[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.
____________________