Ed Whitfield

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. I want to thank the gentleman for his remarks. Also, I certainly want to thank Ms. Eshoo of California for the leadership she's had on this position, as well as our chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Upton. At this time I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2126) to facilitate better alignment, cooperation, and best practices between commercial real estate landlords and tenants regarding energy efficiency in buildings, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. In my concluding remarks, I would simply say that this act is commonsense reform aimed at providing greater certainty for interstate natural gas pipeline projects at a time when we see great revitalization in the production of natural gas. We have an opportunity to export some natural gas, we have the opportunity to help lower electricity rates, and I would urge all the Members to support H.R. 1900. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. Since I am the only one who will be speaking, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I would like to say to the gentlelady from California that all of us certainly have great sympathy and were shocked by the events in San Bruno. I know it was a horrific incident and that many people lost their lives and homes and that it certainly disrupted the community. Mr. Chairman, in response to that accident, Congress reenacted a reauthorization of the Pipeline Safety Act in late 2011. That bill included provisions on requiring the verification of maximum allowable operating pressures for pipelines constructed before 1970 and an expansion of the current Pipeline Integrity Management Program to cover more miles of pipe and, therefore, require more inspections. The accident investigation in San Bruno determined that the natural gas pipeline that failed had been installed in the mid-1950s, using incorrect materials and welding, incorrect even given the standards of the day. Fortunately, that legislation passed unanimously in the House and in the Senate. I would also note that, under the Natural Gas Act, FERC, when reviewing a proposed natural gas pipeline, must find that it meets the public convenience and necessity, in other words, the public interest. The Commission does have mechanisms in place to listen to the concerns of landowners, of communities, and they balance that with the need for energy infrastructure that meets national needs for a broad number of citizens. The FERC process, under section VII of the Natural Gas Act, is open, fair, and it invites participation by local communities and landowners already, and that has been in place for 70 years. So I think all of us understand where the gentlelady from California is coming from. We do genuinely believe that the existing process certainly considers local communities and the input from those communities. Because of that, I would respectfully ask that we not agree to the amendment of the gentlelady of California. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, I yield an additional 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo).

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo), the author of this bill.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus). (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 1900, the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, we have had a number of hearings over the last year, and we are all quite excited about the additional production of natural gas and oil in America. As many people know, we now are the number one producer of natural gas in the world and the number one producer of oil in the world. This has come about because of the entrepreneurial spirit of the private sector and development of these properties on private lands, primarily in Pennsylvania, North Dakota, and Texas. So we are all excited about the opportunity for energy independence in America and certainly hopeful to reach a point where we are less dependent on oil and other products coming from the Middle East. I want to thank Mike Pompeo, a member from Kansas, for authoring this important legislation. Although we have become the number one producer and we have an abundance of natural gas today, we still have one key problem. To put it simply, we don't have the necessary pipeline infrastructure to move natural gas from where it is produced to where it is needed most. I would like to just illustrate how some States are being harmed. According to the Energy Information Administration, in January this year we saw several States with residential natural gas prices way above the national average. For example, New Hampshire was 30 percent above the national average; Massachusetts was 43 percent; Maine, 67 percent; and Florida, 68 percent. Unfortunately, those living in these and many other States can expect to see higher prices once again this winter, and this is precisely why we are bringing to the floor H.R. 1900. H.R. 1900 simply would bring certainty in agency accountability to the natural gas pipeline permitting process. It would allow natural gas pipelines to be built in a safe, responsible, and timely manner. It would also make existing natural gas pipelines safer. During the legislative hearing on H.R. 1900, we heard testimony from industry of a corrosive natural gas pipeline that could not be replaced in a timely manner because an agency missed the deadline to issue a permit by nearly a year. The American people demand better than this. So as we hear discussion and consider amendments to H.R. 1900, I want to thank once again the members of the subcommittee, the staff, and Representative Pompeo for all the work on this important legislation. I respectfully reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I might just make one comment. As the gentlelady from Florida indicated, the Obama administration has indicated their opposition to this bill. But I will tell you, we have large groups, the National Rural Electric Co-Ops, supporting this bill; the Public Power Association is supporting this bill. And the New England Ratepayers Association wrote a letter to us saying, currently, New England ratepayers suffer from the highest electricity rates of any region in the country. A significant reason for this is the limited capacity of natural gas pipeline which the electricity generators throughout New England rely on. So we are trying to respond to the needs of people, and we recognize that the economy has been weak, and there are not a lot of pipelines being built right now, although there is one in my home State of Kentucky. But we want to set the framework so that when the time comes, these pipeline companies are able to move and move quickly with adequate protections. At this time, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), our distinguished whip.