Greg Walden

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to the amendment. Many of these amendments reflect, frankly, the costly Green New Deal policies of the Progressive left. We think they mandate dramatic and, frankly, unrealistic changes to our energy and transportation systems with little to no consideration for affordability, or especially the reliability of energy for Americans, or our growing dependence on China for critical minerals. That China supply chain is something I think we could find common ground on at some point, and we must, as a country. The bill ignores hardworking blue-collar workers and rewards so- called green-collar workers instead. Provisions that we thought we had reached common ground on in the Energy and Commerce Committee were stripped out. These amendments will provide billions of dollars of additional grants and assistance to cities in urban areas, but at the expense of rural America. We are one country, and we should be united in assisting our people, regardless of where they live. The amendments expand rebate programs and create a patchwork of new energy-efficiency standards, raising costs for consumers. If there is one thing I hear most, it is people are concerned about how costs are going up, especially during this period. They provide even more green giveaways, things like appliances and vehicles, at a time when most Americans are struggling with the economic fallout from this pandemic. Clearly, Democrats want to spend the taxpayers' dollars on their Green New Deal wish list, following the lead of California, who has had its own set of problems with reliability on its energy grid. None of these issues raised by these amendments have gotten a hearing or debate in committee. One of them, dealing with the Klamath River Dams around my district, would short circuit the public licensing process at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. It steps all over this public process that is enshrined in law. It is a blatant attempt to legislate the removal of these dams, and wherever you are on that issue--for or against removing the dams--we think this sets a dangerous precedent by rolling back the longstanding protections and due process afforded through the well-established Federal licensing process. So both sides should be concerned about that amendment in this bill. Republicans offered amendments to lower the cost of energy. We offered amendments to develop innovative new technologies, and we offered amendments to reduce permitting delays. Unfortunately, Democrats refuse to let those amendments be debated on this House floor or voted on this House floor. The Democratic amendments we are all debating today will not result in meaningful reforms to the permitting and licensing process so we can rebuild our economy and recover from the COVID pandemic. So I have to urge my colleagues to join me in opposing these amendments and the underlying bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I have one more speaker who wanted to speak, but he is not here. I apparently have the right to close, so if the gentlewoman would like to go ahead while we wait for our other Member, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of these amendments which are focused on ways to improve options and reduce the cost of energy for American consumers. Our amendments put consumers first. These amendments also address important issues such as grid reliability--that means when you flip the light switch, the lights come on consistently; streamlining research at the Department of Energy to promote innovation and technological development and nuclear research for advanced nuclear power. There are also much-needed efforts to reduce our reliance on critical minerals, especially from China. Republicans have been sounding the alarm about our growing reliance on critical minerals and their use in all sorts of energy technologies. This is how we make batteries, windmills, and solar panels and we have become too dependent on foreign countries for those critical minerals. We are also very concerned that the underlying bill, which is based on the Green New Deal, will trade away our energy independence and make us more reliant on countries like China and their abysmal record on human rights, environment, and trade. So, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these commonsense amendments to H.R. 4447, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), who is the top Republican on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee and the former chairman of the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, may I ask how much time each side has remaining.

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my friend from New Jersey, the chairman of our committee. Unfortunately, however, the fact of the matter on the blue collar to green collar jobs program is that the workforce training program would open the door for grants to help Americans get the education resources they need to be able to work in these areas. We had agreed that both those who worked in coal jobs and those who worked in nuclear jobs would be eligible for those grants as well. The underlying proposal that came out of our committee provided for workforce training for those men and women who work in coal-related jobs as well as in nuclear, but that got stripped out. So, Madam Speaker, if you are working in the nuclear energy industry or you are somehow connected to the coal industry, you have just been taken out of the mix to get additional grants for workforce training. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much each side has remaining.

