Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 48, I call up the bill (H.R. 351) to provide for expedited approval of exportation of natural gas, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs), who has been a real leader in helping America become energy independent.

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

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

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

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. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. 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.

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

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

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

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the vice chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost).

At this time, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, would you explain again the amount of time remaining on each side?

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Harper), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Russell).

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In conclusion, I would like to point out a couple of things. First of all, this was a significant issue in the last election just a couple of months ago. This is a piece of legislation about the American people, not a Canadian oil company. In polls, 72 percent of the American people say they support this legislation.

This is about jobs for people in America who need jobs. This is about increasing the energy infrastructure of our country. This is also a project that would not include one dime from the Federal Government. It is going to be at a cost of approximately $7 billion of private funds that will create a lot of jobs and make us less dependent on foreign oil.

The application for the Keystone pipeline was filed in September of 2008. There are 2.6 million miles of pipelines in America. Most of those pipelines do not have to be approved by the President of the United States, but in this particular pipeline, since it crosses into the country from Canada to the U.S., the President must approve it.

The President has said that one reason he is not going to approve it is because of litigation in Nebraska, which ended today in favor of the Governor of Nebraska who supports this pipeline.

The second ostensible reason for the President to oppose it is CO2 emissions; yet the Secretary of State's office under Hillary Clinton and Mr. Kerry in their final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement have said on three occasions that it will have minimal impact on the environment.

Today, we want to pass this legislation once again for the American people. The U.S. Senate said that they will pass it, and we would ask the President to join us and sign this legislation.

I would urge the passage of H.R. 3, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Commerce be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 5803) to require the Secretary of the Interior to assemble a team of technical, policy, and financial experts to address the energy needs of the insular areas of the United States and the Freely Associated States through the development of energy action plans aimed at promoting access to affordable, reliable energy, including increasing use of indigenous clean-energy resources, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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 the bill, H.R. 4795, Promoting New Manufacturing Act.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, President Obama has made it very clear that if the U.S. Congress does not pass legislation that he has said that is a priority for his administration, that he intends to accomplish his goals by the use of executive orders and through regulations. Today, with H.R. 4795, we are here to address a specific problem caused by regulations coming out of EPA relating to the Clean Air Act.

We know that announcements have been made for manufacturing expansions in the United States amounting to about $135 billion. But we also know that EPA has gone into a pattern of when they issue new regulations, it takes them sometimes years to come up with guidances so that State EPAs and manufacturing applicants for clean air permits will know what is required to meet the new regulations. Because of the lack of clarity and the time of meeting timely guidances, it creates great confusion and uncertainty for the States and for the specific manufacturing facilities trying to meet these requirements.

To give you an example, the last ozone rule that was adopted by the EPA in 2008, the guidance for people trying to meet those requirements of that regulation still have not been issued. So we find ourselves in a situation where these new regulations are creating great obstacles to economic growth in the United States, and I think all of us recognize that economic growth has been quite stagnant for some time.

We have had many hearings on this issue, and we hear from people on a regular basis that one of the reasons that they can't get new plants built is because of the uncertainty, the lack of clarity, the lack of guidance from the EPA when they come out with new regulations.

Anyone that follows EPA is quite aware that they are particularly aggressive in new regulations. They have come out with new regulations on the Clean Air Act on a regular basis for the last 4 years. And so once again we find ourselves with lack of clarity, lack of guidance from EPA.

This legislation, which was introduced by Mr. Scalise, simply says to EPA, if you come out with a new regulation, simultaneously you must provide the guidance for the States and the individual applicants who will be required to obtain permits to build their manufacturing facility. So that is what this bill is all about.

I think it is a commonsense piece of legislation, and obviously all of us want to create new jobs. We have companies out there today with a lot of cash who want to produce these, build these new plants, but because of bureaucratic difficulties, lack of clarity, and lack of guidance on a timely basis from the EPA, it makes it extremely difficult to do.

