Congressional Record, Volume 159 Issue 167 (Thursday, November 21, 2013)

[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 167 (Thursday, November 21, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H7315-H7333]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

NATURAL GAS PIPELINE PERMITTING REFORM ACT

General Leave

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to
include extraneous material on H.R. 1900, the Natural Gas Pipeline
Permitting Reform Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bishop of Utah). Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 420 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. 1900.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) to preside over
the Committee of the Whole.

{time} 0918

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. 1900) to provide for the timely consideration of all licenses,
permits, and approvals required under Federal law with respect to the
siting, construction, expansion, or operation of any natural gas
pipeline projects, with Mr. Poe of Texas in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered
read the first time.
The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
As chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, we have had a
number of hearings over the last year, and we are all quite excited
about the additional production of natural gas and oil in America. As
many people know, we now are the number one producer of natural gas in
the world and the number one producer of oil in the world. This has
come about because of the entrepreneurial spirit of the private sector
and development of these properties on private lands, primarily in
Pennsylvania, North Dakota, and Texas.
So we are all excited about the opportunity for energy independence
in America and certainly hopeful to reach a point where we are less
dependent on oil and other products coming from the Middle East.
I want to thank Mike Pompeo, a member from Kansas, for authoring this
important legislation. Although we have become the number one producer
and we have an abundance of natural gas today, we still have one key
problem. To put it simply, we don't have the necessary pipeline
infrastructure to move natural gas from where it is produced to where
it is needed most.
I would like to just illustrate how some States are being harmed.
According to the Energy Information Administration, in January this
year we saw several States with residential natural gas prices way
above the national average. For example, New Hampshire was 30 percent
above the national average; Massachusetts was 43 percent; Maine, 67
percent; and Florida, 68 percent. Unfortunately, those living in these
and many other States can expect to see higher prices once again this
winter, and this is precisely why we are bringing to the floor H.R.
1900.
H.R. 1900 simply would bring certainty in agency accountability to
the natural gas pipeline permitting process. It would allow natural gas
pipelines to be built in a safe, responsible, and timely manner. It
would also make existing natural gas pipelines safer.
During the legislative hearing on H.R. 1900, we heard testimony from
industry of a corrosive natural gas pipeline that could not be replaced
in a timely manner because an agency missed the deadline to issue a
permit by nearly a year. The American people demand better than this.
So as we hear discussion and consider amendments to H.R. 1900, I want
to thank once again the members of the subcommittee, the staff, and
Representative Pompeo for all the work on this important legislation.
I respectfully reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We are told that the Pompeo bill seeks to speed up the approval of
interstate natural gas pipelines. In fact, it would have the opposite
effect, delaying and disrupting a pipeline approval process that is
working. The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office has concluded
that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission pipeline permitting is
predictable and consistent and gets pipelines built. The pipeline
companies testified that the process is ``generally very good'' and
that the ``sector enjoys a favorable legal and regulatory framework for
the approval of new infrastructure.'' In short, this is a government
program that works well.
H.R. 1900 would disrupt this functioning permitting process by
arbitrarily limiting the time that FERC and other agencies have to
review pipeline applications. When faced with these time limits, one of
two things

[[Page H7316]]

will happen. Agencies can conduct inadequate environmental reviews and
rush to approve permits that do not comply with our Nation's health,
safety, and environmental laws. This would be a terrible outcome
because the public won't be protected and pipeline permits will be
legally vulnerable. Alternatively, the agencies can deny the permits
when the time limits prevent them from completing legally mandated
pipeline reviews, and this would be a bad result as well because needed
pipeline capacity would not get constructed.
The career director at the Office of Energy Projects at FERC
testified that he didn't believe that this bill would result in faster
permitting. He explained that the bill would actually result in slower
permitting if agencies had no choice but to deny applications because
of the arbitrary deadlines established by this bill.
With this bill, we will get rushed decisions and more project
denials. No one benefits from that, not even, or especially not, the
pipeline companies.

But the problem with this bill doesn't end there. The Pompeo bill
automatically grants environmental permits for a pipeline project if an
agency does not make a decision on a permit within 90 days of the
issuance of FERC's environmental analysis. This provision would
sacrifice public health and environmental protections in favor of an
arbitrary deadline. And no one can explain how this provision can
actually be implemented.
These permits are detailed documents that include emission limits,
technology or operating requirements, and conditions to ensure the
environment is protected. Agencies need to figure out all of these
details and then actually draft the permits. Complex permits might not
even be written, but somehow they would be required to magically take
effect.
In an effort to cobble together a solution to the mystery of how
incomplete permits could be automatically issued, the bill transforms
FERC into a ``superpermitting'' agency. If an agency misses the 90-day
deadline, the bill apparently requires FERC to write and issue the
permit itself.
Under this approach, FERC will be issuing BLM rights-of-way through
Federal lands. FERC will be figuring out water discharge limits. FERC
will be determining which technologies should be employed to reduce air
pollution emissions. FERC will be issuing permits to protect wetlands
and even bald eagles. These are jobs that FERC doesn't have the
expertise or resources to carry out. They are ordinarily conducted by
other agencies. But in this bill, because of the deadline, FERC will be
required to take on those responsibilities.
There are going to be real environmental and safety impacts if
permits automatically go into effect without the responsible agencies
completing the necessary analysis. The Army Corps of Engineers and EPA
raised concerns that automatic permitting could lead to permits that
are inconsistent with the requirements of the Clean Water Act and Clean
Air Act, and this could result in harmful water or air pollution.
This unworkable bill won't speed up pipeline permitting, but it will
have adverse health, safety, and environmental impacts, and it will
undermine the public's acceptance of interstate natural gas pipelines
going through their communities. That is why it is opposed by the
Pipeline Safety Trust and the public interest environmental groups, and
that is why the administration has announced that it would veto this
bill if it ever made it to the President's desk.
This is a bad bill. The consequences have not been thought through,
and I urge all Members to oppose the bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo), the author of this bill.
Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Whitfield and Chairman
Upton for helping me work this bill through our committee. It is great
to have it on the floor today. We now have a bipartisan piece of
legislation aimed at making simple, commonsense reforms to the natural
gas pipeline permitting process.
Rather than eliminating environmental regulations and permits, H.R.
1900 takes a very reasonable approach by requiring agencies involved in
the permitting of natural gas pipelines, simply requesting that they
finish their work in a timely manner.

{time} 0930

The legislation builds off reforms made in the Energy Policy Act of
2005, which placed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as the lead
agency for interstate natural gas pipelines.
As we have heard this morning, natural gas is becoming a dominant
force in the electricity generation and manufacturing sectors. It is
critical that pipeline construction can take place through a modernized
permitting process, and that is what this bill aims to do.
The current interstate natural gas pipeline permitting process,
established in 2005, is already in need of updating because of the
enormous shale gas boom. H.R. 1900 makes changes to the interstate
natural gas pipeline permitting process by simply putting in place
statutory deadlines for each of the permitting agencies to complete
their work. This is pretty reasonable. We are simply asking agencies to
do what the law requires them to do. They can say ``yes'' to a permit,
they can deny the permit, but they can't sit on it. They have to do
their homework. They have to get the job done.
FERC is already the lead agency for coordinating environmental review
of interstate natural gas pipelines, and as FERC testified in front of
the Energy and Commerce Committee earlier this year, the deadlines
imposed by H.R. 1900 are reasonable. In fact, FERC asked for a couple
of changes in the legislation, and in each case we made those changes
at their request.
If, after H.R. 1900 were to become law, an agency doesn't complete
its work, the permit would automatically be approved by statute. I have
heard others say this is unprecedented, but that is simply not the
case. There are numbers of examples all throughout the Federal code
where statutory approvals of environmental permits are deemed approved
in the absence of the agency saying to the contrary.
I can't imagine anyone saying that this legislation is radical or
unprecedented. More importantly, I can't see that they could claim that
it is unnecessary. To my left you can see the impact of the absence of
natural gas infrastructure all across the country. Frankly, in Kansas,
we are in pretty good shape, but on the east coast, here in the
Northeast where I am standing today, and on the west coast, you see
enormously high natural gas costs: 24 percent above the national
average in New York; 20 percent above the national average in Arizona;
67 percent above the national average in Maine; and 68 percent above
the national average for the cost of natural gas in the State of
Florida. We are seeing these prices rise because we don't have
infrastructure development adequate to meet the needs of manufacturers
and consumers in these places.
The New York Times, that bastion of conservatism, wrote the
following, saying that FERC was ``concerned about increasing reliance
on natural gas-fuel generators at times when there is an increasingly
tight availability of pipeline capacity to deliver natural gas from the
south and the west to New England.''
The Boston Globe, writing about pipeline projects in New England,
said that the projects come ``as New England struggles to address
growing demand for natural gas and supply constraints created by tight
pipeline capacity. Those constraints have led to shortages and price
spikes during the peak demand periods, such as extended winter cold
snaps, helping to drive the region's already high energy costs even
higher.''
The New York Times and the Boston Globe recognize the need for H.R.
1900.
This is not a manufactured crisis or bill in search of a problem.
This is a real issue with real consequences for jobs in America and for
average working families all across our country. The bill will give
certainty to natural gas pipeline developers that invest in projects
which could transport affordable energy to consumers all across the
Nation.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 1900 and address a very
real issue impacting consumers and manufacturers all across the
country.