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, the chairman and I have had a wonderful working relationship during our time on the Committee on Energy and Commerce. I understand where he is headed with this. I just wish some of the things had been agreed to in a bipartisan way and the committee would have held firm as we moved forward with energy legislation. Everybody has got to do it their own way. I always figured that if I could come out of the House with a 300- or 400-vote margin and a big bipartisan push, we would have a lot more leverage with our friends in the Senate, regardless of who controlled the Senate. But a different path has been chosen here. Part of what we are concerned about on the Republican side is this supply chain vulnerability. And what we are arguing here is that we have witnessed what happens when we have a supply chain vulnerability during this pandemic. In fact, the very face mask that we are wearing-- this one, actually, my wife made--we couldn't get because China locked it down. We have seen that play out. Heck, you couldn't even get toilet paper and paper towels. Now that wasn't necessarily a China problem, but supply chains matter. Reliability on supply chains matters. And we have, as a country, locked up access to many of our areas on mining where you would get critical minerals. And we have relied on other countries and now, principally, China for our critical mineral supply chain. And you have to have that for our mobile phones, you have to have it for batteries. And a lot of things, frankly, we all agree on, is the future for technology requires critical minerals. And meanwhile, China has gone around the world and locked up these resources in Africa and elsewhere, and as a result, they are really dominant in this space. And I don't want us to be reliant on any other country, if we can avoid it. I realize we are global and there are things we don't have here that we need to acquire elsewhere. Madam Speaker, we offered up these amendments and we look forward to further debate. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from California for his remarks. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to go back to the issue underlying this, which is wildfires and smoke. When I chaired the Energy and Commerce Committee, I held hearings each year, which have been continued under Chairman Pallone, looking at the health impacts of wildfire smoke on our citizens in America as relates to the Clean Air Act. I remember we had a gentleman from southern Oregon who had sent me a photo of his CPAP, his air-breathing filter, that had turned dark within a day or two. We had county commissioners tell me that when they opened their windows at night, the smoke alarm went off in their house. It was that bad. We continue to have that, and it has been going on for a very long time. It is sad we had to get to this point for many to recognize who don't have to live with that as we all have to. There is so much more we can and should do, and I appreciate Speaker Pelosi's comments about fixing the fire borrowing problem. We did that jointly and in a bipartisan, bicameral way. It was long overdue. But I am just going to close by saying you still have 60, 70 million acres of lands out there that we have responsibility for. They are the public's lands that are completely out of balance. Nature tells us that. Scientists reinforce that. And we need to do something about that. Hopefully--I am leaving Congress at the end of this year--future Congresses will figure a way through this thicket because if we don't act, you won't have forests left, and a whole generation will never know what we have had the great joy to see, big healthy tree stands and habitat, freshwater and fish, and all of that that is the Northwest. It is going away in large measure every summer, and it will be a generation before you can drive over the Cascade Mountains on these routes and see what we got to see for our generation as it burns up and goes away. We need to take out the burned, dead material while it has value. We need to plant green, new trees. We need to fully understand the impacts of smoke and then do everything in our power to minimize these fires and their devastating, tragic, and deadly effects. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the ranking member of the House Energy Subcommittee and the former chairman of the full committee, Mr. Upton, for yielding me this time. Tragically, I have to rise in opposition to H.R. 4447. This reminds me of the last time Democrats were in charge. This is now an 894-page bill. Some of it has been through committee. It has never been looked at in its entirety, and it has only been available for a few days within the rules, but certainly not long enough for the American people to fully digest and know everything about it. It is unfortunate because I think we could do a lot more to come together and agree on a package that would cause our economy to really rebound and to drive clean innovation the American way. You see, Madam Speaker, the key to expanding clean energy and creating prosperous jobs in America is to actually reduce the barriers to building infrastructure, not increase them, and to deploy innovative new technologies that will ensure reliable, affordable energy for the economy. This will produce the economic rebound and the growth that we all want, growth that maintains environmental standards but creates economic opportunities, especially for the poor and the disadvantaged. It generates the resources for communities and families to prepare for their futures. In recent years, Madam Speaker, Republicans have led successful efforts to enact laws that enable more rapid licensing of hydropower facilities, zero carbon emission hydropower. We are talking small scale in irrigation ditches that are now piped. We are creating new electricity with no emissions. We are putting water into streams for fish. And we are pressurizing systems for farmers. We did more of that under a Republic majority, and there is more we can do now, but we are not. We want more seamless delivery and export of clean-burning natural gas. If you think of the conversion that has occurred from coal to gas, the reduction of emissions, we lead the world in reducing emissions. We have created enormous wealth and jobs in areas that had terrible poverty and needed economic development. We have increased private- sector use of carbon capture technologies. I think there is great hope in the future with our brilliant scientists to do even more in this space and to streamline licensing to enable advanced nuclear energy production. America has always led in that category, and there are new opportunities out there to do small- scale nuclear energy. We need to do more of that, but sadly, this bill doesn't get us where we need to go. These are all good things