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, the gentlelady from Texas does have a reputation of being very innovative in her legislative strategy. While I would agree with her--and many of us would agree--that I am frustrated with the budget process and that many of us don't think the budget process works, she is, with this amendment, trying to bring to a conclusion sequestration. I would simply say that we do not believe it is appropriate to, nor do we think that we are equipped to, debate the sequestration issue, which is a budget issue. Today, we are simply trying to expedite the building of additional natural gas pipelines to streamline the permitting process in order to help people throughout America have lower electricity rates and, perhaps, to increase our exports. So I would oppose her amendment. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chair, may I ask how much time remains for both sides.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, over the last 6 weeks, every Member of Congress has heard from constituents who have been very much concerned about the cancelation of health insurance policies, primarily because someone has determined that their health insurance policy is not adequate. We are hearing about higher premiums, and then we all know about the difficulty of getting on the Web site to select your insurance policy. So there is a lot of confusion out there, there is a lot of anger out there, and there are a lot of people that are asking the U.S. Congress to help. We want to hear how this ObamaCare is affecting individual Americans from coast to coast. We have developed a Web site called gop.gov. We would invite those people who are experiencing difficulty to go on gop.gov, click on ``your story,'' and tell us explicitly what experiences you are having. This is very important and we appreciate it.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank Chairman Shuster and Chairman Gibbs and Mr. Rahall and Mr. Bishop for bringing this important legislation to the floor, and I also want to thank their staff. This innovative legislation is vitally important to the economic well-being of our country because we have to have a strong inland waterway system in order to be competitive in the global marketplace. Setting a priority for inland waterway projects, reforming the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' project delivery methods, and freeing up money in the Inland Waterway Trust Fund for these projects is vitally important, and that is what this legislation does. I also want to thank the committee for including some of the WAVE 4 language used to improve the inland waterway system. That bill was introduced in the House and in the Senate. Some of the provisions are in here. I also want to thank the committee for including language supporting our Nation's small ports and harbors; also for their commitment to repair the aging levees that shield many of our local communities from devastating floods, hurricanes, and other disasters. I also want to thank the committee for making sure that our freedom to fish is protected.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, one of the basic premises of our U.S. Constitution and form of government is equal protection under the law and equal protection and equal application of the law. Now the Obama administration has developed a reputation of unequal application of Federal laws. For example, Jon Stewart, the talk show host, recently interviewed Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, and he asked her a question that many Americans have been asking, and that was: Why has the Obama administration given waivers and extra time to companies and labor unions so that they do not have to meet the deadlines required by ObamaCare, but he is unwilling to give that waiver and the same additional time to individuals? Now, we know that under the law, individuals are required to buy insurance; and if they do not buy insurance, then they will have to pay a penalty or a fine. That was a question that many people have been asking. That's been part of the debate, by the way, of this continuing resolution, as well as the debt ceiling issue. Why cannot individuals be given additional time and consideration to meet this law, but you do give time to companies and labor unions? That is an unequal application of Federal law. By the way, Secretary Sebelius could not answer that question. Now, just as the administration favors companies and unions over individuals in that context of ObamaCare, the administration is also giving special favors to the wind industry in the energy sector. For example, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act have been enforced for many years by Federal prosecutors in America. To give you an example, we all are very much aware of the tremendous oil spill in the gulf a few years ago. Well, British Petroleum Company was fined $100 million for killing migratory birds. We have a number of former Federal prosecutors in the U.S. Congress, and I was talking to one of them just yesterday. He was telling me about a case that he had down in North Carolina in which an individual shot and killed an eagle, and that gentleman was prosecuted by the Federal Government, fined $100,000, and had to forfeit some profits from his timber company. And so the Federal Government has been quite forceful in the protection of eagles and also migratory birds. Now, wind projects, and I'm quoting now from an article that appeared in the paper just a couple days ago, wind projects routinely violate the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, but not one wind farm in America has ever faced a single prosecution or paid one penny in fines. As I said, BP alone paid a $100 million fine for killing migratory birds. I could also quote a utility company in Wyoming in which some eagles were electrocuted, and that company paid a $200,000 or $300,000 fine. According to studies by the Fish and Wildlife Service and other groups, wind turbines overall kill over 573,000 birds each year, including over 83,000 birds of prey. Now, that's according to a study this March in the Wildlife Society Bulletin. So the Federal Government, under this administration, is not prosecuting violations of these Federal laws because of their favor of the wind industry. But worse than that, now the Department of the Interior has notified through a publication on September 27 in the Federal Register that they are going to pass a regulation so that wind companies cannot be prosecuted for killing eagles and migratory birds in most circumstances. So they haven't been prosecuting under existing laws, and now we are going to pass a regulation to give them additional protections. As this article says, there are two scandals here. First, wind turbines are killing legally protected eagles in the name of slowing climate change, but whatever reductions in carbon dioxide emissions that may be occurring--and