So that is why we are here today to discuss this legislation. I think it is very important that we adopt this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I might say that during the time we had the hearing on this legislation, we had several State representatives from the State EPA come in and testify, and they all were talking about the absence of timely implementation guidance from EPA produces a lack of clarity.

Both the Colorado, Arkansas, even the National Association of Clean Air Agencies wrote a letter to EPA on September 4, 2013, complaining about this.

Now, I would remind everyone, this bill does not do anything about the science, trying to diminish the importance of science and coming forth with new regulations. All it does is says that if EPA comes out with a new regulation under the Clean Air Act, they must provide the guidance to the States and to the entities who want to build new plants.

I might also say that the American Chemistry Council, particularly, raised this issue with us--and through their membership--of companies trying to build new manufacturing plants and meeting great difficulty because of the lack of clarity.

I might also say, all of us are very much concerned about climate change, but I don't think America has to take a backseat to any other country in the world. Our CO2 emissions are the lowest that they have been in 20 years.

I might also say, we find ourselves today, because of regulations from this administration, being one of the only countries in the world where you cannot build a new coal-fired plant to produce electricity because the technology is not available to meet the stringent emissions standard unless you are going to spend huge sums of government money, as they are in the Kemper plant in Mississippi.

By the way, the standard was set for that regulation, the emission standard, based on the Kemper plant, which is still not in operation. It is about 2 years overdue, is way over cost, and all the entities involved in it said that kind of plant would never be built again without huge government dollars involved.

We would like to get back to a situation in America where, on energy projects, we use private money. I notice that Google recently was involved in the Ivanpah Solar facility out west, one of the largest in the world. They used a lot of government loans to build that plant, and now Google and other companies are coming back to the government and applying for grants to help pay off the loans.

So this is a commonsense piece of legislation. It does not change the science; it simply provides additional clarity.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman), who has been a real leader on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In closing, I might say that I certainly agree that the owners of these manufacturing plants do not want to build new plants while using old rules. They want to use the best technology, but they want clear guidance from the EPA about what it should be because, when they don't have that, they find themselves involved with lawsuits with all sorts of environmental groups on a regular basis.

I might also say that there are many reports out there relating to manufacturing--I am just going to read from a few--that state that one of the key factors for investor confidence is a timely and efficient permitting process that is matched to current technologies.

Ken Weiss, global managing partner for Environmental Resources Management, which has extensive experience in the permitting process, testified:

We routinely advise clients that obtaining a PSD permit can

take anywhere from 1 to 3 years and that a minimum of 12 to

18 months need to be allowed in the project schedule.

The President, himself, acknowledged in his latest State of the Union speech this year that projects were being delayed and that there is a need to ``cut red tape'' to get factories built. And that is what this legislation is about. We are not telling EPA what the regulations should be. We are not telling EPA to disregard science. We are simply telling EPA, with all of their expertise, that when they issue the new regulation, that they provide clear guidance for the States and the companies and the individuals and the entities that want to build these new plants with new technology. That is what this legislation is all about.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, this amendment basically would eliminate section 3(b), or make it applicable in a different way of the legislation, which really would defeat the whole purpose of this bill.

As I said in the beginning, this is very simple. We are not telling EPA what the regulations should be. We are not telling EPA not to use science. We are simply telling EPA, when you come out with a new regulation, you must provide the guidance for the States and for the entities that are trying to build new plants to create jobs in America. So this amendment would simply change that process.

All of us understand and recognize the great contribution that has been made by the Clean Air Act, but yet anytime we try to come up and we try to amend the Clean Air Act, it is almost like we are touching the Holy Grail.

Things change over time. As I said, the EPA has been so aggressive with so many regulations, they are not providing the guidance for clarity so that entities can invest dollars to create jobs. Obviously we want to balance a good, clean environment, but we also want a healthy economy. That is what this legislation is designed to do.

And with as much admiration and respect that I have for the gentlemen from California, Mr. Waxman and Mr. McNerney, I do oppose this amendment and ask that the Members not adopt it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer my amendment.

