[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 153 (Thursday, September 22, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4961-S4962]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND SECURITY ACT

  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise to talk about a piece of 
legislation that was announced last night by a very close friend of 
mine, Senator Manchin of West Virginia--the Energy Independence and 
Security Act of 2022. Senator Manchin and I were Governors together, 
and we sit next to each other on the Senate floor. And we are often in 
agreement. And on this particular bill--it is 91 pages long, and there 
are 24 sections--we are in agreement on 23 of the 24 sections and 86 of 
the 91 pages.
  I want to talk about the permitting reform provisions in the bill 
that I support, but then I want to point out significant concerns with 
section 24 of the bill that is sort of an anti-permitting reform bill. 
It would take one project that is in my State, the Mountain Valley 
Pipeline, out of permitting processes, out of judicial review, and have 
Congress put our thumb on the scale, advancing the project immune from 
the normal permitting process and judicial review.
  I would like to start by saying I am a strong supporter of American 
energy independence, and I applaud the efforts of my colleague Senator 
Manchin to do the same.
  I voted with a number of Senators a few years ago to end the ban on 
export of crude oil from the United States. And I have strongly 
supported liquefied natural gas exports to help nations around the 
world wean themselves off of energy dependence on dictators like 
Vladimir Putin.
  I also firmly believe in the need for permitting reform. The heart of 
the Energy Independence and Security Act is a recognition that 
permitting for energy transmission and other projects in this country 
is essentially broken; that it takes too long. It is too inconsistent.
  I filed my first permitting reform bill in 2017 as a recognition of 
the fact that natural gas pipelines proposed in Virginia were running 
into very significant challenges, in particular. These pipeline 
programs require the use of eminent domain. So you are taking people's 
property to build these pipeline projects. And if the government is 
going to take people's property, we ought to have a process that is 
fair.
  But what I heard from my constituents in Virginia is that they were 
being ignored; that there was inadequate public hearing. The hearings 
were scheduled hundreds of miles apart, far away from the landowners 
themselves. They would get to the public hearings and people had 
presigned up, often encouraged by the pipeline proponent so that the 
actual landowners never got a chance to speak. And when they did get to 
speak, their input wasn't being taken seriously.
  So, in 2017, I introduced my first permitting reform bill to deal 
exactly with some of the same kinds of issues that Senator Manchin has 
included in the Energy Independence and Security Act.
  So I am here to say, I am all for permitting reform. I am all for 
permitting reform. And I believe that there is a bipartisan majority--
indeed, a supermajority in this body--that were we to undertake this in 
regular order, we could come up with a permitting reform bill that, 
together with the infrastructure bill that we did and the Inflation 
Reduction Act that we did, will help us power forward American 
innovation, especially in leading the world in clean energy.
  So that is 86 pages of the bill. And I strongly approve of the bill. 
The legislation that I introduced in 2017 isn't in it. I would like to 
get it added in. But even if it weren't added in, there is enough good 
in this bill for me to support it.
  But what I want to talk about with an equal degree of passion is my 
strong opposition to section 24 of the bill, dealing with the Mountain 
Valley Pipeline.
  The Mountain Valley Pipeline is a 304-mile natural gas pipeline in 
West Virginia and Virginia. About two-thirds of it is in West Virginia 
and one-third is in Virginia. The pipeline is proposed to withdraw 
natural gas from the Marcellus shale--one of the great American 
reserves of natural gas--and then transmit that gas first through West 
Virginia and then Virginia where it could hook up with other pipelines 
to be distributed around the country or to ports where it could be 
liquefied and potentially sold overseas.
  The Mountain Valley Pipeline has had a star-crossed history in recent 
years. It has had multiple Federal authorizations vacated. It has 
accrued over 350 violations of water quality-related protections, both 
in Virginia and in West Virginia. And it currently lacks several 
necessary Federal authorizations to continue construction.
  My constituents in Virginia have complained significantly about 
workmanship problems in the Mountain Valley Pipeline. And work on the 
pipeline has been stopped by State agencies because of slipshod quality 
that damages water and that damages people's property.
  I am not opposed to the Mountain Valley Pipeline. I don't think 
Congress should be in the business of approving pipelines or rejecting 
them.
  Madam President, you were an attorney general dealing with eminent 
domain. We generally don't let legislative bodies decide whose property 
is going to get taken.
  Eminent domain matters are usually for courts and administrative 
agencies. So as the Mountain Valley Pipeline has

[[Page S4962]]

