HEATS Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise once again in opposition to another Natural Resources bill which, much to my dismay, I would love to have the opportunity to work on, on a bipartisan basis. Unfortunately, this bill is another technical bill that is masquerading as an effort to support energy development on public lands but is another assault on permitting processes, and, specifically, on the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA.

Under this bill, a geothermal project that starts on non-Federal surface lands and drills into Federal subsurface would not need a Federal drilling permit if the subsurface makes up less than 50 percent of the total area drilled.

If your eyes crossed when you heard me describe that technical language, let me explain. The Federal Government manages our Federal lands on the surface. That is where the soil, the trees, and all of that is. There is a separate permitting process for the subsurface. That is where we find oil and gas, other valuable minerals, and, in this case, geothermal resources that we may want to develop for energy sources. They are two different permitting processes.

What this says is if you have a power plant or some other energy source on a piece of private land that is adjacent to or nearby Federal lands, you don't have to go through the permitting process to figure out whether or not the drilling from here down, across, and under our Federal lands would be harmful. That is crazy.

Mr. Speaker, wouldn't we want to know as a scientific basis and a community basis whether or not the drilling under our Federal lands would be harmful for our communities? Of course we would. That is why we have Federal permitting laws. That is why we conduct scientific assessments on whether or not drilling or permitting of resource extraction in the subsurface is a good or bad idea.

As we have seen in some cases, it can cause seismic activity with certain oil and gas operations. In other cases, it can cause contamination of groundwater. In other cases, it can cause subsidence of the surface which could damage a national park or some sort of sacred site for a community or just your viewshed.

Taking away the permitting process means that folks can do things on private lands, using our Federal resources, without having to ask the public if they think it is a good idea. I am a fan of geothermal. It is a great energy resource. There is nothing wrong with geothermal, but all of our energy resources have a footprint. They all look like something.

In this case, as you can see in this picture, geothermal is also an industrial activity. So what we are talking about is building these kinds of facilities which might be an energy facility on a piece of private land, next to your favorite national park, next to your favorite BLM lands where you like to go fishing, next to Tribal lands that are sacred and important to our Tribal communities.

Don't you want the ability to weigh in with the Federal Government about whether or not you want this to be happening in your backyard? Again, it is just common sense. Why are we running bills that are trying to take away commonsense protections for our public and for the communities that would be impacted by them?

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for Representative Kim. We have worked on a bipartisan basis on many issues including fire and science. Like I said, I am a fan of geothermal. In fact, we have been working on a bipartisan basis with our Republican colleagues on a number of geothermal permitting bills. In fact, there are two of them that passed by voice vote here on the House floor.

Representative Curtis' GEO Act supports efficient approval of geothermal permit applications without sacrificing environmental and community review. A lot of Members on this side of the aisle think that is a good idea. Why are we not trying to pass that bill? Maybe it has something to do with what was said during the last debate about what happens on January 20.

Representative Steel's H.R. 6474 would create a narrow categorical exclusion--again, more technical language--for geothermal exploration and development in recently studied or developed areas, giving geothermal parity with oil and gas development. Again, going back to the science, if we have already done an assessment of subsurface and we know it is not going to have impacts, maybe it makes sense to have some sort of streamlined purpose.

Mr. Speaker, to give carte blanche to private entities that might want to use Federal resources without creating a process to look at the scientific integrity, the potential environmental impacts, the potential community impacts, to not provide a legal process for communities to weigh in and potentially hold them accountable just doesn't make sense.

We do have a problem with this particular approach. We would support responsible, well-balanced stewardship of our geothermal resources that do protect the public interest and do protect our Federal lands. This bill is not really about that.

Mr. Speaker, while I have great respect for the intent, which I hope is good, behind this bill, we do need to protect the public interest as we develop these large-scale projects, big or small, that are adjacent to and that would impact the Federal subsurface.

No matter what, we are seeing time and time again in the final waning hours of this Congress that our friends are trying to advance bills that we know are really a setup for the next administration. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. We have other bills that would address the needs of this industry.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I will start by agreeing with my colleague across the aisle. We do not live in a Utopia where energy just magically appears.

I completely agree that we are in a massive transition where we have to explore all options to produce and to supply the energy needs that our Nation needs in order for people to survive and to thrive, as long as it is done in a way that informs the community, it is done in a responsible, environmentally friendly way, and a way that does not affect climate. Of course we want our communities to have a say in what we do.

I want to address what we heard: Well, it will be protected under the States. We are not talking about State resources. We are talking about Federal resources. The United States public lands belong to all of us. The surface, our national parks, our favorite streams on BLM lands and in our national forests, the subsurface belongs to the American people.

