[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19157-19164]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     NORTH AMERICAN ENERGY SECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE ACT OF 2015


                             General Leave

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include 
extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 8.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Allen). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 539 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 8.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1751


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 8) to modernize energy infrastructure, build a 21st century 
energy and manufacturing workforce, bolster America's energy security 
and diplomacy, and promote energy efficiency and government 
accountability, and for other purposes, with Mr. Jenkins of West 
Virginia in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  General debate shall not exceed 1 hour equally divided and controlled 
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, today we commence debate on H.R. 8, the North American 
Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2015. This bill culminates a 
multiyear, multi-Congress effort to ensure that folks in Michigan and 
every corner of the country have access to affordable and reliable 
energy. It has been nearly a decade since we last considered a broad 
energy package and a lot--a lot--has changed.
  Back then, the energy situation looked downright dire: declining 
domestic oil and natural gas output, increasing reliance on imports, 
and energy prices that seemed like they had nowhere to go but up. 
Remember 7 years ago they were $3.84 a gallon. Manufacturers were 
leaving and fleeing overseas in pursuit of cheaper energy.
  But thankfully, because of breakthrough innovation, a little American 
ingenuity, and a lot of hard work, we are now experiencing game-
changing energy abundance that has, in fact, redefined America's 
standing at home, as well as around the globe. Now Michigan and many 
parts of the country are enjoying a welcome manufacturing renaissance 
thanks to reliable and affordable energy. It is well past time that our 
laws rooted in energy scarcity caught up to our newfound 21st century 
reality.
  The first order of business is to allow the private sector to expand 
the Nation's energy infrastructure. The Keystone XL pipeline is 
certainly one of the most well-known examples of energy infrastructure 
projects being delayed and ultimately denied, but it is far from the 
only one.
  We have a Federal permitting process that is not designed to 
expeditiously handle the many projects necessary to bring online the 
Nation's growing energy output and to meet energy needs of homeowners 
and businesses. How can it be that in this century we can't get energy 
to consumers in some parts of the country? We need to fix that problem. 
This bill does that.
  H.R. 8 has several useful provisions to make the approval process 
more timely for projects such as interstate natural gas pipelines, LNG 
export facilities, and new hydropower, which we discussed during a 
hearing with the FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, just 
today. And I would add that these streamlining provisions were done so 
in a manner that keeps the environmental and safety protections intact.
  Perhaps the biggest changes brought on by our energy abundance are 
geopolitical. Where we once feared rising dependence on the likes of 
OPEC, now we can, in fact, control our energy destiny and use our new 
standing as an energy superpower to help our allies and friends around 
the world and engage in energy diplomacy. However, this is a new role 
for the U.S., and we don't have in place the means to act globally on 
energy policy yet. This bill changes that.

[[Page 19158]]

  Using the Department of Energy's Quadrennial Energy Review as a 
guide, this bill begins the process of incorporating energy security 
and diplomacy considerations into the decisionmaking process. It also 
creates forums through which we can coordinate with our North American 
neighbors, as well as our allies and trading partners around the world, 
on energy policy.
  Unfortunately, the energy news over the last decade hasn't been all 
that good. Cyber threats and electromagnetic pulses pose a growing and 
more sophisticated risk to the Nation's electricity system. We need new 
measures to better address these and other threats to the grid, and 
this bill, H.R. 8, has a number of important provisions.
  I would add that while our energy abundance is a real blessing, it 
does not in any way reduce the importance of energy efficiency. H.R. 8 
again includes a number of updates to energy efficiency policy, 
including measures to help the Federal Government use energy more 
wisely, as well as improvements to existing energy efficiency programs 
that have proven problematic.
  A decade ago, no one, no one here, could have imagined where we would 
be in 2015 and how much the energy script would be flipped in our 
favor. It is a new day, but now that we are here, it is time to bring 
our energy policy in line with those new realities. It is time that we 
put the scarcity mindset in the rearview mirror and say yes to energy 
and yes to jobs.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Natural Resources,

                                Washington, DC, November 16, 2015.
     Hon. Fred Upton,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rayburn House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I write regarding H.R. 8, the North 
     American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2015. This 
     bill contains provisions under the jurisdiction of the 
     Committee on Natural Resources.
       I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this bill 
     before the House of Representatives in an expeditious manner, 
     and accordingly, I will agree that the Committee on Natural 
     Resources will not seek a referral of the bill. I do so with 
     the understanding that this action does not affect the 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on Natural Resources, and that 
     the Committee expressly reserves its authority to seek 
     conferees on any provision within its jurisdiction during any 
     House-Senate conference that may be convened on this, or any 
     similar legislation. I ask that you support any such request.
       Finally, I also ask that a copy of this letter and your 
     response be inserted in the Congressional Record during 
     consideration of H.R. 8 on the House floor.
       Thank you for your work on this bill, and for your 
     cooperation and consideration on this and many other matters 
     shared by our committees. I look forward to H.R. 8's 
     enactment.
           Sincerely,

                                                   Rob Bishop,

                                                         Chairman,
     Committee on Natural Resources.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                             Committee on Energy and Commerce,

