Date: 2013-11-21
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to H.R. 1900. the "Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Act." Mr. Chairman. as I have stated this week as this House has debated the other energy bills. I am not antienergy exploration. I am not proor antifracking. I am. however. strongly "projobs." "proeconomic growth." and "prosustainable environment." As a Member of Congress from Houston I have always been mindful of the importance of. and have strongly advocated for. national energy policies that will make our nation energy independent. preserve and create jobs. and keep our nations economy strong. That is why I carefully consider each energy legislative proposal brought to the floor on its individual merits and support them when they are sound. balanced. fair. and promote the national interest. Where they fall short. I believe in working across the aisle to improve them if possible by offering constructive amendments. Although I believe the nation would benefit by increased pipeline capacity to transport our abundant supplies of natural gas. the legislation before contains several provisions that are of great concern to me. Pursuant to Section 2. paragraph (4) of the bill. a permit or license for a natural gas pipeline project is "deemed" approved if the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission (FERC) or other federal agencies do not issue the permit or license within 90120 days. I have three concerns with this regulatory scheme. First. as a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary. I have a problem with "deeming" something done that has not been done in fact. Thus. the provision is unwise. Second. the provision is unnecessary because FERC has. since fiscal year 2009. completed action on 92 percent (504 out of 548) of all pipeline applications that it has received within one year of receipt. And the remaining 8% of decisions that have taken longer than one year involve complex proposals that merit additional review and consideration. Mr. Chairman. the process may not be perfect or as quick as we would like but it is working well and administered by hardworking individuals who carefully and meticulously consider permits and license applications for natural gas pipelines on a casebycase basisas they should. The approval process for a pipeline is not like deciding to grow a garden in the backyard of your homegiven the inherently dangerous nature of the activity. the review and approval process takes time and requires careful attentionas it should be. In short. the bill before us is a remedy in search of a problem. There is no lengthy or intolerable backlog of neglected natural gas pipeline projects awaiting action by FERC. Third. the provision is irresponsible because it would require FERC and other agencies to make decisions based on incomplete information or information that may not be available within the stringent deadlines. and to deny applications that otherwise would have been approved. but for lack of sufficient review time. Compounding the problem is that the fact that FERC. like virtually every federal agency. is operating under the onerous and draconian provisions of the disastrous sequestration which has caused so much misery and disruption across the nation and to our economy. FERC. for example. with a budget of $306 million faces a $15 million reduction in spending authority this fiscal year. according to OMB. That sum amounts to 5% of FERCs budget. So the likely impact of this bill if passed is to put FERC in the position of having to work faster to issue decisions with fewer experienced employees and a reduction in resources. Thus. because of sequestration the legislation would achieve the opposite effect intended by proponents. In other words. fewer projects would be approved. not more. Mr. Chairman. given the inherent dangers involved in the construction and operation of a natural gas pipeline. does anyone doubt that were this bill to become law FERC will be more likely to err on the side of caution and deny applications that may otherwise have been approved if it had more time and more resources to carry out its responsibilities? Mr. Chairman. we should not take that chance. An amendment I offered. and which was made in order by the Rules Committee. avoids this outcome by conditioning the effective date of this bill upon the termination of sequestration. Mr. Chairman. I am not alone in recognizing how detrimental sequestration has been to our fiscal policy and to the economy. Earlier this week. the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee. joined by the 12 Subcommittee chairs. wrote a letter to the Budget Conferees in which they call upon the Budget conference to reach an agreement as soon as possible because among other things: "the current sequester and the upcoming Second Sequester in January would result in more indiscriminate across the board reductions that could have negative consequences on critically important federal programs". The Appropriators go on to state that: "The American people deserve a detailed budget blueprint that makes rational and intelligent choices on funding by their elected representatives. not by a meat ax." Mr. Chairman. I could not agree more with Chairman ROGERS and the Subcommittee chairs. Sequestration is bad fiscal policy. It results in unwanted and unintended legislative consequences. It is bad for the economy. It is unfair to the American people and they know it. According to an analysis conducted by Regional Economic Models. Inc. and Third Way. the damage to the economy caused by sequestration is substantial. Sequestration has cost the United States $179.4 billion in lost economic activity and more than 1.88 million jobs. which means the economy grew by -1.04% less than it would have otherwise. The corresponding figures for my home state of Texas are $15.2 billion in lost economic activity and 153.541 jobs. The human toll of the sequestration is even greater. Texas. for example. will lose approximately $67.8 million for primary and secondary education. putting around 930 teacher and aide jobs at risk. In addition about 172.000 fewer students would be served and approximately 280 fewer schools would receive funding. Texas will lose approximately $51 million for about 620 teachers. aides. and staff who help children with disabilities. Head Start and Early Head Start services would be eliminated for approximately 4.800 children in Texas. reducing access to critical early education. Approximately 52.000 civilian Department of Defense employees in Texas may be furloughed. reducing gross pay by around $274.8 million in total. Texas will lose about $1.103.000 in Justice Assistance Grants that support law enforcement. prosecution and courts. crime prevention and education. corrections and community corrections. drug treatment and enforcement. and crime victim and witness initiatives. More than 83.000 fewer Texans will get the help and skills they need to find employment because Texas will lose about $2.263.000 for job search assistance. referral. and placement. meaning. Up to 2300 disadvantaged and vulnerable children could lose access to child care. which is also essential for working parents to hold down a job. Because of sequestration. 9.730 fewer children in Texas will receive vaccines for diseases such as measles. mumps. rubella. tetanus. whooping cough. influenza. and Hepatitis B due to reduced funding for vaccinations. Texas could lose up to $543.000 to provide services to victims of domestic violence. resulting in up to 2.100 fewer victims being served. Texas will lose approximately $2.402.000 to help upgrade its ability to respond to public health threats including infectious diseases. natural disasters. and biological. chemical. nuclear. and radiological events. In addition. Texas will lose about $6.750.000 in grants to help prevent and treat substance abuse. resulting in around 2.800 fewer admissions to substance abuse programs. And the Texas State Department of Public Health will lose about $1.146.000 resulting in around 28.600 fewer HIV tests. Mr. Chairman. I join with Chairman ROGERS and the Subcommittee chairs in calling upon the Budget conference "to reach an agreement on the FY 2014 and 2015 spending caps as soon as possible to allow the appropriations process to move forward to completion by the January 15 expiration of the current shortterm Continuing Resolution." I agree with them that if an agreement is not reached and sequestration remains in place. "the likely alternatives could have extremely damaging repercussions." Mr. Chairman. the bill before us compounds the damage already being done by sequestration. It is for this reason that I urge all Members to join me in voting against H.R. 1900 as an unwise. unnecessary. and irresponsible measure.