Water Quality Certification and Energy Project Improvement Act of 2023

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1, particularly division C, which was introduced in the House as H.R. 1152, and was marked up by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure with strong opposition from my Democratic colleagues. The polluters over the people act let polluters off the hook for harmful actions and damaging impacts to our rivers, lakes, and our streams that our local communities rely on for clean, safe drinking water.

Division C is an attack on section 401 of the Clean Water Act, which is a key mechanism for States and Tribes to evaluate projects that cross within their borders and have an impact on their waters and environment for decades.

Section 401 has been a successful example of cooperative federalism, while preserving State authority to manage their natural resources. Section 401 has been a well-supported, effective tool since the beginning of the Clean Water Act, but the Trump administration found a way to make it a scapegoat for the failure of senseless and harmfully polluting mega-projects.

The provisions in the polluters over people act will tie the hands of States and Tribes seeking to preserve stream flow for their water supplies, to prevent runoff and water pollution, and to minimize impacts to flood-preventing wetlands. It goes against the Clean Water Act's rights of States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution.

First, in California, this bill would have huge impacts. For one, limiting analysis to only discharges would mean the State would be unable to consider the impact of the whole project, such as increasing impervious surfaces, or considering downstream effects. Our State is trying to preserve every drop of water we can get. Yet, this bill would stop my State from protecting its water supply from the adverse impacts of projects pursued by out-of-State interests.

Second, this bill places arbitrary, and likely impossible timelines on the States to act on permit requests. Despite how complicated or huge the project might be, this bill will severely limit the time allowed for a State to review its impact. My friends across the aisle may not realize this, but this bill may lead to greater numbers of project rejections as the State is pressured to respond without the time to fully analyze the project.

This bill is another attempt to gut--really gut--the Clean Water Act and allow pollution and industry to act without repercussion. We must defend human health, our economy, and the natural environment, and oppose the damaging bill that will harm local communities.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a letter from the State of California, State of Washington, and the State of New York in strong opposition to H.R. 1152, which is the bill that became division C, H.R. 1.

February 28, 2023.

Hon. Chairman Graves,

Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Graves: As the water quality certifying

agencies for California, New York, and Washington, we write

to underscore the importance of existing law in protecting

state waters from water pollution associated with federally

licensed projects. On February 24, 2023, Representatives

Rouzer and Graves introduced H.R. 1152--Water Quality

Certification and Energy Project Improvement Act of 2023, to

amend section 401 of the Clean Water Act that would, among

other things, revise section 401 to: (1) reduce the scope of

states' and tribes' 401 water quality certification authority

to apply only to the discharge to a water of the United

States, rather than the whole of the activity; (2) narrow

states' and tribes' section 401 water quality certification

authority to exclude much of what is required to comply with

water quality standards and implementation plans under

section 303 of the Clean Water Act; (3) remove the states'

and tribes' authority to ensure compliance with ``other

appropriate requirement[s] of State law''; (4) replace

references to an ``application'' for certification with a

``request'' for certification; and (5) impose a time

requirement on states and tribes to identify information

needed before taking an action on a certification request,

(6) make other changes to the law that introduce substantial

uncertainty about the scope of section 401 for project

proponents and state and tribes. Each of these changes would

undermine states' abilities to protect water quality within

their states and erode five decades of successful,

cooperative federalism. We ask that Congress preserve the

existing state authority in the Clean Water Act to

substantively review a project's effects on water quality

before a federal permit or license is issued.

Background

Under section 401 of the Clean Water Act, a federal agency

may not issue a permit or license to conduct any activity

that may result in any discharge into waters of the United

States unless a section 401 water quality certification is

issued, or certification is waived. The State Water Resources

Control Board (``State Water Board'') and the nine California

Regional Water Quality Control Boards (collectively, ``Water

Boards''), [NY Signatory], [WA Signatory] are certifying

agencies pursuant to section 401 of the Clean Water Act. In

all three states, the most common federal licenses subject to

section 401 are Clean Water Act section 404 dredge or fill

permits issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and

licenses for hydropower facilities issued by the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission.

During the five decades since Congress enacted section 401

in the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970, state water

quality agencies diligently processed thousands of section

401 requests each year with little controversy. The vast

majority of section 401 certifications were issued promptly

and most section 401 certifications were granted, with only a

handful of denials issued each year. Beginning around 2016,

prompted by a handful of high-profile section 401 denials,

some project applicants and industry lobbyists began claiming

that states were ``abusing'' their section 401 authority.

