Lower Energy Costs Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

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

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

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

The Clean Water Act, passed in 1972, is one of the most successful environmental laws in our Nation's history. It has protected rivers, lakes, and streams from pollution and contamination, ensuring that we have access to clean and safe water.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

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

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

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

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

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

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

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source