H.Res. 1085

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

Mr. Speaker, I welcome everyone to the long-anticipated, endlessly rescheduled energy week.

Over the next 2 days, with only a matter of days until a partial shutdown, rather than a transparent discussion on how to fund the government, this Chamber will debate and vote on a number of energy- related bills, bills Republicans claim will boost so-called energy dominance.

It is not hard to see through their talking points.

The U.S. is producing more oil and gas than ever before, and what do we have to show for it? Everyday Americans still face volatile energy prices because oil and gas are global commodities and because we are exporting record amounts of fossil fuels.

The communities nearest to this record-breaking production are overburdened with pollution, and their health and well-being are suffering. The climate crisis, because it is real, is getting more dire each year.

The United States should be leading the way to a new, cleaner future, not drilling deeper into this catastrophe.

Rather than addressing these issues head-on and building a just future that generations to come can be proud of, House Republicans are instead choosing to lead us toward more of the same--stuffing the pockets of Big Oil executives who are hoping to make another quick yacht off the backs of hardworking Americans just as they have done for years.

We have seen these washed-up, has-been proposals before.

Last year, Republicans passed H.R. 1, the polluters over people act which contains some of these repeat proposals. It is like a bad boyfriend coming back who just needs to be gone.

This week is no different.

We are going to see the same tired handouts to the richest and most polluting megacorporations, all while leaving our most vulnerable communities in the toxic dust. It is polluters over people 2.0.

The first bill on the agenda is H.R. 1121, which would prevent the President from banning fracking unless authorized by Congress, even if there is a public health emergency, poisoned drinking water, or any other fracking crisis.

For my colleagues across the aisle, maybe this is just a messaging bill, but for folks on the ground, it is extremely dangerous. It ignores the very real consequences of fracking for impacted communities.

Fracking is a method of extracting oil and gas from deep underground. It involves blasting open rock at high pressure with a mixture of water, sand, and chemicals, many of which are undisclosed.

In areas where fracking is concentrated, it has been linked to preterm births, high-risk pregnancies, asthma, migraines, fatigue, respiratory symptoms, skin disorders, and the list goes on.

The fracking chemicals we do know about--things like benzene and ethylene glycol, are known to be hazardous to human health. Children living near fracking sites have lower birth weights and higher rates of cancer.

Fracking chemicals end up in our soil and in our groundwater. Fracking is known to contaminate air and drinking water, but this Republican sweetheart legislation would stop the President from banning or even pausing fracking on public lands and in Federal waters, even if it poses a clear, known, and present danger to drinking water and public health.

Here is something you are going to hear a lot from Democrats this week: Big Oil and Big Gas don't need any more favors right now. They don't need more tax breaks. They don't need more special loopholes. They don't need more handouts.

The President should have the full range of tools to protect the American people, especially when it comes to our public lands and resources.

Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to look at the balance sheets of all of these Big Oil executives. No one is waiting in a food line. No one is trying to cash an unemployment check. They have the money, and they will be getting more because of these loopholes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Levin).

Mr. Speaker, in 2015 the Obama administration published a rule regulating fracking on public lands, and I should mention that the rule was not a ban on fracking, but a commonsense requirement that companies disclose what chemicals they are using.

It would also have required storage protocols for wastewater, barriers between wells and water zones, and the disclosure of the location of existing wells--additional commonsense protections for the public.

The rule was challenged, and the District Court of Wyoming struck down an appeal. The District Court of Wyoming read the Safe Drinking Water Act's exclusion of fracking from that law's underground injection program to mean that no Federal agency can regulate fracking.

This was a flimsy court case that has not been reviewed on appeal, and the Trump BLM rescinded the rule before the appeals court could rule on it. The case does not mean that the Federal Government should have no role in regulating fracking for oil and gas. This issue is too important for us to leave 100 percent to a patchwork of State laws. The President must have the full range of tools to protect our health, safety, and climate from the dangers of fracking.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record Mr. Levin's amendment immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from the Yale School of Public Health, published in ScienceDirect in response to the statements of my colleague on the other side of the aisle that fracking is safe and that it is safe for nearby communities.

[From Science of the Total Environment, Aug. 16, 2016]

Unconventional Oil and Gas Development and Risk of Childhood Leukemia:

Assessing the Evidence

(By Elise G. Elliott, Pauline Trinh, Xiaomei Ma, Brian P. Leaderer,

Mary H. Ward, Nicole C. Deziel)

Mr. Speaker, this article shows that living within a mile of a fracked well directly increases the risks of children developing leukemia. They are not children from the radical left. They are children from across the country. The study warns that millions of people living within a mile of fracked wells may have been exposed to these cancer-causing chemicals.

In response to this study, several physicians are quoted as saying: ``This is like smoking in the 1950s. There was a lot of suggestive evidence, but the conclusive stuff came later. I think we're going to get it, maybe in 5 or 10 years, but it is a question of how much damage is going to be done in the meantime.''

``Too often, we look at the political environment before we look at the evidence, and I don't think that's serving our future.''

This is just one study looking at a couple dozen pollutants. There is ample evidence out there to be concerned with fracking's impact on public health, but there is still too much to learn. Yet, H.R. 1121 would ban restrictions on fracking before we know the full realm of impacts on public health. This is unacceptable. The bill is rooted in many falsehoods as it relates to public health.

I am so excited to hear my colleague talk about the fact that we should be hiring American workers, that we should be ensuring that we have great union jobs, that we should be invested in green energy infrastructure. I hope that is why my colleagues across the aisle woulda, shoulda, coulda supported the bipartisan infrastructure law--I know a couple of them did--as well as the Chips and Science Act, and also the Inflation Reduction Act. All of those bills are actually really focused on making sure that we are investing in our country, working on creating more clean, green energy that does not include fracking.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from across the aisle is right: This makes no sense.

If my colleagues across the aisle actually want to push back against Russia, Iran, and Venezuela, then pass the supplemental because that funding will do more to help support democracies around the world and help countries most in need than whatever is in H.R. 1121.

Listening to some of the arguments we have heard from Republicans over the last week and even now today, I have to say, I am confused.

Is oil and gas production higher than ever, or is there a war on energy? Are gas prices high because of Bidenomics, or are prices so low that we should continue exporting LNG? Should the government stop picking winners and losers through energy subsidies, or should we continue giving handouts to oil and gas and even expand those giveaways with the bills up today?

I suspect Republican messaging is so confusing because continuing to rig the system for Big Oil just doesn't make sense.

The U.S. is producing record amounts of oil and gas and is exporting more than ever before. I will say it again: The U.S. is producing record amounts of oil and gas and is exporting more than ever before.

Yet, the American people aren't seeing the benefits. Prices for consumers are still high while Big Oil and other big corporations rake in massive profits.

Reporting from the Groundwork Collaborative found that over half of recent U.S. inflation was caused by corporate price gouging, even as input costs decreased.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Groundwork Collaborative report.

[From Groundwork Collaborative, Jan. 18, 2024]

Inflation Revelation: How Outsized Corporate Profits Drive Rising Costs

(By Liz Pancotti, Strategic Advisor, and Lindsay Owens, Executive

Director)

As their cost of doing business comes down, corporations

pad their bottom lines on the back of consumers.

Inflation has come down significantly from its peak over

the past year, yet prices remain high for American consumers.

