North American Energy Infrastructure Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WHITFIELD. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WHITFIELD. 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).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WHITFIELD. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WHITFIELD. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source