Such claims of abuse are not, and never have been, true. In

the handful of cases when project applicants have alleged

improper certification decisions or delay by state agencies,

they have been fully capable of protecting their rights under

section 401 through the traditional framework of

administrative and judicial review.

Section 401 is a cornerstone of the cooperative federalism

principles enshrined by the Clean Water Act

Cooperative federalism is a foundational component of the

Clean Water Act. As set forth in Clean Water Act section 101

(b), ``[i]t is the policy of the Congress to recognize,

preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights

of States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution'' and

``to plan the development and use . . . of land and water

resources.'' Section 510 further specifies that except as

expressly provided, nothing in the Clean Water Act shall

preclude or deny the right of any State to adopt or enforce

any standard or limitation respecting discharges of

pollutants or any requirement respecting control or abatement

of pollution.

The section 401 certification program is an embodiment of

these cooperative federalism principles. A state

certification is the mechanism of ensuring that a federal

license or permit is not used as an excuse to violate state

or federal water quality standards. As currently written, the

language in section 401 acknowledges that states are in the

best position to understand their own laws and that

additional conditions may be necessary to ensure compliance

with state law and applicable Clean Water Act requirements.

As the federal permitting or licensing agency is often not an

agency primarily tasked with managing environmental issues,

the federal agency may in fact be reliant on the

certification authority's expertise regarding water quality.

To prevent a section 401 certification from becoming a rubber

stamp, any revision to the section 401 language must preserve

an expansive view of the cooperative federalism principles

originally envisioned by the Clean Water Act and repeatedly

affirmed by the Supreme Court. PUD No. 1 of Jefferson Cnty.

v. Washington Dep't of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700 (1994); S.D.

Warren Co. v. Maine Bd. of Env't Prot., 547 U.S. 370 (2006).

The Clean Water Act should continue to protect the whole

range of water quality effects resulting from the

proposed activity

We strongly support the existing statutory language, which

gives states and tribes the authority to regulate the

potentially water-polluting activity as a whole, rather than

being limited to a strict interpretation of effects from only

the discharge, because regulation of the activity as a whole

protects waters from the widest range of impacts. States

should be able to protect water quality regardless of whether

the pollution or other water quality impacts would be

specifically attributable to a discharge or from some other

aspect of the activity being permitted. States should be able

to use the certification process to address impacts to

groundwater, impacts to isolated surface waters, or impacts

from non-point sources, all of which are likely not directly

attributable to the discharge to a water of the United

States, because these are water quality impacts that would

not occur without issuance of the federal permit or license.

The problems with limiting certifications to the discharge

rather than the whole of the activity would be particularly

impactful on the states' ability to protect water quality

during the decades long term of Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission (``FERC'') licenses in the hydropower licensing

context. States and tribes must be able to fully address the

water quality impacts of such activities as a whole during

the 30- to 50-year term of the FERC license to reduce

water quality impacts that, depending on the

circumstances, may not be attributable to a point-source

discharge, but result from the activity's construction,

operations, and facilities. Common water quality impacts

associated with hydropower activities include changes in

turbidity, sediment, siltation, temperature, habitat loss,

alterations to stream geomorphology, dissolved oxygen,

algal productivity and algal-produced toxins, erosion,

barriers to fish passage, alterations to stream

geomorphology, and reductions in stream flow. Each of

these impacts can have profound, generational impacts on

the state's water resources.

To prevent or minimize these potential impacts, states have

imposed, or considered the need for certification conditions

to protect water quality on project activities that fall

outside the typical understanding of point-source discharges,

such as requirements for minimum instream flows and ramping

rates; temperature management; aquatic invasive species

management; plans for gravel replenishment, large woody

material placement and other habitat measures; reservoir

operation plans; erosion and sediment management plans; and

monitoring and management of dissolved oxygen, mercury,

pesticides, and other constituents of concerns. Previously

issued certifications have typically included management,

monitoring, and reporting measures to ensure compliance with

water quality measures and to identify potential

modifications if circumstances change. Revising the statutory

language to contradict longstanding interpretations would

introduce confusion and invite arguments about the nexus

between the discharge and the impact, when a state or tribe's

focus should more appropriately be on all water quality

impacts resulting from the project. Introducing the concept

of whether the activity will ``directly result'' in a

discharge in subsection (a)(1) and (a)(4) would inject

additional uncertainty and potentially further limit the

certifying authority's ability to protect water quality.