Mr. Chair, as I have said repeatedly, the intent of this bill is to ensure that when the EPA issues new air quality standards, the Agency provides timely guidance about how to comply with the new standards in the permitting process.

Now, at the hearings that we have had and in individual discussion with other Members, people have argued that section 3(b) of this bill would prevent a State or local permitting authority that wanted to impose the new standards, even in the absence of EPA implementing regulations and guidance, from doing so. So that was not the intent of the bill, and this amendment clarifies that.

So if you have a State like California or even Delaware, which are the two that I can think of, that would like to go on and impose the new standard without the guidance, then this amendment ensures that they have the opportunity to do that. So that is what this amendment does. It is simply a clarification.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chair, I would just remind everyone that even if EPA fails to do its job, the bill makes clear that nothing relieves new facilities of their obligations to install the best available control technology in attainment areas and the lowest available emissions rate technology in non-attainment areas.

I would also say that while my amendment allows those States who want to go on and implement the new regulation without the guidance, they can do that; but on the other hand, our legislation is designed to protect those States and those entities who find that they are unable to interpret the new regulation. And because of that uncertainty, it has been the experience of many companies, when they build new facilities with technology under new regulations, they end up being sued over it frequently.

So this legislation is about common sense. This amendment allows those States that want to implement the stricter standard, they have the ability to do that. I would urge the adoption of this amendment and the passage of this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Bill Cassidy, the author of this bill, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, a real leader in trying to bring about energy independence in America.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the distinguished majority whip and member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and a strong leader for energy independence for America.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).

Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers and I think I have the right to close, so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how many minutes I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to, first of all, thank Mr. Waxman of California for the many

contributions that he has made while a Member of the House of Representatives. I have had the opportunity to serve with him on the Energy and Commerce Committee for many years. He has very strong beliefs; he is committed; and I just want to wish him the very best in his future endeavors. I know that he won't be retiring. He'll be very active in some worthwhile cause, and I just want to tell him how much we admire and respect the work that he did. Although I personally didn't agree philosophically with some of it, as I am sure you do not agree with many of mine, I do wish you the very best, Mr. Waxman, as you move forward.

In conclusion, on this important debate, I would like to say this is not a new piece of legislation. It has passed the House of Representatives on eight separate occasions, and we really did not plan to bring it up in this lameduck session except that Senator Reid, the leader of the Senate, the Democratic leader of the Senate, changed his mind and decided to bring it up on the Senate side. So when we found out about that, Mr. Cassidy introduced this legislation, which mirrors the bill on the Senate side, and we are thrilled that we have an opportunity to pass this legislation, and I expect that we will pass it.

I might add that it has been studied for over 6 years. There have been four complete environmental studies completed. The Secretary of State's office on more than one occasion--two occasions, three occasions--has said it would have a negligible environmental impact. In fact, in one place they said they would be better off to build this pipeline than not to build it because the environmental degree of moving it by pipeline would be better than the alternative in which it is being moved today. So I think it is a win-win-win situation for America.

Many people have said, well, they are simply bringing this oil through the United States and then it is going to be exported. We have had many hearings. Some of it will be exported, but some of it will be refined right here in the U.S. It will be 850,000 barrels of oil a day, which is about half of what we are importing from the Middle East. It will make us less dependent. Some labor unions support this legislation. The Governor of Nebraska supports this legislation. So I think it is a win-win-win for everyone.

There are additional safety requirements on this pipeline that are not required on other pipelines. I think there are going to be adequate safeguards. We have had so many hearings on this. I would urge the body, the House of Representatives, to pass this legislation and give us the opportunity to send it down to the White House for the President's consideration.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the gentlewoman's motion.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the gentlewoman that President Obama, through a regulation, decided that diluted bitumen is not crude oil for the purposes of the trust fund tax, so the problem was created by President Obama and the IRS.

We are in the process of trying to address that issue. It is under the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee. In their tax reform package, that is an issue that they are looking at. But if we try to change that now in this bill, we would be treating TransCanada differently than all other pipelines are being treated bringing bitumen into the United States.

