Lower Energy Costs Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1. The Republicans call it the Lower Energy Costs Act. In fact, it does the opposite, and it puts polluters over people, so we call it the polluters over people act. That is justified because that is exactly what it does.

This bill is nothing more than a grab bag of Big Oil giveaways and loopholes that endanger the health, safety, and security of Americans. It does absolutely nothing to lower energy costs for American families. In fact, it will actually drive up costs while doubling down on costly fossil fuels.

Now, does the GOP really believe that Big Oil cares about Americans?

During the COVID crisis in the last 3 years, we had a hearing where we brought in some of the large oil companies. It was quite clear that they wanted to keep prices high. It was quite clear that they were benefiting from OPEC and the fact that Russia had invaded Ukraine and that oil supplies had become more limited because of that invasion of Ukraine and that as a result, prices for oil and gasoline were going up. They didn't care. They liked it.

We actually asked them at the hearing whether or not they would increase production because they have so many leases on Federal lands that they don't use, and they said no. They said maybe eventually they would do that, but they haven't gotten around to it yet. I don't think they have gotten around to it still.

So this notion that somehow by benefiting Big Oil, the major American so-called oil companies, that this is going to help the American people, that is not their goal.

Last year, Big Oil's profits in 2022 were $451 billion, a record high. The dividends they gave out and the stock buyouts amounted to $163 billion. They only care about the stockholders. They don't care about the price of gasoline. They want it to stay high. They don't care whether Americans can afford gasoline.

Chairwoman Rodgers, who I really respect a lot, talked about LNG. One of the things in the bill is it removes the requirement--and I am going to talk about other things it does--but it removes the requirement that liquified natural gas exports be determined to be in the public interest before being sent overseas.

That is going to lead to more American LNG being sent to our adversaries, including China. This helps China. This doesn't hurt China. This helps China. We know that there was a time a few years ago when LNG exports were limited because of--I forget what caused it--and during that period of time, the evidence shows the price for American gasoline or American crude was actually going down.

When you send LNG overseas, it is not available here in the United States. That actually lowers gas prices when you have more gasoline available or more refineries available to process gasoline here in the United States.

I debunk this idea that somehow this bill is going to lower prices here, that somehow benefiting Big Oil benefits Americans, that somehow exporting more LNG hurts China. These things simply are not the case. The evidence proves very much to the contrary.

This bill, H.R. 1, I will call it the polluters over people act, rescinds several transformational climate programs that the Democrats enacted as part of the Inflation Reduction Act last year. What I am trying to get across today is that at the same time that they are helping Big Oil, not driving down prices, and helping China, the Republicans are also tearing down all of the environmental laws that we have had for the last 50 years and putting all the emphasis on fossil fuels rather than clean energy.

The bottom line is, the only way that we are going to lower costs is by encouraging clean energy. Yes, I agree with Chairwoman Rodgers that the United States has to be a bigger energy producer, but the future for that is with clean energy, not with pumping more oil and gas. It is by encouraging clean energy because that is where we can be the big producer. That is where the future is. That is where we can outcompete the rest of the world.

What does this bill do?

It foolishly repeals the $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which invests in high-impact projects that reduce pollution, creates good-paying clean energy jobs, and improves public health. They obviously do not want to do anything for clean energy.

It also repeals the methane emissions reduction program, which protects the health of our communities and ensures that polluters, not taxpayers or customers, pay for wasted methane. Let me use that as an example. I want everyone to understand that when we passed the Inflation Reduction Act and we were trying to cut back on greenhouse gases which lead to global climate problems and the increase in global warming, we worked hard to deal with those industries here that could be affected. The Methane Emissions Reduction Act is a perfect example that we worked with the independent oil producers because they said, well, if you cause the methane that is wasted now and goes into the atmosphere and causes this increased number of greenhouse gases, if you work with us, we can accomplish capturing this methane and then it can be recycled, but we need some money to accomplish that.

We provided them with a fund so they could make that transition. We also said that if it took them time to get a permit to capture the gas and provide a recycling program for the methane, that they would not be penalized by doing that.

