[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 10 (Wednesday, January 21, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H453-H460]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1415
               NATURAL GAS PIPELINE PERMITTING REFORM ACT

  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 38, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 161) 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, and ask for its immediate consideration 
in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 38, the bill is 
considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 161

       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 SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) 
and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to include extraneous material on H.R. 161.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to natural gas production, we 
are number one. What was once a pipe dream is now a global reality, 
thanks to American ingenuity and technology. An impressive 
accomplishment, especially considering where we were only a decade 
ago--fearful of running out of supplies.
  With this new wealth of natural gas, folks in Michigan and across the 
country should no longer worry about access to affordable energy. But 
budget-busting power bills are still hitting too many Americans.
  The New York Times recently reported that customers in New England 
could expect electricity rates to spike

[[Page H454]]

close to 40 percent higher this winter. Why? Well, we may have fixed 
our supply problems, but now we have a serious distribution problem. 
Our archaic energy infrastructure and outdated regulatory system is 
blocking American consumers from reaping the benefits of our energy 
abundance. We have the gas, but we don't have the pipelines to get 
cheap energy directly to families and businesses that need it most.
  This legislation seeks to fix the problem, inserting accountability 
into the permitting process for natural gas pipelines and establishing 
firm deadlines for agency reviews. It does not exempt any environmental 
laws. It just makes sure pipeline projects get sited and built without 
unnecessary delay.
  Last night, the President here made the case for more Federal funding 
of transportation infrastructure projects like roads and bridges as one 
way to create jobs while modernizing our economy. But the energy 
infrastructure projects unleashed by this pipeline bill are every bit 
as necessary, with all of the economic benefits, and the best part is, 
since they will be paid for by the private sector, it won't cost 
taxpayers a dime.
  We voted on this legislation last Congress, and it passed the House 
with overwhelming bipartisan support. With the President's comments 
last night about wanting to work with Congress, I hope the President 
can join us in supporting this bipartisan, commonsense energy and jobs 
solution. Now that we are the leader in energy production, there is no 
reason America shouldn't be number one in energy affordability as well.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
and rise in opposition to this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague, the chairman of the Energy 
and Commerce Committee, when he said that the likelihood is that we are 
going to have more and more pipelines constructed, pipelines that have 
to go through the FERC process, and that is certainly true, but all the 
more reason why we shouldn't be voting or supporting this bill.
  I have to say I am talking not just in general in the abstract but 
from personal experience. In my district a few years ago, when I was a 
Congressman, in Edison, New Jersey, we had a natural gas pipeline 
explosion. Fortunately, no one was killed or seriously injured, but a 
whole apartment complex was wiped out, not just one building but a 
series of them. There was a real danger of loss of life.
  It scares me, Mr. Speaker, to think that we would want to change the 
process whereby FERC has the opportunity to look at the safety of these 
pipelines when they are proposed for permitting and somehow short-
circuit that process because of my own experience in my congressional 
district in Edison, New Jersey. Durham Woods was the name of the 
complex.
  So many of these pipelines, as a lot more pipelines are being built, 
a lot of them are in densely populated areas. So it is a major concern 
that FERC has to look at when reviewing these pipelines and deciding 
whether to issue a permit. It is not as if they are in places with no 
people. They are often in densely populated areas, like in my State of 
New Jersey.
  In addition, this bill is unnecessary. The nonpartisan Government 
Accountability Office concluded that the FERC pipeline permitting 
process is predictable and consistent and gets pipelines built. In 
fact, over 90 percent are approved or at least decided within the 12-
month cycle limitation that this bill is proposing.
  The pipeline companies actually testified before the GAO that the 
process for permitting through FERC ``is generally very good'' and that 
the sector ``enjoys a favorable legal and regulatory framework for the 
approval of new infrastructure.''
  So if the process is fine, why are we now trying to move ahead and 
endanger safety by coming up with limitations on the process that 
actually is very good?
  I would also say that if you have a 12-month limit, which is what 
this bill proposes on FERC's ability to issue a permit, it is very 
possible that the process of permitting could be slowed down because if 
FERC decides that they don't have enough time within 12 months to 
decide whether a pipeline should be built and it is safe, they may just 
decide to not grant the permit and deny it for fear that they haven't 
had enough time to deal with it over the 12 months. I think it is not 
only unnecessary, but it may actually even be counterproductive to what 
the sponsors are trying to accomplish.
  I would also point out that we are wasting our time because the 
President has issued a Statement of Administration Policy saying that 
if H.R. 161 were to reach his desk, that he would actually veto it. I 
am not going to get into all the specifics of why because I think they 
are a lot of the same reasons I am mentioning myself.
  Now, let me say what happens. When faced with this 12-month deadline, 
not only FERC but also other agencies that deal with the Clean Air Act 
or the Clean Water Act or the Endangered Species Act, other agencies 
that have the authority to review this and permit this under the bill, 
would actually only have 3 months, 90 days. So after the 12-month 
period ends for FERC, then there is a 90-day period for the other 
agencies to act. And if they don't act within 90 days, then FERC is 
required under this legislation to issue a permit and say that those 
other regulatory concerns are met.
  So now you are going to have FERC not only limited in its 12-month 
review but also then issuing permits under the Clean Air Act, Clean 
Water Act, and these other environmental regulations, which it has 
nothing to do with. Essentially you are saying the other agencies have 
no role anymore because if they don't decide within 90 days, FERC has 
to approve those permits as well. FERC doesn't normally deal with these 
other issues.
  Another thing which I think is important is the eminent domain issue. 
If the permit is approved by FERC, then that means the company that is 
building the pipeline has the right to use eminent domain for the land 
where the pipeline is going to go through. I have a lot of concern 
about whether or not eminent domain should be used in those 
circumstances, particularly if the permit process has been short-
circuited.

