearing that Republicans want to lower energy costs with this bill and how important it is to export natural gas overseas. I want to take a moment to examine some history here.

Back in 2015, with a Republican-controlled House and a Republican- controlled Senate, Congress passed a bill that repealed the crude export ban. Since then, crude oil and petroleum product exports to China have tripled, and the amount of refining capacity on the East Coast of the United States has decreased by 36 percent.

This is not a coincidence. Lifting the export ban meant that oil producers saw more profits in sending their oil overseas, including to China, and little in refining it here at home. That led to 10 refineries closing in the intervening 7 years, destroying jobs.

It tied the price of oil in the U.S. firmly to the price of oil on global markets, which has been responsible for the gas prices roller coaster we have seen for the past few years.

Now, what that bill did was enrich a very small number of people who export oil at the expense of every other American who now has to pay a little bit more for gasoline.

Republicans, with this bill, want to turn around and do this for the natural gas industry, too. This bill makes it far too easy to export LNG abroad--yes, including to China. This would mean the same process would repeat.

You would pay more for energy. American factories and industries would pay more for energy. A very small sliver of natural gas businesses would profit. It is prioritizing the enrichment of the few over the needs of many Americans.

The sheer gall of calling this the Lower Energy Costs Act, in my opinion, is insulting. It is insulting to refinery workers who lost their jobs. It is insulting to the frontline communities next to fossil fuel plants that suffer from dirtier air. It is insulting to the hundreds of millions of Americans who would have to pay more to keep their houses warm each winter.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), Speaker Emeritus of the House.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, today, Republicans have completed the process of trying to determine what exactly their energy policy will be. It is not about energy independence. It is not even about an all-of-the-above energy approach. Instead, it is a return to the glory days for them of oil and gas running the show.

Today's bill, however, does nothing to chart a course for American energy policy. Instead, it is a political messaging bill. Industry admits it.

There was a Politico piece last week detailing how Republican industry allies feel about the bill. Rapidan Energy Group, which is run by Bob McNally, who testified at the Committee on Energy and Commerce's first hearing this year, sent an analysis note to their clients saying that H.R. 1 is doomed in the Senate. Several anonymous Republican Members have said the very same things themselves in press interviews.

Let's be clear: Three months into their majority, instead of using their power to seriously tackle issues in a bipartisan manner--and many of my colleagues on the Democratic side said today they wanted to work with Republicans on real energy policy--Republicans have chosen to put forward a messaging bill that I think is really an insult to every single American that is not an oil or gas executive.

It is a message bill, and the message is this: They want the energy your family uses to be dirtier and more expensive. It is a shame.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am calling this the polluters over people act because it eliminates the environmental protections that keep families and communities safe while doing nothing to lower energy costs. Everyday Americans need relief from high energy costs.

Big Oil is still making record profits, and instead of cracking down on price gouging, House Republicans are handing giveaways to big oil and gas company CEOs without delivering any help to working families.

The East Palestine train derailment and other recent catastrophes have shown just how dangerous putting profits before people can be.

As the climate crisis accelerates, we need real action to support clean, secure, and affordable American energy.

That is what House Democrats delivered last year with our historic investments that will help us lead the world in the transition to clean energy and will truly combat the worsening climate crisis. After all, extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and more extreme.

Just last week, it was the devastating and deadly tornado that ripped through Mississippi. These horrifying extreme weather events are costing families their loved ones, their homes, and their livelihoods.

House Republicans are attacking the very clean energy policies that hold polluters accountable, reduce costs for American families, and combat the worsening climate crisis.

House Republicans have the wrong priorities, and we should defeat the polluters over people act today.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I hope after today we don't hear Republicans talk about States' rights again. Pipeline and LNG projects require both Federal and State permits. The spirit of the Clean Water Act clearly demands that States have a say in the requirements and permits that projects

in their State are subject to. This amendment disapproves of the State of Oregon's decision to deny permits to the Jordan Cove LNG export project.

Mr. Chair, who are we to disapprove of Oregon's decision?

I don't live in Oregon. The distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado offering this amendment doesn't live in Oregon. Oregon decided in a democratic fashion what standards projects had to meet in order to build in the State. Jordan Cove didn't meet those standards and it didn't get the permits and it didn't get built. I don't see anything objectionable there.