I would also point out this pipeline's greater safety characteristics. It has more safety characteristics than any other pipeline built. We would think you would want to incentivize its use and not punish it with further taxation.

So, in my opinion, while I have great respect for the gentlewoman from California, this is simply a ruse to kill the bill.

I would respectfully ask our Members to oppose this motion to recommit and pass H.R. 5682. The Senate has said--Senator Reid has said--that they will take it up in the Senate. That is precisely what we would like to see.

I urge defeat of the motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that we have this bill on the floor today.

I am going to confine my remarks to one piece of legislation, and that is the Electricity Security and Affordability Act. This legislation has passed the House before, and it is designed to do two things. One is to reverse the extreme regulations coming out of the

EPA on existing coal-fired plants and new coal-fired plants.

We all understand that the President of the United States views that the number one issue facing mankind today is climate change, and, while we all recognize that there is climate change, we do not view it as the most important issue facing man today.

Because of the President's position--his extreme views--he is dictating to the EPA to take positions that are damaging the coal industry but, more important than the coal industry, damaging the electricity produced from coal.

Now, what does that mean to the American people?

Well, how many of you are aware that CO2 emissions in America today are lower than they have been for 20 years?

America does not have to take a backseat to any country in the world. And yet, this President, with his EPA, has passed regulations that make it impossible to build a new coal plant in America and in an amount that makes it commercially feasible to do.

So here we are in America, doing a better job than any other country in the world, and yet this President, because of his extreme views, makes it impossible to build a new coal plant.

Now, I would be the first to admit that a new coal plant is not going to be built in America because our natural gas prices are very low. We are fortunate, with the shale development, that gas prices are extremely low.

But what if we find ourselves in the position that they found themselves in Europe?

Gas prices coming from Russia are so high that they started mothballing their natural gas plants to produce electricity and started building new coal plants, and last year, they imported 53 percent of the coal exports from America. So, in Europe, they have that flexibility.

But in America we don't have that flexibility. So, if gas prices go up, which they may very well do, then we can't build a new coal plant because it is too expensive and the technology is not there to meet the extreme, stringent emission standards set by EPA.

So this legislation would stop that, and it would say, EPA, you can regulate CO2 emissions, but you can build a new coal plant if you use the best available control technology.

Now, what do we do--you know, next June EPA is coming out with a new regulation that, in effect, will federalize the electricity-generating business in America for the first time. EPA is setting standard emission caps for every State in America. We already know that in Kentucky they have identified 15 coal units that will be closed down. And guess what? When they adopted this regulation, they did not do any thorough reliability studies.

Now, we all recognize that renewables play an important role, but they cannot be the base load of electricity production in America. And if America is going to remain competitive in the global marketplace, we have to have low-cost, abundant, affordable, reliable electricity.

So all we are saying to the President is, okay, let's be reasonable. This legislation will allow EPA to regulate CO2 emissions, but you can build a new coal plant if you use the best available control technology. And if you want to regulate existing plants, you adopt the regulation, but Congress will set the effective date.

The President is going to be gone from office when all of these regulations really start hitting, and America is going to be hit in its ability to compete in the global marketplace.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 83) to require the Secretary of the Interior to assemble a team of technical, policy, and financial experts to address the energy needs of the insular areas of the United States and the Freely Associated States through the development of action plans aimed at reducing reliance on imported fossil fuels and increasing use of indigenous clean-energy resources, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material in the Record on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to include an exchange of letters between the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Natural Resources.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Natural Resources,

Washington, DC, June 19, 2014.

Hon. Fred Upton,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I write in regard to H.R. 83. As you are

aware, the bill was primarily referred to the Committee on

Energy and Commerce, but the Committee on Natural Resources

has a jurisdictional interest in the bill and has requested a

sequential referral.

I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this

legislation before the House in an expeditious manner, and,

accordingly, I agree not to insist on a referral of H.R. 83.