All of the things that we have been talking about today are the American people's resources. The minerals that will be mined are the American people's minerals. The geothermal resources are the American people's resources. Even the oil and gas are the American people's resources.

The reason why we have permitting processes is because the American people get to decide: Do we want to give the great riches of this Nation over to private companies who want to provide a good or service to the American people? The American people get to decide because those are our resources.

Mr. Speaker, that is why we have Federal processes to determine, one, if it is a good idea from a scientific and engineering standpoint; and two, to decide if it is going to impact our communities adversely.

Imagine going to your favorite stream to go fishing and find out that a permit for subsurface materials had caused the bottom to drop out and a land subsidence that destroyed your favorite fishing spot and nobody ever told you because the geothermal plant had gone in a few miles away and drilled underneath it.

That is why we have Federal permitting processes. It is so that the American people can decide if this is what we want to do with our precious lands, our precious resources, and the things that belong to all of us.

Mr. Speaker, there are solutions here in Congress. There are solutions that are supported by the vast majority of Members across the aisle that would protect the public interest, that would protect the environment, and would protect American interests in our resources.

Unfortunately, permit streamlining that does away with subsurface permit authority and public comment of our democratically owned natural resources is not the solution. For these reasons, I oppose this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. While I appreciate that part of the debate has been framed as a difference in perspective, it is actually a difference in the actual facts on the page of what the bill says.

Let me read to you from the bill that is being proposed to be passed right now.

In General, the Secretary--they are talking about the Department of the Interior--shall not require an operator to obtain a Federal drilling permit for geothermal exploration and production activities conducted on non-Federal subsurface estates.

I know this is confusing. They are talking about those lands that the Feds manage for the American people. The claim that was just made was that, oh, this isn't about exempting Federal permitting, that is what the bill says. Mr. Speaker, I am reading from their bill.

Now, it has the specific reasons under which the permit would be allowed to be excluded, and, as was stated, it says: ``The United States holds an ownership interest of less than 50 percent of the subsurface estate. . . .''

Now, I love when my colleagues across the aisle claim that industry is so confused and that is why we have to streamline these bills.

I ask the American people: When you hear this language, does it sound streamlined? I don't think so.

Mr. Speaker, I have a very high-tech drawing I will use to help the American people understand what they are talking about here.

You have got this geothermal energy producer. Here is a good example of a power plant using geothermal. If they are taking subsurface geothermal resources from private lands, let's say this side, and over 50 percent of their geothermal resources are coming from the private side, they are saying, if you drill down underneath this plant and go under your favorite national park, your favorite stream on BLM lands, your favorite place to go fishing on public lands, they don't have to get a permit. They can just do it. That is what the bill says.

This isn't a difference of perspective, it is literally what the bill is trying to do, and that is to exempt Federal permit requirements on the Federal subsurface estate adjacent to private lands.

The claim that State permitting would apply is not true. State permitting only applies to private lands. State permitting requirements do not apply to Federal lands. Even if you have a State permitting regime like States that protect the environment, it is not going to help you over here on the Federal estate.

If you live in a State where there are not State environmental protections for the environment, then guess what? You are screwed.

That is why we are trying to protect the Federal estate and the community and environmental interests here. We are not trying to stop geothermal. As I said, we are fans. Let's do this, but let's do it in an environmentally responsible and community-informed way.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will go back to the language of the text. As I read the text as it appears on the page as introduced, it is seeking to exempt Federal permitting requirements for the subsurface estate, so that means Federal resources.

They are saying, if it is private land on top but public on the bottom, you don't have to get a permit. That is what they are saying.

Now, I know that boggles the mind for some folks, but that is essentially an American resource. The people of this country should have a say as to whether or not they want an energy plant to go in, for drilling to happen under their lands, for resources to be extracted. It is just common sense.

Mr. Speaker, I will also make the point that there were some comments

made about the administration trying to restrict geothermal. That is just patently untrue.

This is not about trying to restrict or trying to stop geothermal; this is just about maintaining the existing requirements that we have in protecting American resources in the subsurface so that the taxpayers get a fair shake and that the American public can say whether or not they think it is a good idea to have a private company drilling and removing resources under our feet. It is common sense.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 7409 is another loophole disguised as permitting reform and streamlining. It would create a path for geothermal projects to bypass critical environmental and community reviews based on arbitrary line drawings and new convoluted, not streamlined, language regarding the Federal subsurface estate.

It sets a dangerous precedent. I know they keep saying this is about streamlining and making it easier. This bill is not common sense when you read it. It would allow more energy projects to move forward without community input and oversight.