I'm not going to go through all the facts and figures here in this article--but whatever emissions may be occurring is equivalent, according to this article, to a baby's burp in a hurricane. And then, second, the wind energy industry is lobbying to extend a production tax credit, the 2.2 cent-per-kilowatt-hour subsidy, that has caused windmills to be built in America. Without that subsidy, it is doubtful any would be built; but last year, the subsidy was extended for an additional year at a cost to taxpayers of $12 billion. Now another 1-year extension is being lobbied for by the industry. That would cost an additional $6.1 billion. So it is bad enough that this wind industry wants to continue killing eagles with impunity, but now they are asking the taxpayers to give them the money so that they can do it. Now, as chairman of the Energy Committee, unlike President Obama, I genuinely do believe and understand that we need an all-of-the-above policy on energy. We need renewable energy, we need windmills, we need solar panels, we need nuclear, we need natural gas, and we need coal. But to exempt one industry from Federal laws because they are favored by this administration is not what America is all about. Now the President goes all over the country talking about an all-of- the-above energy policy; but how many people in America know that because of his administration and regulations at EPA, America is the only country in the world where you cannot build a new coal-powered plant. And yet even in Europe, which is known as a green energy sector, they have on the drawing board 60 gigatons of new coal-fired plants, and we continue to export more coal today than we ever have to other countries that recognize they have to have coal to be competitive in the global marketplace because coal does produce low-cost electricity. But, as I said, unlike the President, I genuinely believe we need everything; but I do not believe that any industry, certainly not the wind industry or any other industry, should be exempt from Federal laws that protect endangered species--migratory birds and eagles--that are the symbol of this great country. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw to the attention of the House of Representatives the 150th anniversary of the Rankin Ranch located at the end of California's southern Sierras in northeastern Kern County. This quiet ``old west'' community in the little mountain valley of Walker Basin is home to the historic 31,000 acre Rankin Cattle and Guest Ranch now under the operation of the 4th, 5th and 6th generation of the Rankin family. The Quarter Circle U Rankin Ranch was founded by Walker Rankin in 1863. Walker married Lavinia Estelle Lightner in 1868, laying the foundation for the family that has made cattle their family passion for generations. The ranch has evolved with the nation, serving as a stage stop for the overland mail route in the 1870s. The years have brought times of triumph and times of tragedy, including a car accident that claimed the life of Walker and Lavinia's son and daughter in law in 1929. Similarly in 1954, after the sudden death of third generation, Leroy Rankin, at age of forty-two, his wife Helen ultimately decided to continue her husband's lifetime work and was thrust into the family business. But her new perspective would prove useful to the business, when in 1965, Helen decided to diversify by adding a guest ranch to her cattle operation. Today, Bill and Glenda Rankin and their children, and their grandchildren all live on the ranch, and run both the cattle and guest ranch businesses. I am proud to recognize the Rankin Ranch and the six generations of Rankins that have worked to ensure the survival of one of California's oldest and largest family owned ranches. Like thousands of other guests at Rankin Ranch, I have fond memories of the beauty of the countryside and great respect for the hard work and dedication of the Rankin family. Since 1863 they have been superb stewards of this magnificent land and gracious hosts for a public anxious to experience life on a ranch. Congratulations on the 150th Anniversary of Rankin Ranch--a true American treasure.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank those Members who have decided to revisit this very important issue. I might remind everyone that the Delta Queen received an exemption from the Safety of Life at Sea Law. And we recognized that that original law applied to oceangoing vessels and, since 1968, Congress has always provided the exemption for the Delta Queen, except that it did not in the year 2008. Since then, the Delta Queen has been sitting down in Chattanooga. The new owners are spending $10 million to put in new boilers. There's a sprinkler system and, as has already been indicated, the Coast Guard will make the final decision about the safety issues. But this is an issue of jobs. And I might say that the unemployment rate in America over the last 4 years, in each of the last 4 years, has been higher than in any year in the last 62, except for 3 years. So in communities like Paducah, Kentucky, that I happen to represent, the Delta Queen each year would land at Paducah. Every month it would come by, people would get out, and it was an economic boon to our area. We genuinely believe that this is a balanced approach. It protects the safety issues that people are concerned about because of the $10 million being spent to refurbish the Delta Queen, and it provides additional employment for people looking for good jobs. So I would urge every Member to support H.R. 1961, a commonsense, balanced approach, to get this historic paddle boat back on the Ohio River and the Mississippi River.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the heroic efforts of Marine Sergeant Dakota L. Meyer. Sergeant Meyer was a scout sniper with the 3rd Marines and was awarded the Medal of Honor for conspicuous gallantry in action on September 8, 2009, in Afghanistan. While maintaining security at a patrol rally point, an element of Sergeant Meyer's team was moving on foot through a village. When they were ambushed, Sergeant Meyer and a fellow marine raced to provide additional support for the ambushed squad. Despite concentrated enemy assaults, Meyer made two trips into the ambush area to evacuate two-dozen Afghan soldiers. He was then wounded by gunfire. After that, he made additional trips into the ambush area to recover additional wounded soldiers, and provided fire to help the remaining U.S. and Afghan soldiers fight their way out of the ambush. For his heroic efforts, Dakota L. Meyer was awarded the Medal of Honor on September 8, 2009. When Douglas MacArthur gave his farewell speech to West Point, it was entitled, ``Duty, Honor, Country.'' I think those three words reflect the efforts of Dakota L. Meyer and his entire team. Today, I pay tribute to Dakota L. Meyer of the First Congressional District of Kentucky.