Lower Energy Costs Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. DINGELL. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1.

As one of the few Members who serves on both the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Natural Resources, I have seen almost every version of this package as it was crafted. Hearing after hearing and markup after markup, it has been clear. I love my Republican colleagues, but they are more focused on advancing partisan bills that will benefit the oil, gas, and mining industries while selling out landmark environmental laws in the name of permitting reform, instead of advancing meaningful, bipartisan solutions for the American people that will help us achieve our climate goals and solidify our energy security for future generations.

For months now, my Republican colleagues have called for policies and permitting reforms in Congress that would strengthen our energy security. I have consistently been willing to work with my colleagues-- and still want to--in this pursuit, but what we have here is not reform.

Gutting the National Environmental Policy Act, otherwise known as NEPA, is not permitting reform.

Weakening enforcement under the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and other critical public health laws is not permitting reform.

Granting mining companies the ability to take minerals from public lands without paying a dime to taxpayers in royalties or helping clean up these toxic sites afterward is not permitting reform.

Forcing Federal agencies to hold oil and gas sales on public lands, even if they are not needed, is not permitting reform.

Repealing the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, a $27 billion program, that I admit I helped author, to deploy clean energy projects nationwide and cut greenhouse gas pollution, is not permitting reform and will not strengthen our energy security in any meaningful way.

To my Republican colleagues who continue to refuse to believe the science or to acknowledge we are facing an existential threat from the climate crisis, just read the United Nation's most recent IPCC report from 2022.

This legislation instead puts polluters, profits, and pollution over the American people. It is that simple.

In order to truly attain meaningful energy independence here at home, we need a net zero energy economy built on solar, wind, hydropower, batteries, electric vehicles, and even nuclear.

What we cannot do is expect more drilling for oil and gas to solve all of our current and future energy woes. I do understand bad weather. The last four weekends, I have had snow and ice, and I have lost my electricity every single weekend.

Listen, we are at the beginning of a transformational shift toward a clean energy economy, a shift that has now accelerated due to the historic investments and legislation Democrats and the Biden-Harris administration were able to enact into law over the last 2 years.

This transition will likely present the greatest permitting challenge in generations. However, we must permit and build in ways that do not harm communities or our environment.

That is why Democrats enacted historic legislation last Congress, the Inflation Reduction Act, that directed over a billion-dollar investment to increase staffing and resources across Federal agencies for conducting efficient and effective environmental reviews and permitting.

The bill today doesn't have real solutions to high energy costs, and it is going to drive up the deficit, not according to Democrats, but according to the independent Congressional Budget Office.

I am pragmatic and I am seasoned enough to know we have a lot of work ahead. If we can do it collectively, Republicans and Democrats, it can serve as an important tool to combat climate change, strengthen our economy, and protect our national security.

But again, let me be clear: We must not entertain proposals that roll back landmark environmental laws across the board, including NEPA, so we can line the pockets of Big Oil.

As I mentioned at committee, when John Dingell and Senator ``Scoop'' Jackson originally authored and advanced the National Environmental Policy Act, it was done thoughtfully, through a meaningful legislative process, to build broad and bipartisan support. This is the process that we need.

We can't gut NEPA. It was brought about to include community and to care about the economy. We have got to work together. I remain open to working with my Republican colleagues on bipartisan energy security and permitting reform efforts. I hope we can. My colleague, the chairman, knows I want to, but I still do not see this legislative package as a serious proposal.

I don't want to be dependent on China more than anybody else does for our batteries, or Russia or any other country. We need to do it in the good ol' USA. We can do it with ingenuity, innovation, technology, and protect our environment at the same time.

Madam Chair, I am strongly opposed, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source