This has been characterized by the GOP as some sort of tax or fee on the industry. It is really a penalty if they don't do what is necessary to capture methane and avoid it going into the atmosphere. The same is true for almost every provision that they seek to repeal here.

These are provisions that try to protect the public health, reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but at the same time don't have a negative impact on those industries that are hiring people and that create jobs. At the same time, try to move toward new clean energy things like wind, solar, and more hydropower, and other things that actually do create more jobs, as we have proven that they have.

There are so many other things that repeal--I won't go through all of them because I know that we have other speakers. The bill also repeals the popular home electrification rebates that are specifically designed to lower energy bills for American families. These are popular incentives that will save families money and are urgently needed to help us fight the climate crisis.

Republicans are rejecting all these things that help people save money, help reduce greenhouse gases so they can double-down on the old pro-polluter policies that they have had for years. This bill also does nothing to meaningfully address permitting reform.

Its vision of permitting consists of letting polluters do whatever they want, and instead, the bill becomes a sweetheart deal. The bill, for example, doesn't include any changes to the transmission policy necessary to ensure that clean energy can reach all corners of the country.

Let me also give you a couple of other examples. The biggest thing that they do to basically endanger all of our environmental protections is they exempt so-called critical energy resources from the Clean Air Act and hazardous waste permitting requirements.

They say if we label a refinery or if we label a utility as a critical energy resource, then they don't have to follow the Clean Air Act, they don't have to follow the Clean Water Act, and they don't have to follow the Hazardous Waste Act. It is a roundabout way of saying that we are just going to let all these industries do whatever they want, even though it undercuts public health protections.

They do the same thing with toxic chemicals. We had a major toxic chemical bill to try to cut back on toxic chemicals that needlessly expose families and children to health risks. They basically get rid of that by saying, oh, those facilities don't have to worry about releasing toxic chemicals.

Mr. Chair, I end by saying this. Democrats understand that the transition to clean energy is important. In fact, projects already underway are valued at tens of billions of dollars and have already created more than 100,000 good-paying jobs.

Our Inflation Reduction Act is estimated to create 9 million new jobs over the coming decade and reduce energy costs by an average of $1,800 per year.

What we have done in the last few years as Democrats is to try to move toward clean energy, understanding that you still have to have fossil fuels and nuclear and other things, but understanding that the future in terms of the U.S. being a major energy producer is in clean energy, not in fossil fuels.

To just wreck and put a bulldozer through all our environmental protections in order to encourage fossil fuels is just a huge mistake. It is not going to lower energy costs. It is going to make it much more difficult for us to reduce greenhouse gases and all the negative impacts of climate change.

There is nothing in here. In my opinion, this bill is also going to hurt us from a national security point of view because it does actually help China and help our adversaries rather than making it more difficult for them to compete with us.

Mr. Chair, I would urge opposition to the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), who is the ranking member of our Environment Subcommittee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), who is the ranking member of the Energy, Climate, and Grid Security Subcommittee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Fletcher), who is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), the ranking member of our Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Carbajal).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Craig), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Minnesota.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas), a member of our committee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), who is the ranking member of our Communications and Technology Subcommittee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins).

Mr. HIGGINS of New York. Madam Chair, I thank the ranking member for yielding.

I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1. My community of Buffalo and Niagara Falls are all too familiar with the devastating consequences of decisions that put polluters over people.

Toxic waste dumped by Hooker Chemical in the 1940s contaminated the Love Canal neighborhood of Niagara Falls. President Jimmy Carter declared a Federal health emergency, and Congress passed the Superfund Act with Love Canal becoming the first cleanup site.

In 1968, the Buffalo River caught fire due to industrial contamination and was considered biologically dead.

Atrocities like this led to the approval of the Clean Water Act in 1972 and have required hundreds of millions of dollars annually for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.

After residents sounded the alarm for years, in 2013, Tonawanda Coke was found guilty of deliberately releasing cancer-causing benzene into surrounding neighborhoods, a violation of the Clean Air Act.

The Superfund Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Clean Air Act were each put in place after historically unchecked pollution impacted the health of our waterways, communities, and families.

