Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I wanted to reference again this provision in the bill that the Senate put in. The Senate bill contains a provision boldly stating that ``climate change is real and not a hoax.'' I couldn't agree more with that, Madam Speaker, but let's be clear: the Senate Republican majority in the same breath rejected another amendment stating that climate change is caused by human activity. Senators who voted against those amendments are out of step with the American people, including many Republicans. In a recent poll, an overwhelming majority of Americans, including almost half of Republicans, stated support for government action to fight climate change and disagreed with those who question that climate change is caused by human activity. Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have become fond of saying that they are not scientists, and I think that we can generally agree that is true. But even though they admit they are not scientists, it doesn't stop them from questioning the science. Now, I am not a scientist either, but when actual scientists speak and say there is an overwhelming body of evidence that man-made climate change is real and happening now, I listen to the actual scientists. And saying that you are not a scientist is, in my opinion, just a way of dodging the facts. I have to say, Madam Speaker, when I go home to New Jersey, and my district was probably more impacted by Superstorm Sandy than any other district, I don't see any disagreement between Democrats and Republicans in my district. It doesn't matter whether they are State legislators or county legislators or mayors or on the council. And I have almost as many Republican mayors and councilmen and councilwomen as I do Democrats, but all of them agree that climate change is real and caused by human activity because they are listening to the scientists and they understand that science is important and that we should pay attention to it. In any event, the ``sense of the Senate'' language affirming that climate change is not a hoax does not fix any of the problems with the bill before us, and its inclusion doesn't mean that voting ``yes'' today will help us in the fight against climate change. In fact, voting ``yes'' today will move us backward in that fight because one of the major concerns that I have and opponents have of Keystone is because it will exploit tar sands, it will actually increase greenhouse gas significantly. And it is very possible that, without the pipeline, those tar sands will simply not be developed or exploited. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today we are voting once again to grant special treatment to TransCanada's Keystone tar sands pipeline. It is the 11th time we are voting on a special deal for the Canadian company's pipeline since Republicans took control of the House of Representatives. This Congress has much work to do on energy. Our situation is changing rapidly, and each energy-related decision we make can have long-term consequences for our environment, our economy, and our national security. But the President has made clear that he will veto this legislation, so we should stop wasting our time on it. The Senate added many provisions to this version of the Keystone bill. Some of the provisions on energy efficiency are provisions that I and many of my colleagues can support and have supported in the past, but those provisions should be considered separately, preferably as stand-alone bills in the House and Senate. They should not be held hostage by another doomed Keystone approval bill, and they in no way come close to offsetting the harm that would be caused by Congress deeming Keystone pipeline approved. We don't need this Canadian tar sands oil. Worldwide crude oil prices are at their lowest level in 5 years, and gasoline prices are down, too. Domestic oil production is up. Last week EPA noted that low oil prices means approval of the Keystone pipeline could be a critical factor in the economic viability of Canadian tar sands expansion. And tar sands are among the dirtiest and carbon intensive of all fossil fuels. The Keystone pipeline will create a dependence on tar sands crude, reversing the carbon pollution reductions that we need. This pipeline is a terrible deal for America. We get all of the risks while the oil companies reap the rewards. If this pipeline spills, like Enbridge pipeline in Michigan, the heavy tar sands that flow onto the ground and into our waters, our groundwater and our surface water, will be even harder to clean up than regular oil. Unfortunately, if there is such a spill, it will be cleaned up at U.S. taxpayer expense and the polluter won't have to pay. Why is that? Because tar sands are not considered crude oil for purposes of contributing to the oil spill liability trust fund. We have repeatedly pointed out this egregious and unjustified loophole to the majority, and we have repeatedly received assurances that it will be addressed-- yet it has still not been addressed. In fact, three times in this Chamber alone, we have offered amendments to solve this problem, but the Republican majority voted each one of them down. Now there is this new ``sense of the Senate'' language that was put into the bill by the Senate that promises further action on this issue, but it is no substitute for real legislation to protect the American taxpayer from the financial consequences of a tar sands spill. Make no mistake, this language, this sense of Congress or sense of the Senate, does nothing to change the equation and end the tar sands oil subsidy. Recently, the President stood in this Chamber and noted that 21st century businesses need 21st century infrastructure. He said that we should ``set our sights higher than a single oil pipeline.'' Yet here we are again voting on that single oil pipeline. It is my hope that we are nearing the end of this long cycle of futile votes to grant special treatment to this single pipeline; and it is my hope that sooner rather than later we can get back to trying to find agreement on a moderate energy policy, one that is sustainable, one that helps the U.S. economy, and one that moves us forward, not backward, in the fight against climate change. In the meantime, I urge my colleagues once again to vote ``no'' on this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, President Obama's budget proposal for fiscal year 2016 lays out a fiscally responsible plan to invest in our future and makes sure that hardworking Americans are able to benefit from an economy that is finally improving. I am particularly pleased that the President is committed to making strategic investments in our Nation's research and development. The budget invests $146 billion for R&D across the Federal Government, which is a 6 percent increase. The budget provides for $7 billion in clean energy funding throughout the Federal Government and $2.4 billion to further advance manufacturing technologies. This funding improves our scientific knowledge, creates technologies with widespread benefits, and strengthens U.S.