I do so with the understanding that by foregoing such a

referral, the Committee on Natural Resources does not waive

any future jurisdictional claim on this or similar matters.

Further, the Committee on Natural Resources reserves the

right to seek the appointment of conferees, if it should

become necessary.

I ask that you insert a copy of our exchange of letters

into the Congressional Record during consideration of this

measure on the House floor.

Thank you for your courtesy in this matter and I look

forward to continued cooperation between our respective

committees.

Sincerely,

Doc Hastings,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank Dr. Christensen for being the primary author of this important legislation.

H.R. 83 requires the Secretary of the Interior to assemble a team of technical, policy, and financial experts to address the energy needs of the insular areas of the United States and the freely associated states of Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands through the development of energy action plans aimed at promoting access to affordable and reliable energy.

These U.S. territories have few conventional energy resources, and they are dependent upon imports to meet a significant portion of their energy needs. As a result the resident of those areas pay unusually high electricity bills. In addition, because these areas are isolated from areas that provide their energy fuels, as well as the added cost of transporting these fuels, they face higher energy costs and greater threat of supply interruption than areas that are energy independent or have a more convenient source of energy fuels.

Dr. Christensen has done a great job of bringing to the attention of our committee the unique challenges faced in those areas. H.R. 83 will assist these important U.S. territories in addressing their energy needs by establishing a team of energy experts to help develop and implement an energy action plan for each of these areas.

Congress certainly has an ongoing interest in the energy needs of the Nation, as well as the insular areas of the U.S. and the freely associated states. Helping these territories develop affordable and reliable sources of energy are hallmarks of a thriving economy that can improve the quality of life for all.

H.R. 83 will not entirely solve these issues, but it will help facilitate the efforts.

I would urge all Members to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I would once again urge everyone to support H.R. 83. I want to thank Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Waxman and staff on both sides of the aisle for working to bring this important legislation to the floor. I urge its passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 276) to reinstate and extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project involving the American Falls Reservoir.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials in the Record on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

S. 276 requires the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to reinstate the license and extend for 3 years the deadline for commencement of a hydroelectric project involving the American Falls Reservoir. Hydropower is a critical component of our all-of-the-above energy strategy, and this bill will help facilitate the construction of an affordable and reliable source of domestic electricity.

As many people around the country understand, many Members of the House and Senate have very strong differing views with the President and his administration over the direction that we are going on energy in America, particularly the impact that regulations are having on the electric generation system in America.

It looks like it is going to be creating a lot of chaos, but when we have projects like this hydro project at American Falls Reservoir, I think there is unanimous agreement that we need to move forward expeditiously on these types of projects.

This bill has passed the U.S. Senate, and I would urge all Members of the House to support it.

At this time, I reserve the balance of my time.

I also urge passage of this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5057) to amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to permit exemptions for external power supplies from certain efficiency standards, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials in the Record on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner), who is an important member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank Mr. Tonko and Mr. Gardner for being the cosponsors of this legislation and thank Mr. Waxman and Mr. Upton for working with all of us to bring it to the floor, as well as the staffs on both sides of the aisle.

As both Mr. Tonko and Mr. Gardner stated, this bill is a technical correction to existing law that will allow external power supply manufacturers to continue to sell service parts compatible with older technology to the benefit of consumers and manufacturers. It is a good piece of legislation.

I would urge all the Members to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the heels of the 40th anniversary of a divided Cyprus. A division that has left both Turkish and Greek Cypriots bogged down in an unacceptable status quo that continues to impede economic and social progress on the island. Until these differences are resolved, all Cypriots will feel the negative effects of this division and Cyprus will be unable to realize its full potential in the international community.

This past February represented a significant shift in the deadlock when both Cypriot leaders resumed long stalled negotiations and issued a joint statement outlining principles the two sides will use to work toward a reunification of Cyprus. Both sides have met regularly since this announcement and real progress is being made. That said, many controversial issues remain and the path forward will be a difficult one. This makes it even more important that the United States Congress, the Administration, the United Nations, Turkey, Greece, and other stakeholders remain engaged and continue to encourage expeditious, good faith negotiations on both sides.