  So I think that sometimes my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle don't understand that these permits are very detailed documents. 
They include emission limits, technology operating requirements, 
conditions to protect the environment. FERC doesn't have the expertise 
or the resources to issue the permits for these other statutes like the 
Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act.
  So I am just saying that I think that this legislation from a 
practical point of view is entirely unworkable. It just doesn't work. 
It doesn't work. The GAO has said that the process that we have now is 
fine. And for those of us who have had these accidents where we have 
had explosions and danger, the last thing that we want is these 
pipelines going through densely populated areas that haven't had the 
proper review to protect the safety and the health of our residents. 
For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo) who is the author of H.R. 161.
  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, 
and I rise in support of H.R. 161.
  We are tens of thousands of miles of pipeline capacity short of the 
necessary pipelines to carry natural gas to consumers who need it and 
businesses who demand it today in America. You don't have to take my 
word for it--prices will tell you.
  The gentleman from New Jersey just said he opposes this bill. Allow 
him to explain to his constituents why they pay six or seven or eight 
times as much for natural gas as someone else in the Midwest, or in 
places where there is adequate pipeline capacity today. It is 
unnecessary; it is unconscionable. America now has the resources to 
provide this gas to all Americans so they can heat their homes and cool 
their homes, so businesses can use natural gas to build products here 
in America. We no longer live in a world with energy scarcity here in 
America. We have an opportunity to get this product from where it is 
found to the consumers and businesses that are demanding it.
  The other side of the aisle may tell you we don't have a problem, but 
I will

[[Page H455]]

tell you that as you talk to your constituents, as one who does this 
all the time, constituents say: I am paying too much for my product. 
This is a solution that will work.
  We don't make in this legislation a single change to the Clean Water 
Act, not one change to the Clean Air Act, not a single change to any 
legislation that has to do with pipeline safety. Not one. All those 
laws remain in effect. All we ask the government to do is its job. We 
give them a timeline. We give them ample time. If 12 months is not 
enough, I am happy to give them 13. We will change the legislation.
  But, in fact, the opposition isn't because this is being rushed but 
because in fact this will speed the process. That is why folks are 
opposed. They know this will produce this gas in a way that is safe and 
reasonable, and we will have great outcomes. And yet they want to keep 
this product in the ground. That is the real reason for opposition to 
this bill.
  So those of us who want to get this energy to the consumers, to where 
it needs to go, I urge them to support this.
  Frankly, when you read the articles about the challenges of pipeline 
capacity in America, the place it impacts the most isn't the place from 
which I hail. It is not Kansas; it is not the Midwest. It is, in fact, 
the densely populated areas of the Northeast. They are the places that 
need this energy the most and the soonest and the safest, and we can 
get it for them. I urge those who live in those places to talk to their 
constituents and to do the work to make sure that they understand what 
H.R. 161 can accomplish for the people in the areas that they 
represent.
  You know, this administration has taken a lot of efforts to reduce 
the capacity of coal to provide energy for businesses and consumers. I 
regret that. I am doing my best to push back in every place that we 
can, as I know our chairman is as well. But as coal-fired power plants 
become more difficult to build, the need for natural gas will become 
even more increased.

