Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have heard my colleagues suggest that there is a delay in the DOE's approval of LNG export applications. For instance, on Monday night at the Rules Committee, Mr. Johnson indicated that the DOE has approved only five out of 38 applications since 2010. Even if the gentleman from Ohio is correct in his assertion, the fact is that the five applications approved by the Obama administration since 2010 are five more than were approved by the Reagan administration or by either Bush administration. In fact, it is five more than were approved by the Clinton, Carter, Ford, or Nixon administration. In 2011, the DOE approved the first LNG export application for the Cheniere Sabine Pass facility. That facility is set to become operational at the end of this year. That was the DOE's first approval to export LNG since the 1960s. The dramatic growth of natural gas production and supply in the United States was considered impossible a decade ago, so the DOE commissioned a study to help it decide how to address additional applications. After establishing a transparent and systematic system for reviewing and authorizing LNG export applications, the DOE began to rapidly issue decisions. The record demonstrates that the DOE has moved aggressively to authorize LNG exports, granting three additional final authorizations and four conditional approvals since August of 2013. To date, the DOE has approved the export of enough LNG to make the United States the world leader in LNG exports. All other pending applications are still under review at FERC, not at the DOE, so it is important to understand that this bill does not change the FERC review process--the site approvals, the environmental approvals. I would also remind my colleagues that the DOE automatically deems LNG exports to free trade agreement countries to be in the public interest. Before the DOE can issue a decision on the pending applications, both FERC approval and construction will need to be completed. That could take months or, more likely, years, but this bill will not affect that timeline, which will be the critical factor in how much more gas can be exported. That is why I want to emphasize that this bill is unnecessary and will not materially change the LNG export situation anytime soon. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Under the current approval process for LNG exports, the Department of Energy has a tool to protect American consumers, and that tool is the public interest determination. The DOE has the ability to weigh the benefits and costs of additional LNG exports, including the impact of increased domestic natural gas prices on consumers, who use gas to heat and cool their homes and to turn on the lights. Rigid deadlines, as suggested in this legislation, could prevent the DOE from conducting a meaningful public interest review, and that means that the DOE might not be able to ensure that high levels of LNG exports do not harm American consumers by raising the costs of electricity or home heating or cooling. I think consumers, Mr. Speaker, have reason to be concerned. Experts at the nonpartisan U.S. Energy Information Administration examined this issue, and here is what they found: In the scenarios with additional gas exports, consumers will consume less and pay more on both their natural gas and electricity bills. Furthermore, the EIA calculated that high levels of LNG exports could mean increased residential, commercial, and industrial consumer energy costs of $7 billion to $14 billion per year between 2020 and 2040. Make no mistake. American consumers will foot that bill. Recent experience with gasoline and propane exports also offers cautionary tales. The Midwest and Northeast experienced sharp propane price spikes and shortages last winter. Significant increases in propane exports were a key factor in the skyrocketing prices that hurt consumers. Just yesterday, the Center for American Progress released an analysis on the potential impact of expanded LNG exports on consumers. They found that, in 2020, residential consumers would pay 4.3 percent more for natural gas per year, and those in the Midwest--in States like Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas--would be the hardest hit by price increases. By 2040, consumers in the mid-Atlantic States would pay 10 percent more for natural gas per year. These figures are not insignificant. We need to make sure that LNG exports do not hurt consumers. Right now, the DOE has the ability to do that. So, before we disregard any meaningful public interest review and allow the unrestricted exporting of LNG, let's be sure that our constituents won't be left footing the bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Again, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the time that remains on both sides.