We have already worked on bipartisan solutions. We already have some bills that we all agree on, but here we are debating, in the final hours of this Congress, a bill that would do away with just basic, commonsense public input through the process.

We didn't spend a lot of time talking about it today, but the Federal agency that manages our subsurface, the Bureau of Land Management, has raised legitimate concerns about this bill, opposes this bill, and has warned that it would undermine our ability to enforce safety regulations, to uphold environmental laws, to do Tribal consultation, and to ensure that these projects are aligned with our multiple-use mandate, meaning we can protect our public lands for other uses.

As experts on the process, we have to listen to these folks. This is what they do every day.

We understand that there are opportunities to improve permitting. It is part of why we passed the Inflation Reduction Act. It is part of why we are making an over $1 billion investment in expediting the permitting process and helping to get energy projects on the ground.

We are in the middle of a major energy transition, but we can't do that in an irresponsible manner by fast-tracking projects that need public input.

All energy projects have impacts, and this bill takes away the opportunity to just take a look and give the opportunity for the public to weigh in.

We have to keep this in mind as we move forward and work to build a more just and sustainable future where our communities continue to have a say in what we do with the Federal estate, whether it is on the top or it is underneath our feet.

For these reasons I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 7409, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1568, I call up the bill (H.R. 7409) to amend the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 to waive the requirement for a Federal drilling permit for certain activities, to exempt certain activities from the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 7409.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 7409, the Harnessing Energy At Thermal Sources Act, or the HEATS Act.

First, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Kim), my friend, for being a leader on this issue and working with my staff and me to bring this bipartisan bill to the floor.

H.R. 7409, the HEATS Act, is a commonsense bill that would expedite the development of geothermal energy on non-Federal lands containing Federal minerals.

Currently, geothermal operators on non-Federal land producing any amount of Federal resources must abide by all Federal laws and permitting processes, even if the share of Federal minerals is minuscule.

Under this bill, such projects would still undergo a rigorous State permitting process but would not be bogged down by duplicative and burdensome Federal permitting processes.

H.R. 7409 stipulates that geothermal wells on non-Federal lands are not subject to NEPA, ESA, or NHPA if the United States holds an ownership interest of less than 50 percent of the geothermal estate and the operator receives a drilling permit from the respective State.

Notably, the bill would not impact the royalty paid to the Federal Government. Therefore, it would not reduce the Federal revenues generated by geothermal production. In fact, it would actually increase Federal revenues by reducing the administrative responsibilities of Federal agencies and expediting the permitting process for geothermal development.

Enhanced geothermal systems, or EGS, are created by injecting fluid deep underground in carefully controlled conditions to create new fractures and causing preexisting fractures to open, increasing permeability below the surface. The process employs established technology already commonly utilized in the energy sector, and the DOE estimates that EGS could generate 60 gigawatts of electricity by 2050, which represents 8.5 percent of the U.S. generation capacity.

The best geothermal reservoirs suitable for EGS are located in States with Federal minerals, including Colorado, California, Utah, Nevada, Idaho, New Mexico, and Oregon.

Mr. Speaker, Federal streamlining efforts like this bill will be necessary to realize EGS' full potential. Federal minerals, however, come with red tape.

This bill provides a rational approach to streamlining the development of a proven renewable energy source. This commonsense bill will help spur geothermal energy development and promote American energy independence as part of an all-of-the-above energy strategy. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, if we lived in a place called Utopia, a lot of this might be possible. I come from an engineering background. Some of the things I remember from those classes long ago, laws like energy can't be created or destroyed, it just changes form.

It would be nice if we could get electricity in the wire without a geothermal plant or to mine coal or to mine gas or to build the solar farm. We haven't figured out how to do that yet.

If we want energy, we are going to have to use the sources that we have got where they are. If we want minerals, we are going to have to get them out of the ground. That can be a good thing because that can create jobs, that can create economic growth. We can do it in a responsible way.

Mr. Speaker, this bill does not remove all permitting. It requires landowners to still get permits from States. It has protections built in for the environment. It gives States and local communities a bigger seat at the table than to rely on some permit coming out of Washington, D.C., to develop a project that has a slight interest in Federal minerals.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Kim) and commend her for bringing this bill forward.

Mr. Speaker, I guess things depend on the perspective from which you look at them. They took the geothermal plant picture down that was up on the other side of the aisle, but I will point out that if that plant were to be built on Federal lands, it would go fully under Federal permitting process.

We are talking about facilities that are built on State or private lands that are close to Federal lands. What we are really talking about is not what is on the surface; it is what is below the surface.