[[Page H7317]]

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
I do that in order to respond to the concerns that have been raised
about natural gas prices in the Northeast. This is a real issue. New
England is using more natural gas to generate electricity and more
natural gas for heating homes than in the past. On the coldest winter
days, when natural gas is needed for both heating and electricity,
there is more demand than can be met by the existing pipeline capacity,
and that, of course, can result in price spikes.
This bill does nothing to solve that problem. The problem in New
England isn't caused by pipeline applications taking too long to get
approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The problem is
that the pipeline companies aren't even submitting the applications
because they haven't figured out who will pay for these new pipelines.
The pipeline companies haven't been satisfied that there is a
sufficient year-round demand to justify and finance these pipelines.
That is an issue that FERC is actively looking at and has been
holding stakeholder conferences about. But this has nothing do with Mr.
Pompeo's bill. Cutting corners on the permitting process isn't going to
help get additional pipeline capacity built for the Northeast. I don't
think we ought to be blaming government for every problem. The reality
is that FERC and the government didn't create this problem. It is a
problem of the economics of it all, and the faster we understand that,
the faster we can try to find real solutions.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce
Committee.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1900, a
commonsense, bipartisan bill that is going to help build the
architecture of abundance that we need to fully realize the benefits of
our American energy boom.
Until a few years ago, our Nation was facing a very critical shortage
of natural gas, and I will remind us that policymakers in the
seventies, eighties, and nineties never envisioned shale gas. Today,
technological innovations like horizontal drilling and hydraulic
fracturing have made the U.S. the number one gas-producing nation in
the world.
Our overall energy landscape has changed dramatically in just a short
period of time. It is not only rewriting the economic outlook that we
have as a Nation but also beginning to change the geopolitical nature
of global energy, as we have heard from nations around the world
seeking access to United States supplies to help wean them off of
regions like Russia and the Middle East.
Today, we face a new challenge: how to overcome government-imposed
roadblocks to building the infrastructure and unleashing the innovation
necessary to harness our new energy abundance. As energy production
grows across the U.S., building the infrastructure to move these
supplies to consumers is emerging as the real challenge of this
century. With all of our abundance in natural gas, it is simply
unacceptable that there are still regions in the country where lower
prices are being constrained by a lack of pipelines because of
regulatory delays. America's rich natural gas resources should continue
fueling both job creation and economic growth, but we cannot fulfill
that potential unless we ensure businesses and manufacturers have
access to this affordable and reliable clean energy.

I commend Representative Pompeo for introducing H.R. 1900 as a remedy
for this problem.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. UPTON. Setting enforceable deadlines to improve natural gas
pipeline projects will build upon the bipartisan reforms that we made
with our Energy Policy Act of 2005 while preserving critical
environmental review. If other nations, including Canada, Australia,
and many other EU member nations, can hold their agencies to real,
accountable deadlines, it is not unreasonable to ask ours to do the
same.
Congress should be doing everything possible to reduce red tape and
delays in building safe and efficient natural gas pipelines to bring
our infrastructure up to modern times to reflect that energy abundance.
This bill is a very important step in the right direction, and I urge
my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of
H.R. 1990, the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act, legislation
that will help bring America closer to energy independence and
security.
The United States is blessed with God-given natural gas resources
that many experts believe exceed the reserves in places like Saudi
Arabia.
In eastern and southeastern Ohio, we are blessed with the Marcellus
Shale and Utica Shale deposits that are beginning to produce never
before seen volumes of natural gas and natural gas liquids.
This part of rural Ohio, a region of the country that is often
forgotten by elected officials in the capital cities of Columbus and
Washington, D.C., a region that sorely needs economic growth, is seeing
billions of dollars of private sector investment in domestic energy
production, and even more is in the planning stages.
But we have a major challenge to overcome. You see, we can't always
get the natural gas from the drilling site to the end-users because
there is a lack of pipeline networks. Pipeline companies are working
24/7 to remedy this problem, but they often face procedural roadblocks
from Federal agencies that slow down progress and hamper job creation.
H.R. 1900 would give production companies the confidence and certainty
that if they invest the millions of dollars to drill wells, they will
have a way to get the natural gas to market.
This legislation could decide whether or not my constituents have a
job, but I was disappointed that the administration is opposed to it.
From the President on down, the administration has acknowledged that
hydraulic fracturing is environmentally safe. Just yesterday, Secretary
of State John Kerry mentioned the importance of natural gas to America.
But with their opposition to this legislation, I guess they aren't
really serious about America's energy independence and energy future.
It seems they would rather leave Ohio's natural gas in the ground than
let all hardworking Americans benefit from its production.
I urge my colleagues to support this important job-creating
legislation, and I urge the Senate to take it up immediately.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to myself.
Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I understand that proponents of this
bill want a one-size-fits-all Washington, D.C., solution to the
timeframes required for pipeline reviews. The problem is that there
isn't some magic number of days that works for all pipelines in all
circumstances.
There are 10-mile pipelines far from population centers that cross no
rivers, and there are pipelines hundreds of miles long that cross
multiple rivers and run through backyards. These are very different
projects. It should come as no surprise that they take different
amounts of time to review.
When reviewing a project, FERC doesn't just have to do an
environmental review. It also has to conduct an engineering review.
FERC must evaluate, approve, and in many cases alter a pipeline's route
to address environmental, engineering, and community concerns. FERC
must determine a pipeline's tariffs and rates. These are steps that
take time.
For longer and more complex pipelines, these steps take longer, and
they should. FERC decides 92 percent of all pipeline applications
within 12 months. Let me repeat that: 92 percent of all the
applications are approved within 12 months.
The fact that 8 percent of the projects take longer isn't a problem.
It reflects the reality that a small number of projects are more
complex and impact more people. If you have constituents in the paths
of these proposed pipelines, you should want the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission and other agencies to protect your constituents
by completing the necessary

[[Page H7318]]

reviews. Your constituents don't want a one-size-fits-all Washington
solution for all problems that are not the same.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I applaud my colleague and fellow
subcommittee chairman on Energy and Commerce for helping bringing H.R.
1900 to the floor. This legislation will help ensure that the key
elements of our critical infrastructure will be improved and
constructed on a timely and predictable basis. This is a goal we all
can and should support.
On a closely related subject, I too wanted to associate myself with
Chairman Whitfield's recent statement regarding the growing tendency
among certain States to engage in obstructionist tactics aimed at key
infrastructure projects. In some cases, States have even used federally
delegated authority to block federally approved projects. Let me say
again that States have used federally delegated authority to block
federally approved projects.

{time} 0945

The most prominent example is the use of the Clean Water Act to deny
otherwise routine permits and approvals. As my colleague suggested, we
have legislated on that issue previously, but our clear intent in doing
so was frustrated in the court system. It may well be that we may need
to address this issue further, and I stand ready to work with my
colleague to do so.
In other instances, States have tried to use their authority under
the Coastal Zone Management Act to impose consistency requirements on
federally approved projects, even when those projects have already been
found to be consistent with the States' Coastal Management Plan. This
is clearly taking a second bite at the apple.
The law is abundantly clear that a State has no authority to review
an existing project a second time if it underwent a previous
consistency review. Only in the event that there is an applicable
program change or a significant alteration in the nature of the
facility would a State ever be entitled to render a second consistency
determination.
For this reason, I see no need to legislate on that subject at this
time, but I am well aware that even the clearest of statutory
provisions can sometimes be distorted by determined States, so I will
join with my colleague, Chairman Whitfield, to keep a watchful eye on
this situation.
Mr. Chairman, once again, I support passage of H.R. 1900.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased at this time to yield 4
minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), a very important
member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank Ranking Member Waxman
for yielding the time.
Colleagues, we are dealing with a bill here, H.R. 1900, that relates
to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
FERC is an independent agency that reviews electric transmission
lines that go across States, interstate electric transmission lines.
They also review interstate oil pipelines, and they also review the
interstate natural gas pipelines. This is a very important subject.
Now, this bill relates only to the natural gas pipeline authority of
FERC. The country right now is in a natural gas revolution. It has been
remarkable. The United States is now a net exporter of petroleum. This
has happened very quickly, and FERC has responded very well over time
on the expansion of the natural gas market. That is why it is so
confounding as to why we need this new bill that is going to short-
circuit FERC's review power.
Right now, FERC grants over 90 percent of the interstate natural gas
pipelines across the country. This bill really is an unnecessary piece
of legislation in search of a problem. In committee, the bill was
panned by the FERC professional staff. The administration strongly
opposes it.
Instead of expediting expansion of natural gas pipelines across the
country, it would disrupt FERC's natural gas permitting process which,
right now, is already getting thousands of miles of pipelines permitted
in a timely manner, like I said, over 90 percent of the applications.
Instead, the bill establishes arbitrary and inflexible deadlines for
FERC and other agencies to issue permits; and there are several major
problems with the bill, particularly short-circuiting the permitting
process for the most complex projects.
The bill says we have a 12-month deadline, no matter what kind of
project is proposed. FERC currently decides 90 percent of the permit
applications within that 12-month period; and in July, the Pipeline
Trade Association testified that FERC's existing permitting process is
generally very good.
Second, in addition to this arbitrary 12-month deadline for all
applications, it would rush environmental reviews for complex projects.
The bill's rigid deadline applies to every pipeline project, regardless
of complexity.
It doesn't make sense to apply the same 12-month deadline to, say, a
30-mile interstate pipeline that doesn't cross any rivers, doesn't have
environmental concerns, doesn't go through population areas, and then
apply the same 12-month deadline to the most complex, multi-state,
interstate pipeline initiative that goes across environmentally-
sensitive areas, maybe across rivers, through highly populated areas.
Third, the bill also will lead to unnecessary permit denial. What we
heard from FERC is that, instead of speeding up the permitting process
for natural gas pipelines, it is very likely that this bill will slow
down permitting. If FERC can't finish its analysis by the required
deadline, they may have no choice but to deny an application that
otherwise could have been granted.
Now, before I came to Congress, I practiced environmental law, and
what I learned during that time is for those complex projects there is
a lot of give and take that needs to happen. You have to discuss
mitigation. You have to discuss are there any alternatives.
Oftentimes, these business owners, it is in their interest to have a
little more time to figure out the right path for a pipeline or a
transmission line or something like that. You get input from local
governments, local communities, neighborhood associations,
environmental groups; and you wind up with a better project.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentlewoman.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I thank the gentleman.
Another serious problem with the bill is that it transforms FERC into
a super-permitting agency. Now that sounds pretty scary, but that is
what it does.
It says that the bill provides for permits to automatically go into
effect if an agency does not approve or deny them by the bill's
arbitrary 90-day deadline. So FERC would be issuing Clean Air Act
permits, Clean Water Act permits, even BLM right-of-way through Federal
land permits.
These are functions that FERC does not have the expertise or
resources to carry out. This is an unworkable provision that could
result in permits being issued that are inconsistent with the Nation's
environmental laws.
Finally, I know many people on both sides of the aisle are very
concerned about eminent domain and when we give power to government to
condemn lands. Well, here is a reminder for everyone. We should all
remember that when FERC issues a certificate of public convenience and
necessity, it gives a pipeline company the power of eminent domain. The
power to take someone's property should not be conferred without FERC
taking the time it needs for a thorough analysis and thoughtful
decisionmaking.
So for all of those reasons, I urge opposition to the bill.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I might just make one comment. As the gentlelady from Florida
indicated, the Obama administration has indicated their opposition to
this bill. But I will tell you, we have large groups, the National
Rural Electric Co-Ops, supporting this bill; the Public Power
Association is supporting this bill.