From housing and groceries to car insurance and electric

bills, families are still feeling the squeeze. In the wake of

the pandemic, virtually every company in every industry faced

rising costs to make products and stock shelves. Labor costs

rose sharply, the cost of transporting goods across the

country hit record highs, and raw materials became costly or

impossible to get. Corporations were quick to pass rising

costs--and a little extra--on to consumers, fueling rapid

inflation. As supply chain snarls have receded and the

economy has stabilized, businesses continue to pad their

bottom lines, rather than passing these savings on to

consumers.

corporate profits are driving more than half of inflation

Some economists and pundits have sought to discredit the

link between inflation and corporate profiteering. A

Washington Post columnist recently claimed that blaming

inflation on corporate profiteering is like saying ``it's

raining because water is falling from the sky.'' But this

isn't true. Prices are simply the sum of costs and corporate

profits. While rising costs or inputs can drive up Americans

pay at the gas pump or the grocery store, corporate profits

can just as easily.

As corporations have lamented supply chain woes and high

labor costs over the past two years, their profits have

skyrocketed, fueling inflation and exacerbating a

longstanding affordability crisis.

Some economists suggested that markup growth in 2021 was

primarily driven by corporations raising prices in

anticipation of future costs increases. However, corporate

profit margins have remained high--and even grown--as labor

costs have stabilized, nonlabor input costs have come down,

and supply chains snarls have eased.

While labor and nonlabor input costs have played a role in

price increases, corporate profits drove 53 percent of

inflation during the second and third quarters of 2023 and

more than one-third since the start of the pandemic.

Comparatively, over the 40 years prior to the pandemic, they

drove just 11 percent of growth.

Corporate profits as a share of national income has

skyrocketed by 29 percent since the start of the pandemic.

While our economy has returned to or surpassed its pre-

pandemic levels on many indicators, workers' share of

corporate income has still not recovered.

As White House National Economic Council Director Lael

Brainard has noted, ``Overall, the labor share of income has

declined over the past two years and appears to be at or

below pre-pandemic levels. While corporate profits as a share

of GDP remain near postwar highs.''

Economist Isabella Weber has pointed out that corporations

are keeping prices high even as post-pandemic and Ukraine War

supply chain pressures ease and wage growth slows. Why?

Because they can.

Weber argues that supply shocks allowed corporations to

tacitly collude, hike prices, and rake in record profits.

This type of inflation, where corporations raise prices to

protect--and even increase--their profit margins, allows

prices to rise faster than the costs to make goods or provide

services. When corporations pursued this opportunistic

pricing strategy, they found a lot of space to increase

prices, drive up profits, and see very little dropoff in

demand.

Though inflation has eased, prices remain tremendously

elevated from their pre-pandemic levels. Housing costs, for

example, are up 21 percent, grocery costs have risen by 25

percent.

consumer prices are rising much faster than corporations' input costs

While prices for consumers have risen by 3.4 percent over

the past year, input costs for producers have risen by just 1

percent. For many commodities and services, producers' prices

have actually decreased.

Input costs for key goods and services have sharply

decreased over the past year. For example, nearly 60 percent

of the drop in input goods prices was driven by large

declines in energy costs, such as jet fuel and diesel fuel.

Transportation and warehousing costs, which many corporations

have cited as a main driver of price increases, have come

down by nearly 4 percent since peaking in June 2022.

These input costs are critically important for

corporations' balance sheets. As costs go down but revenue

stays high because of higher sticker prices, corporate profit

margins expand on the backs of American consumers.

One prime example of this is the diaper industry, which is

highly concentrated--Procter & Gamble Co. (P&G) and Kimberly-

Clark Corp. control 70 percent of the domestic market. Diaper

prices have increased by more

than 30 percent since 2019 from, on average, $16.50 to nearly

$22. Wood pulp is a major input in diapers and other paper

products, like toilet paper and paper towels. Wholesale wood

pulp prices soared by 87 percent between January 2021 and

January 2023. Yet between January and December 2023, prices

declined by 25 percent.

Using their pricing power, P&G and Kimberly-Clark have kept

diaper prices high for American families, allowing their

profit margins to expand considerably. In P&G's October 2023

earnings call, its CFO, Andre Schulten, said that high prices

were a big driver of profit margin expansion and 33 percent

of their profits in the previous quarter were driven by lower

input costs. During P&G's July 2023 earnings call, the

company predicted $800 million in windfall profits because of

declining input costs. In Kimberly-Clark's October 2023

earnings call, CEO Mike Hsu said the company ``finally saw

inflation in the cost environment'' and admitted that he

believes the company has ``a lot of opportunity to [expand

margins over time] between what [they're] doing on the

revenue side and also on the cost side.'' Despite these large

input cost declines, Hsu said he thinks the company has

``priced appropriately'' and did not anticipate any price

deflation.

The diaper industry is just one example of corporations

exploiting their pricing power to expand margins as input

costs normalize. The same is true for many consumer goods,

including new and used cars, groceries, and housing.

corporations have bragged about their ability to raise prices

Over the past two years, corporations have been explicit

about how they've exploited their pricing power, and how they

have and will continue to do so even as inflation comes down.

General Mills attributed their 16.5 percent increase in

profits in FY 2022 to ``getting smart about how [they] look

at pricing.''

PepsiCo raised its prices across snacks and beverages by

roughly 15 percent during each of 2022Q4 and 2023Q1 as it

increased its margin. CFO Hugh Johnson said they ``may, in

fact, increase margins during the course of the year'' as

costs decreases and prices remain elevated.

The CEO of Holcim, a construction materials manufacturer,

said on recent earnings call, ``We are in that inflationary

environment already for almost two years now...We have done

the pricing in a very proactive way so that our results

aren't suffering. On the contrary, they are improving the

margins.''

Profit margins for AutoNation's finance and insurance

segment have increased by 7 percent as they continue to hike

margins with new fees and increased prices for consumers,

even while products don't improve.

Carvana notes that it deceased its non-vehicle retail costs

by nearly $1,000 per car, driving huge margin increases (30

percent) even as used car costs remain elevated. Used car

prices remain elevated and are up nearly 40 percent.

conclusion

In the wake of the pandemic, consumer demand rebounded and

supply chains struggled to keep up as a result of decades of

disinvestment and offshoring. Goods became more expensive to

make and transport, and tighter labor markets delivered long-

overdue wage increases for workers. As businesses' costs went

up, they jumped on the opportunity to pass on rising costs to

consumers and have continued squeezing American's pocketbooks

for more. Now that their costs have stailized--or, in many

cases, come down significantly--it's time for companies to

stop gouging consumers.

The Biden administration is taking steps to strengthen

global supply chains and onshore manufacturing, crack down on

corporate concentration that has enabled corporations to put

consumers through the wringer, and eliminate junk fees.

President Biden said last month, ``To any corporation that

has not brought their prices back down--even as inflation has

come down, even [as] supply chains have been rebuilt--it's

time to stop the price gouging.'' The Consumer Financial

Protection Bureau, the Federal Trade Commission, and the

Department of Justice continue to dust off authorities not

touched in decades to rein in corporate profiteering and

concentration.

As Congress turns to expiring provisions from the 2017

Trump tax cuts over the next year, they must take a hard look

at the corporate tax rate. Our tax code should support a

robust and equitable economy, not incentivize profiteering.