H.R. 1 removes safety protections, lessens accountability for violators, and diminishes public input.

If this bill were in place 10 years ago, western New York neighbors would have had no recourse to address the carcinogens and toxic substances released into the air by Tonawanda Coke.

We can't let polluting history repeat itself.

I am voting ``no'' on H.R. 1 and encourage my colleagues who care about the health and future of our communities to do the same.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Salinas).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez).

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Madam Chair, I rise today to oppose the polluters over people act and the mining provisions that will make it easier for foreign-owned companies to pollute our lands and waters and destroy our Tribal cultural resources.

America's 150-year-old mining law already fails to protect our communities from irresponsible mining. We see that in the thousands of abandoned mines that dot New Mexico and the West.

H.R. 1 would only make it worse, threatening our water and, as we know, ``agua es vida,'' ``water is life.''

I am disappointed that the Republicans blocked my amendment to stop mining exploration on public lands if it harms our water, farmers, and Tribal communities. Do they not care about our most essential resource, our water?

Indeed, some proposed mining projects are from subsidiaries of foreign companies like Resolution Copper in Arizona, which has ties to the Chinese Communist Party. Why are they protecting the Chinese Communist Party's subsidiary mining our precious resources?

That mine would devastate Tribal cultural resources and threaten our precious water resources.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this polluter over people act.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman).

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1, the polluters over people act.

This bill is nothing more than a shameless handout to fossil fuel companies, and it speaks volumes that House Republicans have made it their number one priority for the 118th Congress.

My colleagues across the aisle have once again chosen to side with their Big Oil buddies and stand against the American people, our planet, and our future.

Let me be clear: The last thing that Big Oil needs is another handout. Last year, we all felt pain at the pump while fossil fuel companies raked in record profits. When House Democrats voted to crack down on gas price gouging, Republicans voted ``no.''

With their new majority and this bill, Republicans are letting us know exactly where their loyalties lie and the lows that they will sink to in order to appease those special interests. They are even giving polluters free rein to dump toxic waste on our public lands.

The Republican Party has made it clear that they are happy to poison our planet if it helps their fossil fuel friends make a quick buck.

Under the polluters over people act, working families will pay the price, literally. Through taxpayer-funded subsidies and reckless deregulation, Republicans are rewarding Big Oil for bad behavior, and this time, they are not even hiding it.

Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to please oppose this.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), a member of our committee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Sorensen).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding.

You know what? We hoped, coming from an energy State, that we could do this bipartisan. H.R. 1 goes off on a tangent that even union members are questioning.

If you want to know what the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers would like, they would like us to be bipartisan and to get a framework to strengthen and to get reliable Federal permitting so that we can continue to have jobs.

Even those who believe in parks, like I do, would like a permitting process that works and protects our parks. But if we look at this, what we will be doing is just giving people a blank slip, and they can do whatever they want to do in America's precious parks. That is not where we want to be.

I am grateful for the idea that we want to build our economy, but we cannot build our economy on environmental disasters which are happening around the Nation: the 2008 coal ash spill in Tennessee, the 2014 water crisis in Flint, the concealed 2022 radioactive spill in Minnesota, the tragedy with the tornado in Mississippi, and the train chemical spill and fire in Ohio.

It is clear that we need to do something together, but this is not it. H.R. 1 will, in fact, impact our environment by taking away the requirements for waste produced by certain energy facilities. It will undermine the Toxic Substances Control Act by short-circuiting the review and approval process for new chemicals. It will also allow the EPA administrator to circumvent the scientific process of approving or denying flexible permitting. That is not what our workers want us to do.

In addition, we find that the Federal Government recognizes that this is not working. In his statement to veto, the President acknowledges that this would raise costs for American families by repealing household energy rebates, roll back historic investments to increase access to low-cost energy. Instead of protecting American consumers, it would pad and increase profits by those who already have profits.

What about our health?

What about our children?