And the New England Ratepayers Association wrote a letter to us
saying, currently, New England ratepayers suffer from the highest
electricity rates of

[[Page H7319]]

any region in the country. A significant reason for this is the limited
capacity of natural gas pipeline which the electricity generators
throughout New England rely on.
So we are trying to respond to the needs of people, and we recognize
that the economy has been weak, and there are not a lot of pipelines
being built right now, although there is one in my home State of
Kentucky.
But we want to set the framework so that when the time comes, these
pipeline companies are able to move and move quickly with adequate
protections.
At this time, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McCarthy), our distinguished whip.
Mr. McCARTHY of California. I thank my colleague for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1900 and in support of the
work this Chamber has accomplished this week.
This was an important week in the House. We will have passed three
bills that further the energy revolution that has propelled the U.S. to
the forefront of the world's energy producers.
So to hear a few of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
disparage this work, even so much as refer to it as egregious, is
disappointing.
First, we passed legislation that reduced bureaucratic delays on
energy products on Federal lands that are providing resources to power
our economy. As America, we will soon become the largest energy
producer in the world. It is astonishing that this occurred while
energy production on Federal lands has actually decreased.
We guaranteed that energy production from hydraulic fracturing on
Federal lands is overseen by the regulator with the best track record,
the States.
And today we are ensuring that, once harnessed, the energy resources
will reach end-users in the safest, most efficient and reliable manner.
In its lifecycle, the quality of all Americans improves; and there is
no better example than, at the start of this month, November 1, the
first pipeline to enter New York City in 40 years opened. That was 40
years that it took.
What happened once it entered New York City? The price dropped. The
price fell by 17 percent. Do you realize if you buy gas in New York
City, it is cheaper than in Louisiana? But 40 years that it took. To
me, that was egregious.
The savings extend far beyond New York City. In 2012, affordable
energy added $1,200 of disposal income to the average U.S. household.
That will go to $2,700 by 2020 and $3,500 by 2025. That is real
savings.
Today we have an opportunity. We have an opportunity to streamline,
to protect, and to lower the costs for all Americans, to actually be
able to produce and create more jobs in America. That is why you see a
very diverse group of support for this legislation, from unions, to
associations, to Americans that want to keep more of what they earn,
create more American jobs, and then, again, stop any egregious falsity
that it takes 40 years to build a pipeline.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I know of no union supporting this bill,
nor do I think the Northeast ratepayers said in their letter where they
expressed their concern about the supplies where there is a very cold
spell, that they want this bill either.
I am pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Tonko), a distinguished subcommittee ranking member on
one of the energy subcommittees.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, the bill that we are addressing before the
House simply does not address the problems with pipeline approvals
because the committee has not identified any problems with them.
The natural gas pipeline approval process works well. The Government
Accountability Office's recent review found that FERC's consideration
of the vast majority of these projects is completed within a year of
receiving a complete application.
The network of over 2 million miles of gas pipeline spread across
this country ensures that natural gas can be delivered where it is
needed. We do have some areas where additional infrastructure is
required, but the failure to fill those needs is not due to the permit
approval process at FERC. It is due to economic decisions being made by
those in the private sector.
We do have some problems with pipelines. Accidents resulting in
explosions have severely damaged property and, in some cases, claimed
lives. We should be doing more to prevent these accidents.
The 10 percent of project approvals that are not completed within a
1-year period are those that are more complex. They extend for many
miles, traverse densely populated areas, and cross sensitive or
valuable resources such as farm lands or water bodies.
A project with these characteristics may need more than 1 year to
ensure that the pipeline that is ultimately constructed is not going to
place people, their communities, other businesses or valuable resources
at risk.
Whenever a regulatory agency is poised to act under the law to defend
the health and safety of our citizens, there is a hue and cry about the
necessity of doing extensive analyses of all aspects of the proposed
regulation to determine its potential impact on businesses and the
economy.
Many of these analyses take years and delay commonsense protections
that will, indeed, save thousands of our citizens from illnesses or
death.
Apparently, protecting public health or the environment can wait, but
the oil and gas companies cannot.
We need energy, but we need other things also. FERC's process weighs
all these considerations before approving pipelines, and that is how it
should be.
Pipeline projects should be evaluated in a timely fashion; but the
imposition of a hard, 12-month deadline for all projects, regardless of
their length or complexity, is bad policy. We should devote our time to
solving problems, not creating them.
H.R. 1900 should be rejected. It will do nothing to improve the
pipeline approval process.

{time} 1000

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chair, may I ask how much time remains for both
sides.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 12 minutes remaining, and
the gentleman from California has 12\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, I yield an additional 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo).
Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, a couple of points are worth noting to make
sure that everybody understands exactly what we are up against.
There has been some suggestion that this is unnecessary, and maybe in
the eyes of some in Washington, some political officials, it is
unnecessary; but the people who this matters to--consumers,
manufacturers all across the country--know that this is a necessary
piece of legislation. The National Association of Manufacturers has
said that this is something that would be important to creating
manufacturing jobs for families all across the country. The Chamber of
Commerce has similarly made this comment.
It was earlier stated that some folks were unaware of union support
for this legislation. I want to make sure that everyone is fully aware
that the Laborers' International Union of North America, the United
Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters, and the operating engineers
have all been supportive of H.R. 1900 and the importance of energy
infrastructure expanding all across our country.
Finally, there has been this idea that FERC approves 90 percent of
the permits. It has been repeated time and time again. It is just
factually incomplete. It is like, if you like your health insurance
plan, you can keep it. Technically perhaps true in the most narrow
sense, but in reality, it is not the case that the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission approves 90 percent of all permits or that they
are all approved. FERC is but one of many, many agencies that has the
authority to approve and deny permits. So this 90 percent number that
continues to be thrown around is just false. We don't have 90 percent
of all folks seeking to build pipelines being able to build those
pipelines in a timely fashion. They are being delayed.
There is real demand for this. There is demand from the New England
Ratepayers Association. There is demand in States like Florida, where
the natural gas rates are 60 percent higher than the national average.
This is a real need. This is a real challenge.

[[Page H7320]]

And if we do this, if we get H.R. 1900 passed, all we are simply
saying is do your job. Finish the process. If you decide that the
permit shouldn't be built, any of these agencies can deny that permit
being built. That seems fine. We are not denying any agency the
capacity to deny a permit. But do the work. Tell these folks that, No,
you are not going to get it, and then allow the process to move
forward.
These unions, these associations, these real hardworking families
need natural gas at an affordable price to be delivered to them, and
H.R. 1900 will help achieve that objective.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, we are not arguing whether we should
have an infrastructure of pipelines to take natural gas from one place
to another. That is not the issue. And that is a false premise that,
for some reason, that may be an area of disagreement. It is not.
The area of disagreement is whether, in letting a pipeline be built,
we are going to shortchange the ability of the agencies to review the
pipeline. And if we do that, there may not be time to look at BLM
issues or safe water issues or clean air issues because FERC will be
told, if you don't do your job within a certain period of time, this
permit is going to be approved, and these other agencies aren't going
to have time to do any review.
Well, FERC doesn't have the ability to do other agencies' jobs; and
those other agencies ought to be able to do their job, and FERC should
do its job in a timely manner. But ``a timely manner'' doesn't mean a
certain amount of time and no more--not another month, not another 2
months, not another 3 months.
I want to close by sharing some of the comments made by others. The
White House said they will veto this bill. The President and his
administration are against it. They say the bill provides for the
automatic approval of natural gas pipeline permits if applications are
not decided within ``rigid, unworkable time frames.'' The
administration also notes that the bill could cause confusion and
increase litigation risk, and further, the bill ``may actually delay
projects or lead to more project denials, undermining the intent of the
legislation.''
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let's say they needed a couple more months but that 12-month period
is right there. Well, they will either have to approve it without those
extra few months of review or deny it, which could mean longer periods
of time before the pipeline is approved. It is counter to what the
proponents say that they expect.
The Pipeline Safety Trust and other public interest organizations
said about this bill: ``H.R. 1900 will needlessly put at risk the well-
being of the people and environment where natural gas pipelines are
built while making it easier for pipeline companies to use Federal
eminent domain authority to take private land without a thorough
review.''
This is going to allow eminent domain authority by a private company
to take away people's land. Is that something that Members of Congress
want to vote for, your constituents' land could be seized by a private
company when there had not been a thorough review that would allow this
kind of power over private property? That shouldn't be the result of a
rushed, incomplete process. We wouldn't want a rushed, incomplete
process of taking away liberty. We shouldn't allow a rushed, incomplete
process to take away private property.
The Pipeline Safety Trust also explains that ``rushed or incomplete
reviews resulting in automatic approvals pose a threat to public safety
and the environment,'' and they characterize the bill's transformation
of FERC into a ``superpermitting'' agency that issues other agencies'
permits as ``bizarre.'' And they are right that it ``effectively places
control over key environment and public health statutes in the hands of
an agency primarily tasked with regulating the economics of natural gas
and electricity.'' They don't have the expertise, they don't have the
personnel, they don't have the budget, and now we are giving them that
kind of a job.
And the last quote I have is from the natural gas pipeline industry.
Now, I realize the industry would always like the permitting to go
faster, but the industry told us over and over that the existing
process works well. In May, the CEO of Dominion Energy testified on
behalf of the pipeline companies. He told the Subcommittee on Energy
and Power, ``The interstate natural gas pipeline sector enjoys a
favorable legal and regulatory framework for the approval of new
infrastructure,'' and his conclusion was that ``the natural gas model
works.''
Conservatives used to say, if it works, don't fix it, and yet they
want to fix it with a lot of uncertain results, perhaps unintended
consequences. Mr. Chairman, this bill would cause a lot of problems
without speeding up the permitting process, which is currently getting
thousands of miles of new pipeline built in a timely manner. I urge my
colleagues to oppose this bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. In my concluding remarks, I would simply say that this
act is commonsense reform aimed at providing greater certainty for
interstate natural gas pipeline projects at a time when we see great
revitalization in the production of natural gas. We have an opportunity
to export some natural gas, we have the opportunity to help lower
electricity rates, and I would urge all the Members to support H.R.
1900.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1900, the
Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act. In my state of
Pennsylvania, the Marcellus Shale boom has reinvigorated our economy
and created thousands of jobs. American energy production is booming,
and we need the infrastructure to keep up with demand and transport the
gas from well to market.
I have seen in my own state the frustration and delays in getting gas
from well to market due to unnecessarily long permitting processes.
These delays keep gas from flowing, hold up royalty payments to my
constituents, and prevent tax revenue from making it into the state and
local coffers.
While we must ensure that pipelines are constructed safely, many
times these delays have nothing to do with safety and everything to do
with politics. We've seen President Obama and the EPA do everything
they can to delay natural gas production and destroy the energy
industry in this country in order to appease the radical
environmentalist left.
We must not allow this to happen. Congress must take action to ensure
that our domestic energy production thrives and the United States can
be energy independent. The Natural gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act
will expedites the federal review process for applications for natural
gas pipeline certificates, allowing us to build this much needed
infrastructure efficiently and safely.
I support passage of H.R. 1900 and urge my colleagues to do the same.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. 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 anti-energy exploration. I am not pro-
or anti-fracking. I am, however, strongly ``pro-jobs,'' ``pro-economic
growth,'' and ``pro-sustainable 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 nation's 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 90-120 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)