                              {time}  1430

  This legislation is aimed directly at making sure that we don't have 
shortages and outages and catastrophes in energy production and energy 
delivery that America cannot afford.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 161.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 161, the so-called Natural 
Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act.
  My home State of Massachusetts, like many areas around the country, 
faces serious energy challenges. We need careful and strategic long-
term planning in order to lower energy prices and increase reliability. 
Increasing access to additional sources of natural gas could help 
address some of New England's energy challenges, including energy 
prices, which have historically been above the national average.
  However, this legislation would move us in the wrong direction. This 
bill would force FERC to rush decisionmaking, including environmental 
reviews and assessments of the need for natural gas, while also 
hobbling decisions regarding the appropriate size of the proposed 
pipeline. It would turn FERC into a superpermitting agency, an 
authority that FERC neither wants nor has the expertise to carry out.
  In my home district, we are currently navigating the FERC process 
that this bill purports to improve. The company is proposing to build a 
new 250-mile natural gas pipeline that crosses three States, including 
seven communities that I represent. I have heard from hundreds of my 
constituents expressing their concerns with this project.
  Construction of the pipeline could jeopardize local wildlife and will 
impact both State and federally designated conservation lands, as well 
as Massachusetts' scarce farmland.
  Thanks to extensive public review and input, the pipeline route has 
already been adjusted to minimize some of the environmental impacts, 
but there are still many outstanding concerns that deserve careful 
scrutiny. The proposed route still passes through local farmland, 
parks, wildlife management areas, wetlands, near schools, and across 
drinking water supplies.
  My constituents have been grateful for a process that has given them 
the time to provide input. This bill would short-circuit that process 
and shortchange my constituents' right to be heard.
  I proposed an amendment to this legislation with my colleague Mr. 
McGovern that would exempt any pipeline from the arbitrary timelines 
established in the bill if the proposed route crosses Federal, State, 
or local land designated for conservation or recreation. However, the 
majority blocked this simple amendment from coming to the floor and 
receiving an up-or-down vote.
  In Massachusetts, we have a longstanding history of preserving 
national habitats and protecting open spaces for the public benefit, 
and we have invested significant public resources towards these goals. 
Members should have been given the opportunity to vote on whether or 
not we should allow for a thorough review process to protect State 
investments.
  On behalf of my constituents, I ask my colleagues to oppose this 
legislation.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanna).
  Mr. HANNA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Natural Gas Pipeline 
Permitting Reform Act.
  Increased production of American natural gas has led to lower prices 
and more demand for this energy source all across the Nation. That is 
especially true in cold, energy-dependent regions like upstate New York 
and the Northeast. We need new infrastructure, specifically pipelines, 
to safely transport fuels to markets where they are needed.
  Unfortunately, the Government Accountability Office reported that an 
average processing time for interstate natural gas pipeline projects 
was 558 days. This bill would expedite the government's review process 
for pipeline applications, to make sure that we are doing all we can to 
build infrastructure in a timely and responsible manner.
  More access to affordable American natural gas will help fuel farms, 
heat homes, and power small businesses in upstate New York and 
throughout this country. Building pipelines will create good-paying 
jobs, as well as boost revenues and development in communities across 
the Nation.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Some of my Republican colleagues just suggested that this bill would 
not waive any environmental requirements. For instance, yesterday, at 
the Rules Committee, the sponsor of the legislation indicated that H.R. 
161 did not waive or alter any applicable environmental requirements 
under the Clean Air Act or NEPA.
  While it is true that this legislation does not actually amend any 
provisions of the Clean Air Act or other environmental statutes, the 
bill would require automatic issuance of a pipeline-related permit 
under statutes like the Clean Air Act, if the responsible agency, such 
as EPA, has failed to act within the 90 days. This is the 90 days 
beyond the 1 year that I mentioned before.
  Basically, that makes FERC the agency that would issue the Clean Air 
Act permit. Under this bill, FERC would decide how to create a BLM 
right-of-way permit or a Clean Water Act discharge permit. As a result, 
the legislation would effectively override the permitting decisions of 
agencies like EPA or DOI and turn FERC into a superpermitting agency.
  I just want to point out, while it is true that the text of the 
actual Clean Air Act might remain unchanged under this bill, the effect 
of the bill would be that the Clean Air Act permits would be 
automatically issued by FERC if EPA fails to act within 90 days.
  That is a major and substantive change from the way these laws work 
and, in effect, amounts to a waiver of environmental requirements for 
all practical purposes, Mr. Speaker.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time we have remaining 
on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky has 24 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from New Jersey has 19 minutes remaining.