The fundamental question we need to ask ourselves is

whether we want an economy where corporations can exploit

pandemics, supply chain crises, and wars at the expense of

American workers and families, or an economy where

corporations are put in check, allowing everyone to thrive?

Mr. Speaker, communities living closest to oil and gas production, mostly low-income and people of color, are left paying the costs of constant pollution and public health crises. We are all paying for the record number of billion-dollar climate disasters in 2023, driven by the fossil fuel climate crisis.

These bills we are debating today would walk back important protections for taxpayers and local communities to keep funneling money into the pockets of Big Oil.

It does not make sense to keep doubling down on a bad deal. Big Oil does not need more favors right now. They don't need more tax breaks. They don't need more handouts--I am going to keep saying it--and they don't need more special loopholes.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I often hear my Republican colleagues say that more oil and gas production in the U.S. benefits consumers and that fracking has helped that production along. We should celebrate.

Then I did have to think about seeing this recent movie, ``Killers of the Flower Moon,'' and how that is probably not a really good thing to celebrate, but I digress. I don't want to do that.

The U.S. is already the number one producer of oil and gas in the world. We are exporting record amounts of fossil fuel across the globe. Yet, our communities are still not seeing the benefits.

That is because the benefits are going straight to Big Oil, which is seeing profits soar yet again. We cannot rely on the decades-old Republican agenda of ``drill, baby, drill,'' to lower prices for Americans.

This bill proposes to give yet another handout to oil and gas, supposedly in the hope that these corporations will be so thankful that they will lower their prices just to be nice. I mean, does anyone still believe this trickle-down nonsense?

Look, if we want better energy prices, then we need energy independence, which means a transition to clean energy, which is cheaper, safer, and generated entirely here at home instead of being at the mercy of global price shocks like oil and gas.

I am also so grateful to hear my colleagues talk about the things that we should have learned from COVID. I hope that means that at some point they will be willing to discuss universal healthcare and making sure we all have access to affordable, high-quality healthcare. I hope that means that they are going to admit that COVID is a real thing and that vaccinations and access to that kind of healthcare and information is important.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill is yet another shameless giveaway to Big Oil, even though Big Oil is still making earth-shattering, mineral- shattering profits by taking billions in taxpayer-funded subsidies, price gouging families, and leaving Americans with climate, health, safety, and financial consequences. This bill would enshrine Big Oil's exploitation of American taxpayers for the foreseeable future.

Big Oil does not need any favors right now. I know I sound like a broken record, but sometimes you have to say it more than once so people can hear it. They don't need more special loopholes. They don't need more handouts. They don't need more tax breaks.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 1121, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 7023.

This bill significantly restricts the oversight and regulatory authorities of the EPA and Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act.

The Clean Water Act, enacted over 50 years ago, is the Nation's bedrock environmental law for restoring and maintaining the ``chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters'' and water resources.

However, the changes in H.R. 7023 defy the act's overarching intent and gut the independent authority of both agencies to ensure that projects and activities are carried out with only minimal impacts to water resources.

This partisan bill weakens clean water protections while providing exemptions, legal shields, and limited oversight to special interest polluters and large-scale projects that demand higher scrutiny.

The bill disregards congressional intent in establishing EPA's independent oversight authority over clean water permits, undermines permitting requirements, eliminates judicial review and public engagement, rolls back oversight of mining companies and industrial polluters, inadvertently slows down permit processing with increased bureaucracy, and complicates State-determined decisions.

Mr. Chairman, this bill would also significantly reduce remaining Clean Water Act protections over critical rivers, streams, lakes, and wetlands that survived last year's Supreme Court ruling.

Not satisfied with the Court's Sackett decision that eliminated protections for more than 50 percent of the wetlands and up to 70 percent of the streams, this package of anti-clean water proposals would further hamstring the EPA's and Corps' abilities to operate independently to protect our Nation's waterways.

These proposals go in the wrong direction by giving even more to polluters and sacrificing the needs of communities that depend on clean water.

After Sackett, Congress should be working to restore the protections of the Clean Water Act that worked for over 50 years and to move H.R. 5983, the Clean Water Act of 2023, a bill that I have cosponsored with over 130 of my colleagues, to restore clean water protections over our waters, many of which serve as irreplaceable sources of water for families, our communities, our farms, our businesses, our industries, and our quality of life.

We have made too much progress in cleaning up the rivers and streams for Congress to give up now. Mr. Chairman, that is why I am opposed to the proposed changes in H.R. 7023 that weaken bedrock Clean Water Act protections.

The bill will add additional hurdles to EPA's ability to issue water quality standards. It will reduce, if not eliminate, opportunities for the public to seek redress when they are harmed by violations of the Clean Water Act. It would effectively eliminate EPA's ability to oversee and block dangerous projects.

Communities will not benefit from these changes, but mining companies, the oil and gas industry, and other toxic polluters will.

My colleagues would like to approve projects faster, but we need to ensure that projects are built with full consideration of the impacts to human health and the environment. I support the EPA and the Corps working with local communities, Tribes, and States to make these important decisions.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a copy of the minority views to H.R. 7023 that were cosigned by myself, Ranking Member Larsen, and an overwhelming majority of Democrats on the committee.

Minority Views

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues on both sides to vote ``no'' on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a copy of the Statement of Administration Policy in opposition to H.R. 7023, which states that this legislation will ``weaken the Clean Water Act, remove protections for waterways that are vital to the well-being of American families, and undermine ongoing, bipartisan efforts to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of infrastructure permitting processes.''

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 7023--Creating Confidence in Clean Water Permitting Act--Rep.

Rouzer, R-NC

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 7023, which would

weaken the Clean Water Act, remove protections for waterways

that are vital to the well-being of American families, and

undermine ongoing, bipartisan efforts to improve the

efficiency and effectiveness of infrastructure permitting

processes. The Administration is making historic investments

and taking unprecedented action to modernize and accelerate

permitting to ensure that infrastructure projects get

designed and built swiftly and in a way that reflects

community input and protects clean air, clean water, and

public health. H.R. 7023 would create uncertainty, confusion,

and conflict in permitting processes by: restricting

community input and environmental analysis and information

that is needed to inform Federal decisions to protect the

public; curtailing the Environmental Protection Agency's

ability to keep pollutants out of water supplies upon which

communities rely; and, weakening bedrock environmental

protections. H.R. 7023 is out of step with the type of

bipartisan permitting reforms that the Administration

supports and that Congress should pass.

Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen).

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record letters in opposition to H.R. 7023, including a letter from 49 organizations expressing concern that legislation containing several misguided attacks on clean water in the Clean Water Act puts polluter profits ahead of public health and would jeopardize the water that our families, communities, businesses, and wildlife depend on.

March 18, 2024.

Re Oppose H.R. 7023, an attack on our clean water

protections.

Dear Representative: On behalf of our members and

supporters, the undersigned organizations urge you to oppose

H.R. 7023, the misleadingly named ``Creating Confidence in

Clean Water Permitting Act.'' This bill contains several

misguided attacks on clean water and the Clean Water Act,

puts polluter profits ahead of public health, and would

jeopardize the waters that our families, communities, and

wildlife depend on.