[[Page H7321]]

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 case-by-case basis--as they
should.
The approval process for a pipeline is not like deciding to grow a
garden in the backyard of your home--given the inherently dangerous
nature of the activity, the review and approval process takes time and
requires careful attention--as 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 FERC's 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 short-term 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.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1900, which
would place new, arbitrary deadlines on the pipeline permitting process
at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and related
agencies.
H.R. 1900 attempts to solve a problem that simply doesn't exist. The
Government Accountability Office has given FERC's permitting process
good marks, saying that it is predictable and consistent for
applicants. Under this bill, FERC would have a year to consider any
project, no matter how many miles it may cover or how complex it may
be. Other agencies, like the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of
Land Management, and the Fish and Wildlife Service, would have to issue
decisions on licenses or permits related to the project within 90 days
of FERC's issuance of its final environmental document, even if the
project applicant does not actually apply for a permit or submit the
required information within that time frame. If the agency failed to
meet this deadline, the permit or license would be ``deemed approved''
and FERC would be permitted to overrule any conditions the agency
requests.
By needlessly short-circuiting the review process, this bill
jeopardizes the environment and public health. While we all support
timely review, we should provide adequate time for analysis of complex
projects. A one-size-fits-all process with arbitrary deadlines prevents
federal agencies from doing their job to protect taxpayers and
communities. I urge a no vote.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, ninety percent of pipeline projects are
approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission within twelve
months; the other ten percent take longer because they are bigger and
more complicated projects. The Natural Gas Pipeline Trade Association
said in July 2013 that FERC's existing permitting process is
``generally very good.''
By creating a rushed application process and limiting the ability of
other agents to provide commentary to FERC, the H.R. 1900 limits FERC's
ability to understand the impacts of a pipeline on a local community,
the public's health, our national infrastructure, and our environment.
These are serious decisions about our local communities--they deserve
thoughtful and comprehensive analysis. H.R. 1900 takes something that
is not a problem, and creates one.
I oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.

[[Page H7322]]

Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, printed in the bill, it shall be
in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment
under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 113-25. That amendment
in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:

H.R. 1900

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Natural Gas Pipeline
Permitting Reform Act''.

SEC. 2. REGULATORY APPROVAL OF NATURAL GAS PIPELINE PROJECTS.

Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717f) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(i)(1) The Commission shall approve or deny an
application for a certificate of public convenience and
necessity for a prefiled project not later than 12 months
after receiving a complete application that is ready to be
processed, as defined by the Commission by regulation.
``(2) The agency responsible for issuing any license,
permit, or approval required under Federal law in connection
with a prefiled project for which a certificate of public
convenience and necessity is sought under this Act shall
approve or deny the issuance of the license, permit, or
approval not later than 90 days after the Commission issues
its final environmental document relating to the project.
``(3) The Commission may extend the time period under
paragraph (2) by 30 days if an agency demonstrates that it
cannot otherwise complete the process required to approve or
deny the license, permit, or approval, and therefor will be
compelled to deny the license, permit, or approval. In
granting an extension under this paragraph, the Commission
may offer technical assistance to the agency as necessary to
address conditions preventing the completion of the review of
the application for the license, permit, or approval.
``(4) If an agency described in paragraph (2) does not
approve or deny the issuance of the license, permit, or
approval within the time period specified under paragraph (2)
or (3), as applicable, such license, permit, or approval
shall take effect upon the expiration of 30 days after the
end of such period. The Commission shall incorporate into the
terms of such license, permit, or approval any conditions
proffered by the agency described in paragraph (2) that the
Commission does not find are inconsistent with the final
environmental document.
``(5) For purposes of this subsection, the term `prefiled
project' means a project for the siting, construction,
expansion, or operation of a natural gas pipeline with
respect to which a prefiling docket number has been assigned
by the Commission pursuant to a prefiling process established
by the Commission for the purpose of facilitating the formal
application process for obtaining a certificate of public
convenience and necessity.''.

The CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in House Report 113-
272. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in
the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered
as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall
not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for
division of the question.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Tonko

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in
House Report 113-272.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

In the quoted subsection (i)(1), insert ``For purposes of
the deadline established in this paragraph, an application
shall not be considered complete unless the application
includes sufficient information to demonstrate that the
pipeline project will utilize available designs, systems, and
practices to minimize methane emissions to the extent
practicable.'' after ``by regulation.''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 420, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Tonko) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1900 attempts to solve a problem that
simply doesn't exist.
The bill seeks to change FERC's process even though the pipeline
companies have testified that the permitting process is ``generally
very good.'' Thousands of miles of natural gas pipelines are being
approved under the current system. We have real energy challenges in
this country and should be seeking real solutions to these challenges,
not spending our time on problems that don't exist.
My amendment addresses a real problem--the dangers of climate change
and the contributions of natural gas infrastructure to this growing
threat--and it prevents waste by ensuring that we use it and don't lose
it.
Climate change is the most urgent energy challenge that we face
today. If the global average temperature continues to increase, we will
face even more serious impacts, including flooding of coastal cities,
increased risks to our food supply, unprecedented heat waves,
exacerbated water scarcity in many regions, increased frequency of
high-intensity tropical cyclones such as Hurricane Sandy and the recent
supertyphoon in the Philippines, and an irreversible loss of plants and
animals that share this planet with us.
Our behavior is driving these changes. We must take responsibility
for the situation and work to halt it. We should not leave this task to
our children and grandchildren and condemn them to a more uncertain and
unsafe world.
Many hope that natural gas, or methane, will serve as a critical
bridge fuel as we work to reduce our carbon pollution, but natural gas
poses its own challenges. Although natural gas emits less carbon
dioxide than coal or oil when burned, the development and
transportation of natural gas results in releases of methane, which is
a potent greenhouse gas 25 times more damaging to the climate than
carbon dioxide. This is a serious concern.
According to a study by the World Resources Institute, leaks from
natural gas systems ``represent a significant source of global warming
pollution in the U.S.'' The study further found that methane leaks
occur at every stage of the natural gas life cycle--at the wellhead,
from compression facilities, and from pipelines. These fugitive methane
emissions can reduce or even negate the net climate benefits of using
natural gas as a substitute for coal and oil.
The good news is that we can reduce methane emissions by applying
proven, cost-effective technologies throughout the natural gas system.
My amendment will ensure that new pipelines incorporate designs,
systems, and practices that minimize leaks, thereby conserving gas and
reducing pollution. We will still need to address problems with
existing infrastructure and other sources within the natural gas
system, but this would be a very important start. It is precisely what
we should expect and require of energy infrastructure that will be
around for decades.
By including this requirement in the law, the applicants are informed
before they begin their application of the requirement for this
information and would have ample time to include it in permit
applications. Encouraging the prevention and monitoring of leaks would
have the added benefit of increasing pipeline safety.
The language does not require an applicant to wait for the
development of something new. These technologies exist today and only
need to be applied ``to the extent applicable.'' This makes both
economic and environmental sense. By reducing pipeline leaks, the
amendment ensures that more of our domestic energy resources will be
used and fewer of these resources will be wasted.

{time} 1015

The amendment doesn't fix the core problems with H.R. 1900, including
the bill's arbitrary and harmful deadlines, but it does ensure that the
bill addresses an energy problem that actually exists.
If we are going to revisit the law governing the permitting of
natural gas pipelines, this is the kind of commonsense step that we
should be discussing.
With that, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kansas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, the EPA already asserts that it has
authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions--and methane is defined
as a greenhouse gas.

[[Page H7323]]

The EPA's New Source Performance Standards capture GHG emissions
above a certain threshold. Permits are already required for facilities
whose emissions are anticipated to be above that threshold. The EPA's
permitting process should be the forum for this decisionmaking.
FERC's primary role, rather, should be as an economic regulator--the
same way that it is today, and the same way it would be after H.R. 1900
would become law. It would want to defer environmental matters like
this to the appropriate agency, which would be the EPA.
The amendment is structured such that the determination would have to
be made before the NEPA analysis would begin. In other words, when the
FERC ``complete'' application is filed and FERC is put into the role of
determining methane ``best practices'' rather than EPA. This puts the
cart before the horse. Such decisions on methane emissions should be
made as part of the EPA permitting process.
Regarding methane emissions in general, the industry has every
incentive to control methane leaks. Escaping methane is escaping
product--something they do not want to happen. That means losses for
their businesses.
This amendment would add unnecessary requirements to a problem that
is already being addressed. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
Tonko amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Tonko).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York will be postponed.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Castor of Florida

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in
House Report 113-272.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Strike paragraph (4) (and redesignate accordingly).

