Ed Whitfield

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion.

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. 351.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 351, the LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act sponsored by Congressman Bill Johnson of Ohio. All of us recognize that the economy in the U.S. has been sputtering. We have had great advancements in technology, however, and innovation in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling have led America to become the number one natural gas producing nation in the world. Our natural gas output has rapidly increased since 2005 and is expected to continue rising in the decades ahead in response to growing demand. Plentiful natural gas is helping many domestic energy producers and manufacturers and is spurring new investment and job growth here in America. The Committee on Energy and Commerce has held multiple hearings and forums to discuss the domestic growth in natural gas production and its potential impact on trade, geopolitics, and energy production and consumption in America. We now have the opportunity to bring more of this critical energy resource to other parts of the world while stimulating our energy security, economic growth, and foreign policy. I might add that over the last year, many of us have been really surprised by the number of representatives from other countries in Europe and around the world who are pleading with America to export their natural gas so that those countries are not as dependent upon countries like Russia and others. I might also add that, in 2012, the Department of Energy commissioned a report by NERA Economic Consulting to assess the economic impacts of LNG exports. NERA recently updated this study to include the most current projections from the Energy Information Administration. Like the 2012 study, the update found that U.S. LNG exports will bring widespread economic benefits, touching many parts of our economy, and that those benefits would consistently increase as exports increase. The NERA study also found that the construction of new LNG export projects is estimated to put up to 45,000 unemployed Americans back to work. I might also add that this legislation does not in any way change anything that FERC has responsibility for in approving siting of these natural gas pipelines and facilities for export, so we are not affecting in any way any environmental aspects of it. I might also say that the reason this bill is being introduced is because we think that the Department of Energy has been dragging its feet a little bit. They have responsibility over the commodity of the natural gas, and they have to go through a process. This legislation also applies only to non-free trade agreements that the U.S. deals with. Since 2010, the Department of Energy has issued a final decision on five of the 37 applications to export LNG to countries where the U.S. does not have a free trade agreement. Now, DOE's authority to regulate the export of natural gas arises under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act. This provision creates a rebuttable presumption that a proposed export of natural gas is in the public interest. DOE must grant the application unless opponents of the application overcome the presumption, and there are 18 countries where we have these free trade agreements. DOE's process to review applications to export LNG to non-free trade agreement countries is much more complex and unpredictable, and this legislation would help clarify that and create some certainty. It amends section 3 of the Natural Gas Act to give DOE 30 days to issue a final decision on an LNG export application after a complete NEPA environmental review on the facility. Additionally, H.R. 351 provides for expedited judicial reviews by the United States court of appeals for the circuit in which the export facility will be located, and this is important as well. It requires public disclosure of export destinations, so we know where it is going as a condition of approval of authorization to export LNG. This is a very important piece of legislation. I want to commend Mr. Johnson of Ohio for introducing this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), the author of this legislation.

