Lower Energy Costs Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, House Democrats filed several amendments to H.R. 1 that would help mitigate some of the outright damage to our climate, our communities, and our economic future that this bill would cause.

Unfortunately, only 7 out of 95 were made in order to get an open debate and an up-or-down vote.

Some Republicans have also filed amendments that I support. But I am afraid that at the end of the day, there is ultimately no path forward for making H.R. 1 any semblance of a legislative proposal that the American people, not polluters, deserve.

The polluters over people act will actively and aggressively take us backward regarding emissions and in our transition to clean energy. It guts our bedrock environmental laws and takes communities out of the permitting process entirely, the public's right to know. Some of the Republican amendments add to that mess.

To start, I rise today in opposition to this amendment, which would make a harmful bill even worse by arbitrarily eroding community protections under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA.

This amendment greatly expands the limited environmental review standards of the 2015 FAST Act to a series of coal waste extraction activities that can cause significant environmental damage and warrant strong environmental review standards.

There is already a deliberate process in place under the FAST Act to expand its limited environmental review standards to new types of projects under certain conditions. This amendment is a legislative end run around that deliberative process that inappropriately curtails public input, environmental review, and judicial review under NEPA.

At its most basic level, NEPA simply requires government agencies to assess significant environmental and public health impacts before a decision is made and potentially harmful activities like coal waste extraction begin. NEPA doesn't stop these activities. It simply assures that their impacts are considered and that the public knows.

This amendment undermines the basic purposes of NEPA. I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would further restrict access to the courts to hold polluters accountable when they violate the law and unlawfully harm public health and the environment.

The underlying bill already bars additional review of a permit, license, or approval under all Federal laws unless filed within 120 days. This amendment reduces judicial review times even further to 90 days for major infrastructure projects that can greatly harm communities.

By contrast, judicial review under most of our Federal environmental and public health laws is generally 5 to 6 years.

Congress included a judicial review period of this length in most of these laws because often serious public health and environmental effects aren't known within the first 120 days and certainly not within 90 days.

Judicial review is a key enforcement mechanism for most of our major environmental and public health laws. This amendment doubles down on the underlying bill's effort to gut the enforcement of our Nation's laws and to give polluters a virtual blank check.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, it is simply a public right that the public has an opportunity to seek redress in the courts. To limit that should not be part of this legislation. I urge opposition to the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, this amendment attempts to accelerate pipeline construction, and it does so by undermining informed decisionmaking and meaningful review which falls under the National Environmental Policy Act and other established bedrock laws.

We have an extensive record showing that NEPA is not a meaningful cause of energy project delays, period. When a delay does occur, it is usually because of the permit applicant who is causing the delay or because of the lack of funding for agency staff and resources at permitting offices.

While we cannot do anything about applicant delays, we have already addressed the other core issue, and we should be celebrating that. Democrats fought to get more than $1 billion in the Inflation Reduction Act to staff up Federal agencies' permitting offices so they would be able to efficiently and effectively process permits.

The Council on Environmental Quality has also now told us that because of what Democrats delivered, even the most extensive form of environmental review will, in most cases, take 2 years or less. By the way, that was the target timeline of industry, Trump, and Senator Manchin.

Democrats are making quick, but high-quality reviews a reality. Republicans simply want to mandate low-quality reviews or none at all.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, the amendment offered by my colleague from Florida, Mr. Donalds, requires the Secretary to submit a report to Congress that includes the status of uranium deposits in the U.S., information on the quality of these deposits compared to the rest of the world, and policy considerations regarding the use of these deposits.

Although this amendment concerns only the making of a report, I want to take a moment to highlight the history of uranium mining in this country as it relates to our indigenous communities.

One example I will use is the Navajo Nation. From the 1940s to the 1980s, nearly 30 million tons of uranium ore were extracted from the Nation's lands, exposing generations of Tribal members to the contamination that permeated these sites.

After the mining companies were done, they simply left their operations and failed to engage in any cleanup measures.