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

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in closing, as the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I am committed to developing sound energy policy, and that policy surely includes consideration of the role that natural gas can play in our energy mix. Our energy picture is changing every year. The latest development is low oil prices, but we have other developments in recent years, including rapidly increasing domestic production of oil and natural gas and a welcomed increase in wind and solar electricity production. We are becoming more efficient, but our energy infrastructure is becoming outdated. We need to look at the ways we produce and use energy, but we also need to look at the ways that we move, transmit, and store energy. We need to innovate in the energy space, but we also need to maintain reliability and lower energy bills. We need to look at all our energy issues through the lens of climate change and public health. Mr. Speaker, I think there are legitimate questions about whether we want to send our natural gas to other countries. That might help our trade balance, but it would have negative impacts on our domestic manufacturing sector. I don't claim that I have all the answers. I know that we looked at some of these issues last Congress, but I don't agree that a clear consensus emerged. In any event, this is a new Congress with scores of new Members who have never looked at this issue before. I think we should take these issues back to the Energy and Commerce Committee and let the committee and its 12 new members do its job. Let us look at the facts again as they are today, not last year or last Congress. I think if we were to do that, we would see that even if this legislation was once necessary, it isn't anymore. DOE has modernized its process and any backlog that once existed isn't an issue at this point. DOE and the administration have opened the way for LNG exports, but I think it continues to be necessary for us to assess whether approving an application for additional export is in the public interest because becoming the world's largest exporter of natural gas is not something we should do lightly, unadvisedly, or without the latest facts. This January, we have spent much of our time bringing bills from last Congress to the floor and rushing them through to the Senate, which is still considering the Keystone legislation we passed the first week of this year. I think we might well have served ourselves and the American people better by sitting down together in the Energy and Commerce Committee and working carefully on an energy policy aimed at the future rather than at an energy policy aimed at the past. I am going to vote ``no'' on this legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to oppose it as well. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who is the Democratic sponsor of the bill.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers at this time, so I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think that we can all agree that human trafficking is an important problem that deserves Congress' attention, and that all of us support efforts to ensure that our health care workers are better prepared to identify and assist victims of human trafficking. H.R. 398, the Trafficking Awareness Training for Health Care Act of 2015, would set up a grant, facilitated by the Department of Health and Human Services, to create and address best practices for health care providers to use in the field. The program would then test those practices in 10 pilot programs across the country. The goal of this legislation is laudable and would certainly take important steps to improve our ability to address the spread of human trafficking in our local communities. However, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support the process that brought this bill to the floor. This legislation has not gone through a subcommittee or full committee markup in the Energy and Commerce Committee, neither in the 114th Congress nor the previous session. Going through the normal committee process would have allowed Members and staff to make substantive and technical changes to ensure that the Department of Health and Human Services is able to implement this legislation effectively. Members who serve on the Energy and Commerce Committee deserve the opportunity to deliberate on legislation within the committee's jurisdiction and offer amendments to strengthen the bills that we consider. Additionally, while this bill authorizes a new grant program, it does not authorize any additional appropriations for the Department to carry out this initiative. HHS may not be able to do this work within their limited existing resources. Advancing legislation, Mr. Speaker, that puts new requirements on the Federal Government without authorizing the funds to implement them is not a good precedent to set. So, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support new legislation that has not gone through the regular order process, but I will not object to considering H.R. 398 on suspension today and advancing the bill by voice vote. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, today is a sad day for this institution. Late last night, when Republicans failed to garner the votes for one extreme antiwomen bill, they flipped a switch and turned to another antiwomen bill. This attempt to restrict women's access to abortion care is an unprecedented, radical assault on women's health care. Tens of thousands of women and their families will be harmed by this policy. The bill's sponsors claim that this bill simply codifies the Hyde amendment, and that is inaccurate. This bill takes unprecedented steps far beyond the Hyde amendment. This bill places restrictions on how women with private insurance can spend private dollars in purchasing health insurance, but the bill doesn't stop there. It also prohibits Washington, D.C., from using its own Medicaid funds to make health care coverage decisions. The goal behind this bill is to effectively get rid of all comprehensive health care coverage in this country. Anti-choice Republicans want to turn back the clock on women's rights. It is critical that we protect the right of every woman to make her own personal and private health care decisions. Women, in consultation with their doctors, should remain in control of these choices and not Congress. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 7.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, once again, I listened to my colleague from California talk about the dangers from pipelines. These dangers are real. We have had many explosions over the years, including in my own district. I think this bill really puts at risk the possibility of another pipeline explosion. It doesn't provide for enough safety or environmental review. I urge that Members support the motion to recommit because, at a minimum, it would provide some liability in some way to effectuate a cleanup and pay for the damages that come from an explosion that might take place. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I really don't understand. I respect my colleague from Kentucky a great deal, but he seems to be arguing that we need the deadlines in this bill to hold Federal agencies accountable and ensure that they don't just somehow sit on the applications. As I have already noted, since 2009, FERC has completed action on 91 percent of natural gas pipeline applications within 12 months, so a 12- month deadline isn't needed for more than 90 percent of the applicants. My colleagues have asked: Well, what is the problem with holding the remaining 9 percent to a 12-month deadline? Well, the problem is it becomes a one-size-fits-all approach that fails to consider a wide range of applications that FERC has to review. Some of the applications are for new projects--again, a small number--which span hundreds of miles, cross waterways and wetlands, and pass through neighborhoods and habitats of threatened wildlife; and questions of eminent domain need to be considered. In these cases, there can be unresolved safety, environmental, and legal issues at the local or State level. Again, as I said, the President has said that he would veto this bill. In the Statement of Administration Policy, they specifically say: The small percentage of decisions that have taken longer than 1 year involve complex proposals that merit additional review and consideration. Mr. Speaker, if there is a complex project or there is some unaddressed risk to safety or the environment, we need to allow FERC or other Federal agencies the time to ensure that the pipeline is safe, so we don't have an accident like what occurred in Edison, New Jersey, in my district. The last thing anyone needs, including the pipeline owner, is a pipeline explosion or other dangerous pipeline malfunction, and these things have occurred. I witnessed it myself in my district. I am just saying don't put a hard deadline on the most complex projects that raise the possibility that FERC will be forced to approve a pipeline that is not safe or to reject an application solely because the Commission lacks sufficient time for an adequate review that will hinder rather than help us get more natural gas where it needs to go. Now, my colleague also mentioned the issue about the Northeast electricity supply or prices, and I just wanted to address that concern. New England is using more natural gas to generate electricity and more natural gas for heating homes than in the past, and on the coldest winter days, when natural gas is needed for heating or electricity, there is more demand, but this bill doesn't do anything to solve that problem. The problem in New England isn't caused by pipeline applications that take too long to get approved by FERC; the problem is that the pipeline companies aren't even submitting the applications because they haven't figured out who is going to pay for these new pipelines. The pipeline companies haven't been satisfied there is a sufficient year-round demand to justify and finance the pipelines. That is an issue that FERC is looking at and has been holding stakeholder conferences about, but this has nothing to do with Mr. Pompeo's bill. Cutting corners on the permitting process isn't going to help additional pipeline capacity built for the Northeast. I don't think we ought to be blaming the government for every problem, which is what I hear my colleagues on the Republican side doing. The reality is that FERC and the government didn't create this problem. It is a problem of economics, and the faster we understand that the faster we can try to find a solution, but let's not act as if FERC's inability to act is the problem here. That is not the case. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Some of my Republican colleagues just suggested that this bill would not waive any environmental requirements. For instance, yesterday, at the Rules Committee, the sponsor of the legislation indicated that H.R. 161 did not waive or alter any applicable environmental requirements under the Clean Air Act or NEPA. While it is true that this legislation does not actually amend any provisions of the Clean Air Act or other environmental statutes, the bill would require automatic issuance of a pipeline-related permit under statutes like the Clean Air Act, if the responsible agency, such as EPA, has failed to act within the 90 days. This is the 90 days beyond the 1 year that I mentioned before. Basically, that makes FERC the agency that would issue the Clean Air Act permit. Under this bill, FERC would decide how to create a BLM right-of-way permit or a Clean Water Act discharge permit. As a result, the legislation would effectively override the permitting decisions of agencies like EPA or DOI and turn FERC into a superpermitting agency. I just want to point out, while it is true that the text of the actual Clean Air Act might remain unchanged under this bill, the effect of the bill would be that the Clean Air Act permits would be automatically issued by FERC if EPA fails to act within 90 days. That is a major and substantive change from the way these laws work and, in effect, amounts to a waiver of environmental requirements for all practical purposes, Mr. Speaker. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I do not, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am not going to read the whole thing, Mr. Speaker, but I did just want to make reference to some part of the Statement of Administration Policy's saying that the President would veto the bill: The administration recognizes the need for additional energy infrastructure and supports the timely consideration of project applications. The administration, however, strongly opposes the bill because it would allow the automatic approval of natural gas pipeline projects if the FERC or other Federal agencies do not issue the required permit, license, or approval within rigid, unworkable timeframes. H.R. 161 could create conflicts with existing statutory and regulatory requirements and practices and preclude opportunities for engaging the public and potentially impacted communities, thereby causing confusion and the risk of increased litigation. The bill's requirements could force agencies to make decisions based on incomplete information or information that may not be available, including potential environmental and community impacts of the proposed pipelines, within the stringent deadlines, and to deny applications that otherwise would have been approved but for the lack of sufficient review time. For these reasons, the bill may actually delay projects or lead to more project denials, undermining the intent of the legislation. I stress to my colleagues on the other side that we understand there is a need for more pipelines, and we understand that these pipelines have to be approved in a timely fashion, but there is no reason to believe that that is not happening now. The danger here is that, in a case when these do have to have a more intensive review because of safety or health or environmental concerns, we may actually do the opposite. Either they are going to be denied because the agencies don't have enough time, or, God forbid, they get approved when they shouldn't be. Again, I just don't quite understand what this is all about. It seems like the Republicans have a bill that they think is going to accomplish their goal and won't but that has a danger of really risking the safety of residents, and I have already witnessed that in the case of a pipeline explosion in my district. I just think that what the Republicans are doing is blaming FERC and that they are trying to come up with a solution for a problem that doesn't exist; but in the process of all of that, they are going to jeopardize the possibility of the fact that some of these pipelines might be approved without enough safety or environmental or health concerns. It seems to me that it makes no sense at all to put FERC in the position of deciding issues with regard to statutes like the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, which they really have nothing to do with. We considered this bill in the last Congress, Mr. Speaker, and FERC made it clear that it was not necessary or helpful, and the administration threatened to veto the bill. Nothing has changed. The administration has again threatened to veto this bill. It is very early in this new Congress. I remain committed to developing sound energy policy with my Republican colleagues. If they want to have some hearings on this bill and go through the regular order of the committee process, that is fine as there will be more opportunity to review it. I don't think this bill will help anyone, but I think it may hurt a lot of people, including those who want to build the pipeline. Instead of spending our time debating a bill that will never become law, I hope we can begin soon to have some serious discussion about sound and sustainable energy policy. In the meantime, I would urge my colleagues to vote against this particular piece of legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume and rise in opposition to this bill. Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, when he said that the likelihood is that we are going to have more and more pipelines constructed, pipelines that have to go through the FERC process, and that is certainly true, but all the more reason why we shouldn't be voting or supporting this bill. I have to say I am talking not just in general in the abstract but from personal experience. In my district a few years ago, when I was a Congressman, in Edison, New Jersey, we had a natural gas pipeline explosion. Fortunately, no one was killed or seriously injured, but a whole apartment complex was wiped out, not just one building but a series of them. There was a real danger of loss of life. It scares me, Mr. Speaker, to think that we would want to change the process whereby FERC has the opportunity to look at the safety of these pipelines when they are proposed for permitting and somehow short- circuit that process because of my own experience in my congressional district in Edison, New Jersey. Durham Woods was the name of the complex. So many of these pipelines, as a lot more pipelines are being built, a lot of them are in densely populated areas. So it is a major concern that FERC has to look at when reviewing these pipelines and deciding whether to issue a permit. It is not as if they are in places with no people. They are often in densely populated areas, like in my State of New