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner), who has been a real leader on helping America become energy independent.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The former speaker, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, talked a lot about the impact on the manufacturing base in America this legislation might have. I would like to point out that the National Association of Manufacturers, which is the largest manufacturing association in the United States, representing manufacturers in every industrial sector in all 50 States, in a letter dated yesterday, urges Members to support H.R. 351. They go on to say that it is important to ensure that ``market forces, rather than bureaucratic inertia, govern international trade.'' That is really what this legislation is all about; it is about market forces. Representatives from countries around the world are coming to us and asking for this product. We are fortunate in America that we have an abundance of natural gas. In fact, the Energy Information Agency reported today that it is so abundant that natural gas prices have dropped to their lowest level since September 2012. Earlier, there was an expression of concern about increased natural gas prices. We understand that prices go up and prices go down, but right now, they are at their lowest level since September 2012, and when natural gas prices go down too low, you see less production. That increases prices as well. We didn't just wake up one day and decide to introduce this legislation. Concerned groups involved in this business came to Congress and said: We need some help. When we started having hearings on this a year and 2 years ago, the Department of Energy started trying to speed up the process a little bit, but we are not dictating what their decision should be on allowing the export to non-free trade agreement countries. We are just saying: You need to make the decision sooner, and we want some transparency. That is all this legislation is about. Now, we understand that any time you talk in today's world about exporting a fossil fuel, one of the undercurrents is climate change, and I would remind everyone that CO2 emissions in America are the lowest that they have been in 20 years. This country does not have to take a backseat to any country in the world, and so we want the market to play its role. This is a good, commonsense piece of legislation that will create jobs in America, will encourage the expansion of more natural gas production at a time when the world needs it and we need it. I would urge every Member of this House to vote in favor of H.R. 351, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the gentleman from California for offering this motion to recommit. It has two basic parts to it. The first part relates to denying applications of natural gas that would be exported to any nation that is a state- sponsored terrorist. We feel quite confident that, under the existing law and under H.R. 351, the Department of Energy is not going to approve the export of natural gas that is going to be in the public interest to any terrorist state. The second question, which is a very important question--and as I said in the Rules Committee and say on the floor, I am delighted that Mr. Garamendi has raised this issue about U.S.-flagged ships being involved in the export. As you know, his amendment goes to the Jones Act, and the Jones Act, as we all know, requires U.S.-flagged ships between ports here in the United States, but it does not expand to export and the use in other countries, and that raises a much broader issue than this very narrow- focused bill. I do think that that discussion needs to take place at some point in time, but, at this time, I am going to respectfully request the Members to reject the motion to recommit. I, and others, would look forward to talking to Mr. Garamendi in more detail about a broader debate on what impact expanding the Jones Act would have on our international trade. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of myself, and Representative John Shimkus, to recognize Ms. Sailor Gutzler. On January 2, 2015, a small Piper PA-34 plane carrying the family of Marty and Kimberly Gutzler crashed in the remote forest of Kuttawa, Kentucky, located in the First Congressional District of Kentucky. The family was headed back home to Nashville, Illinois, located in the Fifteenth Congressional District of Illinois, from a family vacation in Key West, Florida. Marty, Kimberly, their nine-year-old daughter Piper, and fourteen- year-old niece Sierra Wilder were instantly killed in the crash. Miraculously, the Gutzler's youngest daughter, seven-year-old Sailor, emerged from the wreckage alive and as the lone survivor. With a broken wrist, no shoes, and wearing only a T-shirt and shorts, the second grader bravely searched the cold, dark forest for nearly a mile until she found the only inhabited house in a 1,400 acre area. Young Sailor arrived at the home of Larry Wilkins, ``with lips trembling, crying, trying to talk'' according to Wilkins. This brave young girl, grief stricken and mangled, managed to point authorities in the direction of the crash, but is left without her parents, and with the trauma of this tragic event. This tragedy made national news, and Sailor was deemed the ``Miracle Girl'' by People Magazine. Sailor's strength and courage is truly remarkable, and we want to recognize her brave actions on that night and in the days following. Young Sailor has even noted that she has to be strong for her mom and dad, because they would want her to be strong. Our thoughts and prayers are with Sailor and her surviving family. It is truly a miracle this young girl survived and we are certain God has a purpose for her.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order and claim the time in opposition to the motion.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 38, I call up the bill (H.R. 161) to provide for the timely consideration of all licenses, permits, and approvals required under Federal law with respect to the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of any natural gas pipeline projects, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 161.

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo) who is the author of H.R. 161.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanna).

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time we have remaining on each side?