If Congress spent floor time debating every State decision that one Member of the House disagreed with, we would never get anything done. I just think this is a meaningless sense of Congress resolution. If this passes and the bill somehow becomes law, it won't bring the project back. It is really a messaging amendment, being added to, in my opinion, a messaging bill.

I would also note that my colleague, Congresswoman Val Hoyle, staunchly opposes this amendment and has a long history of opposing the Jordan Cove LNG project. Unfortunately, she has come down with COVID and regrets that she is unable to be on the floor to discuss this amendment.

Republicans promised when they took the majority that they were going to be serious legislators dealing with actual issues the country is facing. I don't see that here.

Mr. Chair, I urge opposition to the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, the gentleman from Texas' amendment would undermine EPAs critical Underground Injection Control program and endanger the health of communities around the Nation, in my opinion.

The Underground Injection Control program, or UIC, regulates injection wells to protect drinking water sources.

Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA implements the program, but can delegate primary enforcement authority, or primacy, to a State.

To be granted primacy, States must demonstrate to EPA that they, among other things, have regulations in place that meet various minimum requirements.

The point of this application and EPA approval process is to ensure there is a Federal floor to regulations so drinking water is protected across the country.

This amendment seeks to expedite approvals of primacy applications by effectively rubber-stamping State UIC programs for class 6 wells, those used for carbon sequestration, if EPA hasn't acted on the State application within the review period.

Just like other permit deadline provisions of the polluters over peoples act, this would be dangerous.

While this amendment targets class 6 wells used for underground injection of carbon dioxide, the text, as written, would apply to State program applications or program revisions for all well types, including hazardous waste injection wells.

UIC programs should be rigorous and protective. We should not gamble with people's drinking water. Once water is contaminated, we cannot easily reverse course.

If Republicans care about the implementation of this program, they would support EPA as it works to ensure robust State programs are in place before granting primacy.

In fact, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provided $25 million toward that goal. So if States want primacy, they should complete the application process and be held to the Federal standard so Americans know their water is safe. Circumventing this process will only put communities in jeopardy.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, frankly, I have no idea why this amendment is being offered. It would force the Department of Energy to ride the roller coaster that is the oil future's market, without any option to just pay a simple fixed price for a barrel of oil.

If oil goes up $20 per barrel between when DOE purchases oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and when it is delivered, well, that is too bad. We are now paying $20 per barrel more, and we will have to buy less oil.

This amendment unnecessarily restrains DOE and makes purchasing petroleum products to refill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve more expensive. DOE recognized as much when it issued a rulemaking last fall clarifying that it could purchase oil at a fixed price, as common sense would dictate.

There is no reason that it should be illegal for the Department of Energy to sign a contract saying that it will purchase oil for $70 per barrel. No reason that I can think of. Except, of course, if you are an oil company that wants the Department of Energy to pay more to refill the reserve.

However, if you are an average American, then this amendment is a raw deal. It constrains the Department of Energy's usage of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is partially responsible for the tremendous over $1.50 per gallon fall in the cost of gasoline we have seen since last summer's peak gas prices.

I will note that when the Department of Energy issued its notice of proposed rulemaking this last summer, industry did not object. In fact, the Department of Energy only received one comment on the rulemaking from Employ America, which was unambiguously positive.

That comment stated that the rule change ``is an important step to reduce the volatility of oil prices over the short and medium term, improve our Nation's energy security, and a necessary step to ensure that acquisition procedures more fully align with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve's governing statute.''

This amendment will put the usage of index pricing on par with the Department of Energy's duty to acquire petroleum products for the reserve as cheaply as possible. I don't understand that mission. It will only serve to diminish the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1, the Lower Energy Costs Act.

With H.R. 1, we are working to lower energy costs for consumers across America by unleashing American energy and strengthening American supply chains.

H.R. 1 addresses regulatory red tape and permitting barriers to the domestic development of energy without compromising environmental protections.

The Lower Energy Costs Act also encourages domestic processing and refining of critical energy resources to ensure that components for all energy sources can be made right here in America.

As chair of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials, I am proud that H.R. 1 includes seven bills that passed through our subcommittee and full committee through regular order.