If the geothermal energy that is going to this facility, if 50 percent or less of that is coming off of the Federal estate, then the developer would not have to go through the Federal permitting process but would go through the State permitting process.

They would still pay the Federal Government the royalty for the geothermal energy that is coming off of the Federal estate, but they just wouldn't have to go through the Federal permitting process.

You can look at that and say, oh, they are being exempted from the Federal permitting process, but if you look at it from the other perspective, why should a State or private landowner be subject to the Federal permitting process on their private or State land just because less than half of the energy that is going into this facility is coming off of the Federal Government?

Should the Federal Government be dictating to States and private businesses and private landowners what gets developed on their land?

Again, I guess it is just the perspective of how you look at it, but the one thing we know is, you can't harvest and harness this renewable geothermal energy that could make up 8\1/2\ percent of our electricity generation without getting it out of the ground and having a facility to utilize that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the gentlewoman pointing out the language on page 3 of the bill. I will point that out too because it says, ``The Secretary shall not require an operator to obtain a Federal drilling permit for geothermal exploration and production activities conducted on a non-Federal surface estate. . . .''

I think most people would agree that we don't want the Federal Government telling States and private landowners that they have to obtain a Federal permit to extract energy off of their land. That is exactly why we are proposing this bill, and it is not coming from the standpoint that the government knows best, that somebody sitting here in D.C. in a nondescript cubicle should be telling somebody thousands of miles away how to develop their land. No.

We shouldn't require Federal permitting on State and private land, which is what we are talking about. That is what this bill would do. It is only in the case where when you get below the surface, if more than 50 percent of the geothermal energy is coming off of Federal land, then you still have to go through the Federal permitting.

If it is less than 50 percent, then the State permitting would rule. It is a commonsense bill. It would promote economic development. It would promote renewable energy development. It is a bill that needs to be passed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Duarte), who also worked closely on this bill.

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

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

In closing, I would like to urge my colleagues to vote in support of H.R. 7409. The HEATS Act would expedite geothermal energy production by removing the requirement that geothermal operators receive a Federal drilling permit for wells on State and private lands where the subsurface geothermal estate is less than 50 percent Federal.

Operators would still be required to receive State permits and approval but would be exempt from Federal permitting regulations like NEPA, the ESA, and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. That is a mouthful of words, but let's look at in practicality.

We are talking about a geothermal production facility that is going to have a footprint on the surface of the land. It is going to be on the surface of State or private land. Then we are going drill a hole thousands of feet into the ground, an 8- to 12-inch in diameter hole that is going to go a mile or so deeper, maybe 2 miles deep into the ground. Then it is going to turn horizontal, and it is going to start picking up geothermal energy from a large area.

What my friends across the aisle seem to want to do is to invoke a NEPA permit on a hole in the ground 2 miles deep. They want to be able to implement the ESA because of a hole in the ground 2 miles deep. They want to do a National Historic Preservation assessment because of a hole in the ground 2 miles deep.

What they really want to do is be able to link this private facility on State or private land back to the Federal Government so they can use these laws that are well-intentioned, well-meaning laws to stop that facility from being built on State or private land.

There is no environmental benefit of doing an ESA analysis on a hole in the ground 2 miles deep. There is no historical preservation that is going to be improved by permitting a hole 2 miles deep, not when this has already been through a robust State permitting process and these States have requirements and regulations for developing energy resources within their borders. What this does is it eliminates duplicative bureaucracy at the Federal level that has no intent or purpose other than to impede geothermal energy development.

This bill will lower emissions and energy costs for American families and strengthen U.S. energy independence. Accelerating renewable geothermal production and deployment is a win for our economy, our national security, and the environment.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 1449.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 1449, the Committing Leases for Energy Access Now Act, or the CLEAN Act.

First, I thank my friend and colleague Representative Russ Fulcher for being a leader on geothermal energy and for his dedication to this issue.

Geothermal energy is poised to be an important part of America's energy portfolio. Some predictions indicate that geothermal energy can provide up to 90 gigawatts of electricity by 2050. These are great metrics and goals to strive for, but we will never reach this goal if we keep the status quo for permitting and leasing geothermal energy.

Current law requires multiple layers of environmental review for geothermal projects, which leads to higher costs and longer development timelines compared to our power production efforts.

H.R. 1449, the CLEAN Act, would streamline the Federal leasing and permitting process for geothermal energy and spur the development of this renewable energy source in the United States.

California is a prime example of a Western State with huge geothermal potential, but a lease sale has not been held by the DOI in that State since 2016.

H.R. 1449 would fix lapses like this by requiring the Secretary of the Interior to hold annual geothermal lease sales rather than once every 2 years. It will also force the Secretary to hold a replacement lease sale if one is missed.