H.R. 1 is not bipartisan. It needs to be a compromise, working with all of us to create jobs.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Hayes).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan), a member of our committee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey), who is a member of our Energy and Commerce Committee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington State (Ms. Schrier). The doctor is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Thanedar).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Vasquez).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Soto) a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Scholten).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Porter).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

Mr. Chairman, Republicans keep talking about lowering energy costs, but let's be honest with the American people. Right now, the price of oil is $50 per barrel less than its high last year. The price of a gallon of gasoline is $1.57 less than its high last year. The price of natural gas is 78 percent lower than it was at its high last year.

Of course, we would all like even lower prices, but the bottom line is, this bill is misnamed. It will not lower energy prices. It would make natural gas more expensive by making Americans compete with consumers across the globe. It would make our electricity dirtier and more expensive. It would enrich the oil and gas companies that price- gouged American consumers last year.

This bill is nothing but a handout to the fossil fuel industry that would drive prices higher for Americans.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster), who is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

I keep hearing that Republicans want to lower energy costs with this bill and how important it is to export natural gas overseas. I want to take a moment to examine some history here.

Back in 2015, with a Republican-controlled House and a Republican- controlled Senate, Congress passed a bill that repealed the crude export ban. Since then, crude oil and petroleum product exports to China have tripled, and the amount of refining capacity on the East Coast of the United States has decreased by 36 percent.

This is not a coincidence. Lifting the export ban meant that oil producers saw more profits in sending their oil overseas, including to China, and little in refining it here at home. That led to 10 refineries closing in the intervening 7 years, destroying jobs.

It tied the price of oil in the U.S. firmly to the price of oil on global markets, which has been responsible for the gas prices roller coaster we have seen for the past few years.

Now, what that bill did was enrich a very small number of people who export oil at the expense of every other American who now has to pay a little bit more for gasoline.

Republicans, with this bill, want to turn around and do this for the natural gas industry, too. This bill makes it far too easy to export LNG abroad--yes, including to China. This would mean the same process would repeat.

You would pay more for energy. American factories and industries would pay more for energy. A very small sliver of natural gas businesses would profit. It is prioritizing the enrichment of the few over the needs of many Americans.

The sheer gall of calling this the Lower Energy Costs Act, in my opinion, is insulting. It is insulting to refinery workers who lost their jobs. It is insulting to the frontline communities next to fossil fuel plants that suffer from dirtier air. It is insulting to the hundreds of millions of Americans who would have to pay more to keep their houses warm each winter.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), Speaker Emeritus of the House.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

Mr. Chairman, today, Republicans have completed the process of trying to determine what exactly their energy policy will be. It is not about energy independence. It is not even about an all-of-the-above energy approach. Instead, it is a return to the glory days for them of oil and gas running the show.

Today's bill, however, does nothing to chart a course for American energy policy. Instead, it is a political messaging bill. Industry admits it.

There was a Politico piece last week detailing how Republican industry allies feel about the bill. Rapidan Energy Group, which is run by Bob McNally, who testified at the Committee on Energy and Commerce's first hearing this year, sent an analysis note to their clients saying that H.R. 1 is doomed in the Senate. Several anonymous Republican Members have said the very same things themselves in press interviews.

Let's be clear: Three months into their majority, instead of using their power to seriously tackle issues in a bipartisan manner--and many of my colleagues on the Democratic side said today they wanted to work with Republicans on real energy policy--Republicans have chosen to put forward a messaging bill that I think is really an insult to every single American that is not an oil or gas executive.

It is a message bill, and the message is this: They want the energy your family uses to be dirtier and more expensive. It is a shame.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

I am calling this the polluters over people act because it eliminates the environmental protections that keep families and communities safe while doing nothing to lower energy costs. Everyday Americans need relief from high energy costs.

Big Oil is still making record profits, and instead of cracking down on price gouging, House Republicans are handing giveaways to big oil and gas company CEOs without delivering any help to working families.

The East Palestine train derailment and other recent catastrophes have shown just how dangerous putting profits before people can be.

As the climate crisis accelerates, we need real action to support clean, secure, and affordable American energy.