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 420, the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Castor) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, under H.R. 1900, if an agency
cannot complete its review of a gas pipeline permit application by the
bill's arbitrary 90-day or, in some cases, 120-day deadline, the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, is required to
automatically issue the permit.
This permitting provision broadly applies to the Clean Air Act, the
Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Coastal Zone
Management Act, and rights-of-way through Federal lands.
It simply goes too far, is completely unreasonable, and it runs
counter to the author's intent. The intent of the author is to speed
the approval of interstate natural gas pipelines. Instead, what this
provision will do, if my amendment is not adopted, is create greater
delays and, I believe, greater likelihood of litigation that will delay
our important natural gas infrastructure in this country.
So my amendment is straightforward. It simply strikes this provision
that requires FERC to automatically issue other agencies' permits.
You heard Mr. Waxman say--and I said the same thing--that what this
bill does is turns FERC, whose jurisdiction is limited to reviewing
interstate electric transmission lines, natural gas pipelines, and oil
pipelines, into a superpermitting agency. It goes and grabs EPA's
jurisdiction and authority, the Interior Department's, the Army Corps
of Engineers', and other agencies', and settles into FERC this
superpermitting authority that really is completely unreasonable.
Right now, these permits are typically detailed documents that
include safety requirements, emission limits, technology and operator
requirements, and conditions to ensure that communities are protected
and the water, wetlands, and other environmental resources are
considered, especially when you have a complex interstate natural gas
pipeline coming through your communities.
Agencies need the ability and time to analyze all of these details
and then draft appropriate permit conditions to protect our communities
back home, protect the health and safety, protect landowner rights, and
propose cleanup requirements in case there is an accident.
Under H.R. 1900, FERC acts as a superpermitting agency. If an agency
cannot meet the strict deadlines, FERC apparently will write and issue
the permit itself. This is a recipe for natural gas pipeline delays,
and that is why so many are fearful of the consequences of this bill.
After all, FERC now already grants 90 percent of the natural gas
interstate pipeline applications that come before it.
So it makes no sense to have FERC issuing permits for other agencies.
FERC doesn't have the expertise to grant land management rights-of-way
through Federal land or to set water pollution discharge limits. That
is not a workable solution. It is a recipe for greater litigation and
delay.
Besides litigation, delays, and other complications, there are going
to be real environmental and safety impacts if permits automatically go
into effect without the responsible agencies completing the necessary
analysis. It could result in permits being issued that are inconsistent
with the requirements of the Nation's environmental laws. That is why
the Pipeline Safety Trust and numerous environmental organizations
strongly oppose the bill.
The Army Corps of Engineers and EPA also express concern that
automatic permitting could lead to permits that do not meet the
requirements of the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. This could
result in harmful water pollution and air pollution.
So in addition to delays, lawsuits, and environmental harm,
automatically issuing permits without an agency confirming the legal
requirements is going to undermine the public's acceptance of
interstate natural gas pipelines going through our communities. That is
the last thing you want to happen.
We are undergoing a national gas revolution in this country that,
generally, is very positive. So why would you try to pass this bill
that would lead to greater litigation delays, uncertainty, and that the
industry itself says may not be necessary?
Agencies should act expeditiously on pipeline applications, but they
also need time to conduct the necessary environmental and safety
reviews. In some cases, it will take longer than a 90- or 120-day
environmental review. Some of these pipelines are very complex and they
go over hundreds of miles through environmentally, sensitive areas.
People need time and the businesses need time to work through the
conditions.
So we should not sacrifice these protections when the pipeline
permitting process is already working well, nor should we take critical
health, safety, and environmental functions away from the agencies.
My amendment doesn't fix all the problems, but it eliminates an
unworkable provision. If you do not want to complicate the interstate
natural gas pipeline process that the industry says is generally very
good, then I urge you to support my amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment from
the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kansas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, there has been reference that Ms. Castor
presented relating to what the industry wants that says this will
actually mess it up. It will make pipeline permitting take longer.
Let me read for you what was written in a letter to me on November 14
of this year from that industry association. This is a letter from
INGAA, signed by Mr. Santa, the president and CEO, who said:

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 attempted to coordinate the
permitting of new natural gas pipelines by designating FERC
as the lead agency under NEPA and granting FERC the authority
to set deadlines for permitting agencies to act on pipeline
actions. EPAct

[[Page H7324]]

2005, however, did not confer upon FERC the authority to
enforce such deadlines. As a result, permitting agencies
routinely ignore them.
It is critical that pipeline expansion keep pace with
demand in such regions as New England. A clear, timely review
of permits associated with proposed pipeline projects is
critical to meeting these goals.
The industry is full-throatedly in support of making sure
that H.R. 1900 becomes law, and this amendment would prevent
the key provisions of that from happening.

We know we are seeing skyrocketing prices. The worst residential
price increases in the country are in the gentlewoman's home State of
Florida, where natural gas is now $15.43 an mcf--68 percent above the
natural average in the home State of the gentlelady who has offered
this amendment.
Part of this enormous price increase in Florida and in other States
is a direct result of insufficient pipeline capacity to keep up with
production and demand inside the State of Florida--and that is great. I
am glad there is demand in Florida. We now just simply need to get them
affordable energy so they can continue to grow jobs for Florida
families.

In July of this year, the Energy and Commerce Committee held a
hearing on H.R. 1900, where multiple stakeholders testified, including
NextEra Energy, a Florida-based energy company which, in addition to
being the largest wind company in North America, is also one of the
Nation's largest purchasers and consumers of natural gas power for
electric power generation.
Regarding the possibility that an agency might ultimately choose to
deny an application because of H.R. 1900, something that this amendment
is offered to make sure doesn't happen, ostensibly, NextEra stated the
following in its testimony:

In infrastructure development, a timely ``no'' is much
preferable to an interminable ``maybe.''

That is, we have folks who just simply need certainty. They need
answers.
The gentlewoman from Florida talked about increased litigation. I am
thrilled to see folks on the other side of the aisle finally worried
about the plaintiffs' bar and excessive delays that the plaintiffs' bar
throws into the regulatory process. I promise my cooperation full-
throatedly to work across the aisle to make sure that H.R. 1900 doesn't
add a single job in the plaintiffs' bar anywhere in the United States
of America.
Finally, Ms. Castor's amendment was offered because they are
concerned about the idea that a permit would be deemed approved after a
certain time, claiming in some cases that this has been unprecedented.
Yet in the Clean Water Act, within 45 days of receipt of an
application, under 33 U.S.C. 129, if no ruling has been issued, a
permit ``shall be deemed approved.''
Under TSCA, section 5, again, a company seeking an application must
submit a notice of commencement to EPA within 30 days, after which the
chemical is considered an existing chemical. That is, the request is
deemed approved.
This is not unprecedented.
The idea that this provision is extreme or unprecedented is simply
not supported by the facts, and the precedent for applications being
approved if a governing agency fails to act is very common in our
Federal law.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Castor amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida will be
postponed.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Speier

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in
House Report 113-272.
Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill, after paragraph (5), insert the
following new paragraph:
``(6) This subsection shall not apply to a project unless
the Commission has considered and responded to applicable
State and local objections or concerns about approval of the
project.''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 420, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Speier) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, the majority earlier said that this measure
is just common sense. So I have a question: Is it common sense not to
consider the interests of State and local governments in allowing FERC
to have this permitting process?
My amendment is quite simple. The concerns of State and local
communities must be considered in any natural gas pipeline permitting
process and should not be disadvantaged by a permit approval process
that weighs heavily in favor of the pipeline industry and could deem
approved a permit that tramples the concerns of communities that are
affected.
This issue I know all too well.
Three years ago, a pipeline exploded in my district. I don't want
that to happen to any of you. Let me tell you what happened in my
district.
First of all, when it exploded, no one knew that there was a pipeline
running in the middle of a densely populated area. The fire department
didn't know, the police department didn't know, the city manager didn't
know, and the city council didn't know.
It took over an hour and a half for the local gas operator to go to
another destination, pick up a key, come back to the community, and
open the gate so they could turn off the valve.
Meanwhile, what happened?
There were 8 lives lost; 38 homes totally destroyed, with just a
concrete pad left; and 45 other homes badly damaged. Three people were
considered missing for more than 2 weeks because there was so little
DNA left from the intense fire to positively identify them.

{time} 1030

There are people in that community today 3 years later who are still
shell shocked, and the city's fathers and mothers are very concerned
about making sure that pipeline safety includes notifying local
communities.
One of the truly frightening lessons of the San Bruno tragedy was
that the many pipeline operators don't even fully know the conditions
of their own pipelines. I can tell you that my communities are much
more aware and engaged in natural gas pipeline safety and location
decisions.
The concerns and objections of State and local officials must be
adequately considered and taken into account in the decisionmaking
process on where to place potentially dangerous natural gas
transmission lines. The consequences of these decisions to local
communities cannot be overstated. They have a fundamental stake in
these decisions on whether to permit a new pipeline project in their
communities.
I ask you to support my amendment, which would ensure that, at the
very least, FERC considers and responds to local and State concerns or
objections submitted as part of the FERC permit process before a
natural gas pipeline permit is approved or potentially deemed approved.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Meadows). The gentleman from Kentucky is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I would like to say to the gentlelady from California
that all of us certainly have great sympathy and were shocked by the
events in San Bruno. I know it was a horrific incident and that many
people lost their lives and homes and that it certainly disrupted the
community.
Mr. Chairman, in response to that accident, Congress reenacted a
reauthorization of the Pipeline Safety Act in late 2011. That bill
included provisions on requiring the verification of maximum allowable
operating pressures for pipelines constructed before 1970 and an
expansion of the current Pipeline Integrity Management Program to cover
more miles of pipe and, therefore, require more inspections. The
accident investigation in San Bruno determined that the natural gas
pipeline