In addition, this bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to notify an applicant whether or not its geothermal drilling permit application is complete within 30 days of receiving the application. If Interior determines that the application is complete, then it must issue a final decision on the applications within 30 days.

Some may argue that these deadlines are too fast and don't allow adequate time for the bureaucracy to complete reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act and other environmental laws, but this simply is not the case.

The bill itself does not waive the agency's responsibilities under current environmental laws. We all know from experience that agencies will not issue permits until they meet the necessary legal requirements.

The potential for geothermal energy in this country cannot be understated. There are myriad hot spots in the West that are prime for developing this kind of energy. We must do all we can to ensure that bureaucratic red tape does not hamper this resource moving forward.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Fulcher), who is the author of the bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I again urge my colleagues to vote in support of H.R. 1449.

As has been said, geothermal energy in the U.S. has potential to generate 90

gigawatts of power. To put that in perspective, that would be like 150 to 200 large power-producing plants.

It is energy, electricity, coming from non-carbon-emitting sources and from a renewable resource.

This should be a no-brainer for both sides of the aisle as we face challenges with as much as an increased rate of three times per year more electricity demand than what we have seen in the past. We know we need energy from anywhere we can get it in greater volumes than we have had before.

Just this last week, we passed a bill that would streamline the permitting process for geothermal plants on State and private lands. This bill is another commonsense solution that will help bring our lagging geothermal industry online.

It is time we build more geothermal plants to reach our full geothermal potential in this country and unleash America's energy resources for our citizens and allies around the world.

It is imperative that we increase the rate of leasing geothermal plants so that American citizens can enjoy the low-cost, reliable, and renewable energy that comes from these plants.

Again, Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 1449, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is good to see my colleague, Mr. Grijalva, here in the Chamber today. Although it is good to see him presenting his amendment, I oppose the amendment.

This amendment attempts to mirror the language in the Mineral Leasing Act for oil and gas production on Federal lands, but, unfortunately, there are some key differences. If my colleagues look at it in its whole, the amendment would make it more difficult to lease geothermal resources than to lease oil and gas.

In fact, this amendment would triple the timeline for an agency to respond to a project applicant on whether their geothermal drilling permit application is complete or deficient.

This is not a timeline for permit approval. It is a timeline for simply letting someone know if they submitted a complete application.

Under current law, the BLM is already required to provide similar affirmation on oil and gas permit applications within 10 days. This amendment

would create a timeline for geothermal permit applicants nine times longer than those BLM is already held to for oil and gas.

The amendment also states that the NEPA review must be complete before final permit approval. This language is unnecessary. The bill does nothing to waive NEPA requirements.

Additionally, the amendment would create a new option for the BLM to deny geothermal permits, effectively pulling the rug out from under energy projects at the last step in the permitting process.

Mr. Chairman, for these reasons, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, again, the bill does nothing to waive NEPA requirements. It just simply speeds up the timeline.

It shouldn't take an agency 90 days to notify an applicant if an application is complete or not. We need more of this clean, renewable energy. To get more of it, we need to get a permitting process that works.

Unfortunately, this amendment would slow down the process even more. That is why I am opposed to the amendment. I encourage others to vote against it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. It would gut the bill by conditioning enactment on a determination by the Secretary of the Interior that the Bureau of Land Management and other relevant Federal permitting agencies have received adequate funding to resolve permitting staff shortages.

If Members felt the urge to laugh when I stated that, they are probably not too far off because this amendment doesn't really pass the laugh test.

I have never heard of a Federal agency admitting to having enough funding or enough staff, and this amendment simply is a poison pill because the action it is conditioned on simply will never happen.

The issue is not DOI staff capacity but burdensome permitting processes that take years, produce duplicative reviews, and consume thousands of hours for regulators and project proponents alike.

Actually, we passed a bill just last week that will help resolve any issue that may be there. H.R. 7409 would decrease the administrative load on staff and field offices by not requiring a Federal permit for geothermal energy produced on State and private lands. That bill would rapidly streamline the approval process by relying on the States' permitting procedures rather than the duplicative Federal process.

My friends on the other side of the aisle had a chance last week to free agency staffers from their redundant work, but many opposed the bill.

Let's not forget that last Congress, as the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) stated, the Democrats rammed through a reconciliation package with a billion dollars for permitting. DOI had $150 million, and from that bill, it was to provide for the hiring and training of personnel, the development of programmatic environmental documents, the procurement of technical or scientific services for environmental reviews, the development of

environmental data or information systems, stakeholder and community engagement.

In fact, the Department has grown by 4,000 full-time equivalents from fiscal year 2020 to fiscal year 2023.