I believe these negotiations represent a historic opportunity to put all Cypriots on a path to peace and prosperity. During this process, it's important that all parties remain focused on the future of Cyprus and refrain from inflammatory dialogue that only serves to derail progress. A comprehensive settlement is within reach and I would encourage my colleagues to support this effort.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Richard Roof for his extraordinary service to the people of Paducah, and Kentucky's entire First Congressional District. Mr. Roof is celebrating his fortieth year as manager of Barkley Regional Airport. Barkley Regional's existence is due in part to Paducah native Vice President Alben Barkley, for whom the airport is also named. The airport provides travel to Chicago's O'Hare, one of the best connected airports in the United States.

Richard's career in the aviation industry began in 1962 when he passed the commercial pilot's written exam, at age 18. Throughout Mr. Roof's college years he would work as a pilot, carrying overnight mail between Lexington, Huntington and Louisville.

Richard Roof took the job of assistant manager on July 1, 1974, and two months later, he took over as manager. Richard's role at the airport is not limited to sitting behind a desk. Richard is said to wear ``many hats,'' which has proven beneficial to the airport's operation. When not carrying out his managerial duties, you may find him snow plowing the airport's 80 acres of pavement.

Throughout Richard's 40 year tenure as manager at the airport, he has witnessed the evolution of the airline industry. Through Richard's leadership, the airport has survived the changes and weathered periods of unfavorable economic conditions, and has emerged as a $30 million economic mainstay in Western Kentucky.

Richard Roof serves as a symbol to all Americans that through hard work and dedication, one life can truly change the lives of hundreds. I would like to call to the attention of the House of Representatives, Richard's many years of service to the people of Kentucky and urge all members of Congress to join me in congratulating him on this milestone.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4250) to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide an alternative process for review of safety and effectiveness of nonprescription sunscreen active ingredients and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials on the bill into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4250, the Sunscreen Innovation Act, which seeks to address an important area of public concern by strengthening the sunscreen ingredient review process at the Food and Drug Administration.

I would like to remind everyone that skin cancer is the most prevalent kind of cancer in America. Each year, there are more new cases of skin cancer than breast, prostate, lung, and colon cancer combined. By 2015, it is estimated that one in 50 Americans will develop melanoma in their lifetime. Melanoma also happens to be one of the most common forms of cancer in young adults, particularly young women.

Even though the Food and Drug Administration has listed action on sunscreen ingredient applications as a priority since 2008, no new sunscreen ingredients have been approved by the FDA. In fact, none have been approved in 15 years. This is despite the fact that eight sunscreen applications have been pending at the FDA, some as far back as 2002.

I might add that we find ourselves in this predicament, even though in Europe and other places around the world, new sunscreen ingredients are being introduced into sunscreen products.

This past April, the Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing on the Sunscreen Innovation Act, where all of the expert witnesses, including the FDA, were in agreement that the current approval process is broken and in need of reform.

So the objective of the Sunscreen Innovation Act is twofold: first, to expedite the review of pending applications at FDA; and, second, to create a timely and transparent process for new applications to be reviewed and acted on.

The framework outlined in this legislation strikes an appropriate balance between consumer safety and access to the very best sunscreen product. The bill we have before us today reflects a bipartisan agreement reached in consultation with the Food and Drug Administration and outside stakeholders, such as the PASS Coalition and Environmental Working Group.

I want to give a particular thanks to my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for sponsoring this legislation with me. I would also like to thank Chairman Upton, who worked with us closely throughout the entire process, and Ranking Member Waxman for their assistance in reaching the agreement that allowed this legislation to come to the floor.

I urge all my colleagues to support the bill. At this time, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to, once again, thank Mr. Dingell, and I appreciate his naming the staff because there was a lot of negotiations with FDA on this bill, and Taylor Booth on my staff and other members of the Energy and Commerce Committee staff, as named by Mr. Dingell, I want to give special thanks to them, and also, we appreciate the efforts of Mr. Pitts, who is the chairman of the Health Subcommittee.