[[Page H7325]]

that failed had been installed in the mid-1950s, using incorrect
materials and welding, incorrect even given the standards of the day.
Fortunately, that legislation passed unanimously in the House and in
the Senate.
I would also note that, under the Natural Gas Act, FERC, when
reviewing a proposed natural gas pipeline, must find that it meets the
public convenience and necessity, in other words, the public interest.
The Commission does have mechanisms in place to listen to the concerns
of landowners, of communities, and they balance that with the need for
energy infrastructure that meets national needs for a broad number of
citizens. The FERC process, under section VII of the Natural Gas Act,
is open, fair, and it invites participation by local communities and
landowners already, and that has been in place for 70 years.
So I think all of us understand where the gentlelady from California
is coming from. We do genuinely believe that the existing process
certainly considers local communities and the input from those
communities. Because of that, I would respectfully ask that we not
agree to the amendment of the gentlelady of California.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in House Report 113-272.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act shall not take effect until such time as there is
no Presidential order issued under section 254 of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 in
effect.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 420, the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
I offer an amendment that responds, I believe, to the importance of
the issue and also to the purpose of the underlying bill, and it deals
with safety.
My amendment delays the date upon which the bill can be implemented
until such time that the Federal Government is no longer operating
under a budget dictated by the sequester, which some would call a
``meat-ax,'' that is dipping into and diving into the works of the
Federal Government, such as agencies like FERC.
The likely impact of this bill, if passed, is to put FERC in a
position of having to work faster, to issue decisions with fewer
experienced employees, and to have a reduction in resources, thereby
impacting safety and security, if I might say, because FERC, like
virtually every other 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. I might add, Mr. Chairman, the important aspect of this is
that the ultimate results will be, FERC, if you don't do your work, if
you are not thoughtful, if you are not deliberative, we deem the
approval.
There is no evidence that FERC is backlogged. This has nothing to do
with the Keystone pipeline, the procedures of which are in another
agency altogether. So you would ask: What problem is this bill solving?
None. Absolutely none. With a budget of $306 million--because of
sequestration--and with a $15 million reduction in spending, 5 percent
of FERC's budget is impacted. This is a bill seeking a solution to a
problem that does not exist, and it is dangerous to have legislation
that deems approval when the agency which has jurisdiction has not
completed its investigation.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Since I am the only one who will be speaking, I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas has 3 minutes remaining.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, sequestration is not only impacting
the whole of the work of FERC's; but, in actuality, sequestration is
undermining the economy of the United States of America.
In my State alone, we have lost 153,000 jobs. The United States has
lost 1 million jobs. It is so devastating that I offer to submit a
letter for the Record from the Republican cardinals, dated November 18,
2013, calling upon the Budget Committee to rid us of the disastrous
sequestration.
It indicates that we have a severe problem in sequestration. This
legislation to expedite the approval of needed gas pipelines is, again,
an initiative looking for a solution. Since fiscal year 2009, FERC has
completed action on 92 percent of their pipeline applications. Mr.
Chairman, there is no problem. There is no backlog. The idea that
sequestration's impact is overstated is not true. According to an
analysis conducted by Regional Economic Models and Third Way, the
damage to the economy caused by sequestration is substantial.
I would also like to offer a personal story that deals with the
impact far-reaching. It is the fact that pediatricians today are seeing
babies who are malnourished. Because of these horrible cuts and the
cuts in SNAP, mothers are putting water in the formula. It may be a far
reach; but because we are under these horrible caps of sequestration,
it is impacting the far reaches of government. Even babies are
suffering and are malnourished because of sequestration.
So, if this bill passes today, my desire is--if it even goes
anywhere, if it finds a problem that it is trying to solve--that it
should not be implemented at all; but if it is implemented, it
certainly should not burden an agency that has proven to do its work
timely 92 percent of the time. It should not burden that agency by
insisting that it goes into implementation right away. It should not be
in until we have moved forward and have gotten rid of sequestration.
In conclusion, there are enormous amounts of human toll impact
through social safety net and health education: 600,000 women and
children thrown off WIC; 807,000 fewer hospitals for Native Americans;
the national security impact of the U.S.'s ``let's prepare for WMD
incidents.''
So I ask my colleagues not to support the underlying bill, but to
support the Jackson Lee amendment--no action until sequestration is
gone.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple, straightforward, and practical.
It simply postpones the effective date of the bill until the end of
sequestration.
Although I share many of the concerns of my colleagues and the
administration regarding the wisdom of this legislation, my amendment
does not effect any change in the bill's regulatory scheme.
Because of sequestration the legislation would achieve the opposite
effect intended by proponents.
In other words, fewer projects would be approved, not more.
My amendment 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''.

[[Page H7326]]

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.''
Rather, my amendment merely delays the date upon which the bill can
be implemented until such time as the Federal Government is no longer
operating under a budget dictated by the ``meat ax,'' instead of a
balanced plan of needful investment and deficit reduction.
Mr. Chairman, 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 Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) or other
federal agencies do not issue the requested permit or license within
90-120 days.
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.
This is because 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 FERC's budget.
So if H.R. 1900 were to become law the most likely outcome is that
FERC and other agencies would be required 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.
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.
I urge support of the Jackson Lee Amendment because it will prevent
the bill before us from yielding unwanted and unintended results.

Hon. Paul Ryan,
Chairman, Budget Committee,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Chris Van Hollen,
Ranking Member, Budget Committee,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Patty Murray,
Chairwoman, Budget Committee,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Jeff Sessions,
Ranking Member, Budget Committee,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Ryan, Chairwoman Murray, Ranking Member
Sessions, and Ranking Member Van Hollen: We call on 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 short-term Continuing
Resolution. We urge you to redouble your efforts toward that
end and report common, topline levels for both the House and
Senate before the Thanksgiving recess, or by December 2 at
the latest.
If a timely agreement is not reached, the likely
alternatives could have extremely damaging repercussions.
First, the failure to reach a budget deal to allow
Appropriations to assemble funding for FY 2014 will reopen
the specter of another government shutdown. Second, it will
reopen the probability of governance by continuing
resolution, based on prior year outdated spending needs and
priorities, dismissing in one fell swoop all of the work done
by the Congress to enact appropriations bills for FY 2014
that reflect the will of Congress and the people we
represent. Third, 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, especially our national defense.
In addition, failure to agree on a common spending cap for
FY 2015 will guarantee another year of confusion.
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. We urge you
to come together and decide on a common discretionary
spending topline for both FY 2014 and FY 2015 as quickly as
possible to empower our Committee, and the Congress as a
whole, to make the responsible spending decisions that we
have been elected to make.
Sincerely,
Harold Rogers, Chairman, Committee on Appropriations;
Jack Kingston, Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor, Health
and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies;
Tom Latham, Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation,
and Housing and Urban Development, and Related
Agencies; Kay Granger, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies; John
Abney Culberson, Chairman, Subcommittee on Military
Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies;
John R. Carter, Chairman, Subcommittee on Homeland
Security; Tom Cole, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Legislative Branch; Frank R. Wolf, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
Agencies; Rodney Frelinghuysen, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Defense; Robert B. Aderholt, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies; Michael K.
Simpson, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development, and Related Agencies; Ander Crenshaw,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Financial Services and
General Government; Ken Calvert, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.