That is what House Democrats delivered last year with our historic investments that will help us lead the world in the transition to clean energy and will truly combat the worsening climate crisis. After all, extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and more extreme.

Just last week, it was the devastating and deadly tornado that ripped through Mississippi. These horrifying extreme weather events are costing families their loved ones, their homes, and their livelihoods.

House Republicans are attacking the very clean energy policies that hold polluters accountable, reduce costs for American families, and combat the worsening climate crisis.

House Republicans have the wrong priorities, and we should defeat the polluters over people act today.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I hope after today we don't hear Republicans talk about States' rights again. Pipeline and LNG projects require both Federal and State permits. The spirit of the Clean Water Act clearly demands that States have a say in the requirements and permits that projects in their State are subject to. This amendment disapproves of the State of Oregon's decision to deny permits to the Jordan Cove LNG export project.

Mr. Chair, who are we to disapprove of Oregon's decision?

I don't live in Oregon. The distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado offering this amendment doesn't live in Oregon. Oregon decided in a democratic fashion what standards projects had to meet in order to build in the State. Jordan Cove didn't meet those standards and it didn't get the permits and it didn't get built. I don't see anything objectionable there.

If Congress spent floor time debating every State decision that one Member of the House disagreed with, we would never get anything done. I just think this is a meaningless sense of Congress resolution. If this passes and the bill somehow becomes law, it won't bring the project back. It is really a messaging amendment, being added to, in my opinion, a messaging bill.

I would also note that my colleague, Congresswoman Val Hoyle, staunchly opposes this amendment and has a long history of opposing the Jordan Cove LNG project. Unfortunately, she has come down with COVID and regrets that she is unable to be on the floor to discuss this amendment.

Republicans promised when they took the majority that they were going to be serious legislators dealing with actual issues the country is facing. I don't see that here.

Mr. Chair, I urge opposition to the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, the gentleman from Texas' amendment would undermine EPAs critical Underground Injection Control program and endanger the health of communities around the Nation, in my opinion.

The Underground Injection Control program, or UIC, regulates injection wells to protect drinking water sources.

Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA implements the program, but can delegate primary enforcement authority, or primacy, to a State.

To be granted primacy, States must demonstrate to EPA that they, among other things, have regulations in place that meet various minimum requirements.

The point of this application and EPA approval process is to ensure there is a Federal floor to regulations so drinking water is protected across the country.

This amendment seeks to expedite approvals of primacy applications by effectively rubber-stamping State UIC programs for class 6 wells, those used for carbon sequestration, if EPA hasn't acted on the State application within the review period.

Just like other permit deadline provisions of the polluters over peoples act, this would be dangerous.

While this amendment targets class 6 wells used for underground injection of carbon dioxide, the text, as written, would apply to State program applications or program revisions for all well types, including hazardous waste injection wells.

UIC programs should be rigorous and protective. We should not gamble with people's drinking water. Once water is contaminated, we cannot easily reverse course.

If Republicans care about the implementation of this program, they would support EPA as it works to ensure robust State programs are in place before granting primacy.

In fact, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provided $25 million toward that goal. So if States want primacy, they should complete the application process and be held to the Federal standard so Americans know their water is safe. Circumventing this process will only put communities in jeopardy.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, frankly, I have no idea why this amendment is being offered. It would force the Department of Energy to ride the roller coaster that is the oil future's market, without any option to just pay a simple fixed price for a barrel of oil.

If oil goes up $20 per barrel between when DOE purchases oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and when it is delivered, well, that is too bad. We are now paying $20 per barrel more, and we will have to buy less oil.

This amendment unnecessarily restrains DOE and makes purchasing petroleum products to refill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve more expensive. DOE recognized as much when it issued a rulemaking last fall clarifying that it could purchase oil at a fixed price, as common sense would dictate.

There is no reason that it should be illegal for the Department of Energy to sign a contract saying that it will purchase oil for $70 per barrel. No reason that I can think of. Except, of course, if you are an oil company that wants the Department of Energy to pay more to refill the reserve.

However, if you are an average American, then this amendment is a raw deal. It constrains the Department of Energy's usage of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is partially responsible for the tremendous over $1.50 per gallon fall in the cost of gasoline we have seen since last summer's peak gas prices.