-global competitiveness. The budget also makes investments in public health, including $31 billion for the National Institutes of Health, which is a $1 billion increase over the 2015 level, and $1.2 billion across several agencies to combat antibiotic resistant bacteria, for advanced precision medicine, and for targeted therapies for patients. I mention all of these, Mr. Speaker, because I do believe--and every evidence shows--that research investment creates jobs, promotes innovation, and increases economic development. That means more jobs. I hope that the Republicans will support the President's budget.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our Democratic whip.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have great respect for my colleague from Pennsylvania, but I just think more and more what I am hearing from my Republican colleagues is what I call ``fantasy land.'' This isn't the America we know. In the past few years, since the Affordable Care Act has taken effect, so many Americans who didn't have health insurance now have it. Something like 19 million Americans who were uninsured now have health insurance. Millions of young adults have health insurance because they are able to stay on their parents' plans. There are 129 million Americans who can no longer be denied health insurance for having preexisting conditions. Seniors have saved so much money on the prescription drugs. I could go on and on, but I don't need to. Americans like the Affordable Care Act. It is working. We cannot go back. We cannot turn over the health care system again to the insurance companies, which are going to have skeletal plans, not provide good benefits, raise premiums to whatever they want, and not actually have any help from the Federal Government. When you repeal ObamaCare, or the Affordable Care Act, you are basically giving Americans a tax increase because they are not going to be able to get the tax credits or the subsidies that help them pay for their premiums and make those premiums affordable. This is working. This is happening. This isn't something we can just throw away. The Republicans say--what did my colleagues say?--that the GOP has no shortage of good ideas. What ideas? Four years ago, when they first took the majority in this House, the House Republicans passed a similar repeal bill and instructed the committees to come back with alternatives. It never happened, and it will never happen again. They might have a few good ideas here and there, but they have never come up with a comprehensive plan to provide Americans with low-cost health insurance and to insure most Americans. That is what we have done with the Affordable Care Act. We are not going to go back. We are not going to repeal. This is fantasy. The President will never sign it, and I just wish that they would stop wasting our time and would get to things that are actually going to make a difference to the American people. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to what my colleagues said on the other side. They keep saying they are going to come up with an alternative to the Affordable Care Act, and yet not one speaker mentioned an alternative that they have, and that is because it doesn't exist. As I said before, 4 years ago they came up with a similar repeal bill. They said they were going to instruct the committees to come back with an alternative, and they never did, and they never will. The fact of the matter is, if you listen to my colleagues on the Democratic side, they talked about all the positive things that have occurred because of the Affordable Care Act. Millions--almost 20 million people--who didn't have insurance before now have insurance. Preexisting conditions, out the window. How many people weren't able to get insurance before because they had cancer or they had other preexisting conditions that made it impossible for them to get insurance, and that is not the case anymore? Kids who are on their parents' policies, seniors who benefited from the fact that now there is no doughnut hole, and they can basically get their prescription drugs. How in the world do my Republican colleagues come here on the floor and know that all these positive things have resulted because of the Affordable Care Act and just in a moment's notice say they are going to simply repeal it and not even have an alternative to come up with at any point? It is incredible to me that they want to turn the clock back and don't understand that people have benefited greatly from the Affordable Care Act. Well, the bottom line is that we, as Democrats, are not going to turn the clock back. We are very proud of the fact the Affordable Care Act has accomplished so much to reform the health care system, to deal with preventative care, to make changes to the health care system that are providing good quality care, good benefits at an affordable price. The President has said that this bill is dead on arrival. He will veto it. He will take out his veto pen. So let's not waste our time. Fifty-six votes to repeal; I hope we don't see another one. It is simply a waste of time, and I think that my Republican colleagues, hopefully, understand that. So, if you have some ideas for the future that you want to make improvements, you want to improve quality, you want to improve access, we will listen to them. We are more than willing to work with you on a bipartisan basis. But we are not going back to the system that existed before where the insurance companies ran the system. We are not giving it back to the insurance companies. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have?