Numerous provisions of H.R. 7023 shield industrial

dischargers that would pollute or destroy our streams, lakes,

wetlands, and other waters from responsibility, thereby

imposing on downstream communities the burden of increased

pollution and flooding, to say nothing of the costs of

remedying those threats. In particular:

Section 2 would give polluters new ways to slow down the

Environmental Protection Agency's process for updating water

quality criteria. Criteria reflect EPA's assessment of the

scientific evidence about how pollutants in our waterways

adversely affect human health and aquatic life, and include

non-binding recommendations for water quality standards that

states can adopt to prevent those harmful effects. By

subjecting EPA's issuance of criteria to additional

administrative processes and opening them up to industry

lawsuits, this bill could delay improved protections

reflective of scientific developments--which is particularly

concerning for emerging contaminants.

Section 3 would authorize EPA to issue ``general'' permits

under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

program for industrial and municipal polluters. This new

authority lacks safeguards that Congress included in the

parallel general permitting program for ``dredge and fill''

activities, namely that the activities must have minimal

adverse environmental impacts. It also would greatly limit

EPA's ability to terminate such a permit if the agency

determined it was causing unacceptable harm to the

environment.

Section 4 would make it easier for industrial operations to

dump PFAS, also known as ``forever chemicals,'' and other

emerging contaminants into the nation's waters without

accountability. Specifically, the bill would shield

dischargers from Clean Water Act liability even if they are

aware of certain pollutants in their waste streams but do not

disclose it to pollution control officials who do not have

reason to expect such contaminants.

Section 5 would virtually eliminate EPA's ability to stop

mammoth polluting projects like the Pebble Mine in Alaska's

Bristol Bay watershed. This rarely-used authority (invoked

only 14 times in the Act's history) is crucial to prevent the

most egregious projects from destroying precious fisheries,

drinking water supplies, and other resources.

Section 6 would require the Army Corps of Engineers to

permanently retain a fast-track permit for highly destructive

and polluting oil and gas pipelines and greatly weaken the

Corps' nationwide permitting program--a program that is

already far too lax in preventing and mitigating the harm

caused by projects that fill in the nation's waters. The bill

would double the duration of general permits, such that

advancements in best practices for the dozens of activities

covered by such permits would not be required promptly. And

it would excuse the Army Corps of Engineers from considering

the full environmental consequences of permitted activities,

as well as the effects of such activities on endangered

species.

Section 7 would prevent effective judicial review of

projects that fill in and destroy wetlands, streams, and

other waters. The bill would impose an impractically short

statute of limitations on court review of ``dredge and fill''

permits, which would likely force concerned citizens to file

suit on more permits in order to preserve their rights, in

many instances before the impacts of the permitted project

are fully understood. The bill would also severely hamstring

courts' authority to provide a remedy for illegal permits

because permits found unlawful would ordinarily remain in

effect and allow continued harm to water resources while the

Army Corps of Engineers reexamines them.

In contrast to these provisions, polling continues to show

that people actually want stronger federal protections for

our nation's waters. Too many communities, especially

Indigenous communities, communities of color, and low wealth

communities, still lack clean water. Congress should be

focused on putting people before polluters and working to

ensure everyone, no matter their race, zip code, or income,

has access to clean water, rather than attempting to

undermine our critical clean water protections.

Again, we urge you to VOTE NO on H.R. 7023, an attack on

our clean water safeguards that would endanger the waters our

families and communities depend on and work against the Clean

Water Act's objective ``to restore and maintain the chemical,

physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.''

Sincerely,

Alabama Rivers Alliance; Alliance for the Great Lakes;

American Rivers; Amigos Bravos; Appalachian Trail

Conservancy; Bayou

City Waterkeeper; Center for Biological Diversity; Center for

Food Safety; Children's Environmental Health Network; Clean

Water Action; Clean Wisconsin; Committee on the Middle Fork

Vermiliom River; Community Water Center; Earthjustice;

Environmental Justice Health Alliance; Environment America.

Environmental Law & Policy Center; Environmental Protection

Network; Food & Water Watch; For Love of Water (FLOW);

Freshwater Future; GreenLatinos; Izaak Walton League of

America; Kentucky Waterways Alliance; Latino Farmers &

Ranchers International, Inc.; Lawyers for Good Government;

League of Conservation Voters; Maryland Pesticide Education

Network; Massachusetts Pollinator Network; Massachusetts

Rivers Alliance; Mississippi River Collaborative; National

Audubon Society.

National Wildlife Federation; National Resources Defense

Council; New Mexico Wild; Northwest Center for Alternatives

to Pesticides; Ohio River Foundation; People and Pollinators

Action Network; PolicyLink; River Network; Sierra Club;

Southern Environmental Law Center; Surfrider Foundation; The

Water Collaborative of Greater New Orleans; Toxic Free North

Carolina; Waterkeeper Alliance; Waterkeepers Chesapeake; WE

ACT for Environmental Justice; We the People of Detroit.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Sykes).

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record two letters expressing opposition to H.R. 7023 and its efforts to reopen Federal protections of pristine salmon habitat within and around Bristol Bay, Alaska, including a letter from the Bristol Bay Defense Fund and the United Tribes of Bristol Bay.

January 30, 2024.

Re Oppose Anti-404(c) Clean Water Act Legislation

Hon. Sam Graves,

Chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Rick Larsen,

Ranking Member of the House Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

To the Honorable Members of the House Transportation and

Infrastructure Committee: On behalf of the Bristol Bay

Defense Fund, we write in opposition to the ``Reducing

Permitting Uncertainty'' language amending Section 404(c) of

the Clean Water Act, which would eviscerate the Environmental

Protection Agency's (EPA) authority to prohibit, restrict,

deny, or withdraw permits for destructive projects that would

pollute our nation's water resources. These changes to

Section 404(c) are a direct attack on the nation's clean

water, Clean Water Act, and the EPA. While purporting to

streamline the permitting process for development projects,

these changes to Section 404(c) would threaten the very

foundation of environmental protection for our nation's

wetlands and aquatic ecosystems, compromising their

ecological integrity and ultimately impacting water quality,

public health, and economic stability.

The provisions of H.R. 7206, Amendment to H.R. 7023, or any

similar anti-404(c) language would gut the EPA's ability

under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to stop giant

polluting projects that would have an unacceptable adverse

effect on municipal water supplies, fisheries, wildlife, and

recreational areas like the proposed Pebble Mine in Bristol

Bay, Alaska. By limiting the EPA to as little as 30 days to

invoke its 404(c) authority, H.R. 7206 would eliminate any

meaningful opportunity for review by the public (including

the project proponent) and would preclude the EPA from

conducting the type of careful analyses that have supported

previous 404(c) determinations. H.R. 7023 would similarly

eviscerate the EPA's authority.

These anti-404(c) provisions ignore the EPA's rare and

judicious use of Section 404(c), invoked only 14 times in the

Clean Water Act's 52-year history. They represent a blatant

attempt to green light and fast track even the most egregious

projects that would destroy our Nation's water resources.

The Clean Water Act stands as a testament to our Nation's

commitment to protecting our precious water resources.

Weakening Section 404(c) would be a detrimental step

backward, compromising environmental health, public well-

being, and economic stability. We urge you to oppose these

provisions or any similar language that would hobble the

EPA's ability under Section 404(c) to limit the most

devastating projects from destroying our nation's fisheries,

drinking water, and other natural resources.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward

to working with you to safeguard our precious water resources

for the benefit of all Americans.

Sincerely,

Bristol Bay Defense Fund.

United Tribes of Bristol Bay.