for the economy and, frankly, good things for the planet. Madam Speaker, you won't hear it from the radical left, but the United States has actually been leading the world in carbon reductions. It shows the largest absolute decline in emissions of all countries since the year 2000. Frankly, we have reduced carbon emissions more in total than Britain, France, Germany, and Canada combined--combined, Madam Speaker. So the United States continues to improve its air quality for all communities. Particulate matter pollution is down 25 percent to 44 percent in urban areas around the Nation since 2007. This is tremendous news for disadvantaged communities and, frankly, for all Americans. All this happened while the United States has reemerged as an energy superpower on top of the economic boom of the shale revolution. So our job today should be to build upon that. Unfortunately, Democrats' legislation goes in the other direction, I believe. It destroys some of these gains, and it is not the way we should do this. In this Congress, my Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican colleagues have introduced a number of bills to encourage investment in infrastructure, remove more regulatory barriers to permitting and licensing to ensure affordable, reliable energy and to expand access to clean energy, promote nuclear innovation, and protect natural gas resources. Yes, we have a very aggressive, positive, and pro-environment energy agenda as Republicans. None of the amendments based upon these reforms, unfortunately, made it into H.R. 4447. No. Democrats kept those out, and that is a problem. Madam Speaker, you do not achieve a prosperous economy and advance clean energy innovations without removing the barriers to building and deploying new technology. You certainly don't achieve this by focusing instead on enacting more than 135 billion borrowed dollars in Federal spending, scores of new Federal subsidy programs, new regulations that delay siting and building, and raising electricity rates. This bill does that, and it increases the cost of new homes and infrastructure. Yet, that is what this 900-page gorilla does in the room. Sure, there are some bipartisan provisions, but that does not make this a workable bill for the American public. Taken together, provisions in this bill will undermine any efforts to expand infrastructure or build the innovations. The bill ignores the priorities of rural Americans whose reliance on affordable energy is critical to their productivity and livelihoods. Instead, this bill gives billions for city-oriented green energy and efficiency programs, leaving the rural areas behind with nearly $50 billion in spending and mandates to drive a transformation toward electric vehicles that are sure to drive up electricity rates and transportation costs. Most troubling are new provisions concerning NEPA and other reviews seeded throughout this bill. These are sure to lead to delay, litigation, and loss of opportunity. It will take longer to get a permit, longer to site a project, and longer to get a license, as if it didn't take long enough now. The bill introduces, without any committee review, new private causes of action that are sure to benefit trial lawyers but at the expense of ordinary Americans who want more jobs and better opportunity. All of this will, unfortunately, keep investments sidelined and any projects funded in the bill on the lab table. This is not energy policy. This is Big Government prescription, and we should not support this bill.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, due to my attendance at a wildfire summit with the President, to discuss aid for the devastating wildfires that have recently swept through Oregon, I was unable to return for votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 183 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 184. personal explanation

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, due to a longstanding prior commitment, I was unable to return for votes on Saturday, August 22. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 179 (PQ); ``nay'' on rollcall No. 180 (Rule); ``yea'' on rollcall No. 181 (MTR); and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 182 (H.R. 8015).

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4686, Sami's Law, as well. I commend my colleagues who have been down here today talking about this law and the tragedy around it and the tragedy around the loss of Sami. And while she may never have gotten the opportunity to become a lawyer, she will have a law. And the advocacy of her parents to get this law in place is a lifetime statutory memorial for her for an incredible tragedy that should never have existed in the first place, the kidnapping and murder. We think about our kids, and we think about all we do to protect them and to encourage them to do the right things. And you think about convincing them to take a rideshare, don't drive, whatever, and then to have this happen is truly horrible. So this legislation that is brought before us today is extraordinarily important. I thank my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for his tireless leadership on this and Mr. Suozzi as well and everyone who has worked on it. You should, as a rider, have the opportunity to know that you are safe when you get in that vehicle and that you don't risk your life the way Sami did and lost it. Madam Speaker, I hope we can all rally around this bill and help get this into law and have a memorial for Sami and a safeguard for all others.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Graves for yielding and for his work trying to get this bill in a better place. And I thank Chairman DeFazio for working with me on an amendment that will come up tomorrow that will allow the Port of Cascade Locks to compete for funds to add a path on the Bridge of the Gods to provide a safer place for hikers and horseback riders on Pacific Crest Trail to cross the Columbia River. It is nice when we can work together for the best interests of our citizens. I wish we had been able to work on all the infrastructure issues in this bill in the same spirit. I won't waste my time dwelling on the partisan process fouls that encumber this bill. Building better American infrastructure is a public policy that has almost always brought us together as a Congress and a country. Until this week and until this legislation. Republicans have proposals to make American energy infrastructure more resilient and safeguard it from cyberattack. Republicans have proposed more than two dozen policies, Mr. Speaker, to help get high speed broadband to all Americans. We have legislation to put America in the driver's seat of autonomous vehicle innovation and production. We could find common ground to remove unneeded but costly regulatory barriers that stand in the way of important infrastructure improvements and the jobs that come with them. But unfortunately, the work and ideas of Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee were not included. Heck, we weren't even consulted. What could be a bipartisan bill destined to become law will instead likely never get to the President's desk and never become law. So I urge my Democratic friends and colleagues to work with us on a bipartisan legislative package on infrastructure that can become law and that will improve our Nation's infrastructure.