The bills encourage the domestic refining of critical energy resources, allow for flexible approaches to permitting, support national security, promote innovation that is currently stalled in EPA red tape, repealed two sections of the Democrats' Inflation Reduction Act, and protect American refining capacity from agency overreach.

I thank Representatives Carter of Georgia, Joyce of Pennsylvania, Pence, Curtis, Pfluger, Palmer, and Crenshaw for their work on this important legislation.

In addition, H.R. 1 includes my bill, the Unlocking Our Domestic LNG Energy Potential Act, under section 10007. The section would amend the Natural Gas Act to repeal all restrictions on the import and export of natural gas. Removing such restrictions would help facilitate timely exports of LNG and help our allies. A stronger LNG export industry also means increased domestic production of natural gas and lower domestic prices.

I have heard my Democratic colleagues across the aisle criticize H.R. 1 because they say it does nothing for clean energy. This could not be further from the truth. H.R. 1 includes several provisions that incorporate focused flexibilities into certain environmental statutes in order to create an improved regulatory landscape for refining and processing critical minerals.

Mr. Chairman, what are the industries that need critical minerals the most? Those are the wind, solar, and battery technology industries--all clean energy technologies.

We do almost no critical mineral refining and processing in the United States. That must change, or we risk becoming dangerously dependent on China for our energy and transportation systems.

The International Energy Agency estimates that the demand for critical minerals will double by 2040. We want to meet that demand with American resources and reduce reliance on China.

I will close by thanking Chair Rodgers for her leadership on the Lower Energy Costs Act. Energy security is national security, and through H.R. 1, we can unleash American energy dominance and lower energy costs for American families, thereby lowering inflation.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support the Lower Energy Costs Act.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Miller), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration data, the average price for gasoline in 2022 was $1.80 per gallon more than when President Biden assumed office.

H.R. 1 is not just about energy independence. That is the underlying foundation, but what it is really about is the quality of life for the American people here at home and the cost of energy that is feeding the skyrocketing inflation.

The average price of gas in 2020 was $2.26 per gallon. The average price of gas in 2022 was $4.06 per gallon, reaching a peak of over $5 per gallon in June of 2022.

According to the Department of Energy's Low-Income Energy Affordability Data, the LEAD Tool, low-income households spend 8.6 percent of their income on energy expenses. Depending on location and income, certain households spend as much as 30 percent of their income on energy expenses. The energy burden for low-income households is three times higher than non-low-income households.

In rural parts of the country, like where I represent in Appalachia, you are very familiar with that area, it is a real problem when families have to choose between putting gas in their car or groceries on the table. It is a real challenge when they have to choose between paying their heating bill or buying clothes for their kids to go to school. This is what H.R. 1 begins to address for the American people.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Fry), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining on each side?

Mr. Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).

Mr. Chair, I proudly yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lawler).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mills).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Flood).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Armstrong).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, we have said it over and over and over again, and there is no denying it. Energy security is national security. That is what H.R. 1 is all about.

Unleashing American energy, production, permitting, put American energy back into play to address the needs and concerns of the American people, to lower inflation, and to ensure America's national security on the international stage. That is what H.R. 1 is all about.

I look forward to closing here in a few minutes with some striking comments about telling the truth. I heard the ranking member from our Energy and Commerce Committee a little bit ago say, tell the American people the truth, and I respect him greatly. I am going to tell the American people the truth in just a little bit.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Donalds).

Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Throughout this debate, my Democratic colleagues have repeated misinformation and engaged in fearmongering as a tactic to convince American families to submit to their green agenda and just accept more expensive and less reliable energy as the new normal to undermine our economy, make the cost of living even higher, and, perhaps even more troubling, severely undermine our national security.

Apparently, my Democratic colleagues are okay with making China great again at the expense of the American people and the rest of the world.

I heard the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, my colleague--again, who I have great respect for--say a few minutes ago: Tell the American people the truth.

Well, let's tell the American people some truth. According to a report by the LendingClub, at the end of 2022--that is 2 years into the Biden administration--9.3 million more United States consumers were living paycheck to paycheck compared to the prior year.

Of that group, 75 percent identified inflation as a reason for their financial situation to be worsening.

By the end of 2022, China's oil refining capacity exceeded the United States' oil refining capacity.

According to the International Energy Agency's oil market report, U.S. refining capacity is at 17.6 million barrels per day.