Commercial Fishermen for Bristol Bay.

Businesses for Bristol Bay.

SalmonState.

Wild Salmon Center.

Native American Rights Fund.

Natural Resources Defense Council.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Scholten).

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman), the ranking member of the Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Lee).

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

Mr. Chairman, clean water was not always a partisan issue, and no issue has more support among American families than the protection of our Nation's waters.

Now is the worst time to lower our guard on protecting clean water, as recent years have shown major water challenges across the U.S. such as drought in the West, floods in the East, and water contamination in many States.

We need to be doing everything to ensure our cities, our businesses, and our farmers have sufficient, safe, and sustainable supplies of water to meet our economic and agricultural needs, our quality-of-life needs, and our day-to-day survival. I have dedicated much of my time in Congress to protecting our critical water supplies and making sure we capture, use, and reuse every available drop of water in our communities, and I do not plan to stop now.

Recent public surveys in the West have found that residents are more concerned than ever about inadequate water supplies. Almost 9 in 10 Westerners say that inadequate water supply is a serious problem in their State.

This is especially true in my home State of California. As the Metropolitan Water District commented to our subcommittee 1 year ago, a strong and clear Clean Water Act is important to the day-to-day operations of water agencies and source water protection efforts.

Congress should be reinstating protections to the Clean Water Act that the Supreme Court removed to continue to protect our streams and wetlands that have been protected since the inception of the act.

Streams, rivers, and wetlands are critical to capturing and storing rain and snowmelt to ensure a long-term supply of water and to recharge our underground aquifers; yet, this bill limits or eliminates protections over waters that provide the source of drinking water to over 117 million Americans.

Yes, there is a cost to protecting our communities, our sources of drinking water, and our environment. However, that cost should be borne by those seeking to pollute our waterways or fill our wetlands for their own personal gain, rather than transferring that cost to Americans or to downstream States.

This bill would increase levels of pollution in our water bodies, increase risk of downstream flooding, and increase certainty that communities like mine cannot maintain sustainable sources of drinking water.

Worst of all, hardworking American families would have to pay for the pollution caused by others.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose H.R. 7023, I urge my colleagues to vote against it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment clarifies that nothing in this act affects the existing ban on oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes.

Legislation banning the issuing of new drilling permits in the Great Lakes was passed in 2005 with support from both parties.

While legislation before us does undermine Clean Water Act protections, it does not affect the existing ban on drilling in the Great Lakes.

Republicans would like to call this week energy week, so let's look at the state of American energy today. Despite what you hear on the other side of the aisle, we are experiencing a record oil boom in the United States--a record oil boom.

There is no war on oil. The United States is the largest crude oil producer in the world, outpacing Russia, Saudi Arabia, and other OPEC countries.

Last fall, President Biden had approved more permits for oil and gas drilling on public lands than the previous President had at the same point in his Presidency.

Through passage of the bipartisan infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction Act, President Biden and House Democrats are addressing both the immediate needs for affordable gas prices for consumers as well as the long-term investments in a clean energy future that will also tackle the climate crisis.

Already since the Inflation Reduction Act's passage, 292 major clean energy projects have been announced that would create over 100,000 jobs across the country.

Just like America can dominate both oil production and clean energy deployment, we can promote American energy while also ensuring protection of our environment.

I have no objection to the amendment or its adoption.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, though I am not opposed.

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. James).

Communities across the Nation have learned firsthand of the human health risks associated with forever chemicals such as PFAS, a pollutant that is found in wastewater of municipal treatment works as well as in industrial discharges.

EPA is actively addressing PFAS concerns both by pushing to identify and limit large-scale industrial discharges of PFAS to treatment systems as well as developing an enforcement discretion policy for municipalities that may simply have PFAS chemicals in their sewage through no fault of their own.

While I share the gentleman's concern about the health risks of PFAS, I would point out that the underlying bill may create greater incentives for discharges to underreport or look the other way when it comes to PFAS discharges.

Since 1994, EPA has had in place a ``permit shield'' policy that provides dischargers with legal protection if they are applied for in good faith, and with honest disclosures of all pollutants potentially contained in the discharge.

However, the underlying bill codifies an expanded version of the permit shield, applicable to any discharger, whether a municipal treatment plant, a mining site, or industrial discharger regardless of whether they have made good-faith disclosures of all pollutants.

EPA has indicated that this expanded permit shield creates a disincentive for permittees to identify pollutants that are part of their waste stream during the development of their permit, including

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

Mr. Speaker, I am listening to my dear friend from Missouri, and it is an example of sort of being disconnected from reality.

My friends on the other side of the aisle, for instance, refuse to accept a compromise that is on a bipartisan basis that would make a difference in dealing with immigration. I think that will rank along with Speaker Boehner's refusal to accept the bipartisan Senate compromise for immigration and not even allow it to come to the floor to be voted on.

Today, we are having an exercise in futility. There is no carbon tax pending, and Republicans have nothing here that would be significant. It is a nonbinding resolution, and as I say, it is disconnected from the reality.

The reality, for example, for those of us on the West Coast, is that the climate crisis is real. It becomes more apparent and urgent every day. This winter was the warmest winter on record in the United States, 5.4 degrees higher. 2023 was the world's warmest year on record. In fact, the 10 warmest years have occurred in the last 10 years.

What is the response from our Republican friends? They make stuff up and move away from solutions that would make a difference.

Every independent analyst, Republican and Democrat alike, agrees that the way that we are going to deal with carbon pollution, notwithstanding some of the climate deniers on the other side of the aisle, is a carbon tax. The rest of the world is moving in this direction.

Having a price on carbon is the most efficient, cost-effective, and fair way to deal with this crisis. However, the majority is having none of it. As I say, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are making stuff up in the face of things that have real consequences.

There are people dying in the Pacific Northwest from the unprecedented heat wave. We have had unprecedented events in California, extreme weather events. The costs of those extreme weather events dwarf the costs that my Republican colleagues are dreaming up in fantasy.

In 2022, the climate disasters totaled more than $165 billion. The United States needs to double down on our investments in the Inflation Reduction Act to halt the worst and most expensive consequences of the climate crisis.

Instead, my Republican colleagues put forth a nonbinding resolution that doubles as a love letter to Big Oil. It paints a grim picture of the impacts of a tax on carbon, a picture that is, in fact, completely divorced from reality. Areas that have placed taxes on carbon have fostered innovation, and it is a preferred approach for most of the thoughtful business community.

The global cost of climate change is estimated to be over $3 trillion per year by 2050. Further investments in oil and gas without accounting for the true costs of carbon will overly drag down our economy and increase this sum.

Moreover, this resolution purports to show concern about the costs to American families associated with a carbon tax, particularly the poor, the elderly, and those on fixed incomes. Those are the people who are going to pay the cost most dramatically from continued efforts to allow the climate crisis to move forward.

Every single Republican voted against the Inflation Reduction Act, a bill that has already saved households hundreds of dollars in energy costs, not to mention hundreds more on prescription drugs. The Republicans all voted against it, yet the majority's constituents are benefiting. My colleagues didn't care about reducing the costs back then, and we shouldn't fall victim to Republicans' attempts to pretend about reducing costs now.

The longer we fail to deal meaningfully with the climate crisis, the defining question of the 21st century, our answer will determine the lives of our children and grandchildren.