Although the states would rely on their state authority to

continue to preserve robust protection of water quality

whenever possible, state authority would not be an available

remedy where state law is preempted by federal law. Because

the Federal Power Act preempts the field of hydropower

regulation absent an express exception to preemption, and

FERC project licenses are valid for a fixed period of up to

50 years, water quality certifications for FERC license

applications provide the states with a singular opportunity

to ensure compliance with the state's water quality standards

and other requirements. If the states' ability to regulate

FERC licensed projects to the same extent that it has been

able to for decades is significantly weakened, other, non-

FERC projects would be subject to more stringent requirements

to compensate for the failure of FERC-licensed projects to

contribute what would otherwise be their allocated

responsibility.

The Clean Water Act should continue to authorize

certifications to implement water quality standards and

implementation plans adopted or approved under section

303 of the Clean Water Act

Under section 401 of the Clean Water Act a water quality

certification implements the applicable provisions of

sections 301, 302, 303, 306 and 307 of the Clean Water Act

and any other appropriate requirement of state law. The most

important of the enumerated provisions of the Clean Water Act

is section 303, which provides for water quality standards

and implementation plans. Section 303 requires development

and approval of water quality standards, which consist of

designated uses, criteria, and anti-degradation policies;

establishment of total maximum daily loads, which allocate

responsibility for meeting standards that cannot be met

solely through compliance with the technology-based

requirements of the Clean Water Act; and implementation of a

continuing planning process.

In 1994, the Supreme Court upheld state authority to set

conditions of certification to protect uses designated as

part of the water quality standards under section 303. PUD

No. 1, 511 U.S. at 700. The Court rejected an argument that

certification is limited to implementing the criteria

component of those standards. Consistent with the Supreme

Court's ruling, states have made effective use water quality

certification authority to protect water quality needed for

commercial, tribal, and recreational fisheries and other

important uses of state waters.

The proposed revision to limit ``applicable provisions'' of

section 303 to ``requirement of state law implementing water

quality criteria under section 303 necessary to support the

designated use or uses of the receiving navigable waters''

could strip the states' authority to use their certification

authority to protect the uses of waters of the United States

designated as part of water quality standards under section

303. By inexplicably omitting any reference to federal

requirements that implement section 303, it would also create

substantial uncertainty about states' and tribes' ability to

enforce water quality criteria, total maximum daily loads,

and antidegradation requirements adopted by U.S. EPA.

Congress should not remove the states' authority to require

compliance with state water quality requirements

We strongly oppose the bill's proposed revisions that would

limit the certifying authority to ensuring compliance with

only specific sections of the Clean Water Act by deleting the

existing reference to ``any other appropriate requirement of

State law'' set forth in section 401 subsection (d). Such a

revision would disregard a state's right to impose more

stringent water quality requirements and be contrary to the

protective goals of

the Clean Water Act. As is accounted for and endorsed by the

Clean Water Act, many states have state-based programs and

attendant requirements that arguably or explicitly expand

beyond the state's Clean Water Act authorities. The Clean

Water Act expressly contemplated a state's authority to

establish and enforce more stringent state requirements

beyond the Clean Water Act. For example, certifications may

include monitoring and reporting requirements that arguably

go beyond ensuring compliance with specific sections of the

Clean Water Act, and instead help determine whether water

quality is being degraded or to shape the development of

future actions to protect water quality.

We urge Congress to refrain from making an unwarranted

intrusion into a state's authority to impose stricter

conditions to protect the quality of waters within its

borders.

Section 401 should preserve the certifying authority's

ability to define the contents of a request for

certification and create submission procedures

The bill proposes revising references to ``application'' to

be ``request.'' Although the intention behind that revision

is not clear, we support language that recognizes that the

certifying authority may define the contents of a request for

certification and create submission procedures. The state's

ability to define what is required for a request for

certification is significant because a receipt of such a

request is the trigger for the beginning of the reasonable

period of time for a certifying authority to act on the

request. The bill proposes an addition requiring certifying

authorities to ``publish requirements for certification,''

but it is not clear whether this language is an indirect

reference to a certifying authority's ability to define

required information for applications and submittal

procedures. To the extent that ``requirements'' were intended

to require the enactment of new state regulations, 30 days is

insufficient time to comply with public notice and comment

requirements for State Water Board adoption.