                                Washington, DC, November 16, 2015.
     Hon. Rob Bishop,
     Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, Longworth House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I write regarding H.R. 8, the North 
     American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2015. As 
     you noted, this bill contains provisions under the 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on Natural Resources.
       I appreciate your willingness to agree that the Committee 
     on Natural Resources be discharged from further consideration 
     of the bill. I agree that this action does not affect the 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on Natural Resources, and that 
     the Committee expressly reserves its authority to seek 
     conferees on any provision within its jurisdiction during any 
     House-Senate conference that may be convened on this, or any 
     similar legislation. I will support any such request.
       Finally, I will include a copy of your letter and this 
     response in the Congressional Record during consideration of 
     H.R. 8 on the House floor.
       Thank you for your work and cooperation on H.R. 8.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Fred Upton,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                 Committee on Foreign Affairs,

                                Washington, DC, November 18, 2015.
     Hon. Fred Upton,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rayburn House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for consulting with the 
     Committee on Foreign Affairs regarding H.R. 8, the North 
     American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2015. As a 
     result of those consultations and text edits related to the 
     role that the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Department of 
     State play in energy diplomacy, I agree that the Foreign 
     Affairs Committee may be discharged from further 
     consideration of that bill, so that it may proceed 
     expeditiously to the House floor.
       I am writing to confirm our mutual understanding that, by 
     forgoing consideration of H.R. 8, the Foreign Affairs 
     Committee does not waive jurisdiction over the subject matter 
     contained in this, or any other, legislation. I also would 
     appreciate your support for a request by the Foreign Affairs 
     Committee for an appropriate number of conferees to any 
     House-Senate conference involving this bill, should one 
     occur.
       I ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter 
     be included in the Congressional Record during floor 
     consideration of H.R. 8. Thank you again for your 
     collaborative leadership on this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Edward R. Royce,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                             Committee on Energy and Commerce,

                                Washington, DC, November 20, 2015.
     Hon. Edward R. Royce,
     Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Royce: Thank you for your assistance 
     regarding H.R. 8, North American Energy Security and 
     Infrastructure Act of 2015.
       I appreciate your willingness to discharge the Committee on 
     Foreign Affairs from further consideration of H.R. 8 so that 
     it can proceed expeditiously to the House floor. I agree that 
     the Committee on Foreign Affairs does not waive jurisdiction 
     over the subject matter contained in this or any other 
     legislation. In addition, I agree to support a request by the 
     Committee on Foreign Affairs for an appropriate number of 
     conferees to any House-Senate conference involving this bill.
       I will place a copy of our exchange of letters on this 
     matter in the Congressional Record during floor consideration 
     of H.R. 8.
       Thank you for your work and cooperation on H.R. 8.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Fred Upton,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

         House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and 
           Government Reform,
                                Washington, DC, November 19, 2015.
     Hon. Fred Upton,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I write concerning H.R. 8, the North 
     American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2015. As 
     you know, the Committee on Energy and Commerce received an 
     original referral and the Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform a secondary referral when the bill was 
     introduced on September 16, 2015. I recognize and appreciate 
     your desire to bring this legislation before the House of 
     Representatives in an expeditious manner, and accordingly, 
     the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will forego 
     committee action on the bill.
       The Committee takes this action with our mutual 
     understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 8 at 
     this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over the subject 
     matter contained in this or similar legislation. 
     Specifically, the Oversight Committee's jurisdiction is 
     primarily triggered by provisions in the bill related to 5 
     U.S.C. 552, known as the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). I 
     appreciate that our committees have had fruitful discussions 
     regarding these provisions and have come to an agreement 
     related to section 4122 of the reported bill. Negotiations 
     regarding sections 1104, 1105, and 1106, the application of 
     FOIA as it relates to critical electric infrastructure 
     security, the Strategic Transformer Reserve and Cyber Sense, 
     are currently ongoing. I have full confidence that our 
     committees will arrive at a mutually agreeable compromise, 
     which respects the Oversight Committee's interest in 
     narrowing FOIA exemptions, prior to floor consideration of 
     the bill.
       I request your support for the appointment of conferees 
     from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform during 
     any House-Senate conference convened on this or related 
     legislation. Finally, I would ask that a copy of our exchange 
     of letters on this matter be included in the bill report 
     filed by the Committee on Energy and Commerce, as well as in 
     the Congressional Record during

[[Page 19159]]

     floor consideration, to memorialize our understanding
           Sincerely,
                                                   Jason Chaffetz,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                             Committee on Energy and Commerce,

                                 Washington, DC, December 1, 2015.
     Hon. Jason Chaffetz,
     Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Chaffetz: Thank you for your assistance 
     regarding H.R. 8, North American Energy Security and 
     Infrastructure Act of 2015. I appreciate your willingness to 
     forego action on the bill in the Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform.
       I agree that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 8 at this 
     time, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform does 
     not waive any jurisdiction over the subject matter contained 
     in this or similar legislation. I am confident that our 
     committees will arrive at a mutually agreeable compromise on 
     the ongoing negotiations between our committees prior to 
     floor consideration of the bill.
       I will support your request for the appointment of 
     conferees from the Committee on Oversight and Government 
     Reform during any House-Senate conference convened on this or 
     related legislation. In addition, I will include a copy of 
     our exchange of letters on this matter in the Congressional 
     Record during floor consideration of H.R. 8
           Sincerely,
                                                       Fred Upton,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