According to the China Petroleum and Chemical Industry Association, China's capacity is at 18.4 million barrels per day.

We are far more dependent on China today for the very rare earth minerals and critical minerals that are needed to pursue the renewable green energy plan that the Democrats are trying to push. You can't get there in the timeframe that they are trying to get there, Mr. Chair, without becoming more dependent on China.

There are those who say that Republicans are climate deniers. That is simply not true. We simply believe that Republicans have better ideas to unleash America's energy and to restore America's energy independence. At the same time that those are good energy policies, they are also good climate policies.

Let me give you an example. Everybody says that the goal of addressing the climate problem is to reduce carbon emissions.

Mr. Chair, if that is truly the goal, why do we not want to export more American natural gas around the world?

According to the American Exploration and Production Council, if we would simply export four times the amount of natural gas that we are exporting today--which we could do easily because we have got a wealth of it--we could lower carbon emissions more than if we were to electrify every vehicle in America, put a solar panel and a battery backup on the home and the rooftop of every residential home in America, and build 57,000 industrial-strength windmills, all combined.

American natural gas is the cleanest form of natural gas on the planet. Our friends and allies in Europe sure wish they had some of that today because they have become dependent on Vladimir Putin for their sources of energy.

Look at the Germans, who decided to throttle their nuclear suite and become dependent on Russia for their energy.

What did they end up doing?

Forest clearing, burning wood to cook their food and heat their homes. We do not want to go the way of Europe. They have already tried all of this.

I implore my Democratic colleagues: We are not arguing about the goal. We agree with cleaner forms of energy.

What we are arguing about, it appears to me, is the timeframe in which to accomplish that and the amount of money and the change in the quality of life that it is going to require for the American people.

I am sure many of you went to college and you studied the business triangle: time, cost, and quality. You can't affect one of those without affecting the other two. With this rush to green, if we want to do this so fast before renewable forms of energy are mature enough technologically to be able to provide the baseload energy for our grid, to put fuel in our automobiles, if we want to do it that fast, it is going to cost a hell of a lot of money, and it is going to change for the worse the quality of life for the American people.

H.R. 1 is a commonsense energy package. If you lower energy costs, you are going to lower inflation. If you lower inflation, you are going to allow the American people to keep more of their hard-earned money. When American people keep their hard-earned

money, they come up with good ideas, and our economy begins to thrive.

Mr. Chair, H.R. 1 is not about politics. It is about the American people. They are sick and tired of people inside the beltway taking and taking and taking while they are always having to do the giving.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 1. It is the right thing to do for the American people. Let's unleash American energy.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I thank the chairwoman for her leadership on this bill. The Lower Energy Costs Act is a product of countless hours of discussion between leadership, stakeholders, and our constituents, who are tired of higher costs for less reliable energy.

The United States has an incredible energy potential. We have vast resources of oil, natural gas, and other critical minerals essential for energy dominance.

Only a few years ago, we were a global leader in both oil and gas production. This was achieved through American innovation, domestic energy production, and investment from the private sector in developing our critical energy infrastructure.

Unfortunately, the Biden administration vowed to wage war on American energy. Starting on his very first day in office with the help of the Democrats here in Congress, the Biden administration has pursued radical rush-to-green energy policies that made energy less secure, less reliable, and more expensive for our constituents.

This has led to increased costs of energy and goods, hitting the most vulnerable the hardest. We should be about increasing the standard of living for Americans versus diminishing the standard of living that these anti-American energy policies actually do.

Energy is the foundation of everything in American life. When the cost of energy goes up, everything else does, as well. H.R. 1 should help America and will help America produce more, deliver more to our communities, and give us the ability to export and help our allies around the world.

The American people recognize this, and they are sick of choosing between paying their energy bills and putting food on the table, which is why they gave us the majority, to stop this radical energy agenda.

I am proud that my bill, Protecting American Energy Production Act, was included in this package. This provision will protect energy security and affordability by prohibiting the President from imposing a ban on hydraulic fracturing.

The discovery of natural gas through the shale revolution has made the United States a leader in energy production as well as emissions reduction and has allowed the United States of America, not our adversaries, to set the price of energy.

