[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

     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
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford

[[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

  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 183, 
noes 236, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [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

  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 175, 
noes 243, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [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

     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

[[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

  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 175, 
noes 239, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [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.

                          ____________________