Section 401 should not impose an arbitrary time limit on the

certifying authority's ability to request information

The bill proposes revisions to subsection (a)(1) that

specify that by 90 days after request for a certification,

the certifying authority must inform the applicant if any

additional information is necessary for the certification

authority to take an action on the request. As explained

above, to the extent that the language requires the

certifying authority to identify what, if any, information is

necessary to submit a complete application for water quality

certification, many state laws, including California's, do

this. But the revised language may be construed as preventing

the states from requesting that the applicant clarify,

amplify, correct, or supplement information required in the

application, which is permissible under state law.

For these reasons, we write to ask that Congress preserve

the existing state authority in Clean Water Act Section 401

to substantively review a project's effects on water quality

before a federal permit or license is issued, and protect

five decades of successful, cooperative federalism.

Sincerely,

Eileen Sobeck,

Executive Director, California State Water Resources

Control Board.

Basil Seggos,

Commissioner, New York State Department of Environmental

Conservation.

Laura Watson,

Director, Washington State Department of Ecology.

In this letter, the States highlight how this legislation will undermine States' ability to protect water quality within their States, and erode five decades of successful, cooperative federalism.

Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose H.R. 1, the polluters over people act, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Chair, I can make posters, too. I think I got the right backdrop there. Let's talk a little bit about credibility. Let's talk a little bit about the challenges that this country is experiencing, like the little girl on the playground and what our families across America are experiencing right now. Let's talk about why.

This body is about credibility. It is about your word. Let's talk a little bit about why America is experiencing the challenges that they are. We are seeing higher electricity prices that are making American families unable to be able to afford medicine and groceries, refuel their car, or pay electricity bills. Why is that happening?

It is happening because my friends across the aisle have refused to produce American energy. It is a supply and demand issue. This happened when they gained power. The day the President of the United States was inaugurated, Madam Chair, gasoline prices in my home State were as low as a $1.74 a gallon. Let me ask you, where in the world are you going to find that today?

You have cut off production of oil and gas. Don't take my word for it. You know, one term I have never heard anybody say is bring back that Jimmy Carter energy policy. Yet, when Jimmy Carter was President, he leased 100 times more acres of the lands and waters for energy production. Why do we have a crisis in energy right now?

It was self-inflicted. Why has this administration and these Democrats sold off hundreds of millions of barrels of oil from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the emergency reserve that was designed for crises, not awful policy?

It is because they refused to produce energy. You have created a supply problem, and you are using our emergency reserves to address it.

You sit here and also raise royalty rates. You proposed increased pipeline fees. You proposed taxes or enacted taxes on American energy, all driving up the costs, then you sit here and wonder why we have high prices? These were all self-inflicted wounds. You did this to America-- your policies.

Madam Chair, it is remarkable seeing what is going on right now, listening to my friends across the aisle talking about the environment. Yet, their own legislation requires the use of critical minerals that they at the same time have banned or prevented from being mined or processed or refined in the United States.

In some cases, China has 80 percent of these critical minerals locked up. If you force markets in the direction and if you force the use of those strategic materials, and the only place that has it is China, who are you benefiting?

China loves their energy policies. They benefit from it. All roads lead to China. Over 80 percent of the solar panels are made in China. Whenever this administration found that China was illegally subsidizing and illegally dumping solar panels in the United States, they banned them and put tariffs on them.

China then starts sending them through other countries. And you know what this administration does? They say: Yeah, that is fine. They acknowledge that there were Chinese solar panels being sent through other countries, and they allowed it. The Biden administration allowed it, and my friends across the aisle have done nothing to stop it.

The truth is, is that emissions have gone up under their policies, not down. Madam Chair, let me say that again. Under the previous administration, emissions went down. Greenhouse gas emissions went down an average of 2\1/2\ percent a year.

In the first year of the Biden administration, my friends across the aisle working with them closely, emissions went up 6 percent last year and went up another 1.3 or 1.4 percent. I am going to say it again. My friends across the aisle and their policies have resulted in higher greenhouse gas emissions. They have increased our dependence upon foreign energy sources.

We had the Secretary of the Interior standing right in our committee, and he wasn't even aware that we had become increasingly dependent upon Russian energy.