Jersey. In addition, this bill is unnecessary. The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office concluded that the FERC pipeline permitting process is predictable and consistent and gets pipelines built. In fact, over 90 percent are approved or at least decided within the 12- month cycle limitation that this bill is proposing. The pipeline companies actually testified before the GAO that the process for permitting through FERC ``is generally very good'' and that the sector ``enjoys a favorable legal and regulatory framework for the approval of new infrastructure.'' So if the process is fine, why are we now trying to move ahead and endanger safety by coming up with limitations on the process that actually is very good? I would also say that if you have a 12-month limit, which is what this bill proposes on FERC's ability to issue a permit, it is very possible that the process of permitting could be slowed down because if FERC decides that they don't have enough time within 12 months to decide whether a pipeline should be built and it is safe, they may just decide to not grant the permit and deny it for fear that they haven't had enough time to deal with it over the 12 months. I think it is not only unnecessary, but it may actually even be counterproductive to what the sponsors are trying to accomplish. I would also point out that we are wasting our time because the President has issued a Statement of Administration Policy saying that if H.R. 161 were to reach his desk, that he would actually veto it. I am not going to get into all the specifics of why because I think they are a lot of the same reasons I am mentioning myself. Now, let me say what happens. When faced with this 12-month deadline, not only FERC but also other agencies that deal with the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act or the Endangered Species Act, other agencies that have the authority to review this and permit this under the bill, would actually only have 3 months, 90 days. So after the 12-month period ends for FERC, then there is a 90-day period for the other agencies to act. And if they don't act within 90 days, then FERC is required under this legislation to issue a permit and say that those other regulatory concerns are met. So now you are going to have FERC not only limited in its 12-month review but also then issuing permits under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and these other environmental regulations, which it has nothing to do with. Essentially you are saying the other agencies have no role anymore because if they don't decide within 90 days, FERC has to approve those permits as well. FERC doesn't normally deal with these other issues. Another thing which I think is important is the eminent domain issue. If the permit is approved by FERC, then that means the company that is building the pipeline has the right to use eminent domain for the land where the pipeline is going to go through. I have a lot of concern about whether or not eminent domain should be used in those circumstances, particularly if the permit process has been short- circuited. So I think that sometimes my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't understand that these permits are very detailed documents. They include emission limits, technology operating requirements, conditions to protect the environment. FERC doesn't have the expertise or the resources to issue the permits for these other statutes like the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act. So I am just saying that I think that this legislation from a practical point of view is entirely unworkable. It just doesn't work. It doesn't work. The GAO has said that the process that we have now is fine. And for those of us who have had these accidents where we have had explosions and danger, the last thing that we want is these pipelines going through densely populated areas that haven't had the proper review to protect the safety and the health of our residents. For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned during the general debate, I and my constituents witnessed and went through a few years ago, when I was in Congress, a natural gas pipeline explosion. It was devastating to the community. We had many people who lost their homes. It was, actually, several apartment buildings. Even to this day, the memory of that is very much ingrained in the minds of the residents of Durham Woods, which is the largest municipality that I represent in Edison, New Jersey. Basically, what we are saying in this motion to recommit is that the provisions of this act will not take effect unless the FERC determines that taxpayers will not be held liable for any repair or environmental cleanup from a gas pipeline explosion and that the pipeline owners will bear full responsibility for the damage to the community resulting from a natural gas pipeline explosion, including loss of life. It seems to me that that is the minimum we should expect when there is such an explosion. Believe me. At the time that that explosion occurred in Durham Woods in my district, there were many instances when we had to have environmental cleanups and when the community was exposed to tremendous damage. It seems to me that, under the circumstances, this motion to recommit makes perfect sense. Mr. Speaker, let me point out that there have been many pipeline explosions, but I am not going to go through the entire list. In fact, the one in my district is one that is mentioned here. Beginning in just the last 10 or 15 years, there have been numerous explosions, so we are not talking about something that doesn't happen. I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Aguilar).

Mr. PALLONE. I am opposed.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire as to how much time is available on both sides?

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.