         House of Representatives,


               Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

                                Washington, DC, November 24, 2015.
     Hon. Fred Upton,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I write concerning H.R. 8, the North 
     American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2015, as 
     ordered reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 
     There are certain provisions in the legislation that fall 
     within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure.
       In order to expedite this legislation for Floor 
     consideration, the Committee will forgo action on this bill. 
     However, this is conditional on our mutual understanding that 
     forgoing consideration of the bill does not alter or diminish 
     the jurisdiction of the Committee with respect to the 
     appointment of conferees or to any future jurisdictional 
     claim over the subject matters contained in the bill or 
     similar legislation. I request you urge the Speaker to name 
     members of the Committee to any conference committee named to 
     consider such provisions.
       Please place a copy of this letter and your response 
     acknowledging our jurisdictional interest into the 
     Congressional Record during consideration of the measure on 
     the House Floor.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Shuster,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                             Committee on Energy and Commerce,

                                Washington, DC, November 24, 2015.
     Hon. Bill Shuster,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Shuster: Thank you for your letter concerning 
     H.R. 8, North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act 
     of 2015, as ordered reported by the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce. As you noted, there are certain provision in the 
     legislation that fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
       I appreciate your willingness to forgo action on this bill 
     in order to expedite this legislation for Floor 
     consideration. I agree that forgoing consideration of the 
     bill does not alter or diminish the jurisdiction of the 
     Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees or to 
     any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters 
     contained in the bill or similar legislation. In addition, I 
     will support your request for the Speaker to name members of 
     the Committee to any conference committee named to consider 
     such provisions.
       I will place a copy of your letter and this response into 
     the Congressional Record during consideration of the measure 
     on the House Floor.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Fred Upton,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

         House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space, 
           and Technology,
                                 Washington, DC, December 1, 2015.
     Hon. Fred Upton
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing concerning H.R. 8, the 
     ``North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 
     2015,'' which your Committee reported on November 19, 2015.
       H.R. 8 contains provisions within the Committee on Science, 
     Space, and Technology's Rule X jurisdiction. As a result of 
     your having consulted with the Committee and in order to 
     expedite this bill for floor consideration, the Committee on 
     Science, Space, and Technology will forego action on the 
     bill. This is being done on the basis of our mutual 
     understanding that doing so will in no way diminish or alter 
     the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science, Space, and 
     Technology with respect to the appointment of conferees, or 
     to any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters 
     contained in the bill or similar legislation.
       I would appreciate your response to this letter confirming 
     this understanding, and would request that you include a copy 
     of this letter and your response in the Congressional Record 
     during the floor consideration of this bill. Thank you in 
     advance for your cooperation.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Lamar Smith,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                             Committee on Energy and Commerce,

                                 Washington, DC, December 1, 2015.
     Hon. Lamar Smith,
     Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Smith: Thank you for your letter concerning 
     H.R. 8, North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act 
     of 2015.
       As you noted, H.R. 8 contains provisions within the 
     Committee on Science, Space, and Technology's Rule X 
     jurisdiction. I appreciate your willingness to forego action 
     on the bill in order to expedite this bill for floor 
     consideration. I agree that doing so will in no way diminish 
     or alter the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science, Space, 
     and Technology with respect to the appointment of conferees, 
     or to any future jurisdictional claim over the subject 
     matters contained in the bill or similar legislation.
       I will place a copy of your letter and this response into 
     the Congressional during the Floor consideration of this 
     bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Fred Upton,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, when Chairman Upton and I first talked about energy 
legislation, I was encouraged that we would be working together to 
develop a consensus, bipartisan bill. In the tradition of the Committee 
on Energy and Commerce, that is what we started to do, spending months 
negotiating over language and finally reporting a bill from 
subcommittee on a voice vote in July. That bill was modest but 
bipartisan and was the result of good faith cooperation.
  Unfortunately, that effort fell apart. H.R. 8 is not a bipartisan 
consensus bill. Instead, the House is taking up a backward-looking 
piece of energy legislation at a time when we need to move forward. 
H.R. 8 undermines the progress we have made in deploying the 
sustainable clean energy economy of the future.
  Although the title for H.R. 8 suggests we are authorizing 
improvements in energy infrastructure, the bill provides no funding or 
initiatives to address some of the significant energy infrastructure 
issues we are facing.
  Meanwhile, the bill has only gotten worse since it left the 
committee. It was in Upton's manager's amendment that strips out the 
few good provisions that remained from the committee markup. This so-
called energy bill now does nothing for solar, wind, or any other clean 
energy technology.
  On top of that, the Republicans deleted a whole title of the bill 
written primarily by the subcommittee ranking member, Bobby Rush, the 
21st Century Workforce Initiative. That title created a new program at 
DOE to help minorities, women, and veterans find work and build careers 
in the energy industry. This was something that Republicans praised 
throughout the committee process. In fact, the Energy Subcommittee 
chairman even praised the title last night during testimony before the 
Rules Committee. Yet, Mr. Chairman, the bill before us doesn't have 
that provision.
  What does that say about Republicans' so-called commitment to 
expanding job opportunities in the energy sector for minorities, women, 
and those who served our country? Unfortunately, it says all too much, 
and none of it is good.