[[Page H456]]

  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would just like to clarify that H.R. 161 is certainly not any 
drastic piece of legislation.
  The Energy Policy Act of 2005 designated the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission as the lead agency charged with coordinating and 
reviewing natural gas pipeline project applications; therefore, FERC 
conducts the environmental review of each project as required under the 
National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, and is given authority to set 
deadlines for other agencies to issue an approval or denial of an 
associated permit.
  When these applications are filed at FERC, the application also is 
given to other agencies that may have jurisdiction over the Clean Water 
Act, maybe like the Corps of Engineers, the Clean Air Act, the EPA 
perhaps, or Endangered Species; so it is not like they just have 90 
days to look at this. They get the application the same time as FERC 
does.

  The problem that FERC has had--and they have had both Democrat and 
Republican Commissioners come to Congress and say that they need more 
authority over these other agencies, so this bill does precisely that.
  Once FERC has made a final determination and completed its process, 
it gives the other agencies another 90 days--even though they have been 
working on it for a year in advance of that--another 90 days to 
complete it, and if they want another 30 days, then they can do that as 
well.
  I would just say that this is not rushing the process; it is simply 
completing the 2005 Energy Policy Act that gives FERC authority. We 
give them authority, but we don't give them any enforcement mechanism, 
and so this is precisely what this legislation does.
  I might also add that having deadlines for agencies to act when doing 
environmental reviews or issuing permits is not really that strange or 
unique of an idea. Canada, Australia, and most European Union nations 
have deadlines for their environmental regulatory agencies to act.
  Any person that is doing any kind of business in America knows the 
bureaucracy that we all run into, and it is easy to criticize 
bureaucracies. We know that they are dedicated, committed citizens 
trying to protect the environment, protect the American people, and we 
commend them for doing that, but we also know that they frequently let 
things slide.
  It is easy to lose the process. We hear common complaints--nonstop--
about delay, delay, delay. We know from hearings on this--this bill has 
already passed the House once--but we know from hearings that the 
Northeastern United States is really vulnerable to not having 
sufficient natural gas to meet their needs.
  They are closing nuclear power plants. The President is making sure 
you can't build a new coal plant in America. Existing coal plants, many 
of them are going to be going out of business because of extreme 
regulations of this climate-driven administration. We have heard 
testimony about the escalating prices of electricity for people.
  This is designed to provide the infrastructure to get the natural gas 
where it needs to be, and the Northeast is one of those areas. That is 
really what this bill is about. It is about giving FERC some real 
authority, setting in statute that these agencies must act within a 
certain amount of time.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I really don't understand. I respect my colleague from Kentucky a 
great deal, but he seems to be arguing that we need the deadlines in 
this bill to hold Federal agencies accountable and ensure that they 
don't just somehow sit on the applications.
  As I have already noted, since 2009, FERC has completed action on 91 
percent of natural gas pipeline applications within 12 months, so a 12-
month deadline isn't needed for more than 90 percent of the applicants.
  My colleagues have asked: Well, what is the problem with holding the 
remaining 9 percent to a 12-month deadline? Well, the problem is it 
becomes a one-size-fits-all approach that fails to consider a wide 
range of applications that FERC has to review.
  Some of the applications are for new projects--again, a small 
number--which span hundreds of miles, cross waterways and wetlands, and 
pass through neighborhoods and habitats of threatened wildlife; and 
questions of eminent domain need to be considered. In these cases, 
there can be unresolved safety, environmental, and legal issues at the 
local or State level.
  Again, as I said, the President has said that he would veto this 
bill. In the Statement of Administration Policy, they specifically say:

       The small percentage of decisions that have taken longer 
     than 1 year involve complex proposals that merit additional 
     review and consideration.