We are approaching the breaking point in our energy infrastructure. The so-called rush-to-green agenda has prevented the buildout of natural gas and other essential energy infrastructure, which is now reaching capacity. Many States, like my own State of South Carolina, are now at risk of approaching an energy deficit in the next few years if we don't immediately change our current regulatory framework.

Fortunately, H.R. 1 addresses these concerns by requiring States to raise legitimate water quality concerns for interstate pipelines and LNG export facilities through FERC's NEPA process instead of weaponizing section 401 of the Clean Water Act to block pipelines.

This change is critical to prevent the political agenda of States abusing section 401 to veto projects of national significance while preserving the ability of States to raise legitimate water quality concerns. New England States could finally get gas from the Marcellus shale instead of importing natural gas from Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and a lot of our other adversaries around the globe.

We have the resources here not only to meet our domestic demand but also to be a leading exporter globally.

Representative DeGette mentioned earlier about capacity and U.S. production and how that would limit available gas for American domestic energy production. The Progressive Policy Institute, which is far from a conservative think tank, put out an article, ``The Climate Case for Expanding U.S. Natural Gas Exports,'' which talks about using that domestically. I would ask you to read it.

This package also sets a framework to export our domestic resources so our allies will no longer have to rely on Vladimir Putin's energy oligarchy. The Democrats keep calling this the polluters over people act. That couldn't be further from the truth.

The reality is that their energy policies put Russia, China, OPEC+, and radical Green New Deal interests over the interests of the American people. The greatest beneficiaries of their policies are the CCP and Vladimir Putin.

Green New Deal policies leave us totally dependent on China for critical minerals that make all of our devices work. Even the green energy devices, wind and solar, need those critical minerals.

We have them here. We harvest them cleaner, more environmentally friendly than anywhere in the world. Let's produce them here. That is what H.R. 1 allows us to do.

H.R. 1 puts the American people first by unleashing American energy and securing our supply chains. It will increase American energy production and restore American energy leadership in the world. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).

Madam Chair, let me just say it is great to see the American people in the gallery for once listening to a debate on energy. It is so important to them.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Fulcher).

Madam Chair, I am glad the people at home are watching this on TV or here in person because they are learning that H.R. 1 is going to lower their energy costs.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber), who is a valuable member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and whose State is a huge energy producer for our Nation.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Dunn), a new member on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Chair, I am glad we have got so many members of the Energy and Commerce Committee to come down and show the American people how we are going to lower their energy costs.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), a real leader on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Chair, the rush to disaster is this rush to green energy policies without thinking about the replacement source of power generation that can be provided by American-produced natural gas, delivered to where it needs to be to produce the power and help lower carbon emissions for America.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Rose).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack), who is a valuable member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Chair, it is funny. I see polluters over people act. We are talking about increasing natural gas production and delivery in this country. According to EIA data, switching to natural gas has accounted for as much as 61 percent of U.S. emissions reductions from 2005 to 2020.

More natural gas--cleaner burning, American-produced natural gas-- delivered to where it needs to go will help

us lower carbon emissions and make America more energy secure.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Madam Chair, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), whose State is at the crossroads of America.

Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser), whose State includes the Marcellus shale, which has an immeasurable amount of natural gas.

Madam Chair, exporting U.S.-produced, cleaner-burning natural gas to places like Vietnam and China, which allows them to take their coal-fired power plants offline, actually lowers carbon emissions globally.

Democrats say they care about carbon emissions globally. Exporting clean-burning natural gas will help do that.

Madam Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer).

Mr. Chair, I applaud leadership for allowing this bill to go through regular order. It went through three committees, 21 bills, hearings, markups, amendments offered, and here we are today.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce), who is from a huge area of Marcellus shale, producing so much natural gas for our Nation.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Obernolte), a new member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Balderson), who is a new member on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and whose State has the Marcellus shale. They are a big producer in oil, coal, hydro, nuclear, and a lot of other things.

Mr. Chair, I am glad to have the author of the bill on the floor, Mr. Scalise.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Miller), my guardian angel.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from West Virginia.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from West Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Curtis), the vice chairman of the Energy, Climate, and Grid Security Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), who is a Florida Gator.

Mr. Chairman, we should fix the grid and harden it from the EMP threats and other things, but while we are doing that, we need the pipeline infrastructure to get the resources to where they need to go, and that is in our communities so that baseload generation can happen.