SEQUESTRATION: ECONOMIC IMPACT BY STATE, 2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full Sequester Non-Defense Sequester Only Defense Sequester Only
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State GDP State GDP Jobs State GDP State GDP Jobs State GDP State GDP Jobs
gain/loss percent Jobs gain/loss percent gain/loss percent Jobs gain/loss percent gain/loss percent Jobs gain/ percent
(billions) gain/loss gain/loss (billions) gain/loss gain/loss (billions) gain/loss loss gain/loss
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................................. -$2.7 -1.25% -31,467 -1.20% -$1.6 -0.76% -19,502 -0.74% -$1.1 -0.50% -11,997 -0.46%
Alaska.............................................. -$0.6 -1.22% -6,242 -1.32% -$0.4 -0.76% -3,808 -0.81% -$0.2 -0.46% -2,439 -0.52%
Arizona............................................. -$3.7 -1.18% -39,624 -1.15% -$2.0 -0.63% -22,794 -0.66% -$1.7 -0.55% -16,876 -0.49%
Arkansas............................................ -$1.2 -0.97% -15,244 -0.93% -$0.7 -0.58% -9,275 -0.57% -$0.5 -0.39% -5,985 -0.37%
California.......................................... -$22.0 -1.02% -211,777 -1.00% -$11.0 -0.51% -112,422 -0.53% -$11.1 -0.52% -99,590 -0.47%
Colorado............................................ -$3.6 -1.08% -37,589 -1.09% -$2.0 -0.61% -21,569 -0.63% -$1.6 -0.48% -16,062 -0.47%
Connecticut......................................... -$2.5 -1.08% -23,200 -1.01% -$1.1 -0.47% -11,012 -0.48% -$1.4 -0.61% -12,212 -0.53%
Delaware............................................ -$0.6 -1.02% -5,662 -1.01% -$0.3 -0.64% -3,606 -0.65% -$0.2 -0.39% -2,062 -0.37%
DC.................................................. -$3.4 -3.02% -25,180 -2.96% -$3.2 -2.81% -23,278 -2.74% -$0.2 -0.22% -1,905 -0.22%
Florida............................................. -$9.0 -0.95% -101,912 -0.96% -$5.6 -0.59% -65,104 -0.61% -$3.4 -0.36% -36,933 -0.35%
Georgia............................................. -$5.6 -1.09% -62,276 -1.11% -$3.3 -0.64% -37,371 -0.66% -$2.3 -0.45% -24,969 -0.44%
Hawaii.............................................. -$1.1 -1.48% -13,702 -1.60% -$0.7 -0.92% -8,276 -0.97% -$0.4 -0.56% -5,437 -0.63%
Idaho............................................... -$0.7 -1.02% -9,205 -0.96% -$0.4 -0.59% -5,654 -0.59% -$0.3 -0.43% -3,561 -0.37%
Illinois............................................ -$6.4 -0.83% -63,703 -0.82% -$4.0 -0.52% -40,931 -0.53% -$2.4 -0.31% -22,847 -0.29%
Indiana............................................. -$3.0 -0.94% -33,551 -0.89% -$1.8 -0.55% -20,614 -0.55% -$1.2 -0.39% -12,979 -0.34%
Iowa................................................ -$1.4 -0.89% -17,087 -0.83% -$0.8 -0.51% -10,171 -0.49% -$0.6 -0.38% -6,937 -0.34%
Kansas.............................................. -$1.9 -1.22% -21,412 -1.12% -$0.9 -0.54% -10,417 -0.55% -$1.1 -0.68% -11,017 -0.58%
Kentucky............................................ -$2.0 -0.97% -24,006 -0.97% -$1.2 -0.59% -14,621 -0.59% -$0.8 -0.38% -9,410 -0.38%
Louisiana........................................... -$2.5 -1.04% -28,651 -1.05% -$1.3 -0.54% -15,110 -0.56% -$1.2 -0.50% -13,571 -0.50%
Maine............................................... -$0.8 -1.27% -10,014 -1.18% -$0.4 -0.67% -5,448 -0.64% -$0.4 -0.60% -4,576 -0.54%
Maryland............................................ -$6.5 -1.85% -64,522 -1.82% -$5.0 -1.42% -49,758 -1.40% -$1.5 -0.43% -14,803 -0.42%
Massachusetts....................................... -$4.4 -0.98% -40,626 -0.91% -$2.4 -0.52% -23,079 -0.52% -$2.1 -0.46% -17,589 -0.39%
Michigan............................................ -$4.0 -0.85% -43,903 -0.82% -$2.6 -0.55% -29,5581 -0.55% -$1.4 -0.30% -14,3991 -0.27%
Minnesota........................................... -$3.1 -0.88% -30,295 -0.82% -$1.6 -0.46% -16,772 -0.46% -$1.5 -0.43% -13,555 -0.37%
Mississippi......................................... -$1.5 -1.32% -19,568 -1.25% -$0.8 -0.65% -9,925 -0.63% -$0.8 -0.67% -9,663 -0.62%
Missouri............................................ -$3.2 -1.02% -35,958 -0.97% -$1.9 -0.60% -22,045 -0.59% -$1.3 -0.42% -13,951 -0.38%
Montana............................................. -$0.5 -1.03% -6,634 -0.99% -$0.3 -0.72% -4,631 -0.69% -$0.1 -0.31% -2,010 -0.30%
Nebraska............................................ -$0.9 -0.90% -11,240 -0.87% -$0.6 -0.55% -6,897 -0.53% -$0.4 -0.36% -4,356 -0.34%
Nevada.............................................. -$1.3 -0.83% -14,243 -0.86% -$0.8 -0.51% -8,797 -0.53% -$0.5 -0.32% -5,464 -0.33%
New Hampshire....................................... -$0.8 -1.05% -8,560 -0.97% -$0.4 -0.53% -4,573 -0.52% -$0.4 -0.52% -3,997 -0.45%
New Jersey.......................................... -$4.7 -0.87% -45,215 -0.86% -$3.1 -0.56% -30,141 -0.57% -$1.7 -0.31% -15,126 -0.29%
New Mexico.......................................... -$1.1 -1.26% -13,800 -1.22% -$0.8 -0.90% -9,978 -0.89% -$0.3 -0.35% -3,833 -0.34%
New York............................................ -$9.7 -0.78% -88,297 -0.76% -$6.3 -0.51% -59,715 -0.52% -$3.4 -0.28% -28,688 -0.25%
North Carolina...................................... -$5.0 -1.03% -58,211 -1.06% -$2.8 -0.58% -32,886 -0.60% -$2.2 -0.45% -25,389 -0.46%
North Dakota........................................ -$0.4 -0.96% -4,957 -0.92% -$0.2 -0.58% -3,004 -0.56% -$0.2 -0.38% -1,958 -0.37%
Ohio................................................ -$5.5 -0.92% -60,106 -0.88% -$3.4 -0.57% -38,840 -0.57% -$2.1 -0.35% -21,341 -0.31%
Oklahoma............................................ -$2.0 -1.05% -23,440 -1.05% -$1.3 -0.67% -15,064 -0.68% -$0.7 -0.38% -8,397 -0.38%
Oregon.............................................. -$2.1 -1.05% -23,295 -0.97% -$1.1 -0.54% -12,853 -0.54% -$1.0 -0.51% -10,471 -0.44%
Pennsylvania........................................ -$6.6 -0.99% -71,014 -0.94% -$4.3 -0.65% -48,035 -0.64% -$2.3 -0.34% -23,056 -0.31%
Rhode Island........................................ -$0.6 -1.13% -6,560 -1.05% -$0.3 -0.62% -3,633 -0.58% -$0.3 -0.51% -2,934 -0.47%

[[Page H7327]]

South Carolina...................................... -$2.2 -1.04% -27,294 -1.06% -$1.3 -0.60% -16,074 -0.63% -$0.9 -0.44% -11,251 -0.44%
South Dakota........................................ -$0.4 -0.98% -5,432 -0.92% -$0.3 -0.64% -3,514 -0.59% -$0.1 -0.35% -1,923 -0.32%
Tennessee........................................... -$3.1 -0.99% -36,334 -0.96% -$2.0 -0.64% -23,664 -0.62% -$1.1 -0.35% -12,717 -0.33%
Texas............................................... -$15.2 -0.99% -153,541 -1.00% -$8.3 -0.54% -87,003 -0.57% -$6.9 -0.45% -66,702 -0.43%
Utah................................................ -$1.8 -1.19% -20,932 -1.17% -$1.01 -0.70% -12,736 -0.71% -$0.7 -0.50% -8,219 -0.46%
Vermont............................................. -$0.3 -0.99% -4,151 -0.92% -$0.2 -0.59% -2,553 -0.57% -$0.1 -0.40% -1,602 -0.36%
Virginia............................................ -$8.3 -1.67% -85,776 -1.71% -$5.5 -1.12% -56,965 -1.13% -$2.7 -0.55% -28,867 -0.57%
Washington.......................................... -$5.6 -1.37% -54,359 -1.31% -$2.3 -0.56% -24,332 -0.59% -$3.3 -0.81% -30,084 -0.72%
West Virginia....................................... -$0.9 -1.17% -10,673 -1.12% -$0.6 -0.82% -7,638 -0.80% -$0.3 -0.35% -3,046 -0.32%
Wisconsin........................................... -$2.6 -0.86% -29,312 -0.80% -$1.4 -0.48% -17,097 -0.47% -$1.1 -0.38% -12,249 -0.34%
Wyoming............................................. -$0.4 -0.96% -4,072 -0.98% -$0.2 -0.60% -2,594 -0.62% -$0.1 -0.36% -1,482 -0.36%
U.S. TOTAL...................................... -$179.4 -1.04% -1,883,824 -1.02% $105.7 -0.61% -1,145,337 -0.62% -$73.9 -0.43% -740,487 -0.40%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, the gentlelady from Texas does have a
reputation of being very innovative in her legislative strategy. While
I would agree with her--and many of us would agree--that I am
frustrated with the budget process and that many of us don't think the
budget process works, she is, with this amendment, trying to bring to a
conclusion sequestration.
I would simply say that we do not believe it is appropriate to, nor
do we think that we are equipped to, debate the sequestration issue,
which is a budget issue. Today, we are simply trying to expedite the
building of additional natural gas pipelines to streamline the
permitting process in order to help people throughout America have
lower electricity rates and, perhaps, to increase our exports. So I
would oppose her amendment.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Dingell

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in House Report 113-272.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. GAO STUDY.

Not later than May 1, 2014, the Comptroller General shall
transmit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the Senate a report that--
(1) assesses the extent to which the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission is expected to experience delays in
issuing certificates of public convenience and necessity for
the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of any
natural gas pipeline project;
(2) assesses the extent to which other Federal, State, or
local permitting authorities are expected to experience
delays in issuing permits required under Federal law in
connection with the siting, construction, expansion, or
operation of any natural gas pipeline project for which a
certificate of public convenience and necessity is required;
and
(3) examines the effect of anticipated Congressional
appropriations or other resources on the ability of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and other Federal
agencies to review applications for certificates and permits
described in paragraphs (1) and (2) in a timely manner.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 420, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, this bill is a solution desperately
searching for a problem.
In July of 2013, before the committee, Commissioner Moeller said that
90 percent of permit applications to FERC are already approved within
12 months and that the delays on the remaining 10 percent are due to
either the complexities of the proposed projects or incomplete
applications, something which indicates there is hardly a need for the
amendment. In addition to that statement, there has been no record of
any backlog of permit applications that justifies the need to overhaul
pipeline permitting regulations.
There is an old saying, If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I am curious
as to why it is we are trying to fix something here that is not broken.
I am worried that, if this legislation were to somehow become law, we
would already see that the agencies and the courts, in their
consideration, would rush around to try and figure out what it was the
Congress intended and how these matters could or should be proceeded
upon more expeditiously. That, according to the government agencies
that appeared before the committee, is completely unnecessary.
Having said these things, I would like to call to the attention of my
colleagues here that the amendment that I offer today simply directs
the GAO to take another look at the permitting process and to take into
consideration these issues to tell us what it is that needs to be done
to better expedite the process.