  Mr. Speaker, if there is a complex project or there is some 
unaddressed risk to safety or the environment, we need to allow FERC or 
other Federal agencies the time to ensure that the pipeline is safe, so 
we don't have an accident like what occurred in Edison, New Jersey, in 
my district.
  The last thing anyone needs, including the pipeline owner, is a 
pipeline explosion or other dangerous pipeline malfunction, and these 
things have occurred. I witnessed it myself in my district.
  I am just saying don't put a hard deadline on the most complex 
projects that raise the possibility that FERC will be forced to approve 
a pipeline that is not safe or to reject an application solely because 
the Commission lacks sufficient time for an adequate review that will 
hinder rather than help us get more natural gas where it needs to go.
  Now, my colleague also mentioned the issue about the Northeast 
electricity supply or prices, and I just wanted to address that 
concern. New England is using more natural gas to generate electricity 
and more natural gas for heating homes than in the past, and on the 
coldest winter days, when natural gas is needed for heating or 
electricity, there is more demand, but this bill doesn't do anything to 
solve that problem.
  The problem in New England isn't caused by pipeline applications that 
take too long to get approved by FERC; the problem is that the pipeline 
companies aren't even submitting the applications because they haven't 
figured out who is going to pay for these new pipelines. The pipeline 
companies haven't been satisfied there is a sufficient year-round 
demand to justify and finance the pipelines.
  That is an issue that FERC is looking at and has been holding 
stakeholder conferences about, but this has nothing to do with Mr. 
Pompeo's bill.

                              {time}  1445

  Cutting corners on the permitting process isn't going to help 
additional pipeline capacity built for the Northeast. I don't think we 
ought to be blaming the government for every problem, which is what I 
hear my colleagues on the Republican side doing. The reality is that 
FERC and the government didn't create this problem. It is a problem of 
economics, and the faster we understand that the faster we can try to 
find a solution, but let's not act as if FERC's inability to act is the 
problem here. That is not the case.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  When we had hearings on this bill, the natural gas pipeline industry 
estimated that by the year 2035 an estimated $8 billion each year would 
need to be spent to keep pace with the anticipated need for more 
pipeline infrastructure.
  The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is absolutely correct in 
that Congress can't make these decisions. Private companies have to 
make the decision if they are going to invest the dollars to build 
these pipelines, but they have talked to us--the FERC Commissioners 
have talked to us--about the fact that some of these agencies are just 
delaying for no apparent reason. As I said earlier, when the 
application is filed at FERC, the other agencies receive those 
applications, and they have the same amount of time to work on it. This 
legislation simply sets some guidelines for these Federal agencies so 
that, when FERC completes its chore--and it is the quarterback in the 
decision of approving these pipelines--these agencies must also step up 
to the plate.
  This legislation is not radical in any way. It is certainly not 
rushing the

[[Page H457]]

process. It is not doing that. Pursuant to the 2005 Energy Policy Act, 
it is simply making it a more efficient, speedy process while, at the 
same time, protecting the environment and the best interests of the 
American people.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from New Jersey have 
additional speakers?
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I do not, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I am not going to read the whole thing, Mr. Speaker, but I did just 
want to make reference to some part of the Statement of Administration 
Policy's saying that the President would veto the bill:

       The administration recognizes the need for additional 
     energy infrastructure and supports the timely consideration 
     of project applications. The administration, however, 
     strongly opposes the bill because it would allow the 
     automatic approval of natural gas pipeline projects if the 
     FERC or other Federal agencies do not issue the required 
     permit, license, or approval within rigid, unworkable 
     timeframes.
       H.R. 161 could create conflicts with existing statutory and 
     regulatory requirements and practices and preclude 
     opportunities for engaging the public and potentially 
     impacted communities, thereby causing confusion and the risk 
     of increased litigation. The bill's requirements could force 
     agencies to make decisions based on incomplete information or 
     information that may not be available, including potential 
     environmental and community impacts of the proposed 
     pipelines, within the stringent deadlines, and to deny 
     applications that otherwise would have been approved but for 
     the lack of sufficient review time. For these reasons, the 
     bill may actually delay projects or lead to more project 
     denials, undermining the intent of the legislation.