                              {time}  1800

  H.R. 8 has one central theme binding its titles: an unerring devotion 
to the energy of the past. Provision after provision favors an energy 
policy that is

[[Page 19160]]

dominated by fossil fuels and unnecessary energy use. It is the 
Republican Party's 19th-century vision for the future of U.S. energy 
policy in the 21st century.
  Needless to say, the administration opposes this bill. If it reaches 
the President's desk, it will be vetoed. I, too, oppose H.R. 8, and I 
urge my colleagues to reject this attempt to roll back progress in 
energy efficiency and clean energy.
  I have to say I don't usually pay much attention to comments that 
come from the media, but I was actually asked a couple of minutes ago 
to comment on the fact that some of the Republicans have said that this 
bill is actually something they can take to the Paris conference and 
talk about in a positive way. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  The Paris conference is seeking to address climate change and is 
seeking to move us towards less reliance on greenhouse gases, less 
reliance on fossil fuels, and more on renewables. Nothing in this bill 
accomplishes that goal, and it is hard for me to believe that my 
colleagues on the Republican side could even suggest that, somehow, 
this is something that they would want to bring up or talk about at the 
Paris conference.
  Again, I can't say anything positive about this bill, and it is 
unfortunate that we have gotten to the point now at which there is no 
effort, really, to reach any of the Democrats' concerns.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman emeritus of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Upton for yielding me the 
time.
  I want to commend him for his leadership on this initiative and for 
getting it to the floor. This has been a long process, and the 
gentleman is to be commended for going through the regular order of the 
subcommittee, of the full committee, and now to floor consideration.
  I support H.R. 8, as reported out of committee and as amended in the 
manager's amendment that the gentleman presented to the Rules 
Committee.
  I have requested--and I think it will be made in order--an amendment 
to that bill to include a provision that we passed as a stand-alone 
bill several months ago, H.R. 702, which would repeal the current ban 
on crude oil exports.
  My amendment, if made in order by the Rules Committee--and I hope 
that it will be--takes what the floor passed with amendments--and we 
had a number of Republican and Democrat amendments that were added 
dealing with terrorism, national security, and things of this sort. I 
am asking that the Rules Committee make in order H.R. 702, as amended, 
and put it on the floor tomorrow as an amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, in the United States, we currently produce a little 
over 9 million barrels of oil per day. That makes us number 3 in the 
world in terms of daily crude oil production, but we are not allowed to 
export any of that crude oil. We can export refined products and we do 
export up to 3 or 4 million barrels per day of refined products, but we 
cannot export crude oil.
  If my amendment is accepted by the Rules Committee, made in order, 
voted on in a positive way by the House, sent to the Senate, and the 
Senate passes H.R. 8, and it is signed by the President, we could then 
begin to export our crude oil.
  We have the capability to easily produce 15 million barrels a day, 
and some experts say we could go up to 20. That would be a strategic 
asset vis-a-vis OPEC, vis-a-vis ISIS, vis-a-vis the Russians, in that 
we could use our oil in the international oil markets.
  It would help our economy, would literally create hundreds of 
thousands of jobs, and would, surprisingly, minimize or lower gasoline 
prices here in the United States because more U.S. oil in the world 
market would lower the world price, which would lower gasoline prices 
at the pump.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your support. I ask that the Rules 
Committee make my bipartisan amendment in order, which is cosponsored 
by Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Flores, and Mr. McCaul, and that we 
add it to your excellent bill on the floor tomorrow.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Tonko).
  Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, there is strong--certainly bipartisan--consensus that 
we need to update and modernize our energy infrastructure. 
Unfortunately, this bill fails to make meaningful advances in this 
arena.
  It does not advance clean energy. The ``energy efficiency'' title 
would actually be a setback in reducing consumption and carbon 
emissions, and climate change is not addressed at all. Whenever 
possible, this legislation favors suppliers over consumers, consumption 
over efficiency, and the fossil fuels over renewable energy.
  Most disappointingly, this bill could have been bipartisan. The 
Senate's energy bill, while far from perfect, at least acknowledges 
that we need to invest real dollars into upgrading our Nation's energy 
systems.
  This bill has no shortage of flaws. I have offered two amendments to 
address some of these shortcomings. The first would reauthorize the 
Weatherization Assistance Program and the State Energy Program. These 
are two existing programs that have operated successfully for years.
  The Weatherization Assistance Program supports State-based programs 
to improve the energy efficiency of the homes of low-income families. 
The Department of Energy provides grants to the States to deliver these 
services through local weatherization agencies.
  The Weatherization Assistance Program helps those in our communities 
who do not have the financial resources to make energy efficiency 
investments on their own: the elderly, the disabled, and other low-
income families amongst them who are struggling to make ends meet.
  The second amendment would strike section 1101, an unnecessary change 
to FERC's natural gas pipeline approval process. Nothing has been done 
to cast FERC's role as the lead agency for siting gas pipelines in 
doubt, but the majority has used this pretense to make it easier for 
pipeline companies to have projects approved without extensive public 
consultation, requiring FERC to make a decision within 90 days 
regardless of the complexity of the application.
  It would also allow for remote surveying instead of on-site 
inspections. This would allow companies to circumvent property owners' 
rights when surveying land. My amendment would strike this section to 
ensure Federal and State regulators have the time necessary to review 
any and all applications, but these issues are far from my only 
concerns with this bill.
  Energy efficiency has a long history of bipartisanship, but, sadly, 
this has not continued in this bill.
  According to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, 
this bill would actually net cost consumers and cause additional 
emissions.
  Furthermore, the DOE is prevented from providing assistance if it 
finds that a proposed code does not meet a payback period of 10 years 
or less. That is a return on investment that does not jibe with reality 
where 30-year mortgages are often the norm.
  The bill repeals a section of the Energy Independence and Security 
Act which has been used to improve the efficiency of new Federal 
buildings.
  There was an extensive hydropower section included during the full 
committee markup that was not subject to a hearing despite 
significantly changing the FERC licensing process.
  It does nothing to address the public health and safety hazards 
created by old, leaky natural gas pipelines.
  It does nothing to assist States' efforts to upgrade and modernize 
their electric grids.
  It is silent on the infrastructure maintenance issues associated with 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that the administration identified in 
the Quadrennial Energy Review.
  It has totally failed to recognize the growth in distributed 
renewable energy, such as wind and solar, and it