Mr. Chairman, there is a gentleman from Ohio who understands energy. He is the chairman of the Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Subcommittee on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Chairman, energy is the most important element of a prosperous society. Nothing else functions without it.

Reliable electricity allows us to work at night, keep our sick and injured on life support, heat our homes in freezing weather, manufacture the materials that we use to build our homes, and powers the systems that allow the public to watch these remarks right here on this House floor.

Energy is connected to everything. The price of energy affects the price of everything else, and the world devolves into the Dark Ages without it.

This might explain why Republicans think an energy bill should be labeled H.R. 1--because it is our number one priority, as it should be.

We have to introduce this bill because, bewilderingly, energy security has been under relentless attack by radical leftists and the Biden administration. They don't believe in energy security. They don't believe in reliable, affordable energy. They seem to think that the only energy worth pursuing is so-called renewables, solar and wind.

This is not sound policy or science. This has become a religion, and it has become an irrational pursuit of intermittent, weather-dependent energy sources that take up vast amounts of land, vast amounts of resources to make, and vast amounts of critical minerals to be mined. Still, it doesn't deliver the energy security the American people need.

I am not against these things. It would be fine to pursue these technologies if it didn't also come with a simultaneous attack on the sources of energy that actually work--namely, oil and gas.

Every good thing you have in this world, Mr. Chairman, is because of petroleum products--every single thing. Your shoes, your cars, your iPhones, your Netflix, your Patagonia jackets, medical devices that save your life, your heating, your cooling--literally everything comes from petroleum products.

The attack on oil and gas has been relentless, and it has been deeply foolish. It started with day one of the Biden administration and the Keystone pipeline, then executive orders banning new leases on Federal lands, and then refusal to permit pipelines. Then they turn around and attack the suppliers and producers for higher prices. It is pure gaslighting.

They have drained our Strategic Petroleum Reserve, all while prioritizing the same crazy climate policies that have caused Europe to enter an energy crisis and that are now causing developing nations to be priced out of gas markets and turn to coal production.

This gets me to quite the irony here. The administration's policies are more likely to increase global carbon emissions as a result, and for one simple reason. I really want everyone to understand this. By refusing to push for increased natural gas exports, we are shelving the best tool for displacing coal power around the world.

Coal burned in foreign countries accounts for about 50 percent of global power emissions. Natural gas is an easy substitute with half the emissions. American natural gas could easily be leveraged to increase prosperity for all and reduce emissions.

This is not rocket science. It is common sense. It is just math. Promoting American natural gas is better for energy security, better for our own affordability, and better for reducing global emissions. There is no logical counterargument to what I just said. There is not one.

Maybe--I believe this--the Biden administration actually knows this. That is why they prefer oil production in foreign countries and beg them to drill so that we can pretend we care about the climate while allowing other countries to do the dirty work for us.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I really hope this amendment can be bipartisan. I see no reason why it wouldn't be. It simply provides predictability for States applying for primacy of class 6 carbon capture wells. It is very straight forward. When a State submits a primacy application to the EPA, the EPA has 270 days to either approve or deny the application.

If the EPA is unable to do so within that generous time window, we give them another 30 days to explain why. If, for whatever reason, the EPA fails to make a determination after 300 days, then the State can move forward.

Importantly, we preserve EPA's ability to deny the application or revoke the approval using emergency measures under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Why is this needed?

Unfortunately, when States submit primacy applications for these wells, it can take years for the EPA to even bother to review the application. There is a lot more demand for carbon capture projects. They are ramping up around the country, especially in Houston. The need for expanded permitting capacity has greatly increased.

The EPA should not be the roadblock to projects that are designed to reduce carbon emissions. Let me say that again: Reduce carbon emissions.

The International Energy Agency said carbon capture is necessary to meet national, regional, and even corporate emissions reductions goals. Even EPA administrator Michael Regan called carbon capture a priority

for the Biden administration. It is a bipartisan issue.

States like Texas have already proven they can manage these wells and giving them primacy will be a game changer for speeding up carbon capture projects. Giving States regulatory certainty is critical to successful carbon capture projects moving forward in their States. That is all this amendment does.

Mr. Chair, there is no reason why this should not be bipartisan, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have a brief response to the gentleman's remarks. This does not change at all the Safe Drinking Water Act that the EPA regulates. All it says is there is a timeline for that primacy application. It can always be denied within that timeline.