They talk about corporate welfare. I agree, which is why the over $600 billion that my friends across the aisle have put toward effectively bribing companies into investing in renewable energy sources that in many cases are not economic, simply doesn't make sense.

This bill follows logic. It follows good policy. It ensures that we are getting energy resources from the United States. It ensures the affordability by bringing American energy online. It results in lower global emissions.

Madam Chair, I urge support of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Sam Graves, for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, let me describe the situation that we are facing right now. The Clean Water Act, as has been noted, was enacted decades and decades ago. There haven't been changes that altered the way that States are able to grant water certification under section 401 of the Clean Water Act. There have been no changes that have altered the way that this act takes place.

Yet, in recent history, States have begun using the Clean Water Act in its 401 water certification section in a way that simply weaponizes it. The States' decisions in many cases to object to projects being built in their States have nothing to do with water certification.

I can cite example after example, including by some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, who may be in the Chamber, where their States have objected to pipelines on grounds that, again, have nothing to do with clean water. This is a weaponization that has occurred in just recent history.

All the amendment does that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer) led in this case is it simply ensures that the interpretation of the Clean Water Act is consistent with congressional intent when this was implemented decades ago.

Mr. Chairman, let me give you a practical effect of how this has impacted communities and how it has impacted American citizens.

Years ago, they had a cold winter. It was a very cold winter several years ago. What happened was that these communities up in the Northeast had actually used these authorities and others to block pipelines from being built, so it prevented natural gas from getting to these communities in the Northeast.

Then, they began burning home heating oil in higher volumes. I remind you, Mr. Chairman, home heating oil has a higher emissions profile than natural gas. So, you just made one decision. By blocking pipelines, you became more dependent upon home heating oil, so it resulted in greater emissions or, said another way, greater impacts to the environment.

They ended up having low supplies of home heating oil, so they took it to the next level. These States called their good friend Vladimir Putin--I am not making this up--and had him bring in liquified natural gas from Russia to meet the demands from the Northeast.

Mr. Chairman, maybe my friends across the aisle want to defend the decision to have Russian gas coming in to supply American energy needs whenever we had American energy right there that simply could have been piped in.

Mr. Chairman, I remind you that, according to the National Research Council, pipelines are the safest way to transport energy. By putting something in a pipeline, it has a lower chance of a spill and has lower emissions associated with transportation. This is how you should do it. If you care about the environment, then you want to put energy in a pipeline.

Let me say it again. The chairman of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, Mr. Rouzer from North Carolina, has an amendment to this bill that really returns the interpretation back to congressional intent and back to the way that this provision was exercised for decades so we don't have these ridiculous scenarios like I just described where we are preventing U.S.-generated energy and U.S.-produced energy from meeting Americans' own demands, which, of course, is cheaper, cleaner, and prevents these crazy scenarios where we are calling up Vladimir Putin and asking him to meet America's energy demand.

Mr. Chairman, even Putin found this amusing and was trolling the United States on Twitter and social media.

Do we really want to subject ourselves to this?

Let me say it again: If you care about the environment, then what you actually want to do is put the energy in a pipeline.

We shouldn't get ourselves in a situation like where former White House spokesperson Jen Psaki acknowledged that the production areas that were to be served by the Keystone pipeline were still producing the energy. They were still producing the energy. They were just transporting it through other means, which means truck, barge, and train, all of which, once again, Mr. Chairman, have a higher emissions profile and pose a greater threat to the environment, which I will also note was directly contrary to the justification that the White House gave on why they were shutting down the Keystone pipeline.

Mr. Chairman, I think that it is really important that we are all talking about facts here and that we are recognizing congressional intent and how this very provision has been exercised and used by States for decades and decades.

This recent weaponization to advance or advocate for these energy policies that are resulting--actually, Mr. Chairman, I remind this House that we have watched emissions go up under President Biden, not go down. I keep seeing this sign pop up on the other side that says ``polluters over people,'' and I am not sure what they are talking about other than perhaps describing some of the very energy policies of this administration that have resulted in greater emissions, a greater threat to our environment, and, of course, unaffordability issues. We have watched as people have been pushed into energy poverty as we have shut down domestic energy sources.

I encourage, Mr. Chairman, that what we do, instead of getting into this emotional debate and bringing up topics and issues that are not relevant or applicable to the law, is that we stay focused on facts and figures.