I will note that when the Department of Energy issued its notice of proposed rulemaking this last summer, industry did not object. In fact, the Department of Energy only received one comment on the rulemaking from Employ America, which was unambiguously positive.

That comment stated that the rule change ``is an important step to reduce the volatility of oil prices over the short and medium term, improve our Nation's energy security, and a necessary step to ensure that acquisition procedures more fully align with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve's governing statute.''

This amendment will put the usage of index pricing on par with the Department of Energy's duty to acquire petroleum products for the reserve as cheaply as possible. I don't understand that mission. It will only serve to diminish the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, frankly, I could not disagree more with this amendment. It claims that President Biden's budget would repeal tax breaks that are ``vital to the oil and natural gas industry of the United States.''

This is the same Big Oil that last year saw just six companies make a shocking $200 billion in profit and then spend billions to enrich their shareholders with stock buybacks and dividends, all while gouging American drivers at the pump.

So, I hope the gentleman will forgive me if I don't think that Big Oil needs a tax break.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad the gentleman offered this amendment because I think it is very illustrative of how Democrats and Republicans are in different places. Democrats and President Biden are fighting every day to keep Americans' Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid safe. Republicans, however, apparently only value the tax breaks that their Big Oil friends love.

Just yesterday, Speaker McCarthy sent President Biden a letter on the national debt, but I guess cutting tax breaks for fossil fuels is a real red line for Republicans. They would rather us default than impact their special interests.

It is fitting that this amendment is being added to the polluters over people act.

For all of my colleagues today, it is very simple. If you are on the side of the polluters, then support this amendment. If you are on the side of the people, then you must oppose it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, the Delaware River Basin Commission is made up of representatives from the States of New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and my home State of New Jersey.

The commission oversees drinking water quality for the Delaware River Watershed, a vitally important role that impacts millions of people across four States.

Congress created the commission over 60 years ago and gave it powers to regulate the Delaware River Watershed.

Crucially, each State's democratically elected leaders signed up to join the commission, and each State receives a vote on the commission.

Mr. Chairman, 2 years ago, the commission banned fracking in its watershed, and this wasn't a controversial decision.

In fact, it was unanimous. It was a 4-0 vote to help protect the public health of the 13 million citizens in the watershed and to preserve the waters themselves.

Today, Republicans want to retroactively take away the rights of the citizens of these four States and their elected representatives. They want to take away the powers that Congress gave the commission just because they don't like the outcome.

I would suggest this: If you really care about clean rivers and waters, I urge you to oppose this amendment. If you care about people's rights to safe drinking water, I urge you to oppose this amendment.

I would like to think that all my colleagues care about these things, so I urge opposition to the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

The Governors are the four commissioners. The Governor of Pennsylvania is the chairman of the commission. They may delegate to someone to actually go to the meetings, but they are making these decisions.

I don't understand how my colleagues on the other side of the aisle think that we should take away the rights of the Governors who are on these commissions to make the decision that was a 4-0 decision. If they decide that they want something different in the Delaware watershed than in their individual States, that is their prerogative, but they made this decision. They voted 4-0.

Again, I don't see the point, and I think it is really egregious for us to take away the powers of the Governors, as they are elected by the people of the four States to make this decision about fracking within their watershed.

Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the Perry amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, a common refrain that I hear from Republicans is that unilateral action by the United States to reduce greenhouse gases would harm our economy and wouldn't move the needle on reducing global emissions. The core of this argument is that if we are going to address climate change, we need to coordinate an international response.

Of course, this argument completely falls apart when you take a look at the actions of the House Republicans. Many cheered as the previous administration removed the United States from the Paris Agreement. Exiting the largest international agreement to combat global climate change not only weakened our diplomatic standing abroad, but it made it abundantly clear that Republicans don't care about addressing climate change.

Now, thankfully, President Biden rejoined the Paris Agreement, putting that embarrassing chapter behind us, but it appears that House Republicans want to go back to burying their heads in the sand when it comes to combating climate change, as was made clear by this amendment.

