Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act

Floor Speech

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

We just had a debate over the potential impact of export of LNG on domestic prices. There is no arguing that the low domestic prices for natural gas have been a boon for our country. Some manufacturers are actually moving operations back from overseas. Others here are being advantaged in the international markets, much to the concern of some of our competitors in Europe and elsewhere. So we can say that is good. We are not going to settle that issue in my amendment. I am going to bring up another issue.

But the reason natural gas companies want to export is to realize higher prices, and some of these terminals will require new pipelines to connect to domestic natural gas supplies, particularly some of the new supplies.

Here is the problem. In 2005, Congress passed the Bush-Cheney energy plan, which gave the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission--a group of nameless, faceless, obscure bureaucrats--the authority to grant eminent domain to pipeline companies. That means companies have eminent domain authority generally reserved for the greater public interest to build pipelines to export natural gas.

Now I had three amendments. This one simply requires disclosure. I just want to bring a bit more focus during the expedited--should this bill become law--application and approval process for persons in the area, whether or not there is a prospect that a natural gas pipeline will exert eminent domain over their property. Now, it is just disclosure, because, as I say, my other amendments weren't allowed, if eminent domain is going to be used to export natural gas to a pipeline terminal.

Now, earlier this year I voted with, as I have every year, every single Republican in favor of H.R. 1944. That is legislation to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in 2005, Kelo v. City of New London, where the city of New London was found to have the authority to use eminent domain on behalf of private development interests. The Republicans, as I mentioned earlier, brought up a bill to overturn that decision, the Private Property Rights Protection Act, which passed with every Republican vote and a number of Democrats on our side of the aisle.

The same principle applies here. I am not challenging--because that is not allowed--the issue of eminent domain for a private pipeline for the export of natural gas, but I am saying that at least persons who are in proximity to that, or actually in line with that proposed pipeline, should have the opportunity when the company applies to know that it may be used so they can address their point of view during the application process.

Now, there are some industry talking points saying wait a minute, wait a minute, this eminent domain isn't in section 3. They are right. I agree with them. They are absolutely right. However, section 7 regulates pipelines, and pipelines in some instances will be required and will be used to access these natural gas terminals, and I am simply saying that persons in those areas should know that eminent domain is intended to be used.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeFAZIO. Well, unfortunately, it isn't left to the States. The gentleman is wrong. The Bush-Cheney energy act preempted the States--preempted the State authority. It gives a faceless, nameless Federal bureaucracy, which on every other day is opposed by the other side of the aisle, the authority to grant eminent domain for a private company, for private profit, for the export of natural gas, which may well drive up the gas prices of the property owners adjacent to or who have been penetrated by that line.

This amendment doesn't delay anything. It doesn't give any significant new authority. It just requires the simple disclosure that if this terminal is built, a new pipeline is going to be required, and that pipeline, under section 3, with the faceless, nameless Federal bureaucrats behind it, is going to be granted eminent domain authority to take people's property. That is the bottom line. You can try and dance around it and say, well, I am against Kelo because that was another kind of development, but no, I am against this amendment because we wouldn't want people to know that they were going to lose their property rights to eminent domain because of faceless, nameless Federal bureaucrats.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source