Without the help of him, Mr. Pallone, and their staffs, we would not have been able to bring this bill to the floor. So I would urge everyone to support it, and with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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. 3301.

Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), chairman of the full Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), who is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

May I inquire how much time remains?

At this time, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to point out that H.R. 3301 really, in a way, corrects the inequity. Today, natural gas pipelines are treated one way if they cross international boundaries, and oil pipelines and transmission lines are treated in a different way.

For example, a natural gas pipeline crossing into Canada would not require a Presidential permit, but oil pipelines and transmission lines crossing international boundaries do require a Presidential permit. And I might add that Congress never passed legislation requiring a Presidential permit. That was a power that a President, by executive order, took even before President Obama did it.

But here is the key factor. This law, H.R. 3301, would treat all pipelines the same, whether it is natural gas, whether it is oil, or whether it is a transmission line.

Now, I know that arguments are being made here primarily based on Keystone, and a lot of arguments are being made about climate change.

I would say to all of the American people that we have people coming into Congress on a regular basis from developing countries of the world who say that climate change is not their number one concern. They are more concerned about food. They are more concerned about sanitary living conditions. They are more concerned about

clean water. They are more concerned about jobs and the ability to provide income for their families. And, as a matter of fact, polls in America have shown that climate change is way down the list of primary concerns of people.

Now, I know that for Tom Steyer--who I understand is at the White House today--it is his number one issue. And he has said that he is going to spend $100 million against Republican candidates or any candidate that does not recognize climate change as one of the most important issues facing mankind.

So I simply wanted to make that comment. Sure, climate change is important. And I might add that emissions from energy-produced causes in America today are the lowest that they have been in 20 years. So America does not have to take a back seat to anyone on addressing emissions from greenhouse gases.

And I will tell you that we are the only country in the world where, if natural gas prices go up, we won't even be able to build a new coal plant in America because the technology is not commercially available at a cost that any utility could afford.

So even in Europe, natural gas prices went up. They mothballed natural gas plants. And last year in Europe, they imported 53 percent of all our coal exports.

But yet this President, in the White House today, has such extreme views that if our gas prices go up, we don't have the option in an affordable way to build a new coal plant to help us meet our base loads. And if we are going to have an economy that is not sluggish--the way it has been consistently under President Obama--we have to have affordable, abundant, and reliable energy. And that is what this bill is about.

Now people are saying, if you pass H.R. 3301, you are exempting oil and transmission lines from a NEPA review. But I want you to know, there are 33 other environmental laws--like the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water, Rivers and Harbors, National Historic Preservation, Clean Air Act--that would trigger. If Federal action is triggered, then it would be triggered even under H.R. 3301. That is, unless, of course, it is the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, which this administration has granted windmills an exemptions from. So you can kill all the migratory birds you want and bald eagles. If you are a windmill company, you won't be prosecuted, but if you are an individual timber owner in North Carolina, you will be find $100,000 and convicted of a felony.

So in conclusion of my remarks at this point, I would simply say that the bill is not designed to expedite the Keystone pipeline, because it can't be approved under H.R. 3301. It is under the Presidential permit process. But the Presidential permit process is arbitrary. Even the State Department has said that it would be of negligible environmental impact to approve the Keystone pipeline. But all H.R. 3301 does is it says, we are going to treat oil pipelines and transmission lines that cross international boundaries with Canada or Mexico exactly the way natural gas pipelines are treated today.

So it is not anything extraordinary. It is not anything radical. It is the way natural gas pipelines are created today. And we believe that is the way to go, and that is what H.R. 3301 is all about.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to make an inquiry on the amount of time remaining on both sides.

Mr. Chairman, we don't have any more speakers on our side, so I will reserve the balance of my time and let the gentleman from California proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I would say to the American people that, certainly, energy is vitally important, and that is why we have introduced this bill, and that is why we brought this bill to the floor.