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, making higher education available to everyone has to be a top priority, and the President's budget makes a major commitment to increasing access to high-quality education from preschool through college, particularly at our Nation's community colleges. With the high cost of attending a 4-year institution, community college is often a viable option to so many driven students who are seeking a higher degree without incurring overwhelming debt. In the President's addresses, he addresses the challenges that so many students face today. In his proposal, his budget makes 2 years of high-quality community college free to responsible students, saving 9 million students an average of $3,800 a year in tuition. In my home State of New Jersey and across the Nation, community colleges offer educational opportunities to students just beginning higher education, to people already in the workforce who are looking to gain additional training, and for the unemployed looking to change careers. The President's proposal could benefit them all and countless others for whom higher education currently seems unattainable. I would just hope that my Republican colleagues across the aisle will join us in making sure that a college education is an attainable goal for all Americans.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would just ask that the Republican leadership begin to bring legislation to the floor that would actually make a difference for America, certainly addressing the economy and job creation and increasing wages, which are so important to my constituents and, I believe, to all Americans. It just seems like all the Republican leadership is doing here is rehashing the same old legislation that is going nowhere either because it won't pass the Senate or because the President won't sign it. Today, after the 1-minute speeches, we are going to have the third pipeline bill that essentially tries to straitjacket Federal agencies-- again, not going anywhere. It is pretty likely the President would veto any of them if they come to his desk. I understand that on Tuesday the leadership is going to bring up another Affordable Care Act repeal. This will be like the 56th or 57th effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which is actually working well. More Americans than ever have signed up during this second enrollment period. We had another effort to weaken the Affordable Care Act just a couple of weeks ago. It is time to do the things that people want, talk about the economy, and bring legislation that matters to the American people.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation which is simply unnecessary. The Department of Energy currently conducts a public interest review of all applications to export liquefied natural gas to a country without a free trade agreement with the United States. To date, DOE has approved four such applications to export LNG and has issued conditional approvals to four additional applications. DOE has approved all applications that have completed their required NEPA review, and so there is no backlog or delay at the DOE to speak of. With these permits alone, we have the ability to become one of the largest exporters of natural gas in the world, and so legislation to impose an arbitrary 30-day deadline on DOE, as suggested by the underlying bill, is simply unnecessary. With regard to exporting natural gas, we should keep in mind that low domestic natural gas prices can provide an important competitive advantage to U.S. manufacturing, and simple economics tells us that additional demand due to unrestricted exports can raise domestic natural gas prices, so we should think twice about giving away this advantage for short-term export profits when we are trying hard to rebuild our long-term manufacturing base. We should also remember that the bill will not result in LNG exports to Europe for some time, if at all. Although one LNG export terminal is set to begin full operation later this year, all other terminals remain under construction or are in the planning process. DOE's conditional approval for those facilities allows them to continue moving forward, but this legislation won't help speed up their construction or affect how quickly they can actually operate, so passing this bill today will not magically send LNG from the proposed terminals tomorrow. When the United States actually begins to export significant quantities of LNG, it will most likely go to Asia, not Europe. The export terminals most likely to get constructed have already signed long-term contracts to supply LNG to various customers, and those destinations are primarily in Asia. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill because I don't believe the phantom LNG export backlog is one of the pressing issues facing ordinary Americans, and I don't believe that expediting this type of infrastructure is what our country needs most. I believe our country should be encouraging the use of renewable energy resources like wind and solar power. We should be investing in increased energy efficiency and a smart grid. We should be trying to find ways to make our energy infrastructure more resilient and capable of withstanding extreme weather events, like Hurricane Sandy. These are the types of clean energy solutions that America should be investing in, the type that will enhance our energy security, reduce carbon emissions, and lower overall energy costs to customers. Unfortunately, this bill doesn't achieve any of these goals. In fact, the 30-day deadline in the bill could have counterproductive results. If DOE is forced to make a decision before they have determined if the project is in the public interest, it may have no choice but to deny the application, and that outcome certainly doesn't benefit anyone, especially the applicants. This is the third time this month that the Republican majority has brought secondhand energy legislation to the floor, legislation that passed the House last Congress. Like the two bills before it, H.R. 351 would also serve no real purpose. I just hope that we can begin soon to look at new energy legislation that will move America forward in developing a clean energy infrastructure. In the meantime, I would urge my colleagues to vote against this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. PALLONE. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), who is the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee. (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining on both sides?