This amendment would repeal section 115 of the Clean Air Act, which provides EPA with a tool to address air pollution while promoting international cooperation to combat climate change.

As my Republican colleagues should know by now, air pollution does not respect boundaries, whether these are State or international. Section 115 provides the EPA administrator the authority to set limits on an air pollutant that is harming public health and welfare in another country as long as the other country grants reciprocal rights to the United States.

The gentleman's amendment would remove this discretionary authority, gutting our ability to cooperate with our neighbors. We have agreements with Canada and with Mexico, and we show leadership with the international community by working with our neighbors to try to deal with air pollution.

Climate change is a global problem. We need to work with other nations like we worked with Canada and Mexico and provide the leadership to encourage international engagements to tackle this crisis.

I have to say: I don't believe the Republican majority wants to act on climate crisis internationally or domestically. Case in point, the polluters over people act we are dealing with today. It attempts to repeal popular provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act: The greenhouse gas reduction fund, the methane emissions reduction program, and $4.5 billion in home electrification rebates.

Now, House Democrats took historic action to combat the climate crisis by passing the Inflation Reduction Act, which included unparalleled investments in climate and clean energy.

Not a single House Republican voted for it, but if we can't act domestically and we can't act in coordination with our neighbors, even Canada and Mexico, what are we going to do to address the threat caused by the climate crisis?

According to this amendment, the answer is apparently nothing. We are not going to do anything domestically. We are not going to do anything with our neighbors. We are not going to do anything internationally. We are going to do nothing. I just think that is unacceptable.

At a time of real crisis, as highlighted by the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report, we should empower EPA to combat dangerous climate change and strongly encourage other nations to do the same. We shouldn't be taking any tools off the table, and that is what this amendment does. It takes the tool off the table.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I frankly don't understand the purpose of this amendment.

Last spring, FERC issued an updated policy statement, an interim guidance, detailing how the Commission should treat new applications for natural gas pipelines and account for greenhouse gas emissions. The Commission, a month later, clarified that both documents were drafts and that it would seek further input and comments on the drafts. That is it.

These documents are not final rules or orders from the Commission. They are not law. They are a draft, draft documents that the Commission has put out to solicit industry and stakeholder feedback, and that is the way we want the government to work for it to be responsive.

Withdrawing these documents from draft status, which is what I think the gentleman's amendment would do, would have no impact on any policy and, instead, I think, would just create further confusion and possibly release FERC from the duty to consider industry's comments on the draft.

It may be that the real reason that the Republicans offered this amendment is that they don't think that FERC should consider greenhouse gas emissions. They don't think that these emissions should matter when FERC makes a decision about whether or not to authorize a new natural gas pipeline.

This doesn't change the law. The law currently requires FERC to consider the greenhouse gas impacts of a certificate it grants. Multiple Federal court rulings have held that the agency must think about these issues based on the statute, and the interim policy statement was meant to create certainty for industry on how the Commission would do that.

Instead, Republicans want to send FERC and, frankly, all parts of the Federal Government back into confusion. If you want to say that FERC shouldn't consider greenhouse gases--I am not in favor of that--you should amend the statute to say that.

By simply saying that these draft rules should be withdrawn, that is going to tell industry, how do you deal with this? How are they going to know what to do if there are no rules, no policy, no input from them whatsoever?

I think it would be wrong to change the statute to say that they shouldn't take greenhouse gas impacts into consideration, but that is not what this amendment does. This amendment says to just get rid of these drafts, and then industry would have no input into any of this. I don't think industry would support that.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, again, FERC is not radical. There is a statute that says that FERC has to consider greenhouse gas emissions. They put out a policy statement about how they are going to do that and asked for the industry to look at it and give their input.

All this amendment does is to say to put that aside. Then how does the FERC--do they just issue another draft saying here is another way to look at it?

I just think this is very confusing. I do think FERC should take into consideration greenhouse gas emissions. They are required to by the law.

Unless the gentleman is going to change that, it makes no sense to say that they can't get industry input about how they do that.

Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source