We have made already significant strides in lowering costs and investing in clean energy. This love letter to Big Oil is absolutely the wrong step, and it is one they will be unable to justify to their children and grandchildren. It is a wrongheaded, inaccurate approach, one that is sadly not where we should be now, not where they should be, and it defies reality.

I strongly urge--even though it is nonbinding and doesn't make a difference, we will go ahead and play this out--but I urge its rejection.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am listening to my dear friend from Montana and the University of Oregon, and I couldn't disagree more.

We have the opportunity to produce clean energy in the United States. The cost today of alternatives with wind and solar is cheaper than fossil fuel, and this is where the world is going. Having our technological edge to produce cleaner energy and not be susceptible to those international forces is absolutely essential.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I just have to note that my dear friend from West Virginia, a woman I deeply respect, would have reliance on fossil fuel for energy security.

In her own State of West Virginia, the cheapest sources of power are renewable energy sources like wind and solar, which we incentivized with our policies and all of our Republican friends voted against.

The market has made a judgment that these are the most cost-effective ways to generate energy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

Mr. Speaker, Republicans used to believe in market forces. They were part of a bipartisan effort to reduce acid rain, which had a cap, which in the short term increased price, but drove innovation. We solved that problem for a fraction of the alternative costs.

Denying the ability to price carbon is turning our back on innovation, turning our back on what the rest of the world is doing, and providing more opportunities for Americans.

I hope at some point they will rediscover the power of market forces and join us in efforts with the legislation that we have passed to harness those market forces and promote American innovation, as we are seeing now under the Inflation Reduction Act.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I deeply appreciate the gentleman's tutorial on economics and history, and I could not agree with him more. I hope at some point our Republican colleagues rediscover the power of the market, like what would happen with the carbon tax, which we are seeing around the world moving in this direction.

There are two basic approaches we can take. One is to use market forces, like putting a price on carbon, or simply being the handmaiden to Big Oil.

I can't think of a more dramatic example of the fallacy of that approach than to look at the home State of our Speaker that has done the bidding of Big Oil for decades.

What is the result of that impact in Louisiana? It hasn't been a hotbed of economic development. To the contrary. But there are other consequences that are serious.

A recent study by the Environmental Integrity Project found that Louisiana is home to eight of the worst polluting refineries in the entire country. Their refineries make up half of the top 10 ammonia polluters. A region on the banks of the Mississippi River between New Orleans and Baton Rouge is known as Cancer Alley because of the negative consequences of the petroleum industry and the refusal of the State to provide regulation.

The untrammeled growth of the fossil fuel industry has resulted in cutting up the landscape, the loss of about one football field a day into the Gulf of Mexico. Parts of the State are sinking. Their low birth rates and preterm births are double the national average, and respiratory ailments are nearly triple. The vast majority of the residents who suffer are Black.

Look at New Orleans and the consequences of Louisiana to what happens when you just do the bidding of the oil companies. It is not better environmentally and it is not better economically. It has been, pure and simply, a disaster.

An alternative is to use market forces, to tax what we would like least of. A carbon tax would raise prices for some, but it would foster innovation. That is exactly what we did with our approach to acid rain. It sparked innovation and cured that problem much more cost effectively than other solutions.

It is time for the Republican Party to rediscover market forces and be able to do what the vast majority of economic experts--Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal--agree is the best solution. Rather than lots of rules and regulations, use market forces. We have done that with our Inflation Reduction Act, sparking innovation and investment, even though all my Republican friends voted against it.

Mr. Speaker, there are two approaches: Give in to Big Oil, abandon your principles for environmental protection, market forces for innovation, or look at alternatives that will help us deal with the crisis of our age, the climate crisis.

I appreciate the opportunity to share those observations with you, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I would hope at a time when it looks like we are starting to see some adjustment on the other side of the aisle, we are starting to see some of the people in the governing wing of the Republican Party moving forward to try and rein in some of their more extreme elements, we may actually deal with what we should have done months ago, which is fund the government according to the agreement that 149 Republicans signed onto last spring.

I have had a little fun tweaking some of my Republican friends, but we know how this is ending up, and that is exactly what is happening. Some people in the more extreme elements of the Republican Party may feel a little pinched, but this is what we agreed to.

This is an approach that solves the problem. It is not a good solution. It is not the solution we would have done, but it is the only one that the extreme elements of the Republican Party will allow us to move forward with. It is better than having a collapse of the economy, our agreements moving forward.

I hope that we will have the governing wing of the Republican Party moving forward and that this might be a path forward because there are so many things that we ought to be able to agree upon: innovation; protecting the American public; lowering costs,

like we did with our legislation for prescription drugs, like we are doing now in terms of energy innovation.

The record is pretty strong. We have the lowest rate of inflation of any developed economy in the world. We have watched the inflation rate, which my Republican friends are focused on, and I think it is okay, but they deny reality. No major country has done a better job of controlling inflation.

It was 6 percent in 2021. It dropped to 5.6 percent, and this last year, 3.1 percent. Those are the facts; the best performance in the world. All the railing, yelling, and finger pointing don't change those facts.

We have opportunities that we could do on a bipartisan basis to help solve the immigration problem that was worked out on a bipartisan basis in the other Chamber. In fact, we were moving toward an agreement that would put more investment in border security, beefing up opportunities that could have bipartisan support that would help the public. It is not our solution. We would like to do better, but we thought it was the best we could do with our Republican allies.

As it was moving toward enactment, Donald Trump went gunnysack: We can't do that. It would not help my reelection campaign. Afterwards, we have seen Republicans retreat from a bipartisan solution on immigration.

I think this will be as shameful as my friend John Boehner's refusal to allow us to vote on a bipartisan solution from the Senate on immigration back in 2012. We can do better than that if the other side of the aisle will listen to some of the governing wing of the Republican Party, not be held hostage by the most extreme, and work with us on these elements that are already bearing fruit.

What will not bear fruit is tilting at an imaginary windmill of a carbon tax, misrelating what it is, and denying the reality of the costs for failure to deal with the climate crisis.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge rejection of this proposal. It is not going anywhere. It is not real. It is a sad distraction and an opportunity to misrepresent what we could do.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1085, I call up the bill (H.R. 6009) to require the Director of the Bureau of Land Management to withdraw the proposed rule relating to fluid mineral leases and leasing process, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 6009.

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

I rise today in support of H.R. 6009, the Restoring American Energy Dominance Act.

H.R. 6009, introduced by Congresswoman Boebert, would nullify the Bureau of Land Management's proposed onshore oil and gas leasing regulations.

While on the campaign trail, then-candidate Joe Biden said during a primary debate: ``No more drilling on Federal lands.'' That was candidate Biden.

The BLM's proposed regulations attempt to accomplish President Biden's campaign promise by limiting onshore leasing, reducing flexibility, and increasing fees.

The regulations propose eliminating nationwide bonds while increasing individual bonding requirements 15-fold and statewide bonding requirements 20-fold. The BLM's stated rationale for doing this is to protect taxpayers from having to clean up orphaned wells.

One would think that there is an orphaned well crisis on BLM lands, given the significant cost increases the rule proposes. However, the opposite is true, Mr. Speaker. According to the Department of the Interior, there are only 37 orphaned wells on BLM lands, and the Department has used bonds to plug wells on Federal lands just 40 times over this last decade.

The proposed regulations would also be extremely harmful to small businesses. Tom Kropatsch, the Wyoming State oil and gas supervisor, said: ``The bonding provisions will impact hundreds of small businesses in Wyoming, resulting in lost royalties, taxes, and other revenues to local and State government, and likely will create orphaned wells, not protect against them.''

While he is speaking of his home State of Wyoming, the impacts would be the same in energy-producing regions nationwide.

The regulations also introduce new and vague preference criteria for evaluating onshore oil and gas leasing. The

criteria seemingly intended to avoid conflict in areas with ``sensitive cultural, wildlife, and recreation resources.''

Don't be fooled. The criteria, which could be applied to any parcel of land, are meant to lock up lands from resource development and shut down future oil and gas production. President Biden is once again proactively taking steps to increase energy prices, reduce American energy production, and ultimately diminish our national security.

To continue using Wyoming as a case study, in 2022 and 2023, the Wyoming BLM had initially offered to sell 830 parcels covering 954,281 acres. However, through successive rounds of an environmental review that incorporated considerations of these preference criteria, the Wyoming BLM deferred 462 parcels encompassing 586,000 acres. That is 61 percent of the acreage that should have otherwise been available that was ultimately deferred due to these new criteria--and the regulations aren't even final yet.

BLM's proposed onshore oil and gas leasing regulations are an attack on domestic energy production that will further lock up our Federal lands and eliminate access to our natural resources. We will not stand idly by as the Biden administration increases our reliance on foreign adversarial nations. It diminishes our national security and inflates already unaffordable energy prices.

H.R. 6009 acknowledges the BLM statutory mission of managing our Federal lands for multiple use, including energy and mineral development. It will keep our country safe by ensuring continued domestic energy production. It will benefit American families, American communities, American jobs, and our small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, my good friend and colleague talked about making a mess. Joe Biden and his administration have made a mess for American energy--higher energy prices throughout our country. The middle class is getting squeezed because of his energy policies and, dare I say, his anti-mining agenda. We will clean up this mess.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Boebert), the sponsor of this bill.

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

The Biden administration told Congress just last summer that there are only 37 orphaned wells on BLM lands, and they have called in bonds only four times per year over the last decade. This number is low because the BLM has a process for dealing with at-risk wells.

There are very few, if any, Federal leases that don't have multiple companies with multiple record title interests and working interests. Multiple companies may have equities in the leases and will sell those equities to other companies that want to develop at different depths, for example.

BLM maintains the full chain of ownership. If BLM identifies a well on a lease at risk for abandonment, the agency will go to the companies in that chain of ownership and require them to take care of the well.

Increasing bonds at these levels will also have a disproportionate impact on the small producers and the small businesses and therefore could actually result in more bankruptcies and thus more orphaned wells. Crushing small businesses and limiting production on Federal lands, which is what this regulation would do, would simply reduce

production, driving up prices for American families and driving down revenues paid to the States and the Federal Government.

Federal onshore oil and gas production brought in roughly $7.7 billion in revenue in fiscal year 2023 alone. That is almost six times more than the BLM's entire fiscal year budget.

We have the opportunity to help the American people who are struggling under this administration's policies and procedures. The time is now. The American people are hurting with energy prices. Inflation is still on the rise. The CPI is almost 20 percent. This is real for blue-collar, working Americans.

The energy policies, Mr. Speaker, of this President have been devastating to the middle and lower class. I have the privilege of representing Minnesota's Eighth Congressional District. It is the oldest and poorest congressional district in our great State. I hear it every single day about the cost of energy. We can change it, and this is our opportunity.

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

Mr. Speaker, my friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle brought up the Inflation Reduction Act. The fact is, that is law, and 90 percent of that money goes to billion-dollar companies in subsidies.

This bill we are talking about today is about small businesses. Under this administration, the average American household is paying $11,400 per year under these policies and these regulations. That is a lot of money.

Mr. Speaker, that may not be a lot of money for a President who has spent 53 years of his life in Washington, D.C. Just maybe he has forgotten what it is like to struggle in our Midwestern States. Mr. Speaker, $11,400 is the average, and I just stated that I represent the oldest and the poorest Congressional District in the State of Minnesota. That is a lot of money for my constituents and almost every American.

Fifty-three years President Biden has been bloviating on Capitol Hill trying to change things and make it better.

On his energy policies and his mining policies, he has failed the American people, and we all know it. We all know it. We feel it. We see it. Our pocketbooks are shrinking, and our paychecks aren't rising as fast as we want them to, and they are not keeping up with inflation.

This is about small businesses. This is about not letting the unelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., dictate production of our natural resources. We, in Congress, have a responsibility to write legislation that will benefit all Americans. Today we are talking about legislation, Mr. Speaker, about energy prices. There is nobody in this country who feels as if this administration has reduced the cost of energy for them.

Mr. Speaker, $11,400, that is a lot of money for this retired police officer. That is a lot of money for my wife who served 24 years in the military and is an Iraq war veteran. That is a lot of money for her, for me, and for many other Americans who are trying to just feed their families, keep up, and try and live the American Dream.

Mr. Speaker, this President has failed the American people on his energy policies.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is an easy concept for us all to understand. This really isn't about the left or the right, Democrat or Republican. We move either forward or backward.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle just talked about the Inflation Reduction Act. It was voted and put into law almost 2 years ago, so I ask the American people: Has it increased your energy prices, or has it lowered your energy prices? The American people know that their energy prices have skyrocketed.

We have many great energy producing States, including the great State of Alaska. This administration has put 54 sanctions on energy production in Alaska. That is more sanctions than this administration has put on Iran. That is unconscionable.

Mr. Speaker, earlier, at a Federal Lands Subcommittee hearing, there was a witness exchange. Representative Tiffany chairs it. They talked about where they are going to source their electric vehicles, their critical minerals for the vehicles, and they were talking about child slave labor. The Democrat witness said that it is unfortunate that people are exploited around the world, but it is a reality. He said that is a controversial issue.

Child slave labor should never be controversial. We should never allow that, and this administration has gone with memorandums of understanding with Congo, where 15 of the 19 industrial mines use child slave labor.

Mr. Speaker, that is a fact, and this administration doesn't want to admit it. They want to ignore the human rights atrocities to get to their so-called green agenda. That is not acceptable, Mr. Speaker, when we have the mineral resources here in the United States of America.

As I said earlier, we are blessed with an abundance of natural resources that we can extract using the best environmental labor standards. Again, we can move either backward or forward. I submit to you that the Republicans want to move forward on energy production.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the American people just have to ask themselves whether they are paying more or less for energy and groceries under this administration. It is clear the American people are suffering under the Biden policies.

The Biden administration's proposed rule would eliminate the opportunity for exploration of newly discovered energy producing areas and shrink future oil and gas production, even on sites where it already exists, all while drastically driving up costs for Americans.

We will not stand by idly as this administration locks up our Federal lands and prohibits Americans from accessing their abundant natural resources. We will support American families, jobs, communities, our economy, and our national security through safe, clean, and efficient domestic energy production.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 6009, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1085, I call up the bill (H.R. 1121) to prohibit a moratorium on the use of hydraulic fracturing, 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. 1121.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1121, the Protecting American Energy Production Act.

H.R. 1121, introduced by Congressman Duncan, would prevent any President from issuing a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing while also establishing a sense of Congress that States should regulate the practice on State and private land.

Hydraulic fracturing has been around for almost 100 years. The practice, combined with recent technological improvements and the advent of horizontal drilling, has propelled the United States to global energy superpower status.

This surge in supply has contributed to lower energy prices for consumers, stimulating economic growth, and improving the quality of life for all Americans.

In truth, a ban on hydraulic fracturing would cripple the American economy while surrendering world energy leadership to Russia, Iran, and China.

Federal efforts to regulate fracking, which is currently adequately regulated by the States, could have an equally devastating impact.

The 2005 Energy Policy Act clarified that Congress never intended the Federal Government to regulate fracking under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

In the Obama administration, the Bureau of Land Management attempted to regulate the practice for Federal lands and minerals, but the courts threw out that effort.

In the decision, the judge clearly stated, ``Congress has not delegated to the Department of the Interior the authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing. The BLM's effort to do so through the fracking rule is in excess of its statutory authority and contrary to law.''

Currently, States regulate fracking, and each has comprehensive laws and regulations to provide for safe operations, to protect drinking water sources, and to have trained personnel effectively regulating oil and gas exploration and production.

In addition to preventing the President from implementing a unilateral fracking ban, this bill would also express a sense of Congress that States should maintain regulatory authority over fracking on State and private lands.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 1121, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things my good friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle have stated is that the Big Oil and Gas companies are making record profits, and these bills are essentially tax cuts for Big Oil. That couldn't be further from the truth.

This President's anti-energy agenda has driven up energy prices for all Americans, which also has created greater revenues for Big Oil companies. If Democrats are really concerned about energy prices, the best thing they can do is mirror the energy dominance policies of the previous administration.

Doing so would create abundance, driving down energy prices for all Americans. Producers with no more than $5 million in retail sales of oil and gas in a year account for 83 percent of America's oil production, 90 percent of its natural gas, and natural gas liquids production.

These are small businesses, Mr. Speaker, often locally and independently owned with a handful of employees, but collectively they support 4.5 million American jobs.

Our Republican energy bills help ensure small businesses can continue to operate on Federal lands.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that this bill, H.R. 1121, is unnecessary, as the President has not proposed a hydraulic fracturing moratorium. They say it sets a dangerous precedent for limiting the authority of the President and the Secretary of the Interior to manage energy resources on Federal lands.

The fact is, this President, on the campaign trail, said: ``No more, no new fracking.'' This was candidate Biden. We know from what he has done in his first 3-plus years in office, don't necessarily listen to his words, watch his actions. He has done it on mining. He said we were going to mine domestically for our critical minerals. Once he became President, he changed his tune. Now he wants memorandums of understanding with other countries that are adversarial to the United States.

After years of disastrous energy policies by this President, we know we cannot take him for just his word, which is exactly why this bill is necessary. This is especially true, Mr. Speaker, given that the Obama administration's Bureau of Land Management tried to regulate fracking.

The courts ultimately stopped this effort. In the decision, U.S. District Court Judge Skavdahl clearly stated: ``Congress has not delegated to the Department of the Interior the authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing. The BLM's effort to do so through the Fracking Rule is in excess of its statutory authority and contrary to law.''

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

Mr. Speaker, my good friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle make statements that fracking is mostly unregulated and the practice can consume millions of gallons of water. They say this is industry first and that the Republicans look to take away and protect public health and combat the climate crisis. That couldn't be further from the truth. Absolutely couldn't be further from the truth.

According to the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, member States each have comprehensive laws and regulations to ensure safe operations and protect drinking water sources. They have trained personnel to effectively regulate oil and gas exploration and production.

Mr. Speaker, even President Obama's own EPA found that fracking has no widespread systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States of America. No evidence has arisen that this practice is dangerous, and to say anything else is simply fear-mongering to the American people and pandering to the radical left that would rather have us rely on Iran, Russia, and Venezuela for our energy needs.

Mr. Speaker, one last thing. This President took the sanctions off Iran. Iran is now making $90 billion because those sanctions were taken off. Who do you think is funding the war against Israel? Iran, the top sponsor of terrorism. He took the sanctions off.

When we produce here in the United States of America, it is a win- win, Mr. Speaker. It is the safest, and the cleanest. It employs American technology, American resources, provides American jobs. It helps American families, American communities. We do it better than anybody else.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have continuously said that oil production on Federal lands is at an all- time high. The fact of the matter is that the production is occurring on lands leased by the Trump administration and previous administrations.

I guess my colleagues now support the policies of the Trump administration as best they are trying to take credit for them.

My good friend, Ranking Member McGovern, made this point in the Rules Committee just yesterday. After mentioning that America is a top energy producer, he said: ``Let me be very clear. I am not highlighting these facts because I like them. I find it very troubling that we are producing so much oil. . . . ''

How very sad it is to hear that from my colleagues. Why are they so ashamed that we produce energy here in America? Would they rather us be dependent on Russia, Iran, or Venezuela for oil and natural gas in the same way Democratic policies have made us dependent on China for critical minerals?

We should celebrate American energy independence where, again, we do it cleaner and safer than anybody else in the world with the best labor standards.

Mr. Speaker, let's celebrate the opportunity. Let's be happy the good Lord blessed the United States with these rich minerals and this opportunity to become energy independent and critical mineral dominant.

My friends and neighbors, I want the technology here in the United States. I do not want this country to depend on foreign adversarial nations for our livelihood.

We have learned so much during COVID, Mr. Speaker. We cannot rely on adversarial nations for our energy any longer, nor should our allies.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I reiterate my good friend and colleague did reserve.

Listen, one of the things that we hear from my colleagues is that Big Oil is price gouging, which is why energy prices are higher. The fact is, this President's anti-energy agenda has created uncertainty for domestic energy producers and has driven up energy prices for all Americans.

Repeated in-depth investigations by the FTC have shown that changes in gasoline prices are based on market factors and are not due to any illegal behavior.

The price gouging argument is simply a red herring meant to distract the American public from the Biden administration's disastrous energy policies.

The fact of the matter is, when my friends and colleagues talk about transition, wind and solar, they don't want to produce those minerals for those solar panels or windmills here in the United States, Mr. Speaker.

Minnesota has the most mineral wealth of any State in the Nation with the exception of Alaska. Minnesota has the biggest untapped copper and nickel mine in the world, and this administration pulled the leases.

This administration, with support from the Secretary of the Interior, banned 225,000 acres of mining in northeastern Minnesota. Can you believe that? Yet, they will get the minerals from Congo, which uses child slave labor for their energy addiction.

Mr. Speaker, I submit that we have the opportunity today and now. I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us to let the American worker succeed and energy dominance, critical mineral dominance in this country, be made here in America. We need it, this country needs it, and our allies are asking for it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to cite a 2019 study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Global Energy Institute. Their research shows a ban on fracking would eliminate 19 million jobs between 2021 and 2025 while simultaneously reducing the U.S. gross domestic product by $7.1 trillion over that same period.

The Global Energy Institute's research also shows that over the same 2021 through 2025 timeframe, energy prices would skyrocket, with natural gas prices rising by 324 percent, causing household energy bills for the average American to quadruple and the cost of living to increase by $5,600. Additionally, the price of gasoline would double, and government revenues would plummet by almost $2 trillion.

With these sobering facts in mind, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 1121 to prevent the worst case scenario from becoming our reality.

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