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just like to clarify that H.R. 161 is certainly not any drastic piece of legislation. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 designated the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as the lead agency charged with coordinating and reviewing natural gas pipeline project applications; therefore, FERC conducts the environmental review of each project as required under the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, and is given authority to set deadlines for other agencies to issue an approval or denial of an associated permit. When these applications are filed at FERC, the application also is given to other agencies that may have jurisdiction over the Clean Water Act, maybe like the Corps of Engineers, the Clean Air Act, the EPA perhaps, or Endangered Species; so it is not like they just have 90 days to look at this. They get the application the same time as FERC does. The problem that FERC has had--and they have had both Democrat and Republican Commissioners come to Congress and say that they need more authority over these other agencies, so this bill does precisely that. Once FERC has made a final determination and completed its process, it gives the other agencies another 90 days--even though they have been working on it for a year in advance of that--another 90 days to complete it, and if they want another 30 days, then they can do that as well. I would just say that this is not rushing the process; it is simply completing the 2005 Energy Policy Act that gives FERC authority. We give them authority, but we don't give them any enforcement mechanism, and so this is precisely what this legislation does. I might also add that having deadlines for agencies to act when doing environmental reviews or issuing permits is not really that strange or unique of an idea. Canada, Australia, and most European Union nations have deadlines for their environmental regulatory agencies to act. Any person that is doing any kind of business in America knows the bureaucracy that we all run into, and it is easy to criticize bureaucracies. We know that they are dedicated, committed citizens trying to protect the environment, protect the American people, and we commend them for doing that, but we also know that they frequently let things slide. It is easy to lose the process. We hear common complaints--nonstop-- about delay, delay, delay. We know from hearings on this--this bill has already passed the House once--but we know from hearings that the Northeastern United States is really vulnerable to not having sufficient natural gas to meet their needs. They are closing nuclear power plants. The President is making sure you can't build a new coal plant in America. Existing coal plants, many of them are going to be going out of business because of extreme regulations of this climate-driven administration. We have heard testimony about the escalating prices of electricity for people. This is designed to provide the infrastructure to get the natural gas where it needs to be, and the Northeast is one of those areas. That is really what this bill is about. It is about giving FERC some real authority, setting in statute that these agencies must act within a certain amount of time. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. When we had hearings on this bill, the natural gas pipeline industry estimated that by the year 2035 an estimated $8 billion each year would need to be spent to keep pace with the anticipated need for more pipeline infrastructure. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is absolutely correct in that Congress can't make these decisions. Private companies have to make the decision if they are going to invest the dollars to build these pipelines, but they have talked to us--the FERC Commissioners have talked to us--about the fact that some of these agencies are just delaying for no apparent reason. As I said earlier, when the application is filed at FERC, the other agencies receive those applications, and they have the same amount of time to work on it. This legislation simply sets some guidelines for these Federal agencies so that, when FERC completes its chore--and it is the quarterback in the decision of approving these pipelines--these agencies must also step up to the plate. This legislation is not radical in any way. It is certainly not rushing the process. It is not doing that. Pursuant to the 2005 Energy Policy Act, it is simply making it a more efficient, speedy process while, at the same time, protecting the environment and the best interests of the American people. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, in summation, I urge the passage of H.R. 161, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would note once again that, during the hearings on this legislation, Commissioners at FERC--both Republican and Democrat--said that more accountability was needed for agencies that issue permits that are necessary to construct natural gas pipelines. Many people have raised the issue that the President has said he would veto this bill. That is his job, that is his responsibility, and that is the type of government we have. We have a legislative branch, we have an executive branch, and we have a judiciary branch. The legislative branch's responsibility is to pass legislation that it deems necessary. If the President wants to veto it, let him veto it and give his reasons. Then the American people can listen to both sides and decide what they think is the right direction to go. I would stress once more that the Energy Information Agency data from last year's winter cold snap during the month of January showed that residential natural gas prices in Pennsylvania were 14 percent above the national average; in New Jersey, 18 percent higher; in New York, 24 percent higher; in Vermont, 60 percent higher. One of the reasons given is the lack of infrastructure to get natural gas to where it needs to go in the Northeast. This is a commonsense bill that is being presented to help solve this problem of energy needs in America. If we are going to be competitive in the global marketplace, yes, we need good, low-cost residential electricity prices, but we also need low-cost manufacturing and heavy industry electricity prices in order to compete in the global marketplace. That is what H.R. 161 is about, and I would urge Members to support this legislation that was drafted by Mr. Pompeo of Kansas. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey and the gentleman from New York for raising this safety issue because, obviously, safety is of paramount importance to all of us. That is why we do have the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, or PHMSA, which has the responsibility of making sure that these pipelines operate in as safe a manner as possible. We also recognize that we never get to a point where it is absolutely safe. Really, H.R. 161 does not have anything to do with PHMSA. Our committee does have jurisdiction over PHMSA. We have had a lot of hearings on it. We are going to continue to have hearings because we want to maximize pipeline safety. This legislation is not about anything except perfecting the 2005 Energy Policy Act that gave FERC the quarterbacking authority for approving these natural gas pipelines from the aspect of their impact on clean water, clean air, and endangered species. And so this legislation simply gives FERC the authority that many of its Commissioners asked for, and that is that they have some authority to convince these agencies to start looking at the impacts of the applications earlier in the process rather than at the end. And so even after the 1-year process is over, they still have 90 days. They may ask for another 30 days. Because of that reason--that this is not a pipeline safety bill, it is a process bill--I would respectfully request that we defeat this motion to recommit. And I look forward to working with the gentleman from New Jersey and others on pipeline safety as we have hearings and legislation about PHMSA. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, the Energy and Commerce Committee has shared jurisdiction over this issue with T&I, and we have a number of members that would like to speak on the issue as well. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.