[[Page 19161]]

should come as no surprise that this bill ignores the impact of climate 
change, which remains a major threat to our energy security, our 
economy, and human health.
  These are just a handful of the serious issues with this bill.
  I believe all of us started with the intention of continuing the 
Energy and Commerce Committee's long tradition of working on 
comprehensive energy legislation in a bipartisan fashion, but this bill 
is a far cry from the discussion drafts we actually held hearings on 
earlier this year. I understand we may not agree on everything, but 
this legislation fails to capitalize on those areas of agreement in any 
meaningful way.
  This bill's focus is on the past, not on the future. It fails to make 
the necessary investments in our energy infrastructure to improve 
safety, public health, and reliability.
  It rolls back efforts to improve energy efficiency, does nothing to 
encourage the expansion of renewable energy, and ignores climate 
change, as I indicated, altogether. It promotes a future that is 
economically and environmentally unsustainable.
  I then urge my colleagues to reject this bill. We need to go back to 
the drawing board and craft a bill that actually makes investments and 
looks forward to America's energy future.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Bishop), the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, the United States has become a leader in the area of 
energy production. But if we are going to maintain that leadership and 
be a true support for our allies, it requires certain actions that 
Chairman Upton and his committee have recognized and have presented to 
us in this North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act.
  This bill actually contains two provisions that were bipartisan 
provisions that passed in my Natural Resources Committee, both of which 
will ensure that the flow of energy to our Nation will be facilitated 
and will continue on in the future.
  One, by Mr. MacArthur of New Jersey, illustrates the archaic 
provisions that will never be used to prohibit and use Federal land as 
a hindrance to pipeline production even if those pipelines are 
underground and if they are already in established corridors for energy 
production, especially those going into the northeast of this country. 
It is an extremely important position and point of view.
  Mr. Zinke of Montana and Mr. Schrader of Oregon also have a 
bipartisan bill that deals with the Electricity Reliability and Forest 
Protection Act, which would minimize the potential of wildfire risk in 
the over 100,000 miles of power lines we have going through national 
forest and Bureau of Land Management properties.
  The provisions would require the agencies to actually work to come up 
with constructive policies and to make timely decisions so that the 
utilities have the ability to take out hazardous elements, like trees, 
and so that ratepayers are not going to be on the hook for the 
liability of a freak forest fire that would come because of Federal 
inaction.
  American energy production has literally changed in less than a 
decade. There is no reason Federal lands should blockade any kind of 
pragmatic approach from having these resources moved from the places 
they are developed to where people can actually benefit from them.
  This bill helps people, and it will move our country forward. I 
appreciate Chairman Upton's and his committee's leadership. This is an 
essential one if we are actually going to forge a better future for the 
United States. I am proud to be down here to support it, and I 
appreciate adding these two important, bipartisan provisions as part of 
the overall package.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McNerney).
  Mr. McNERNEY. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, it is well past time that Congress update our national 
energy policy with a framework that includes clean energy technologies, 
reduces fossil fuel consumption, boosts energy efficiency in 
residential, commercial, and Federal buildings, and provides the 
funding necessary to advance our workforce and technological 
innovation, but, unfortunately, H.R. 8 does not meet these goals.
  I do want to thank Chairman Upton for working with me on several 
provisions that are intended to improve responses to physical and 
cyberattacks on the grid, that encourage the development and use of 
water and energy-efficient technology, that streamline hydropower 
permitting, and that generally improve the modernization of our 
electric grid.
  Unfortunately, the funding was removed for the electric grid grant 
program and for carbon capture sequestration, a provision promoting the 
next generation energy workforce is gone, and language that weakens 
energy efficiency in buildings has not been fixed.
  This is a big disappointment, Mr. Chairman, because throughout most 
of the process there was real bipartisan cooperation, but in the final 
stages, the majority fell into partisanship and changed the bill to 
something most Democrats can't support.
  So it is with great disappointment that I oppose H.R. 8, and I urge 
my colleagues to do the same.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Carter).
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 8, 
a bill that will help our Nation rise to meet growing energy demands 
and challenges.
  Our energy policy is incompatible with the current state of domestic 
energy supply and production. The United States is now the world's 
largest energy producer, but our energy infrastructure is woefully 
inadequate. We have the innovation and technology to safely expand the 
electric grid and pipeline systems, but administrative red tape has 
severely hindered these projects.
  As long as natural gas, hydroelectric, and nuclear energy projects 
continue to languish for years in drawn-out Federal permitting 
processes, nobody can benefit from the cleaner and more affordable 
energy these sources can provide.
  Not only do we desperately need to expand our energy infrastructure 
to ensure reliable and affordable energy, but our national security 
depends on secured energy sources and updated infrastructure to protect 
against real threats.
  Cyber attacks on electric utility systems and electromagnetic pulses 
are no longer things you only see in movies. These threats are very 
real and possible, and we need to be prepared. We need to improve 
energy infrastructure security now, not later.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill so Americans can continue 
to have access to an affordable, reliable, and secure energy supply.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman).
  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in adamant opposition 
to H.R. 8.
  I don't have much time, so I can't go into all the terrible 
provisions included in this legislation. To be clear, there are many.
  I do want to address language that would give the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, or FERC, what amounts to fast-tracking power for 
pipeline approvals.
  Setting arbitrary deadlines for the studies, research, and public 
comment periods for dangerous and volatile pipeline projects, 
regardless of how complicated the proposal or how sensitive the land 
these projects cuts through, doesn't give us what my colleagues across 
the aisle call energy security.
  What it will do is put private, public, and protected land, clean 
water, and our environment at risk.
  In my district, where we are already fighting just such a project, my 
constituents will be the first to tell you just how preposterous a 
provision of this nature is.

[[Page 19162]]

  This bill deserves a resounding and unilateral ``no,'' and I hope my 
colleagues will join me in defeating it.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining on 
both sides?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan has 18\1/2\ minutes remaining, 
and the gentleman from New Jersey has 19 minutes remaining.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise today to speak about the North American 
Energy Security and Infrastructure Act.
  With new technology and innovations, the energy industry is growing 
rapidly, and this important legislation works to maximize America's 
energy potential.
  The United States leads the world in energy production, but, sadly, 
due to Washington's bureaucratic red tape, projects like updating our 
pipelines and electric grid have fallen way behind.
  This legislation will modernize our energy infrastructure, protect 
our electricity system, strengthen energy security and diplomacy, and 
improve energy efficiency.
  Bolstering our energy security and making our infrastructure more 
resilient will, in turn, strengthen our national security and our 
economy. I support this important legislation because it is the next 
step in becoming energy-independent. Now is the time to dramatically 
increase our investment in homegrown American energy.
  When I came to Congress, my top priority was growing the economy and 
creating jobs. Mr. Chairman, this bill will do exactly that. It makes 
no sense to place restrictions on the abundance of energy potential in 
America. The United States is an energy superpower, and it is time to 
step up and lead.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this 
legislation and, in particular, a section of the bill that would create 
an opening to cause irreparable damage to our national parks.
  H.R. 8 would establish national energy security corridors to short 
circuit the approval process for natural gas pipelines that cross our 
Nation's public lands. In doing so, it eliminates longstanding 
protections afforded to our national parks and other historically 
significant areas that were set aside for the very distinct purpose of 
preserving our Nation's cultural and natural heritage.
  This legislation also blocks the public from providing any input on 
where these natural gas pipeline corridors should be located.
  My home State of Massachusetts, like many areas around the country, 
faces real energy challenges. In my district, a company is proposing to 
build a new 250-mile natural gas pipeline that crosses three States. I 
have heard from hundreds of my constituents expressing their concerns 
with the project, particularly with regard to its route.
  Thanks to extensive public review and input, the pipeline route has 
already been adjusted to minimize some of the environmental impacts, 
but there are still many outstanding concerns that deserve careful 
scrutiny to be sure that the route does not adversely impact local 
farmland, State forests, parks, wildlife management areas, and 
wetlands.
  The significant amount of interest in this proposed pipeline reflects 
the Commonwealth's longstanding history of preserving natural habitats 
and protecting open spaces for the public benefit, and we have invested 
enormous public resources toward these goals. This is also true of the 
investments that American taxpayers have made in our national parks.
  By expediting approval of natural gas pipelines, H.R. 8 would 
directly erode the National Park Service's ability to meet its core 
mission of preserving and protecting our Nation's natural, cultural, 
and historic resources, unimpaired for the use and enjoyment of future 
generations.
  I offered an amendment with my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Beyer) to 
remove this section from the bill. However, the majority blocked this 
simple amendment from coming to the floor and receiving an up-or-down 
vote.
  Our national parks belong to all Americans and have been famously 
called ``America's best idea.'' National parks protect, celebrate, and 
give access to the many places that have shaped and defined who we are 
as a people and a country.
  Members should have been given the opportunity to vote on whether or 
not we should protect our national parks from natural gas pipelines.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. MacArthur).
  Mr. MacARTHUR. Mr. Chair, the North American Energy Security and 
Infrastructure Act does some important things to move us into the 21st 
century with our energy policy. It advances modernization, reliability, 
security, and efficiency in our energy infrastructure.
  I want to focus on one section of that bill, title 5, that ``national 
energy security corridors'' portion. I originally proposed this as a 
separate bill, and I am pleased to see it as part of this energy act. 
Simply put, it allows us to move natural gas from the western to the 
eastern United States.
  Let me give you an example of why this matters. A couple of weeks 