More funding and bureaucrats aren't what is needed now. What is needed is for DOI to recognize energy permitting as a priority and create a plan for meeting the required timelines.

We must continue working here to pass more permitting reform measures to help alleviate the permitting burden on important energy projects. These measures will also reduce the redundant permitting tasks performed by the Federal workforce.

H.R. 1449 will hold the Department's feet to the fire by forcing them to act on geothermal leasing and permitting in a timely manner. For those reasons, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I think we have to ask ourselves, do we want environmental growth in this country to be based on growing the bureaucracy and spending more money on permits, or do we actually want to make things? Do we want to produce energy? Do we want to use the resources that we have?

Geothermal operators are often required to complete six separate NEPA reviews to get a Federal permit: one for exploration, another if there is a subsurface anomaly, a third for drilling a slim confirmation hole, a fourth to develop the well field, a fifth for the power plant itself, and a sixth if the project is speculative exploration on lands not previously leased.

The status quo is a duplicative and wasteful process and prevents the United States from developing this very clean energy source. Performing NEPA six times does not provide six times the environmental benefit, rather less duplicative NEPA reviews will actually increase the rate at which these clean energy resources come online.

This bill is an attempt to put more clean energy resources on the grid at a faster pace. This amendment would undermine that goal. I oppose it, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Madam Speaker, before we begin, I want to address the results of last week's election. I congratulate the gentleman from Texas and my Republican colleagues on the results of the Presidential election.

For them, this election was a reason to celebrate. For half the country, it was awful. Like so many people, I am deeply concerned-- concerned about our democracy, concerned that the man who was elected does not care about helping regular people, concerned that people are going to be hurt by his bad policies, concerned that vulnerable populations will become targets, concerned by the President-elect's fascination with Vladimir Putin, concerned that in the face of such a tough reality, many in this country will become disillusioned and disengaged from politics altogether.

Like many people, I am worried, but let me tell you what I am not going to do. I am not going to complain and whine like Republicans. I am not going to deny facts or reality and pretend that the election was rigged against us. I am not going to create fake stories about poll workers stuffing ballot boxes that result in people getting death threats and having to leave their homes.

Democrats aren't going to violently storm the Capitol Building. We are not going to go on TV and spread lies about voter fraud. We are not going to elevate conspiracy theories that point the finger to blame others for the outcome. We sure as hell would have no interest in pardoning people who attacked cops, desecrated this building, and treated our country like garbage.

The truth is that the election this year was free and fair, just like the election in 2020 was free and fair. Republicans were already getting ready to sow the seeds of another big lie until they won. Then, their claims of voter fraud evaporated into thin air.

What you will not see is Democrats try to overturn the election like sore losers. We are not going to act like babies. We are going to take responsibility, and we are going to move forward.

I think the most important thing we can do right now is listen to our friends, our neighbors, and our fellow Americans because obviously things need to change, but I also want to say this loud and clear to everyone listening who is upset by the outcome of this election: Please don't give in to despair. We cannot change the past. All we can do is to help shape the future, and the hard work of protecting this country from the potentially devastating effects of a second Donald Trump Presidency starts today.

We can take heart in our small victories. We have new voices joining our ranks in the Senate and in the House, many of them historic and ready to push for change. As our party recalibrates--and let me be clear, we must recalibrate--we will need every one of these new voices on our side.

While we still await the final determination on who will be in charge of the House of Representatives, let me just say that if Republicans hold onto control, we will show up. We will show up for every single fight and every single vote. We will minimize the damage where we can, and while we may not always win, we will slow down the destructive forces that could arise from total Republican control in Washington.

Madam Speaker, if the Republicans keep the majority and the next 2 years are like the last 2, maybe we will have little to worry about. This Republican majority has been the most ineffective body in history. They have accomplished nothing. They don't know how to govern.

It really has been a disgrace, a national disgrace, but rest assured, we will raise our voices, the voices of the people who sent us here to speak for them, the people who do not agree with Republican policies and who voted for us to make sure someone would fight back.

Democrats may have lost some races, but we are not defeated. Our values are strong. We know what to fight for because we know what we stand for: an economy that works for working people, a government that serves everyone regardless of their background, and a vision for a brighter future that addresses the urgent challenges that people care about, like the cost of living, hunger, and climate change.

Let me just say, Madam Speaker, this is the beauty of democracy. No defeat is final, and where we can find common ground with our colleagues across the aisle and with the President-elect, we will work together to make progress because our side is interested in helping improve the quality of life for the people of this country. Where we cannot find common ground, we will stand firm in defense of our values.