Today, there are over 500 abandoned uranium mines on the Tribal Nation's lands, and this continues to be a serious concern for the Nation's Tribal leadership as we speak.

As you can imagine, these mines have contributed to chronic health outcomes among Tribal members and have left countless homes and water sources with elevated levels of radiation.

When we consider the status of uranium mining in this country, we must also consider the inequitable history that this industry has imposed specifically upon Tribal communities.

I hope that in addition to the information my colleague would like to be included in the amendment's report, we can also work to include a survey of the industry's historical practices and expected challenges and outcomes to local and surrounding communities.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, my comments about uranium mining and the reports that are requested in this amendment, I am not arguing with the request. My point is that there is a history here of impacted communities.

What do we do with waste? That challenge, the contamination, the cleanup requirements, what are the company's responsibilities? That should all be part of a survey.

If we are aggressively pursuing uranium as a source, then we need to aggressively pursue the protections, information, and intended and unintended consequences of uranium mining, of which we have a history. That is the request.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, when the government offers up public land for an oil and gas lease sale, the public has a right to challenge the agency's decision.

Challenges can be for any number of reasons, from concerns about air or water, harming cultural heritage, threatening wildlife, or hurting recreational or agricultural businesses in the area.

The polluters over people act puts an arbitrary time limit on these challenges, saying that any claim must be resolved within 60 days so the agency can get on with issuing the leases.

If these challenges have merit, they should be fully considered. The arbitrary deadline shuts the American people out of the decisionmaking process.

This amendment would restore the American people's voice on how their public lands are used.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRIJALVA. Energy independence, clean, renewable, safe energy, is what we are all for. This amendment continues to have the public involved in decisionmaking that affects them, their communities, and their families.

Madam Chair, I urge approval of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I am happy to support my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who seem to be taking an interest in supporting our homegrown, clean energy economy.

Unfortunately, there isn't much else in H.R. 1, the polluters over people act, that will help us shift to the clean energy future that we need to combat the climate crisis.

I will also say, I am significantly more concerned about foreign- owned companies buying up oil, gas, and minerals and polluting in the United States without consequence.

This amendment aligns with my efforts to increase transparency around who is operating on our lands and my efforts on raising global standards. Let's make sure we have good actors operating on our lands. We owe that much to the American people.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, we already have a national strategy in critical minerals. The Democratic-passed Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act built on the Energy Policy Act of 2020 to give agencies broad authorities to responsibly decrease reliance on China by diversifying sources, finding substitutes, and, importantly, recycling and reusing, something Republicans often ignore in favor of rushing into new mining.

This amendment puts a focus on new mining without essential protections for communities and the environment.

Many of the minerals we need for a clean energy transition in the United States are within 35 miles of Tribal land, yet neither this amendment nor the underlying bill addresses the impact of domestic mining on indigenous communities at all. It doesn't address the long- overdue need to reform the Mining Law of 1872.

We know there will be increased demand for minerals as we transition to renewable energy. That is why it is essential to reform the mining law, period.

We need to ensure better protections for the environment; a fair return to the American people that royalties be paid, and a seat at the table for Tribal government, as it is dictated in the government-to- government and trust responsibility that Congress holds.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and instead work on real, meaningful reform to support the clean energy transition.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, there is a strategy for critical minerals, but whatever we do going forward, the essential protections that are in place for communities, the requirement of the Tribal consultation and being at the table, that is our obligation--our constitutional obligation. Those need to be followed.

The reason they need to be followed is the energy strategy that I am hearing from the Republicans is just going back to the good old days. The good old days created these laws, these protections.

I use the example of Navajo Nation and uranium contamination. The list can go on and on and on. If we are saying that that collateral damage, those bad health impacts, that destruction of a community, that toxic cleanup left to local taxpayers, that that is okay because that is part of the past and that is part of the mining history of the past under the 1872 law, that we should replicate that now? No.

This amendment is wrong-headed. It takes us in a different direction. It cuts the public out of the process. It violates our nation-to-nation consultation responsibility.

Madam Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, once again, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, which would unnecessarily waive fundamental environmental laws for wildfire mitigation activity adjacent to roads.