Emissions have gone up under this administration versus going down under the previous administration. We have watched as they have advanced or advocated for policies like shutting down the Keystone pipeline and stopping the connection between Marcellus and other American energy sources to communities that are energy starved.

This is resulting in greater emissions in the United States. It is resulting in greater threats to our environment. Most importantly, Mr. Chairman, one of the things that Mr. Rouzer's provision does is it really helps to address the affordability issue.

We have watched as energy prices have skyrocketed under this administration because of their deliberate attempt, which they have said very candidly--they intend to shut down domestic energy production. They have been very clear on that, and they have been incredibly successful.

In fact, you would have to go back to the Truman administration in the 1940s to get back to the same level of acreage leasing for energy production that has been done under this administration.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge adoption of this legislation. I strongly support the amendment that Mr. Rouzer advocated for and Chairman Sam Graves is pushing right now.

Mr. Chairman, we need to stick to facts here and make sure that we are making policy decisions based on reality.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1, the Lower Energy Costs Act, which includes the Water Quality Certification and Energy Project Improvement Act. That bill is the one that I introduced alongside my friend and colleague from Louisiana, Mr. Garret Graves.

One of many key components in this package, this specific part of the bill helps ensure development of our Nation's energy infrastructure at a time when it is most necessary. This is accomplished by clarifying that projects subject to section 401 of the Clean Water Act are approved or denied based on water quality alone.

Unlike what my colleagues have been saying on the other side of the aisle that we are going to permit dirty water, et cetera, et cetera, if it is related to water, guess what, section 401 still applies.

The water quality certification process has been and continues to be weaponized by certain States to stifle important energy projects they oppose, particularly pipelines, for political reasons completely unrelated to water quality and outside the scope and the intent of the Clean Water Act. That is all this particular provision addresses.

Instead of fairly analyzing a project based on the Federal standards set forth by Congress, what has happened is States on the East and West Coast have increasingly weaponized section 401 for their own ideological purposes, again totally and completely unrelated to water quality.

Here are some examples: In my home State of North Carolina, the Mountain Valley Southgate project was denied, not because of water quality but because the deciding bureaucrats hold an inherent opposition to the project as a whole.

Projects in Washington and New York have been denied due to noise and cultural resources. Nothing to do with water quality.

These are just a few examples of the weaponization of section 401 of the Clean Water Act statute.

The language that is included here in this package quite simply will end this abuse.

At a time when American energy production and distribution is under tremendous assault from some in this country, ensuring that America can build the energy infrastructure necessary to responsibly utilize our natural resources, unleash American energy independence, and lower costs for American families is a top priority that this broader bill achieves.

Let me put it this way: Low cost, reliable energy is fundamental to prosperity. It isn't the only critical aspect necessary for a nation and her people to be prosperous, but it is awfully hard for a nation to be prosperous without it.

Low cost and reliable energy helps America to produce more goods and therefore put downward pressure on inflation, and, boy, do we need all the help we can get. It will enable America to be energy dominant again, increasing American strength abroad. Put another way, it is critical to our economy, our food security, and our national security. That is why this legislation is so badly needed at this critical time in American history.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the Lower Energy Costs Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I have listened to some comments from my friends on the other side, and I am just going to share some examples of how section 401 of the Clean Water Act has been weaponized. Some of these I touched on a little earlier, and some of these have yet to be stated, as far as I know.

In Oregon, a proposed liquified natural gas pipeline and export terminal, which would have had the capability to liquefy over 1 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day, was blocked by that State. The reason? After giving the project applicants the runaround, Oregon denied the certification, citing incomplete information given to the State.

Once again, that was a project that was estimated to have generated up to $100 million in revenue annually, blocked, just like that.

Despite FERC finding that the project's plan for environmental mitigation and impact minimization was satisfactory, Oregon denied certification based on reasons outside the scope of the CWA, the Clean Water Act.

My second example here comes from a proposed natural gas pipeline's 37-mile extension that New York denied. The project would have added enough additional natural gas per day to meet the needs of approximately 2.3 million homes in a region where demand for natural gas is at an all-time high. Additionally, the project would add an estimated $327.2 million to the region's economy.

Again, in this case, FERC concluded that any long-term effects would be limited to air quality and noise and that all project effects would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Once again, the State forced the project applicants to come back multiple times with more documents, continuing to move the goalposts each time.

When the State finally gave a straight reason for denying the project, they nominally cited ``indirect effects on water resources,'' but none of these were provisions of the Clean Water Act section 401.