By the way, the entire point of this is to reduce carbon emissions. It should be bipartisan.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger).

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Again, opposing this amendment would mean that you want more carbon emissions in the air, that you don't want carbon sequestration. I am pretty sure that is not what you all want. We all want the same thing here.

This is a commonsense amendment that simply expedites the permitting process, which is well established. Everyone knows it is safe. It doesn't change any regulations. It doesn't circumvent any EPA regulations or standards for drinking water at all.

This is a commonsense amendment. If we can't agree on things like this, it just tells me that we are looking for disagreement for the sake of disagreement. That makes me sad. It really does.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 1, the Lower Energy Costs Act.

My goal as the chair of Energy and Commerce Committee is to make sure Americans have access to affordable, reliable energy. This was a key promise in the House Republicans' ``Commitment to America,'' and we are hitting the ground running to deliver on that promise. This is just the beginning.

Energy is foundational to everything. For centuries it has driven human progress and development. It is why America has done more to lift people out of poverty and raise the standard of living than anywhere else in the world.

Today, over 3.7 billion people are living in energy poverty. That is half the world. They have a 10-year lower life expectancy, 35 percent fewer years of education, and many don't have electricity at all.

Here in the United States of America, we are blessed with the ability and the resources to continue to raise the standard of living globally and even lift people out of poverty.

Our goal today is to celebrate how our abundant energy resources have unleashed prosperity and invited people from around the world to come across the globe to America to achieve their hopes and dreams.

We have accomplished this as a leader in reducing emissions and with the highest environmental and labor standards in the world. We cannot afford to move backward with a reckless command-and-control so-called climate agenda that forces people to pay more and go without reliable electricity.

H.R. 1 prioritizes the American people over this radical climate agenda.

On his first day in office, President Biden started a war on American energy. Predictably, gas prices skyrocketed to the highest levels in American history. President Biden revoked the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, imposed a moratorium on oil production on Federal lands, and directed agencies across the Federal Government to impose punitive and burdensome regulations.

As the American people suffered, President Biden turned to OPEC and Russia to boost supplies. In the face of Russia's aggression, President Biden looked the other way and green-lit the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, emboldening Russia to attack Ukraine. The CCP now is deepening ties with Russia and consolidating its control over more than 90 percent of the world's critical mineral supplies.

To win the future, we cannot allow our energy security to be surrendered to our adversaries. H.R. 1 sends the strong and unmistakable signal to restore American energy dominance and bolster our national security. H.R. 1 will unleash American energy, lower costs, and secure our supply chains. This package helps lift barriers to expanding our energy supplies, remove red tape for exporting and importing LNG, and build more pipelines with our North American allies and across the States.

It would repeal President Biden's burdensome natural gas tax, which will harm communities, shut down production, and raise prices across the entire economy.

H.R. 1 will encourage innovation and production of critical materials here at home to cut China out of our energy supply chains and ensure America is leading the world in innovation and next-generation energy technologies.

We have heard a lot of talk, and Democrats are forcing a so-called transition that requires the American people to suffer through supply chains and price hikes. What Republicans are offering through H.R. 1 is a commitment to energy expansion that will deliver on lower costs and reliable and affordable energy.

The fact is, higher costs are making life unaffordable for hardworking people in this country while forcing us to be dangerously reliant on Chinese supply chains that are dirtier and use slave labor.

I think about the farmer who told us that this so-called climate agenda is raising the cost of food and making it harder for farmers to feed our families; an advocate who shared with our committee that record-high energy costs hurt low-income and minority families the most; and the mayor of Midland who told us her community is thriving because of the investment in jobs the oil and gas industry brings.

We must embrace and expand America's position as the number one energy producer in the world while continuing our leadership to reduce emissions.

People all over this Nation are counting on us for a better quality of life. With H.R. 1, we will boost energy production, lift regulatory burdens for the construction of more energy infrastructure, cut China out of our critical material supply chains, and lower costs across the board. This is how we build a more secure future for Americans.

Mr. Chair, I urge support of H.R. 1, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger), a

leader on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer), who is a leader on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), who is a leader on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Crenshaw), who is a leader on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy, Climate, and Grid Security.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks).