Lower Energy Costs Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1, the polluters over people act.
Although energy independence and lower costs are laudable goals for any energy legislation, unfortunately, this bill achieves neither. Instead, H.R. 1 is a giveaway to Big Oil and their lobbyists, who want to be able to set their own rules at the expense of working families. Instead of putting the needs of the American public at the center of this bill, my friends across the aisle drafted an industry wish list.
First, H.R. 1 undermines landmark environmental laws and protections like the Clean Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act that safeguard public health and keep our drinking water and air clean. It also repeals the methane emissions reduction program, which helps companies reduce their methane pollution.
This bill makes it easier for polluters to set their own standards and roll back reforms, and it lets Big Oil rubberstamp their own projects with minimal oversight. Environmental disasters are far too common, and unfortunately, H.R. 1 would make it easier for future disasters to happen.
Second, the polluters over people act worsens the climate crisis by empowering the fossil fuel industry instead of strengthening the foundation for a clean energy future, which is so important.
During the last Congress, the 117th Congress, we passed policies-- many bipartisan policies--like the bipartisan infrastructure law, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act, that invested in climate action at a scale matching the challenge that science tells us that we face.
This bill that we have before us today not only ignores the additional steps we need to take to reach our climate targets, but it actively takes us backward on climate action by rolling back key provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, which was and is the most significant environmental and climate bill that has ever been passed in the United States or anywhere else.
We know that data is alarming. A new U.N. report found that global warming could increase by 3.2 degrees Celsius and cause 7 feet of sea level rise by the end of the century if immediate actions are not taken. This is an existential crisis.
Climate change is real. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle know it is real, and we cannot continue to deny this and put our planet at risk with this type of legislation.
Instead of wasting time on this Big Oil wish list, I would like for us, instead, to focus on actions that will actually expand the employment of clean energy, reduce costs, expand high-capacity transmission, reform the interconnection process, and build on the $1 billion that we secured in the Inflation Reduction Act to ensure that Federal agencies have the resources and expertise to conduct efficient environmental reviews.
Third, H.R. 1 adds to the deficit. That is right, it adds to the deficit by giving handouts to big oil and gas corporations so that their executives and their shareholders can get even richer.
For a party that is focused--at least, I hear that they are--on tackling the deficit, I think it is pretty extraordinary that this legislation, their signature legislation would add to the deficit.
Last year, when Americans were dealing with high costs at the pump, fossil fuel executives were taking in record profits. In fact, 26 of the country's largest oil companies made a record-breaking $451 billion last year, just last year, and they spent over $163 billion on stock buybacks and dividends to their shareholders.
These same companies donated over $370,000 to my friends across the aisle, so it is no wonder they want to reward their friends. It is clear that this legislation, the polluters over people act, is another giveaway, to keep corporations rich at the American people's expense without making meaningful reforms. In fact, while making things worse. For all these reasons and more, I strongly oppose this legislation.
Mr. Chair, I proposed four amendments that would begin to correct course, but unfortunately my friends across the aisle are only allowing two of those amendments to come to the floor.
My first amendment that was blocked would clarify that lead Federal agencies can extend a public comment period or gather further community input if the Secretary determines that doing so would improve project results or efficiency.
This would allow agencies to actually streamline the permitting process by ensuring that potentially impacted communities and local governments have the ability to fully engage in the process.
Instead, my friends across the aisle chose to block consideration of this amendment and perpetuate the myth--it is a myth--that community input somehow slows down project approvals.
My other amendment that was blocked would have banned offshore drilling off the southern California coast. Californians of both political parties have made it absolutely clear, overwhelmingly clear that they are strongly opposed to additional offshore oil and gas drilling in southern California off the coast.
This amendment would have offered this Congress an opportunity to respect the will of the overwhelming majority of Californians who oppose drilling off our coasts.
I strongly urge my friends across the aisle, allow debate on these and other amendments so that more voices are heard.
As my colleagues on the Natural Resources Committee have heard me say before, I am willing to work with anyone--anyone--on either side of the aisle to meet the goals of lowering energy costs and protecting our planet, particularly in terms of promoting a more efficient and transparent permitting process. I hope we can do that.
We can find common ground on pragmatic solutions. This is not common ground. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.''
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source