Those are just a couple of examples of how water quality wasn't even an issue. It was other aspects. They were just using the loopholes in the statute to achieve their end.

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

Mr. Chairman, passage of H.R. 1 is critical for boosting our domestic energy production and lowering energy costs for all Americans.

I thank Majority Leader Scalise for his leadership on this bill, as well as the chairman of the Energy and Commerce and Natural Resources Committees and our own chairman, Sam Graves, of Transportation and Infrastructure.

As has been stated, this bill contains many provisions to help streamline the permitting process for energy projects, allowing America to unleash its domestic energy potential.

I am particularly proud of division C of H.R. 1, which passed out of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, that will stop States from using section 401 of the Clean Water Act as an excuse to block critical energy projects.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

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

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Frost).

Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove).

Mr. Chair, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to ensure that the American people and every single New Mexican back home in my home State knows exactly what this bill is all about.

H.R. 1 is not a bill to cut costs and unlock American energy. H.R. 1 is a blatant giveaway of public lands, public waters, and public minerals to the highest bidder.

It guts environmental laws, it opens oil and gas leasing to mining and multinational companies, and it will send our communities and our laws back to the 19th century--the 19th century--to 1847 specifically, when we opened the West through the hardrock mining law to minerals claims and multinational corporations, who took advantage of our communities, who dumped tailings piles into our rivers and our streams, and who strip-mined sacred and ancestral lands of our indigenous communities.

That is right. This bill would take us back before the automobile was invented, before we had electricity, before women had the right to vote in this country, and before New Mexico even became a territory of the United States when our communities, lands, and waters were stripped away from them and given to the highest bidder.

So let me be clear: This legislation is not about lowering costs. It is not about lessening the burden at the pump. It is not about lowering costs for our families.

These are just talking points that have been provided by fossil fuel and mining companies and by their allies across the aisle who see the opportunity to strip away environmental regulations and vast amounts of public resources, lands, and waters for private profit.

In fact, this bill will increase the deficit, robbing our communities of more than a century of hard-fought environmental wins to protect our lands and waters.

That is why House Democrats have a clear message today: Not on our watch.

Let's be clear and talk exactly about what this bill is and does. My friends, Mr. Chairman, on the other side of the aisle want to claim that this bill will create jobs, that more drilling and mining will lower costs, and that it is going to somehow magically solve our global critical mineral shortage.

Let me be clear, as somebody whose parents worked in the energy industry. My father was a welder in the oil and gas fields; my mother, a crane mechanic at a coal-fired power plant.

As somebody who spent over two decades of my career working on natural resources issues, let me say it loud and clear: We cannot mine and drill our way to solve these problems.

In fact, this bill not only does not help our communities but puts our Nation and our planet at risk. Scientists from across the world released a report just last week that made clear that if we do not take significant action right now to curb global emissions, we will cross a global tipping point and catastrophic global climate change.

This bill would threaten our global planetary health. In fact, this legislation, which the President has already said he would veto, would open vast swaths of our land and our water to oil and gas drilling, to mining, not to lower costs, but to line the pockets of wealthy oil companies.

In the name of streamlining, it would gut environmental laws like the National Environmental Policy Act, a piece of bipartisan legislation that Richard Nixon signed; the Clean Water Act; the Clean Air Act.

It would gut protections for our communities to be able to actually have a say in what happens in their own lands and waters. It would make it easier for large corporations to pollute and dump toxins without consequence.

Finally, this legislation not only does not lower costs but raises the deficit by billions of dollars.

So I ask the American people and I ask New Mexicans: Is this what you want Congress working on, a 175-page bill filled with thinly veiled corporate giveaways that gut our environmental laws, that cut our communities out, and that would line the pockets of private corporations?

No. The American people want clean air. They want clean water. They want climate action. They want a planet that they can leave to their children.

That is why Democrats and the President fought to pass the Inflation Reduction Act just a few months ago in this Chamber.

That bill makes the largest investment in climate action ever in the history of this country and ever in the history of this planet.

Our bill, the bill we passed to address the global climate crisis, will create millions of jobs. It will rebuild our infrastructure and our local economies.

It will invest in our communities and the resilience of our ecosystems. It will reduce household costs like our friends across the aisle are trying to claim with this giveaway bill.

Guess what? It reduces the deficit, all while putting us on a path to cutting carbon emissions in this country by 40 percent by 2030.

