Frank Pallone: “I want to thank Mr. Rush for managing the opposition to the bill so successfully. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering…”

“I want to thank Mr. Rush for managing the opposition to the bill so successfully. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering the House amendment to S. 2012, the mistitled North American Energy Security Act of 2016. This legislation once again shows us the vastly different paths taken by the two Chambers of Congress. On the one hand is the Senate energy bill that the House intends to go to conference on. It passed by a vote of 85-15 because it is balanced and because it contains a number of nonenergy provisions that the public supports overwhelmingly, such as permanent funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. On the other hand, the House energy bill was the result of a highly partisan process that the President threatened to veto. As we prepare to head to conference, we have a second chance to do things right and to produce a new, bipartisan energy bill. Unfortunately, that is not what we are doing today. The Republican majority has decided to replace the consensus Senate bill with a new pro-polluter package that dwarfs the original H.R. 8. When crafting the House amendment before us today, the Republican caucus decided to tack on over 30 extraneous bills to an already bad piece of energy legislation that the President promised to veto. While a number of these new additions are noncontroversial bills, many of these provisions are divisive, dangerous, and have drawn veto threats of their own. The House amendment to S.…”