ago, I visited Winteringham Village in Toms River in my district. It is 
a village comprised almost entirely of seniors, and their average 
income is slightly over $12,000 a year.
  These people are not getting a cost-of-living increase under Social 
Security, but they most certainly are facing higher energy costs. The 
reason is simple. While other States, western States, enjoy lower 
energy costs, States like mine are facing higher energy costs, and the 
reason is simple. We don't have the energy infrastructure to move gas 
from the West to the East.
  Last winter, on one particular day, the cost of natural gas in New 
Jersey was $22.35 for a million BTUs. It was $1.50 at the same time in 
Pennsylvania, one State away from me.
  The solution is this ``energy security corridors'' portion of the 
bill. It requires and empowers the Secretary of the Interior to 
designate 10 natural gas corridors across Federal lands.
  Now, I just heard that it is across national parks. Nothing could be 
further from the truth. The Federal Government owns much land that is 
not park land, and this would allow the Secretary of the Interior to 
designate corridors so we can properly plan our energy needs.
  It does a few things for us. It lowers energy costs. It protects the 
most vulnerable of our citizens. It would require thoughtful planning 
of where to put pipelines. It would be subject to a full environmental 
review under NEPA.
  It would create jobs. The President of the North American Building 
Trades Union testified at our hearing that it would not only create 
jobs in building these corridors, but it would create jobs because of 
lower energy costs. Lastly, it would increase our security because 
energy security and national security are inextricably linked.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud to have this portion of the bill included, 
the ``national energy security corridors'' portion. I urge my 
colleagues to support this entire bill and move our energy policy into 
the 21st century.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I was disappointed to see the Rules 
Committee decided to add H.R. 2295, the National Energy Security 
Corridors Act, to H.R. 8.
  There is no doubt that getting natural gas to where it is needed and 
to lowering electric and heating bills are worthy accomplishments, but 
we shouldn't accomplish these by steamrolling the concerns of residents 
who would see new pipelines built in their backyards.
  Right now, there are multiple proposals to run natural gas pipelines 
from West Virginia through the Commonwealth of Virginia to the eastern

[[Page 19163]]

seaboard. There is the Atlantic coast pipeline, the Mountain Valley 
pipeline, and more being considered.
  Understandably, people who live along the proposed route of these 
pipelines are concerned. Once a pipeline route is approved by FERC, 
land can be taken by eminent domain. The companies involved, of course, 
want to draw the straightest, cheapest route they can. The communities 
in the way of these routes face huge impacts, environmentally and 
financially. They deserve a say.
  Unfortunately, the legislation provides absolutely no method for the 
public to have their voice heard when it comes to the location of these 
corridors. It completely waives the Natural Environmental Policy Act 
for the corridor designation, shutting out the community's opportunity 
for public input.
  Local governments are only allowed to speak to the extent that they 
can help identify the most commercially viable, cost-effective acreage. 
Individual resident concerns or environmental factors don't even come 
into play.
  This is not a productive way forward. This doesn't simplify getting 
natural gas to the people who need it. This is a way that will lead to 
more opposition, more lawsuits, and an atmosphere of distrust and 
resentment
  I have another concern. H.R. 8 now contains a provision which will 
allow pipelines to be permitted across national parks without 
congressional approval. This is contrary to longstanding U.S. law. 
Every time we put a pipeline across a park, Congress has been involved.
  My many friends in the Appalachian Trail community and the national 
parks conservation community are deeply worried about Congress 
abrogating its responsibility to approve such pipeline crossings.
  We can't ignore the people and the parks that will be impacted by 
this bill. I encourage my colleagues to oppose H.R. 8.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This energy bill does nothing for solar, wind, or any other clean 
energy technology. It does nothing for energy infrastructure either 
since all funding in the bill was stripped by the GOP.
  The bill contains an energy efficiency title that actually results in 
more energy consumption.
  The bill contains provisions that will drive up electricity prices in 
the Northeast and mid-Atlantic by rigging the markets to prop up old 
and uneconomical coal and nuclear plants that are losing out in the 
market to cost-effective natural gas and renewables.