Guess what else happened? Not a single Republican in this Chamber voted for that bill. Not one. Not one Member on the other side of the aisle voted to lower costs, voted for a clean energy future, voted to protect the environment, voted to protect our communities.

We cannot drill and mine our way to a clean energy and climate secure future.

Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford to pass H.R. 1.

We cannot afford to send our communities back to the 19th century. We cannot afford to let private companies deforest and strip-mine our lands.

We cannot afford to go back to a time when rivers were on fire, and companies dumped toxins into our groundwater with impunity.

That is why I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation because the path is clear. We must take climate action now and build a clean energy economy and leave a livable planet for our communities, for the future, and for our Nation.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of clean water and in support of the Clean Water Act, and in opposition to H.R. 1, the polluters over people act.

Clean water is a basic human right--the health and safety of our communities and the success of our economy depends on it. House Democrats stand for clean water.

Last Congress, we passed a historic and bipartisan investment in our Nation's infrastructure through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The BIL included almost $13 billion in clean water infrastructure upgrades and is creating jobs in communities across the country.

The Clean Water Act, passed in 1972, is one of the most successful environmental laws in our Nation's history. It

has protected rivers, lakes, and streams from pollution and contamination, ensuring that we have access to clean and safe water.

Section 401 of the Clean Water Act allows States to review projects that could impact their water quality. For 50 years, States have used this authority to protect their water resources, and it has helped them ensure that projects move forward only if clean water would not be compromised as a result.

These proposals that are in H.R. 1, to narrow the scope of section 401, are a misguided effort at permitting reform. By limiting the ability of States to review projects, we are sacrificing the health of our communities and our environment for the sake of expedience and profit.

I recognize the majority's interest in ensuring that permitting requirements are not insurmountable barriers to investment. I share the goal of speeding up project delivery.

Last Congress, I supported not only the BIL, but also the CHIPS Act and the Inflation Reduction Act. These laws showed what Congress is capable of when it focuses on addressing the real needs of American families. I want these laws and their investments to be successful.

However, to quickly put these investments to work, we need a robust partnership between the Federal Government and its State and local partners and Tribal partners, to address State, local, and Tribal requirements, and to ensure community buy-in before these investments are implemented.

To be effective, that process must build on a mutual trust between the parties because any effort to force that process often results in opposition, delay, and litigation.

Yet, H.R. 1 misses the mark by stifling local participation and buy- in, which will only result in these projects taking longer to implement.

In fact, State organizations, such as the Western States Water Council, believe that placing arbitrary and strict limits on section 401 application review times and processes will require the States ``to issue an increased number of denials, due to inflexible deadlines that do not accommodate State public engagement laws or allow sufficient time to gather adequate information on project impacts.''

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 1, and reject the efforts to weaken the Clean Water Act and our Nation's other bedrock environmental laws. We must protect our water resources for future generations and for the health of today's communities and families.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), one more person who appreciates the most important natural resource we have, and that is our clean water.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.

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

Mr. Chairman, we know that this side of the aisle is not trying to shut down domestic energy production.

In fact, the Inflation Reduction Act made a major investment in clean energy production in the United States to expand the use of renewable energies and renewable energy production. That is one reason why I want people to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1 because this bill removes some of those incentives.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington State (Ms. Strickland), who is another person who is strongly against this bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Sykes).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Tokuda).

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. H.R. 1, the bill before us today, is permitting reform in name only, putting polluters who want to fast-track special projects ahead of the public's interests. It includes unnecessary and unwarranted giveaways to fossil fuel and mining industries, and this polluters over people act also repeals historic investment in clean energy and climate change investments passed by the previous Congress.

I agree with the administration's statement on this bill, which called for working in a bipartisan manner to address lowering energy costs and working in a bipartisan manner to reform the permitting process and to address our energy challenges.

I know my colleagues want to speed up project delivery, and I share that goal, but it is not going to be achieved through H.R. 1.

In the last Congress, the House and Senate reached a historic agreement to restore, upgrade, and advance our Nation's interconnected infrastructure networks through the bipartisan infrastructure law, including major investments in improving clean water infrastructure.

A ``yes'' vote on H.R. 1 begins to pull back on our ability to maintain the promise of those investments. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to consider what real bipartisan work on permitting reform would look like.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1, and I yield back the balance of my time.