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, our constituents are looking for us to put aside partisan politics. They want us not to play political games, and they want us to find common ground to address the unprecedented deadly challenges caused by COVID-19. We need to work together to lower prescription drug prices. We need to work together to aid States in stabilizing health markets damaged by the ACA. We need to work together to lower out-of-pocket costs for patients, including capping seniors' drug costs under Medicare, encourage participation of private health insurance, and we really need to fund our community health centers. We need to increase the options available through the market and end surprise medical billing. We could do all of that. We could do it together, and it could become law. Unfortunately, instead, here we are wasting time on a partisan bill that has zero chance of becoming law. This is no way to govern at any time, but especially in a pandemic. At a time when we are asking our Nation's innovators to find new cures and treatments to address COVID-19 at record speed and with record investment, Democrats want to enact a socialist drug pricing scheme that could devastate this country's innovation in the middle of a global pandemic. Frankly, it is unconscionable. This legislation before us today provides $100 billion in bailouts for insurance companies at a time when insurers are not paying for elective procedures due to COVID. Now, we all want to make premiums more affordable, but all signs are insurers do not need a bailout right now. Wouldn't that money be better spent, Madam Speaker, on funding our Nation's community health centers, giving them certainty, rather than letting their funding run out in just a matter of months? They are on the front lines of this fight in our communities. They are on the front lines of the fight on testing and treating patients in rural and underserved communities. Shouldn't we fund them, give them stability and certainty? And speaking of monies poorly spent, today Democrats are proposing we spend $400 million to prop up ObamaCare's enrollment. This includes $100 million for the failed and discredited Navigator Program; $100 million for outreach and marketing, only for ACA-compliant plans, not any of the more affordable alternatives; and $200 million for States to boost enrollment, with no strings attached--no transparency, no accountability. This law has been on the books for 10 years, and we must spend nearly half a billion dollars to make it look like it is working? In this bill, Democrats want to force States to expand Medicaid, allowing expansion States to get 100 percent of Federal Medicaid payments, while punishing, in the middle of a pandemic, taking money away from, nonexpansion States, taking it away from their Medicaid. That is what this bill does. If they don't expand, the Federal Government's heavy hand comes in and takes money back out of Medicaid. It is vindictive, and it is probably unconstitutional. You know, the Supreme Court, Madam Speaker, said expansion is the States' decision. This legislation violates that. We need to work together with the States as partners, not treat them like subordinates. Now, in the last Congress, I advocated for multiple policies that would help States stabilize health markets damaged by the ACA. But, unfortunately, House Democrats repeatedly blocked our ideas. We all want patients to have access to high-quality and affordable health coverage, but this measure doubles down on policies that have already failed. One thing is clear: We need to make our healthcare system work better for all Americans. That is why our goal should be to advance solutions to protect patients, to stabilize healthcare markets, to encourage greater flexibility for States, and to promote policies to help Americans get and keep coverage. Madam Speaker, I have great respect for the chairman. We have worked together on a number of different issues in the Congress with great success at the Energy and Commerce Committee. Unfortunately, our bipartisan work to lower drug prices was derailed by the Speaker in December when she decided to force politics over real progress. I recently read an article about a man suffering from ALS who has dedicated his life to finding a cure. And like Americans with ALS, there are millions of Americans suffering from other life-threatening or debilitating diseases, like cancer or sickle cell anemia. They are hoping, and their families are hoping, that one day there will be a cure. Now, it is not debatable the bill before us today will reduce the number of new treatments in the future, new medicines, new lifesaving medicines, perhaps. The Council of Economic Advisers found there could be more than 100 fewer treatments, fewer medicines, that would never be invented, never be discovered, if this legislation we are going to vote on becomes law--100 fewer. We can lower drug prices while preserving the hope those praying for a cure have. There is common ground to be had here, and I have offered many times to work on bipartisan legislation to lower drug costs without limiting--perhaps, even ending--innovation. H.R. 19 is a bill comprised entirely of bipartisan policies. That is our Republican alternative. But it is not just a Republican alternative. Everything in there is bipartisan. And already, seven of the provisions we put in months ago have been signed into law, proving that it is, indeed, a bipartisan package. Instead of pursuing proven bipartisan solutions, unfortunately, Democrats again are forcing partisan politics on this House and this country, fewer options for patients at a time when we need more treatments and more cures than most. This bill is a perfect illustration why Americans are so cynical about Washington. The American people deserve better. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time each side has remaining?

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), the ranking member and former chairman of the Health Subcommittee on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I would just point out that as we sit here today, Oklahoma, under a Republican Governor, has chosen to expand Medicaid coverage. That is how it should work, not a penalizing system. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.