                              {time}  1830

  It also has provisions to help gas pipeline companies and 
hydroelectric licenses that will roll over environmental laws--like the 
Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the NEPA--and undermine 
the rights of consumers, tribes, and States.
  Of course, the version that will be on the floor will have a couple 
of bad additions from the Committee on Natural Resources, including the 
MacArthur ``pipeline through parks'' legislation that would make it 
easy to run pipelines through Yellowstone, Yosemite, and every other 
national park.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a terrible bill that demonstrates that the 
Republican Party is solely focused on the energy policies of the past 
and is committed to throwing up barriers to the development of a clean 
and sustainable energy future.
  Every Democrat should join us and the Obama administration in 
opposing the bill's passage.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  My Committee on Energy and Commerce colleagues and I worked to create 
this broad energy bill and modernize our policies.
  A generation ago, policymakers were concerned with managing a 
scarcity of energy resources, but times have changed. We are in the 
middle of a resurgence of American energy manufacturing. We should 
manage our surplus of energy resources with clear, straightforward 
policies that maximize our energy potential.
  This bill is a necessary legislative step to ensure our energy 
infrastructure is robust and continues to create jobs in the years to 
come. Modern energy challenges demand modern energy policies. We must 
cut outdated red tape and ensure the energy markets remain nimble and 
secure.
  With H.R. 8, America can continue to take advantage of recent 
technology advancements and encourage a growing market that yields jobs 
at home and more influence abroad. The world doesn't want to deal with 
unstable exporters, such as Russia or Iran, if they don't have to. We 
should be the secure and reliable trading partner that they can trust 
and they do trust.
  H.R. 8 strengthens international partnerships and reforms processes 
for energy exports that will pay important dividends for generations to 
come.
  I would like to thank my colleagues on the committee, especially 
Chairman Upton, for their work on this very important bill.
  This bill will keep energy affordable and ensure reliable electricity 
for consumers and families across the nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying I'm pleased that this 
bill includes several measures I have championed, including bills I've 
offered relating to energy efficiency and electric vehicles. However, I 
have to oppose this legislation because H.R. 8 fails to address climate 
change. In fact, the bill includes several controversial provisions 
that shift our nation's energy policy into reverse.
  I'm very grateful to Chairman Upton and Subcommittee Chairman 
Whitfield for including my legislation, the Energy Efficient Government 
Technology Act, in the base text of H.R. 8. This bipartisan, 
noncontroversial bill which I introduced with Rep. Kinzinger, received 
375 votes on the House floor last year. This measure would save 
taxpayers millions of dollars and would make the federal government a 
leader in reducing energy use at data centers which can be highly 
inefficient.
  I also appreciate that two amendments I offered at the Energy and 
Commerce Committee markup of this bill were agreed to by voice vote and 
are included in the Manager's Amendment. The first would allow federal 
agencies to offer electric vehicle charging stations to guests and 
employees, a practice that is not currently allowed. The second would 
add transparency requirements to ensure that only critical 
infrastructure information is protected from FOIA requests, and that 
this designation is periodically reviewed to ensure this authority is 
not abused. These provisions are incremental but important steps toward 
promoting innovation and deployment of clean and energy-saving 
technologies.
  Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about the rest of H.R. 8. With 
historic international climate negotiations currently underway in 
Paris, this so-called ``comprehensive'' energy bill does not include a 
single reference to climate change or promotion of renewable resources. 
This represents the squandering of an opportunity to put in place a 
21st century energy policy for our country that promotes clean energy 
and reduces our dependence on the fossil fuel resources that cause 
climate change.
  H.R. 8 includes several controversial provisions that my colleagues 
and I opposed at Committee and that are also opposed by the 
Administration. For example, the bill contains unnecessary provisions 
to short-circuit the review process for exports of liquefied natural 
gas (LNG). The current process, which requires the Department of Energy 
to ensure that all exports are in the public interest of the United 
States, is working and already has us on track to be the largest LNG 
exporter in the world within a decade. H.R. 8 also includes provisions 
that would require a short-sighted view of energy efficiency 
investments in building codes, and it would repeal the requirement that 
all new and remodeled federal buildings phase out fossil fuel use by 
2030. Lastly, the Manager's Amendment includes a highly controversial 
bill from the Natural Resources Committee that would limit public 
review and direct more natural gas pipelines to be built on public 
lands, including National Parks.
  Again, I appreciate the Chairman's willingness to accept my 
bipartisan additions to this bill, but I cannot support this 
legislation and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  The CHAIR. All time for debate has expired.
  Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
MacArthur) having assumed the chair, Mr.

[[Page 19164]]

Jenkins of West Virginia, Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on 
the state of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under 
consideration the bill (H.R. 8) to modernize energy infrastructure, 
build a 21st century energy and manufacturing workforce, bolster 
America's energy security and diplomacy, and promote energy efficiency 
and government accountability, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________