  I stress to my colleagues on the other side that we understand there 
is a need for more pipelines, and we understand that these pipelines 
have to be approved in a timely fashion, but there is no reason to 
believe that that is not happening now. The danger here is that, in a 
case when these do have to have a more intensive review because of 
safety or health or environmental concerns, we may actually do the 
opposite. Either they are going to be denied because the agencies don't 
have enough time, or, God forbid, they get approved when they shouldn't 
be.
  Again, I just don't quite understand what this is all about. It seems 
like the Republicans have a bill that they think is going to accomplish 
their goal and won't but that has a danger of really risking the safety 
of residents, and I have already witnessed that in the case of a 
pipeline explosion in my district.
  I just think that what the Republicans are doing is blaming FERC and 
that they are trying to come up with a solution for a problem that 
doesn't exist; but in the process of all of that, they are going to 
jeopardize the possibility of the fact that some of these pipelines 
might be approved without enough safety or environmental or health 
concerns. It seems to me that it makes no sense at all to put FERC in 
the position of deciding issues with regard to statutes like the Clean 
Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, which they really have 
nothing to do with.
  We considered this bill in the last Congress, Mr. Speaker, and FERC 
made it clear that it was not necessary or helpful, and the 
administration threatened to veto the bill. Nothing has changed. The 
administration has again threatened to veto this bill. It is very early 
in this new Congress. I remain committed to developing sound energy 
policy with my Republican colleagues. If they want to have some 
hearings on this bill and go through the regular order of the committee 
process, that is fine as there will be more opportunity to review it.
  I don't think this bill will help anyone, but I think it may hurt a 
lot of people, including those who want to build the pipeline. Instead 
of spending our time debating a bill that will never become law, I hope 
we can begin soon to have some serious discussion about sound and 
sustainable energy policy. In the meantime, I would urge my colleagues 
to vote against this particular piece of legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, in summation, I urge the passage of H.R. 
161, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would note once again that, during the hearings on this 
legislation, Commissioners at FERC--both Republican and Democrat--said 
that more accountability was needed for agencies that issue permits 
that are necessary to construct natural gas pipelines.
  Many people have raised the issue that the President has said he 
would veto this bill. That is his job, that is his responsibility, and 
that is the type of government we have. We have a legislative branch, 
we have an executive branch, and we have a judiciary branch. The 
legislative branch's responsibility is to pass legislation that it 
deems necessary. If the President wants to veto it, let him veto it and 
give his reasons. Then the American people can listen to both sides and 
decide what they think is the right direction to go.
  I would stress once more that the Energy Information Agency data from 
last year's winter cold snap during the month of January showed that 
residential natural gas prices in Pennsylvania were 14 percent above 
the national average; in New Jersey, 18 percent higher; in New York, 24 
percent higher; in Vermont, 60 percent higher. One of the reasons given 
is the lack of infrastructure to get natural gas to where it needs to 
go in the Northeast.
  This is a commonsense bill that is being presented to help solve this 
problem of energy needs in America. If we are going to be competitive 
in the global marketplace, yes, we need good, low-cost residential 
electricity prices, but we also need low-cost manufacturing and heavy 
industry electricity prices in order to compete in the global 
marketplace. That is what H.R. 161 is about, and I would urge Members 
to support this legislation that was drafted by Mr. Pompeo of Kansas.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
H.R. 161, a bill that claims to expedite applications for construction 
of natural gas pipelines in the United States.
  First, let me say as a native Houstonian and as a Democrat, I support 
American energy development.
  The energy revolution that has taken place over the last decade is 
unlike anything I've seen in my lifetime.
  The natural gas plays currently developed in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and 
Texas are solely responsible for the recovery the U.S. has seen.
  Low natural gas prices have given our industries an advantage over 
international competitors.
  Low natural gas prices have given our homeowners cheaper electric 
bills.
  Low natural gas prices have resulted in lower emissions and smaller 
contributions to climate change.
  To reap those benefits, however, we need pipelines to move that 
product from the field to market.
  I can confidently say, I am a big supporter of pipelines.
  The stacks of raw materials and finished pipe in my district are 
probably unlike any other district in the country.
  Pipelines are the most economically efficient and environmentally 
sound method of moving oil and natural.
  I am an advocate of building more pipelines.
  I have co-sponsored legislation to build domestic and international 
pipelines to facilitate energy development.
  I have advocated for expediting the application process, so that our 
federal agencies provide private investors certainty.
  Unfortunately, I cannot support H.R. 161.
  While I am an advocate of all things natural gas, I am not in favor 
of completely circumventing the permitting process.
  About a decade ago, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), 
which has jurisdiction over pipeline approvals, had some issues.
  We worked closely with the industry and the agency to improve the 
processes and timelines so that we could get pipe built in this country 
quickly.
  FERC has done an admirable job working with industry and other key 
stakeholders to improve the process.
  Currently, FERC approves the majority of permits in less than 18-to-
24 months.
  Where there are problems and delays with other permits, namely at the 
local and state level and FERC is working to resolve those issues.
  Unfortunately, this bill does nothing to address those issues.
  This bill sets a timeline for FERC and if that timeline expires, then 
any permit is approved.
  Our federal agencies have an oversight role to play and allowing 
permit applications to essentially ``run out the clock'' when issues 
arise is a way to circumvent our federal process.
  In Energy and Commerce, we put a lot of work into this bill and I 
want to thank my colleagues for working closely with our side.