The work goes on, and we will fight for all those who placed their hopes and dreams in our hands.

Now, if we are talking about the bills that this rule would bring to the floor, H.R. 8446 politically interferes in a science-driven process and potentially siphons needed resources away from at-risk supply chains. H.R. 7409 undermines our environmental laws and blocks public input in the permitting process, which could lead to irreparable damage to our lands.

While H.R. 8932 offers a pragmatic solution to ensure student aid reaches those who need it, let us pray that, despite Trump's promise to dismantle the Department of Education, the agency that oversees FASFA survives the next 4 years so that this measure can actually benefit American families.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 12, a bill that would ensure that every American has full access to essential reproductive healthcare, including abortion care.

Since the Dobbs decision, every State in the Union has taken action on abortion in some way. Many enacted laws to either ban some or all abortion. Republicans have reiterated time and time again that this is their goal. They want to take away women's reproductive freedoms.

The abortion access landscape is more fractured since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. We continue to face the devastating consequences of abortion bans and restrictions on both patients' health and the greater healthcare ecosystem. We have heard in recent weeks the heartbreaking stories of women who have died because of these abortion bans.

H.R. 12 ensures every American has full access to vital reproductive healthcare and will stop the devastating health consequences for women when abortion access is banned or limited.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Pettersen) to discuss that proposal.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Colorado.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, there is no way to sugarcoat this. We have 2 long years ahead of us. For Republicans, that likely means facing the challenges of governing. I wish them luck. I hope they can figure out how to govern. They haven't been able to demonstrate that up to this point. For Democrats, it will mean we will have time to reflect, learn, and grow stronger from this election.

We know we need to become better listeners and better communicators, and we know we need to engage more with people on the issues that matter most to them. We will do that.

It also means finding common ground with those we disagree with when it comes to helping regular people. I hope that there will be occasions when there can be common ground achieved and reached so we can actually move things forward. If, in fact, the Republicans win the House and they control this Chamber, I hope that they will move away from the practice of constantly leaning on the most extreme Members in their Conference for guidance on what should be discussed on the House floor.

When it comes to when our values don't align, it will mean us calling out poor policy for what it is and pushing back with every single tool at our disposal to slow the damage.

We will show up. We will show up. We will use our voices. We will stand up for the people and against anything that would do them harm.

It will be a long 2 years, but we are in this fight. I have never felt a greater sense of purpose than I do at this moment because so much is at stake. Things that matter to the people I represent are under threat by the President-elect and his policies.

We will stand up for our values. We will stand up for the people in this country who now feel threatened because of the election results. We will stand up, as Ms. Pettersen just talked about in her remarks, for women's reproductive freedoms. Women should decide what is best for them, not Members of this Chamber, and not the President of the United States.

Again, we have a lot of challenges ahead, but I will tell my friends on the other side of the aisle, we are ready. We are ready to come together when we can find common ground.

This is just a promise, but we will fight you with every ounce of energy we have if you bring up policies that we have strong disagreements with. We will not rally or roll over in the face of policies that we deplore.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. Chair, I am happy to be here once again on another set of energy bills and amendments. While I certainly support the goal of this bill to deploy more clean, renewable geothermal energy on our public lands, unfortunately I and other members of our Caucus are unable to support this bill in its current form and urge opposition to the bill.

Throughout this Congress, geothermal energy has been a bright spot of bipartisanship. Geothermal is an extremely promising and growing source of sustainable and reliable renewable energy.

We have heard from geothermal developers that there can be challenges to permitting new plants and new facilities, so we understand the intent of this bill. That is why our committee has worked on a bipartisan basis to get to solutions that will help support the industry and deploy more renewable energy.

I am grateful to my colleagues who have taken up this issue, bills like the Geothermal Cost-Recovery Authority Act from Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, the GEO Act from Representative Curtis, and H.R. 6474 from Representative Steel and others.

I was pleased to see these responsible permitting solutions pass the House, and I hope to see Senate action on them soon and continued bipartisan work.

Unfortunately, this bill is not in a place where we can offer bipartisan support.

H.R. 1449, the CLEAN Act, does contain some important provisions that we would be supportive of, but it also contains some serious technical flaws that could create major constraints and unintended consequences for geothermal projects.

First, the bill mandates that more geothermal lease sales happen. Democrats, in general, support this. We want to see additional geothermal facilities and the use of our Federal resources where appropriate to do that. We would love to see more resources offered through our agencies so that they can actually do this work, but we will take it as it is.