proceeded in recent years, I have had opponents of the pipeline come to 
say: Look, there have been water quality violations. You should stop 
the pipeline.
  I have had proponents of the pipeline come and say: We need this for 
America's energy security. You should put your thumb on the scale and 
make sure it gets approved.
  What I have told both the opponents and proponents of the Mountain 
Valley Pipeline is: You tell me how to fix the process--the permitting 
process--to make it fair, and I will do that. But then you should have 
to put your project through a fair permitting process and, if you can 
earn approval on the merits, then you can build the pipeline. But if 
you do poor work and can't, then you are not going to be able to build 
it.
  I deeply believe this is not Congress's job to make this 
determination. It is our job to make sure that permitting is fair.
  Section 24 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2022 would 
basically say that after 86 pages of improving permitting in this 
country, we will take one project in two States and take it completely 
out of all permitting. We will order the Biden administration to grant 
four permits that are currently in midstream. The company hasn't yet 
demonstrated that it should get these four permits.
  There is a Clean Water Act permit. There is a permit to cross the 
Jefferson National Forest. There is a permit to certify that this 
project will not harm endangered species. And, finally, there is a 
permit from FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The company 
is attempting to get these permits, but they haven't yet demonstrated 
that they are able to do it.
  But what section 24 of the bill would do, after doing this great work 
to establish this great permitting process, is that it would say: 
Forget all of that. The Biden administration must give these four 
permits to the Mountain Valley Pipeline owners right now, and, further, 
no one can seek any judicial review of these permits--highly unusual.
  These administrative permits are issued by administrative agencies 
with a capacity for judicial review under the Administrative Procedure 
Act. But in this case, we would be forced to issue the permit, and then 
we would also immunize the permit from any person, landowner, effective 
party, or environmental group being able to challenge it in judicial 
review. In my view, that is highly inappropriate and virtually 
unprecedented.
  But to make matters worse, section 24 of the bill also does something 
that I believe is unprecedented and that would create a very, very 
dangerous precedent in this body. It would strip jurisdiction of any 
litigation in the future in this project from the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the Fourth Circuit, headquartered in Richmond, my hometown.
  Why? The owners of the Mountain Valley Pipeline have lost a case or 
two in the Fourth Circuit.
  I used to try cases, as did the Presiding Officer. I lost some cases, 
and I lost cases in the Fourth Circuit. If I represented a civil rights 
litigant and we lost a case in the Fourth Circuit, I had remedies. The 
first remedy was to try to get an en banc court to possibly reconsider 
the ruling of the panel. It is difficult to do, but that is a remedy 
you have.
  The second remedy you have is to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. I 
tried that too. Once, I got a case that I had lost in the Fourth 
Circuit taken by the U.S. Supreme Court, and I was able to be 
successful there in getting it reversed.
  But if you are a party that is unhappy, that is what your remedy is, 
to appeal. Whether you are rich or you are poor, whether you are a 
corporation or an individual, whether it is a criminal case or a civil 
case, if you don't like the ruling of a district court, you appeal to 
an appellate court. If you don't like the ruling of an appellate court, 
you try to take it en banc or go to the Supreme Court. And that is a 
rule that should apply to all litigants.
  In this case, what the Mountain Valley Pipeline is asking is, in my 
view, an egregious and dramatic overreach. They don't like the rulings 
of the Fourth Circuit. They haven't been able to get the Fourth Circuit 
to take the case en banc. They haven't been able to convince the U.S. 
Supreme Court that the Fourth Circuit was wrong.
  So what the Mountain Valley Pipeline owners are asking the Senate to 
do and what this bill proposes is that we would take jurisdiction away 
from the Fourth Circuit and mandate that any future case not go to the 
Fourth Circuit but instead come to the DC Court of Appeals.
  What ground would there be for such a historic rebuke of my hometown 
Federal circuit court, to say that just because they ruled against a 
powerful energy corporation, we will, in an unprecedented way, strip 
jurisdiction away from them in a pending case that is midstream and not 
allow them to hear it?
  The Fourth Circuit is my hometown circuit court. I tried cases in the 
district courts there. I had appeals in that court. I won some; I lost 
some. I was often unhappy with the ruling, but never would I have 
believed, if a ruling went against me, that the resolution was to 
punish the court by stripping jurisdiction away from them. Yet that is 
what the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2022 would do. It 
would force the issuance of permits that have not yet been justified, 
deny the possibility of judicial review of those permits and, in 
particular, in an unprecedented way, strip jurisdiction away from one 
circuit court in the middle of a case by taking it away from them. Why? 
Because the big energy company that wants these permits is unhappy that 
they have lost a case there.
  As I conclude, I just want to point out, if we go down this path, in 
my view, it could open the door to serious abuse and even corruption. 
Imagine if the Senate of the United States starts stripping 
jurisdiction away from courts because we don't like their ruling. So 
midstream, we will take it away.

  A corporation is unhappy that they are getting sued in shareholder 
derivative suits in the Second Circuit, for example, and somebody comes 
to the Senate and says: Let's just take jurisdiction away from the 
Second Circuit dealing with this particular company.
  Somebody in a complicated criminal case doesn't like the rulings of a 
circuit court on procedural matters and tries to get this body, the 
Senate of the United States, to strip jurisdiction away from the court.
  I am proud of the Fourth Circuit--the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Fourth Circuit. I have been involved with my colleague Senator Warner 
in recommending to Presidents and then advocating for people to be 
nominated and eventually confirmed in this court. The Fourth Circuit is 
no more perfect than any court is.
  I can tell you, as somebody who has practiced in this court for my 
entire professional career, they do not deserve to be rebuked in a 
historic way and have jurisdiction stripped away from them in a case 
like this just because they have had the temerity to rule against an 
energy company on a pipeline project.
  We can do a permitting reform bill that will advance the goals of the 
first 86 pages of the Energy Independence and Security Act. We can do a 
bill that will include 23 of the 24 sections of the Energy Independence 
and Security Act and have a much better permitting process that the 
Mountain Valley Pipeline and anyone else wanting to do a project can 
then go through.
  If they demonstrate on the merits that they should be entitled to 
build a pipeline or an electricity transmission, then build it, by all 
means. But don't embrace the need for permitting reform and then choose 
one project in the entire United States, affecting my State, and pull 
it out of permitting reform, insulating it from the normal processes of 
administrative permitting issuance and insulating it from judicial 
review.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Smith). The Senator from Kansas.

                          ____________________