[[Page H458]]

  But, I cannot support H.R. 161 and I urge my colleagues to oppose the 
bill as well.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 38, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill.
  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.


                           Motion to Recommit

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

       Mr. Pallone moves to recommit the bill H.R. 161 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. PIPELINE OWNER RESPONSIBILITY IN THE EVENT OF AN 
                   EXPLOSION.

       The provisions of this Act shall not take effect unless the 
     Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in consultation with 
     appropriate regulatory agencies, determines that in the 
     implementation of this Act--
       (1) taxpayers will not be held liable for any repair or 
     environmental cleanup from a natural gas pipeline explosion; 
     and
       (2) pipeline owners will bear full responsibility for 
     damages in any community resulting from a natural gas 
     pipeline explosion, including for loss of life.

  Mr. WHITFIELD (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of 
order on the motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  The Clerk will continue to read.
  The Clerk continued to read.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned during the general debate, I 
and my constituents witnessed and went through a few years ago, when I 
was in Congress, a natural gas pipeline explosion. It was devastating 
to the community. We had many people who lost their homes. It was, 
actually, several apartment buildings. Even to this day, the memory of 
that is very much ingrained in the minds of the residents of Durham 
Woods, which is the largest municipality that I represent in Edison, 
New Jersey.
  Basically, what we are saying in this motion to recommit is that the 
provisions of this act will not take effect unless the FERC determines 
that taxpayers will not be held liable for any repair or environmental 
cleanup from a gas pipeline explosion and that the pipeline owners will 
bear full responsibility for the damage to the community resulting from 
a natural gas pipeline explosion, including loss of life. It seems to 
me that that is the minimum we should expect when there is such an 
explosion.
  Believe me. At the time that that explosion occurred in Durham Woods 
in my district, there were many instances when we had to have 
environmental cleanups and when the community was exposed to tremendous 
damage. It seems to me that, under the circumstances, this motion to 
recommit makes perfect sense.
  Mr. Speaker, let me point out that there have been many pipeline 
explosions, but I am not going to go through the entire list. In fact, 
the one in my district is one that is mentioned here. Beginning in just 
the last 10 or 15 years, there have been numerous explosions, so we are 
not talking about something that doesn't happen.
  I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Aguilar).
  Mr. AGUILAR. Mr. Speaker, natural gas pipeline explosions do happen.
  Last week, a pipeline exploded in Mississippi. Last year, pipelines 
exploded in Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Kentucky. In 2013, a 
pipeline south of Dallas exploded. Reports described the massive 
explosion as ``shooting flames high in the air and prompting 
evacuations from nearby homes and a school district,'' with black smoke 
visible for some 20 miles. In 2010, a natural gas pipeline exploded in 
San Bruno, California, in my home State, causing an explosion that 
killed eight people and destroyed 38 homes. Even as technology has 
improved, pipelines have failed.
  We should make clear with this legislation that, in the event of the 
catastrophic failure of a pipeline, taxpayers are not liable for the 
hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in damages that these 
explosions can cause. Companies are responsible for the safety and 
reliability of their pipelines, and we should ensure that they are also 
liable for the damages caused by those pipelines.