Madam Chair, the underlying bill we are considering today is a polluter wish list of environmental shortcuts designed to open our public lands to more and more extraction while cutting the public out of the decisionmaking process.

The bottom line is, I simply do not think that Congress should be in the business of waiving requirements outlined in the Endangered Species Act or the National Environmental Protection Act.

These laws provide critical protections that guide the management of our public lands and waters--critical protections that do not hinder efforts to mitigate wildfire risk or manage our forests.

In fact, many of the activities contemplated by the amendment are covered under existing categorical exclusions, which allow land management agencies to carry out routine projects in a fast, efficient, and flexible manner.

I will not deny that carrying out wildfire mitigation projects across our national forest and public land is a critical priority. However, we do not have to cast aside environmental standards to get it done.

Madam Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, which would change existing guidelines and create a new categorical exclusion for managing vegetation along transmission lines that run across national forests and public lands.

In order to advance the renewable energy future that the underlying bill moves us away from, we do need to prioritize transmission.

That is why House Democrats worked tirelessly to invest billions in new opportunities that the Biden administration is currently delivering across America.

These investments are building out rural electrical infrastructure and will expand access to renewable energy to more and more Americans.

Confronting the climate crisis also means reducing risk associated with transmission infrastructure, which certainly includes wildfire. However, this amendment is a bridge too far.

There is an administrative process to establish categorical exclusions. That is the right way to get them done, not through a fly- by-night amendment on a largely unrelated piece of legislation.

The amendment also sets up unrealistic approval timelines, deeming a permit approved if an agency has not responded within 60 days. We all know that Federal land management agencies are understaffed and underresourced.

The solution is investing in the workforce and building out agency capacity, not creating unworkable timelines designed to ultimately be ignored.

This amendment, however, is not the answer.

Madam Chair, I urge a vote ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRIJALVA. This amendment stops any offshore wind lease sales in the waters around Florida until the Government Accountability Office publishes a report on the impacts of wind energy development on military readiness, the marine environment, and tourism.

I find the amendment somewhat ironic in that H.R. 1, the polluters over people act, guts the National Environmental Policy Act, which is the best tool for thoroughly studying the impacts of major projects like offshore wind.

A robust NEPA process will evaluate the potential impacts of offshore wind projects on military activities, fisheries, marine life, tourism, and coastal communities.

NEPA is the tool our government should use to help identify the best places for offshore wind and how to mitigate any potential impacts.

With all due respect to the GAO, a couple-page GAO study on the potential impacts of offshore wind doesn't make up for a thorough, robust NEPA review.

We need to make sure that coastal communities have the tools that NEPA offers to weigh in on projects that may affect their coastlines and their marine resources.

Speaking of NEPA, my colleague referenced a project. According to Politico, ``But look at the energy project that Republicans are citing as their poster child for the problem sheds light on where their push may or may not help speed project approvals.

``GOP lawmakers focused on delays to the Cardinal-Hickory Creek transmission line during a legislative hearing last month, blaming the NEPA process for years of delay that have stymied a 102-mile power project from Wisconsin to Iowa. Yet, Republican's proposed changes `would not impact' the project, said Rod Pritchard, a spokepersons for the power line's developer, ITC Midwest.''

H.R. 1 guts NEPA, begins dismantling it, weakens it, and cuts the public out of the process.

This amendment protects Florida and their coastline. There are other coastlines and other communities that don't want extraction such as gas and oil.

I mentioned California and States along the Atlantic, and they should be extended. They fight every day to preserve those areas.

Madam Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, a frustrated former Republican official who worked for the White House Council on Environmental Quality also said regarding NEPA and H.R. 1, ``. . . we are spending 99 percent of our political capital on a set of reforms that will be of no statistically significant consequence.''

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I support this amendment. I am happy to support my colleague on the other side of the aisle who seems to be taking an interest in supporting our homegrown, clean energy economy.

Growing a wind industry with domestic supply chains will help us create family-sustaining, good union jobs, support local economies, and help fight the climate crisis.

Madam Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source