Next, however, the bill says that the Department of the Interior must notify an applicant for a geothermal drilling permit as to whether the application is complete within 30 days. When the Department of the Interior testified on the bill, they recommended increasing the timeline to 90 days to provide sufficient time for the limited situations where staffing, project size, or complexity would prevent an office from complying. For example, let's say an office is understaffed at the moment.

We offered this change in committee and again today are offering it on the House floor. Ranking Member Grijalva's amendment would change the first deadline from 30 days to 90 days, an easy fix. We are willing to negotiate on the exact number, but unfortunately, we have not had willing partners in that negotiation. They are continuing to insist on a timeline that is not workable for our Federal Government.

Next, and most problematically, the bill would require that the Department of the Interior make a final decision on a permit, either approving or denying it, within 30 days of the application being complete. The Department has called this essentially impossible to achieve. Issuing a decision within 30 days would not allow adequate time to complete the analysis required under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. There are other permits from other agencies, like Fish and Wildlife, EPA, and Tribal consultation that must occur before a permit can be issued.

In the best case scenario, this bill would result in uncoordinated, rushed approvals where the Department and our communities barely understand the potential environmental and cultural impacts required by law, which would result in lawsuits and delay projects even further.

In a worst case scenario, good, worthy projects could get denied simply because an agency doesn't have sufficient staffing and time to comply with the deadline in the bill.

All the possible scenarios here are just a bad deal for geothermal developers and a bad deal for Americans who would like to see clean energy deployed responsibly, effectively, and quickly. To solve this, we filed several amendments at markup for consideration on the floor to provide necessary flexibility and time to complete the reviews and prevent avoidable denials, but unfortunately, those were not taken up at the committee level.

I will also point out that the House passed a bill along these lines by voice vote earlier this year. The GEO Act from Representative Curtis of Utah addresses similar permitting concerns but directs the Department to issue a decision on a permit within 60 days of the completion of the review under NEPA and other laws. That is a Republican-led bill that the agency believes they can work with, so we have a possibility of a path forward.

Even in the Senate, we have a Manchin-Barrasso bipartisan permitting bill that would adopt similar language to make a more workable timeline, which is similar to the amendment offered by Ranking Member Grijalva today.

We hope that our colleagues across the aisle will come to the negotiating table if this bill does move forward. It is important that we fix these timelines. I understand that we are trying to expedite and improve the deployment and permitting of these projects, but we have to make sure that they are workable from a practical standpoint within our communities and agencies.

We want positive outcomes, clean energy, and geothermal. This is a bipartisan issue. We can do this. Let's come to the table and get something done that we can all support. Unfortunately, today, I have to urge opposition to this bill.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I want to respond to one comment that was just made about the employees of the Department of the Interior.

For many folks who are not familiar with the Department of the Interior, I will note that there have been people in history who have called it the department of everything because it manages our public lands, water resources and reservoirs, wildlife through the Fish and Wildlife Service, and mineral leasing. It does our geologic surveys. It manages and provides programs and responsibilities to our Tribal nations. The reason why there are 70,000 employees in the Department of the Interior is because they work across all of those bureaus and missions.

The reality is, if you have ever had to work with the Federal Government, Mr. Chair, is that many of these kinds of decisions are made at the most local level in a field office in the Bureau of Land Management, which is the agency responsible for permitting at the most local level. Oftentimes, the agencies find themselves with staff vacancies, a lack of resources, or they have multiple permits come across the desk of a local resource manager.

To expect somebody who is working in a field office, potentially in a rural or remote area of the United States, to process a sophisticated permit and all the related interagency and interbureau coordination and Tribal consultation required in 30 days is just not realistic. While I appreciate the assertion, that is just not how it works.

Let's be reasonable. We all want the same outcome. Let's not create a law that just results in lawsuits and difficulties for our Federal agencies so that we can move on and get this done.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the debate. Democrats are strong proponents of geothermal energy and support the intent of this bill. This technology is critical for the clean energy transition, jobs, and replacing other kinds of energy.

We want to see responsible development in relation to our public lands. To make that goal a reality, Democrats have supported bipartisan legislation that increases efficiency in permitting processes and other legislation that gets at the same challenges that this bill is trying to address without taking away the necessary environmental and community input.

Unfortunately, there are technical aspects of this bill, including the timelines, that are just not realistic.

In addition to those arbitrary timelines that would undercut community voices and potential protections in sensitive places, this would make projects themselves more vulnerable to delays should lawsuits happen or there are shoddy reviews or a lack of outside input.

I want us to be good bipartisan partners to all of you in this work, but we really do have to come up with some commonsense fixes.

Mr. Chair, as I mentioned just a few moments ago, I hope that we can work together to resolve those technical issues. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the bill as it is currently drafted, and I yield back the balance of my time.