                              {time}  1500

  Last year, when this very bill came before the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce, the president of the Pipeline Safety Trust testified. 
This group is a national, independent, nonprofit watchdog organization 
created using funds from a settlement reached in the aftermath of a 
pipeline explosion in Washington State that killed three people. The 
Trust's president testified that ``rushed, or worse, incomplete reviews 
resulting in automatic approvals pose a threat to public safety.''
  To be clear, this is not an organization that opposes new pipelines. 
They only focus on pipeline safety, and they have serious problems with 
this bill and its effects on public safety for new pipelines. Their 
president pointed out that this bill treats a ``10-mile pipeline across 
a barren desert the same as a 1,400-mile pipeline that crosses multiple 
ecosystems and through dense population areas where it could pose a 
threat to the life or property of citizens living nearby.''
  Mr. Speaker, pipelines can fail. And those failures can have 
disastrous effects on communities and the environment. This commonsense 
amendment would protect taxpayers from ever having to pay the costs of 
a pipeline explosion. I hope we never see another natural gas pipeline 
explosion, but that would require that history not repeat itself.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion to recommit and to vote 
against the underlying bill because of the danger it poses to the 
communities and the environment.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, once again, I listened to my colleague from 
California talk about the dangers from pipelines. These dangers are 
real. We have had many explosions over the years, including in my own 
district. I think this bill really puts at risk the possibility of 
another pipeline explosion. It doesn't provide for enough safety or 
environmental review.
  I urge that Members support the motion to recommit because, at a 
minimum, it would provide some liability in some way to effectuate a 
cleanup and pay for the damages that come from an explosion that might 
take place.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order and claim 
the time in opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The reservation is withdrawn.
  The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New 
Jersey and the gentleman from New York for raising this safety issue 
because, obviously, safety is of paramount importance to all of us. 
That is why we do have the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 
Administration, or PHMSA, which has the responsibility of making sure 
that these pipelines operate in as safe a manner as possible. We also 
recognize that we never get to a point where it is absolutely safe.
  Really, H.R. 161 does not have anything to do with PHMSA. Our 
committee does have jurisdiction over PHMSA. We have had a lot of 
hearings on it. We are going to continue to have hearings because we 
want to maximize pipeline safety.
  This legislation is not about anything except perfecting the 2005 
Energy Policy Act that gave FERC the quarterbacking authority for 
approving these natural gas pipelines from the aspect of their impact 
on clean water, clean air, and endangered species.
  And so this legislation simply gives FERC the authority that many of 
its Commissioners asked for, and that is that they have some authority 
to convince these agencies to start looking at the impacts of the 
applications earlier in the process rather than at the end. And so even 
after the 1-year process is over, they still have 90 days. They may ask 
for another 30 days.
  Because of that reason--that this is not a pipeline safety bill, it 
is a process

[[Page H459]]

bill--I would respectfully request that we defeat this motion to 
recommit. And I look forward to working with the gentleman from New 
Jersey and others on pipeline safety as we have hearings and 
legislation about PHMSA.
  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. AGUILAR. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage of the bill, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 182, 
nays 241, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 40]

                               YEAS--182

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle (PA)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu (CA)
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle (PA)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu (CA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--241

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Carter (TX)
     Duckworth
     Farr
     Forbes
     Hastings
     Hinojosa
     Johnson, Sam
     Nunnelee
     Perlmutter
     Wilson (FL)

                              {time}  1532

  Messrs. GROTHMAN, BARLETTA, CLAWSON of Florida, BURGESS, MOOLENAAR, 
HUELSKAMP, and YODER changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mrs. BEATTY, Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California, Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN, 
Messrs. RUPPERSBERGER, JOHNSON of Georgia, Ms. ADAMS, and Mr. CUELLAR 
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 253, 
nays 169, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 41]

                               YEAS--253

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Boyle (PA)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norcross
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)

[[Page H460]]


     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--169

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu (CA)
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle (PA)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Higgins
     Himes
     Honda
     Hoyer
     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)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu (CA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Brat
     Carter (TX)
     Duckworth
     Forbes
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Hinojosa
     Johnson, Sam
     Lamborn
     Nunnelee
     Perlmutter

                              {time}  1542

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________