{time} 1045

Why this? The reason is very simple. The committee had one day of
hearing, had very little support for the legislation, no explanation of
why it was needed, the agencies appearing before the committee said it
really wasn't necessary, and other witnesses testified that it wasn't
needed.
The report of the GAO will identify the problems which exist, and we
can then use the oversight authority of the committee and the Congress
to fix such problems as might be found and have an intelligent record
as to what can, or should, be done to make this a step which, in fact,
will help us move forward on pipeline permitting.
Now, I want to make it very clear I am not opposed to natural gas
pipelines, nor am I opposed to moving forward speedily and
intelligently. The system is working, the Congress has devised a system
of permitting that works, sees to it that safety is properly attended
to, and has given proper oversight, including legislation recently to
ensure that proper behavior and proper safety of the pipelines do take
place.
I urge the committee to support my amendment. It gives us a bill of
which we can be proud, instead of a bill about which people are going
to scratch their heads and wonder what was the Congress doing when they
foisted this miserable thing upon us.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Michigan.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kansas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment
offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), which would
strike the entire piece of legislation and replace it with a GAO study.
The GAO back in February of this year issued a report detailing what
they called the ``complex'' natural gas pipeline permitting process.
This amendment would simply ask the GAO to duplicate many of those same
findings that were done in a report issued less than a year ago, and
there is simply no need for that.
I understand the gentleman from Michigan thinks this legislation is
unnecessary, but I respectfully disagree. I

[[Page H7328]]

will give one example of where the claims regarding the approval
timelines for natural gas permit pipelines have been dubious.
It has been erroneously repeated by opponents of this legislation
that FERC testified in front of the Energy and Commerce Committee that
90 percent of the permits are being done on time. This is simply not
the case. This is not what FERC stated in their testimony. It stated
that 90 percent of the certificates are being completed within 12
months. There is an awful lot of difference between a certificate and a
permit.
FERC is in control of only the certificate process, but they are at
the mercy of other agencies with respect to the permit approval
process. This is the main reason for the need for this legislation,
because FERC has absolutely no enforcement authority over the other
agencies to process permits on schedule. This brings accountability to
other agencies.
Even though 90 percent of certificates are being processed by FERC in
the 12-month period, it doesn't tell the full story. It would be
talking about the bills that the House of Representatives passed and
talking only about our naming of post offices and not talking about the
substantive legislation, the important things, we do here in the House
of Representatives.
I would also remind the gentleman from Michigan that the need for
this legislation is so great that it garners support not just from the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers,
but also the major electricity trade associations across the country:
Edison Electric Institute, the National Rural Electric Cooperative
Association, and the American Public Power Association, as well as the
New England Ratepayers Association, whose members are experiencing
skyrocketing natural gas prices.
This amendment would gut the bill and ignore the core problem of
stubbornly high natural gas prices in certain regions across the
Nation. It dismisses the need for an improved permitting process for
natural gas pipeline infrastructure completely.
For that reason, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
gentleman's agreement, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, this legislation is unnecessary. Every
witness before the committee found no reason why it had to be enacted
into law. It was made very clear that there have been no incidences of
egregious delay by any events before the permitting authorities. There
is no need for the legislation.
The amendment is a friendly amendment offered to enable us to find
out if there are, in fact, problems; and if there are, in fact,
problems, then we will be able to take the necessary action to correct
whatever problems might exist.
At this particular time, there is no evidence of need for the
legislation. In 90 percent of the time, the permits have been granted
within the 1-year period. It is only necessary to allow time for others
where the permitting application was incorrectly or improperly done and
only where the complexity of the situation requires more time.
What I am hearing from the other side is they feel that there is need
for us to move more rapidly in these complex cases where serious
mistakes can be made and we can have the danger of an unsafe pipeline
resulting.
I would remind my colleagues that a pipeline explosion, only the
failure of a gas pipeline, is like a nuclear event.
I urge the adoption of the amendment, and if not adopted, the
rejection of the legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I just reiterate there is enormous
importance to this legislation. While I appreciate that the gentleman
from Michigan offered his amendment in a friendly tone, it guts the
legislation in its entirety.
I also want to offer that H.R. 1900 is offered in a friendly manner.
It is offered friendly to places like Michigan, New York, Florida, and
Arizona, places that are paying unnecessarily high prices for natural
gas in their parts of the country.
With that, I would urge rejection of this amendment and urge my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan
will be postponed.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 113-272 on
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Tonko of New York.
Amendment No. 2 by Ms. Castor of Florida.
Amendment No. 3 by Ms. Speier of California.
Amendment No. 4 by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Dingell of Michigan.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Tonko

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Tonko) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183,
noes 233, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 605]

AYES--183

Andrews
Barber
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Garamendi
Garcia
Gibson
Grayson
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Israel
Jackson Lee
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Peters (CA)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--233

[[Page H7329]]

Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallego
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--14

Campbell
Castro (TX)
Garrett
Herrera Beutler
Hoyer
Huffman
Jeffries
Kingston
Lowenthal
McCarthy (NY)
Polis
Radel
Ruiz
Rush

{time} 1122

Messrs. STUTZMAN, THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, STOCKMAN, CHABOT, and
SCHOCK changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. HINOJOSA changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. GARRETT. Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 605 I was detained chairing
a Financial Services Subcommittee hearing.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Castor of Florida

The Acting CHAIR (Mrs. Roby). The unfinished business is the demand
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Castor) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 184,
noes 233, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 606]

AYES--184

Andrews
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Horsford
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--233

Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--13

Campbell
Castro (TX)
Garrett
Herrera Beutler
Honda
Hoyer
Jeffries
Kingston
Lowenthal
McCarthy (NY)
Radel
Ruiz
Rush

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1128

SO THE AMENDMENT WAS REJECTED.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. GARRETT. Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 606, I was detained
chairing a Financial Services subcommittee hearing. Had I been present,
I would have voted, ``no.''

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Speier

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms.

[[Page H7330]]

Speier) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 607]

AYES--183

Andrews
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Garamendi
Gibson
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--236

Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallego
Garcia
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--11

Campbell
Castro (TX)
Garrett
Herrera Beutler
Hoyer
Kingston
Lowenthal
McCarthy (NY)
Radel
Ruiz
Rush

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1133

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. GARRETT. Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 607 I was detained chairing
a Financial Services subcommittee hearing. Had I been present, I would
have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 608]

AYES--175

Andrews
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Garamendi
Grayson
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--243

[[Page H7331]]

Cook
Costa
Cotton
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallego
Garcia
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Himes
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Maffei
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perlmutter
Perry
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--12

Campbell
Castro (TX)
Duncan (TN)
Herrera Beutler
Hoyer
Kingston
Lowenthal
McCarthy (NY)
Radel
Ruiz
Rush
Smith (NJ)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1138

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Dingell

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Dingell) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 609]

AYES--175

Andrews
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Moore
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--239

Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garcia
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--16

Blumenauer
Campbell
Castro (TX)
Delaney
Herrera Beutler
Hoyer
Kingston
Lofgren
Lowenthal
McCarthy (NY)
Miller, George
Radel
Ruiz
Rush
Sires
Walberg

{time} 1142

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Hultgren). The question is on the amendment in
the nature of a substitute.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs.
Roby) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hultgren, Acting 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. 1900) to
provide for the timely consideration of all licenses, permits, and
approvals required under Federal law with respect to the siting,

[[Page H7332]]

construction, expansion, or operation of any natural gas pipeline
projects, and, pursuant to House Resolution 420, he reported the bill
back to the House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of the
Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

{time} 1145

Motion to Recommit

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. TIERNEY. I am in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Tierney moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1900 to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith, with the following
amendment:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

SEC. 3. NATURAL GAS PIPELINE SAFETY AND COMMUNITY RIGHT TO
KNOW.

The provisions of this Act shall not take effect unless the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in consultation with
appropriate regulatory agencies, determines that
implementation of the Act will not--
(1) adversely impact natural gas pipeline safety; or
(2) inhibit the ability of communities to meaningfully
engage in the process of siting of natural gas pipelines that
affect them.

Mr. POMPEO (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent to dispense with the reading.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kansas?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Speaker, colleagues, this is the final amendment
to the bill, and, as you know, it will not kill the bill. It will not
send it back to committee. If this motion is adopted, the bill will
immediately proceed to final passage, as amended. And I ask you to
consider doing that.
Over the last several years, it is my understanding that FERC has
approved 69 major natural gas pipelines. They span over 3,000 miles in
30 States with a total capacity of nearly 30 billion cubic feet per
day.
The Government Accountability Office, the firm that does our research
for us, has found that FERC's pipeline permitting is predictable, it is
consistent, and it gets pipelines built. For some reason, the
underlying bill replaces that existing natural gas permitting process
with a process that appears to be arbitrary, unworkable, and a one-
size-fits-all approach.
The bill would force regulatory agencies to comply with what many
believe are unreasonable permitting deadlines--1 year for FERC and 3
months for other permitting agencies--to render decisions on
applications no matter how complex they are and potentially before the
public risks are fully understood, particularly by our local areas.
If the underlying bill didn't attempt to fix an existing permitting
process that many, including the pipeline trade association, agree is
not broken, then perhaps my amendment wouldn't be necessary. If the
majority had supported any of the responsible amendments that were
proposed by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and others here a
little while ago, perhaps it wouldn't be necessary. But it is
necessary.
The motion states that this bill will not take effect until FERC
determines its implementation will not adversely impact natural gas
pipeline safety and that it will not inhibit the ability of communities
to engage in the process of siting natural gas pipelines. The motion
seeks to protect public safety. It seeks to ensure that our
constituents continue to have a voice in the permitting process.
Madam Speaker, I don't believe that that is too much to ask. It
shouldn't be. So let's, please, do the reasonable thing. Let's stand up
for safety. Let's stand up for our local constituencies and communities
and support this motion.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. POMPEO. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kansas is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. POMPEO. I urge my colleagues to vote in opposition to the motion
to recommit.
Madam Speaker, while we share every one of our colleagues' concerns
about pipeline safety, nothing in this legislation does anything to
impact the safety of pipelines all across the country. Indeed, putting
in new pipelines, increasing capacity for natural gas pipelines, will
actually allow the retirement of older pipelines which might present
even more risk.
We all know the tragic incident that happened in San Bruno,
California. This body has taken action to rectify that. There were
pipeline safety bills passed with all of the Members of the House, and
it passed in the Senate as well, to make sure that every pipeline built
is done so in a way that is safe and responsible and with plenty of
time for community input.
The motion to recommit suggests that H.R. 1900 would eliminate that
time. It does nothing of that nature. In every case, for a complex
pipeline, there will be nearly 2 years' time for communities and
interest groups who have concerns about the pipeline going into their
territory, their region, to make their voices heard and to make their
concerns registered in the public place.
I urge my colleagues to reject this motion to recommit and pass the
underlying legislation, H.R. 1900.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 5-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a
5-minute vote on the passage of the bill, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 180,
nays 233, not voting 17, as follows:

[Roll No. 610]

YEAS--180

Andrews
Barber
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schwartz

[[Page H7333]]

Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NAYS--233

Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallego
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--17

Campbell
Castro (TX)
Clyburn
Costa
Cramer
DeLauro
Herrera Beutler
Hoyer
Kingston
Lowenthal
McCarthy (NY)
Radel
Rogers (KY)
Ruiz
Rush
Shuster
Wasserman Schultz

{time} 1155

So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

____________________