Because when you talk about creating jobs and stimulating the economy, you have to have low-cost, affordable, abundant, and reliable energy, or you cannot compete in the global marketplace.

As I had said earlier, I just want to reiterate, once again, that this bill does nothing but make the decision that we are going to treat oil pipelines, natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines all the same.

Right now, a natural gas pipeline that crosses an international boundary does not require a Presidential permit, but an oil pipeline and a transmission line to bring electricity across the border does require a Presidential permit.

As many speakers have said today, that Presidential permit or authority was not granted by the Congress; it was taken by executive orders. So all we are doing is saying that we are going to treat all of them the same.

Now, some people are saying that: well, you are eliminating the need for NEPA, you are not allowing NEPA review.

I had pointed out that there are 33 environmental laws that all of these pipelines or transmission lines would be subject to, and any Federal action, like crossing a stream that would create a necessity for a Clean Water Act permit, could very well generate a need for a NEPA review.

Nothing in this bill would limit the application of NEPA to the rest of the project. It would certainly apply to the cross border, but it would not limit application to the rest of the project.

So if a project required a right-of-way across Federal lands, the NEPA review would be initiated. Nothing in the bill would exempt the project from requiring applicable Clean Water Act permits, clean air permits, endangered species permits, or any other Federal permit.

So I would respectfully request the Members to support this commonsense bill. It would bring certainty to entities that are trying to bring more energy to America by treating gas pipelines the same as oil pipelines, the same as a transmission line.

In concluding, I would just like to say this: nothing in the bill creates a Federal right of eminent domain or supersedes a State's exercise of eminent domain authority.

In concluding, I would just like to say that, while the gentleman from California and I are on opposite sides of this issue--and a lot of issues--he has been a real leader in the U.S. Congress.

He announced earlier that he is not going to be seeking reelection, but the gentleman from California, Henry Waxman, has been a leader in the U.S. Congress and recognized so throughout the country.

Even though he is going to be with us for 6 or 7 more months until the end of the year, I did want to acknowledge that he is recognized as a congressional leader, with great empathy and commitment to his views, although sometimes we disagree with his views.

With that, I urge the adoption of H.R. 3301 and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

While I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), his amendment would, in effect, codify the Presidential permit not only for oil pipelines and transmission lines, but also for natural gas pipelines, which are now exempt from the Presidential permit. So he is going in the wrong direction, and would make it even more difficult.

As I said earlier, NEPA would apply anytime Federal action is triggered, and there are 33 different environmental laws that can trigger Federal action. So I am very much opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that if we pass H.R. 3301, the Keystone pipeline is still caught up in the Presidential permitting process. And if we adopt the Waxman amendment, the Keystone pipeline

would never, ever be able to come back with a new application.

Since they filed an application in September of 2008, and despite the State Department saying that there is no negligible environmental impact by approving it, President Obama continues not to approve it. So if after 2016 the Keystone pipeline entity wants to submit a new application under the new law, they would certainly and should have a right to do that. That is the only reason we oppose the Waxman amendment. I urge that Members vote against the Waxman amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I might say I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) on the committee, and he does great work in the area of efficiency and other areas relating to energy, but I do oppose this amendment.

At this point, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green) for his comments on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I do rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. First of all, ``minor'' is an undefined term that gives little certainty to agencies or industry. One of the things that we are trying to get away from is the uncertainty of a Presidential permit and be treated like natural gas pipelines. As I said, in H.R. 3301, we are trying to treat all of them exactly the same: transmission lines, oil pipelines, natural gas lines.

I would also say that, under the gentleman's amendment, any modifications, such as volume expansion, downstream or upstream interconnections, or adjustments to maintain flow, would potentially be required to obtain a Presidential permit for the modification, even if the original project already has one. Then even operational changes may be subject to a Presidential permit, and ownership changes would be.

So, for those reasons, as I said, I respectfully would oppose the gentleman's amendment and ask the Members to oppose it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.